“I am very pleased to be here today as the Israeli, because it's conceivable that you could have this symposium without a person coming all the way from Israel. After all, it's quite a distance. And I'm very glad that you chose to have an Israeli on board because clearly the Jewish community in Israel is a very important Jewish community.
It's the second largest, or maybe even under some counts, the largest Jewish community in the world. It's an experiment that sought to revolutionize Jewish existence in the world, because Israel is the only place in the world in which Jews are a majority. Jews have a state that is seen by most of them and by most of others as, in some important senses, a Jewish state.
It was described as such in the United Nation Resolution deciding to found the state or to allow it to start to exist. Israel, in many ways, is a state in which Jews experience problems and opportunities that they do not experience anywhere in the world. They have the power to defend themselves, the power to control immigration, the control over the public culture of Israel. Unlike in different communities or neighborhoods, the public culture in Israel as a whole is Hebrew and Jewish. All these are things that are very easy for Israelis to take for granted. But Jews who live under different circumstances can appreciate the magnitude of the change, and the uniqueness of the kind of Jewish existence that Israel presents.
Israel today, in the last couple of years, is raising even more difficult questions to the prospects of world Jewry than it had done in the past. We used to think of Israel mainly as a safe haven for persecuted Jews. The principle of Return provided that all Jews could go to Israel and become its citizens. This is still the case today, but a new question has emerged: Is Israel a haven for Jews in the world? Or is Israel, because of its policies and the controversy that the policies raises, a factor that is endangering Jews in Israel, as well as creating additional dangers for Jews in the world?
This is an important turning point in the life of a distinguished institution, which is now acquiring new leadership. This is a moment in which it is very important for us to think very clearly about the relationships between the Jewish communities of the world, and about the future of these Jewish communities suggested by these relationships between them as well as by their relations with the rest of the world. I will try to make a contribution towards such thinking today.
Israel as a state, as I said, has unique features. One of the questions I want to raise is how these unique features relate to the hopes that Israel triggered and inspired. We should remember that there were two different distinct but related hopes. One is security for Jews. Herzl saw the Jewish State as the one place in which Jews as a majority would not be persecuted or even killed by others simply because they were a vulnerable, helpless minority. This, he thought, would change the situation of Jews as well as Jews themselves. Jews having their own power to defend themselves, Jews having the responsibility for their own security, would not be the kind of Jews who have to negotiate constantly just to survive and to be tolerated.
The other vision of a Jewish state (or a Jewish center in Eretz Yisrael), usually connected with Ahad Ha am, did not concentrate on the future or the fate of Jews as individuals, seeking to guarantee their physical security. It thought more about the relationship between the life of Jews and Judaism as a national and a cultural tradition. The danger here was not persecution or even genocide, but the growing risks of assimilation and loss of distinct identity. As we have heard here these risks grew in modern times because of the waves of emancipation and secularization that were going over Europe, and creating new opportunities for Jews combined with new threats to their identity as Jews. Emancipation for Jews was a complex and mixed blessing. On the one hand it opened for them avenues that were closed before. But at the same time it revealed to them that their segregation, in part self imposed and in part imposed by others, had its constructive functions. The necessity to live within Jewish communities that are primarily religious, Orthodox communities reinforced one's Jewish identity. Once the necessity weakened one's Jewish identity came under serious threats.
Israel was supposed to be a solution to the combination of these two problems by a) providing a place where Jews have the power to defend themselves; and b) by creating the only state in the world in which Jews form a majority and are independent. Having a state means that in Israel Jews have the power and the responsibility that come with a state and they have the tools to create a Jewish Hebrew public culture for the first time since the Jewish states of the first and second temple.
This is a good time to look at the record of Israel in trying to achieve these two goals. On the first question that of achieving physical security for Jews I think the picture is interesting and mixed. On the one hand, Israel is very strong and it does effectively protect Jews in Israel. On the other hand, it seems that in recent times, the most dangerous place for Jews is Israel. What that means in terms of the success of Israel to provide security to Jews is extremely interesting. Clearly, there is now a security threat to Jews in Israel. Some want to conclude that Israel has failed in its first mission. I think it is important to see that this does not follow. Yes, the struggle for a Jewish State is not over, and it will involve, at least for some years to come, Israel's ability to defend itself and deter its enemies. So long as this challenge persists, Jewish life may be at risk in Israel. But in Israel Jews die to defend a form of Jewish life that is unique. And while some die in the streets and not on the battlefield Jews do maintain their collective life, and we have succeeded in enlisting our strength countering the attacks against us. We are not giving up, and we have the ability and the resources to do so. This is an ability that Jews in other parts of the world do not have. So I think the picture on that one is mixed.
But I want to concentrate mainly on the other aspect of Israel its contribution to the development of modern Jewish identities and to the prospects of Jewish culture in modern times. Due to Israel's unique features, it's the only community in the world in which the question, "Who is a Jew?" is not a communal, voluntary, privatized question. This fact presents unique possibilities and unique difficulties, which highlight important aspects and dimensions of contemporary Jewish life. In this community that hosts us today, as well in the reform community the world over, and in other Jewish communities outside of Israel, it is the relevant Jewish community which decides who is a member of the community. Jewish communities in certain places may decide, as they do for instance in this country, to have plural answers to the question, "Who is a Jew?" Consequently, the borderlines of different communities within the inclusive Jewish community, will be determined by their different answers to the question, "Who is a Jew?"
There is something of this in Israel as well. Israel does have different religious communities, who define themselves along different principles and establishments. In this sense, Israel has some religious pluralism for Jews. Some people are seen as Jews by some of these communities, and as non Jews by others. However, in Israel you cannot completely privatize all these questions, as you do in this country. Part of the Jewishness of Israel means that it is not completely neutral to the Jewish identity of the majority of its citizens. Consequently, it is impossible, or at least it's extremely difficult, for it to separate completely between the philosophical, theological, communal answers to the question, "Who is a Jew?" and the state's legal answer to the same question. In all Jewish communities around the world, theologians, religious leaders, sociologists and historians ask "Who is a Jew?" In all such communities, individuals ask themselves whether, and in what sense, they are Jewish. But only in Israel are these questions that need to be addressed, debated, and even resolved by the state, the laws, politicians and lawyers. In addition, the question "Who is a Jew?" is raised in Israel's legal system in different contexts. One is marriage and divorce; the other is registration; the third and probably the most important is return.
This plurality of contexts is of immense importance, because it requires that the state of Israel recognizes different answers to the question of Jewish membership. The Orthodox always hoped to avoid this conclusion by suggesting that 'Jew' should be defined in all contexts according to Jewish law in its Orthodox interpretation. This would be totally unacceptable to anyone committed to religious freedom. On the other hand, many non Orthodox suggested the difficulty could be solved by recognizing under law the Jewish identity of all those who claim such identity under some acceptable system of Jewish membership. But this simple solution might force the Orthodox to create their own pedigree books, so they can avoid intermarriage with those who claim to be Jewish, are recognized as such by the state, but are not seen as Jews by their own, Orthodox, interpretation of the law! The wish to avoid this result stems not only from respect to the Orthodox tradition and the right of its members to freedom of religion but also from the necessity of finding a shared political system which is both inclusive and non coercive to all Jewish streams and persuasions.
This is the case because freedom of religion includes the freedom of the Orthodox to decide that they don't want to intermarry with people who consider themselves Jewish, but are not considered Jewish by them. But on the other hand freedom of religion must defend the right of people who consider themselves Jewish to marry each other, and to go through life's passages and rites in a Jewish way.
What follows from this analysis is very different from the present status quo in Israel an Orthodox monopoly over most of these issues. I do propose and hope that Israel will indeed change this status quo. But it also shows why the easy way out of a total separation between state and religion will not do in Israel.It's even clearer that Israel cannot separate state and Jewish national identity on the issue of return. One of the major reasons for Israel to exist as a Jewish State is enabling Jews who would like to live in the only place in the world which is Jewish should be allowed to do that. Maybe the acquisition of Israeli citizenship by olim should not be immediate. Maybe it should not be automatic. But the principle that the Jewish state is always open to Jews is critical, is central. And it's central in the self definition and in the perception of Israel by Jews out of Israel as well as by its own citizens.
So the question, "Who is a Jew?" is a question that the State of Israel must answer at least in the form of, "Who is going to be eligible to this right to join the Jewish collective in Israel?" It is important to stress that the answer given to this question by the state should not necessarily aspire to be an essentialist answer to the question, "Who is a Jew?" and by contradiction, "Who is not a Jew?" But it will have to be an official, authoritative answer to the question, "Who is legally entitled to become a member of the Jewish collective in Israel?" And I think this is one of the greatest challenges of Israel and one of the important areas of contention between Israel and Jewish communities abroad. So this is one issue in which Israel is distinct, and cannot adopt the liberal solution of separation. We do want Israel to continue to say that individuals who are members of the collective are entitled to special rights of immigration and we do have to define who these members are. (I should emphasize that Israel is not the only nation state which gives members of the national collective privileges of repatriation).
There is another unique aspect of Israel in modern Jewish life. Since Israel is now a state, whose citizens and residents include not only those who see themselves as Jews, the Jewish State, as such, must take responsibility for the rights and the welfare of those non Jews who live under its jurisdiction. In other words, Israel is the only place where a Jewish organization has official responsibility for non Jews, since the organization is not wholly voluntary. And the question is, how do we deal with this responsibility towards non Jews? And this is a Jewish question, and it's a political question, and it's a crucial question. Israel has made a clear commitment to the rights and welfare of all its residents from the very first Declaration of its foundation. In part it made it because of demands of the United Nations and of the international community. But in part it made the commitment because of the wish of the Jewish founding fathers who built Israel. It made the commitment that Israel would be a democracy and that Israel would treat all its residents and all its citizens equally, and with equal dignity. This is seen as both a Jewish command and as a political command. It's a measure of morality, both Jewish and universal, and of political prudence. And it's a central component of the stability and the viability and the possibility to justify the State of Israel to those living in it and to those living outside it.
Hopes and commitments are not enough. One of the main challenges of Israel is whether in fact the Jewish State is compatible with equal citizenship to all, especially non Jews, and many enemies of Israel suggest that it is not. I think we should take this challenge seriously and stop dismissing it out of hand. I cannot develop the argument here, but I would want to argue that Israel as a Jewish State can and should give equal rights to all its citizens. Israel can and should find the way to strike a balance that will be an acceptable answer to the permanent and eternal question of universalism versus particularism in Jewish life and tradition. Part of that balance is that Israel must and it can give equal dignity to all its residents and all its citizens, Jews and non Jews alike.
A third problem that exists for Israel and doesn't exist for Jewish groups elsewhere, is the question of the use of force. Jews have been very important members of many, many communities around the world and they are important participants in decision making in their countries. This country now is thinking about the possibility of using its force against Iraq, and Jews participate in the debate of "Should America use its force in this or that way?" In Israel it's different because in Israel it's not merely Jews participating in decisions to use the force of their country. It's the decision to use Jewish force to protect the Jewish State. And the challenge against which the use of force is contemplated is made by forces some of which say explicitly that their goal is not to have a Jewish state in the Middle East. The question of using force for Israel raises two different and contradictory threats. And the two threats both involve the fear of double standards.
The first fear is that we justify for ourselves uses of force that we would not justify if used by others under similar circumstances. The basis of this fear is the fact that that some of us, some of the time, still see ourselves primarily as victims struggling to survive. The fact that we think of ourselves as victims is not surprising. It was not too long ago when Jews in Europe were persecuted and murdered just because they were Jews. And we did not get too much help from others. So we had mainly ourselves to count on. And then we did not have a state and an army, and millions of helpless innocent Jews died. We are still under the impression of that trauma. We see many challenges as existential ones. We do not want to concede again that we did not see the signs on the wall. So we tend to see most situations as presenting a choice of either us or them and we want to fight so that it will be us this time. We do not want to be just and careful and dead. We prefer to err on the side of using too much force and to survive. And we think that the fact that the international community or other people tell us that we shouldn't use our force in this or that way is not their even handed judgment of the merits of the case, that we might not see because we are involved. We feel that this is just a remnant of anti Semitism. That this is again the world being against us.
So there is this one danger and I think it's important to see it as a danger and to remember that we shouldn't justify for ourselves what we wouldn't justify under similar circumstances to others. This is not a principle invented by our enemies to weaken us and lull us. It is in fact a Jewish principle it was Hillel who said that we should not do to others what we do not want done to us and a universal, Kantian principle: "You should act by the principle that you're willing to make a general law." Some of those who criticize us may indeed be driven by interests and anti Semitism. But many are our true and real friends, who want to remind us of the danger of not applying our own principles.
But there is also another danger and this is the opposite double standard some of us believe, expect, and demand, that we should not use force in circumstances where it is quite clear that the use of force is justified and called for. This threat may be as dangerous as the first one because it may lead us to hesitate, and to be afraid of using the force that we now have even when we must. This tendency may result from our long time recognition, as a minority, that our specific mode of survival is trying to do without force, of trying to find ways of accommodating, of compromising, of maybe reducing friction. This habit may result in a tendency not to allow ourselves to do what any other group would do and would be entitled to do under similar circumstances. And this is also a very powerful danger and it is materialized in parts of the voices that we hear from Jews both within Israel and outside Israel, as well as from non Jews who are expressing these sentiments. Unfortunately, at present, Israel as a Jewish State cannot exist in the Middle East unless it can deter by force those who want to get it out of there. The decision to stay rather than to pack and leave means that Israel must have a credible ability to use its force. It should be very careful not to use more force than necessary. Innocent civilians should not be intentionally harmed. But when civilians within Israel are attacked indiscriminately Israel does have the right to pursue those responsible for such acts. Exercising this right with wisdom and sensitivity is required by its responsibility towards its Jewish citizens and their right to life, security, and self determination. I think the need to deal with both these dangers of double standards is crucial and critical.
The last point that I want to raise has to do with Jewish identities. Israel's record on this point is extremely interesting, powerful and thought provoking. First, Israel has been surprisingly good to its religious Jews. Despite the fact that religious Jews are less vulnerable to the dangers of assimilation, living within a Jewish Hebrew environment has been a haven for religious Jewish culture. The revival of creativity, of writing, that has been developed in Israel among religious Jews of various persuasions and the energy that exists within the Orthodox and non Orthodox religious communities of Israel are truly amazing. They are one of the major achievements of Israel.
For secular Jews, Israel is more mixed. One of the major achievements of Zionism (it's not only Israel because it started before Israel, but Israel helped a lot), is the amazing revival of Hebrew. Hebrew was only a sacred language and became a living language. And Hebrew is to Jews and to non Jews in Israel the most important and potent assimilating factor that Israel has succeeded in producing. Together with the Jewish public culture, Israel is the one place in the world where being Jewish is the default option, so to speak. So for secular Jews in Israel, Israel provides a very safe and convenient place for being Jewish without being observant in any way. You can be Jewish because Jewishness is what is there in the public. You don't have to make an intense and deliberate and constant effort to send the children to a Jewish school to maintain rituals, to maintain certain ceremonies, because it's there in the air. In any place but Israel, remaining Jewish requires effort and taking special steps to avoid assimilation and loss of Jewish identity. In Israel, non Jews who do not make an effort will be 'assimilated' into the Jewish Hebrew culture. So this makes Israel a very interesting place for the development of a secular Jewish identity, because it allows people to be naturally, effortlessly Jewish in a way that is more secure and more immediate than in any other place. In Israel you can be at home with both Jewishness and secularity in a more secure and matter of fact way than you can be anywhere else in the world. And it is not only one's cultural identity. The fact that in Israel there is a large Jewish majority, and that the native Arab minority is a separated, non assimilating group, means that most of a Jew's social life is conducted with other Jews. This of course affects the likelihood of intermarriage. In Israel the chances are that you go through your regular life, including school, university, military service, and social life, and the people you meet, you fall in love with, and you have a family with are Jewish. Not a trivial thing as I'm sure you all can see. So in all these very importance senses, Israel has made a unique contribution to the robustness and naturalness of a secular Jewish identity.
It is very important to see that there is a down side as well. In Israel, precisely because of the ease and naturalness of maintaining one's Jewish identity, secular Jewish identity is more vulnerable than it is almost anywhere else. Israel permits secular Jews to be secure of their Jewishness without an effort, but that means that they are not very clear about what makes them Jewish, and what their Jewishness means to them. Many of them discover that when they leave the supportive Israeli environment they are in trouble. All of a sudden, you don't have what Jews all these years have worked so hard to create for themselves, the naturalness of knowing their identity and why they value it. So this is something that is both strength and vulnerability and I think it's very important.
So these are central illustrations of the unique possibilities and difficulties that the Jewish State at present opens up for modern Jewish existence. Where should we go from here? There are many things one can say, but I want to mention only two.
First is the great importance of strengthening Jewish solidarity both within Israel and among Jews in Israel and in the world. It is very good that Israelis and Jews living outside of Israel have intense feelings about Israel. It is important that they realize and feel that Israel still is an important project of the Jewish people, and that Israel has a continuing role in modern Jewish existence. I have already mentioned that to do this we must adopt an inclusive characterization of membership in the Jewish people. We must not lose people who feel Jewish, who want to be Jewish, just because one group thinks they're not Jewish. As I said, we must also protect the right of those Jews who don't think that other people who feel Jewish are indeed Jewish to live their way. We shouldn't (and we cannot) impose on them a more inclusive definition. But we as the Jewish State, we as leaders of both Orthodox and non Orthodox religious communities, we as secular Jews, we should be for inclusiveness. Israel and the Diaspora should really work hard on their relationships, because the unity of Jewish fate cannot be taken for granted any longer.
This is reflected, among other things, in one of the moves Arabs have been making when they are in a more conceding mood: They then accept that a collective entitled to self determination has indeed been created in Israel. But for them, this collective is 'Israelis', not 'Jews'. Yes, they go on, historically Israelis are Jews who came to Israel. But the legitimacy of your claim now stems from the fact you actually live in the land. All connection with 'Jews' should be terminated. Israel should be the home of all its present citizens.
The principle of Jewish Return should be abolished. There is a small minority of Jews in Israel who endorses this argument. I expect that a majority of Jews in Israel and many Jews outside Israel do not. We must therefore be willing and able to respond to this Arab challenge. And in order to effectively respond to this challenge we need to give a meaning to our shared Jewishness. And this meaning, as I said, must be inclusive. Because it is inclusive, the challenge of giving it a shared meaning is both more urgent and more difficult.
The second concerns the way Jews within Israel and outside Israel should deal with what they see as problems in the way Israel acts and expresses its goals and aspirations. No country is perfect. No country fulfills its own moral commitments. It is a Jewish trait to demand that our country comes closer to its ideals. We shouldn't avoid the fact that there are many problems within Israel and many problems in the relationships between Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora and between different groups of Jews in Israel, and between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Avoiding the problems by denying them is not going to lead us anywhere. When we are facing the problems, thinking about them and discussing them, we should be aware of the crucial difference between criticism and de legitimation. We should give plenty of room for criticism, responding to it, and learning from it rather then silencing it. But we should be equally vigilant in exposing and condemning the frequent cases of vicious and unjustified anti Semitism and demonization of Israel.
It is both stupid and immoral to silence those who voice criticism of Israel, its policies, or its government. If Israel does it within itself it will stop being a democracy. If it seeks to do it out of Israel, it will be seen as unable to respond to the criticism on its merits. There must be a space within which one can accept Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, and express reservations and disagreement with the ways Israel goes about achieving these goals. Criticism of Israel as a whole, and of policies adopted by Israel both within the Jewish divide, and concerning the Jewish Arab divide, is critical, necessary, and a guarantee to our not losing our moral sensitivity. It's very, very important. It's indispensable. People should be free to voice their criticism without being labeled criminals, traitors or anti Semites.
On the other hand, what has been going on is not a debating society. There are enemies of Israel out there who are not seeking to redress wrongs but to de legitimate Israel and erode its international support. Those who care about Israel should do two things. First, they should be very careful to speak in a way that criticizes but does not de legitimate; that clearly expresses concerns and reservations, but does not condemn. After all, even countries that err and make mistakes do not lose their right to exist! Secondly, they should also take great care not to legitimate, under the disguise of freedom of expression, the kinds of incitement and sweeping condemnation of Israel and Jews that has been heard from some circles.
There is an additional point here, which relates to the fact that both Israel and this country are democracies. In a democracy, I may speak my mind. But if the democratically elected government of the country proposes policies, which I reject I seek to change the government, and I accept that my struggle against the policies must obey some general constraints. Democracy means that I can try to persuade my fellow citizens of my views, not that I can force them, in the name of democracy, to accept them. I may resist what my country's doing but the fact that my country's making mistakes and that a particular government is not the one I voted for doesn't mean that my country loses its right to exist, or to defend itself as it sees fit, or to continue to struggle to find its way in resolving the many problems that faces it. So I think that what we should do is we should talk frankly and candidly to each other. We should express our disappointments and our pleasures and pride. We should each respect the democratic nature of the other country. And we should always remember that, after all, we do have a shared interest in the future of the Jewish people and of its one and only State.”
Questions and answers to the panel
How do we teach children the importance of communal identity in an American society that emphasizes individual rights? And I think that would be true of Europe as well.
Myers: This I think is the great challenge and it relates to the differences in the two major communities of Jews in the world, Israel and America. The American Jewish community is based upon a voluntaristic model of affiliation. This means that one can choose to affiliate and connect oneself to the community, and one can make the choice not to. If one makes the choice to affiliate, then the work of preserving a measure of communal identity is obviously facilitated. However, the pull of American society is so powerful that the work of connecting to the community is a difficult one. I think what we need to do in all of our collective endeavors is to forge a stronger form of community. We need to think of communal institutions that cut across ideological denominational boundaries. We need to think of creating a more universal idiom that embraces Jews in this country and around the world.
On one hand, we can take pride in the high level of organizational activity among American Jews. Indeed, no Jewish community in history has developed such a robust set of organizational institutions. On the other hand, we might well learn from the earlier European experience in which there was a single communal umbrella, the Gemeinde. Federations attempt to play that role, but their work is sometimes mitigated by the existence of any number of other Jewish organizations that exist within or beyond the Federation framework.
My own inclination is to suggest that we move toward ever stronger forms of centralized community leadership and that this be inculcated into the educational process. There are many new opportunities to impart the virtues of a strong Jewish communal identity in our day schools and religious schools. I think we need to think of ways in which we can centralize our labors, organizationally and institutionally, to create that stronger form of community without surrendering the benefits of the modern liberal order.
How are we Reform Jews to strengthen our ties with Israel and the Progressive Movement in view of the current world vogue a worldwide wave of anti Semitism and the threat of Palestinian terrorism in Israel?
Gavison: Although the question is about the relations with Israel, the question is clearly about what American Jews should do about Israel. I have many requests from American Jews, but it is you who should make your own decisions about what you think you should do. This is an important aspect of the relationship between the Jewish communities in Israel and the Diaspora. There is a common fate and many things that we do in Israel affect what happens here and many things that you do or do not do affect what happens in Israel. And in this sense
we're in the same boat and this imposes a responsibility on us to take the interests of the other community into our deliberations. On the other hand, we're different communities. It's very important to draw the right balance between the autonomy of the different communities and the responsibilities of the different communities to each other, and the understanding of the different ways in which they contribute to the shared fate and shared enterprise. I am very eager to hear what leaders of the Reform community say to that question.
Myers: I'm not a leader of the Reform community but I will attempt to offer a few observations. The Reform Movement has come a very long way since the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, in which it was declared that Judaism was a religious community but not a nation. We saw movement away from that definition of Judaism some fifty years later in the Columbus Platform (1937), in which Jews were now called upon to assist the building of the Jewish homeland.
What is noticeable today is that the leadership of the Reform Movement is amongst the most Zionist and pro Israel of any denomination in American Jewry. Our esteemed President, David Ellenson, takes pride in the fact that an overwhelming majority of this year's entering class of rabbinical students went to Israel in the midst of great tension. This suggests, somewhat counter intuitively, that the Reform Movement is among the most committed and the most willing to extend itself and its institutional power in establishing a base in Israel. Having said that, there are very serious challenges that lie ahead for the Reform movement in Israel, and there are a good number of Reform leaders here who know this far better than I do.
Still, I think the challenge is related to some of Ruth Gavison's comments earlier. As I read the Israeli map, there is no real conceptual vocabulary to describe a position between dati and hiloni, between religious and secular. Religious meaning Orthodox, of various stripes, but nonetheless, orthodox a function of the state sponsored definition of what traditional Jewish religious culture is.The challenge is to create a conceptual vocabulary that allows for a non-orthodox religious culture. And I think the results so far, while the efforts may be heroic, are mixed. It's going to take an ongoing effort by committed Reform Jewish leaders. I think there are reasons for optimism. But I think there are also caution signs that have to be noticed.
Two questions: Please comment on the reasons why, after 50 years of nationhood, Israel has still failed to adopt a constitution and especially the equivalent of a bill of rights akin to the United States. Should the right of return be terminated and if yes, or no, why?
Gavison: From the very beginning I felt that this very important discussion is bound to be very frustrating because the issues are so big and deep and extensive and interrelated. And the hope that we can say something meaningful about these issues in such a frame of time is really very, very, very ambitious. And now the two questions come and illustrate very dramatically the almost impossibility of the mission.
I ask the person who is interested in the issue of a constitution for Israel to come and talk to me after the session. The answer should be a full length lecture. In a nutshell I can say that I don't think that if Israel had a constitution, that in itself would have solved any of its serious problems. I know this may sound surprising to you Americans, who are so used to the centrality of the constitution in your life. I do not think a constitution or even a Bill of Rights would have changed the internal debate within Israel on the basic issues. The short answer to why we do not have one is simple too many people and parties believe that they are better off with the present situation, and would not want to cooperate with entrenching a political arrangement that will institutionalize compromises which they are reluctant to make.
The right of Jews to Return is a much trickier subject and I do not think the answer is derived from universal norms or from human rights talk. It's primarily ideological. Many people think that it's time for Israel to give up the principle of return. This is one of the most central questions to Israel's self conception. The abolition of the principle of Jewish return would be supported by Arabs, and by those who want Israel to move in the direction of a neutral civic state; it will be supported by those who say that the nation created in Israel is that of Israelis, not of Jews. I should not be counted among these. I believe in the right of Jews to political self determination. I believe Israel is the only state where Jews exercise this right. I think that it's good that there is one place in the world in which Jews exercise the combination of independence and responsibility to others, which Jews in Israel seek to implement. I therefore think that the principle of return the idea that Jews are entitled to come to Israel and live there should remain. The need of this principle is one of the important lessons of the 20th century. I believe the principle is legitimate, that it can be justified, that it should be justified.
I would, however, change the details of the present arrangement. I would both broaden and narrow down those eligible for return. Today, only those born to a Jewish mother or who were converted are eligible, but they can confer a right on all their family members to three generations, even if these members of family are practicing another religion and have no connection to Judaism or the Jewish people. I would make eligible all those, and only those, who feel Jewish or want to join the Jewish collective sincerely, even if they are not 'Jewish' according to the orthodox interpretation of Jewish law. So I would definitely look at the details. I would take Israeli citizenship much more seriously. I wouldn't give olim Israeli citizenship upon their arrival. I would let them learn the country, learn the language, learn its culture, learn the kind of democratic institutions that it has, the different communities that live in it, the internal tensions. After they learn all of this, they can truly and meaningfully exercise their political right to citizenship. But basically I do support the continuation of the principle of return and see it as a central element in the idea of the Jewish State.
Is it possible that the trend towards spirituality is a sign of deterioration rather than regeneration in American Jewish life?
Myers: I think we can say that the quest for spirituality is a sign of a distancing from established communal and denominational bodies. And I think it's part of a much larger American phenomenon. That is to say, the Jewish quest for spirituality takes part in a much larger American quest for spirituality, which often times leads away from organized religious affiliation.
The Jewish variation of this phenomenon has been documented in the recent work of Steve Cohen and Arnold Eisen, a sociologist and a scholar of Jewish thought combining qualitative and quantitative methods, who've described the way in which the American Jew is increasingly disconnected from community. This Jew is embarked upon a spiritual search and intrigued by a notion of religion and God that is, in a sense, more American than Jewish. Thus, there's a kind of American template for thinking about God. Is this a sign of degeneration rather than regeneration? Well, I think it's a wakeup call for Jewish denominations. I think it's a challenge. And there are two ways to think of that group that is clearly adrift from established denominational bodies.
One can think that they're simply heading in a direction that doesn't allow us to reclaim them. And this is consistent with the view of some in the Jewish community who believe that our endeavors should be devoted to inreach rather than outreach. That is, we should devote ourselves to solidifying the core, to nurturing the self selecting affiliated. And in a sense, leave behind those who have already begun to drift.
I think we can't afford to focus our efforts only on inreach. We must make a play for the large body of unaffiliated Jews out there. Especially at this point in time when we still have substantial resources, and it's still possible to forge new ways of thinking about religious culture and identity. American Jewish organizations, especially denominations, must become sufficiently malleable to reach out to people who have healthy and unfilled spiritual appetites. I think we have the resources and I think we have the creativity. I think we also have the adaptability, and therefore our focus should remain on outreach rather than exclusive inreach.
Gavison: I would like to address the question because I agree that it's a very interesting question and I think it's a question of universal validity and not so particular to the American community. And in Israel you might say that we're so busy with security and economics and all the real aspects of life that we can afford, maybe even that we must, let go of the more spiritual or cultural concerns. This is a very serious mistake. It is not only morally wrong to neglect the cultural and spiritual aspects of life. It is also psychologically dangerous, because those who seek spirituality are people looking for an adequate emotional, real material response to their needs as whole human beings.
In fact, one of the interesting aspects of Jewish revival, in general, and Jewish revival in Israel, in particular, is the fact that many people have found that working towards strengthening aspects of their Jewish identity, both spiritual and material, is just what they have been looking for. It is important that we remember that many people, especially after they meet their more pressing needs of physical and material security, feel an acute and troubling emptiness and meaninglessness. And the challenge of a spiritual community, or a religious community, or a
