The fuss about 'pluralistic prayer' at the Kotel (Western Wall)
I am sure that many of you, particularly in the US where the reactions have been shrill, have heard the fuss about the government 'abandoning' an agreement to facilitate 'pluralistic' prayers at the Western Wall. There's a lot of misinformation about this decision in the media. This video, which I found on Facebook last night, does a great job of clarifying what's really going on.
Let's go to the videotape (I included the entire Facebook post):
Another article, that destroys the claims about 'mixed prayers' being policy at the Kotel during the Mandatory (pre-State) period appears here:
Few seem to recall that the conflict between Arabs and Jews in
British Palestine was directly related to the Kotel and Jewish demands
for prayer rights there. The 1929 riots and pogroms against Jews was due
to a conflict at the site and was referred to as the “Wailing Wall
disturbances” for many
years. According to an article on the subject, “The issue of Jewish
rights of worship at the Wailing Wall flared up as a result of an
incident on 24 September 1928 when the screen separating men and women
at the Wall was removed by a British police officer in the midst of
prayers on Yom Kippur.” Before 1967 Jews were forbidden from bringing
many prayer items to the site. The lack of separation between men and
women was not because Jews didn’t want separation, but because they were
forbidden to change the site, because it was run by the authorities and
Muslim religious leaders saw it as being owned by Muslims. Colonial
authorities ran the Wall.
Let’s read on regarding the 1928 incident: “The ensuing outcry of
world Jewry and the Zionist movement in the wake of the screen incident
was accompanied by an increasing Jewish challenge to the status quo
rights of worship at the Wall, as well as demands for possessing the
Wall and its surrounding area. Indeed, during the 1920s a number of
Zionist and Jewish leaders sought to expand the Jewish standing and
rights of worship at the Wall.”
So at the heart of the Jewish and Zionist demands for increased
rights to the Wall was the demand to separate men and women as in
traditional Orthodox services. Wait a sec. But I thought the “good old
days” back then men and women prayed together? Actually they only prayed
“together” because Jews were forbidden from making any changes to the
site by the British, who were listening to the Islamic Wakf and its
demands for a “status quo.”
Jonathan Tobin takes the Union of Reform Judaism to task for refusing to take a position on President Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
From the point of view of those opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, the decision of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) to sit out the battle
is not the worst possible outcome. To expect a religious denomination
whose very identity is inextricably tied with liberal politics to take a
stand against President Obama — a man that the majority of their
adherents likes and admires — was a stretch. That was especially true
since the president is treating this debate as a litmus test of loyalty
to the Democratic Party. Equally unlikely was the possibility that the
Reform movement would align itself with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — a man that most of their members dislike and distrust — on
any issue. Indeed, the unwillingness of the URJ to join the ad hoc group
of liberal rabbis that have endorsed the pact with Iran reflects the
unease among even liberal Jews who care about Israel over what President
Obama has done. Yet the eagerness of Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs to
pat himself on the back for staying out of the fray merits criticism.
Contrary to Jacobs’s formulation, the real problem with the debate about
Iran is not the nature of the rhetoric being used by both sides but the
way in which the administration is downgrading the U.S.-Israel
alliance. As difficult as it may be for Reform Jews to admit it, Obama
is forcing his Jewish admirers to choose between him and Israel and that
is not a choice any American, let alone a Jewish supporter of the
Jewish state, should be asked to make.
That's true. But count this non-admirer of Obama's as someone who could have predicted that the one thing the official arm of Reform Judaism could not do would be to oppose what President Obama has in effect turned into a 'no confidence' vote on his Iran policy. For most Reform Jews, loyalty to the Democratic party - and particularly to its Left wing - trumps any identification with Judaism or Israel.
When President George H.W. Bush spoke of fighting a lobby when he
opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1991, a united Jewish community
slammed him for using language that was redolent of anti-Semitic slurs.
When conservative commentator Pat Buchanan also spoke of Jews not
fighting in a war they wanted America to fight for Israel, he was
labeled an anti-Semite. Yet liberals aren’t being as tough on Obama with
many of them looking for ways to rationalize or excuse his rhetoric.
Yes, yours truly slammed Bush Senior for his behavior toward Israel. For that matter, if you look back in this blog, I slammed Bush Junior many times too, even though he might have been the most pro-Israel President the US ever had this side of Lyndon Johnson. I am more loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel than to any American political party (I moved to Israel in 1991). But you won't find a whole lot of liberals slamming Obama on Iran (Tobin mentions Leon Wieseltier; I could have added Alan Dershowitz).
In examining the choices that the URJ and other liberal Jewish groups
face, it is fair to ask how they would react if a Republican president
had embraced détente with Iran and feuded with Israel. The answer is
pretty obvious. In spite of the growing alienation of many of their
members from Israel, even the Reform movement would have acted as
American Jews did a generation earlier when the elder Bush aligned
himself against a Jewish state that had yet to take the sort of risks
for peace that were made in the following two decades.
Polls have showed that the majority of Americans oppose the deal with
Iran. But if the deal is going to survive, it will be because
partisanship is a far more potent factor in our political life than many
of us are prepared to admit. If Reform Jews are incapable of choosing a
side in a battle where the interests of the Jewish people and the U.S.
is at stake, it is because they reflect the demographic reality of an
American Jewry that sees liberal politics as being equal to if not more
important than their support for Zionism. Throw in their affection for
Obama and antipathy for Netanyahu and the Reform decision not to back the president must be seen as a victory of sorts for the deal’s opponents.
In the summer of 1990, before we made aliya, Mrs. Carl and I and the then-three children spent half a day with an organization that was creating the priestly garments and the vessels for the Temple - may it be restored speedily and in our time. The highlight of the day (for us) was when they showed us a model of the wash-basin and asked who knew how the Kohain (priest) stood when washing from the wash basin. Son # 1, child # 2 - then just short of 5-years old - immediately reached down and grabbed his ankles with his hands. We snapped a picture, and it instantly became the talk of the pre-1A class at YKP, where he went to school at the time.
The place we visited that day is known as the Temple Institute. On Sunday morning, the Leftists at Army radio (yes, even IDF radio is dominated by the Left) reported with horror that the Temple Institute is receiving government funding. No, it's not a huge amount, but it's enough to set the chattering classes into a tizzy. Fortunately, the government agencies in question aren't saying 'we didn't know.' Instead, they are defending the funding. For now.
The Education Ministry responded to the Army Radio report, saying:
“The nonprofit meets criteria for receiving subsidies that go toward
instructing students who visit the institute, and this has been the case
for over 10 years now.”
“The Temple Institute deals with
research, and it is supported by the ministry in accordance with
professional criteria that has nothing to do with directly supporting
the individual who heads it,” a Culture and Sport Ministry spokesperson
said in response.
“Thus far we have found nothing that would
raise suspicions of incitement or anything unusual as it relates to the
temple. In light of the Army Radio report, it is the ministry’s
intention to bring this matter to the attention of our legal
department.”
The Temple Institute responded:
“For over 25 years the Temple Institute has stood at
the forefront of research, education and preparation towards the time of
the rebuilding of the Holy Temple,” a spokesperson for the Temple
Institute told The Jerusalem Post. “The Institute's efforts have been
recognized and awarded by Israel's Ministry of Education. Its
trailblazing educational materials and scholarly publications have
revolutionized these difficult areas of Torah knowledge for young and
old alike.”
“Over one million people from all over the world, of
every background and religion, have visited the Institute's exhibition
located in Jerusalem's Old City," the spokesperson said. "The Temple
Institute's website is the most popular and educational web site on the
subject of the Holy Temple in the world."
"The rebuilding of the
Holy Temple, called by the prophet Isaiah a 'house of prayer for all
nations,' is a positive commandment, and the vision of the Temple's
rebuilding, which will usher in an unparalleled era of world peace and
harmony, is the central theme of the entire Torah. The Temple Institute
is proud to represent the concept which has been heartfelt prayer of the
Jewish people for two millennia.”
Any Jew who goes to synagogue prays for the restoration of the Temple. Orthodox Jews pray for it at least three times a day. As far as I know, prayers for the restoration of the Temple continue to appear in prayer books of the Conservative movement as well. While the Reform movement originally removed all references to the Temple, that was part and parcel of their removing the land of Israel (pre-state) from their prayers. But the land of Israel was restored to the Reform prayer book many years ago and I believe that the Temple was restored then too (caveat - I have not seen conservative or reform prayer books in recent years).
Let's be honest with ourselves. When the Temple is rebuilt, it is going to be rebuilt on the very same mountaintop where the dome of the rock and the al-aqsa mosque sit today. By definition, the rebuilding of the Temple, which is something we pray for every day, means no more false religions on the Temple Mount. And while no one is suggesting that we send the IDF to clear the Temple Mount tomorrow morning (maybe we should), we should not fool ourselves that we are praying for something else when we say in our prayers, "And may our eyes see when You return to Zion with mercy."
If the Israeli government cannot support an organization that is educating people about Jewish belief in our future, I have to wonder by what right the Israeli government calls itself a Jewish government.
Most Israelis think views of American Jews on 'peace process' should not be taken seriously
When I saw the headline of this article - 32% of Israelis think US Jews should stay out of peace process - I was going to headline my post "That's all?"
But then I saw the blurb under the headline:
Poll finds nearly a quarter of Israelis are against accepting input from American Jewry on religious issues, but 66.3% of Israelis see the US Jewish community as having a positive influence on Israel's national security.
I decided that the 'nearly a quarter' was even more suspicious, and decided I'd better read the article before I start posting. Iwonder if the JPost editor who wrote the headline did the same....
Of the Israelis polled, 31.9 percent think Israeli
leaders should not take into account the positions of American Jews on the peace
process at all, and 33.6% said US Jewry’s views should be considered to a small
extent. Only 21.6% called for those views to be taken into account to a great
extent, and 9.4 to a very great extent.
In other words, 65.5% of Israelis think that American Jews' opinions on the 'peace process' should be given little or no account. And that's as it should be. It's our lives on the line - not yours (or theirs).
And on the religious issue...
On religious issues, such as
conversion or the government’s relations with the Conservative and Reform
movements, 24% of Israelis were against taking US Jewry’s positions into
account, and 30.6% said they should be considered to a small extent. Still,
Israelis are more willing to accept input from American Jews on religious issues
than on the peace process, with 25.1% saying it should be taken into account to
a great extent and 15.2% responding to a very great extent.
In other words, 54.6% of Israelis think that American Jews' opinions on conversion and on the Conservative and Reform movements should be given little or no account. And again. If you want to have the right to express an opinion about how we run our country, you ought to live here.
Yes, I express opinions about the US all the time. But I still file tax returns in the US every year and I'm still entitled to vote in the US (at least in federal elections). Let me stop filing tax returns and I won't have any more right than a Kenyan to express an opinion about the US.
And by the way, we still love you anyway, and we want you to love us too.
According to the poll’s results, 66.3% of Israelis see the
Jewish community in the US as having a very or somewhat positive influence on
Israel’s national security.
In addition, 76% of Israelis responded that
American Jewry’s support for Israel in the future will remain at the level it is
today or even grow stronger. However, when asked whether American Jews feel a
meaningful connection to Israel, 51% felt that half or less than half of US
Jewry feel that connection.
But love us like you love your adult children who make their own decisions, and not like your younger children for whom you still decide everything.
You will recall that I reported on Thursday that the 'Palestinians' are objecting to reconfiguring the area around the Kotel (Western Wall) to allow for an 'egalitarian' prayer area. Evelyn Gordon has a great idea to make this a teachable moment for American Jews.
[I]deally, I’d like every Reform or Conservative congregation in
America to discuss this question with its membership–for two reasons.
One is that the new egalitarian section seems to matter more to
American Jews than to Israelis, since Israel’s Reform and Conservative
movements are so much smaller (about 7 percent
of all Israeli Jews). Therefore, it’s only fair to get their input
before making any decision. The more important reason, however, is that
this could provide a genuine teachable moment in the kind of trade-offs
Israelis face every day in dealing with the Palestinians, to which
liberal American Jews–i.e. the majority of the American Jewish
community–have lately grown increasingly unsympathetic.
Most liberal American Jews have two
main demands of Israel: They want it to recognize the non-Orthodox
denominations, and they want it to make peace with the Palestinians,
right now. The latter demand isn’t confined to fringe anti-Israel
activists; it’s routinely voiced by long-time Israel supporters like Rabbi Eric Yoffie or Leon Wieseltier.
So I’d like all these Jews to seriously consider this question: When
these two primary demands conflict, what do you do–capitulate to the PA
in the interests of “peace” and give up on being able to pray at the
Western Wall in your own fashion, or insist on your rights at the Wall
at the cost of further antagonizing the Palestinians, for whom
modifications of the Western Wall Plaza are no less objectionable than
new outposts in the heart of the West Bank?
Dilemmas no less wrenching confront Israel every day in dealing with
the Palestinians, but because they don’t affect American Jews directly,
the latter are often too quick to accuse Israel of being intransigent
over a trivial point it should just concede in the name of peace. They
deplore Israel’s refusal to agree to a border roughly along the 1967
lines, not understanding the enormous security risks this creates; they
deplore Israel’s refusal to release murderers to woo
the Palestinians to the negotiating table, not understanding the major
role freed prisoners have repeatedly played in fomenting new terrorism;
they deplore Israel’s reluctance to redivide Jerusalem, not
understanding how unlikely it is that the city would remain open
afterward, or how devastating a repartition would therefore be.
Yair Lapid may have spoken very nicely to that group of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews that I showed you right after the election. But deep down, he's still Tommy's son. And to understand Yair Lapid's real positions, you have to know a little bit about his father, Tommy. This is from a post I did several years ago.
Not everyone has been pleased with the new olim (immigrants). In July
2002, nearly 400 American immigrants arrived in Israel at the height of
the 'Palestinian' war against the Jews. What could be more inspiring to a
country under siege, and in the throes of a long-term recession, than
400 Jews choosing voluntarily to plight their troth to Israel’s future?
These immigrants were not fleeing for their lives, but rather choosing
to enter a war zone. Most of them left behind secure jobs to come to a
country with unemployment at over 10% and rising.
Not
surprisingly, their arrival occasioned a great deal of fanfare. But a
few days before their plane touched down, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
published an article on Beit Shemesh, the planned destination of many
of the immigrants. In that article, then-Shinui leader Tommy Lapid
complained that North American aliyah is overwhelmingly religious. He
added for good measure, "Quite frankly Israel could do without
[religious North American Jews]." (Shinui was an anti-religious Israeli
political party).
Lapid subsequently clarified that he did not
mean to single out religious North American immigrants. In his opinion,
Israel could do without charedi (ultra-Orthodox) immigrants wherever
they come from; indeed it could do without the charedim that were
already here.
Yair seems to feel the same way. He tells Haredim that they've won enough that they can relax their guard and not worry about being assimilated, rails at how much the country spends on religious education, and yet... (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
Lapid declared that his political agenda includes making the Reform and
Conservative movements – both popular in the United States – equal to
orthodox Judaism in terms of state support.
State support? As in money? So that's the agenda - take the money from the Haredi yeshivos and build reform and conservative temples all over the country?
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
“I want to do everything in my power to ensure the equality between
all movements of Judaism in the state of Israel, Orthodox, Conservative,
or Reform,” he declared. “In conversions, in budgets, in the eyes of
the law. No one can claim ownership over the Jewish God.”
“Small, old, petty politics cannot determine something that is eternal as is the Jewish identity, this is just wrong,” he added.
There are other things that concern Lapid.
He also spoke of his determination to negotiate with the Palestinian
Authority for the creation of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, a
point that he has previously stated is a key condition to his
partnership in any coalition.
Failure to separate from the Arab population of Judea and Samaria
(Shomron) would mean that Israel ceases to be a Jewish state, he argued.
You will note also that Lapid credits the leaders of organizations who have presided over an intermarriage rate in excess of 50% for 'saving the Jewish identity.' SAVING WHAT????
All of which made me wonder about... Naftali Bennett.
Bennett leads a party that until recently was known as the National Religious Party. That party, now known as Jewish Home, is said to have a pact with Lapid that one will not go into the government without the other. In fact, a short while ago, a free newspaper was delivered to my house in which Shas leader Eli Yishai complains that the pact between Jewish Home and Lapid's Yesh Atid (There is a Future) party is 'stronger than he thought.' Really?
The National Religious Party - the group that sees the State of Israel in religious terms - is going to be a part of overseeing the dismantling of the Chief Rabbinate? The National Religious Party, which for 65 years symbolized the role of Orthodox Judaism in the State is now going to vote for funding for conservative and reform temples? And you wonder why Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had such nasty words for Jewish Home during the election (and yes, I heard people say that they would have voted for Jewish Home but for Rabbi Yosef's command not to)?
And you, Eli Yishai, you didn't understand until now why the non-Haredi public is fed up with paying 70% of its income in taxes to support yeshiva students some of whose heads aren't really so into studying Torah after all? You didn't think that the students who work under the table on the side and who are 'carried on the rolls' of yeshivas without ever being there weren't going to come back to bite us?
I know that's not a fair description of all of the yeshiva students or even a majority of them. Most of them - at least most of the ones with whom I come into contact - are very serious about their studies, but even one who is taking money from the State to support his studies and not studying is one too many and reflects poorly on those who are studying seriously.
And so - Eli Yishai, Naftali Bennett and the MK's of United Torah Judaism (who really do take their orders from their rabbis), can we get together and save our society before we end up with Tommy's plan?
Liberal American Jews are enamored with Tzipi Livni. She's a big proponent of the 'peace process,' she hates Haredim, and she seems to embody everything liberal America wants to happen in the Middle East. But does she? Evelyn Gordon demonstrates just how far Liberal American Jews are from the Israeli consensus, including Tzipi Livni.
Last week, the URJ issued a statement condemning
Israeli settlement activity, “especially in the E-1 area,” saying it
“makes progress toward peace far more challenging, and is difficult to
reconcile with the Government of Israel’s stated commitment to a
two-state solution.” Now here’s what Livni–long the darling of liberal
American Jews for her dovish views, and someone who has consistently
blamed the Netanyahu government for the impasse in peace talks–told a gathering of foreign ambassadors today:
“It doesn’t matter what you think about
settlements,” Livni said with uncharacteristic bluntness. “We have
settlement blocs close to the Green Line and the only way for the
conflict with the Palestinians to end is for Israel to keep them. Any
pre-agreement by the international community to a withdrawal to 1967
borders before the talks occur, makes it difficult to negotiate. It was
clear in the talks I conducted with the Palestinians that there would
not be return to 1967 borders.”
Given that E-1 is the corridor that links one of those settlement
blocs, Ma’aleh Adumim, to Jerusalem, it’s hard to reconcile those two
views. After all, if the settlement blocs will be part of Israel under
any agreement, then so will E-1–which, as Rick noted yesterday,
is precisely why every peace plan every proposed, including former
President Bill Clinton’s, in fact assigned E-1 to Israel. Indeed, the
annexation documents for E-1 were signed by the patron saint of the peace process himself, Yitzhak Rabin, less than a year after he
signed the Oslo Accords. Like everyone else who has seriously studied
this issue, Rabin concluded both that it was vital for Israel’s security
and–contrary to the widespread misconception today–that it would in no
way preclude a viable and contiguous Palestinian state (a point Rich’s
post also explains).
So if everyone knows that Israel is going to retain this area anyway,
how can advancing construction within it possibly “make progress toward
peace far more challenging”? In fact, as Livni noted, the opposite is
true: The real impediment to negotiations is the Palestinian belief that
the world will back their demand for a full withdrawal to the 1967
lines and eventually force Israel to comply. And that’s precisely the
belief the URJ reinforced via its condemnation: After all, the
Palestinians must be saying, if even American Jews won’t back Israel’s
position, it will soon have no choice but to capitulate.
But Liberal American Jews just won't get it. They're still living in their fantasyland where Israel consists of a bunch of Kibbutzim and the national consensus calls for taking whatever the world will give us and relying on miracles. We do rely on miracles. But only when we have to.
“Conversations about Israel often get
polarized, so we’ve stopped having them. And that’s the worst kind of
disengagement there is,” Jacobs said.
Jacobs, who is the ‘scholar in residence’ at this year’s General
Assembly in Baltimore, also noted that “the ever-diminishing circle of
who is included in the word ‘we’ has gotten so small that it’s a shame.
There is a wider community that cares a great deal about Israel, but
they don’t care within the narrow parameters that the organized Jewish
world has framed.”
Sarah Honig has Obama down pat. Here's some of what she has to say about his recent appearance in front of Reform Jewry's annual convention.
American Jews (those who still care) need to ask themselves whether they aren’t falling for a false façade yet again when they applaud Obama’s bald-faced claim that “no US administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours. None. Don’t let anybody else tell you otherwise. It is a fact.”
Even Jewish liberals mesmerized by Obama’s apparent radicalism need ask themselves if it’s moral to judge us Israelis – to pretend to know better than we what’s best for us and to tell us to take existential risks. When all is said and done, it’s our lives on the line and no skin off American-Jewish noses.
That’s what ultimately matters and it has nothing to do with whether the Obama family’s “expert on Jewish tradition” is invited to bar mitzvahs and prattles about quoting pertinent Torah portions. Malia’s best friends may be Jewish but this doesn’t make her father our best bud. He may enunciate “hineni,” but this doesn’t attest to his goodwill toward the Jewish state.
Malia’s bat mitzvah fashion statements are about as relevant to Israel’s ongoing struggle for survival as my freckles were to Cookie’s contentions. The Jewish answer to Obama’s kitschy Catskill skit should be: “Huh, what’s that got to do with anything?”
“While I loved my time there and deeply respected my professors, I found that HUC was not comfortable exploring or discussing anything politically that wasn’t left,” said Rabbi Samantha Kahn, who received her ordination from Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles in 2011 and is now the assistant rabbi at Congregation Emanu El in Houston, Texas. “I definitely struggled with it, and I was hurt by the lack of openness and the anger toward positions of center and right when it came to Israel and foreign affairs.”
To be sure, most observers point out that the political atmosphere at HUC does not comprehensively reflect the reality of the wider Reform movement. But the differences can sometimes be unusually stark. Kahn, who worked at the Hillel at the University of Miami before entering HUC, recently recalled the “strange transition” she experienced: “As a Hillel professional, it seemed that I was [politically] very left. All of a sudden, at HUC I wasn’t left anymore, but very right. The truth is, being in Houston, I feel more left again. I pay attention to the New Israel Fund and read Haaretz. But I’m also still involved with and appreciative of AIPAC and Hadassah and am glad to see them still thriving in Houston. At HUC, AIPAC and Hadassah were four-letter words. They were the devil.”
HUC—like all educational institutions—is a bubble of sorts, and it is often difficult to find genuine ideological pluralism inside any such closed environment, especially on a subject as complicated as Israel. Nevertheless, some have grown concerned about the ways the political culture of HUC could influence the future texture of Reform Judaism and the broader American Jewish community.
“You could probably do the same story at Yeshiva University and you might get the exact opposite political trend,” David Wolpe, the rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, said in an interview this week. “Having said that, the difference between right-wing support of Israel and left-wing support of Israel is that left-wing support much more easily morphs into indifference to and abandonment of Israel. That’s what the left wing has to guard against.”
***
Founded in 1875, Hebrew Union College has always been a proudly liberal institution. It has brought religious leaders through its ranks that have played integral roles in nearly every major social movement of the past century—from its social-action mandate in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform to the March on Washington in 1963. Rabbi Jerome Davidson, a longtime pulpit rabbi from Great Neck, N.Y., who teaches a required course on social action at the seminary, seems to exemplify a certain model of rabbi-as-political-leader popular at the institution. “As far as I’m concerned, a rabbi should be able to get up on his pulpit and speak about why it’s necessary to have stronger gun-control laws or why the death penalty should be abolished or curtailed or strengthened or whatever she or he thinks Judaism teaches us,” Davidson said in an interview this week. And to his mind, the politics that should be transmitted from the pulpit are very specific.
“Judaism is very clear about the nature of government, that government is a social contract and that it exists, in significant part, to benefit the vulnerable,” he explained. “The Torah, the book of Deuteronomy, and the book of Exodus are filled with materials that reflect that. It’s about how the structure of government has to somehow take care of the vulnerable, the needy, the poor, the orphan, and so on. There’s a real mandate. Looking through Jewish values onto the political scene certainly mandates Reform Judaism and Jews, laypeople, or clergy to act on behalf of those Jewish values, and it is certainly reflected in the politics.”
But if Davidson believes firmly in supporting left-wing causes, some students in a younger generation argue that the very definition of “liberal politics” is in flux—particularly when it comes to Israel.
You will recall that the reform movement selected rabbi Rick Jacobs as the President of the Union for Reform Judaism. Jacobs is a board member of the New Israel Fund, a member of J Street's 'rabbinic cabinet,' and has participated in demonstrations in Israel against Jewish residents of Jerusalem. He favors BDS - but 'only against the settlements.'
A group of sane Reform Jews has placed a full-page ad in many Jewish newspapers this week. I have embedded it below (Hat Tip: Dan F).
One change that would be particularly welcome would be to eliminate the URJ’s funding of the movement’s most pernicious component: the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. The URJ has used our synagogue dues for many years to fund the RAC, which has a specific political (ultra-liberal) bias; it is absolutely wrong to use mandated contributions to our religious organization to promote specific political viewpoints largely without our knowledge or our agreement.
The RAC will exist without the support of URJ; the new and improved URJ must focus on Jewish, not political, concerns and issues.
JOHN FEIBEL Cincinnati, Ohio
Given what we already know about Jacobs' preferences, I'd say that the odds of that change being made are somewhere between slim and none. But it's a nice thought.
New head of Reform movement favors BDS against Judea and Samaria
The current issue of the New York Jewish Week includes an interview with the new leader of the Reform movement, Rabbi Rick Jacobs. Among the many issues that ought to bother you is his support for the boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) movement, at least where the Jewish cities and towns of Judea and Samaria (Hat Tip: NY Nana).
On the issue of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, he said he strongly opposed global BDS, which seeks to eliminate the Zionist state, but drew a distinction between such efforts and those who boycott products made in Jewish communities in the West Bank.
He said the Reform movement has not taken a position yet on the boycott of West Bank settlements but that “we do take positions on the hardest issues.”
So we can look for the Reform movement to become a boycotter of Judea and Samaria? What's wrong with that? Plenty. Israel's legitimacy is indivisible.
Reform movement chooses New Israel Fund board member as leader
The Reform movement has chosen a member of the board of the radical Leftist New Israel Fund to chair the Union of Reform Judaism.
The Reform movement has always leaned toward the political left, but its decision to tap Rabbi Richard Jacobs as its new leader signals that it might be shifting its focus toward a slightly different form of political activism.
Jacobs, who will replace Rabbi Eric Yoffie as the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, has played a prominent role in the progressive activist community. He’s a long-time board member at the New Israel Fund, a major funder of left-wing causes as well as some that launched the anti-Israel “lawfare” movement. And while NIF says it no longer finances pro-boycott organizations, it previously contributed to Concerned Women for Peace, Israel Social TV, and Mossawa.
Jacobs is also listed as a member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet, which suggests the controversial lobbying group might become a more influential player in the Reform movement than it’s been in the past.
Yoffie, who led the Reform movement for 16 years, had a notoriously rocky relationship with J Street.
JTA's Ron Kampeas reports that some American Jewish organizations have decided that they cannot defend Israel unless they openly criticize it. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the issue on which they have chosen to take their stand: The demand for transparency by NGO's.
The American Jewish Committee and the Union for Reform Judaism have delivered broadsides in recent days against recent Israeli government initiatives targeting nongovernmental groups in Israel that monitor human rights. Last week, the Knesset approved in a preliminary reading a bill that would investigate the funding sources of nongovernmental groups that monitor and criticize the Israeli army.
“The Knesset’s action today contravenes the democratic principles that are Israel’s greatest strength,” AJC Executive Director David Harris said after Israel’s parliament voted Jan. 5 to investigate human rights groups. “Israel’s vibrant democracy not only can survive criticism, but it also thrives and is improved by it.”
Echoing demands from Israel’s left, the AJC and the Reform body instead called for across-the-board transparency in Israel.
In its statement the Reform movement suggested that such actions make it more difficult to defend Israel in other forums.
“The recent initiative undermines Israel's place in the global community and is a source of concern to the Jewish community throughout the world and to Israel's friends everywhere,” the statement said.
That was a theme picked up by the Anti-Defamation League, which in a statement posted on its website did not directly address the proposed Knesset law but expressed concerns about the “highly disturbing trend” of “Israeli intolerance.”
“Inflammatory statements have a negative impact on attitudes toward Israel around the world, even in friendly countries like the U.S.,” the ADL statement said. “More important, however, is the impact they have within Israel, undermining the democratic fiber, creating a mean-spiritedness in society and enlarging already significant communal rifts."
The significance of such statements was in their bearers -- mainstream American Jewish organizations, which are more accustomed to slamming Israel’s critics. In the past, these groups have targeted manifestations of bigotry by marginal Israeli groups, Israeli government discrimination against non-Orthodox religious streams and, in some cases, remarks by Israeli officials about the country’s Arab citizens.
What’s new is the concern by U.S. Jewish groups that discrimination and a diminishing of democratic values is becoming mainstream in Israel.
The proposed new transparency law applies to all NGO's that take money from abroad, but for the most part, it is only the Left's NGO's that are receiving money from foreign governments. On the other hand, the bill passed last week does limit itself to investigating the Left's NGO's, and many of those who have been pushing for NGO transparency feel that their cause has been set back by that bill. It certainly has if no one can tell the difference between the two bills and the NGO transparency bill baby gets thrown out with the investigation bath water. But that law may have passed its first reading (it's not law yet) in an effort to inject urgency into the matter. Not every law that passes a first reading passes a second and third reading and is enacted.
Requiring NGO transparency is good government. The US has laws that require organizations that take money from foreign governments to register as foreign agents, Europe has laws that require organizations that take money from foreign governments to register as foreign agents, so why when Israel does the same thing is it wrong?
There's more to it than that, and you should read the whole thing. We have brought a lot of this on ourselves (there's a criticism!) by deluding ourselves and our allies that we could make 'peace' with the 'Palestinians' on terms that allow us to continue to live here. That's unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
