Bitania Ilit in the afternoon. The sun shines from behind us,
preparing for sunset. The green valley and blue Kinneret are
spread in front of us, and it is hard to tell if this is a
true vision or a multi-cloured dream.
In the colourful idyll of the Jordan Valley there is something magical, yet deceptive. Whoever looks closely at the picture of the valley at the turn of the century can see how misleading the idyllic image is; this valley can also be a desert, with a lake as its heart. The River Jordan, that is now hidden by luscious greenery, was then seen in all its winding turns, and its water did not fill a valley of palms and eucalyptus trees, houses, fish-ponds and banana plantations. It was a wilderness with a pitiful number of mud-huts and bedouin tents, the khan on top of the hill and the tiny railway station on the other side of the Jordan. A small German motor-boat ferried passengers from Tiberias to the railway station at Zemach, and occasionally processions of camels crossed the river. People crossed the river by foot or by donkey. There was no bridge in those days.
Today, every summer sees long processions of automobiles filled with children and babies burst through to the Kinneret. They do not accept the verdict of the well-known weather expert, who stated more than 60 years ago that the people of Degania are crazy because they dare raise children in the Jordan Valley. No one questioned his authority, yet the founders of the Jordan Valley settlements did not accept the famous sayring that "everyone talks about the weather and nobody does anything about it." Every summer they sent their children for "a change of air", but meanwhile, they planted trees, laid pipes, worked a piece of land and then another piece. The accepted remedy then, the "change of air", was a necessity in a valley which reverted every summer to its desert character: the trees were not yet spreading their shade, the water was far away, the basalt rocks radiated a burning heat. Over the years, the trees grew, the lawns spread, the valley became covered with a carpet of orchards and sprinklers, and suddenly masses of children and adults began to spend their summer by the shores of the Kinneret.
In the colourful idyll of the Jordan Valley there is something magical, yet deceptive. Whoever looks closely at the picture of the valley at the turn of the century can see how misleading the idyllic image is; this valley can also be a desert, with a lake as its heart. The River Jordan, that is now hidden by luscious greenery, was then seen in all its winding turns, and its water did not fill a valley of palms and eucalyptus trees, houses, fish-ponds and banana plantations. It was a wilderness with a pitiful number of mud-huts and bedouin tents, the khan on top of the hill and the tiny railway station on the other side of the Jordan. A small German motor-boat ferried passengers from Tiberias to the railway station at Zemach, and occasionally processions of camels crossed the river. People crossed the river by foot or by donkey. There was no bridge in those days.
Today, every summer sees long processions of automobiles filled with children and babies burst through to the Kinneret. They do not accept the verdict of the well-known weather expert, who stated more than 60 years ago that the people of Degania are crazy because they dare raise children in the Jordan Valley. No one questioned his authority, yet the founders of the Jordan Valley settlements did not accept the famous sayring that "everyone talks about the weather and nobody does anything about it." Every summer they sent their children for "a change of air", but meanwhile, they planted trees, laid pipes, worked a piece of land and then another piece. The accepted remedy then, the "change of air", was a necessity in a valley which reverted every summer to its desert character: the trees were not yet spreading their shade, the water was far away, the basalt rocks radiated a burning heat. Over the years, the trees grew, the lawns spread, the valley became covered with a carpet of orchards and sprinklers, and suddenly masses of children and adults began to spend their summer by the shores of the Kinneret.
Whoever looks closely at the multi-coloured idyll of the Jordan
Valley today has to remember that in fact it is no idyll - but
drama. Whoever looks down on the valley from above sees well-established settlements, dotted with greenery and shade, white
concrete houses, sometimes with red rooves, wonderful avenues
of trees, something stable, and solid. But this valley hides
many experiments that failed. Um Juni, Chavat Kinneret, the
group of naturalists on the hill by Kinneret, lower and upper
Bitania - all of these settlements that were abandoned or re-
moved from their origins. Hundreds of people passed through
this valley and could not stay here - many fled from it, many died before their time, and many were defeated by natural and human pressures.
Alterman called the Kinneret "the tear on the cheek of the world", and in this phrase I find a true description of the drama that unfolded here, in which Degania has a central role.
The sparkling Degania became the fermenting element of the rapidly developing valley. Degania itself passed through great crises, changes and revolutions, but for the settler in the valley, as to all the workers in Eretz Yisrael, Degania became the symbol of the hope for rootedness, for permanence.
The originality of working the land was an experience for the brave, but Degania and Kinneret, the first kvutzot in the val- ley , saw as a no less daring adventure their attempt to be a new human endeavour. Not merely an act of settlement but a will to renew the society. They believed that by returning
the Jew to the land, rebelling against their parents, coming to a new country, they were opening new hopes for and expectations from man. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing fixed in advance. The man who chooses to change his fate must be receptive and aware of the changes that are possible in the individual and in the society.
In the way of life of the people of the Second Aliyah, in Degania and in "Hashomer" (the self-defence movement), in the small communes in town and village, in manual labour, the same sense of awe, doubt and belief was revealed that is born in the hours of creation.
One of the old-timers described this situation by saying:"We had the heart of the dove but the wings of the eagle." The heights that were reached in the human endeavours at the beginning of Degania sprung from that dove-like heart that refused to reconcile itself with the smooth, empty phrases,
this valley and could not stay here - many fled from it, many died before their time, and many were defeated by natural and human pressures.
Alterman called the Kinneret "the tear on the cheek of the world", and in this phrase I find a true description of the drama that unfolded here, in which Degania has a central role.
The sparkling Degania became the fermenting element of the rapidly developing valley. Degania itself passed through great crises, changes and revolutions, but for the settler in the valley, as to all the workers in Eretz Yisrael, Degania became the symbol of the hope for rootedness, for permanence.
The originality of working the land was an experience for the brave, but Degania and Kinneret, the first kvutzot in the val- ley , saw as a no less daring adventure their attempt to be a new human endeavour. Not merely an act of settlement but a will to renew the society. They believed that by returning
the Jew to the land, rebelling against their parents, coming to a new country, they were opening new hopes for and expectations from man. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing fixed in advance. The man who chooses to change his fate must be receptive and aware of the changes that are possible in the individual and in the society.
In the way of life of the people of the Second Aliyah, in Degania and in "Hashomer" (the self-defence movement), in the small communes in town and village, in manual labour, the same sense of awe, doubt and belief was revealed that is born in the hours of creation.
One of the old-timers described this situation by saying:"We had the heart of the dove but the wings of the eagle." The heights that were reached in the human endeavours at the beginning of Degania sprung from that dove-like heart that refused to reconcile itself with the smooth, empty phrases,
t ha t clip the wings and encase the heart in their pretense to
understand man, his "nature" and his "instincts."
Now that Degania has reached its 70th year, I decided to linger slightly over the date. Is it really 70 years old? How do we determine the date of the birth of a place? Is it from the day it is settled on the land? Or on the day the group forms itself to search for a place of settlement? Or on the day their members arrived in the country? Or on the day on which the way of life of the settlement was formulated? Is 70 years the correct date? It is difficult to know, as a settlement is not one human being, whose date of birth is known to all.
The settlement of Um Juni occurred in stages. 72 years ago, a group of three left Chavat Kinneret (the farm) to plough furrows in the land of Um Juni during the week, and returned to the farm at Kinneret for Shabbat.
The first group that lived at Um Juni was a group of workers who arrived there 71 years ago. This was the "group for settling the land", who came to live at Um Juni and do the pre- l imi nary agr icul tural work, without any intention of staying
in the area .
The settlement of Degania in its present location began 68 years ago when the first houses were built, and Um Juni was abandoned for the new settlement.
74 years ago, the nucleus of the first group of Degania, the commune from Ronny, arrived in the Land of Israel. They lived as a commune in Petach Tikva, the farm at Kinneret, and Hadera, absorbing new members along the way, creating a group and learning how to work.
What in fact happened 70 years ago? This group came to "inherit" Urn Juni from the "group of settlement", which had broken up.
The nucleus of this group persevered through the years, and carried Degania through all the changes that occurred. The fixing of this date as the start of Degania is a true expression of Degania. Degania wanted to be a home, a place of settlement and a commune - a collective society working the land.
Now that Degania has reached its 70th year, I decided to linger slightly over the date. Is it really 70 years old? How do we determine the date of the birth of a place? Is it from the day it is settled on the land? Or on the day the group forms itself to search for a place of settlement? Or on the day their members arrived in the country? Or on the day on which the way of life of the settlement was formulated? Is 70 years the correct date? It is difficult to know, as a settlement is not one human being, whose date of birth is known to all.
The settlement of Um Juni occurred in stages. 72 years ago, a group of three left Chavat Kinneret (the farm) to plough furrows in the land of Um Juni during the week, and returned to the farm at Kinneret for Shabbat.
The first group that lived at Um Juni was a group of workers who arrived there 71 years ago. This was the "group for settling the land", who came to live at Um Juni and do the pre- l imi nary agr icul tural work, without any intention of staying
in the area .
The settlement of Degania in its present location began 68 years ago when the first houses were built, and Um Juni was abandoned for the new settlement.
74 years ago, the nucleus of the first group of Degania, the commune from Ronny, arrived in the Land of Israel. They lived as a commune in Petach Tikva, the farm at Kinneret, and Hadera, absorbing new members along the way, creating a group and learning how to work.
What in fact happened 70 years ago? This group came to "inherit" Urn Juni from the "group of settlement", which had broken up.
The nucleus of this group persevered through the years, and carried Degania through all the changes that occurred. The fixing of this date as the start of Degania is a true expression of Degania. Degania wanted to be a home, a place of settlement and a commune - a collective society working the land.
Did Degania happen by chance?
Was it chance that gave birth to Degania - or perhaps a philosophy of life? This question has intrigued many people. Was there a plan? Is the development over the years a deviation from the plan, or a process of creative development?
This question has been asked of the members of Degania all along, and not by accident.
The researchers who want to, can "prove" either theory. The lands of Degania and Kinneret, which were the most important laboratory for the Second Aliyah, were by chance the property of the World Zionist Organisation. On other lands, such social experiments could hardly have taken place. Without the support of men like Levontin and Ruppin for the effort of settling the land, and the opportune political moments, the chance for the experiment might not have arisen.
Yet there is another facet to examining whether Degania was established through chance, or according to a plan. The "settlement group" went to Um Juni after a strike of the workers in the farmyard of Kinneret. The fierce argument between the workers and their supervisor led to a compromise which was the separation of the lands of Um Juni (Degania) from Daleika (Kinneret). These lands were separated by the river Jordan. Can we say that without this argument between the supervisor and the workers, that the kibbutz would never have been created? This position seems superficial to me, especially as at the same time, many others were already searching for a way to achieve something similar. There were parties and groups abroad that spoke about collective settlement in the Land of Israel. There were already communes in the country, and a number of other experiments which were leading to communal life. Even among the group that later put the idea into practice, there was talk of the possibility before the strike. At that time, when they were examining the possibility of sending a group of tenant-farmers to Um Juni on a collective basis, there was panic at the daring of the idea. They were reticent about over-daring projects, that had been attempted and had failed in the past. The timing, the push from the outside, were answered by a brave internal feeling, a longing for something as yet undefined, and unformulated. Despite the lack of institutions and collective structure, the will to live differently was exposed - the need to give expression to every worker out of collective responsibility, to burst through the framework of the existing reality and to create a real way of life. There was a lack of contentment with the idea alone, and a readiness to test it in reality.
Was it chance that gave birth to Degania - or perhaps a philosophy of life? This question has intrigued many people. Was there a plan? Is the development over the years a deviation from the plan, or a process of creative development?
This question has been asked of the members of Degania all along, and not by accident.
The researchers who want to, can "prove" either theory. The lands of Degania and Kinneret, which were the most important laboratory for the Second Aliyah, were by chance the property of the World Zionist Organisation. On other lands, such social experiments could hardly have taken place. Without the support of men like Levontin and Ruppin for the effort of settling the land, and the opportune political moments, the chance for the experiment might not have arisen.
Yet there is another facet to examining whether Degania was established through chance, or according to a plan. The "settlement group" went to Um Juni after a strike of the workers in the farmyard of Kinneret. The fierce argument between the workers and their supervisor led to a compromise which was the separation of the lands of Um Juni (Degania) from Daleika (Kinneret). These lands were separated by the river Jordan. Can we say that without this argument between the supervisor and the workers, that the kibbutz would never have been created? This position seems superficial to me, especially as at the same time, many others were already searching for a way to achieve something similar. There were parties and groups abroad that spoke about collective settlement in the Land of Israel. There were already communes in the country, and a number of other experiments which were leading to communal life. Even among the group that later put the idea into practice, there was talk of the possibility before the strike. At that time, when they were examining the possibility of sending a group of tenant-farmers to Um Juni on a collective basis, there was panic at the daring of the idea. They were reticent about over-daring projects, that had been attempted and had failed in the past. The timing, the push from the outside, were answered by a brave internal feeling, a longing for something as yet undefined, and unformulated. Despite the lack of institutions and collective structure, the will to live differently was exposed - the need to give expression to every worker out of collective responsibility, to burst through the framework of the existing reality and to create a real way of life. There was a lack of contentment with the idea alone, and a readiness to test it in reality.
The fact that many of the founders of the kvutzah refused to
admit to an explicit plan indicates something about the nature
of the plan,that wanted to refrain from being over-planned.
Degania wanted to be cautious about fixing rigid frameworks
that would prevent the people from living a creative, free and
mutually responsible life. The plan of Degania was not fully formulated, but tried to be sensitive and cautious - and perhaps because of this it became a heavy burden for the members.
From the aspect of agricultural development, and helping to set up other kvutzot, it is possible to say that Degania, which guarded its independence with fanatic zeal, and was always introverted, was also at the center of the planned regional activity.
Internally, although Degania was the creation!of its founders, it was designed and moulded paradoxically by those who followed them. Many of the founders left; they went to found the first
Moshav (Co-operative settlement), or turned to the town, or continued to wander. But those·who remained were prepared to renew their form of life according to the aspirations of the youngest in the group, people from the Third Aliyah, and other groups which joined them. These followers gave Degania its recognized, more distinctive forms.
If the people of the Second Aliyah were individualists by nature, who searched for personal ways to build the land and the society, their followers came in organised groups and planted clearer organisational patterns, organised communal institutions, and a strong feeling of togetherness. These were the first to worry consciously about the continuation of the movement, so that Degania would not be transformed into a focal point for wistful longings, or a model community, but a living place, which educates others to follow in its path. From this point, Degania can safely be accredited with the responsibility for the creation in the Jordan Valley of a republic of kibbutzim.
mutually responsible life. The plan of Degania was not fully formulated, but tried to be sensitive and cautious - and perhaps because of this it became a heavy burden for the members.
From the aspect of agricultural development, and helping to set up other kvutzot, it is possible to say that Degania, which guarded its independence with fanatic zeal, and was always introverted, was also at the center of the planned regional activity.
Internally, although Degania was the creation!of its founders, it was designed and moulded paradoxically by those who followed them. Many of the founders left; they went to found the first
Moshav (Co-operative settlement), or turned to the town, or continued to wander. But those·who remained were prepared to renew their form of life according to the aspirations of the youngest in the group, people from the Third Aliyah, and other groups which joined them. These followers gave Degania its recognized, more distinctive forms.
If the people of the Second Aliyah were individualists by nature, who searched for personal ways to build the land and the society, their followers came in organised groups and planted clearer organisational patterns, organised communal institutions, and a strong feeling of togetherness. These were the first to worry consciously about the continuation of the movement, so that Degania would not be transformed into a focal point for wistful longings, or a model community, but a living place, which educates others to follow in its path. From this point, Degania can safely be accredited with the responsibility for the creation in the Jordan Valley of a republic of kibbutzim.
In the beginning, Degania was a work group of single people.
The transition to family life was paved with many trials and
tribulations. Today Degania is a very family-oriented society,
of several generations. The children and grandchildren of the
founders bear the central weight of responsibility.
The grandchildren and great-grandchildren are searching for their own way, which will be both a continuation and a spreading of their wings. This task seems virtually impossible - the valley has been planted, and watered, even industrialized. Perhaps here the question is needed: Can Degania be not only
a project, but also the seed of a real culture? Can it be an expression of the continuation between and the uniqueness of the different generations?
Those who celebrate Degania's lOOth anniversary may give us an answer.
The grandchildren and great-grandchildren are searching for their own way, which will be both a continuation and a spreading of their wings. This task seems virtually impossible - the valley has been planted, and watered, even industrialized. Perhaps here the question is needed: Can Degania be not only
a project, but also the seed of a real culture? Can it be an expression of the continuation between and the uniqueness of the different generations?
Those who celebrate Degania's lOOth anniversary may give us an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment