 |
| Malcolm Hoenlein (Left) and Ronald Lauder |
Most of what I have
ever read about Ronald Lauder has been very positive. He deserves the gratitude
of the entire Jewish people for all he has done. Raised as a secular Jew, he has
nevertheless been very active in Jewish organizations. One of which is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
that has been led for over 4 decades by
its Executive Vice-President, Malcolm Hoenlein, an
Orthodox Jew.
That said, I share some of Hamodia’s outrage. But I do not
share all of it. Some of what Lauder says rings true. More about that later.
As Hamodia notes, Lauder blasted Israel in a recent oped in
the New York Times. In what was a two pronged attack, he first blamed Israel’s settlement
activity for the possible demise of the 2-state solution. Whether that is
accurate or not… or even whether a 2-state solution is good idea at this point
in time regardless of settlement activity – is matter of debate upon which
serious, well intentioned people can disagree. But it is not the issue that I
am concerned with here. It is the second prong of the attack that is. There-in
is where I both share and dispute Hamodia’s criticism. Here is some of what he
said in that New York Times op-ed:
“The State of Israel distorts Jewish values and harms democracy and equality. This will cause more Jews to distance themselves from the State of Israel. The West is indifferent and even hostile to it.” In addition, Mr. Lauder wrote that the behavior of the State of Israel is “a great threat to the future of the Jewish people.”
“Orthodoxy should be respected, but we cannot allow the politics of a radical minority to alienate millions of Jews worldwide.”
“By submitting to the pressures exerted by a minority in Israel, the Jewish state is alienating a large segment of the Jewish people.”
“Many non-Orthodox Jews, myself included, feel that the spread of state-enforced religiosity in Israel is turning a modern, liberal nation into a semi-theocratic one. A vast majority of Jews around the world do not accept the exclusion of women in certain religious practices, strict conversion laws or the ban of egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall.”
As I have said many times, If Israel is going to be defined in any meaningful way as a Jewish state it must at some level be based on Jewish law.
This is not to say that we should have religion shoved down the throats of all secular
Jews. That would be a disaster of epic proportion. But that doesn’t mean we
ignore Halacha either.
Israel’s early leadership attempted to accommodate
both secular and religious Jews so that each side could live their lives
accordingly without interference from the other. It was agreed that various aspects
of the state’s character should be based on Halacha. That is why for example, Shabbos
is the official day of rest. And why Kashrus standards are maintained in its military
establishment. And why the Rabbinate was given full and
exclusive authority to rule in all religious matters.
But at the same time no one was forced to observe
anything in their personal lives. That was the status quo
agreement that promised to maintain the balance between secular and religious Jews.
Hamodia says pretty much the same thing. It is Jewish Law
that ultimately determines Jewish character. They reject... the counterfeit “unity” built on the shaky
foundations of “enlightenment,” “human progress” or “worldly culture.
My only
quibble with that is that I do not consider those values counterfeit. They are
values of of an enlightened democracy. What they are not - are particularly Jewish values.
So while I disagree with Lauder’s desire for pluralism in
Israel, I sympathize with his lament that the
vast majority of Jews in the world (who are secular) have been alienated from
supporting Israel. However, I reject that the religious rights ascertained by the status quo agreement is the reason for that. The real reason for that alienation has
been made clear by that now famous 2013 Pew research study that showed most of those
Jews are not just alienated form Israel - they are alienated from Judaism. And could not care less about what goes on in Israel. It is
only heterodox leadership that is upset by this.
To the extent that non observant Jewish lay people are upset at all is directly due to the incitement of those rabbis. Without that, I believe that most of those 90% would not know or care about it. The vast majority of those Jews will
never visit Israel – let alone the Kotel. Even that part of it that
egalitarian. That they support an egalitarian space is only a matter of principle to them at the urging of those leaders. Egalitarianism having nothing to do with Judaism.
That said, there is a sense of ascendant Charedi power in
Israel that is disturbing even to me. Not via any new legislative religious coercion that they currently support. (Although there might be some of that in some isolated
cases). But by the increased level of extremism emboldened by that ascendancy.
But perhaps more important - is the strident nature of negative comments about fellow non Orthodox Jewish leaders that seek those changes. They fail to understand why
they are so upset and seem to prefer riding roughshod over them. Which is why
you hear the occasional comment from a Charedi rabbinic or political leader that
Reform Jews are not even Jews. Which they almost always backpedal when they are
challenged on it.
That Orthodox Jew believe that the values of Reform Judaism are
not necessarily Jewish is one thing. I agree with that. But to say their people are not even Jewish
is exactly the kind of thing someone like Ronald Lauder would have legitimate complaints
about.
We ought not be alienating non Orthodox Jews. We should treat Jews as Jews that have unfortunately never had the educational opportunities Orthodox Jews have
had. And not denigrate or vilify them. We need to
better understand where they are coming from and stop calling all of their values
counterfeit all counterfeit. They are not. Nor are they evil people with nefarious agendas (At
least not all of them). They are good people that have been led astray by a
version of a religious education that we do not accept. That they will disagree with us does not mean we have to
become enemies.
What we must do is continue to express why we oppose their goals from an
Orthodox perspective without any rancor; agree to disagree; and then find ways
to compromise that will not contradict our values. It will take a lot
of work. But people of good will should be able to do it.
