In Defense of a Just Society: Buber Contra Gandhi on Jewish Migration to Palestine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is important and interesting and it is well-structured and written, but it merely re-introduce and summarize Buber's and Gandhi's essays, without adding significant analysis. Furthermore, Accounts of the 1936-9 riots in Palestine and the Nazi Persecutions based on one book are inappropriate. In the first case Palestinian accounts of the riots should be consulted, as well as more Israeli sources. Additionally:

- The writer should expand on Gandhi's Jewish friends, and bring, if possible, sources on their request from him to address Zionism, and their response to his hostile essay.

- p. 6: "Gandhi, a man opposed to violence on principle, refused to condemn the violent resistance of the Arab rebellion. One might ask if Gandhi’s own history of resistance to British rule in India is not somehow informing his attitude and approach to British rule in Palestine" - you should refer to the research that has shown - that Gandhi did not always stop violence from the Hindu side.

p. 8. Buber did not get his position in Frankfurt university in 1916 and he lived in Heppenheim.

- four basic views among the Jewish leadership in the Yishuv concerning 383 the Jewish-Arab conflict - with due respect to Silberstein, this summary is inaccurate. The positions should be presented correctly and in more length. Consult Anita Shapira, Joseph Gorni and Dimitry Shumski. 

Most importantly, Buber position should be elaborated! The main point is that he shares much of Gandhi's pacifism! For instance, he also recommended non-violent opposition to Nazism! 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments about my article. I’ve taken all of your comments into account. I have developed my argument to say something new about Buber as a thinker, and I have clarified and elaborated on how the historical background relates to my argument. I have engaged with more of the scholarship on Buber as it relates to my topic. I have also thoroughly reviewed the article for grammar and syntax errors. Again, thank you for your comments. Let me know if you have any other questions or comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is not yet an article. It consists (40%) of general background summary, without that summary being directly relevant to the question at hand; (40%) of summary of Buber's letter, without any engagement with Buber's broader body of work, or any of the vast relevant literature on Buber; and (20%) intro and conclusion.

The author needs to make any background information speak to the main question and characters; the author needs to cite the vast extant relevant literature on this subject; and the author need to use the reading of Buber's letter to tell us something new about Buber. There is a great deal of very good Buber scholarship, in German, English, and Hebrew. The author needs to find ways in which this letter helps us to better understand Buber as a thinker, political actor, and advocate for his people. 

Line 374 -- Paula Buber (neé Winkler)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments about my article. I’ve taken all of your comments into account. I have developed my argument to say something new about Buber as a thinker, and I have clarified and elaborated on how the historical background relates to my argument. I have engaged with more of the scholarship on Buber as it relates to my topic. I have also thoroughly reviewed the article for grammar and syntax errors. Again, thank you for your comments. Let me know if you have any other questions or comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, You have written a potentially fine essay -- potentially for it still requires fine tuning. I would thus bring to your attention the following issues that require reformulation and conceptual and terminological nuance:

1. To speak of Buber's vision of "a just society," without elaboration how he conceived of such a society, will strike your readers a sermonic platitude. Similarly your reference to "prophetic Judaism."  On line 479ff you cite a passage from Buber's letter that specifies in a detail how he understood what constitutes a just society. You might also wish to refer to the monograph by Samuel H. Brody on "Martin Buber Theo-Politics."

2. In the initial paragraph you refer to Buber's vision of a Zionist state. He was, however, vehemently opposed to the establishment of a Jewish  nation-state. You note this, albeit but parenthetically on line 624.

3. The biographical excursus on l. 368-379 is flawed with inaccuracies. Buber's grandfather, for one, did not teach him "the Hasidic tradition." Buber first married Paula Winkler in 1906. You would also need to specify the nature of Herzl's Die Welt -- the weekly of the World Zionist Organization.  With respect to Buber's biography, you may wish to consult the entry on Buber in the on-line Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy; or for a more detailed biography, Martin Buber. A Life of Faith and Dissent by Paul Mendes-Flohr

4. Irgun bombings -- please identify the "Irgun" for your readers.

5. Chiam Gordon is not a philosopher but rather a political scientist. Moreover, traditional Judaism believes in resurrection. The prayer concludes with an affirmation of the resurrection of the dead at the end of days.

6. The paragraph on lines 475-79 is contradictorily constructed.

7. On line 510 you mention Buber's advocacy of a bi-national state without explanation. (See above comment 2.)

8. line 269 -- correct to read "advises"

9. l. 387 -- you need to elaborate what was intended by advocating a "Jewish majority."

10. Throughout the paper you evoke the adverb "remarkably." It thus comes across as trite.

11. l. 648: add "eternal" before "stigma.

12. Delete l. 492

13. l. 701 -- "The land is God's to give."  Without an theological explanation, this statement will also strike the reader as sermonic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments about my article. I’ve taken all of your comments into account. I have corrected the inaccuracies you mentioned, and I have clarified terms to avoid sounding sermonic. I have also engage more of the historiography on Buber as it relates to this topic, including Brody’s Martin Buber’s Theopolitics. I have also thoroughly reviewed for grammar errors. Please let me know if you have any questions or further comments. Thanks again.

Reviewer 4 Report

 This paper wishes to examine Buber’s response to Gandhi’s article, published in his weekly newspaper Harijan on 26 November 1938, and to his larger ideas concerning the Jewish people. Before doing that, the paper offers a large section summarizing and analyzing Gandhi's views. As I am a scholar of Gandhian studies but not of Buberian studies I will refer mainly to the Gandhian section. Much has been said or written in regards to Gandhi's article, and to Buber and Magnes' response. However, the present paper is innovative and offers a deep theological analysis of both Gandhi and Buber's ideas and theological positions, and a comparative and new way.

 The author highlights various subtleties, such as Gandhi not addressing the Jews directly but rather speaking of them in the third person plural, demonstrating a distance between himself and them, as opposed to Buber who mostly addressed Gandhi informally in the second person singular. Apparently, he called upon the Jews to practice satyagraha, and he spoke with utter conviction about its universal applicability—not simply to convince the Jewish community of its usefulness and value but to re-affirm its importance and esteem among his own people. A significant theological observation which is one of the merits of the present paper, is the claim that Gandhi seems to be imposing his own religious beliefs upon the Jewish people by encouraging them with the prospect of reincarnation. Yet, the Jews do not believe in reincarnation, and therefore, speaking to the Jews as if their souls would be reincarnated is trying to impose upon them Hindu notions which are not part of mainstream Jewish culture.

Gandhi's article appears naïve given the context of Nazi Germany in the weeks immediately following the “Kristallnacht” pogrom in November 1938; he does not mention the conditions in Germany or the antisemitic laws instituted. Remarkably, Gandhi criticized the Jews for harboring anger in their hearts toward their Nazi oppressors. Just a couple of months after the Kristallnacht pogrom, Gandhi is asking for the nearly impossible: that the Jews love the Nazis. At the same time Gandhi seemed to be applying a double standard, by refusing to condemn the violent resistance of the Arab rebellion, or demanding the same saintly standard from them.

In summary, this is a good and solid paper and I recommend its publication.

Āgraha:  see:

https://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=%C4%81graha&lang=sans&action=Search

firmness is OK but also "holding" or "holding firmly".

Harijan means "Children of God". Gandhi indeed used this term to denote the untouchables.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on my article. I have developed my argument and further engaged with the scholarship on Gandhi and Buber. I have also reviewed the article for any remaining grammar errors. Please let me know if you have any questions or further comments. Thanks again.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Please check the citation on line 130. I believe "it" should be "and."