Dear Miri,

On behalf of our entire congregation, most especially those who have met and heard you, personally, we extend our sincere CONGRATULATIONS to you on your long-awaited victory!!

We are all so thrilled for you and the extraordinary patience, courage, strength and optimism you have displayed over the course of so many years.

Your case has certainly made history in our eyes and in the eyes of all those fellow Jews who cherish religious freedom, sexual equality and democratic reforms.  Miri, you have every good reason to be proud of your unprecedented, victorious accomplishment; may it herald the day when all non-Orthodox Israeli Rabbis and their congregants will be vouchsafed the many blessings that we enjoy chutz la’aretz and yet, admittedly, take for granted.

We rejoice with you, Birkat Shalom and, for that matter, the entire Israel Progressive Movement in this landmark decision.

We are well aware of the fact that future hurdles might well present themselves and that the fight for full and unambiguous legitimacy continues but, right now, we want to rejoice with you in this monumental achievement that could well, B’Ezrat HaSHem, open the doors to a new and glorious future for Progressive and Conservative Judaism in Israel.

From Philadelphia, we send you and David a big, hearty “MAZAL TOV.”  You have every reason to be bursting with pride!

In friendship,

Robert

In my introductory remarks to the Peter Beinart-David Suissa debate at Temple Israel of Hollywood last Wednesday evening (May 16), I said the following to help give political context to what we would be hearing from each speaker:

In a thoughtful piece published this past week, Professor Shaul Magid of Indiana University, wrote that the response and rancor around Peter Beinart’s book “The Crisis of Zionism” represented four broad groups in the American and Israeli communities – the ideological left and right and the pragmatic left and right. A brief word about each:

Those in the ideological left question the viability of a Jewish state preferring a liberal democratic state in a one-state solution; this means the end of the Jewish State of Israel.
The ideological right includes a combination of Zionist revisionists and theological messianists and understands territorial maximalism (i.e. a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) as necessary for Jewish survival; this might mean the survival of a Jewish state, but this “Israel” would not be a democracy because the Jewish minority would rule over the Arab majority.

The pragmatic left often uses rhetoric from the ideological left but emphasizes the welfare of the Jewish people and the importance of a Jewish democratic State of Israel. They are concerned that the occupation of the West Bank is compromising Israel’s democracy. Included among these are J Street, Shalom Achshav, B’tzelem, and Peter Beinart.

The pragmatic right uses the rhetoric of liberalism but looks to Jewish history rather than theology and argues that security must be the over-riding priority for the Jewish state in any two-states solution. This group includes AIPAC, The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and David Suissa.

A few thoughts:

1. The debate was friendly and civil. Each speaker spoke and I asked questions. Peter Beinart answered every question I posed and addressed every claim David Suissa made. Peter’s remarks were factually based, nuanced, pro-Israel, pro-peace, critical of Palestinian terror and mistakes, critical of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, and pragmatically left.

2. David Suissa’s presentation was emotionally based, rhetorically charged, and avidly pro-Israel. He avoided answering two of my questions but eventually did, the first on the Arab demographic threat to Jewish democratic nationalism in a “greater Israel,” and the second on whether Jerusalem should serve as the capital of both Israel and Palestine in an end-of-conflict peace agreement.

3. I asked both men that if Israel and the Palestinians were unable to agree on a two-states for two-peoples solution, which would they prefer? (1) A single Jewish state over “greater Israel,” or (2) a partitioned land accommodating two states, Israel and Palestine. In #1, Israel’s Jewish character would be preserved but it would lose its democracy. In #2, Israel would be able to retain a Jewish majority and its democracy. Peter affirmed #2. David challenged the premise that Israel holding onto the land it currently controls would mean that there would be an Arab majority. He made this claim by excluding Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinians from a Palestinian state. The bottom line for David was that he did not accept partition of the land nor a shared Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine. Indeed, he seemed not to support two-states for two-peoples. That being the case, I mis-characterized him in my introduction as a part of the “pragmatic right.” Rather, David is likely ideologically right.

4. David claimed that only 1% of the West Bank is populated by Jewish settlements. The actual percentage is far greater because each settlement includes security zones surrounding it, and both the settlement and its respective security zone are part of land controlled by Jewish regional councils. Taking everything together, settlements in fact control 40% of the West Bank. Of that 40%, both B’tzelem and Settlement Watch of Shalom Achshav (two Israeli human rights organizations) claim that one third is owned by private Palestinians. Peter made these points during the debate, but he passed over them quickly and I felt it important to restate them here.

The debate between Peter Beinart and David Suissa reflects the vast difference of opinion and perspective that animates the discussion both within the American Jewish community and in Israel itself on the nature of the conflict and the possible solutions. One of my Israeli friends, a significant leader in the State of Israel, watched the debate and reflected that to solve this problem will require new and original thinking because the status quo is unsustainable for Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state.

I believe that Peter Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism is a must-read for anyone interested in peace, Israel’s security, viability and future.

View the entire debate and read Rabbi Rosove’s summary of the event.

Rabbi John Rosove is the Senior Rabbi at Temple Israel of Hollywood in Los Angeles. He is a passionate progressive Reform Zionist and serves as a Vice President on the ARZA Board, in addition to chairing the Program Committee. Under his leadership, his synagogue has twinned with Kehillat Mevasseret Zion and Congregation Darchei Noam in Ramat HaSharon, Israel, as well as with the Progressive Synagogues in Kiev and Kharkov, Ukraine. This post was originally published on Rabbi Rosove’s blog.

Last night (Wednesday, May 16), Peter Beinart (author of A Crisis of Zionism) and David Suissa (President of The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles) debated before a crowd of 450 people at Temple Israel of Hollywood in Los Angeles the role of the American Jewish community vis a vis Israel, the arguments left and right relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the challenges to democracy and the Jewish character/demography of the state that a non-resolution of this conflict present. I was honored to moderate the discussion.

You can watch the entire conversation on the Jewish Journal website.

I recommend reading Peter’s book, as it spells out clearly, factually and historically what has become of the Zionist enterprise and how the American Jewish establishment (i.e. AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the ADL, and AJC, among others) and community have changed and evolved over the course of the past 64 years since Israeli statehood.

Though vilified by some on the Jewish and Israeli right for the positions he takes in this book and in other writings, others have praised Peter’s book including President Bill Clinton, philanthropist Edgar Bronfman, former Congressman and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission Lee H. Hamilton, and Naomi Chazan, former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and President of the New Israel Fund.

President Clinton said the following:

“Peter Beinart has written a deeply important book for anyone who cares about Israel, its security, its democracy, and its prospects for a just and lasting peace. Beinart explains the roots of the current political and religious debates within Israel, raises the tough questions that can’t be avoided, and offers a new way forward to achieve Zionism’s founding ideals, both in Israel and among the diaspora Jews in the United States and elsewhere.”

Rabbi John Rosove is the Senior Rabbi at Temple Israel of Hollywood in Los Angeles. He is a passionate progressive Reform Zionist and serves as a Vice President on the ARZA Board, in addition to chairing the Program Committee. Under his leadership, his synagogue has twinned with Kehillat Mevasseret Zion and Congregation Darchei Noam in Ramat HaSharon, Israel, as well as with the Progressive Synagogues in Kiev and Kharkov, Ukraine. This post was originally published on Rabbi Rosove’s blog.

As Israel celebrates the 64^th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, I am celebrating my 57^th birthday. I share that information, because my age tells a great deal about how Israel fits into my life and worldview. I was raised in the early years of the State of Israel. I was reared with a strong connection to the justice of the Jewish cause and the promise of Zionism’s mission to create a Jewish democratic state in Israel. I daily monitored the spectacular successes of the IDF during the Six Day War in June of 1967, and conversely shared the pain and fear that accompanied the Yom Kippur War in 1973. I beamed with pride as Israel’s bravest flew to Uganda to free hijacked Jewish captives held by terrorists in Entebbe, and felt vindicated when the Zionist enterprise, the same enterprise declared racist by the U.N. in 1975, arranged to have a civil war suspended so that a caravan of Israeli planes could fly into Ethiopia and airlift over 14,000 Beta Yisrael (Black Jews) home to Israel to be reunited with our people. This was the Israel upon which I was raised.

As we all know, Israel’s image has become tarnished in recent years, both in the world and among some Jews. Israel’s governmental policies are often far from perfect; Israeli society has numerous and significant challenges; the Jewish democratic paradigm is not yet universally applied. All of this is true, yet I am still awed by the vibrant Jewish ethical debate that emerges from Israelis and her various institutions. Let us not forget that our people is always on a journey to becoming. On Pesach we re-enact our journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, a journey that is ongoing. We are always moving from slavery to freedom, from crisis to resolution, from despair to hope; our paradigm is that we are moving from the world as it is to the world that ought to be. So it is with my beloved Israel.

Last summer, I was in Israel during the rallies for economic justice. Many young Israelis find it impossible to afford a place to live in the cities, the housing prices being untouchable. Young people are disheartened by the growing disparity between the rich and everyone else. While they applaud those who make it because of their ingenuity and creativity, they are displeased by the unfairness of corporate corruption. The small spontaneous protests began as tent cities and grew into a massive social movement that drew hundreds of thousands of supporters. These young people created a peaceful, respectful, mass movement that brought the media, the intelligentsia, their parents and grandparents to their cause. Their rallies garnered a substantial cross section of Israeli society; it became the largest demonstration in Israel’s history. These young people became empowered to change their society. And, the shear enormity of support forced the government to respond.

Respected Economics Professor, Manuel Trajtenberg headed a committee to analyze the complaints and make recommendations. Most of those recommendations have been accepted by the government, and Israel is on the way to addressing the real concerns of a generation of dedicated young people who love their country, are devoted to her future and ask only that their society reflect the social justice that is at the heart of Judaism and the Zionist vision.

What began as a year of great challenge and serious disaffection has ended with a palpable hope for a brighter tomorrow. Moreover, we have witnessed the engagement of a generation who now understands that they have a significant role in building the future of Israeli society.

Are there more issues to address? Of course, the list is long. But, as Israel begins her 65^th year, I remain, as always, a proud and committed Zionist, with a renewed hope in the future of the Jewish democratic State of Israel.

As we celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut, join me, and the Reform Movement, in showing our support for Israel with the first Reform Israel Shabbat on April 27-28.

Rabbi David M. Weis is the Rabbi of Congregation Beth Israel in Northfield, NJ. He is also a member of the CCAR Israel Committee.