For all the theological, ritualistic and institutional differences separating
the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements, for all their divergent
approaches to revelation, halacha and communal decision- making, what
distinguishes the groups in the minds of many ordinary American Jews comes down
to branding.
Orthodoxy is on the Right, Reform on the Left. In the middle
stands Conservative Judaism. If the new crop of Conservative rabbis has anything
to say about it, Conservatism may not occupy the center for very long. That, at
least, is the message of a recent report by the movement’s Jewish Theological
Seminary, based on a survey of political views among “Generation Y” rabbinical
students – born in the mid-1970s to mid-1990s – and the seminary’s somewhat
older rabbinical alumni, ordained since 1980.
At first blush, the report
purports to show what one would hope to find among the rabbinate: a solid Jewish
identity and strong attachment to Israel. On closer examination, however, this
identity appears increasingly filtered through a universalistic and liberal
political perspective.
Among American Jews as a whole, according to the
Pew Forum, 38 percent identify themselves as liberal; 39% call themselves
moderate. In contrast, 58% of the Conservative rabbis surveyed – and 69% of the
rabbinical students – called themselves liberal. It’s hard to defend the center
when you’re not in it.
These rabbis and rabbinical students are
“pro-Israel,” but they are redefining what “pro-Israel” means. As liberals, they
hold an optimistic view of human nature: Though Palestinian leaders see their
conflict with Israel as a zero-sum game, it seems hard for the rabbis to
acknowledge this grim fact. Instead, they get their understanding of events in
Israel from ideologically reinforcing Left-oriented sources: liberal media
outlets, Facebook posts, and
Haaretz.
These sources help explain the
conspicuous disconnect between the next generation of Conservative rabbis and
mainstream American Jews on the subject of the Arab- Israel conflict. More than
three-quarters of American Jews, according to the latest American Jewish
Committee survey, believe that the Arabs’ goal is not merely the return of the
“occupied territories” but the actual “destruction of Israel.” Only 30% of the
JTS rabbinical students agreed with a similar statement.
Indeed, fully
12% of the rabbinical students are “uncomfortable” with Israel’s being a “Jewish
state.” To individuals with this universalistic bent, moral relativism comes
more naturally. Most of the future rabbis – all of whom have studied in Israel –
do not see Palestinian leaders as their enemies. A majority, 56%, say the
Palestinian side is no “more to blame” than Israel for the ongoing conflict.
Sure, Hamas dominates Gaza. Yes, the West Bank Fatah leadership refused to
negotiate with the Netanyahu government during a ten-month settlement freeze.
Even so, a majority of the rabbis want an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967
borders, with “land swaps” and a freeze on any “expansion of settlements in the
West Bank.”
Compare these views with the position of most American Jews
in the face of unremitting Palestinian intransigence: 55%, according to an AJC
poll, oppose a Palestinian state. In equally stark contrast, most Israelis,
regardless of their political views, simply do not believe that today’s
Palestinian leadership is capable of making peace with Israel.
The JTS
survey elicited the opinion of 68% of the rabbinical students that the “settler
movement” – not just extremist settlers, mind you – is a “threat.” The survey
did not bother to ask whether the Palestinians should be required to accept
Israel as a Jewish state (the position of 96% of American Jews) or whether PA
President Mahmoud Abbas should abandon his demand for a Palestinian “right of
return.”
The survey tells us that 72% of the rabbinical students have
engaged in efforts at dialogue with Arabs: Some head to Ramallah for the
opportunity to socialize with Palestinians, while others take excursions to West
Bank Arab villages with New Israel Fund-supported activists.
The survey
says nothing about any commensurate efforts by the rabbis to understand the
“settler mindset.” Many report having visited a “settlement”; but the definition
of “settlement” and the auspices under which the visits were made are left to
our imagination.
We can guess the reasons for the disparate treatment of
Palestinians and settlers. The rabbis believe AIPAC is not liberal enough. J
Street, whose platform practically mirrors that of the Palestinian Authority, is
closer to their hearts, with 58% approval. At 80% approval, the New Israel Fund
is the absolute cat’s meow.
The 63-year-old Zionist enterprise is a
work-in-progress.
No Israeli would suggest it is beyond criticism. But
30% of Reform rabbinical students return from Israel feeling “hostile” or
“indifferent” toward the Jewish state; now we learn that 53% of JTS rabbinical
students are “sometimes” or “often” ashamed of Israel. Is it the ultra-Orthodox
stranglehold on state-controlled religious life that alienates them? Too bad,
then, that so few future Conservative rabbis volunteer extensively at
Conservative-affiliated Masorti congregations in Israel.
Seminaries and
professors have been unable or unwilling to provide their students with the
moral compass needed to navigate between worthy universalistic values and
particularistic Jewish standards. By the time they get to seminary, it may be
too late. Most of today’s rabbinical students did not attend Jewish elementary
or high schools, though they are likely to have attended Camp Ramah. The
attitudes revealed in the JTS survey hammer home the need, now more than ever,
for the community to find ways to provide its youth with, yes, a parochial
education.
The JTS report concludes that the younger cohort of rabbinical
students is “no less connected” to Israel than its elders. Yet, for many, this
connection seems compromised by the felt need to reconcile their attachment with
uncritically assimilated universalist ideals and, in extreme cases, Left-liberal
dogma that is anti-Zionist. No amount of redefining what it means to be
pro-Israel can paper over the predicament facing Conservative Judaism’s future
leaders: What is the place of the movement in Jewish life if not as an
embodiment of political and theological centrism and moderation?
The writer is a
former Jerusalem Post editorial page editor, and is now contributing editor to
Jewish Ideas Daily. (This article was first published by Jewish Ideas Daily and
is reprinted with permission.)