|
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
|
|
The Reform Movement and Zionism – Part I By Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
Was the Reform Movement anti-Zionist, either theologically or ideologically?
For many years, this query has been the “pea under the mattresses” of my relationship with Rodeph Shalom, for I abhor “Johnny Come Lately” conduct. So I ask, did philosophy focused on the Diaspora inherently exclude the uniqueness of Israel? And did the Jewish Establishment—including Reform—shun those who called for mass migration to Israel in light of the Holocaust?
This two-part essay will clarify both the theoretical problem and how it was manifest during the past two centuries. The concept of Aliyah confronted the core-values of the Reform Movement. The process yielded scars but—thankfully!—a strengthened ethic. The first section will focus on the theology of the 1800’s and the second section will elucidate how it was applied to events that transpired during the 1900’s. In both, the leadership roles of the Senior Rabbis at Rodeph Shalom will be candidly elucidated.
Key references are available at the Gratz College Library: The Reform Movement in Judaism (Philipson, 1907); Reform Judaism: A Historical Perspective (Blau, 1973); The Jews in America (Dimont, 1978); and Liberal Judaism (Borowitz, 1984).
Congregation Beth Elohim
“This country is our Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house of God our temple.”
This is how the leader of the first American Reform congregation (in Charleston, South Carolina) focused on 1824-America instead of ancient-Jerusalem. Its “Memorial,” quoting from the Frankfurter Journal (reflecting its German roots) called for “promoting true principles of Judaism according to its purity and spirit.”
English was added to shorter services, and the additional musaf service was omitted because it repeated prayers and promoted sacrifice, both of which were anathema. Pursuing such ritual in a rebuilt Temple was linked to longing for “return” from exile to the Land of Israel. This, along with awaiting a Messiah’s arrival, was shunted aside—initially and consistently—by Reformists.
Philadelphia Conference
Reform retained, however, the implications of Genesis 23:17, which depicted Abraham’s acquisition of Sarah’s cemetery plot in Hebron for 400 shekels from the Hittites. Because he had acquired it both as a purchase (mikna) and as a permanent holding (ahuza), it served as the fact-on-the-ground manifesting God’s half of the Covenant.
This posture was reflected in the first formulation of a Reform Judaism platform in 1869, in Philadelphia, based on recognition that Jews were united both by religion and by racial and national ties, rooted in shared historical experiences and goals:
“The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the nations of the earth. . . . We look upon the destruction of the second Jewish commonwealth not as a punishment for the sinfulness of Israel, but as a result of the divine purpose revealed to Abraham which, as has become ever clearer in the course of the world’s history, consists in the dispersion of the Jews to all parts of the earth, for the realization of their high priestly mission, to lead the nations to the true knowledge and worship of God.”
Polemics
Admixing Zionism with Diaspora was, however, rejected in 1885, through issuance of the Reform Movement’s Declaration of Principles, The Pittsburgh Platform. It, again, rejected any serial linkage from sacrifice, to ritual, to Zionism: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community and, therefore, expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.”
Rabbi Eugene B. Borowitz portrayed this as recognition “that it made no sense for American Jews to continue observing laws designed for people living in ancient Israel. They did not long for a king descended from King David. Nor did they want to see the ancient Temple rebuilt or have a priestly cult again offer animal sacrifices. So they dropped the old prayers for the Messiah and, instead, focused their attention on America, which seemed to them the land of promise.”
In 1897, Theodore Herzl’s Zionist movement was gaining support, characterized by Dimont as having “lifted the messiah from the kneeling position to the standing, ordering him to get out and work for freedom instead of praying for it.”
That same year, Reform’s Montreal Conference reiterated a preference for the Diaspora: “We totally disapprove of any attempt for the establishment of a Jewish state. Such attempts show a misunderstanding of Israel’s mission which, from the narrow political and national field has been expanded to the promotion among the whole human race of the broad and universalistic religion first proclaimed by the Jewish Prophets. Such attempts do not benefit, but infinitely harm, our Jewish brethren where they are still persecuted by confirming the assertion of their enemies that the Jews are foreigners in the countries in which they are at home, and of which they are everywhere the most loyal and patriotic citizens.”
This rejection, therefore, was generated—literally—for “domestic consumption.” Indeed, instead of citing sources, it reflected existing fears of proselytizing (totally tangential) and pogroms (somewhat related). The Prophets, in retrospect, were declared to have self-limited the scope of their efforts. . .absent any supportive Biblical reference. Rodeph Shalom
In 1899, Rabbi Henry Berkowitz (Senior Rabbi at Rodeph Shalom) disputed that Zionism would fulfill Jews’ greatest hope. Although rejoicing that Zionism had awakened a sense of obligation to their fellows and had roused them from shameless indifference, he provided three reasons “Why I am not a Zionist.”
First: “I do not believe the misery of my people is hopeless; I have not lost faith in the triumph of justice in the world.” He did not consider that Tikkun Olam, repairing the world, is mutually exclusive of—indeed, could be enhanced by—Zionist aspirations.
Second, he averred modern culture is “practical, feasible and sensible; Zionism is sentimental and chimerical.” Characterizing Zionism as a fleeting expression of emotion failed to recognize it could reinforce the very reasonableness he perceived in society.
Third, he felt Zionism “makes race and nationality, rather than religion, ultimate and essential for Jews. Jews have no lasting claims for a separate existence excepting their religious mission. To be faithful to this, they must willfully assume the martyrdom and the struggle and not weakly evade it.”
Whereas the first two arguments were rooted in his perception of contemporary life, his third assertion was a fatalistic denial of peoplehood. No explanation was spiritual.
That’s why, perhaps, in 1898, two Reform rabbis, Stephen S. Wise and Gustav Gottheil founded the Federation of American Zionists, averring Jews were more than a purely religious body; “They are not only a race, but a nation, though a nation without, as yet, two important requisites—a common home and a common language.” Even then, it was accepted that “this does not mean that all Jews shall return to Palestine.”
Thus, at the turn of the century, as modern Zionism was in its infancy, semantics confronted politics. The debate within the Reform Movement mirrored this conflict within the other branches of Judaism. Reconstituting Israel without restoring Temple Sacrifice was a distinction that made all the difference. This had been the sole faith-based rationale for anti-Zionist Reformists, and pro-Zionist Reformists were thus able to integrate their ideals into an appealing, offsetting theology.
Therefore, as focus shifted from theory to implementation, Reform Judaism was apace. Zionism was not antithetical to the origins of the Reform Movement. In fact, far from ignoring this groundswell, Reformists led American Zionists.
The Reform Movement and Zionism – Part II By Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
Was the Reform Movement anti-Zionist, either theologically or ideologically?
In the first part of this analysis, it was demonstrated that Reform rejected reconstitution of the Temple as a sacrificial site and emphasized the Diaspora. Some concluded the Diaspora precluded Zionism, claiming Judaism is solely a religious pursuit. Others felt Zionism enhanced Judaism, viewing Jews as a nation with shared historical experiences.
Thus, while Reformists debated the theology and practicality of Zionism through two World Wars, Israel was transformed from concept into reality. And Reform Jews led the way, as America’s Reform Movement officially settled comfortably into Zionism.
Beyond Balfour
Two decades after Herzl’s first Zionist Congress, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration trained attention of worldwide Jewry upon its Homeland. The text was formulated, in part, by future-U.S. Justice Louis D. Brandeis and Reform Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. Brandeis, because of his prestige, lured American Reform and the unaffiliated into Zionism. Wise, who had co-founded the first American national Zionist organization (the Federation of American Zionists), was an avid participant in every important Zionist infight.
Dimont noted that Reform Jews “would seize the initiative, Americanize the Zionist ideology, and carry it first to the White House, then successively to the League of Nations and the United Nations, and in the end become the political implementers of an independent state of Israel.” In addition to Brandeis and Wise, he identified two other American Zionist leaders who contributed the crucial statesmanship for final success: Henrietta Szold (who founded Hadassah) and Reform Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver.
Rabbi Silver merged the fundamental Biblical and political philosophies forthrightly: “A messianic hope not bound up with the restoration of Israel in Palestine is simply not found in Jewish religious literature anywhere from the time of the Second Isaiah to our own time.” Finally realized was a distinction between endorsing restoration of Israel and abhorring sacrificial practices performed in the Temple almost two millennia prior.
Reform Reforms
These giants labored in defiance of the official policy of the Reform Movement, which remained staunchly anti-Zionist. In 1935, the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a neutral stand on Zionism and, in 1937, Reform’s Columbus Platform finally endorsed Zionism by recognizing Jews both practiced a religion and had nationhood. In contrast with the Pittsburgh Platform—which articulated what not to believe— the “New Guiding Principles” stated essential beliefs in positive terms.
Argument among Reformists who “protestantized” Judaism was as intense on this issue as it was regarding the ongoing, global debate over balancing tradition with modernism, manifest in all of its branches. But few challenged Jewish nationhood, as the issues shifted from whether to endorse Zionism to how much support should be rendered.
Zionism Comes Of-Age
Meanwhile, outspoken Jews decried President Roosevelt’s official silence regarding the Holocaust and, thus, the need for mass emigration from Europe to Palestine. Some had, for years, called for a great influx of Jews to Palestine (such as Vladimir Jabotinsky) and others publicly sounded the alarm about the Holocaust (such as Peter Bergson).
They were condemned by leaders of the major Jewish branches and associations, including Reform, because of the desire to support President Roosevelt’s alliance with Great Britain. Renowned figures (both within and outside the Administration) felt it was strategically desirable to function silently, even as they agitated—at the very least— for bombing of railroads leading to the Concentration Camps.
This may have been misguided and regrettable, but it was not anti-Zionist. Those who adhered to a fading anti-Zionism functioned through the American Council for Judaism (which was supported by Rodeph Shalom’s Senior Rabbi, Louis Wolsey). But they were initially counter-pointed by other prominent Jews. And their movement was, of course, marginalized by broad-based, post-WW-II efforts to establish a Jewish Homeland.
Contemporary Zionism
In Judaism as a Civilization, original-Reconstructionist (and ordained-Conservative) Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan lionized nationalism (in 1934) as the only way “Jews can energize the good latent in their consciousness of a common past, and work for collective purposes which are bound to coincide with the common good of the human race as a whole.” Nationhood and religion are inevitably flip-sides of the identical Jewish “coin,” in all branches of Judaism and in all organizations of Jews (academic and sociopolitical).
This concept becomes tangible, today, when the need to fight worldwide terrorism is noted to have sprung from anti-Semitism born of the Arab-Israeli conflict. A (Zionist) nation is ideally empowered to “speak the language” of other (Islamic Fundamentalist) nations. Israel’s existence informs the world’s conscience (past and present)—including America’s—exposing the hypocrisy of those who refuse to appreciate how homicide bombers function globally. The Reform Movement vigorously espouses these concerns.
Zionism and Reformism
The cogent conclusion, therefore, is that Reform Judaism promoted the need to reassess all assumptions regarding Jewish theology and practice. While rejecting reconstruction of a Temple for ritual sacrifice, the concept “Next Year in Jerusalem” (exclaimed at the end of the Seder) remained a thread running through-and-through Reform thought. Just as the State of Israel resulted from both the Haganah and the Irgun, just as its Prime Ministers included both David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin, just as contemporary debate may be framed as resonating between Labor and Likud, Reform Judaism now accommodates controversy regarding only the degree of Israel’s role in American life.
Bur Reform revels in recognizing Israel’s central role in Jewish life, a posture derivative of its deepest roots. Times change, but not the need to invoke a home for Ethical Monotheism. Thus, Jewish Nationalism wasn’t contrary to the theological roots of Reform Judaism. And support for Israel wasn’t belated, having been officially overt for the decade prior to Israel’s establishment in 1948.
Indeed, initial expressions of Reform Jewish theology both recognized the Diaspora and rejected only that facet of Zionism that called for reinstitution of Temple Sacrifice. And subsequent manifestations of Reform Jewish activities both recognized political realities and vigorously led the effort to establish the State of Israel.
Reform’s position is consistent with Isaiah 10:20-21 (excerpted): “And it shall come to pass that the remnant of Israel shall no more again stay upon him that smote them. Only a remnant shall return. An extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness.” This is easily interpreted as endorsing a partial return of Diaspora Jewry to Israel after the Holocaust.
Thus, Reform Jewry’s perception of the proper way to perceive—and to revere—Israel is both Biblical and contemporary, encompassing both Aliyah and Diaspora.
|
|
To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).
|