I am truly confused by one idea in this essay: "If we don't lead the way to building a state that is a Jewish state worthy of the name (and I don't just mean that Reform rabbis will have equal rights to marry), then, ultimately, Zionism will have failed, and Reform Judaism will be exposed as irrelevant to Jewish history."

Why would our failure to "lead the way" expose Reform as "irrelevant to Jewish history"? I think I understand the part about Zionism failing, but not Reform failing.

Clearly, Reform's center of influence is in the West, especially in North America. While I can certainly understand the desire to bring Reform to Israel, I don't see why that is neccesary to deeming Reform relevant to Jewish history.

Isn't it clear that Judaism continues to move in the direction of having two key centers in the world: Israel and the United States? Judaism in the United States would be a pale imitation of what it is without Reform. Why can't Reform's contribution to the survival and success of Judaism in the United States alone be enough to give it an important place in Jewish history?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; I am truly mystified.

Or could it be that the State of Israel will have tragically rendered itself as irrelevant? It already has to me.

The people of Israel -- wherever they live and whatever language(s) they speak -- are never irrelevant. That does not, however, resolve whether the State of Israel is relevant to all (Reform?) Jews.

The sovereign state of Israel may or may not choose to be imbued with any message of Reform Judaism, but it certainly wants to be imbued with the political and financial support of America’s Reform Jews. Meanwhile, nearly 65% of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are freed from the need to work, thanks to government subsidies, and the non-employment rate for ultra-Orthodox men has tripled since 1970. (Los Angeles Times, May 11)

Reform Judaism is a product of the Diaspora, where it grew for decades without any (consequential) presence in Israel. The assertion that Reform Judaism must make significant inroads in the modern state of Israel in order to have meaningful success or validity elsewhere obviously defies both fact and reason.

I am assuming -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the Maskil of the above comment is the same Maskil that writes one of the best blogs on this site's blogroll -- and it becomes important for readers to recognize that his perspective is not that of a North American, but of a South African.

We need to remember that "only in America," and here I mean the U.S., is Reform the dominant stream of Judaism -- and if we are only for ourselves, what are we?

Mr. Tasch reminds us, rightly, that Reform Judaism is a product of the Diaspora, but doesn't mention that its message, especially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was universalistic, and our Mission was to spread that message to all the peoples of the world.

The last time I checked the map of the world, Israel was part of it, and whether Mr. Tasch approves or not, our mission is to carry our message there as well as here.

@Larry Kaufman, Thank you for your kind words; I am he. You’ve just inspired me to start posting again, after a hiatus of several months!

@Mark Tasch, Reform Judaism is a product of the Diaspora, not in a pejorative sense (which is how it comes across), but because at the time there was no viable Jewish community in Eretz Israel exposed to the double-edged blessings of Emancipation and Enlightenment. (Then (as, increasingly, now), (ultra-)Orthodox Jewish existence in EI was based on hallukah.) The founding fathers of Zionism largely spurned organised religion entirely; we can only speculate at how things might have turned out had Reform and Conservative Judaism successfully carried their message to Palestine during the formative phase of Zionism. So yes, Reform is a child of the Diaspora. That is an accident of history, and there’s no reason why it should remain so once we have a level playing field in Israel.

Rather than a bald assertion, I simply have a sense that a viable Reform Judaism is essential for the continued viability of Reform elsewhere. Just to give one concrete example of why this may be the case, why would someone (especially a woman) go through a Reform conversion knowing that this might at some stage cause huge problems for him/her or his/her offspring in Israel one day (I’ve just finished reading about this horrific case.)?

She Doesn't Live Here Anymore
http://www.irac.org/NewsDetailes.aspx?ID=571

In addition to this perception that our warranty is not valid in Israel, there is also a vaguer sense that, if Israel is our cultural and spiritual centre, Reform should be part of that broad consensus or tapestry. If it’s “not good enough” for Israel, then that same question mark hangs over us elsewhere.

I’m sorry I can’t be more definitive. I have no doubt that others in the Reform community are applying their minds to the question, and that answers will start to emerge.

Although I regret that Reform Judaism does not have status in Israel, I suggest that the history of Reform Judaism is not as idealistic as people here wish to believe. It was founded in order to allow Jews to "fit in" more easily with the dominant Christian religion. This may be why our Orthodox brothers do not accept us. To them keeping kosher is important, whereas to us it is optional. There are other factors of course, but let us recognize their criticism as legitimate in certain respects. Their views have kept Judaism alive for centuries, allowing our existence to evolve.

@Jackie Cappiello, while I don’t idealise the early history of Reform Judaism, I don’t see any need to denigrate it either (I’m not suggesting that you’re doing so). Although many assume it to be true, I’m just not sure what evidence there is to support the notion that early reforms were intended purely to fit in with the dominant culture. (If that was the case, then why not simply leave Judaism entirely?)
Even if we accept the idea of early Reform’s organ music envy, this phenomenon is not unique to Reform. One only has to look at the “traditional” Hassidic garb (increasingly becoming the garb of Orthodoxy as a whole), which was by all accounts adopted in imitation of the Polish nobility of earlier times.
I simply don’t see any merit in Judaism (of any variety) getting hung up on differences for their own sake. All cultures and religious expressions have benefited at some stage from absorbing or imitating desirable ideas or practices from their neighbours (physical or spiritual).
While the initial impetus for Reform may have been the desire to innovate (or imitate) in the area of synagogue ritual, Reform quickly became Judaism’s response to the challenge of the great scientific and secular age we are still living in. It may have been a flawed response, but at least it was a response, which is perhaps more than we can say for the other end of the Jewish spectrum.