Post by Rabbi Neil on Dec 22, 2017 23:27:27 GMT
In 1845, Rabbi Samuel Holdheim led the Synod of Reform Rabbis in Frankfurt, Germany, to a new perspective on Jerusalem. Rejecting belief in a personal messiah and in political redemption in the Land of Israel, yet to be re-established, he said that “the hope for a national restoration contradicts our feeling for the fatherland,” by which he meant Germany. He said that “our nationality is now only expressed in religious concepts and institutions.” The values of reason and universal brotherhood clashed with a yearning to return to Israel, particularly to the re-establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem. So strong was the rejection of national restoration elsewhere that early Reform Jews stated clearly that “Berlin is our Jerusalem.” They certainly did not want to be accused of dual loyalty, and indeed when World War I came, 100,000 Jews fought for the Kaiser, and 12,000 of them died.
With the rise of Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, charges of dual loyalty increased. I remember frequently being asked as a child, “If England went to war with Israel, who would you fight for?” I would always avoid the question by saying, “England would never go to war with Israel.” But the question is a troubling one because it pulls at the question of the identity of the Jew in the modern age, particularly, where does our loyalty lie? In America the question has for years been an easy one, and there has not been such a personality clash for the American Zionist.
The attitude to Israel, and particularly to Jerusalem, changed throughout the years in Reform Judaism. The Union Prayerbook hardly mentioned Israel at all. Its successor, Gates of Prayer, written in 1975, mentions Israel much more, and indeed even says that the rebirth of Israel is one of the historical factors that necessitated a new siddur. It’s interesting, though, that it took until 1975 for this to happen. Gates of Prayer called on worshippers to transform Yom Ha’atzma’ut, Israeli Independence Day, into a religious festival with its own liturgy, even going so far as to suggest that Hallel should be recited on that day and even adding a special prayer in t’fillah for the day itself, a prayer that is usually only used on special festivals, usually those d’oreitah, that is, Torah-based festivals.
Mishkan T’fila is replete with references to Israel and to Jerusalem, certainly far more than the British Reform liturgy. It also has special prayers for Yom Ha’atzma’ut, it returns some traditional Israel-centered prayers to the liturgy, including prayers for return. In explaining the inclusion of more Israel-centered passages, the editors say that “our movement consciously affirms its devotion to the modern State of Israel and signals its recognition of the religious significance of the reborn Jewish commonwealth. It expresses hope specifically for national redemption, which is unique amongst Reform liturgy. As groundbreaking as this may be, it also pulls some things back from Gates of Prayer. Instead of relating Yom Ha’atzma’ut to the Biblically ordained festivals, it uses liturgy that relates it to Rabbinic festivals, like Chanukah and Purim. However, as Mark Washofsky notes in The Freehof Blog, the equation with Chanukah and Purim isn’t perfect, because on those festivals we thank God for the miracles and wonders that God brought for us, but we don’t say such things for Yom Ha’atzma’ut. As important as the establishment of the State of Israel is for Mishkan T’fillah, it doesn’t seem to view it as necessarily miraculous.
In 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, for the purpose of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31st 1999. The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel itself says that its capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The law was passed overwhelmingly on both House and Senate, but was not implemented by presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. At the start of this month, though, President Trump announced the beginning of the relocation of the embassy. The resulting global outrage came from many sources, including at the United Nations where the action was condemned in a vote 128-9. Why was their such outrage?
First, we have to cast our minds back to April. What was far less reported is that earlier this year, the Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement saying, “We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.” The statement adds that “the rest of the international community adamantly refuses to recognize even this, arguing that the status of the entire city has to be determined in peace negotiations. It was an extremely bold statement that flew in the face of international opinion, which has always held that under the 1948 partition plan, Jerusalem and its holy sites would be designated an international city. What it also did was give both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a share in Jerusalem. Under the Russian plan, they would get some of what they wanted, but not all. Each side could walk away having made gains. President Trump’s statement in December was different, though, because it recognized the totality of Jerusalem – West and East – as Israeli territory. This was a first. Israel is the only country in the world whose capital city is not recognized internationally. When the capital city was declared, nearly 70 years ago, it was only in West Jerusalem. The city was reunited after the Six-Day War, when Israel captured East Jerusalem. Ever since then, in 1967, the US has refused to recognize the city for fear of jeopardizing peace talks, and most have followed suit.
There are some uncomfortable truths relating to Jerusalem. The first is that the United Nations has long had an anti-Israel bias. Law Professor E. V. Kontorovich notes that “Israel is referred to as the ‘Occupying Power’ 530 times in General Assembly resolutions Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation – Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocca in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea – the number is zero.” This means that we have to be very wary of international condemnation. While it should be listened to, we have to also acknowledge its clear bias.
Nonetheless, people can make up their own minds regardless of international condemnation. Only a day after President Trump’s announcement, the Union for Reform Judaism released the following statement:
President Trump’s ill-timed, but expected, announcement affirms what the Reform Jewish Movement has long held: that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Yet while we share the President’s belief that the U.S. Embassy should, at the right time, be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we cannot support his decision to begin preparing that move now, absent a comprehensive plan for a peace process. Additionally, any relocation of the American Embassy to West Jerusalem should be conceived and executed in the broader context reflecting Jerusalem’s status as a city holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.
The President has said that achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is “the ultimate deal.” Just this weekend, his advisor Jared Kushner noted the importance of such an agreement to regional stability overall. While the President took the right step in announcing that he would sign the waiver, as have his Republican and Democratic predecessors, the White House should not undermine these efforts by making unilateral decisions that are all but certain to exacerbate the conflict.
We urge the President to do everything in his power to move forward with efforts to bring true peace to the region and take no unilateral steps that will make that dream more distant. We welcome the opportunity to work with the White House to realize the day when Jerusalem truly becomes a beacon of peace.
American Conference of Cantors
Association of Reform Jewish Educators
Association of Reform Zionists of America
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
Early Childhood Educators of Reform Judaism
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Men of Reform Judaism
National Association for Temple Administration
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Program and Engagement Professionals of Reform Judaism
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Union for Reform Judaism
Women of Reform Judaism
Women’s Rabbinic Network
World Union for Progressive Judaism
A day later, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the URJ, issues a correction at the movement’s Biennial, striking a more positive tone. In the correction, he started by saying that "President Trump has affirmed an age-old dream of the Jewish people and of all who care about Israel. Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. That is how it should and must be. The Reform Movement has also long held that the U.S. embassy should be moved to Jerusalem." The previous day’s criticism, he said, was all about timing, not substance per se.
Since his statement, an increasing number of Reform Rabbis who choose to be vocal on the topic have started to express reservation with the URJ’s initial condemnation of the President’s statement. Noting that around 70% of American Jews are Democrats, the question has been asked as to whether the original objection was more to Trump than it was to content. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the URJ, wrote in Ha’aretz that the President’s statement was good for the peace camp, despite his original reticence to acknowledge this. He writes that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel, whether the President of the United States says so or not. Nonetheless,” he adds, “it is comforting and gratifying when President Trump finally states what I know to be eternal and true.”
So, what were the objections to this statement? First, was the timing. It was said that this was not the right time. The retort to that is simple, “If not now, when?” (Avot 1:14). We have to acknowledge that the Peace Process is entirely dead. Who we want to blame for that is actually irrelevant at the moment, but there is no Peace Process. This won’t harm the prospect of peace because there is no realistic prospect of peace. There was concern that the statement would provoke violence, but we have seen that in fact it was far more sporadic than at first was assumed. As Eric Yoffie continued, “When Palestinians express their outrage and demand justice for Jerusalem, I can’t help wondering: Where was justice when Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were claiming at the UN that Jews have no historical connection to the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, and indeed to all of Jerusalem?” And it’s true that at Camp David Arafat in 2001, Arafat was offered the most comprehensive deal ever, including a non-contiguous Palestinian state, so long as he gave up East Jerusalem and the Right of Return. Arafat refused because to him East Jerusalem had to remain in Palestinian hands. Nonetheless, Eric Yoffie’s point reminds us that that was the closest we ever came to peace in the region, and nothing has made the situation better since. Therefore, the opinion is that this can hardly make things worse, since there is nothing worse than no peace. Does it make the chances for peace in the future less? In the foreseeable future, no, because there isn’t even a peace process that could bring that about. Eric Yoffie continues by saying that recently Mahmoud Abbas repeated Arafat’s “ugly and absurd claim at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Having insisted that Jerusalem’s holy sites belong only to Muslims and Christians, how much sympathy do they have a right to expect now? Why are we concerned more about Trump’s proclaiming a truth, than about Palestinians proclaiming lies?” In other words, for Yoffie, the Palestinians will never recognize an Israeli presence in Jerusalem, and it’s naïve to pretend otherwise. Until they recognize that, there will never be peace.
Writing in the Times of Israel, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch makes an interesting point about the timing. He says,m “There were critics who accused the civil rights movement of moving too quickly. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s response: “The time is always ripe to do what is right.” In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King wrote: “For years now I have heard the word ‘wait’ … that [our] action … is untimely. This ‘wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see that justice too long delayed is justice denied.” King often reminded us that time is neutral, that it can be used constructively or destructively. Israel’s opponents have used time more effectively than we have. They have so distorted history that so many around the world question the very legitimacy of Jewish ties to Zion and Jerusalem. We have neglected teaching and conveying, even to our own children, our millennia-old love affair with the Land of Israel and Jerusalem as its beating heart. Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is not Judaism. Judaism without Jerusalem is not Judaism.”
Hirsch sharpens his critique of the initial Reform response. He quotes Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, who said, “The Reform response to the recognition of Jerusalem was terrible. When … a superpower recognizes Jerusalem, first you … welcome it, then offer disagreement. Here it was the opposite.” Sharansky’s issue is with the priorities of the Reform response. First it was criticism, then it was praise. Hirsch notes that even amongst the left-wing in Israel, with the exception of one small hard-left party, there is universal approval for the President’s statement. This response, then, potentially separates American Jews from Israeli Jews, and that is another problem that cannot be ignored.
To me, the issue is not political, but theological. The theology underpins the political, and it goes all the way back to 1845. Do we continue the two-millennia-long yearning to return to Jerusalem? If we do, we should keep it in our prayers and we should celebrate it and base our political views on it accordingly. However, if we do not, we should come clean with the revolutionary break in our theology from the past, and we should expunge the prayers of yearning from our liturgy, and then we should respond politically. Do we yearn for a return to Jerusalem? Do we yearn for it to be the central point of the perfection of humanity? Do we yearn for peace and harmony emanating specifically from that point? If we do, we must respond one way. If we do not, we must respond another way.
This Shabbat, then, let us not quibble about political point-scoring, about hypothetical fears of things that may or may not come to pass. Instead, let us explore what we believe. Let us be able to discuss our beliefs freely and openly as our own. Let us not get mired down in the political mire, but let us instead elevate ourselves in theological discussion. And may God dwell amongst us as we explore our inner beliefs for peace. Amen.
With the rise of Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, charges of dual loyalty increased. I remember frequently being asked as a child, “If England went to war with Israel, who would you fight for?” I would always avoid the question by saying, “England would never go to war with Israel.” But the question is a troubling one because it pulls at the question of the identity of the Jew in the modern age, particularly, where does our loyalty lie? In America the question has for years been an easy one, and there has not been such a personality clash for the American Zionist.
The attitude to Israel, and particularly to Jerusalem, changed throughout the years in Reform Judaism. The Union Prayerbook hardly mentioned Israel at all. Its successor, Gates of Prayer, written in 1975, mentions Israel much more, and indeed even says that the rebirth of Israel is one of the historical factors that necessitated a new siddur. It’s interesting, though, that it took until 1975 for this to happen. Gates of Prayer called on worshippers to transform Yom Ha’atzma’ut, Israeli Independence Day, into a religious festival with its own liturgy, even going so far as to suggest that Hallel should be recited on that day and even adding a special prayer in t’fillah for the day itself, a prayer that is usually only used on special festivals, usually those d’oreitah, that is, Torah-based festivals.
Mishkan T’fila is replete with references to Israel and to Jerusalem, certainly far more than the British Reform liturgy. It also has special prayers for Yom Ha’atzma’ut, it returns some traditional Israel-centered prayers to the liturgy, including prayers for return. In explaining the inclusion of more Israel-centered passages, the editors say that “our movement consciously affirms its devotion to the modern State of Israel and signals its recognition of the religious significance of the reborn Jewish commonwealth. It expresses hope specifically for national redemption, which is unique amongst Reform liturgy. As groundbreaking as this may be, it also pulls some things back from Gates of Prayer. Instead of relating Yom Ha’atzma’ut to the Biblically ordained festivals, it uses liturgy that relates it to Rabbinic festivals, like Chanukah and Purim. However, as Mark Washofsky notes in The Freehof Blog, the equation with Chanukah and Purim isn’t perfect, because on those festivals we thank God for the miracles and wonders that God brought for us, but we don’t say such things for Yom Ha’atzma’ut. As important as the establishment of the State of Israel is for Mishkan T’fillah, it doesn’t seem to view it as necessarily miraculous.
In 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, for the purpose of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31st 1999. The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel itself says that its capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The law was passed overwhelmingly on both House and Senate, but was not implemented by presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. At the start of this month, though, President Trump announced the beginning of the relocation of the embassy. The resulting global outrage came from many sources, including at the United Nations where the action was condemned in a vote 128-9. Why was their such outrage?
First, we have to cast our minds back to April. What was far less reported is that earlier this year, the Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement saying, “We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.” The statement adds that “the rest of the international community adamantly refuses to recognize even this, arguing that the status of the entire city has to be determined in peace negotiations. It was an extremely bold statement that flew in the face of international opinion, which has always held that under the 1948 partition plan, Jerusalem and its holy sites would be designated an international city. What it also did was give both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a share in Jerusalem. Under the Russian plan, they would get some of what they wanted, but not all. Each side could walk away having made gains. President Trump’s statement in December was different, though, because it recognized the totality of Jerusalem – West and East – as Israeli territory. This was a first. Israel is the only country in the world whose capital city is not recognized internationally. When the capital city was declared, nearly 70 years ago, it was only in West Jerusalem. The city was reunited after the Six-Day War, when Israel captured East Jerusalem. Ever since then, in 1967, the US has refused to recognize the city for fear of jeopardizing peace talks, and most have followed suit.
There are some uncomfortable truths relating to Jerusalem. The first is that the United Nations has long had an anti-Israel bias. Law Professor E. V. Kontorovich notes that “Israel is referred to as the ‘Occupying Power’ 530 times in General Assembly resolutions Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation – Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocca in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea – the number is zero.” This means that we have to be very wary of international condemnation. While it should be listened to, we have to also acknowledge its clear bias.
Nonetheless, people can make up their own minds regardless of international condemnation. Only a day after President Trump’s announcement, the Union for Reform Judaism released the following statement:
President Trump’s ill-timed, but expected, announcement affirms what the Reform Jewish Movement has long held: that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Yet while we share the President’s belief that the U.S. Embassy should, at the right time, be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we cannot support his decision to begin preparing that move now, absent a comprehensive plan for a peace process. Additionally, any relocation of the American Embassy to West Jerusalem should be conceived and executed in the broader context reflecting Jerusalem’s status as a city holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.
The President has said that achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is “the ultimate deal.” Just this weekend, his advisor Jared Kushner noted the importance of such an agreement to regional stability overall. While the President took the right step in announcing that he would sign the waiver, as have his Republican and Democratic predecessors, the White House should not undermine these efforts by making unilateral decisions that are all but certain to exacerbate the conflict.
We urge the President to do everything in his power to move forward with efforts to bring true peace to the region and take no unilateral steps that will make that dream more distant. We welcome the opportunity to work with the White House to realize the day when Jerusalem truly becomes a beacon of peace.
American Conference of Cantors
Association of Reform Jewish Educators
Association of Reform Zionists of America
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
Early Childhood Educators of Reform Judaism
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Men of Reform Judaism
National Association for Temple Administration
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Program and Engagement Professionals of Reform Judaism
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Union for Reform Judaism
Women of Reform Judaism
Women’s Rabbinic Network
World Union for Progressive Judaism
A day later, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the URJ, issues a correction at the movement’s Biennial, striking a more positive tone. In the correction, he started by saying that "President Trump has affirmed an age-old dream of the Jewish people and of all who care about Israel. Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. That is how it should and must be. The Reform Movement has also long held that the U.S. embassy should be moved to Jerusalem." The previous day’s criticism, he said, was all about timing, not substance per se.
Since his statement, an increasing number of Reform Rabbis who choose to be vocal on the topic have started to express reservation with the URJ’s initial condemnation of the President’s statement. Noting that around 70% of American Jews are Democrats, the question has been asked as to whether the original objection was more to Trump than it was to content. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the URJ, wrote in Ha’aretz that the President’s statement was good for the peace camp, despite his original reticence to acknowledge this. He writes that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel, whether the President of the United States says so or not. Nonetheless,” he adds, “it is comforting and gratifying when President Trump finally states what I know to be eternal and true.”
So, what were the objections to this statement? First, was the timing. It was said that this was not the right time. The retort to that is simple, “If not now, when?” (Avot 1:14). We have to acknowledge that the Peace Process is entirely dead. Who we want to blame for that is actually irrelevant at the moment, but there is no Peace Process. This won’t harm the prospect of peace because there is no realistic prospect of peace. There was concern that the statement would provoke violence, but we have seen that in fact it was far more sporadic than at first was assumed. As Eric Yoffie continued, “When Palestinians express their outrage and demand justice for Jerusalem, I can’t help wondering: Where was justice when Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were claiming at the UN that Jews have no historical connection to the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, and indeed to all of Jerusalem?” And it’s true that at Camp David Arafat in 2001, Arafat was offered the most comprehensive deal ever, including a non-contiguous Palestinian state, so long as he gave up East Jerusalem and the Right of Return. Arafat refused because to him East Jerusalem had to remain in Palestinian hands. Nonetheless, Eric Yoffie’s point reminds us that that was the closest we ever came to peace in the region, and nothing has made the situation better since. Therefore, the opinion is that this can hardly make things worse, since there is nothing worse than no peace. Does it make the chances for peace in the future less? In the foreseeable future, no, because there isn’t even a peace process that could bring that about. Eric Yoffie continues by saying that recently Mahmoud Abbas repeated Arafat’s “ugly and absurd claim at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Having insisted that Jerusalem’s holy sites belong only to Muslims and Christians, how much sympathy do they have a right to expect now? Why are we concerned more about Trump’s proclaiming a truth, than about Palestinians proclaiming lies?” In other words, for Yoffie, the Palestinians will never recognize an Israeli presence in Jerusalem, and it’s naïve to pretend otherwise. Until they recognize that, there will never be peace.
Writing in the Times of Israel, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch makes an interesting point about the timing. He says,m “There were critics who accused the civil rights movement of moving too quickly. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s response: “The time is always ripe to do what is right.” In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King wrote: “For years now I have heard the word ‘wait’ … that [our] action … is untimely. This ‘wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see that justice too long delayed is justice denied.” King often reminded us that time is neutral, that it can be used constructively or destructively. Israel’s opponents have used time more effectively than we have. They have so distorted history that so many around the world question the very legitimacy of Jewish ties to Zion and Jerusalem. We have neglected teaching and conveying, even to our own children, our millennia-old love affair with the Land of Israel and Jerusalem as its beating heart. Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is not Judaism. Judaism without Jerusalem is not Judaism.”
Hirsch sharpens his critique of the initial Reform response. He quotes Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, who said, “The Reform response to the recognition of Jerusalem was terrible. When … a superpower recognizes Jerusalem, first you … welcome it, then offer disagreement. Here it was the opposite.” Sharansky’s issue is with the priorities of the Reform response. First it was criticism, then it was praise. Hirsch notes that even amongst the left-wing in Israel, with the exception of one small hard-left party, there is universal approval for the President’s statement. This response, then, potentially separates American Jews from Israeli Jews, and that is another problem that cannot be ignored.
To me, the issue is not political, but theological. The theology underpins the political, and it goes all the way back to 1845. Do we continue the two-millennia-long yearning to return to Jerusalem? If we do, we should keep it in our prayers and we should celebrate it and base our political views on it accordingly. However, if we do not, we should come clean with the revolutionary break in our theology from the past, and we should expunge the prayers of yearning from our liturgy, and then we should respond politically. Do we yearn for a return to Jerusalem? Do we yearn for it to be the central point of the perfection of humanity? Do we yearn for peace and harmony emanating specifically from that point? If we do, we must respond one way. If we do not, we must respond another way.
This Shabbat, then, let us not quibble about political point-scoring, about hypothetical fears of things that may or may not come to pass. Instead, let us explore what we believe. Let us be able to discuss our beliefs freely and openly as our own. Let us not get mired down in the political mire, but let us instead elevate ourselves in theological discussion. And may God dwell amongst us as we explore our inner beliefs for peace. Amen.
