The Ashkenazi Revolution

110political leader, Ahad ha’Am. Even before the current reality slapped thedoctrine of Ahad ha’Am in the face, Berdichevsky proved its weakness.The doctrine of the “spiritual center” negates the Diaspora, but at the sametime, it requires the Diaspora since the spiritual center only exists so thatthe Diaspora might exist and thrive. Most importantly: Is it conceivablethat there be a spiritual center that lacks physical capital and an economiclife? Ahad ha’Am denied the usefulness, and even the purpose of a multifacetedsettlement in the Land of Israel and, at the same time, wanted it tobe a spiritual center, but how?These contradictions did not detract from the doctrine of Ahad ha’Am,since, fundamentally, it was not an analytical doctrine, but first andforemost a tactical tool whose purpose was to guarantee political controlfor the sect of Hebrew authors. From this perspective, the doctrine of Ahadha’Am accomplished its purpose above and beyond what could have beenexpected. The rationalism of the New Hebrew Literature killed the God ofIsrael. We shall yet discuss this point when we discuss Hayim NahmanBialik. The many blasphemies of Yehuda Leib Gordon and his friends,toward the rabbis, were actually directed toward the God of Israel. For theyeshiva students were rebelling against Him as they faced the secularworld and it was His throne they sought to overthrow. The God of Israeldied for Ahad ha’Am. Died, or more accurately was killed. The problemtherefore was, who would replace Him. In his writings, Ahad ha’Amspeaks of a new god, Jewish ethics and the spirit of prophesy. But theweakness of this god is painfully obvious. As a product of the rabbinicalworld of Eastern Europe, and as an exceptional scholar, Ahad ha’Am wasused to a different kind of god entirely: A mighty god, active and great,heroic and awe-inspiring, vengeful and vindictive, who acts and constantlymotivates action; in short, the true and historic God of Israel. A substitute,in the guise of ethics, would have been too wretched and too fake, toconvince even he who had created the substitute, Ahad ha’Am. Thequestion was, however, who would inherit the role of the God of Israel andwho would sit upon the empty throne? Ahad ha’Am’s answer was that he,himself, was destined to sit upon the high and lofty throne. In his article,“Moses”, Ahad ha’Am describes Moses in his own image, the form of