Responding to Israel As Liberal Jews

by Rabbi Elli Tikvah Sarah

A few weeks ago, the front wall of our synagogue was daubed with anti-Semitic graffiti: A hooked-nose caricature in profile – and these crude, blatant pearls of hatred: ‘kill the kids’; ‘nuke the Jews’; ‘Jews you are next’. Why did this happen? It wasn’t the first time we have we have been targeted for anti-Semitic abuse: Our windows have been broken on three occasions; red paint thrown at the front-door – and once, a much smaller, but, nonetheless, graphic image was scrawled on one of the panels of the front-door: A Star of David, with an ‘equals sign’ followed by a swastika. But the latest incident was a little different. For one thing, it must have taken a bit more time to execute: to climb the lower wall, and to cover all that space.

The scale of anti-Semitic attacks rose sharply in Britain during July and August. In general, the media assumed that the increase in attacks on Jews was linked to the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah that engulfed Lebanon and northern Israel – and, of course, it was. But this automatic linkage begs a few questions: Why target Jews? Why the same old anti-Jewish images and slogans? Why does some anti-Israel feeling get expressed in anti-Jewish terms?

The simple answer to this is that Israel is a ‘Jewish state’. And it follows that if Israeli Jews are doing things that some non-Jews don’t like, Jews in the Diaspora will become the targets of anti-Israel protest. But still, the question remains: Why does some anti-Israel feeling get expressed in anti-Jewish terms – in venomous hatred, and calls for the annihilation of ‘the Jews’? Other people asking similar questions have arrived at easy answers: It’s the work of a few crack-pot right-wing fascists, who are still around, and like to take advantage of such crises, to target Jews; or, more likely – it’s the Islamicist extremists; they hate the Jews, because of Israeli injustice against the Palestinians. No one can be surprised by classical right-wing anti-Semitism, but even if so much of the recent upsurge in anti-Jewish feeling is being generated by Islamicist extremists, this still doesn’t explain why Israelis are equated with Jews, and why the tone of the abuse is so virulently anti-Jewish.

And where does it all leave us – the congregation that is Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue? For the first time in the seventy-one years of our existence, this congregation now has a regular, weekly security rota; our liberal, open community is a bit more guarded and vigilant. But it’s not just that we have been forced to confront an increase in anti-Semitism on our own front-door; we are having to grapple much more directly with Israel, and ask ourselves what, indeed, that place, that state, created as a refuge for the Jewish people, has to do with us, here in the city of Brighton and Hove. We are being identified with Israel, but do we identify with Israel? How do we relate to Israel, as Jews, as Liberal Jews, as a congregation that encompasses non-Jewish friends – as well as Jewish members, with a broad variety of backgrounds?

The current climate and the on-going crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, forces each one of us to ask these questions. It might be helpful for us, as we try to explore them, to know a little bit about the history of the relationship between Liberal Judaism – and more broadly, Progressive Judaism – and both Zionism, as an ideology, and Israel as a state.

Interestingly, in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Liberal Jews at that time also found themselves asking these questions. When I went up to London for the September meeting of the Rabbinic Conference, I picked up a pamphlet, entitled, Progressive Judaism, Zionism and the State of Israel (LJS Publications, 1983), written by Rabbi John Rayner, Zichrono Livrachah, may his memory be for blessing containing the text of four lectures he gave at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue in St. John’s Wood in January and February 1983. In the course of the four lectures, Rabbi Rayner charts the changing relationship of Progressive Judaism to Zionism – and later Israel – from its early days as a non-Zionist – indeed, anti-Zionist – movement, through its increasing advocacy of the Israel during the early decades of the state, to the early 1980s, at which time, he argued that Progressive Judaism was called to challenge the Revisionist right-wing Zionism expressed by the government of the time, and join forces with mainstream liberal Zionism, in the task of ‘seeking’ and ‘pursuing’ a peaceful and just settlement with the Palestinian people.

That brief summary of a thirty page pamphlet outlines Rabbi Rayner’s purpose in giving the lectures, but I need to share a little more of what he said if we are going to understand the issues underlying what started out as a contest between Progressive Judaism on the one hand, and Zionism on the other – and if his work is going to help us to work out our own relationship with Israel today.

As I’ve said on other occasions, Progressive Judaism was a product of Enlightenment and the political Emancipation of the Jews of Western Europe that enabled Jews to leave the confines of the ghetto and become full citizens in the wider society. In response to this development, Progressive Judaism championed Universalism, and urged Jews to abandon the nationalist features of Judaism. When Progressive Jews emigrated from Germany to the United States in the early decades of the nineteenth century, this Universalist perspective, which had already involved omitting all references to the Return to Zion and the hopes for the re-building of the Temple from the liturgy, reached its zenith. Rabbi Rayner quotes the Rabbi of America’s oldest Reform synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina, who declared in 1841, ‘This synagogue is our Temple, this city our Jerusalem, this happy land our Palestine.’ (Rayner, 1983, p.3 – quoting David Philipson, The Reform Movement in Judaism, p.34).

Successive gatherings of American Reform leaders in the late 1800s made the stance of Progressive Judaism very clear. In 1869, at Philadelphia, these leaders adopted a statement of principles, which proclaimed that: ‘The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God.’ (Rayner, p.3, quoting Philipson, p.354). And the Platform adopted at the Pittsburgh Conference in 1885 was even more robust: ‘We recognize in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Zion, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.’ (Rayner, p.3, quoting Philipson, p.356).

Unfortunately, the vision of the early Reformers of the emergence of a ‘universal culture’ and ‘the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice and peace among all men’ were not fulfilled. As Rabbi Rayner puts it: ‘If Reform was an endorsement of the Emancipation, Zionism was a response to its failure.’ (Rayner, p.4). Contrary to the hopes of the passionate exponents of Progressive Judaism, the world did not become an oasis of peace and harmony; Emancipation was patchy and partial – and it did not reach Eastern Europe. The birth of political Zionism in the last decades of the nineteenth century was a response to the persistence of anti-Semitism – and the revival of anti-Jewish pogroms in tsarist Russia – and also reflected the impact of a new secular identity among Jews in the Russian Empire, fostered by the emergence of the Haskalah, the Eastern European Enlightenment, which focussed on Hebrew culture and the development of Jewish national awareness.

On the eve of the twentieth century, Progressive Judaism and Zionism could not have been further apart. In 1898, the Central Council of American Rabbis, the assembly of progressive rabbis established in 1889, ‘unanimously adopted a resolution saying: “We totally disapprove of any attempt for the establishment of a Jewish state. Such attempts show a misunderstanding of Israel’s mission…(and) do not benefit, but infinitely harm our Jewish brethren where they are still persecuted, by confirming the assertion of their enemies that Jews are foreigners in the countries in which they are at home… We reaffirm that the object of Judaism is not political nor national, but spiritual, and addresses itself to the continuous growth of peace, justice and love in the human race…”’ (Rayner, p.5, quoting David Polish, Renew Our Days: The Zionist Issue in Reform Judaism, p.57).

Fine words; expressed with confidence – but gradually other progressive Jewish voices emerged. Once the Balfour Declaration in 1917 had declared the interest of the British government in establishing a ‘homeland’ for the Jewish people in Palestine, the realisation of the dream of Zion became much more real. And then there was the devastating impact of the First World War, which shattered the spirit of optimism, exemplified by Progressive Judaism, which modernity had engendered. Then there was economic collapse in 1930s; the rise of Nazism; the Shoah. Like the early Reform leaders in the United States before them, the leaders of Liberal Judaism in England, Lily Montagu, Claude Montefiore and Israel Mattuck – an American Reform rabbi, who settled in England, and became the first rabbi of LJS in 1912 – expressed a distinctly non-Zionist vision of the nature and purpose of Jewish existence, centred on the view that the Jews are, in Rabbi Mattuck’s words, a ‘people of religion’ not a nation (Rayner, p. 11, quoting, Papers for Jewish People, No. XXXII, pp.122f.). But the events of the early years of the twentieth century, and, especially, the Shoah transformed the terms of the debate completely. Rabbi Rayner points out that the man who, as Chairman of the American section of the Jewish agency, presented the case for the Jewish state before the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947 was Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, a graduate of the American Reform seminary, the Hebrew Union College, who was also at that time, President of the Central Council of American Rabbis (Rayner, p. 8).

Once the State of Israel came into being, the stance of Liberal Judaism in England also began to shift. Significantly, in June 1948, just two weeks after the state was established, the new Rabbi of LJS, Leslie Edgar, wrote in Liberal Jewish Monthly: ‘As we write, a Palestinian State of Israel has just been proclaimed and the Jews of Palestine are, unhappily, having to fight for their very existence. Every Jew, whatever his attitude towards a Zionist state, must surely feel for them, praying most earnestly that they will secure their survival and that an honourable and just peace will speedily be attained in Palestine… If the State of Israel does succeed in perpetuating itself, it will be the duty of every Jew to help secure that this state is worthy of the high traditions of Israel. It would be irresponsible for any Jew, because he owes no national allegiance to such a state, to say: “It is no concern of mine.” A Jew is concerned for the character of Jewish life everywhere.’ (Rayner, p. 12, quoting LJM, Vol. XIX, No. 6, p.61).

‘A Jew is concerned for the character of Jewish life everywhere.’ – and after May 1948, ‘everywhere’ definitely included Israel. But that is still a far cry from the Zionist view, which sees Israel as the centre of Jewish life, and the ‘ingathering of the exiles’ as the major purpose of Zionist activity. In 1949, Rabbi Leo Baeck, Zichrono Livrachah, may his memory be for blessing, whose fiftieth yahrzeit we will commemorate in November, gave an historic Presidential address to the World Union of Progressive Judaism Conference in London, in which he described the Jewish world as an ‘ellipse’ with two foci, ‘Israel’ and ‘the Diaspora’ (Rayner, p.12), a stance, which has remained at the heart of Liberal Judaism in this country to this day, and is reflected in the revised leaflet on Zionism and Israel, published by the Rabbinic Conference in May.

But the ellipse dual-foci view belies the extent to which Progressive Judaism in general – and British Liberal Judaism in particular – became actively engaged with Israel after the Shoah and the establishment of the state. In a sermon he gave on Shabbat Ki Tavo, September 18th 1965, just over a week before Rosh Ha-Shanah, Rabbi Rayner argued that: ‘Our Union’ – that is, the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues – ‘can no longer be “neutral” towards the State of Israel. It must openly call upon its congregations and members to play their full part, with all other sections of Jewry, in supporting those organisations which assist the State of Israel to fulfil its humanitarian tasks.’ (Rayner, p. 17). And so, the new Liberal Siddur, Service of the Heart, published in 1967, edited by Rabbi Rayner and American Reform Rabbi Chaim Stern, Zichrono Livrachah, may his memory be for blessing, was the first progressive prayer book to offer a creative liturgy for Israel Independence Day (Rayner, p.13).

Published in 1967 – but written before the Six Day War of June that year. After the Six Day War, of course, the world Jewish community was united as never before over Israel – and during the early 1970s, the World Union for Progressive Judaism moved its headquarters from New York to Jerusalem, and founded its first kibbutz, Yahel, in the Aravah desert of the southern Negev desert in 1976.

The Six Day War in 1967 – and, indeed, the Yom Kippur War in 1973 – deepened allegiance to Israel among Progressive Jews the world over to an unprecedented extent. But the determination of Israel to hold on to the territories occupied in 1967, the rise of the PLO, and the re-emergence of a distinctly right-wing expression of Zionism in Israel, represented by the Likud government that came to power in 1977, and was re-elected in 1981, not only created a new political reality in Israel, but, once again, challenged Progressive Judaism to adopt a distinctively progressive stance towards the State.

The invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the eruption of the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987, and the development of the Peace Process in the early 1990s – all these developments have demanded that Progressive Judaism find its unique voice once more – not the anti-Zionist voice of pre-State days, not simply the measured pro-Zion/pro-Diaspora voice of the 1948 to 1976 era, but a clearly liberal, clearly progressive voice that supports the State of Israel and recognises the security needs of Israel, and at the same time, both calls for, and works for the fulfilment of the vision of the founders of Progressive Judaism, for whom ethical values and conduct were of supreme and universal importance.

In practice, this means, both calling for and working for the equality of all the inhabitants and citizens of Israel, Jewish and Arab, Orthodox, Progressive and Secular, European Jewish and Arab Jewish and African Jewish, and also, both calling for and working for the peaceful and just resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The new Liberal Judaism leaflet is very clear and to the point: ‘We applaud all sincere peace initiatives, directed at both creating a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel and establishing the conditions for peaceful coexistence between the two peoples.’

As we face the challenge of working out how we relate to Israel, it is helpful to know where Progressive Judaism has been and where it is now. It is also instructive to remind ourselves of what today’s Torah portion teaches us – albeit obliquely – about the necessity of addressing the needs of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Traditionally, there are two Torah readings set aside for Rosh Ha-Shanah, Genesis 21, which is read on the first day, and Genesis 22, which is read on the second. Since Liberal congregations observe only one day, we read these portions in alternate years. This year we turn to Genesis 21, which recounts the birth of Isaac, and also the expulsion of Abraham’s first-born son, Ishmael, together with his mother, Hagar. At first glance, the central message of Genesis 21 is that only one son would inherit the covenant that the Eternal One promised to make with Abraham – Sarah’s son, Isaac.

But a closer reading of the end of the story tells us something else: Abraham’s eldest son is not simply to be banished into the wilderness. Echoing Hagar’s earlier experience of meeting with the Eternal One in the wilderness, when she was pregnant, recounted in Genesis chapter 16, the text tells us at Genesis 21, verses 17 and 18: ‘God heard the voice of the lad; and the messenger of God called to Hagar out of heaven and said to her:” What’s wrong Hagar/ Do not fear; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. / Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast by the hand, for I will make him a great nation.”’

Yishma’el means ‘God shall hear’. The name of the son of Abraham and Hagar is not mentioned in Genesis 21; earlier, in Genesis 16, the messenger of the Eternal tells the pregnant Hagar that when she bears her child she shall call him, ‘Yishma’el, because the Eternal has heard your affliction.’ (:11). The Eternal One, the Creator of all life, is the God of Ishmael as well as the God of Isaac. So, while Isaac received a Divine promise; so, Ishmael, too, received a Divine promise.

Thousands of years separate Isaac and Ishmael from the Israelis and Palestinians of today, but the principle remains the same: The conflict today over one piece of land, what Amos Oz calls a conflict between ‘right and right’ (How to Cure a Fanatic, Princeton University Press, 2006, p.4), can only be resolved if the land is shared between them. On Rosh Ha-Shanah we are obligated lishmo’a kol Shofar – ‘to listen to the voice of the Shofar.’ As we listen to the voice of the Shofar today – on the day which also marks the beginning of the sacred Muslim month of Ramadan – may we hear the voice of Ishmael as well as the voice of Isaac, and resolve to add our voices to the call of all progressive peoples everywhere for justice and peace, and a new lease of life for both peoples. And let us say: Amen.

Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah
Brighton & Hove Progressive Synagogue – Adat Shalom Verei’ut
Rosh Hashanah Morning 23rd September 2006 – 1st Tishri 5767