Renewing Jewish Identity in Israel

Rabbi Donniel Hartman

The renewal of Jewish identity in Israel poses a unique challenge, very different from that facing North American Jewish life. The secular Zionist movement, which founded the country and determined much of its cultural and linguistic sensibilities, was often fueled by a deep ambivalence, alienation, and even an- tipathy toward Judaism and the Jewish life of the Diaspora. To preserve these feelings, they instilled within the cultural DNA of Israeli society a distinction between two types of Jews and Judaisms, one that they classifi ed as hiloni, secular, and the other as dati, religious, with the former representing themselves and what they hoped and believed would be the new future of Judaism. These two categories, and these two categories alone, provided for Israelis the only lenses through which they could classify and comprehend their Jewish identity. Now, one of the central features of this secular–religious dichotomy is, that within Israeli society, to be hiloni is also to defi ne oneself in the negative, as non-dati, non-religious. As a result and quite intentionally, the category of religion was allocated to the religious alone, defi ned in Israel as Orthodox. The religious have a relationship with religion, whereas the secular are self-defi ned essentially as outsiders to their own Jewish tradition and conversation. Their at- tachment to their roots and past was achieved through the land and language, and being secular meant associating more with an Israeli identity than a Jewish one. To comprehend the underlying challenges facing Jewish renewal in Israel, it is thus essential to understand that the Orthodox monopoly of Judaism as a religion is not primarily the result of religious coercion on the part of Orthodoxy or the Israeli political system. Rather, it is the consequence of the foundations of the cultural and linguistic lexicon of modern Israeli society, which gave almost no room for secular Israelis’ religious sensibilities. One of the central Now, many non-religious Israelis—secular and traditional alike—live active features of this Jewish lives, characterized by varying degrees of Judaic learning, faith, ritual, and secular–religious calendar observances. Nevertheless, when they refl ect on their own Jewishness dichotomy is that ... or are in a position to implement policies that relate to their religious rights, as to be hiloni is also to non-religious, they disempower themselves and adopt policies of Jewish self- defi ne oneself in the neglect. This reality is also the primary cause for the lack of Jewish diversity in negative, as non-dati, Israel. If one sees oneself as outside a certain discussion, with no interest in en- non-religious. tering it, one does not advocate for the rights of others to participate. Advocacy of religious pluralism presupposes religious involvement and commitment. The consequences of the self-alienation described above have affected Is- raeli society in many ways. Non-Orthodox schools did not request nor receive additional funding for Judaic studies, as did their religious counterparts, leading essentially to a bankruptcy of Jewish education in the former. On issues of per- sonal status, it led to a lack of options in the areas of marriage, divorce, and

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Volume 85, No. 1, Winter 2010 73 JEWISH RENEWAL IN ISRAEL conversion. Even when secular or traditional Israelis feel that something is wrong with the spectrum of Jewish options available, they lack the conceptual language to articulate the matter for themselves, let alone for others. “I am secular, and am not connected with that,” they say, with that meaning religion. This lack of ability to articulate new aspirations, let alone infl uence change, created a Jewish identity stagnation and crisis within Israeli society, a crisis that Israelis were incapable of solving on their own. It is here that North American Jewry, and in particular UJA-Federation of New York, especially under the leadership of John Ruskay, has had one of their fi nest hours. North American Jewry, although facing signifi cant challenges relat- ing to the Jewish identity and commitment of its own members, does not suffer from the categorical and conceptual misconceptions that plague Israelis. Religion and Judaism are not the sole inheritance of any single denomination, but rather are categories that are subject to multiple interpretations and divisions. Ameri- can non-Orthodox Jews might face the challenge of ensuring Jewish continuity among their children and grandchildren, but they do not see themselves as outside the Jewish religion or tradition. It was therefore not an accident that North American Jewry—through federations, private philanthropy, and often with the leadership of North-American- born or educated educators living in Israel—took the lead in assessing the problem of Jewish identity in Israel and then creating new ideas, horizons, and programs to transform this identity and create foundations for its renewal. These activities, which reached their apex from the mid-1990s through the early years of the 21st century, served as a new model of partnership between Israel and world Jewry—not a partnership of doers and funders, of frontline warriors and support staff, but of equals who together worked to redefi ne the future of Jewish life in Israel. North American Jews, based on the notions of religious empowerment, diversity, and pluralism they practiced in North American community life, took upon themselves to bring to their Israeli brethren these understandings and the possibilities for new Jewish identities they embodied. North American However, as these efforts were turned into initiatives, the partnership en- Jews, based on the countered several key challenges. First and most signifi cantly, it became apparent that North American Jews were applying their Jewish denominational categories notions of religious to the distinctly different Jewish identity and renewal conversation of Israel. empowerment, While secular Israelis were alien to the place of Judaism within their identity, this diversity, and situation was not going to be rectifi ed through the access points of Conservative pluralism…, took and Reform Judaism, because these denominations were just as alien to Israelis upon themselves to as the Orthodox denomination with which they were already all too familiar. bring to their Israeli Second, too many of the North-American-funded initiatives were localized brethren these and non-scalable, and thus also non-sustainable, and could not combat a prob- understandings and lem whose roots were national and multigenerational. The enormity of the chal- the possibilities for lenge of redefi ning a national Jewish identity could not be addressed with new Jewish identi- relatively modest and localized funding. ties they embodied. In combating these challenges, UJA-Federation again played a key leading role. It was one of the fi rst federations to understand that Jewish renewal in Israel must have a unique Israeli make-up. Although secular Israelis believed in God, they were not interested in the worship of God. Their new secular Judaism could be based on ethics, values, holidays, learning, and culture, but it could not have,

74 Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Volume 85, No. 1, Winter 2010 RENEWING JEWISH IDENTITY IN ISRAEL at least in its early stages, a synagogue focus. In addition, UJA-Federation was one of the fi rst to allocate signifi cant funds to seed and support larger, long-term initiatives. These initiatives created a measurable change in Israeli society, as every survey now indicates.1 Non-Orthodox Israelis are involved in ever-increasing amounts of Jewish activity and are progressively seeing themselves as Jews, as distinct from Israelis. Only 15% call themselves “secular” when secular is inter- preted as being in contradistinction to being Jewish, and only 17% declare that they do not participate in any way in Jewish practices. Although this initial transformation was achieved because of the partnership between Israel and North America, unfortunately, this partnership over the last fi ve years has become the source of a new problem that is currently threaten- ing the status of Jewish renewal in Israel. Federation funding is intimately connected to federation fundraising, and its priorities are often dictated by the ability to mobilize donors. When it comes to North American local needs, the immediacy and visibility of the cause and its urgency enable sustainable long-term investment by federations. The needs of the elderly and the poor, for example, and the viability of local organizations serving the community are ever present and perpetually inspire the donor base and a consequent stream of funding. Overseas allocations, however, must in- clude causes that are by defi nition out of sight, but to achieve sustainability, they cannot be out of mind. This often causes federations to over-accentuate those overseas issues that attract attention such as the crisis of the day and to regularly change causes as the interest of the donor base wanes. This is not a result of a lack of understanding but the endemic reality within which federations must raise funds to function and survive. Consequently, Jewish renewal in Israel, which was marketed and sold suc- cessfully for a number of years, has not sustained the broad-based interest over time that it merits and requires. It will take 50 years to seriously affect Israeli society’s Jewish identity education, yet donor interest peaked after just 5 years. Institutions committed to the long term found themselves confronted with donors who said, “Jewish Israeli identity? We did that last year.” And the challenge of Jewish renewal in Israel was supplanted by the next urgent crises brought on by the Intifada and wars in Lebanon and Gaza. This process has been further exacerbated by the importing of certain venture capital concepts into the fi eld of philanthropy. As philanthropy has become more professional, it has increasingly drawn on business categories and culture. In most cases this shift has benefi ted philanthropy, but in one case in particular it has been exceptionally counterproductive to many of the causes that philanthropy supports. I am referring to the category of “start-up” or “seed funding. ” The venture capital modus vivendi is to provide initial start-up and seed funding for a business that must ultimately sustain itself by going public or being bought out, at which time the initial investors exit, reaping profi table returns on their investment. Nonprofi ts are now being seen as start-up ventures to be backed for a limited number of years, after which they are expected to be self-sustaining. Although undoubtedly there is a start-up phase within nonprofi t activities and

1See for example the Guttman 2008 survey of the Israel Democracy Institute and the 2007 survey of Israel’s Central Statistics Agency, Questionnaire on Religious Afﬁ liation and Family Status.

Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Volume 85, No. 1, Winter 2010 75 JEWISH RENEWAL IN ISRAEL the long-term viability of a program should, if relevant, take into account its ability to scale, the nature of nonprofi t work is that it never frees itself from its need for philanthropy. Three-years-and-out funding, which has become increasingly prevalent, has further eroded the funding base of long-term initiatives of the type so essential to Israeli Jewish identity renewal. The combination of the above two factors has led to a signifi cant break in the unique partnership forged in the mid- to late 1990s. North American Jews and federations have by and large eliminated or dramatically reduced their allocations to pluralistic Jewish renewal for Israelis. Although the initial period of North American philanthropy produced much progress in this fi eld, the fi eld still requires at least another two or three decades to penetrate suffi ciently into the consciousness of secular and traditional Israelis. The cultural transformation has begun, but it has not yet reached a tipping point. The leadership in the foreseeable future is not going to come from within Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Education has by and large ignored the recommen- dations of its own Shenhar Commission, which fi rst highlighted the Jewish identity crisis within secular Israeli society in general and within the national school system in particular.2 Even when the Ministry of Education embarks on a Jewish identity initiative or partners in funding with NGOs, these efforts are always short term and last approximately two years, the average tenure of a Minister of Education. Furthermore, although Israeli philanthropists are increasingly com- ing on board and shouldering some of the responsibility for Israel’s social welfare and educational needs, the area of Israeli Jewish identity renewal has yet to become a priority for domestic philanthropy. Israeli philanthropists are still by and large plagued by the old hiloni–dati dichotomy and see Jewish renewal as the agenda of the religious. The future of Israel and the relationship between the two major communi- ties of Jewish life are dependent upon our having a common culture and shared Jewish identity. In the absence of this shared foundation, the future of Jewish peoplehood is in serious danger. Israel has inspired new meanings for Jewish life and identity for Jews around the world. North American Jewry has created Israeli philanthro- unique approaches to Judaism and increasingly complex understandings of what pists are still by and is needed to sustain modern Jewish identity. It can draw on all it has done to date large plagued by the to shape and infl uence the future of Judaism in Israel and, through that, the col- old hiloni–dati lective future of our people. Yet to do so it must remain focused on the unique dichotomy and see contribution it can make to Israeli Jewish renewal. Although the masses will al- Jewish renewal as ways be inspired by immediate and ever-changing crises, the fact is that the vast the agenda of the majority of federation funds come from less than 5% of the population. The chal- religious. lenge of federations is to educate all their members and in particular this 5% to the larger concerns and missions of Jewish peoplehood, so that the dichotomy between funding needs and funder interests will be minimized. This is the true challenge of leadership and the challenge of federations in the years to come.

2The commission, headed by Prof. Aliza Shenhar, was formed in 1991 and published its ﬁ ndings in 1994. The re- port called for the revamping of the Judaic studies curriculum, the allocation of additional resources for Judaic studies for secular Israeli youth, and the training of a new cadre of Judaic studies teachers.

76 Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Volume 85, No. 1, Winter 2010