<<

Florida State University Libraries

2017 Turning Towards Zion: An Analysis of the Development of Attitudes Towards of American Reform Jews in the Wake of Israel's War of 1967 Through Examination of the Yearbooks of the Central Conference of American Micah Roberts Friedman

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION

TURNING TOWARDS ZION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE

DEVELOPMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS ISRAEL OF

AMERICAN REFORM JEWS IN THE WAKE OF ISRAEL’S WAR OF

1967 THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE YEARBOOKS OF THE

CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS

By MICAH ROBERTS FRIEDMAN

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Religion in partial fulfillment of the requirements of graduation with Honors in the Major

1

2

Table of Contents

Signature Page……………………………………………………………………………………...2

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Chapter One: Before the War 1965 – 1966………………………………………………………..10

1965: Cincinnati, Ohio…………………………………………………………………….10

1966: Toronto, Canada……………………………………………………………………15

Chapter Two: War and its Aftermath 1967 – 1969………………………………………………...18

1967: Los Angeles, California……………………………………………………………...18

1968: Boston, Massachusetts……………………………………………………………....24

1969: Houston, Texas……………………………………………………………………..30

Chapter Three: To Jerusalem and back 1970 – 1973………………………………………………41

1970: Jerusalem, Israel…………………………………………………………………….41

1971: St. Louis, Missouri…………………………………………………………………..49

1972: Grossinger, New York……………………………………………………………....57

1973: Atlanta, Georgia…………………………………………………………………….59

Chapter Four: Envisioning Reform 1974 – 1975………………………………………....65

1974: Jerusalem, Israel…………………………………………………………………….65

1975: Cincinnati, Ohio…………………………………………………………………….67

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...70

Reference List……………………………………………………………………………………..74

3

Introduction

The movements of Reform and of Zionism both largely shaped the forms of Jewish organization from the nineteenth century into the twenty-first century. Both of these movements and the various ideological perspectives associated with them involved a response to modernity, to winds of change which swept through Europe and the entire world through the European sphere of influence. According to scholars of Jewish history Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, “the magnitude of change was unprecedented in Jewish history” (Lassner and Troen 2007: 249). The Reform movement embraced the modern narrative that society was objectively advancing forward in the direction of perfection. Throughout the European continent, this narrative was bound up with discourse on Jewish emancipation, the granting of equal rights to Jews living in relatively newly formed European nation-states. Around 80 percent of the world’s Jewish population was residing in

Europe at this time, so Jews were forced to develop responses to modernity and the challenges and opportunities it posed (Lassner and Troen 2007: 249).

Reform embraced the promises of emancipation and dreamed of Jews freely practicing an adapted religion alongside Christian neighbors who fully respected the freedom of Jews to practice their religion. In contrast, Zionism is commonly thought of as having assessed the emancipatory promises of modern enlightenment as hollow. For Zionists, “the rise of fascism and the spread of anti-Semitic racism” demonstrated the limitations of emancipation (Lassner and Troen 2007: 251).

Zionism, at least as articulated by Theodor Herzl who coined the term, espoused the notion that anti-Semitism was an inherent aspect of living in the European diaspora. Herzl proposed moving

European Jews to Palestine to build their own modern nation-state in his major work titled The

Jewish State, which was published in 1896. One year earlier, the Reform movement in America had released its Pittsburgh Platform. This formal statement of Reform Jewish belief in America stated emphatically “we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and, therefore,

4 expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state” (Meyer and Plaut 198). These positions contrasted sharply with those of the nascent Zionist camp, which disagreed on many issues, but was organized around the desires to return Palestine and establish a Jewish commonwealth.

By 1976, however, the Reform movement in the United States, as the largest organized body of Jews outside of the State of Israel, “easily adopted” a platform that articulated a commitment to principles of Zionism (Meyer and Plaut 203). These principles included encouraging , and

supporting the survival of the state of Israel (Meyer and Plaut 206-207). These stances diverged from

those taken in the most recent preceding platform of the Reform movement which was adopted in

Columbus in 1937. By 1937, the Reform movement had grown to be less hostile towards those Jews

who sought to move to the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, the position taken by

the Reform movement at this period was nowhere near as supportive of the Zionist project as their

later platform would be. In this year towards the beginning of the National Socialist rule over

Germany, American Reform Jews declared:

In the rehabilitation of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the promise of renewed life for many of our brethren. We affirm the obligation of all Jewry to aid in its upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life (Meyer and Plaut 201).

Notably missing from this statement is any mention of Jewish political sovereignty in the form of a

state or commonwealth, something which becomes an important aspect of Reform rhetoric about

Israel after 1967. Additionally, there is no suggestion that Jews living in America might seek to live

in Palestine, no call for Aliyah. Rather, this statement amounts to a neutral position on Zionism,

neither fully endorsing nor rejecting Zionist ideology. This call only emerged from the mouths of the

Reform rabbis who spoke as representatives of their institutions in 1976.

5

Michael Meyer’s lengthy work Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism has been widely regarded as the authoritative work on the history of . In Response to

Modernity, Meyer identifies the 1930s, particularly the years leading up to the adoption of the platform of 1937, as the key time period in which Reform Judaism moved towards embracing

Zionism (Meyer 1988: 326). Meyer presents Reform opposition to Zionism as connected to the two movement’s varying ideological positions on whether the Jews should be considered a nation (Meyer

326). Then, Meyer’s account of the American Reform movement’s movement towards Zionism focuses on the impact of individual rabbinic leaders within the Central Conference of American

Rabbis (CCAR). He identifies the election of “Felix Levy, an avowed Zionist, as vice president, and therefore to succeed as president in 1935” as reflective of growing numbers of Zionists and Zionist sympathizers within the ranks of the CCAR (Meyer 327). Then, Meyer dedicates several pages to the

Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, whom he calls “one of the poor east European boys who traveled to

Cincinnati for a secular education at its university and ordination at Hebrew Union College” and who was a “militant” Zionist activist (Meyer 328). Meyer analyzes the rhetoric and behavior of

Reform rabbis of various positions on Zionism in order to construct his narrative of the “explosive issue of Zionism”, arguing that by the time Israel declared independence in 1948 the Reform movement “was fundamentally different from what it had been after World War I” with the majority of Reform rabbis supporting the young state of Israel (Meyer 327, 334). Similarly, I consider the various positions on Israel and Zionism which were articulated by Reform rabbis from 1965 to 1975 in order to determine to what extent the war of 1967 and the following years led the Reform rabbinate to be fundamentally different.

Beyond what has been discussed above, this thesis does not attempt to synthesize or critique existing secondary scholarship on the history of Reform and Zionism. Rather, this study focuses on a detailed examination of the words of American Reform rabbis during a critical period in the

6 histories of Israel and America. My principal examination consists of analyzing the yearbooks of the

Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) from the years 1965 – 1976. The Central

Conference of American Rabbis is the rabbinical organization affiliated with the Reform Jewish movement in the United States. Along with the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC) and Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), the CCAR serves as a major organizational body that speaks on behalf of American Reform Jews. For the sake of examining the development of Reform attitudes towards Israel, I chose to examine the Central Conference of

American Rabbis because the organization of rabbis reflects the official religious and spiritual leadership of Reform. I read the yearbooks of the CCAR because these documents contain the speeches, papers, schedules, and committee presentations from the annual meetings of the CCAR.

As a result, the yearbooks provide a clear representation of the issues which were at the forefront of the attention of the Reform rabbinate in any given year.

The difference between the discourse on Israel in the yearbooks following the War of 1967 and that of the years immediately preceding 1967 is sharp. In this study, I argue that the Six Day

War of 1967 dramatically shifted Reform Rabbinic attitudes, both religious and political, towards

Israel. The series of shifts in attitudes, which were catalyzed by 1967, largely influenced new positions taken by the Central Conference of American Rabbis on Israel. The focus of these positions, formal and informal, range from theological considerations of the role the modern State of Israel could play in Redemption to political denouncements of the actions of the United Nations as anti-Semitic and illegitimate. The positions on Israel which were articulated in this platform were clearly shaped by the speeches, papers and committee reports delivered at meetings of the CCAR in the preceding decade.

In order to paint a detailed picture of the discourse of the CCAR on Israel during this time period from 1965-1976, I analyze the relevant yearbooks chronologically, dividing this period into

7 four sections, each of which is discussed in a separate chapter. The first chapter deals with the two years immediately preceding 1967, painting a picture of the status quo of Reform attitudes and positions toward the state of Israel prior to the Six Day War. In the second chapter, the yearbooks of 1967, 1968 and 1969 are analyzed as representative of the immediate response of the CCAR to

the threat of Israel’s destruction and her rapid, decisive victory. Each of these years is considered to

demonstrate gradual changes with the CCAR placing increasing emphasis on the importance of

supporting Israel through a religious and political understanding of the state. The third chapter

begins with the CCAR convention of 1970, which was held in Jerusalem, and concludes with the

yearbook of 1973. During this period of time, the CCAR developed a more nuanced expression of

Reform support for Israel that reflected the influence of the ideological tradition of Reform. The

fourth and final chapter deals with 1974 and 1975, when the positions and attitudes of the preceding

years took shape more fully, articulating a Reform Zionist perspective.

Methodology

The primary research for this thesis began with a careful examination of each individual

CCAR yearbook, looking for any information pertinent to the subject of this study. First, this

involved reading the table of contents of each yearbook to identify speeches, committee reports, and

resolutions that explicitly mention Israel. I then read through these sections of the yearbooks and

took detailed notes on the information I came across. In each yearbook, I focused on the message of

the president of the CCAR, since it is the responsibility of the institutional leader to outline

organizational positions and priorities. Additionally, I dedicated attention to sections of the

yearbooks that did not deal primarily with Israel. This involved reading speeches and papers with

ambiguous titles in order to determine whether they included significant discussion of Israel. I have

not included every mention of the Jewish state in the body of this text. Rather, I have chosen

quotations and passages that both reflect larger trends within the yearbooks and those that merit

8 special attention because of how they contrast with the larger trends identified. This method enables greater understanding of the significance of the discourse of Reform rabbis regarding Israel by creating space for valuable interpretative commentary.

9

Chapter One: Before the War 1965 - 1966

1965: Cincinnati, Ohio

The discourse of the CCAR about Israel and Zionism in 1965 differed quite dramatically

from what later discourse would transpire. Yet in this year shortly before the Six Day War, the

CCAR was certainly concerned about the State of Israel. The specific concerns which emerge in this yearbook of 1965 are found throughout the time period studied in this thesis. Namely, these concerns include: the relationship of American Jews to Israel, Israel’s physical security, organizational considerations for American Jews, and the balancing of Reform principles while supporting Israel. In 1965, the Central Conference of American Rabbis gathered in Cincinnati, Ohio, the heartland of Classical American Reform Judaism. Cincinnati was and continues to be home to the first campus of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. In 1965, Reform rabbis spoke in detail about Israel – a discourse I argue reflects larger trends in the current Reform rabbinic perspectives about Israel and in the central role that Israel should play for American Jews. Like most years, in 1965, the president of the CCAR delivered a speech to the conference towards the beginning of the meeting in which he presented what he believed to be the most important issues for the CCAR to engage with. In 1965, the president of the CCAR was a man named Leon Feuer, who was the at Congregation Shomer Emunim in Toledo, Ohio and authored a quarter of a century earlier a book titled Why a Jewish State?, the first work published in the US that openly advocated for a Jewish state in Palestine (Olitzky, Sussman and Stern 1993: 57). Feuer presented a case for what he believed to be the significance of Israel for Reform Jews in America:

We can no longer afford the luxury of the hesitancy, the confusion, the dilatoriness, the paralysis in action of the past several years. American Jewry’s organized strength and resources are Israel’s only reliable ally and perhaps the only hope of salvation for threatened Jewish communities elsewhere. Israel is our indispensable ally in making our people and our

10

faith a creative influence in the world. Israel and world Jewry are the obverse and reverse of the Covenant and of the Jewish mission to humanity (1965: 7).1

These words of Rabbi Feuer signal a clear message that American Jews have a responsibility to

orient their organizations and resources towards the goal of aiding the State of Israel. He rejects the

recent past in which American Jews have not dedicated themselves enough to action on behalf of

the State of Israel. Feuer clearly envisioned the Central Conference of American Rabbis stepping up

its support for Israel economically and politically. In addition, Feuer’s words reveal a rather ambiguous theological conception of the relationship between Jews in America and the State of

Israel. His description of these collectives as “obverse and reverse” fails to articulate a specific understanding of the significance of the value of this relationship beyond his also vague goal of “a creative influence in the world”. Importantly, “making our people and our faith a creating influence” is seen as the higher goal by Feuer, with supporting Israel as a means of achieving this larger Jewish objective-one that seems to assume great importance in the face of a perceived threat to Israel and

“threatened Jewish communities elsewhere”. In short, this passage demonstrates that in 1965 the

CCAR, to the extent that Feuer represented the will of the institution, sought to devote more resources towards supporting Israel because of an attitude that held American Jewry and Israel as essentially intertwined.

Rabbi Feuer’s speech reveals that the CCAR was already heavily invested in supporting the

State of Israel prior to the Six Day War of 1967. Feuer is unsatisfied with the previous support, but does not suggest that Reform Jews have previously been uninvolved in political action on behalf of the State of Israel. This point is important because it relates directly to the essential argument of this examination. Although 1967 did not result in a fundamental break with the past, 1967 and the

1 The Central Conference of American Rabbis yearbooks will be cited with only date and page number, as done above.

11 surrounding years were characterized by noteworthy shifts in attitudes to Israel, demanding more engagement with the Jewish state and its people.

The passage quoted above was cited from a section of the President’s message that specifically dealt with the CCAR’s decision to join the Conference of Presidents of Major American

Jewish Organizations. This organization functioned as a communal umbrella for a wide variety of

Jewish organizations and served the purpose of speaking with a united voice on behalf of American

Jews. During this same speech, Feuer cites “the progressive diplomatic isolation of Israel with its constantly present risk of Arab attack” as his justification for joining the Conference of Presidents, despite his concern that the Conference does not accurately represent the American Jewish community because of its undemocratic structure (1965: 7). This action taken by the CCAR, of joining the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, reflects a larger trend which I noticed throughout the CCAR yearbooks. Quite frequently, leadership within the CCAR will mention threats to Israel in order to justify or explain collaboration with other Jewish organizations of different persuasions than the CCAR. This trend suggests that fear for Israel’s survival and security served to facilitate practical organization considerations for the CCAR and the Reform movement.

By joining the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the

CCAR signaled a shift with regard to its relationships with non-Reform institutions which claimed to represent broad constituencies within American Jewry. In 1965, a paper was delivered to the CCAR by Jacob Rader Marcus, a prominent Reform rabbi and scholar of American Jewish history with an extensive academic background who worked at HUC-JIR for years and served as CCAR president from 1949 – 1950 (Olitzky, Sussman and Stern: 1993: 139-141). Marcus spoke about “Tomorrow’s

Prospects” in which he expressed anxiety that the Conference of Presidents would fail to serve the

needs of American Jews (1965: 160). Rabbi Marcus points towards the histories of the establishment

12 of the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Conference and in so doing justifies his anxiety regarding the Conference of Presidents. In reference to the Conference of Presidents,

Marcus asserts that “a group of men in the past few years has effected a union of American Jewish

national organizations to work solely for Israel” in a manner similar to the work of those who

established the previously mentioned Congress and Conference (1965: 164). Implicit in Marcus’s

expressed frustration with organizations founded under the guise of representing American Jewry,

yet actually representing the interests of Israel alone, is the belief that American Reform Jewish

interests are not equivalent to those of the State of Israel and of American Zionists. Throughout the

decade following Rabbi Marcus’s paper, different Reform leaders articulated positions on the

overlap of Reform and Zionist interests that diverge from the position that Marcus took.

Beyond this point, Rabbi Marcus expressed a noteworthy perspective on the dynamics of the

relationship between American Reform Jews and the Jews of Israel. He declared adamantly that “as

religionists, as liberals, as Western intellectuals, we cannot submit ourselves spiritually to the Israelis

at this hour” (1965: 166). This statement demonstrates a belief that for Marcus Israel lacked some

sort of spiritual value that the Reform movement possesses. Marcus continues to express uncertainty

about what the future of the Israeli state will look like and whether its society will surpass “a secular

humanistic faith rooted in traditional folkways” (1965: 166). Because of this uncertainty, Rabbi Jacob

Marcus resolves that “the new Jewish state cannot speak for us, dream for us, or contain us

religiously” (1965: 166). Marcus’s statement, which strikes me as a contemporary reader as

reminiscent of contemporary objections to statements made to Prime Minister

claiming to speak on behalf of world Jewry, conveyed a sense that Reform Jewry and Israeli Jewry

were at odds in an essential manner. This view is reinforced through Rabbi Marcus’s prosaic

definition of Zion with which he concludes his paper:

Zion is the dogged determination to help every Jew everywhere: to teach him our ancestral way of life, to emphasize our age-old heritage, our respect for learning, our common faith. It

13

is the determination to give him the best of what we have inherited and to pass on this new American Jewish culture that it may become another link in an unending chain of Jewish tradition (1965: 167).

With these words, Rabbi Marcus challenges the Zionist notion of Zion as the physical land of the

State of Israel and Marcus supplants that notion with a spiritual, non-physical expression of values.

Rather, Rabbi Marcus see Zion as a behavior, an ethos, which is problematically and uniquely being interwoven with America.

Even though Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus was invited to deliver a paper in a prominent role within the conference which he used as an opportunity to challenge the notion that American Jews should unequivocally stand behind the State of Israel, there were other moments in the 1965

conference which represent more supportive attitudes towards Israel. There were two such

moments in particular. The first was the report of the Committee on Justice and Peace, which was

delivered during the first block of committee reports to the entire body of the conference. Within

this lengthy report, one important paragraph was dedicated to advocating in favor of a bill “which

would provide American business firms with a shield against the Arab boycott which aims to

discriminate against all firms doing business with the State of Israel” (1965: 67). Clearly the CCAR

was beginning to engage in political advocacy on behalf of Israel, but this advocacy was not located

near the top of its political and ethical priorities. This can be reasonably concluded as there were

much longer reports on subjects such as “Housing Discrimination” and “The War on Poverty”

(1965: 68-69). Secondarily, the 1965 yearbook contains a report on the work of the CCAR’s

Committee on Projects for Israel. However, this report was only delivered to the Executive Board

and not to the entirety of the conference. The report states quite explicitly that the goal of the

committee is not to advocate politically on behalf of Israel or to help American Jews to strengthen

their relationships with Israel. Rather, the committee “was set up to assist in furthering Liberal

Judaism in Israel and to work in close co-operation with the World Union for Progressive Judaism

14 in the pursuit of this objective” (1965: 77). Indeed, the CCAR continually emphasizes the

importance of spreading their perspective on Judaism within Israel. As this committee’s expansive

name and purpose suggest, efforts to spread Reform Judaism in Israel were intricately tied,

rhetorically and organizationally, to other projects on behalf of the State of Israel.

1966: Toronto, Canada

In 1966, the CCAR convened in Toronto, Canada. The president, Jacob Weinstein, did not

mention the state of Israel once in his message to the conference. This speech contrasted with the

previous year when the president outlined a vision for the relationship between American Jews and

Israel. Additionally, there was apparently no CCAR committee directly related to Israel during this

year, because no report was recorded. I do not believe these small, yet noticeable, changes with

regards to the prominence of Israel in the agenda of the CCAR to reflect a substantive change in

attitudes towards Israel from the previous year. Yet, I posit that the absence of much attention on

Israel, after the previous president had called for strengthened commitment, reflects a reality in

which the State of Israel was not central to Reform rabbinate in 1966, despite the rhetoric from

Rabbi Feuer one year beforehand. The significant shift to embracing the importance of Israel occurs

in the wake of the war of 1967.

During this conference1966, Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath delivered the conference lecture. At

the time when Eisendrath delivered his lengthy speech to the CCAR, he was serving in his twentieth

year as the first President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Put simply, Rabbi

Eisendrath was one of the most prominent figures within the Reform movement. He was certainly

one of the most influential Reform leaders of this period. In his lecture, Eisendrath harshly critiqued

the state of Israel, even describing Israeli glorification of violence as reflective of the “bankruptcy of

the Jewish spirit” in the Jewish state (1966: 123). In addition to revealing his larger ideological

15 perspective, Eisendrath’s speech serves as a testament to contemporary Reform attitudes towards

Israel.

Throughout his lecture titled “Looking backward or marching ahead?”, Eisendrath appealed to the historical concept of “Dor Hamidbar,” the generation of the wilderness, and drew a parallel between the generation of his contemporaries and that of the Jews who left biblical Egypt (1966:

109). Except, in reverse of the experience of the biblical Dor Hamidbar who fled from oppression and depravity to the Promised Land, Eisendrath perceives his generation as having started their career in the Promised Land of America after “the war to end all wars” and in an age of religious growth in the US. For Eisendrath, the rise of the Nazis and the Second World War were analogous to the returning of the Jews to the wilderness of Sinai. Eisendrath explains, in quite dramatic terms, how witnessing the devastation of atomic bombs and of Nazi death camps radically challenged the narrative of modernity, and the Jewish emancipation that accompanied it, as a purely redemptive force:

Equally as tragic, it sometimes seems to me, as the disemboweled bodies of our brethren in Auschwitz and Belsen, the human scarecrows with flesh falling from their bones still haunting the streets of Hiroshima, is the utter loss of faith in God and Man characteristic of even some of our own number who would abjure the erstwhile indomitable and indestructible hope of our people because of the particular political, social, moral or religious circumstances which admittedly darken our day. For those naked emaciated corpses are not the only casualties of Nazism. More fatal still is the moral damage to man’s soul, his mind, his hope, his faith (1966: 110).

For Eisendrath, contemporary Jews were still very much wandering in the wilderness. Eisendrath lamented that his peers in the Reform rabbinate questioned and struggled with cornerstones of their

religious faith, in particular the promise of an emancipated world. Eisendrath compares their

“grumbling” to the “protests” of the biblical Israelites prior to entering the Promised Land and

challenges his peers to learn from this narrative in order to remember the “blessings” of being a

leader, like Moses, who maintains faith in the promise of a better future (1966: 111).

16

In the process, Eisendrath rebuked his fellows who “mock the very thesis of the liberation of mind and spirit which Reform sought to initiate”, and declared that “we have taken up every shibboleth of every Reform-baiting demagogue as we too assert that the early founders of Reform robbed Judaism of all its warmth and beauty” (1966: 111-112). These strong words communicate his deep frustration with a perceived lack of conviction in Reform Judaism amongst his peers. President

Rabbi Eisendrath’s orientation towards stepping “forth to remind us” of the role Reform aspires to play in the world influences his critical approach towards the State of Israel (1966: 111). In both

contexts, Eisendrath seems himself as playing a “prophetic” role, voicing a principled critique of

other Jews inside and outside of his Reform circle. Eisendrath believed that the state of Israel did

not live up to the morality commanded by Judaism, and he believed that many of his rabbinic peers

were failing to remember the moral vision of Judaism.

17

Chapter Two: War and its Aftermath 1967 – 1969

1967: Los Angeles, California

The Central Conference of American Rabbis gathered in June of 1967, just days after the

state of Israel swiftly defeated the surrounding Arab armies and gained control over the West Bank,

the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. Leaders of the CCAR expressed their positions

on both the war in Vietnam and the war in the Middle East, revealing the urgent matters that

occupied their attention. The proximity in time of Israel’s war to the CCAR’s convention certainly

influenced the proceedings of the convention significantly, as an entire morning’s schedule was

replaced with a “Special Emergency session on Israel” (1967: 106). During the course of this session,

Reform rabbis conveyed dramatically different attitudes towards the state of Israel than that offered

by Eisendrath the previous year. The remarks that opened the session were delivered by Rabbi Jacob

Weinstein. Early in Weinstein’s speech, he acknowledges the difficulty of leading an organization

“which operates by consensus and most importantly by consensus of such vocal individualists as are

found in our Conference” (1967: 3). This assertion sets the backdrop for the rest of Weinstein’s

speech in which he took strong stands on several subjects. Rabbi Weinstein said that his talk would

discuss two matters: rabbinical pensions and issues of justice and peace. Both are subjects one would

expect rabbis to have strong opinions about, but pensions are quite irrelevant to the subject of this

study, except to point out that material interests were motivating factors for Reform rabbis in this

time.

From the topic of pensions, Weinstein turns to discussing the war in Vietnam, rejecting

American Orthodox justifications of the war as “Milchemet Mitzvah – a war of duty” (1967: 7). Rabbi

Weinstein declares his support for young Jews who want to become conscientious objectors and states that “we do not have a single case where a rabbi has been separated from his pulpit because of

his stand on this issue” (1967: 7-8). There are a few important observations to make here. First,

18

Rabbi Weinstein chose to discuss Vietnam before discussing Israel, perhaps suggesting that the war in Vietnam was a more compelling issue for him as the CCAR president. Beyond this, Rabbi

Weinstein boasted of the non-violent positions which the CCAR took under his leadership with

regards to Vietnam. Weinstein proudly proclaims “the Conference and the Union, which were

among the first religious bodies to take a stand in opposition, must intensify our work for peace”

(1967: 10). In the case of Israel’s war, however, Weinstein and the CCAR took a notably less pacifist

anti-War stance.

According to Weinstein, this different position is because “we recognize a different situation

altogether” (1967: 10). Weinstein understands Israel’s recent victory as “the modern-day repetition

of the victory over Goliath of today’s David” (1967: 10). He continued to elaborate on the

differences he identified between Israel and Vietnam. Weinstein emphasized that Israel was a state

with strong democratic structures, while Vietnam was not. Then, Rabbi Weinstein progressed to

outline “Our moral commitment to the State of Israel and to the people of Israel” (1967: 11). He

discusses this commitment in terms of the “tougher battle” ahead of “turning this victory and its

sacrifices into a viable peace” (1967: 11). Rabbi Weinstein reports to the CCAR on requests that had

been made of them from Eppie Evron, “Charge d’Affaire of the Israel Embassy in Washington”

(1967: 11). According to the message Weinstein relays, there are three categories of responsibility

towards Israel. The first of these is to “help sustain the economy”, a declaration that he makes as

part of an evocative metaphor intended to challenge his Reform rabbis to fundraise: “Would they

invade the holy of holies – dig into their capital?” (1967: 11). This question draws an analogy

between the holiest location in the ancient Israelite temple and capital, a principle building block of

capitalism. While this comment appears to have been intended as comical, it strikes me as worthy of

further analysis as this would seem to me to be insulting to Reform rabbis who believed themselves

to be engaging in holy work in their congregations. Regardless of this issue, it is important to note

19 that the principle way that Evron and Weinstein charged Reform rabbis to support Israel is economically. The second commitment Rabbi Weinstein articulates focuses on political activism:

The American Jews would have to mobilize the men and women of influence in the Government, in the press, in all the public opinion agencies, churches, colleges, trade unions, civic organizations, to counteract the international as well as the national pressures that are already being exerted to persuade, induce or compel Israel to surrender at the Conference table what she would not surrender on the battlefield (1967: 12).

This commitment which Weinstein called for proves particularly important. In the wake of the war,

Weinstein, as president of the CCAR, demanded that his peers dedicate themselves to hasbara, to advocacy on behalf of Israel in order to persuade public opinion in the United States. Weinstein

considered this to be a “moral commitment” of utmost importance (1967: 11).

The third commitment introduced here in the president’s message is to “channel the

wonderful enthusiasm and willingness of young American Jews shown in this crisis into a Peace

Corps type of operation” (1967: 12). Apparently, Evron communicated to Weinstein that Israel was interested in the best and brightest of young American Jews, hoping they would contribute to genuine “cultural exchange” (1967: 12). This commitment also seems particularly noteworthy, because it is the one that does not seem to have been fulfilled as completely as the others. Based upon later messages communicated by Israeli diplomats to the CCAR, it seems the true objective of this initiative is to encourage Aliyah from Reform Jews. In time, Israeli diplomats and political leaders would encourage Aliyah explicitly and more actively, but these appeals were not always accepted positively by Reform leaders invested in the survival of the American Jewish community.

One important aspect of this “Peace Corps” initiative was that it generated a positive image which avoided the negative responses that later Israeli officials would receive.

After outlining these three commitments, Rabbi Weinstein went on to discuss further the religious and political consequences of the war and the current time period, articulating a vision of the importance of Jewish nationalism and Jewish power. Weinstein mentioned “the fear of

20 aroused by Nasser, the neo-Nazis, and the Russians, each for their own purposes” and

“the vicious antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism spewed into the microphones of the United

Nations” as reasons why American Jews felt so compelled to come to the assistance of Israel in her hour of need (1967: 12). This quote seems to be the first instance when a Reform rabbinic leader pointed to actions of the UN in order to denounce the institution as anti-Semitic. Functionally,

Weinstein employs rhetoric about widespread antisemitism in order to drum up support for Israel. A

few sentences later, he considers whether the state of Israel is “the only adequate answer to

Auschwitz” (1967: 13). While maintaining that Jewish nationalism is an important answer to

Auschwitz, Rabbi Weinstein states that nationalism fails to be instructive when thinking about

Jewish history and tradition. In his own words, “power is a provincial thing, a step towards a society that transcends power” (1967: 13). Weinstein appears to suggest that Zionism and Jewish power serve as means towards a greater end of a redeemed world, where Jews will not have to fight wars.

Rabbi Weinstein expresses his Reform perspective on the dual need to embrace Jewish nationalism and challenge that nationalism towards the very end of his speech, just days after the war of 1967:

The Jews of the diaspora have learned from Israel the hard-nosed reality of the world we live in. We in turn can help Israel to become the universal Israel the prophets hoped it might become. It is a long and weary burden we assume. For nationalism is the reigning religion of our time. And we Jews are caught in this ambivalent current: that for our survival we must secure Israel, while for the world’s survival we must at the same time contend against the idolatry of nationalism. Ours is the selfsame task the prophets had, to make the nation-state reflect the morality of faith rather than the willfulness of power. It takes a divine meshugas to assume such a burden at such a time (1967: 13).

While praising his comrades for having rallied to the support of Israel in the previous weeks, Rabbi

Weinstein asserts clearly that the strength of the Israel is not the ultimate objective of his support for

the Jewish state. Rather, Weinstein dreams a classic Reform dream, of his movement playing a

prophetic role, helping to establish world peace. Rabbi Weinstein’s depiction of the importance of

Jewish power and nationalism is an important benchmark in the development of Reform attitudes

towards Israel. Weinstein, like Eisendrath, was wary of how nationalism could become idolatrous,

21 leading to the worship of power and military strength. Yet, Weinstein’s speech argued that Israel was far more important for Reform Jews than Eisendrath’s speech understood the Jewish state to be.

While providing a powerful platform to an Israeli official who did not share his Reform understanding of Israel, Weinstein interprets the words of Evron in a manner that fits his vision of the role the Jewish people must play in the world.

The special “Emergency Session on Israel” which was called in 1967 proves to be a thought- provoking demonstration of how Reform rabbis clamored to express their support for Israel during this critical time period. The yearbook documents the text of a resolution regarding the state of

Israel which was authored by Rabbi Daniel Jeremy Silver and was adopted “in standing acclaim” by the CCAR (1967: 109). Rabbi Daniel Jeremy Silver had been the son of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, one of the most influential early Reform Zionists, and Daniel Silver also served as rabbi of his father’s The Temple Tifereth Israel in Cleveland. Within this resolution, there are important rhetorical moves which signal a dramatic pro-Israel position. The resolution states unequivocally that the Arab governments are the only ones to blame for all of the conflict in which

Israel has been engaged. In just as unequivocal terms, the resolution declares “the logic of history and simple justice led the world community to establish the State of Israel” (1967: 106). This opening line from the resolution is remarkable considering the ambiguous position of the Reform movement with regards to the establishment of Jewish political sovereignty in the land of Palestine prior to 1948. The language of this resolution does not make room for acknowledging that some

Jews, some Reform rabbis even, disagreed with the “logic of history and simple justice” at the time of the establishment of Israel. Of course, if the CCAR’s resolution had explicitly discussed the historic non-Zionism of their own institution, then it would not have conveyed the message of

“solidarity with the State and the people of Israel” that it clearly hoped to convey (1967: 109).

22

In addition to these political statements, the resolution expressed a theological understanding of the recent war, by noting that “we utter a heartfelt prayer of thanks that God granted deliverance to Israel in her hour of danger” (1967: 107). This simple sentence assumes that God intended for

Israel to win the war, which reflects a conception of God determining who wins and who loses wars that can be traced to the Tanakh – a claim that does not fall neatly in line with the historical aspects of Reform thought. The resolution immediately proceeds to discuss the unification of Jerusalem by describing the stones of the ancient city as, in a way, more valuable than the lives of Jews serving as

Israeli soldiers:

We note with appreciation Israel’s decision to protect the sacred stones of Jerusalem. While Jordanian cannon fired on Jerusalem, Israel responded only with small arm. This decision necessarily cost Israeli lives. We note with surprise that the great religions have made no public acknowledgement of this sacrificial act (1967: 107).

This demonstrates an ambiguous, but significant, conception of the physical territory of Jerusalem as holy in a manner that diverges from earlier Reform conceptions which emphasize the spiritual

Jerusalem.

In addition to this resolution, multiple actions were approved through extra resolutions which were proposed during the special session on Israel. The form of action that the CCAR called for was exclusively fundraising and philanthropic giving. A resolution mandated that “the Executive

Board make a substantial investment of our assets in Israel Bonds” (1967: 109). In addition, a resolution was passed urging each member of the CCAR to give to the Israel Emergency Fund an amount equal to the annual dues the rabbis pay to be a part of the CCAR. These additional resolutions emerged from the discussion which the followed the reading of the initial resolution authored by Daniel Silver. It seems that there was a bit of a competition among the Reform rabbis at this session to demonstrate who was in more solidarity with Israel based upon how large of a financial contribution they call for.

23

This discussion, and the resolutions that were passed as a result, signal that the CCAR was committing to support Israel in the future. The scope of the economic commitment and the commitment to fundraise within individual communities demonstrates a less nuanced attitude towards supporting Israel than was articulated by Rabbi Weinstein in the same year. In his president’s speech, Rabbi Jacob Weinstein made clear that support for Israel was paramount, but that such support must be understood within the greater goals of Reform. In this previously mentioned resolutions, by contrast, the CCAR committed to contributing to Israel in ways that would enable the Israeli government to determine how best to use their financial resources. The final resolution mentioned in the report on the emergency session on Israel declared that the CCAR will host a conference in Jerusalem as soon as possible and mentioned 1970 as a likely option for that conference. This convention in 1970, which was in fact held in Jerusalem, proves particularly useful for understanding the development of Reform rabbinic attitudes towards Israel. I will address

1970 in more depth later, but it is important to note that this emergency session gave birth to the idea of hosting a conference in Jerusalem.

1968: Boston, Massachusetts

The impact of the War of 1967 on the CCAR conference of 1968 was certainly significant.

The 1967 convention was held just nine days following the end of the war, which did not leave much time for processing. By the next summer, however, the CCAR had time to process and compose a more systematic approach to Israel’s circumstance than they did the previous year. Rabbi

Levi Olan, who lived in (where he was known as an outspoken liberal activist), delivered a president’s message on the opening day of the convention which expressed strong support for Israel and general religious attitudes that emphasized Israel’s importance. Similarly, speeches delivered by

Rabbi Leon Feuer and Rabbi Ezra Spicehandler communicated why they believed it was important to support Israel politically in terms which suggest theological positions on Israel’s significance for

24 the Jewish people. The speeches of these three men, along with the reports of the newly established

Committee for Israel and the Committee on Interfaith affairs, demonstrate that the CCAR made a significant effort to increase American Jewish support for the State of Israel in the year immediately following 1967. Additionally, Yitzhak Rabin, who was currently serving as Israeli Ambassador to the

United States, was invited to deliver a speech to the CCAR, revealing a growing interest in engaging with Israeli officials for guidance in how to support the Israeli state.

Olan addressed a range of pressing political issues including the Reform responsibility to stand with Israel politically. Olan opened his speech with memorializing Reverend Dr. Martin

Luther King Jr. who was assassinated just months before the conference (Olitzky, Sussman and

Stern: 1993: 158). Olan then turned his attention to Vietnam, and he lamented that the war “brought to light a corruption in the moral character of American society which was manifest in the other wars of this century” (1968: 13). Within a few sentences of this declaration of American society as immoral, Rabbi Olan declared “the awful bankruptcy of international morality has been revealed”

(1968: 13). He characterized the international order as immoral, because “the representative men of

the nations of the world listened as Russian and Arab spokesman, and their satellites, accused Israel

of aggression and Hitlerism” at the United Nations in the wake of the Six Day War (1968: 13). It

appears in this instance, that anti-Israel advocacy at the United Nations compelled the president of the CCAR to come to Israel’s defense and harshly criticize the entire world. In response, Rabbi

Olan avowed “American Jews must become aware of the condition of their kin in Israel” and called for “a sacrificial outpouring of the resources of the American Jews to help guarantee that when the desperate hour strikes, Israel will be strong and confident” (1968: 14). Clearly, Olan was concerned

with the threat of Israel’s destruction and with preserving the lives of Jews in the Jewish state. At

least rhetorically, this concern led him to urge a dramatic increase in American Reform Jewish

economic and political support for the State of Israel.

25

Rabbi Leon Feuer was invited to deliver the conference sermon during the Torah service on

Thursday morning. Feuer, referring to himself as “an ardent Jewish nationalist” titled his sermon

“The Many Voices of Jacob” (1968: 154). In this spirit, Rabbi Feuer articulates his opinions that nationalism is a successful tool for the survival of Judaism and “pride in Israel, in its achievements, in its victories and even in its conquests seems to have become the chief raison d’être of world and especially of American Jewry, which glories in it vicariously” (1968: 154). These positions on the centrality of the State of Israel to Reform Jews in America are more extreme than those articulated by Rabbi Feuer three years earlier when he served as president of the CCAR. Apparently, within his own thinking, Feuer has progressed from believing American Jews and Israel to be “the reverse and obverse” of each other to American Jews being chiefly dependent on Israel for a reason to exist.

This perspective surely contrasts dramatically with that articulated by Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, who was in attendance at this conference as the president of the UAHC. These differences demonstrate that there were “Many voices of Jacob” within Reform Judaism, as Feuer’s title asserts.

Despite this explicit statement of the value of a plurality of Jewish perspectives, Rabbi Feuer makes clear to explicitly reject the theological positions of another Rabbi during his sermon. Leon

Feuer rejects the “style of nationalism” of Rabbi Richard Rubenstein, a Conservative rabbi who challenged traditionally important Jewish theological notions of theodicy in the wake of the Shoah in his major work of post-holocaust After Auschwitz. Feuer characterizes Rubenstein’s observation that “one of the supreme ironies of contemporary religious history is that the people who gave the world the prophetic vision of universal brotherhood and peace must effectively renounce its own heritage if it is to survive” as “closer to heresy than even in his strange theological views” (1968: 155). Thus, on the one hand, Rubenstein and Feuer share a religious and political commitment to different forms of Zionism. Yet on the other hand, Feuer declares Rubenstein’s thought to be “unsuitable and unacceptable” and “unJewish” because Rubenstein suggests that

26

Jewish nationalism involves renouncing universal brotherhood. It is possible to interpret this harsh critique voiced by Feuer as reflective of an understanding of “universal brotherhood” as the essential

Jewish principle, above support for the state of Israel. This interpretation falls in line with traditional

Reform thought, but contradicts Feuer’s earlier assertion that the State of Israel provides a reason for diaspora Jewry to exist. Regardless, Rabbi Feuer is notably hostile in this moment, completely rejecting the perspective of one of his peers.

Rabbi Ezra Spicehandler spoke to the CCAR about “What Can We Say to Israel?” and emphasized the importance of being in conversation with the state of Israel (1968: 227).

Spicehandler was a Reform rabbi and academic who was currently living in Jerusalem as a guest visiting professor at Hebrew University. His answer to the question posed in title of his speech, in short, is that Reform Jews must say a lot to Israel. Spicehandler presents the mission of spreading

Reform Judaism in Israel as a test of the strength of Reform Judaism, of whether Reform Judaism can “meet actual and genuine religious needs” of Israelis (1968: 227). This approach of understanding the American Reform obligation to Israel as focused on spreading Reform in Israel was also found in the 1965 Committee for Projects for Israel. Additionally, the Committee on Israel, which was established in 1967, outlined their priorities as supporting Hebrew Union College in

Jerusalem and sending Reform rabbis to Israel above galvanizing political support from within their local congregations (1968: 79). From this attitude with which Rabbi Spicehandler began his speech, he continued on to present a larger case for how the Reform Jewish community in America should relate to Israel.

Confidently, Spicehandler asserted “Historically speaking it is doubtful whether there ever existed, in any previous epoch of Jewish history, two communities whose spiritual and material interests were more closely interlinked” (1968: 228). The intertwined interests of American Jews and

Israelis are greater, Rabbi Spicehandler maintains, than even those of Babylonian Jewry and

27

Palestinian Jewry during the Talmudic era. In assessing the potential of Reform Judaism to shape the religiosity of Israeli Jews, Rabbi Spicehandler counts “our historic anti-Zionist, or at best non-

Zionist, past” as an impediment along with the stronghold of Orthodoxy within Israel (1968: 230).

After accurately characterizing the historic positions of Reform institutions with regard to Israel,

Rabbi Spicehandler is careful to point out that “American Reform rabbis have played” a large role in the Zionist movement (1968: 230). This rhetorical move of pointing towards Reform rabbis who embraced Zionism early on is one that I found again and again in the yearbooks from this time period, especially when speaking to an Israeli audience in 1970.

Despite the obstacles which Spicehandler identifies as standing in the way of the growth of

Reform in Israel, the rabbi maintains hope that his faith will gain Israeli followers. The first justification he provides for hopefulness is:

Both Zionism, the dominant ideology of Israel despite all the little jokes, and Reform Judaism are children of the Emancipation and the Haskalah. The two movements mark the modernization of Judaism and Jewry and its secularization. Our connection with them gives us a decided advantage over Orthodoxy in the market of ideas (1968: 231).

This passage proves noteworthy because of the way Rabbi Spicehandler points towards the shared ideological liberalism of Reform and Zionism. He clarifies how this ideological similarity manifests itself by stating “Zionism, like Reform Judaism, usually understood Jewish history in terms of a march toward human perfection” (1968: 232). Parallel to the liberal enlightenment notion that history marches towards perfection, both Reform Judaism and Zionism attempt to speed up the pace of progress towards that perfection. For this reason, Rabbi Spicehandler hopes for a synthesis of Reform and Zionism, which would perhaps mark a later stage in the development of Jewish history.

In the conclusion of his speech, Rabbi Ezra Spicehandler expressed his hope that “Reform

Judaism have a hand in erecting Bayit Shlishi, this new house which is being built in “Yerushalayim shel

matah” (1968: 236). In other words, Rabbi Spicehandler believed that if American Reform Jews

28 became engaged in spreading Reform religion in Israel, this could bring about messianic redemption.

Spicehandler makes this claim as part of a lengthier discussion about recent events in Israel, where

he notes in particular the Jewish conquering of Jerusalem, while quoting Talmudic injunctions about

the messiah. Spicehandler’s explicit appeal for Reform action on behalf of the state of Israel to help

bring about the age of messiah reveals a sort of messianism that could and should be analyzed in

more depth. It is unclear what Spicehandler envisions when he invokes the language of Bayit Shlishi.

What is important to acknowledge here is how Rabbi Spicehandler’s call to the CCAR, as well as

Rabbi Feuer’s sermon to the CCAR, present increasing Reform engagement with Israel on political, cultural and religious levels as important pieces of the pursuit of higher purposes, such as messianic redemption and spreading Reform Judaism.

In connection with Rabbi Spicehandler’s speech, Yitzhak Rabin delivered a speech to the

CCAR on the subject of “What Can Israel Say to Us?” (1968: 237). Rabin began his speech by clarifying that he is not a rabbi despite his name and by affirming the unique destiny of the Jews. In

this spirit, Rabin declared that Israel has a “Jewish attitude to war” that lacks any influence of

“chauvinism” (1968: 239). This attitude was demonstrated, according to Rabin, by the way in which

Israel waged and won the war one year previously. In his words, “As Jews, our celebration was of a

different kind. Every one of us in his heart and all of us together gave ourselves to the thought of

those who had fallen and those who had been hurt” (1968: 239). In this way, Rabin presents the

CCAR with an image of Israel’s liberal values as demonstrated through the conduct during and after

the war that would likely have been appealing to his liberal audience. Rabbi David Polish, who

chaired the committee on Israel in 1968 and who would go on to be the president of the CCAR,

asked Rabin the first question. This question was about the silence of “the Church following June,

1967” on the war (1968: 241). Apparently, Rabin was far less concerned about the Christian religious

institutions than the United Nations, which he chose to rebuke in his response.

29

It is important to note that Reform rabbinic leaders demonstrated much concern at the convention of 1968 about what they perceived as an unsympathetic response from Christian communities throughout the US regarding Israel’s threat of destruction. Their concern buttresses their declaration that interfaith activities were increasingly relevant, since “we evidently did less than an adequate job of conveying to our Christian neighbors the Jewish sense of peoplehood and our affinity with Israel” (1968: 74). Strikingly, this seems to suggest that a major purpose for engaging in interfaith activities is for the sake of spreading political support for Israel outside of Jewish religious institutions. As such, Reform rabbis seem to have played a significant role in supporting the growth of Christian political support for Israel and the CCAR chose to increase efforts in the realm of interfaith action partially in response to perceived security needs of Israel.

1969: Houston, Texas

Although interfaith action based on a pro-Israel logic was seen as increasingly important in

1968, by 1969 Rabbi Levi Olan, who was still serving as the president of the CCAR, had largely

given up on interfaith efforts. In his president’s message, he declared dialogue to be a “much abused

word” and suggested that the CCAR “radically reduce their budget allotted to this futile and

demeaning activity” (1969: 14). The significance of this turn away from interfaith efforts should be

understood based upon Rabbi Olan’s belief that Jews will be unable to persuade Christians to

support Israel, because “Israel’s successful existence is a Christian heresy” (1969: 14). This shift

reflects a larger trend of Israel becoming an increasingly important focus of the CCAR during 1969.

Rabbi Olan’s speech at the beginning of the convention demonstrates several of these shifts.

Rabbi Olan began his speech with a history of the establishment of the CCAR, where he

reverently looks towards the early Reform leaders as responding to a changing world courageously

and creatively. Olan explains their unwillingness to support the early Zionist movement as a result of

their belief that “the fulfillment of the world idealism of the Second Isaiah was to be announced”

30

(1969: 6). In other words, Rabbi Olan characterizes his Reform predecessors as slightly too optimistic about the promises of emancipation, yet admirable in the manner in which they embraced social change. Olan declares “we confront a revolutionary age” and outlines his plan to lead the

CCAR to respond adequately. One of the issues which Olan expresses concern about is the survival of Judaism. Yet, he is reassured because “the experience of the six days in June of 1967 gives testimony to the faith that the will of the people to live can be revived” (1969: 10). Olan was

inspired by Israel’s military victory and believed that the Jewish people could respond to the challenges of his day, even challenges beyond the protection of the state of Israel.

Olan outlined a three-pronged plan for this response to the urgent challenges he believed the

Jewish people had to face. The first involves establishing a “program of unity among all rabbis in

America” (1969: 11). Despite previous substantive disagreements among Jewish movements in the

United States, Rabbi Olan hoped that supporting Israel could unite these rabbis. He declared that

the committee for Israel of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly was already collaborating with the

respective committee of the CCAR, as evidence of Israel’s ability to unite American Jews. Rabbi

Olan believed “the American campus” to be an important realm for more collaboration through

helping students support Israel (1969: 11). Rabbi Olan invoked the history of the Hebrew prophets

in order to make his case for the importance of American Jews standing with Israel. Olan declared

“the very small State of Israel, established by international procedures, is now threatened with

extinction” appealing – as others had - to the dangers facing Israel to emphasize his argument (1969:

13). In the language of some contemporary Israeli political discourse on peace, Olan asserts “Ein

Breira”, there is no alternative to a peace which ensures Israel’s “right to exist” (1969: 13). This

rhetoric continues to function as a means of justifying political action as the only option available to

Israel, was employed quite emphatically by Olan in order to support his agenda.

31

For Olan, the support for Israel by Reform Jews in America was essential, since “only such an aroused American Jewish people, ready to lay their substance before their brothers threatened with extinction, can redeem this hour of Israel’s lonely agony” (1969: 13). The stakes of Olan’s appeal could not be higher, according to Olan. This essentialist rhetoric of ever-looming threat, while reflective of the black-and-white perspective of the emergency session on Israel of the previous year’s convention, far surpassed the rhetoric employed by Rabbi Olan one year earlier in his president’s message in the wake of the Six-Day war. This difference between his rhetoric in these two speeches suggests that this year following the Six Day war provided Olan with time to formulate his political perspective more fully.

Olan’s second official recommendation in and of itself appears to be less significant than a recommendation he makes in conjunction with it to expel a rabbi from the CCAR. As mentioned previously, the second recommendation that Rabbi Olan made to the CCAR was to not dedicate so much effort to interfaith activities because of Israel. Before continuing to reveal his third

recommendation, Rabbi Olan called for the “expulsion” from the CCAR of “one of our colleagues”

(1969: 14-15). The reason Olan called for this unnamed man’s excommunication is because he chose

to “appear before the enemies and laud their hostility to Israel and denounce to their satisfaction the

hopes of Israel which is desperately battling to survive” (1969: 15). Essentially, Olan declared that a

Reform rabbi be expelled from the organization because of his outspoken criticism of Israel. I have been unable to identify the name of this man, but he may likely be Elmer Burger, a Reform rabbi who had been a leader of the American Council for Judaism, a Reform anti-Zionist advocacy organization which had its peak of operations in the 1930s. Calling for the expulsion of a rabbi is certainly a strong punishment and Olan’s strong rebuke reveals how important support for the young state of Israel was to the CCAR in 1969. This expulsion seems particularly harsh when just a few years earlier Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, who was still serving as the president of the UAHC at

32 the time, leveled heavy critiques of the Jewish state. It seems that a key element in this expulsion was the audience to whom the unnamed rabbi spoke critically of Israel. It is reasonable to think that speaking critically to “enemies” warrants a dramatically different response than criticizing Israel at a

CCAR convention.

After calling for the expulsion of this Reform rabbi from the CCAR, Olan called for the

CCAR to “assume the leadership in calling for an American Jewish Conference whose sole purpose will be to devise programs of large-scale support of money and spirit to the State of Israel” (1969:

15). This appeal, made by Olan, contrasts notably with the earlier concern expressed by Rabbi Jacob

Rader Marcus that Jewish institutions acting solely for the sake of Israel do not reflect the true needs and interests of American Jews. This significant shift should be understood as a product of the war of 1967 and subsequent politicization within American Jewry. In the context of his final recommendation, Rabbi Olan declared that the debate between Zionist and anti-Zionist views was resolved in 1948, making no room for individuals like the man whom he wished to expel from the

CCAR (1969: 15). This claim amounts to rewriting history, erasing the very recent history in which non-Zionists expressed their views on Israel in prominent capacities at the CCAR conventions.

In the spirit of his speech from the previous year, Rabbi Olan emphasized the importance of the universalistic perspective of Reform Jews in America, noting that: “the diaspora must remain an ever present reminder of the eternal and the universal” (1969: 16). Olan affirmed the importance of diaspora Judaism, and simultaneously asserted that the freedom of diaspora Jews is dependent upon

“Jews on the land engaged in translating the prophetic vision into a living reality” (1969: 17). In this vision, American Reform Jews cannot exist independently of the existence of the state of Israel, which renders the task of politically supporting Israel all the more important. As if the stakes for

Olan’s agenda of increased support for the Jewish state were not high enough already, he concluded his speech with a reference to the messianic era. Olan cites a rabbinic legend that states “when Israel

33 returns to dwell upon the land of its fathers, it will be one of the signs that the Malchut Shamayim,

Kingdom of God on earth, is nearer” (1969: 17). Put simply, Rabbi Olan, like Rabbi Spicehandler before him, articulated a belief that Reform engagement with the state of Israel could help bring about the coming of the moshiach, the onset of a Messianic era.

Beyond president Olan’s message to the CCAR, there were several other signs of growing

concern for supporting Israel in the 1969 yearbook, particularly in its concern about youth and

college-aged Jews. The report of the Committee on Israel, which was established in 1967, outlined a

lengthy list of actions that had been taken as well as suggestions for further action. Unlike during the

previous year, the Committee outlined several goals that did not exclusively involve donating or

investing money in Israel. The committee declared that it worked in partnership with the Israel

committee of the UAHC and that they held a learning institute for rabbis in Jerusalem (1969: 56-57).

The committee reported on their joint efforts with the Conservative movement which included

striving to improve “teen-age pilgrimages to Israel” conducted by NFTY (North American

Federation of Temple Youth) and USY (United Synagogue Youth), developing employment

opportunities in Israel to encourage rabbinic Aliyah, and considering how to collaborate in providing

alternative religious communities to orthodoxy in Israel (1969: 88). They affirmed that the CCAR

would meet in Jerusalem in 1970 and that the CCAR was involved in encouraging the

reestablishment of an “American Zionist Federation” (1969: 89). Finally, the committee reported

that the campus of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem needed support. In particular, HUC

Jerusalem wanted to ordain Israeli rabbis in Reform Judaism and to mandate that all American

rabbinical candidates spend a year in Jerusalem. In the next yearbook, it becomes apparent that this request effected the decision of HUC to require rabbinical students to study in Jerusalem. From this lengthy list, it is clear that the CCAR engaged itself in far more work to engage with Israel during the year between the conventions of 1968 and 1969 than they had previously. Additionally, it is

34 important to note that collaboration with the conservative movement and with other Zionist groups in the U.S. was the responsibility of this committee established in 1967, because this organizational delineation of responsibility reveals how increased support for Israel catalyzed these collaborative efforts.

Another important moment within the conference of 1969 was when the CCAR unanimously voted to approve a statement condemning “Arab Terrorist Activity” (1969: 149). The

CCAR interpreted “a crucial aim” of this “Arab terrorist activity” to be “to discourage tourists from coming to Israel; to isolate the land and its people” (1969: 149). In the spirit of resisting the aims of these terrorists, the CCAR reaffirmed that they would hold their next convention in Israel. It is important to note how the CCAR responded to terror attacks in Israel with more rhetorical and active support for the Jewish state, as terrorism continues to play a large role in American Jewish discourse about Israel.

In the spirit of increased partnership between the CCAR and the Rabbinic Assembly, the parallel body within the Conservative Jewish movement, Ralph Simon, the president of the Rabbinic

Assembly, emphasized the importance of Israel advocacy within: “Our discussions began wisely with our Israel programs and our Zionist philosophies. The one incontrovertible fact of American Jewish life is the intellectual and visceral commitment of the overwhelming majority of Jews to the survival of Israel” (1969: 237). This statement reveals that the Conservative movement within American

Judaism was similarly emphasizing the importance of supporting Israel in the wake of 1967. This fact becomes clearer as Simon voiced concern that Christians were searching for anti-Zionist Jews in order to claim that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

In this context, Rabbi Simon expressed “the sympathy of the RA to the CCAR on the inglorious distinction which you enjoy in having on your rolls the one pathetic spokesman for a discredited cause. We join with you in declaring that the survival and protection of Israel is our

35 greatest responsibility” (1969: 237). With these words, Rabbi Simon referenced the same rabbi whom Rabbi Olan called for expelling from the CCAR and declared that those who do not support the aims of Zionism are not welcome within the ranks of the rabbinic leadership of either the

Reform or Conservative movement. Then, Simon turned to Jewish youth, declaring that “the greatest threat to our existence is the situation on the college campus” and calling for collaboration in supporting “the B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation” in order to address this threat (1969: 239). At the exact same time when Reform and Conservative rabbis decided to collaborate in supporting Israel, these rabbis decided to collaborate in supporting Hillels, organizations that are engaged in Israel advocacy.

For now, I will turn my attention to a series of speeches delivered during the final evening of the CCAR convention of 1969 on the subject of “The Future of Reform Judaism” (1969: xx). Three different Reform rabbis presented their perspective on this subject and each of them articulated a unique vision of the role that the state of Israel should play in that future. While the previous accounts indicate a deepening of Reform Judaism’s relationship with the state of Israel, the variety of perspectives expressed by three rabbis reflects that the process of change which was still underway. The first speaker was the president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations,

Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath. Despite leading the largest Reform institution which was structured around supporting , Eisendrath opened his speech by challenging the assumption that

Reform Judaism and Reform synagogues have a future in the U.S. (1969: 241).

Then, Eisendrath challenged the CCAR to adapt to the current socio-political reality in order to ensure its future relevance. Rabbi Eisendrath described “scores, hundreds of young Jews and

Jewesses who”, according to Eisendrath were “fiercely particularistic, while vehemently rejecting the new left’s anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism” (1969: 243-244). Eisendrath challenged his Reform rabbinic peers to acknowledge that young American Jews were navigating the challenging political

36 dynamics of their day in a manner that authentically reflected their Jewishness. Rabbi Eisendrath declares that these young folks “still believe in a mission which some among us would blithely abandon” (1969: 244). While Eisendrath did not clarify precisely what he means by this mission, it appears as if the rabbi was asserting that these unaffiliated young Jews were upholding the principles of Reform Judaism even more than the conference of Reform rabbis by applying Jewish ethical principles to political activism. Rabbi Eisendrath suggests this by posing the following questions:

But will we welcome such Jewish, even Reform Jewish striving? Will the Reform Jewish establishment co-operate with or even tolerate such experimentation, exploration, innovation in Jewish life styles, in worship, in activism, of a higher piety and a more authentic sense of Jewish identity and living, by radical Jewish students – especially when they do not flow out of major denominational streams, but affirm Jewish identity in secular as well as religious terms? (1969: 244).

With these queries, Rabbi Eisendrath pushed his colleagues to consider the importance of the new modes of organization that young Jews were a part of. These concerns, still relevant today, demonstrate that there was a significant distance between established Jewish institutions, like the

CCAR, and the younger generation. Although there is not definitive evidence to substantiate this within the CCAR yearbooks, it is possible that divergent attitudes towards Israel were responsible for some of the distance between institutions and young Jews.

One reason to believe that Israel was a significant factor in contributing to this distance is that Eisendrath immediately turned to discussing Israel after discussing the younger generation and urged the CCAR to be wary of looking towards Israel for a sense of purpose. Eisendrath affirmed the importance of the CCAR pledge from 1967 declaring “Their triumph is our triumph, their anguish our anguish, their fate is our fate” (1969: 245). But, Eisendrath did not believe that the

Reform movement should be inextricably bound up with that of the Jewish state. Rabbi Eisendrath

elaborated on this issue poetically:

Enhanced, enriched by Israel we will be. But no people – and surely no faith – can persist by proxy only. Nor will there be any vital moral or spiritual feature for an American Reform Judaism if it supplants, as Tillich warned, spirit exclusively with space; if it surrenders all

37

moral judgement in the name of survival; if it forgets altogether the admonition ‘Not by might and not by power, but by My spirit,’ forgetting even: ‘Remember the stranger [read Arabs, read Blacks] for you know the heart of the stranger.’ Do we really? Do we even try? (1969: 245)

Rabbi Eisendrath strikes an almost prophetic tone, challenging rabbis to harken to the words of the

Torah, to moderate their desire to stand in solidarity with the state of Israel by remembering the moral teachings of the Jewish tradition. This attitude contrasts strikingly with those articulated earlier in the convention of 1969. Rabbi Olan’s president’s message certainly expressed a far more unequivocal attitude towards the importance of Reform Jews supporting Israel. While Rabbi Olan articulated a messianic vision of Reform Zionism contributing to the coming of the moshiach, Rabbi

Eisendrath envisioned “shaping a better world” through Reform Jews “challenging America to re- order our priorities, to put people and life before technological circuses in the sky and the exaltation of private greed masquerading as free enterprise” (1969: 246). President Eisendrath, it appears, held onto an American-centric vision of Reform Judaism to a greater extent than other Reform rabbis during this time period.

Unlike Eisendrath, the next two rabbis who spoke about the future of Reform Judaism failed to express any reservations about American Reform Judaism devoting itself fully to supporting the

Jewish state of Israel. The second speaker was Rabbi . At the time, Glueck was the head of Hebrew Union College and had an extensive history of archaeological study in Israel, so he had a vested personal interest in strengthening the Reform movement’s political and religious attachments to Israel. For Rabbi Glueck, it was important to emphasize that “’Reform’ is merely a label” within the larger category of Judaism, which he apparently understood as a sui generous entity

(1969: 251). In connection with this understanding of Reform Judaism, Glueck underscored the

importance of Reform engagement with “K’lal Yisrael”, with the entirety of the Jewish people. This

notion of k’lal yisrael was invoked rhetorically by Glueck, and by many rabbis who spoke to the

CCAR in subsequent years, in order to make clear the importance of engaging with the state of

38

Israel. In coordination with this objective of his, Glueck announced his new initiative for HUC to require all rabbinical students to spend one year at the young Jerusalem campus. In Rabbi Glueck’s own words, the purpose of this change was to ensure “every rabbi we have ordained or will give semichah to, that while he recognizes proudly that he is a citizen of America, he is with full heart and mind a deeply rooted son of the Holy Land, a spiritual citizen of Israel” (1969: 250). The phrasing of

this sentence suggests that, according to Glueck, spiritual citizenship with Israel should be more

important for Reform rabbis than actual American citizenship. As such, Glueck’s understanding of

the priorities of Reform rabbis contrasts that of Eisendrath, who emphasized engaging with

American society.

Rabbi Jacob Weinstein, the immediate past-president of the CCAR, gave the third speech

about the future of Reform Judaism. Weinstein’s speech did not address Israel in depth. The core

message of Weinstein’s speech was that Reform institutions must be open to changing with the

times while maintaining their core values (1969: 252). However, Weinstein took pride in “the

synthesis of faith and peoplehood” of “our tradition”, suggesting that he understood Reform

Judaism to have a uniquely valuable blend of these two characteristics. Weinstein’s appreciation of

this balance makes sense in the context of his previous speeches to the CCAR as its president, in

which he discussed the need to support Israel politically as an obligation both to the Jewish people

and to the moral/religious values of Judaism.

The three speeches on the subject of the future of Reform Judaism which were heard in

1969 represent three different perspectives on the significance of the state of Israel to Reform

Judaism. Rabbi Glueck’s perspective appears to most closely resemble that of the current CCAR

president, Levi Olan, in asserting the fundamental importance of the Zionist project. By contrast,

former CCAR president Jacob Weinstein avoided in depth discussion of the subject, while UAHC

president Maurice Eisendrath warned the CCAR to maintain an identity distinct from the state of

39

Israel for the sake of the survival of Reform and of his understanding of Reform Jewish principles.

However, this series of speeches were the tail end of a convention which emphasized the fundamental importance of the State of Israel for the future of Reform Judaism repeatedly. The

Committee on Israel rolled out numerous initiatives to engage more with the Jewish state, President

Levi Olan presented support for Israel as a requirement of membership within the CCAR, and the

head of the Conservative movement’s rabbinical body declared supporting Israel to be the most

important priority for all American Jews. This message, that of the need for Reform rabbis to lead

Reform Jews to demonstrate political and religious support for Israel, seems to have been heard

loudly and clearly, as the 1970 CCAR convention in Jerusalem certainly reflects this priority.

40

Chapter Three: To Jerusalem and Back 1970 – 1973

1970: Jerusalem, Israel

Standing on the hilltop of Mount Scopus in East Jerusalem where the Hebrew University is

located, the Reform rabbis of America marveled at the beauty of the ancient city of Jerusalem once again under the control of Jews. These rabbis were keenly aware that they stood in Jerusalem

“exactly nineteen centuries after” the destruction of the second ancient Jewish temple and relished in the serendipity of the timing of their first meeting in the young state of Israel (1970: 3). During the opening of the convention and throughout the subsequent days, the Reform rabbis spoke reverently of their predecessors, Reform Rabbis who had embraced Zionism and support of the

State of Israel, such as Rabbi Judah Magnes who worked to help establish the Hebrew University before the establishment of Israel as a state. The symbolism of the CCAR conference of 1970 was clear: Reform Judaism was, now, fully committed to Israel. This theme ran recurrently through the speeches of Reform Rabbis who spoke. However, most of the speakers at this conference were

Israelis and not involved in the Reform movement. These speakers, which included both the

President and Prime Minister of the State of Israel, warmly encouraged the Reform demonstration of solidarity with Israel through the hosting of the conference in Jerusalem; they also thanked the

Reform rabbinate for clamoring to aid Israel during and after the war of 1967. This gathering was

undoubtedly an important moment in the Reform movement’s relationship with the state of Israel

and in the development of distinctly Reform attitudes towards Israel.

The president of the CCAR in 1970 was Rabbi Roland Gittelsohn, who was the rabbi of

Temple Israel in Boston and would become the first president of the Association of Reform

Zionists of America in 1977. Rabbi Gittelsohn began his president’s message while standing on

Mount Scopus, offering three paragraphs in Modern Hebrew, which was as unprecedented of a

decision as that of the CCAR to host their annual convention in Jerusalem (1970: 3). Gittelsohn

41 acknowledged the special event through reciting the shehechiyanu, a traditional blessing thanking God for a special occasion. Gittelsohn boasted that the CCAR was the first American rabbinic body to

host a convention in Jerusalem, just like they were the first rabbinic body “to sponsor an official

pilgrimage here as long as nineteen years ago” (1970: 3). Gittelsohn declared that the first decision

made in planning this conference was to “suspend our ordinary schedule of business”, so that the

assembled Reform rabbis could “draw upon the rich human and Jewish resources of distinguished

Israelis” (1970: 4). This decision communicates a desire for Reform to be informed by leading

Zionists, to be “inspired” by Israelis with a historically divergent understanding of the Jewish

condition. Such a decision falls in line with the movement of the CCAR over the past three years,

following the 1967 war, to commit itself to supporting the Jewish state of Israel.

In his speech, Rabbi Gittelsohn expended tremendous effort to present the history of

Reform Judaism as one favorable towards Zionism. Gittelsohn declared “Not just since 1948, but

even before the State was established, love for this land and the firm, fervent hope that a Jewish

commonwealth and civilization would be reconstituted on this land have been important tenets of

American Reform Judaism” (1970: 4). This claim, which is questionable, reveals a desire on the part

of Gittelsohn to change the perception of Reform Judaism within the state of Israel, a desire to

demonstrate that Reform Jewish support for Israel was not a new phenomenon. In order to

emphasize this point, Roland Gittelsohn identified several “Reform rabbis who supported the

Zionist cause” including Rabbi Max Heller, who served as the president of the CCAR in 1908.

Gittelsohn listed the names of living and deceased CCAR members who “rendered invaluable

service to the cause of Israel” (1970: 4). The deceased individuals were Judah Magnes, Stephen S.

Wise, Abba Hillel Silver, Barnett R. Brickner and the living rabbis were Samuel Wohl, James Heller,

Jacob Weinstein, Arthur Lelyveld, Max Nussbaum, Leon Feuer, Joachim Prinz, Herbert Friedman,

Philip Bernstein, David Polish and Leon Kronish. Listing the names of these sixteen Zionist Reform

42 rabbis should be read as both an acknowledgement of what Gittelsohn considered to be their honorable service to the Jewish people and an attempt to persuade the Israeli audience of the

Reform commitment to Israel.

As part of his talk, Rabbi Gittelsohn pronounced gladly that the CCAR had recently decided to include Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Day of Independence, as “among the sancta of Reform Judaism”

(1970: 4). This decision to canonize Israel’s independence should be understood within the larger

goal of Gittelsohn’s speech which was to prove “that our ties to Medinat Yisrael are not just

vicarious” (1970: 5). As evidence, Gittelsohn mentions “that four of our number are Olim” (1970: 5).

We might include in this role call of new Olim the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of

Religion which had approved the creation of a Jerusalem based campus in 1963 and which

Gittelsohn proudly announced would begin requiring in the next academic year “every entering

student in our several American schools… to spend his first academic year studying in Jerusalem”

(1970: 5). This change, which was called for during the 1969 convention by the Committee on Israel,

reflects one way in which the CCAR increased its efforts to connect with Israel during this time

period.

After addressing the efforts of Reform Judaism to support and engage with Israel, Gittelson

turned his attention to responding to “confusion” regarding the “our diverse definitions of religion”

(1970: 6). Importantly, within this section of his speech Rabbi Gittelsohn asserts that resolving this

question necessitates acknowledging “that in authentic Judaism religion and nationalism have always

been inextricably intertwined” (1970: 6). Gittelsohn understood his assertion here to be a rejection

of the perspective of “the first generations of Reform Jews” who “made the mistake of amputating

the ethnic and national from our heritage” (1970: 6). This is significant because it reflects a

conception of Jewish peoplehood as fundamentally important to Reform Judaism that was invoked

rhetorically by leaders of the CCAR who called for supporting Israel even in the years immediately

43 preceding 1967. In the spirit of this notion, Rabbi Gittelsohn reemphasized the importance of “the integrity and inviobility of the Jewish people, of one people in Israel and chutz l’aretz.” His final words also reflect this same commitment to unity of the Jewish people. Gittelsohn chose to end with words from the 1967 CCAR statement in solidarity with Israel that declared “Their triumphs are our triumphs. Their ordeal is our ordeal. Their fate is our fate” (1970: 11). This conception of

the fate of the global Jewish people as interconnected was clearly important to Gittelsohn, as well as

to Silver who authored the 1967 resolution from which Gittelsohn quoted, and in effect signaled the

shift in Reform attitudes and behaviors towards Israel following 1967.

Beyond the introductory message of Rabbi Gittelsohn, there were numerous important

speeches delivered at the 1970 CCAR convention. However as Gittlesohn made clear in his speech,

most of these speeches were given by Israelis who were not involved with the Reform movement

and, therefore, should not be considered as reflective of the development of Reform Zionism. That

being said, I will consider some aspects of a few of these speeches that seem to notably influence the

responses of the CCAR to their Israeli brethren. Before doing so, let us turn towards a few

resolutions and committee reports that reveal significant aspects of the CCAR’s attitudes towards

Israel during this year. These committee reports were not delivered publicly in Jerusalem during the

conference. Rather, they were submitted to the board of the CCAR and included in the yearbook

which was sent out to members after the conference.

One of these significant committee reports is that of the World Union of Progressive

Judaism (WUPJ). The WUPJ is an umbrella organization that supports Reform Jewish communities

around the world, primarily outside North America. This report noted the WUPJ’s appreciation with

having met privately with Prime Minister Golda Meir over the course of the past year. Yet, the

report simultaneously expressed frustration that Meir did not act on the request of the WUPJ to

grant Reform equal rights and recognition from the Israeli government. The unequal status of

44

Reform Judaism continues to be an important issue for Reform rabbis today and this report demonstrates that the CCAR was concerned with this subject in 1970. At the same time as the

CCAR was engaged in efforts to demonstrate that they were committed to the Zionist project, they urged the Jewish state to recognize them as legitimate religious Jews. This is important because it demonstrates that Reform Jews who supported the state of Israel also had at the same time reason to critique the political aspects of the state’s selective recognition of particularly – and notably, non-

Reform, - religious institutions.

The report of the Committee on Youth reflects a response to the claims articulated a year earlier at the CCAR conference of 1969 by Simon, the president of the Conservative Rabbinical

Assembly. In Houston, Rabbi Ralph Simon emphasized the importance of supporting young Jews on American college campuses and identified this effort as one of potential collaboration between the Reform and Conservative movements. The first issue of the 1970 CCAR Report of the

Committee on Youth was college students. The report declared that “source material is being prepared to deal, in concise manner, with such questions as drugs, the Israeli-Arab conflict, and

Selective Service and its alternatives” (1970: 65). Since the previous report on youth did not mention college students, it appears as if Rabbi Simon’s words were listened to by the Reform rabbis who composed this report. It is particularly worth recognizing that the report mentions information about the Israeli-Arab conflict, as the debate around this issue on college campuses continues to be an issue of great importance of American Jewish institutions.

At the convention in Jerusalem, the CCAR voted unanimously to adopt a statement regarding Jerusalem. This statement avowed:

Gathered at its national convention in Jerusalem, the Central Conference of American Rabbis affirms its commitment to the unity of this city, heartland of Jewish existence from ages past until this day. We stand with the State of Israel in opposing any efforts to restore Jerusalem to its prior severed condition where Jewish sacred places were violated, the Hebrew University and the Hadassah hospital shut down, and the Jewish inhabitants placed in jeopardy. The State of Israel will continue to safeguard the holy places of Christendom

45

and Islam, but it must not be expected to relinquish its sovereignty over the city which in its totality is sacred to the Jewish people. For the sake of Zion we shall not be silent (1970: 67).

This statement is of particular interest because of its rejection of the notion of a shared Jerusalem, which has become a significant principle of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Apparently in 1970, the CCAR rejected outright any action that would lead Israel having to relinquish complete sovereignty of the holy city. This strikes me as important considering how the

Reform movement has advocated publicly for the importance of a Two-State Solution, which would likely involve relinquishing complete Jewish sovereignty of Jerusalem. Beyond the consequences of this statement for the Reform position on peace negotiations, this statement reflects the importance of the physical city of Jerusalem for Reform rabbis who inherited a tradition which emphasized the spiritual Jerusalem over the physical city. In the spirit of Gittelsohn’s opening message and the statement of 1967, this statement reaffirms that Jerusalem held a special religious importance for the

CCAR in 1967. Also, it is important to note that this statement was adopted unanimously.

Understood in the context the appeal by the past-president Olan to expel the rabbi who fell out of line with the CCAR’s pro-Israel position, the unanimity of this resolution raises questions. Were other Reform rabbis with less pro-Israel attitudes absent from this convention in Jerusalem? Were rabbis feeling pressure to vote in favor of this statement? These questions could only be answered with a far more in depth investigation than this thesis.

Turning back towards speeches delivered at the convention in Jerusalem, the conference sermon was delivered by Rabbi Nelson Glueck, who chose to convey his message entirely in

Hebrew. This is the first speech I have noted that has exclusively used Hebrew, which would certainly not have been comprehensible for all of the Reform rabbis in attendance. But, the choice to use Modern Hebrew conveyed a clear message to the Israeli audience that Reform Jews in

America share the reinvented ‘Jewish language’. Other than this sermon and the president’s message, no other speeches were delivered by Reform rabbis. However, there are noteworthy moments in the

46 speeches of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Israeli Foreign Minister , and Rector of

Hebrew University Jacob Katz. These speeches shine light upon the content of the conversation

between Israelis and the CCAR in 1970.

In the speech that Golda Meir delivered to the CCAR, she expressed joy that the Reform

movement had come to demonstrate its solidarity with Israel and emphasized the importance of

American Aliyah. She exclaimed how magnificent it was to stand upon Mount Scopus and gaze at a

united city of Jerusalem and she recounted a traditional Zionist history of the State of Israel.

Notably, Prime Minister Meir called for Reform Jewish Aliyah urgently, as the responsibility of

American Jews to Israel. In her words, “We want Aliyah; we need Aliyah” (1970: 97). In the year

1970, however, the CCAR had not endorsed Aliyah. The decision to support Aliyah was not made

until a platform was published in 1976. Perhaps because she was familiar with the Reform

perspective on Aliyah, Golda Meir joked:

I am prepared to make a compromise. Come here to spend the summer, bring the children. Bring the children here to camps. Send them here to college. Send them to secondary school. Be prepared for the words; they may remain here (1970: 97).

This joke that Meir cracked to conclude her speech communicates her priority with regard to

engaging with diaspora Jews. She wanted them to move to Israel. I believe this comment should

color the reading of the appeal made by the Israeli ambassador to the United States in 1967 who

called for an American peace corps in Israel. Similar to the true interest of Prime Minister Meir, I

suggest that ambassador Evron was primarily interested in encouraging Aliyah.

In contrast to the Prime Minister, renowned Israeli diplomat and Foreign Minister Abba

Eban articulated a different understanding of the top priority of American Jews in supporting Israel.

Eban expressed that he felt inspired to see such a “manifestation of Jewish solidarity” as the CCAR

convention in Jerusalem. Eban maintained that Jewish solidarity will be the means through which

“we shall achieve our final goal of peace” (1970: 108). This emphasis on solidarity strikes a similar

47 tone to that of Rabbi Gittelsohn who emphasized the importance of Jewish peoplehood. In both instances, the connection between Jews in Israel and American was seen was important in motivating political action on behalf of the security of the state of Israel. In Eban’s words, “security is our main burden” (1970: 103). Eban’s appeal to a notion of Jewish solidarity demonstrates the diplomatic ability for which he was known. Eban’s address demonstrates that he understood the importance to Reform rabbis of the conception of the unity of the Jewish people and that through appealing to this notion, he could make a strong case to one of the most prominent group of organized Jewish leaders in America.

Finally, Jacob Katz, the rector of Hebrew University, delivered a paper on the subject of

“Concepts of Galut and Geulah” – revealing a melding of revisionist scholarship and Zionist politics

(1970: 119). Katz’s central argument was that Reform Judaism and Zionism really did not have dramatically different conceptions of exile and redemption. According to Katz, Reform and Zionism both took on the responsibility of adapting Jewish tradition to modernity and, for this reason, it is easy to understand why these two movements were working to collaborate in 1970. His rewriting of history thusly functions as part of what scholar David Myer has called “the Zionist reinventing of the Jewish past” (Myer 1995: 1). Katz’s paper was responded to by Rabbi Joseph Glazer, who was the regional director of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations for the Northern

California/Pacific Northwest Region (Olitzky, Sussman and Stern 1993: 70). Rabbi Glazer claimed that Reform Jews in America simply have not done a good enough job explaining why they feel such a responsibility towards Israel. Therefore, Rabbi Glazer outlined a plan of action for how Reform rabbis could go about explaining central notions of Judaism, such as exile and redemption “not only to our clergy counterparts in Christendom but to our Congressman and Senators and other leaders and policy makers, who are responsive to us” (1970: 132). This paper and response are noteworthy because of the manner in which these two men responded to complex Jewish concepts through a

48 rather simple call for political action on behalf of the state of Israel, political action that Reform rabbis became increasingly engaged in when they returned home to the United States.

1971: St. Louis, Missouri

Conspicuously, the yearbook of 1971 is much smaller in size than every other yearbook from

this time period. One reason for this is because the yearbook of 1971 does not include the full text

of papers that were presented at the convention. Rather, there are brief single-page summaries of two papers, which is a much smaller number of papers than were delivered at most conferences.

From inspecting the schedule of the convention included the yearbook, I determined that a likely explanation for the brevity of this yearbook is that there were “chugim,” or electives, held that

rabbis used to discuss subjects including “Eastern Religions”, “Far Left and Right”, “Black

Community” and “Jewish Campus Community” among others (1971: xx-xxi). Additionally, two

evenings of the conference were occupied with activities in the place of the typical lectures or paper

presentations. One of these activities was a concert of “Chedva and David, Israeli singers” which

was sponsored by Bonds for Israel. The other activity was a conversation with Rabbi Arthur

Waskow, famously known for radical left-wing activism and hosting a Freedom Seder in 1969. The

titles of these two events were recorded in the yearbook, but none of the details were recorded.

Aside from the noteworthy shortness of the yearbook, the yearbook its pages are filled with

valuable information that sheds light into the current state of Reform rabbinic attitudes towards

Israel. This is because the president of the CCAR, Roland Gittelsohn, chose to deliver a joint

message to the CCAR along with the Vice-President, David Polish, who was slated to become the

president. These two men are noted on the website of the Association of Reform Zionists of

America (ARZA), an organization which was established in 1977, as two of the most influential

figures in shaping the development of Reform Zionism. With this fact taken into consideration

along with the content of their joint message, this speech is particularly important as a reflection of

49 greater dynamics of change in Reform attitudes to Israel. In this speech, Polish and Gittelsohn confidently assert their vision for a Reform approach to Israel that is committed to Israel’s security and to the pursuit of a moral solution to the problems Israel faced. Polish and Gittelsohn chose to deliver their joint message, so that Gittelsohn, as outgoing president, could reflect upon his term as

Polish, as incoming president, could introduce his priorities (1971: 4).

The speech began by memorializing the recently departed Rabbi Nelson Glueck, who had

presided over HUC-JIR for a lengthy of period of time and had delivered the sermon in Hebrew at

the preceding CCAR convention. Next, Gittelsohn acknowledged the ninetieth birthday of Rabbi

Dr. Julian Morgenstern, who also presided over HUC-JIR, before announcing that Rabbi Alfred

Gottschalk will become the new President of the College-Institute. Following this, Rabbi Gittelsohn updated the conference on the health of Maurice Eisendrath who was not in attendance because

“Maurice has experienced serious surgery twice during the past ten months” (1971: 3). These announcements are worth acknowledging here because they communicate that the Reform movement was clearly in a time of transition, with some of the most prominent Reform rabbis who had once been giants in the movement growing old and incapable of active leadership. In their places, new rabbis with their own perspectives stepped up.

Gittelsohn and Polish, who were two prominent rabbis who assumed leadership during this time of transition, expressed passionate Zionist perspectives. The first call to action issued in this speech was uttered by Rabbi Polish who asserted “The entire Reform Movement is now challenged to enter unequivocally into the struggle for Jewish survival” (1971: 4). Although Polish did not immediately associate this struggle with supporting the state of Israel, it quickly becomes clear that supporting Israel is the central focus of this struggle. Polish continued:

We cannot always fault other agencies for their failure to make room for us. They did make ample place for our Silvers, Wises, and many others. But when opportunities have been presented for us as a rabbinic community to give badly needed strength to American and

50

World Jewry, we have not always responded with the vigor we should expect of ourselves. (1971: 4)

When Polish referenced “our Silvers, Wises” he was speaking of Rabbis Abba Hillel Silver and

Stephen S. Wise, reform rabbis who embraced Zionism early in the twentieth century while official

Reform platforms still rejected the notion of a Jewish state (Meyer: 329). Therefore, Rabbi Polish essentially claimed that Reform rabbis should embrace Zionism in order to connect with the rest of

the global Jewish people.

This assertion makes much sense considering the next subject of Rabbi Polish’s attention

which turned to the CCAR’s role in other American Jewish organizations. Polish introduced that the

convention “will be asked to ratify our affiliation with the World Jewish Congress” (1971: 5). Polish and Gittelsohn recommended that the conference join the World Jewish Congress in the spirit of

“sealing of our Covenant with K’lal Yisrael” (1971: 5). Once again, the notion of the people of

Israel, or K’lal Yisrael, was invoked in order to galvanize support for collaboration with other Jewish organizations that focus their efforts in advocating for Israel. This particular action is seen by Polish and Gittelsohn as fulfilling the consequences of the 1943 CCAR statement that “Reform and

Zionism were not incompatible” (1971: 5). Through invoking this decision which was made at a time when neither man was involved in the leadership of the CCAR, they legitimize their call to join the World Jewish Congress as fitting neatly into the history of the Reform movement. In a way, this action fits neatly into the trajectory of the Reform movement of moving increasingly quickly towards a full embrace of Zionism. In the same section of the joint message which was delivered by

Rabbi Polish, they call for the CCAR to “request the Presidents’ Conference to undertake a program aimed at reinforcing its work and stimulating the involvement of communities and qualified individuals in its activities” (1971: 6). This recommendation falls squarely in line with the previous one. In both instances, Polish and Gittelsohn urged the CCAR to engage more with diaspora institutions of Jewish life that were engaged in political advocacy on behalf of Israel.

51

Immediately following these recommendations, Rabbi Gittelsohn began to speak more extensively about the Reform commitment to the state of Israel. Gittelsohn employed particularly strong rhetoric to express “our impassioned concern for the Jewish state” (1971: 6).

We are unequivocally committed to the preservation of the State of Israel. Its peril is our peril. We say to those who would sacrifice it, either callously or by rendering it paraplegic in yet another futile act of generosity to insatiable Arab demands, that the test of their liberalism is whether they are as committed to the survival of the Jewish people as they are to the protection of the Palestinian Arabs. We will not be deterred by slogans of racism or colonialism, conceived in the cynical capitals of the Communist or Third World and regurgitated by followers who are no less the mindless children of 1984 than are their conservative counterparts; we will not compromise the security of the State of Israel and the survival of the Jewish people (1971: 6-7).

With elaborate eloquence, Rabbi Gittelsohn expressed his commitment, on behalf of the CCAR, to

Israel. Gittelsohn demonstrated a clear awareness of the political rhetoric employed by others (ie.

slogans of racism or colonialism”) and presented their perspectives as essentially cloaks to hide the

real goal of destroying the Jewish people. Through invoking the need to protect the Jewish people,

Gittelsohn composed a powerful argument for his position which clearly communicated that

Reform Jews are indivisibly connected to the Jewish state of Israel. Although it is difficult to

measure rhetoric, this language appears to me to be stronger, harsher than even the rhetoric he

employed one year earlier in Jerusalem.

The robust rhetoric of this passage set up another point that Gittelsohn presented as

important:

But because Israel the State is part of Israel the people, and because all of us, one people, are interwoven in destiny, we will speak as freely to the leaders of the State as do its citizens. We do so out of our admiration for the moral sensitivity of Israel’s people who, under the barrels of encircling guns, insist on debating moral issues which other nations, under less ominous conditions, would repress (1971: 7).

Gittelsohn applied the same notion of K’lal Yisrael, the unity of the people of Israel, which had

galvanized his rabbinic peers to assert their support for Israel, to make space for the Reform

movement to be able to express differences of opinion with the state of Israel. This move appears

52 particularly thought-provoking. Through elaborately expressing the importance of standing in solidarity with the state of Israel, Rabbi Gittelsohn attempted to ensure that he, and the Reform movement at large, would be able to voice critique when deemed necessary. Within a few

paragraphs, it seems that Gittelsohn and Polish deemed it necessary to express a rather candid

perspective on the challenges that Israel faced. They charge that “we must be mindful of unheeded

warnings of Achad Ha’am and Ha-Rav Kuk, certainly no adherents of the radical left, against

insensitivity and contempt by Jews for Arabs” (1971: 7). By citing these influential Zionist thinkers,

Gittelsohn and Polish challenge their peers as well as Israeli society to be careful about anti-Arab

prejudice, a challenge that they must have known would almost certainly not be warmly received by

the Israeli government.

Immediately after issuing this bold warning, they continue with more controversial claims:

There are no facile solutions to the questions of territory, the Palestinians, and refugees. Evasion reflects a lack of confidence in our maturity, belied by our response during the events of 1967, and risking the danger of self-fulfillment. Israel understandably sends some of its greatest figures to America to raise U.J.A. and Bond monies. But it does very little not only to reach Jewish youth and college students but to encourage a climate of openness on the moral issues confronting the State of Israel. If Jewish youth cannot encounter dissent in a free environment made possible by Israel, they will seek it out under the auspices of Israel’s avowed enemies (1971: 7-8).

There are two major points in this brief passage. First, the leadership of CCAR asserted that

avoiding discussing moral issues with regard to the circumstances of Palestinians is detrimental to

Israel. By not engaging with these issues openly, Gittelsohn and Polish argue, Israel endangers itself.

Second, Gittelsohn and Polish have the foresight to suggest that if young American Jews are unable

to discuss these complicated issues, then it is possible that the younger generation will turn away

from Zion. From a contemporary perspective, it seems like Gittelsohn and Polish demonstrate an

almost prophetic understanding the future consequences of Israel’s approach to supporting Zionist

education. However, it is likely that these comments were informed, not by mystical vision, but

rather by lived experience. It seems reasonable to believe that already in 1971 Gittelsohn and Polish

53 were witnessing young American Jews who were frustrated with the State of Israel and the Jewish community not creating opportunities to openly address the new occupation as well as the issue of

Palestinian refugees. By the year 1973, it will become apparent that these statements were not warmly received by the Israeli government.

Over the course of their joint message, Polish and Gittelsohn introduced seven more recommendations worth noting. However before mentioning their long list of suggestions, they engaged in more bold critique. Next, they turned their attention more directly towards the manner in which American Jewish organizations tend to deal with Israel. It is worth including at length more of their words because of the incredibly articulate critique they expressed:

The greatest culprit in suppressing dissent is a large sector of the American Jewish Community itself, reinforced by its Israel-oriented establishments. We seek to make honorable debate on Israel possible, not to satisfy the vulgar motive of establishing our credibility in Washington, but to redeem American Jewry from an industrial-military complex mentality. The American Jewish Community has amply demonstrated its impassioned concern for Israel, but this concern rarely rises above the adulation of Israel’s power. Misguided dependence upon that alone, essential as it is to Israel’s survival, can result in a Jewry which is dangerously self-deceived, arrogant, desensitized, and ultimately a danger to Israel itself. When Zionist bodies openly and officially embrace America’s most reactionary politicians who would betray Israel overnight if it suited their purposes, and when organized American Jewry does not demur, there is peril to all of us and to our spirit. American Jewry must come of age. It must be no less zealous in fighting for the survival of its soul than is the Jewry of Israel (1971: 8-9).

These clearly carefully chosen words communicate a nuanced approach to understanding the

Reform Jewish obligation to the state of Israel – which by 1971 was already so profound that

Gittelsohn and Polish felt the need to articulate a coherent response to the now-established pro-

Zionist change afoot within the Reform rabbinate. Gittelsohn and Polish challenge their fellow

rabbis to fight for the soul of American Jewry by adapting the manner in which they express support

for Israel. Rather than celebrating military might, Gittelsohn and Polish envisioned a more moderate

Reform Zionism, one that addressed moral issues like Palestinians and refugees. Despite calling for

the CCAR to engage further with establishment organizations like the World Jewish Congress and

54 the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, Gittelsohn and Polish vehemently challenge the approaches of “Zionist bodies” (1971: 8). Perhaps, this apparent contradiction helps to explain their reasoning behind joining these organization. Gittelsohn and

Polish envisioned the Reform movement helping to move other American Jewish establishment organizations, ones with more explicit Zionist orientations, towards this more nuanced political approach for the sake of the “soul” of American Jewry.

It is for this purpose, for the sake of the soul of American Jewry, that these leaders of the

CCAR issued seven recommendations to the body of Reform rabbis. First, they call for continuing to develop a relationship with the Israeli Kibbutz movement about “common ethical objectives and our common openness to innovation and creativity” (1971: 9). Second, they proposed “this

Conference invite Israelis, both in and outside the political establishment, to meet with us, perhaps in regional gatherings, to face up to the issues with the same candor with which Israelis face them”

(1971: 9). This call aligns with their lengthier discussion of the need to address these moral issues.

Third, they called for the CCAR to have some sort of annual presence in Israel “however modest”

that might be (1971: 9). Fourth, they called to invite Israeli Reform rabbis to join the CCAR

Executive Board and “report to our annual conventions” (1971: 9). Fifth, they called for a joint

commission on Israel in partnership with the UAHC in order to “greatly intensify the scope of our

Israel-oriented work and would synchronize our presently fragmented programs” (1971: 9). Sixth,

they called for the CCAR to dedicate resources to combatting “anti-Israel attacks by the Radical Left

and the Arab World” on “The American Campus” through supporting Jewish college students. This

reflects the discussion of this subject during the report of the committee on youth during the

previous year. Seventh, they urged their peers not to acquiesce anti-Israel positions to “movements

on the Left or Right, in the White community or the Black, in Jewish and non-Jewish life” (1971:

10). This appeal was made in the context of “the Black Panthers and the Jerry Rubins” and reflected

55 a desire to not moderate established positions in favor of racial justice and in opposition to the

Vietnam War. All of these suggestions reveal that Gittelsohn and Polish were expended great efforts to consider how their contemporary socio-political circumstances demanded a Reform rabbinic

response.

Beyond the joint message of Roland Gittelsohn and David Polish, the CCAR passed three

resolutions on Israel and one statement related to Israel during the convention of 1971. In the

statement, the CCAR advocated for US President Richard Nixon to continue working towards peace

in the Middle East, yet also to make sure that he prioritizes “defensible borders” for Israel (1971: 24-

25). In the first resolution regarding Israel, the CCAR expressed complete support for the “100%

Plan” of the United Jewish Appeal (U.J.A), an organization that fundraised money on behalf of the

State of Israel. The resolution stated that “we urgently request that all congregations which are

served by our colleagues of the Central Conference of American Rabbis undertake a ‘100% Plan’

program which will ensure that each of their members contributes” (1971: 38). This resolution

reaffirms the commitment of the CCAR to fundraise on behalf of Israel which had been expressed

before 1967, yet was especially emphasized in the wake of the Six Day War. In a very similar vein,

the CCAR passed a resolution of “Support for the Israel Bond Campaign” which emphasized that it

was important for Reform Jews to invest financial resources in the State of Israel (1971: 39). Listed

immediately after the previous resolution is a resolution titled “The Responsibility of the American

Jewish Community” (1971: 40). This resolution stated directly that “We must guarantee that Israel

lives” (1971: 40). Then, the resolution affirmed that American Jews were capable of simultaneously

donating to American Jewish institutions and to the State of Israel.

The yearbook of 1971, though short, contains a large quantity of important Reform rabbinic

discourse on Israel. In the tradition of the previous four years following the war of 1967, the CCAR

made sure to communicate its strong support for the State of Israel as part of their commitment to

56 the survival of the Jewish people. This continued to involve public commitments, notably in the form of resolutions, to fundraise large amounts of money on behalf of the state of Israel. This year, the president and vice-president of the CCAR employed powerful rhetoric to make clear their dedication to Israel. Additionally, this rhetoric seems to have been intended, at least in part, to provide political cover for the expression of critiques of Israel’s unwillingness to address what are considered by the CCAR leadership to be important moral issues, namely those of Palestinians living in the West Bank and of refugees. In addition to this critique of Israel, Gittelsohn and Polish articulated an unprecedented harsh critique of the Zionism of other American Jewish organizations.

This critique was accompanied by a lengthy set of recommendations for action based upon their shared understanding of the Reform duty to the Jewish people.

1972: Grossinger, New York

By comparison to 1971, 1972 was a very slow year for Reform rabbinic discourse on Israel.

In 1972, the CCAR gathered at Grossinger’s resort in New York. This year, the CCAR welcomed its

first female member, Sally Priesand. Though not directly relevant to the subject of attitudes towards

Israel, Rabbi Priesand is certainly worth mentioning. Rabbi David Polish, who served as the

president of the CCAR, opened his remarks with acknowledging Rabbi Priesand as well as six rabbis

who were arrested in Boston for nonviolently protesting the continuing war in Vietnam. Then,

Polish turned his attention towards sectarian divides within Judaism declaring “the Nuremberg laws,

Auschwitz and the State of Israel have shattered the primacy and exclusiveness of religious alignments in Jewish life” (1972: 4). Polish appears to have believed this movement away from distinct divisions in Judaism to be virtuous as he continued: “Auschwitz and Jerusalem will not permit the subsuming of Judaism and the Jewish people under sectarian distinctions, and the one religious party in Israel which is aggressively pursuing this objective is courting its own dissolution”

(1972: 4). These comments reveal a noteworthy understanding of the holocaust and establishment of

57

Israel as demanding significant responses from Reform Jews. In reality, both of these happenings certainly influenced the Reform Jewish movement to move towards embracing Zionism.

Rabbi Polish presented an understanding of Reform’s established, yet growing relationship with Israel in this manner. Defensively and proudly, he professed:

Our relationship with Israel goes far beyond what some detractors consider to be a belated reconciliation with Zionism. Unlike any other religious body in Jewry, we are engaged in an ever widening spiritual encounter with Israel which opens up far-ranging possibilities for deepening the meaning of the relationship of the Galut and the State with one another (1972: 5-6).

In this context, Polish discussed the growing relationship between the CCAR and the Israeli

Kibbutz movement as one example of what spiritual encounter can look like. Yet, Rabbi Polish called for even more engagement with Israel towards the ends mentioned above. In addition to further engagement with Israel, Rabbi Polish hoped for strengthening the relationship between the

Reform and Conservative movements. In his own comical words, “If Capitalist America and

Communist China can play ping pong, Reform and Conservative Judaism should be able to play chess” (1972: 7). Despite the humorous tone Polish employed, he clearly communicated that the stakes of this chess match were high. Polish asserted that “the issue is survival” (1972: 7). Yet again, a leader of the CCAR cited the objective of Jewish survival in justification of extending partnerships with non-Reform Jewish institutions, reflecting a continued interest in partnership above separatism.

Aside from Rabbi Polish’s message, the most noteworthy element of the 1972 convention was a speech which was delivered by Yosef Tekoah, permanent Israeli envoy to United Nations, titled “Human Rights and the Human Heritage” (1972: 146). Before Tekoah began speaking, he was introduced by Polish who expressed the CCAR’s condemnation of the recent terror attack at the

Lydda airport. Then, Polish announced that in 1974 the CCAR would return to Jerusalem to hold its annual convention as a sign of solidarity with Israel (1972: 145). Frankly, this is the most important aspect of Tekoah’s speech and it occurred before he even began to speak. However, it is also worth

58 noting that Tekoah struck a familiar tone in addressing the CCAR by emphasizing the importance of the unity of the Jewish people (150).

1973: Atlanta, Georgia

In Atlanta in 1973, the CCAR discussed Israel in much greater depth than during the convention of the previous year. Like years past, much of this conversation involved considerations about how Reform rabbis should collaborate with other entities within American Jewry. In one dramatic way the convention of 1973 differed significantly from previous conventions. The first page of the 1973 yearbook was dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath who died before the CCAR met during the summer of 1973. As noted earlier, Eisendrath was a major leader in the Reform movement and an out-spoken critic of Israel at previous CCAR meetings. Fittingly, in

the year of his death, the CCAR emphasized the importance of new action in support of the Jewish

state.

Remarkably, Polish, who was serving as CCAR president, opted to change the procedures at this convention. Rather than deliver the traditional president’s message to the conference in which he outlined his priorities and recommendations, Polish offered a report while his successor vice- president Rabbi Robert Kahn delivered the opening address. President Polish’s report began with a discussion of measures to democratize the CCAR in order to reflect the perspectives of more members (1973: 3). From the yearbooks of the CCAR, it has been challenging to determine how democratically the institution functioned. Yet, it is revealing that Polish, who had been afforded the most powerful posts in the CCAR and used these posts to actively promote a new Reform perspective on Israel, was the individual who emphasized the importance of increased democratization. In 1973 for the first time, there were open committee meetings for all of the

Conference’s committees. Later in his report, Polish turned to the subject of “Klal Yisroel” and outlined four significant achievements in this domain (1973: 4). The purpose of these endeavors,

59 according to Polish, was “to seek areas of co-operative endeavor with fellow-Jews who share our concerns” (1973: 5). First, in response to the recommendation that Polish made in conjunction with his predecessor Rabbi Gittelsohn, Polish reported that the CCAR had formally joined the North

American division of the World Jewish Congress. Second and also in response to a recommendation made jointly by Polish and Gittelsohn, the CCAR was “striving to persuade the Presidents

Conference, of which we are members, to expand the scope of its work so that it will become a more deliberative body” (1973: 5). Third, Polish reported on collaboration with the Conservative

Rabbinical Assembly towards the aim of having a joint session in Jerusalem in 1974 at the next conference. All of these organizations had been previously discussed in president’s messages as priorities for collaborations. The fourth and final accomplishment that Rabbi Polish reported on was about discussions with “the Council of Federations and Welfare Funds to explore the areas of impingement upon the Synagogue and the Rabbinate” (1973: 5). In accordance with the past several years of the CCAR’s history, 1973 led the CCAR to increased collaboration with other Jewish groups. Although interests in supporting Israel are not cited to justify this collaboration here, it became apparent later that Israel-related interests motivated some of this action because Polish immediately turned towards these organizations as vehicles to communicate with the Israeli government.

In addition to the section on Klal Yisroel, Polish reported on “Ties with Israel” (1973: 5). In this case as well as the previous, Polish proclaimed success with some of the projects he introduced just before he became the president of the CCAR. This includes the growing relationship between the CCAR and the Kibbutz movement and the strengthening of the relationship between the CCAR and MARAM, the conference of Israeli Reform rabbis. Crucially, Polish acknowledges that after the convention of 1971 where he and Rabbi Gittelsohn discussed frankly the issues facing Israel which they saw as important moral concerns “criticism of the portion of the President’s Message dealing

60 with Israel was expressed by Israeli leaders” (1973: 5). Apparently, the strong statements of the importance of solidarity with the state of Israel failed to provide enough political cover to shield

Polish and Gittelsohn from criticism. However, Polish made clear in 1973 that when he communicated with Israeli officials including Golda Meir about the subject that there was a “need for establishing an instrument for free, off-the-record conversations between Israelis and Americans on moral issues of common concern” (1973:6). It seems as if Polish appreciated the interests of the

Israeli officials not to address publicly such moral issues enough to concede this point to the Israelis.

Yet, Polish considered these moral issues to be so important as to stress the importance of creating a

process for addressing them. This reflects upon the character of the CCAR’s support for Israel.

President Polish, like many of his predecessors, wanted to ensure that his strong support for Israel

would not impede upon his pursuit of moral political action. Correspondingly, Rabbi Polish

presented his goal of transforming the Presidents Conference into a more deliberative as potentially

providing this channel for off-the-record conversations about the moral issues he seemed to find

highly important (1973: 6).

After Rabbi Polish reported on his work over the two year course of his presidency of the

CCAR, Rabbi Robert Kahn delivered an address as vice-president and incoming president. At the time, the Rabbi Kahn lived in Houston, Texas where he served as the rabbi of Congregation Emanu

El (Olitzky, Sussman and Stern: 1993: 105). Despite the strong statements of the CCAR in recent years, Kahn asserted in his speech that the relationship of the CCAR to Israel “is still foggy on an institutional level” (1973: 11). While the relationship of the CCAR to Israel certainly changed over the course of the years leading up to this statement by Kahn, it seems inaccurate to describe the relationship as foggy given the number of strongly worded statements of unequivocal support for the State of Israel that the CCAR released in the six years beforehand. However, Kahn pointed towards “the historic anti-Zionist stance of Reform; and so too here by the historic anti-Diaspora

61 stance (shelilat hegola) of Zionist doctrine” (1973: 12). Rabbi Kahn accurately named the historically conflicting doctrines of the Reform movement and the Zionist movement which rejected the legitimacy of each other. Then, he claimed:

Both of these attitudes have yielded, I hope, to history. There is an Israel loved and supported by virtually all of world Jewry; there is an American Diaspora (no longer regarded as galut by its inhabitants) which has primes of a rich and vital Jewish culture. And the time has come when, in both chutz laaretz and baaretz, Reform Judaism as become a desirable option between a rigid orthodoxy and a total secularism (1973: 12).

In these few sentences, Rabbi Kahn echoed many sentiments expressed by earlier leaders of the

CCAR both in the years immediately preceding and following the war of 1967, demonstrating continuity with the perspective of those who came before him. Like earlier Reform rabbis dating back to 1967 Kahn explicitly rejected traditional Reform anti-Zionist notions and emphasized the potential of Reform Judaism spreading within the Israeli population. In this speech, Kahn neglected to stray from the mainstream, the orthodox one might say, of Reform rabbinic attitudes towards

Israel around this time period.

Likewise, other actions which were taken by the CCAR during the convention of 1973 reflected the trend of increasing support for Israel in a gradual manner. One of these actions was a formal recommendation the CCAR issued to the World Union for Progressive Judaism. The CCAR agreed to recommend that the WUPJ “become a member of the World Zionist Organization, conditional upon the acceptability of mooted ideological interpretations of the Jerusalem platform”

(1973: 24). I have not researched details about the Jerusalem platform to be able to speak to the precise significance of nullifying certain ideological interpretations of it. However, this condition seems to reflect a continued distance between the ideology of the Reform movement and that of mainstream/umbrella Zionist organization like the World Zionist Organization. I argue this decision should be understood within the greater context of the Reform movement affiliating and

62 collaborating with a wide variety of Jewish organizations with which the Reform movement had previously not partnered, presumably because of ideological differences.

Another action that the CCAR took in 1973 was to pass a resolution adopting the Israeli holiday of Yom Hashoah, day of Holocaust Remembrance, as an official holiday of Reform Judaism.

This resolution could easily be understood as a follow up to the previous decision to make Yom

Ha’atzmaut an official Reform holiday. There were two more resolutions on Israel passed which should be understood as logical extensions of previous decisions made by the Reform movement.

One of these celebrates “Israel’s Twenty-Fifth Anniversary” which falls neatly in line with the

CCAR’s established positions on Israel (1973: 110-111). Additionally, the CCAR passed a resolution in support of the fundraising campaigns of Israel Bonds and the United Jewish Appeal, just as they had done in previous years, reaffirming once again their economic support for the Jewish state.

A more notable moment came during a presentation by William Cutter, a Reform rabbi and academic, on the “Present Status of Jewish Education” (167). In this presentation, Cutter discussed the role of NFTY, the Reform youth organization, and their Israel programs, which he believed to be “one of the most valuable Jewish experiences in the lives of these students” (1973: 171). Despite taking pride in this perception, Cutter warned that “Israel can too easily become our vicarious

Judaism, the solution to our Jewish question. We must beware of idolatry” (1973: 172). This warning

echoes that of Rabbi Eisendrath years earlier who expressed concern over this same issue. Cutter

suggested that, as a way of preventing such a situation from arising, the CCAR should author a

platform defining its ideological positions on Israel (1973: 172). This way, educators could tailor

their curricula to that platform. As it turns out, Cutter’s suggestion was acted upon three years later

when in 1976 the CCAR issued its first platform that explicitly expressed support for Zionism and

Aliyah, the central symbolic act of Zionist dedication.

63

The final noteworthy excerpt from the 1973 CCAR yearbook is the “Presentation of the

State of Israel Anniversary Award” (1973: 201). Simcha Dinitz, the Israeli ambassador the US, presented an award which was bestowed upon Rabi David Polish for his service to the State of

Israel. In addition to the presentation by Ambassador Dinitz, Rabbi Roland Gittelsohn shared some words about his friend and colleague. Notably, Gittelsohn and Polish have quite a shared history before they partnered in working to shape Reform rabbinic positions and attitudes towards Israel. In

Rabbi Gittelsohn’s words, “our fathers, aleyhem ha’Shalom, were Yeshiva bucherim together in a small town in , and co-incidentally settled in Cleveland, Ohio” (1973: 201). I found this striking coincidence to be worthy of attention considering the large role that these two men played in leading the CCAR in the wake of 1967.

64

Chapter Four: Envisioning Reform Zionism 1974 – 1975

1974: Jerusalem, Israel

In 1974, the CCAR returned to Jerusalem to host its annual convention. As they did four years earlier, they chose to do so as an act of solidarity, a commitment to further engagement with the Zionist project. Unlike 1970, the CCAR expressed an interest in moving beyond simply listening to the perspectives of Israelis. Despite the fact that the 1974 convention occurred less than a year after Israel fought the Yom Kippur War (October 6-26, 1973), the CCAR did not spend much time or energy addressing the consequences of this event. Robert Kahn, the president of the CCAR, barely mentioned the war during his president’s message, referring only to the fact that “we have come in an hour when our brothers stand guard at the borders, to pledge our loyalty and solidarity”

(1974: 7). This absence of attention, in contrast with the extensive attention that the CCAR dedicated to the 1967 war, reveals that the 1973 war did not represent a watershed for Reform rabbinic attitudes towards Israel. The goal of the convention of 1974 was “not only to hear the resonances of this ingathering of Israel, the most remarkable achievement of our people, but also to express our own ideological commitments, so that we may profit by the responses of our Israeli fellow Jews” (1974: 14). In accordance with this priority, Rabbi Robert Kahn chose not to spend much time defending the Zionist history of Reform Judaism. Rather, Kahn articulated his vision of

Reform Judaism. To explain why the CCAR traveled to Jerusalem in 1974, Kahn presented a

Reform Jewish nationalism by stating “we have returned to see our land, our ancestors, our brothers” (1974: 3). With this tri-partite understanding of the Reform relationship with Israel, Kahn shared why he felt Reform Jews should be connected with Israel. Kahn described the wondrous experience of being in the land of the Hebrew Bible. Kahn appealed to the importance of “the uninterrupted traditions of Jews and Judaism” (1974: 4). Finally, Kahn described a Reform desire “to

seek our brothers, to enter into dialogue with them” (1975: 5). This interest was connected to his

65 belief in the importance of K’lal Yisrael, which he praised Polish for working hard on during his tenure as CCAR president (1975:11).

By 1974, K’lal Yisrael had become an important aspect of how the president of the Liberal

CCAR defined liberal Judaism. Kahn declared to his American and Israeli audience that the CCAR had come to “testify that Liberal Judaism, oriented towards the prophets” could invigorate the lives of Israelis religiously (174: 6). Towards the end of his report, Rabbi Kahn painted a more detailed picture of his vision for a “prophetic message” from American Reform Jews (1974: 11). Kahn noted

that the committees on Social Justice and Peace used to be the two most popular committees, when

he joined the CCAR. He goes on to provide two reasons for the shift away from this:

First of all, Israel began to absorb more and more of our attention, and lately its critical needs have absorbed the energies of more and more of our members. Secondly, we were successful in generating the idealism of our laymen, so that the focus shifted from the CCAR to the Union and its Social Action Commission (1974: 11).

Kahn claimed that a prophetic orientation was at the center of the unique tradition of Liberal

Judaism. Kahn then acknowledged that dedicating increased attention to Israel in recent years had distracted the CCAR from engaging in its social justice efforts. The shift in primary focus of CCAR resolutions was notable when I read the yearbooks of this period of ten years.

Beyond Robert Kahn’s speech, let us turn to two more statements uttered by Reform rabbis in Jerusalem during the summer of 1974. During this conference, Rabbi Moses Cyrus Weiler the leader of MARAM, the much smaller Israeli counterpart to the CCAR, challenged his American colleagues to be more supportive of Reform Jewish life in Israel (1974: 44). This appeal signals that, despite statements about the importance of supporting Reform life in Israel, the CCAR was not meeting the demands of their Israeli counterparts. In addition to that thought-provoking moment, another occurred when the CCAR adopted a second resolution on the “Unity of Jerusalem”, to complement a very similar resolution that the CCAR passed on its previous visit to Jerusalem in

1970 (1974: 46). While I cannot be certain, I would interpret this repetitive resolution as evidence

66 that the unity of Jerusalem was a political issue of contention that was important to the state of

Israel. That the unity of Jerusalem was important to the current government of Israel is apparent because Golda Meir and Shimon Peres, who both addressed the CCAR in 1974, mentioned this subject in their speeches.

Another substantive similarity between the two speeches is that both Israeli political leaders called for the CCAR to support American Aliyah. Peres, who was serving as the Israeli Minister of

Information, said that he hoped for North American Aliyah for the sake of Israel. Golda Meir was asked directly: “We know we have to send you money. What other message shall we take back to our congregants, to tell them what you would like us to do to help this State?” (1974: 81). Meir responded “Firstly, Aliyah. This is what Israel really needs” (1974: 81). Meir’s emphasis on Aliyah in

1974 echoed her request for the CCAR to encourage Aliyah in 1970. Yet, this request is more clear and direct, as opposed to the previous time when Meir stated she was willing to compromise. This confident response seems like it found sympathetic ears among some of the crowd at the convention because two years later the CCAR formally endorsed Aliyah.

1975: Cincinnati, Ohio

The CCAR convention of 1975 was particularly significant as Kahn, the conference president, attempted to prevent conflict within the conference. Kahn claimed that “there are deep divisions in Reform Judaism today” (1975: 6). Kahn identified three issues that were responsible for the divide. One of these issues involved blending the “rigorous rationalism of Reform’s founders” and “the emotional dimension of religion (1975: 5). The second issue of concern dealt with “the ethnic dimensions of Jewishness” (1975: 6). The third issue which Kahn identified as sowing disagreement was more directly connected to Reform attitudes towards Israel. This was “the question of the relationship between the Diaspora and Israel” (1975: 6).

67

In the hope of bridging these divisions, Kahn proposed an eightfold “affirmation of the principles of Reform Judaism” (1975: 7). Kahn clearly determined that the divisions within the

Reform rabbinate were significant enough to merit a new statement of Reform Jewish principles.

These principles express a Reform Judaism that reflects the important role that the state of Israel had come to play in the previous several years. First, “Reform Judaism is an interpretation of the

Jewish faith” (1975: 7). Second, Kahn declares that when Reform Jews speak of God, they assert

that the world does not consist of pure chaos. Rather, Reform Jews recognize in the world “a

progressive evolution towards even higher forms of life, reaching their climax in the flowering of

human personality” (1975: 8). Third, they “say that human beings are created in the divine image”

which is understood that all people are capable of choosing between good and evil (1975: 8). Fourth,

Kahn declared the belief that “God has given us Torah” to mean that “morality is not the invention

of man” (1975: 8). Fifth on Kahn’s list was the subject of prayer which Kahn understood to fulfill

“the need of the human soul for spiritual companionship, and the outreach of the heart towards the spiritual power residing in the universe” (1975: 8).

With the final two principles, Kahn expressed the ideological grounds upon which the

CCAR’s commitment to the state of Israel rest. Sixth, Kahn spoke of the special “mission of Israel”

(1975: 8). Kahn, like some leaders of the CCAR before him, understood the mission of American

Jews living in diaspora to be different from that of Jews living in Israel. Diaspora Jews, according to

Kahn, are commanded to share the messianic goals of a just and peaceful world with their neighbors

(1975: 9). By contrast, Israeli Jews are seen as having a duty to build a “State in which the principles of Judaism can be applied to every aspect of human life (1975: 9). Despite the differences in Kahn’s understandings of these two Jewish missions, both missions are to be a light unto the nations, to model ethical behavior for non-Jews to learn from and replicate.

68

Seventh, Kahn claimed “we pledge ourselves to the survival of the Jewish people” (1975: 9).

Similar statements of support for Jewish survival were uttered by previous Reform leaders who emphasized the responsibility of Reform Jews to be in solidarity with Israel. Without mentioning the state of Israel, Kahn invoked this discourse on responsibility by stating “we will share the responsibility for that survival with all our hearts, and all our might” (1975: 9). Eighth and finally,

Kahn reaffirmed “the right of Rabbis and congregations to continue the process of interpreting the

Jewish faith” (1975: 9). This final point of the importance of reinterpretation strikes a harmonious chord with the history of the Reform rabbinate studied here. From year to year, leaders of the

CCAR reinterpreted the meaning of being a Reform Jew and a supporter Jewish nationalism. Rabbi

Robert Kahn’s lengthy presentation of his reinterpretation was influenced by the interpretations of other CCAR leaders before him and would go on to influence the San Francisco platform of the following year.

69

Conclusion

The yearbooks of the Central Conference of American Rabbis demonstrate clearly that

American Reform Jewish attitudes towards Israel changed significantly in the wake of the Six Day

War of 1967. Reform rabbis increasingly expressed the importance of standing in solidarity with

Israel. The importance of this perceived obligation for American Jews was articulated through speeches delivered by presidents of the CCAR, by other prominent Reform rabbis, and by statements approved by the Conference. Although in 1965, two years before the Six Day War, Leon

Feuer, the current CCAR president, called for increased action on behalf of Israel, it seems that this call was not heard until after the six violent days in June of 1967. In the weeks immediately following the war of 1967, the primary method of action that the CCAR endorsed was fundraising on behalf of the state of Israel. The CCAR continued to call for financial contributions for the sake of Israel’s security throughout this time period. These appeals were made in conjunction with Israel Bonds as well as with the United Jewish Appeal. Simultaneously, the CCAR released statements of solidarity with Israel laced with strong political rhetoric and remarkable theological implications.

By the time that over a year passed since the war of 1967, the CCAR progressed to endorsing a wider variety of action for the sake of demonstrating solidarity with the state of Israel.

These actions included lobbying elected officials on the need for the US to act as a great ally to

Israel, communicating to Christian clergy the spiritual rootedness of the concept of the peoplehood of Israel, partnering with other American Jewish organizations around shared interests in demonstrating support for Israel, and engaging in conversation with Israelis. Each of these forms of action contributed to a growing sense of responsibility towards Israel within the body of Reform rabbis. Israel was at the center of the shared interests which the leadership of the CCAR appealed to in order to advocate for cooperating with other American Jewish organizations, such as the

Conference Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, the Rabbinical Assembly (the

70

Conservative movement’s counterpart to the CCAR), the World Jewish Congress, and the World

Zionist Organization. The CCAR deemed it worthwhile to partner with these institutions despite some Reform rabbis expressing concerns about whether other American Jewish organizations would fully reflect the interests of Reform Judaism. The decision to go ahead and collaborate demonstrates that Reform rabbis were motivated by notions of responsibility to K’lal Yisrael, to the entirety of the people of Israel. Additionally, this decision seems to have been influenced by a hope that the CCAR could lead these organizations to adopt positions that more closely resembled those of the CCAR.

The notion of the centrality of Jewish peoplehood to Reform Judaism also motivated the increased conversation with Israeli political, social and religious leaders. These conversations took place at annual conventions of the CCAR in the USA as well as during their two conferences in

Jerusalem during this time period. The commitment to the sacred importance of the people of

Israel, which motivated the CCAR after 1967, represented a position very different from that expressed by in the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, which rejected any conception of Jewish nationalism. However, as early as forty years before 1967, in the Columbus Platform of 1937, the

Reform movement had already embraced the importance of Jewish peoplehood. The emphasis on the importance of the Jewish people in the wake of 1967 was not therefore complete break with the

Reform past.

In the year 1969, three prominent Reform rabbis shared divergent visions of the future of

Reform Judaism, revealing that the priorities of Reform Judaism were being contested even as the

CCAR largely moved to embrace the importance of the state of Israel. By the year 1971, one summer after traveling to Jerusalem to demonstrate solidarity with Israel, to learn from Israelis, and to be inspired by renewed Jewish political sovereignty, the outgoing and incoming presidents of the

CCAR delivered a joint message that articulated a perspective on the Jewish condition that was definitely Zionist as well as definitively Reform. Rabbis Roland Gittelsohn and David Polish

71 emphatically asserted their commitment to supporting the state of Israel, while at the same time demonstrating their commitment to universalistic morality by discussing the moral issues facing

Israel. They considered the issues of Palestinian refugees and Palestinians living under Israeli rule to

be issues of moral concern that Israel must address. This intellectual effort to combine Jewish

nationalism with universalistic morality was found throughout the CCAR yearbooks of this time

period. Reform rabbis were committed to demonstrating that they could stay true to the ideological

tradition of Reform while embracing Jewish nationalism. However, the CCAR was reprimanded by

the Israeli government for public discussing these moral and political problems and, afterwards, the

CCAR leadership chose not to express similar critique in the public forum of CCAR conventions.

The interest in crafting a Reform Judaism which was influenced by Zionism and by Reform’s history

was clearly communicated by many speakers at the CCAR and a uniquely Reform and Zionist

discourse certainly developed during this period. However, in turning increased attention towards

Israel, Reform rabbis naturally focused somewhat less of their attention on other important

social/moral issues that preoccupied them before the War of 1967, such as opposing the Vietnam

War and fighting American racism.

In the years immediately following my period of examination, events occurred which would clearly influence Reform discourse on Israel and Zionism. One of these occurrences was the establishment in 1977 of an official Reform Zionist body, the Association of Reform Zionists of

America, “ARZA”, an acronym meaning “to the Land (of Israel).” Though ARZA was founded by rabbis who led the CCAR during the early 1970s, the establishment of a new institutional body, would clearly have an impact on Reform rabbinic leaders as well as individual congregants.

Additionally in 1977, the right-wing Israeli political party Likud won the Israeli election, leading to the establishment of the first right-wing coalition government in Israel’s history. Likud, which was organized around revisionist Zionism in the tradition of Jabotinsky, articulated different positions

72 than the more liberal labor Zionist camp which controlled the Knesset throughout the previous history of Israel. This political shift would definitely merit responses from Reform rabbis who were simultaneously engaged in carving out their own formal definition of Zionism, which had always

been closely connected to liberal Zionism. In conclusion, the period from 1965 – 1977 was influential in shaping the American Reform Jewish perspective towards Israel. However, the shifts of this period did not represent a radical departure from the attitudes of the preceding time period.

Rather, the development of Reform Zionism during this decade was rooted in the application of the notion of K’lal Yisrael and obligation to the global people of Israel.

73

Reference List

Secondary Literature

1. Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, “The Emergence of Zionism” in Jews and Muslims in the

Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined (Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007),

249-282.

2. Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (Detroit:

Wayne State University Press, 1988), 326-334.

3. Michael Meyer and Gunther Plaut, The Reform Judaism Reader: North American Documents (New

York: UAHC Press, 2001), 197 – 214.

4. Kerry Olitzky, Lance Jonathan Sussman, Maclom H. Stern, eds., Reform Judaism in

America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport, Connecticut and London:

Greenwood, 1993).

5. Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to

History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Primary Sources: Yearbooks of the Central Conference of American Rabbis

1. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXV Cincinnati,

Ohio 1965 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1966).

2. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXVI Toronto,

Canada 1966 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1967).

3. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXVII Los

Angeles, California 1967 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1968).

4. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXVIII Boston,

Massachusetts 1968 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1969).

74

5. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXIX Houston,

Texas 1969 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1970).

6. Sidney Regner, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXX Jerusalem,

Israel 1970 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1971).

7. Joseph Glaser, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXXI St. Louis,

Missouri 1971 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1972).

8. Joseph Glaser, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume LXXXII Grossinger,

New York 1972 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1973).

9. Joseph Glaser and Elliot Stevens, eds., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume

LXXXIII Atlanta, Georgia 1973 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1974).

10. Joseph Glaser and Elliot Stevens, eds., Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook: Volume

LXXXIV Jerusalem, Israel 1974 (Philadelphia: Press of Maurice Jacob Inc, 1975).

11. Elliot Stevens, ed., Yearbook: Central Conference of American Rabbis Volume LXXXV Cincinnati,

Ohio 1975 (Columbus: The Watkins Printing Company, 1976).

75