Florida State University Libraries 2017 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 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 Zionism 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 Aliyah, 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 Reform Judaism. 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