New AJC Publication Examines Reform Judaism In Israel

American Jewish Committee
Thursday, 15 October 1998

"The founding of Reform Judaism in Israel marked a milestone in its evolution as a religious movement….And yet, having 'returned' to Zion, it is in Israel that the movement faces the greatest challenge regarding its religious identity and legitimacy….Yet delegitimation of Reform Judaism in Israel would have a more powerful impact on American Jews, and Jews elsewhere, than in Israel itself."

These are among the conclusions in a new publication entitled "Reform Judaism in Israel: Progress and Prospects." The 64-page booklet was written for the American Jewish Committee and the Argov Center for the Study of Israel and the Jewish People of Bar-Ilan University by Dr. Ephraim Tabory, professor of sociology at Bar-Ilan University. This paper is the sixth in a joint publication series of AJC's Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations and the Argov Center, providing case studies of issues affecting American Jewry in Israel and documenting the ties and tensions between Jewry in Israel and the United States.

In this publication, Dr. Tabory analyzes the Reform movement's development in Israel, its relationship to American Jewry and to Israeli society, and its current position in the religious pluralism debate. He examines the establishment of Reform Judaism in Israel both retrospectively and prospectively, looking at synagogues and kibbutzim, rabbis, membership, its platform and other movement features; the hostility which often surrounds it, including discrimination, the recognition of rabbis, religious councils, and the Conversion Bill; and the market for religious alternatives in Israel and the future for liberal Judaism.

The Reform movement in Israel today is small, Dr. Tabory states, approximately 5,000 members, or less than one percent of Jewish Israelis, and about twenty congregations. There are also two kibbutz settlements and a communal settlement affiliated with the movement. Twenty students have thus far completed the rabbinical program, begun in 1974. The bet din (religious court) of the Reform movement converts about 120 people a year.

Describing the significance of Reform Judaism in Israel, Dr. Tabory notes that

"the Reform denomination developed and flourished in societies where Jews sought acceptance on an equal basis with non-Jews while retaining their Jewish identity. Orthodox Jews viewed Reform's radical religious changes as religious desertion and Reform Judaism as religiously unauthentic….By succeeding in Israel, a society in which one need not affiliate with any religious or ethnic movement in order to maintain a Jewish identity, the movement can most dramatically refute the charge of lack of authenticity and illegitimacy. Triumph in Israel strengthens Reform everywhere. Failure in Israel casts a shadow on Reform as a religious movement."

Turning to what he refers to as the "hostile environment" often surrounding the Reform movement, Dr. Tabory cites various areas where Reform is treated differently from the Orthodox movement in Israel.

"Besides the physical hurdles placed before the movement, there are more fundamental policies that not only impede its functioning in Israel but also serve to delegitimize it on a symbolic level. Of primary importance is the way rabbis are treated…marriages performed in Israel by Reform rabbis are not recognized by the civil authorities….Conversions performed by the movement in Israel are also not recognized by religious or state authorities."

This lack of recognition and official legitimacy not only affects the expansion of the movement, he states, but the very identity of Reform Jews everywhere.

Looking specifically at the Conversion Bill, legislation that threatened to cause a severe rift between the State of Israel and non-Orthodox Jews abroad, and the recommendations of the Ne'eman committee, Dr. Tabory states: "The issues dealt with by the Ne'eman committee are still to be resolved, but a precedent has been established in the creation of an official forum for discussion between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox leaders. In itself, the Ne'eman committee symbolizes a degree of recognition for the [Reform] movement."

In describing the difference between Israeli Jews and American Jews, the publication states that "Jewish Israelis have no need for a religious movement to justify what they want to do. They just do it….While Jewish Israelis may be disturbed by religious based laws and requirements that impinge on their personal lifestyles, there is no desire to fundamentally rebel against the system.

"Nonaffiliation with a religious denomination in America appears to lead to marginality in the Jewish ethnic community. Thus, even persons who are religiously lax may be motivated to affiliate with an institutionalized form of Judaism in order to retain and manifest an ethnic Jewish identity. There is little question of one's Jewishness in Israel, however. There is not much fear of assimilation into the non-Jewish society."

In conclusion, Dr. Tabory writes: "While in the short run the Reform movement may be more supported by those who oppose the Orthodox establishment than by those who seek a liberal religious alternative, it could be that the political activism of the movement will reduce its stigmatization and lead to increased acceptance. Official recognition of the rabbis could lead to a large number of people being willing to 'try' the movement, especially with regard to celebration of life-cycle events.

"In the long term, the movement is having an impact on the relation between state and religion. The movement's legal challenges reveal the precarious commitment of Orthodox political parties to the consideration of minority rights as part of their conception of democracy.

"Most importantly, the struggle over the nature of the Jewish state is having an impact on Israel's relations with Jewish communities abroad. The American Reform movement in particular is much more aware of what is happening in Israel religiously, and appears to be less tolerant of discrimination and unequal treatment. Questions raised about the authenticity of Reform Judaism in Israel can lead American Reform Jews in turn to question the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state."

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Steven Bayme, director of AJC's Institute on American Jewish - Israeli Relations, and Dr. Charles Liebman, director of the Argov Center, highlight two areas of concerns for advocates of religious pluralism in Israel: the Orthodox Rabbinate's control over certain matters of state policy and their felt need for alternative modes of religious expression to Orthodoxy.

"The former concern," they write, "refers primarily to laws of personal status and the capacity of Orthodox rabbis to invoke the coercive power of the state to legislate halakhic definitions of who is a Jew. The latter concern refers primarily to the need for religious pluralism as a corrective both to religious indifference and to religious extremism. One of the ironies within this debate has been the willingness of religious pluralism advocates to join hands under a banner of civil liberties with those who oppose any role for religion in public life -- thereby focusing upon synagogue-state relations to the detriment of the existential issues of the meaning of Jewish identity and Jewish statehood.

"The primary message of this campaign…appears more focused on religious freedom than on a true pluralism and diversity of religious expression. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the religious values and teachings of Reform and Conservative Judaism, thus far, have failed to evoke as much support as has their opposition to the Chief Rabbinate."

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org