Yiddish

I've just finished a book by Jewish, Romanian author, Mihail Sebastian, about his experiences of anti-Semitism in Romania in the lead up to WWII. He died at a relatively young age in a car accident just after WWII. The book was a Christmas present from No.2 Son. 

In one chapter he decries the selection of Hebrew in preference to Yiddish for the language of the new state of Israel. 

Yiddish is a West Germanic language historically spoken by Ashkenazi Jews, which emerged in Central Europe. It originated in the 9th century, drawing its core structure from Middle High German, but also incorporating elements from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic languages. This blend gave Yiddish its distinctive character, with a vocabulary that often reflects its diverse roots. It is predominantly written in Hebrew characters, although Latinised script is sometimes used. 

Sebastian's arguments run thus:

He viewed Yiddish as a more dynamic and expressive language compared to Hebrew, which he saw as primarily liturgical and formal. He emphasised Yiddish's ability to capture the nuances of everyday life and Jewish humor. He also highlighted the historical significance of Yiddish as the vernacular language of Eastern European Jewry, arguing that it embodied a rich cultural heritage that deserved recognition in the context of a new Israel. It was the result of lived lives.

Sebastian believed that Yiddish represented a specific Jewish identity distinct from the religious connotations associated with Hebrew. He saw it as a language grounded in diaspora experience and secular life, potentially offering a counterpoint to the dominant Zionist narrative focused on ancient Hebrew and religious revival. He viewed Yiddish as a bridge between different Jewish communities, both geographically and culturally, potentially fostering unity and inclusivity in the new Israeli society. 

His preference for Yiddish could be interpreted as a critique of the dominant Zionist ideology, which prioritized Hebrew as the official language and emphasized a return to biblical roots. He implicitly challenged the notion of a singular, homogenous Jewish identity and advocated for the recognition of diversity within the community. His suggestion also carried social implications, as Yiddish was largely associated with the working class and Eastern European Jewish communities. His preference could be seen as advocating for their inclusion and representation in the emerging Israeli society. 

It's hard to argue against that.