At a crossroads

Liberal American Jews need to learn to just say no, if they are to avoid a Jewish identity that is so diluted it will eventually fade into history.

By YAIR SHELEG
Jews in Hollywood (photo credit: REUTERS)
Jews in Hollywood
(photo credit: REUTERS)
THE BOUNDARIES of Jewish identity have expanded dramatically during the modern era.
The ancient symbiosis between Judaism and the keeping of mitzvot has been shattered, making it possible to live a Jewish life that is completely secular. In addition, one can self-identify as religious without being Orthodox.
The Jewish faith has evolved and become more open in the last several decades with the triumph of modern liberalism. For example, there is greater acceptance of women in religious roles traditionally reserved for men, interfaith marriages and same-sex unions.
This puts Jewish identity at a crossroads and we have to ask – with such a deeply ingrained concept of inclusion, can we develop boundaries around the definition of who is a Jew? If boundaries aren’t established, will the concept of Jewish identity become diluted and eventually be so broad that it fades into history? These were among the central questions my colleagues and I addressed at the Israel Democracy Institute’s recent roundtable discussion on the concept of Jewish identity.
Not surprisingly, a plethora of answers were proposed.
Some conference participants asserted that it’s simply not possible to define a set of boundaries in the modern era. Similarly, others asserted that we must accept the fact that the concept of Jewish identity today is fluid, and not subject to a strict set of definitions.
At the other end of the spectrum were voices that called for the establishment of a set of common points for Jewish identity; for making traditional Jewish learning more accessible and relevant to our time; placing greater emphasis on Jewish learning that has a global perspective; and establishing global Jewish projects based on the religious concept of tikkun olam, repairing the world.
I would like to humbly submit my answer to this grand question of Jewish identity based on my religious Zionist upbringing and personal experiences as a member of this group.
First, there are major differences between religious Zionism in Israel, or what is commonly known as Modern Orthodoxy in America. In Israel, Jews live among other Jews, in a sovereign Jewish nation that’s comprised of an overwhelming Jewish majority.
The meaning of a religious Zionist person marrying a secular Jew in Israel pales in comparison to the potential ramifications of interfaith marriages.
However, while they have superficial differences, both the religious Zionist community (roughly 22 percent of Israel’s Jewish population) and Jews in the US are examples of people who want to assimilate into wider society ‒ perhaps even assume leadership positions within it ‒ while holding on to their original and unique identities.
It’s obvious that religious Zionism in Israel, despite some of its shortcomings (ultranationalism and certain activities that are an affront to the values of modern liberal culture), has been far more successful than Jews in the US at assimilating while still maintaining their Jewish faith and identity.
Though there are those members of the religious Zionist community who have assimilated so much that they are basically secular, this is not the majority; whereas assimilation in the US, as per every recent survey, is on the rise.
What is the secret of religious Zionism’s success at balancing secularism with religiosity? Can American Jews derive any lessons from this success? The secret is quite simple. Religious Zionists attribute equal importance to assimilating into Israeli society and maintaining their unique Jewish identity. In contrast, liberal-minded American Jews merely pay lip service to the concept of Jewish continuity. In reality, America’s Jewish population tends to choose assimilation over Jewish identity at virtually every important crossroads when such a choice must be made.
THE DIFFERENCE between the religious Zionist approach and that of American Jewry is especially noticeable in the area of education.
Despite the widely held perception that religious Zionists are integrated into Israeli society, an overwhelming majority of children from religious Zionist homes attend separate schools (boys and girls, religious only), with only a very small minority studying in integrated institutions.
In the United States, most American-Jewish parents send their children to public schools. At best, most American-Jewish children receive some form of supplemental Jewish education for a few years.
This fundamental difference has serious ramifications.
The majority of religious Zionists consume and take part in the same culture (music, film, etc.) as their secular peers.
However, they also embrace their own unique culture.
In recent years, this trend toward connecting with religious Zionist aspects of culture has been rising steadily. This can even be seen in the way most religious Zionists go out of their way to dress differently than their secular compatriots and continue to steadfastly maintain their standards of kashrut.
In contrast, liberal American Jews would almost never conceive of allowing themselves to stand out from the rest of society in dress or diet.
The test of one’s drive to preserve his or her Jewish identity is the ability to “just say no.” Primarily, saying no applies to what a person is not willing to do for the very reason that he or she is Jewish.
It is not an accident that in the Torah there are many more negative mitzvot (thou shall not) than positive commandments – 365 versus 248, to be exact.
If we can assume it was halakha (Jewish law) that preserved Jewish identity during the harsh 2,000 year exile, then it is fair to assert that it was the negative commandments that helped provide guidance for Jews around the world. These commandments told them who not to marry, what not to eat, etc. These commandments have separated, and are meant to substantially separate, the Jewish people from the gentile majority so the Jews would preserve their distinctly Jewish identity.
In our liberal age, it is very difficult to just say no.
If someone is interested in preserving Jewish identity, he will usually do so by limiting the scope of that identity to a series of nice, pleasant, undemanding, timeworn “thou shall” commandments, some of which are little more than folkloric in nature. Realistically, the continuity of the Jewish people will not be based on such platitudes. Only by internalizing and implementing some negative obligations can Jewish identity be maintained and preserved.
This doesn’t mean that every single one of the 365 negative mitzvot must be followed. Still, there should be some sort of commitment to what a Jewish person should not do in order to remain Jewish.
These negative commandments cannot be pegged to saving the environment or avoiding harm. Rather, they must be followed because they define the contours of Jewish identity.
If and when this happens, we will know that American liberal Jewry is serious in its formal goal to preserve Jewish continuity. 
The writer is head of the Israel Democracy Institute’s Religion and State Program and was the conference chair of IDI’s recent ‘Who Is a Jew? Reevaluating the Boundaries of Jewish Identity’ conference. Learn more: www.en.idi.org.il