PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM, ZIONISM AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL
II
Progressive Judaism and Zionism: two of the major forces in modern
Jewish history, and how different'from one another!
One dating from
the first half of the 19th century, the other from the second; one
arising in Western Europe, the other’chiefly in Eastern Europe; one
decidediy a religious movement, the other largely secular; one embracing
the Emancipation, the other having little faith in it; one affirming the
DiASpora, the other tending to negate it; one stressing the universal
aspects of the Jewish heritage, the other the particfilar; one seeking
to Udg—nationalise” Jewish life, the other to "re—natiénalise" it.
A
starker contrast could hardly be imagined!
The purpose of these talks is to trace how, in spite of all that,
a
reconcifiation between the two movements has taken place, and then
to ask whether that process has gone faf enough, 6r alterna
fiyely
too far,where we nbw stand in regard to it, and what the ifiplications
are for the future.
In the first of these three talks, a fortnight ago, we concentrated
on America, where the Reform movement, as it is called there, gradually
chénged its posture from one of outright opposition to Zionism to one
of neutrality and even, to an extent, endorsement.
What brought about the change?
It was not that any large number of
American Reform Jews suddenly became converted_to Zionist ideology,
although some did and a few, like Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver,
attained such eminence and exerted such influence that the Central
Conference of American Rabbis was compelled to take nqte.
LEO BAECK COLLEGE
T-
LIBRARY
What chiefly
Icaused the shift was a growing recognition that the Emancipation had
not brought about the hoped—for golden age; that Jews were still dis-
advantaged and persecuted, especially in Eastern Europe; and that
Western Jews, however little they might need a Palestinian homeland
for themselves, owed it to their less fortunate brothers and sisters
to support the project.
So the main motive was a kind of noblesse
oblige philanthropy; but gradually there dawned also an awareness of
the positive possibilities, beyona merely serving as a haven of refuge,
which such a homeland might actualise.
The most dramatic turning point was 1937, when the Central Conference
of American Rabbis, meéting in Columbus, Ohio, adopted the so—called
"Guiding Principles of Reform Judaism", also known as the "Columbus
Platform", which replaced the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885. -For though
it reaffirmed that "it is by its religion and for its religion that the
Jewish people has lived", it went on to declare: "In the rehabilitation
of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the
promise of renewed life for many of our brethren.
We affirm the obligat—
ion of all Jewry to aid in its upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by en-
deavouring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but
also a centre of Jewish culture and spiritual life" (1).
Thereafter the pro-Zionist tendency asserted itself increasingly.¥
‘Obviously; the darkeningushadow of the swastika, leading to the Holocaust,
was a major contribfitory factor.
So was the pro—Arab slant of the
British Government, as the Manfififory power, immediately before and
after the Second World War, which aroused strong resentment among‘
.'
,_
a
American Jews and made them even more inclined to.cflam?1on :the Z10n23t
.
_
I
.
.
_
cause.
3 _
There were indeed a few who remained passionately opposed to
Zionism, and they, in 1942, formed the American Council forJudaism.
But they represented then, as they do now, a very small minority.
Dr. Julian Morgenstern, President of the Hebrew Union College, probably
spoke for the majority when he said in 1947: "We are all Zionists of a
kind and to a degree...(We have learned) through pain and sorrow the
eternal lesson of Jewish history...to devise a proper...harmonization
of Universalism and particularism, and of particularism necessarily
expressing itself today as nationalism" (2Q;f:,
Long before, in 1925, a graduate of the Hebrew Union College, Dr.
Judah Magnes, had been the chief founder of the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, which he served for many years as Chancellor and President;
56d back in 1947 it was another graduate of the College, who was not
only a Reform rabbi but the then President of the CCAH, namely Abba
Hillel Silver, who, as Chairman of the American section of the Jewish
Agency, presented the case for a Jewish State before the General Assembly
of the United Nations and, it is said, by his eloquence contributed much
to the favourable vote on the Partition Plan which paved the way for
the establishment of the State of Israel.
Since then American Reform
Jewry;has of course made enormous contributions to the State of Israel,
chiefly materially but also, to some extent, in other ways.
And now to England, where the same process of adjustment has taken
place, though rather more slowly.
The founders of our movement, the
Jewish Religious Union as it was at first called, were, like the great
majority of British Jews of the time, anything but Zionists.
all Claude Montefiore.
Least of
All the more curious is it that Theodor Herzl
evidently hoped at one time to make him his lieutenant in this country.
_
4
_
Many years later Montefiore recalled their meeting in Londofi.
have been round about the turn of the century.
interview," he said.
It must
"I well remember that
"We walked slowly together, on a warm summer's
day, from Pall Mall to the Marble Arch.
By every possible means, by
flattery, cajolery. argument, threat, he sought to gain his end.
I
And
admit, so charming was the man, so powerful and winning his personality,
that
I
had to pull myself together in order to keep straight, and to
refuse him" (3).
In 1917 Montefiore was one of the leaders of British Jewry whom the
Government consulted about the draft text of'the Balfour Declaration.
In his comments he remarked: "The phrase 'a national home for thé Jewish
race' appears to assume and imply that Jews generally constitute a nation-
ality.
Such an implication is extremely prejudicial to Jewish interests,
as it is obnoxious to an enormous number of Jews."
But he went on: "I and
my friends do not desire to impede colonisation and immigration into
Palestine...Whoever the suzerain power of Palestine may be, we are in
favour of the Jews, when their numbers permit it, ultimately obtaining
the power which any lafge majority méy justly claim" (4).
A year later, in a
collection of eésays, Montefiore wrote: "Nothing
could be more abhorrent to the modern spirit, nothing could be more
opposed to all that we have claimed and fought for, than to make religion
the test of citizenship.
there be?
And yet in a Jewish state what other test could
If ten French Christians immigrate into Palestine and live
there for five or seven years, are they to be refused the rights of
citizenship and naturalisation?
Jews?
Will they not be allowed to become
If they Egg so allowed, how curious; if they are g2; so allowed,
how monstrous!" (5).
_
5 _
In the same year the JRU published a pamphlet by Montefiore entitled
"The Dangers of Zionism", one of several on that theme, though he was
always caleful to add a disclaimer such as, in fhis case, "that the
writer of this paper speaks in it only for himself, and not on behalf
of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue or of the Jewish Religious Union" (6).
Montefiore never changed his mind.
Towards the end of his life he
said in a lecture: "So, my friends, you see before you a disillusioned,
sad and embittered old man.
still believes in God.
Zionist Baal.
But yet, not a hopeless old man, for he
He refuses to bow the knee to the fashionable
He refuses to succumb to Jewish nationalism, on the one
hand, or to Gentile anti—Semitism on the other...His old ideal of the
Englishman of the Jewish faith shall yet, as he believes, prevail.
If it does not, then indeed, as a good Victorian, he must take refuge
in the familiar saying of the Victorian poet.
He must believe that God
fulfils himself in many ways" (7).
./«~
Lily Montagufgiso, agggéfigiwé EbuginwggiLord Samuel, who became the
first High Commissioner for Palestine, had little interest in, and less
sympathy with, the Zionist movement; and Rabbi Israel Mattuck fiéé it?
*/-—-<.W v
u
*
M4~.,
—
..:-"“‘>~«~_
,—~~
‘
-V.-
r
.
-“
‘-\
:fa;mida§}e_igteiiégtugl‘Qpp9BFEEV9£_ _~#‘§3;‘ \-’_.‘ \_" V¥ vr'w- *w’ }
Zionism; that is to say, he was in fundamental disagreement with it,
A
but he understood it, and respected it, and kept himself extremely
~
well informed about its affairs. 1b also believed that Liberal Judaism,
rrwa
_.
’_~\“V ___ f, Avr-Vk.‘
shouldoétand
a€:a-£eligidfiérfi6§émeht,
above thgflgggafe
betweéh Zionists
Ni
,7 I ,rrvdx. u\
4,.._.‘.
, ‘_ ~
_‘_V __
\
*~—-'~‘
—n—~vfi\,,
»
gang Ebilzioni§£éj'§£d thatL/pqggiéééfelyfifihgggh £§gy fiffifii feel abofit
4“;:,::._:"MW-W §/'_‘,;::,-.-._ :f,V\\‘—""“A:f\ ~‘J‘
,w
-/4£fiéir régpective Rgégiisfiéywihéy should work”£8ge§ber:ifi Hutuél‘
~
_—\/'
»
.(1—.w,
\
._/~ ‘ w",
r 1 .....
,-~\
¥‘>
\
W K
"#3
H)
and “'the Jewlsh }
{bleratiqn fdi the greaterlgood fthé Jewish people
vf'F“
"fi‘fi'
{"775
=. 'v’m
T‘,‘:.x‘_¢r
2%ea\
//
;:LQ
a u:
fix faith..‘" V' vs
.‘
w
-4“;-
i
'
-
3
.
_
_
1
‘Ir-‘Vk.
.
-
\m
r
»
,
u
“
‘
-
,
,
A
‘ ,
</
\y
.
1.
.
.'._--
~
.
_>
V.
(YA
‘
'
I,
y
.
~,
i
-
,
.
1
V
_
,-r-«n~;.
‘:':g(~.\
J
\
1
-6This View was put to the test during the founding conference of the
World Union for Progressive Judaism, which took place here in our
Synagogue in 1926, when Dr. Stephen
S.
Wise challenged the delegates
to come out with a positive statement about Zionism.
Rabbi Mattuck,
who was in the chair, gave this ruling: "(l) The Conference takes no
official attitude towards Zionism.
Thgtpdoes not in any way mean to
celmit the permanent organization, if and when it is established...
(2) It has no
official answer to the question, 'Are Zionism and Liberal
Judaism compatible?‘ There are some Liberal Jews who believe the We
are compatible, and there are others who believe the two are incompatible.
The Conference gives no answer and it leaves it to every Liberal
Jew to answer for himself whether the two are, pr are not, compa1dble"
(8).
As in America, so in England, one of the factors which led to the
adoption of a neutra} posture was the emergence of individuals whose
Liberal Jewish credentials were unimpea mable but who nevertheless
espoused the Zionist cause.
In our Movement the person who pre—eminently
played that role was of course Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig, who was one of
our Ministers and went on to become head of the Department if Internat—
ional Affairs of the World Jewish Congress; and in 1935 the JRU published
a
pamphlet over the signatures of both Claude Montefiore and Maurice
Perlzweig entitled "Why the Jewish fieligious Union can be, and justifiably is, 'neutral' as regards Zionism" (9).
1935 was of course the year of the Nuremberg Laws, and from this time
the plight of the victims of Hitler became an ever more pressing concern.
Naturally, as in America, this arbused growing sympathy for the efforts
1
’
.
r
.
,-
,,
Nu;-
of the Zionists to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, though it
also led to accusations that they were more concerned to further their
political aims than to co-operate with non—Zionist organisations in the
search for other havens of refuge in order to save as many as possible.
\
4'
~
\\,;./’a\.,_
A
,
.
»\__
,/
In 1939 Dr. Mattuck wrote a book entitled Wha
I
;~fi‘\ _//
are the Jews? which in
my view still deserves to be read as perhaps the<?rofqufidefit‘afid mostélucid
,/
’
critique of Zionism and<positive
-
V—-'
~
‘
tatement of
a
non-Zionist interpretation
of the nature and raison d'étre 6; the Jewish people ever published. In
it he remarked: "All Jews, and for that matter all hkmanitarians, must
appreciate and admire the ecénohic work of the Zionists in Palestine
which has made it a place of refuge for.many Jews.
There can be no
difference of opinion about the excellence of this aspect of the Zionist
movemenfi" db). But he went on to argue that the Jews are not a nation
but a "péfigle<6§f%é;igigpfl.who can only be true to their genius and
fulfil their destiny By iiving among, and rendexing a religious service
to, humanity as a whole.
The book was overtaken by the war, and for the next few years nothing
mattered except the defeat of Hitler. Even in Palestine, the Zionist
struggle against Britain over the 1939 White Paper, which was regarded
as a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration, was suspended.
It was resumed
and intensified after the war, when the British fiioggaae'of thé=fia1estine
coast, turning away ships laden with Jewish Holocaust sfirvivors éhd
‘
r
displaced persons, caused unprecedented fury; and.tharewffillowed three
unhappy years which severely strained the(loyaltiéé.of Briiish Jews;
*agd caused many acrimonious debates in the Board of Deputies. 'Bfif
eventually there was the Anglo—American Commission of Inquiry, the
British decision to relinquish the Mandate, the United Nations vote for
Partition, and finally the Proclamation
of the State of Israel.
After that, much of the old debate became academic.
The original
aim of the Zionist movement, "to create for the Jewish people a home
//
in Palestine secured by public law" )\/n :Ehad been achieved. so there
was no longer much point in carrying on the controversy over its
desirability or otherwise.
in the affirmative.
Most Jews had in any case decided that issue
With or without reservations, they rejoiced that
the State of Israel had come into being, and took pride in its achieve—
ments.
To make secure and to build on these achievements, was what
mattered now.
Zionism itself, at itsiBrd Congress in 1951, the first
to be held in Jerusalem, re-defined its task as being "the consolidation
of the State of Israel, the ingathering of the exiles in Eretz Yisrael
and the fostering of the unity of the Jewish people.”
In that, apart
from the "ingathering of the exiles", since it_could be taken to mean
the liquidation of the Diaspora, there was nothing for a Liberal Jew to
take exceptiéfi to.
From 1948, therefore, there is a discernible shift of emphasis in
Liberal Judaism from pro and con debate to practical support for ISrael.
Already the June number of the Liberal Jewish Monthly sounded the new
note in its editorial: "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
toward 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 to 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 everywhére" (11).
That editorial, if
I
do not mistake the style, was written, not by
Rabbi Israel Mattuck, who retired that year, but by his successor
Rabbi Leslie Edgar.
It is certainly characteristic of the pragmatic
and conciliatory yet high-principled approach which he adopted.
The State of Israel also featured increasingly prominently on the
agenda of the World Union for Progressive Judaism.
Several German
refugee rabbis had settled in the Land and started cfingregations there,
and one of them, Drfizglk, had, already in the 30’s, founded the Leo
Baeck School in Haifa which was to become the pride and joy of the
World Union.
At its 1949 Conference in London, Rabbi Leo Baeck gave his historic
Presidential Address in which he des wibed the new Jewish world as
having two focuses, the Western world and Israel, and called for a
co-operative and creative relationship between them.
The Conference
also pa $ed a resolution which stated: "We recognise the eétéblishment
of the State of Israel as an event of supreme importance and significance
for the future of Jews and Judaism.
This Conference expresses the hope
that the new State of Israel...will build its future on those eternal
values which are recognised as the basic principles of Judaism...We
trust that the land of Israel will be fertile soil, as it always has
been, for the growth and development of the Jewish faith...We demand
that the State of Israel grant to Progressive Judaism the same rights
and privileges as are a worded to other forms of Judaism. We urge
-10our members throughout the world to help the World Union to promote
Progressive Judaism in the State of Israel" (12).
Two years later the World Union added to the Preamble of its
Constitution a new clause affirming: "The World Union is deeply
conscious of the great religious tasks, opportunities and challenges
that the State of Israél presents before World Jewry, and feels a deep
sense of responsibility to do all within its power to aid i n helping
to realise there, as in all lands where Jewish people live, the best
and highest ideals of our faith" (13).
It was another sign of the times that in 1953 our own Congregation
established the LJS Group of Friends of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, with Sir Keith Joseph as President.
Nevertheless there were those in our Movement, which grew very
rapidly in the post—war years, who felt that the adjustment was proceeding too slowly] .Tfie Efiieflépbkesmahzaf
" this EréndflLQEich usually
‘
\Lf'
“/
went hand in hand with a demand for more Hebrew and traditional ritual,
was the Rev. Herbert Richer.
_
For instance, at the Annual Meeting of
the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues in 1956 he said:
"I believe that we should review our attitude to the State of Israel.
I
think that, in the past, some of the best elements in the Jewish
community have been lost to our Movement because of that attitude.
They were dissatisfieé with Orthodoxy but found no home in Liberal
Judaism because they believed our Movement to be associated with
anti—Zionism.
It is a pity that there is not today, in Liberal Jewish
circles, a more influential element of pro-Zionists, for we should then
have a better right to criticise and some ability to influence Zionist
policy from the inside” (14).
_
11
_
This bifurcation of trends, both over Israel and over tradition,
seemed to me to pose a serious threat to the unity of our Movement,
and to call for an‘éitémpt at in'mgration, making éilrgoksible con-
cessions to the ne§;Zionism as well as the neo-traditionalism even
while remaining staunchly faithful to the essential principles of our
liberalism.
And the best way of achieving that,
I
thought, would be
to evolve a new liturgy incorporating\poth trends in harmonious com-
bination.
The first result of that enterprise was Service 22 the
Heart which came out in 1967 and did much to re—unite our Movément.
It was also, so far as I know, the first
prayerbook of any trend,
~
Orthodox, Conservative or Reform, to'pffé} a: ~eativqiljiturgy fof}:
“.u
..V
.».,,_
"I: f__
\»
\Israel Independence Déy; including tBeTw5}dg of théugalmist, "Pray—
,
Ws":“a”--
.
_-_.
:-~V.-
,.
for the peacé of Jefgéaiem: Méyuthey pfoéper whb»léve you!
Let there
be peace in your ramparts, and security within your towers.
For the
sake of my brothers and my friends,
I
pray that you may have peace"
(15).
With that, the process of adjustment was apparently complete.
Yet
in the same year of 1967 a new chain of events was set in motion which
re-opened old questions and raised new ones about the relationship
between Progressive Judaism and Zionism, and between Israel and the
Diaspora.
These questions, and how we-should envisage the future,
will be our subject in the last of these three talks in three weeks'
time.
_
12
_
References
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(l2)
(13)
(l4)
(15)
DavidIblish; Renew our Days, The Zionist Issue 13 Reform
Judaism, p. 200
l2;g., p. 234
Lucy Cohen: Some Recollections 2; Claude Goldsmid Montefiore,
p. 226
Leonard Stein: Egg Balfour Declaration, pp. 525f.
Liberal Judaism and Hellenism, p. 325
Pagers :23 Jewish People, No. XX, p. 12
Lucy Cohen, 2E. gi§., pp. 227f.
w. Gunther Plaut: The Growth 2; Reform Judaism, p. 152
Papers 39; Jewish People, No. XXXII
Pp. 122f
Vol. XIX, No. 6, p. 61
Conference Report, p. 99
Conference Report, p. 47
Liberal Jewish Monthly, Vol. XXVII, No.
Psalm 122:6-8, p. 286
6, pp.
99f.
(This is the second of three talks by Rabbi John D. Rayner. It was
given at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, St. John's Wood, London, on
22nd January, 1983) J
-,