Martin Buber, the thinker and teacher, was arguably the most influential Jewish intellectual in Germany in the interwar period, particularly after the rise of Nazism. His opposition to the institution of the state, which when Adolf Hitler came to power became the nightmare of all Jews and some Germans, resonated with his contemporaries. His teaching about the organic self-governing community that epitomized freedom and equality was seen as an ideal contrast to the totalitarian state.

In 1938 at age 60, Buber moved to Jerusalem. In the decade before the establishment of the State of Israel and afterwards until his death, his opposition to the state, including the Jewish state, in favour of the kind of community that the kibbutz represented got little response from his fellow Jews. Buber’s utopian Zionism seemed an impossible alternative to hard-won Jewish sovereignty. 

The founders of the Jewish state shared Buber’s horror of totalitarianism. Their ideal was the liberal democracy envisaged by Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism. For Herzl’s followers, the State of Israel was the authentic fulfilment of the Zionist dream. They believed, with good reason, that after the Holocaust, Jews could only be saved from extinction by claiming the same rights to sovereignty in their land as other nations.

But in the seventh decade of Israel’s existence, the teachings of Martin Buber are gaining traction. Several of his books are now easily available in Hebrew, and a new Hebrew translation of his seminal work, I and Thou, has just been published. The headline of this article is taken from the title of a new book by the Israeli sociologist Uri Ram.

This renewed interest was very much in evidence at last month’s conference on Martin Buber that marked the 50th anniversary of his death. It was hosted by the Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities, of which Buber had been the first president. At least three reasons come to mind for the apparent renaissance.

First, there are today many groups in Israel that seek to put into practice Buber’s teachings about community. Though the kibbutz is no longer what its pioneers intended and what Buber imagined it to be, the ideals it articulated are still deemed to be relevant.

This may be at least in part a reaction against the current trend, promoted by the nationalist parties now in power in Israel, which allows the state to interfere in areas best left to communities. For example, recent attempts by the minister of culture to withhold support for plays and movies that challenge the ideology of the political right have stirred up the debate.

A second reason for the renewed interest in Buber may be due to the dormant, some say dead, peace process. Though his ideas about a bi-national Jewish-Arab state in the Land of Israel have long been recognized as neither desirable nor practical, his advocacy on behalf of Arabs is being echoed today in many circles in the Jewish state, including by its president.       

A third reason may have to do with Buber’s aversion to religious establishments. This great exponent of Judaism – biblical, chassidic, philosophical – is said to have never attended synagogue services, for religious reasons. He distinguished between religion and what today many call spirituality. 

Though few Israelis, even if they describe themselves as secular, would share Buber’s disdain for the synagogue, many are appalled at the efforts of the Orthodox rabbinate and its supporters in government to control religious life and discriminate against non-Orthodox streams.

As Yair Lapid, the leader of the Yesh Atid party, recently told leaders of the World Jewish Congress, Israel is the only country in the world today where not all Jews enjoy religious freedom.

Martin Buber will never be able to compete for Jewish hearts with, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, but the fact that mindful Israelis are looking for alternative ways of expressing their political misgivings and spiritual concerns is very good news.