Dr. Berkson's excellent post tells us that Reform Judaism as a movement was originally opposed to Zionism, and only became Zionist after the rise of Hitler.

"Began to become Zionist" would probably be a better formulation -- recognizing the milestones of the acceptance in the 1937 Columbus platform of Palestine as a place of refuge; the collapse of anti-Zionism in 1948 in the wake of the reality of the state; the creation 30 years ago of ARZA as a formal Zionist voice for the movement; and the full integration of Zionism as a component of Reform Judaism as expressed in the Miami platform.

We should note that the coming together of Reform and Zionism required both movements to veer away from a basic principle in their earlier philosophies. Reform had to give up on the idea that Judaism was strictly a religion; Zionism had to give up on the idea of the eradication of the Diaspora.

Dr. Berkson has promised us further posts on this topic. I hope these will cover the two topics that the current post raises:
1. The need for separation of religion and state in Israel
2. The development of common ground between the Israeli and North American Reform/Progressive communities.

In his book, Agassi advocates replacement, rather than total repeal of the law of return. He advocates a constitution in which Israel is only obliged to give citizenship to those non-Israelis who are persecuted as Jews--a kind of 'asylum' law specifically for Jews. Acceptance of other Jews as immigrants would depend on current Israeli conditions and government policy, I gather.

Personally, I don't think that this is an issue of separation of religion and state, because there is no test of religious belief for those who are Jewish by ancestry. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that one can become a Jew by religious conversion, so the issue is messy, a fact I will return to later.

Also I don't see the law of return as illiberal. Many nations have laws of return, and are not thought the worse for it, including I believe England, Ireland and China--though I am relying on memory here. In fact, I would be surprised if similar laws didn't exist in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Also, I don't see how the law of return in itself has the deleterious effects that Agassi thinks. That there is an open door to Jews doesn't mean that ethnic minorities, such as Arabs, have to be discriminated against.

I don't think the law of return for children with an English grandfather is a cause of great resentment for non-English immigrants to England. Their complaints are on how they are treated. And now with the EU, all kinds of non-English are working in England. And I don't hear non-Europeans, including Americans, crying that the EU is illiberal because EU passports give you an unfair privilege to work all over Europe.

So if the law of return gives an "excuse" to some in Israel to discriminate against Arabs, as Agassi says, it is a poor and illogical excuse.

Similarly, the idea that the current law of return is a key reason for the hostility of Arab neighbors, a reason that would be removed by a "Jewish asylum" law, I don't think is sound.

Those Muslims who reject the legitimacy of Israel today also reject it as a legitimate refuge for persecuted Jews. They--eg Ahmadinejad--say today something like: "Why are you Europeans dumping your refugee problem on us Muslims; we didn't cause the problem--go back to Europe, or anywhere but here in the Middle East." So I don't see how Agassi's solution will have the beneficial effects the thinks it will.

Agassi wants to have two clean categories, "nation" and "congregation," but I don't think this is going to work. Jews were regarded by everyone, including themselves, as a nation in exile until about 1800. And Judaism was still regarded as a nationality in the Soviet Union, where it was stamped on passports, rather than "Russian" or "Ukranian" or whatever. This is not ancient history. Furthermore, Judaism as a culture and as a religion and as an ethnicity are all not the same, but overlapping, and messy. That is just the unique reality of the Jewish people.

None of this is to say that the questions Agassi raises aren't very important. His attack on what he calls "the New Zionist Myth"--that equates being Israeli with being Jewish and views all non-Iaraeli Jews as being in illegitimate exile--seems to me sound. And it may well contribute to discrimination against Arabs, as he says. And the disestablishment of religion in Israel--making it no longer tax supported--seems to me a positive step for uniting World Jewry.

Furthermore, the law of return is indeed a sticky problem because of the questions of who is Jewish by ancestry and who by religion is a mess. Clarifying these things would be good. But I don't see how replacing it with a "Jewish asylum law" would have the huge benefits for Arab-Israeli relations he thinks it would.

But then I don't live there, and know much less about it than those who live there do. So I'd be interested in hearing other Israeli voices--Jewish and Arab!--on this issue of the law of return.

William Berkson’s “Reform and Zionism” was clearly written for an audience of modern liberal Jews who wish to create a responsible and updated relationship with Zionism and Israel. And although this note hopes that liberal Jews will fine what I say here to be of interest, my aim in this brief comment is to try to reach all people who wish to help Israel and its neighbors have a lasting and enduring peace.

Berkson’s essay puts a spotlight on a book whose Hebrew version was published for the first time in 1984. The book I am referring to is Joseph Agassi’s Liberal Nationalism for Israel: Towards an Israeli National Identity. A second edition of this book appeared in Hebrew in 1993 and an English translation (by the author) appeared in 1999. Since I do not read Hebrew I was unable to know much about Agassi’s book until he sent a copy of the English version to me a few months after it was published.

Agassi’s book on Israel is not an easy read. On the contrary, Agassi’s voluminous writings are very challenging partly because he is a master of the art of digression; when one tries to read Agassi the best advise I can offer for a beginner is skip around and only read the parts that interest you. And if nothing interests you then do something like go for a walk, find another book to read, or see if there is an interesting program to watch on T. V. As for me, I often find it difficult to put an Agassi book down once I begin to read it. And for over forty years now I have been entertaining myself with just a few of the books and essays that Agassi has written.

By calling attention to Agassi’s book on Israel Berkson reminded me that this book helped me see that Israel may not be the wonderful democracy that I had learned about when I was growing up as a Jewish kid in Chicago in the early 1950s; up until the time I read Agassi’s book on Israel I thought that Israeli democracy was similar to democracy in the USA or England. But after reading Agassi on the Israeli political structure I began to rethink much that I had been taught by my parents, uncles, synagogue presidents, Rabbis, and other distinguished Jewish community leaders.. Now is not the time to go into details about my new emerging view of democracy in Israel, but I do wish to note here that Agassi’s Liberal Nationalism for Israel is indeed one place to begin the very difficult task of understanding how one might learn to ask and answer questions related to democracy in Israel. Another book that will serve this purpose is Alan Dershowitz’s New York Times best seller The Case for Israel. This book was published in 2003. And in this widely read work Dewshowitz writes on page one that his book will “try to present a realistic picture of Israel, warts and all, as a flourishing multiethnic democracy, similar in many ways to the United States, that affords all of its citizens—Jews, Muslims, and Christians—far better lives and opportunities than those afforded by any Arab or Muslim nation.”

Is Israel a flourishing multiethnic democracy, similar in many ways to the United States? To the best of my knowledge Agassi does not ask this question. However, from reading his Liberal Nationalism for Israel, my conjecture is that he would indeed answer the above question in the negative. His reasons for providing this answer are long and detailed. (The English version of his book is over three hundred pages.) On the other hand, it should be obvious that Dershowitz would answer the above question in the affirmative. Thus, in this very short note I have mentioned two books that have very different interpretations about the democracy that now exists in Israel.

In trying to understand the dialogue between Dershowitz and Agassi I have often been reminded of the question that appears in the title of V. I. Lenin’s book What Is To Done? In relationship to democracy in Israel my abbreviated and somewhat simple answer to Lenin’s question is as follows: Those of us who are aware of the writings of both Dershowitz and Agassi should encourage as many people as we can to grapple with the numerous issues and problems raised by asking questions such as “Is Israel a flourishing multiethnic democracy, similar in many ways to the United States?” Moreover, for those of us who live in countries outside of Israel, we should not be complacent in our efforts to understand Israeli democracy. Accepting Dershowitz or anyone else as the final and last word on democracy in Israel is indeed an unnecessary limitation for those of us who live in countries which value freedom; by limiting our efforts to find the truth about Israeli democracy we may unknowing endorse mistaken views and mistaken actions which do not contribute to creating peace in the Middle East. And in our desire to contribute to the creation of peace we may find that by becoming familiar with the views of little known and little read scholars such as Agassi we will indeed improve our efforts to bring a lasting and enduring peace to Israel and its neighbors.

Joseph, has the Reform movement just argued for funding for itself while other movements are funded, or expressed that state funding in itself is desirable?

I think the first is reasonable, but the second would be a mistake.

When we look at Europe, we see that religion is much less thriving than in the US, and I think that is partly due to the separation of religion and state.

I am guessing that the same would be true in Israel. If religion were separated from political power, it would be more healthy and thriving over the long run.

Also if we look at history, I think there is support for this. Ancient Hebrew religion had first a rather anarchic system that fell apart, and then a monarchy, which in turn collapsed. And the Hasmonean monarchy did not cover itself with glory either. The models of political power we have from England and the US are far superior to anything in Judaism.

Where Judaism excelled was in a faith and ethic and law for individuals and for a community. The Sages were very suspicious of political power, and generally stayed separate from it.

So there is no natural and desirable 'Jewish' form of government.

But Judaism could thrive--no doubt in diverse forms, as in pre-exile Judea--in a state in which it would be personal and communal, but without political authority.

Ron, great to see your name after many years. I believe that Agassi's book did stir up discussion in Israel in its Hebrew editions. But perhaps its message may fall on more fertile ground here.

William, regarding the funding question, I was hoping to learn more about the Reform stance here. I can see the argument for demanding equal funding via court cases. If a government provides funding for one group, it should provide funding for all groups equally. Unequal funding creates a positive feedback loop that can end up with the favored group oppressing other groups. On the other hand, America has already seen that "separate but equal" government support for groups did not work. Keeping government out of religion entirely would be better, and accepting funds underminds this goal. When to compromise and when to stand firm is a difficult question for any organization. As an active unaffiliated Jew, I'll leave it to the voting URJ members to decide. I was just wondering where the URJ currently stands on the question.

Ron, I love the quote from Franklin--thanks! That is exactly the point. Separating religion and political authority in Israel I think would promote religion to evolve in a healthier way within Israel. Moreover, it would put diaspora and Israeli religion on the same footing, so they they would be more likely to evolve together, helping one another.

I am under no illusion that a unified religion will result, but I think it would be healthier for both more traditionalist and more reform versions.