Far too Strictly
Melanie Phillips (JC, December 7) is wrong to suggest that Strictly Orthodox-black will be the only future colour of the diaspora. A healthy, enduring Judaism will continue to be multifarious like the sign of the first Covenant, the rainbow.
Reform Judaism, like the rainbow and like other shades of Judaism, is aspirational, reaching towards the heavens and bringing meaning and joy into our lives.
However, our Judaism, our rainbow, is also grounded, rooted to the earth. Its foundations are the pillars of Torah, prayer and acts of lovingkindness. Judaism will never thrive if the future is just one colour — it would be bland and uninspiring. The coming years must be as diverse and vibrant as our present, and certainly not only Strictly Orthodox.
Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner
Senior Rabbi to Reform Judaism
Melanie Phillips’s article, arguing that “the future of the diaspora must be Orthodox”, has caused offence within the Progressive Jewish student community.
Phillips is right in identifying that, as a Liberal Jew, I see my progressive political values as inherently related to my Judaism, just as her identity and politics probably also go hand-in-hand.
But I challenge her accusation that this means I have “contracted a kind of religious auto-immune disease”. She argues that supporting immigration is “not Jewish”, despite immigration itself essentially being an ancient Jewish practice. And, given that Jews from most denominations see supporting immigrants as part of their Jewish identity, her argument is unnecessarily divisive.
As was pointed out at UJS Conference last Sunday, “a Jew is a Jew is a Jew”. Although disagreement is in our nature, our community is divided enough without the accusation that my Judaism is not even real and that my age group is abandoning Phillips’s concept of “real” Judaism. The answer is to talk to and learn from each other
Jessica Baker
Leeds
What Melanie Phillips observed about the situation of US Jewry is equally true here. Because of intermarriage and assimilation, the bulk of the community is losing any Jewish identity whereas the Strictly Orthodox are expanding rapidly, primarily through the high and increasing birth-rate.
There may be some losses from those dropping out but these will not alter this long-term scenario. Even if it were as much as (the highly unlikely) 20 per cent, that would be, at most, two from a family with eight children — a not uncommon number in such circles — which implies a growth rate of 300 per cent.
In the general community, families with more than two children are the exception and, with its intermarriage rate of over 50 per cent, its decline, even in absolute terms, is obvious.
The Progressives are trying to counter this by encouraging mixed-marriage couples to affiliate, even where the non-Jewish partner does not wish to take advantage of their more relaxed conversion procedures, but this is unlikely to produce many Jewishly committed families. Even if it boosts their current membership rolls it is merely pushing off the decline to the next generation.
So, whether one likes it or not, the future, as Melanie Phillips observes, lies with the Strictly Orthodox.
Martin D. Stern
Salford
Melanie Phillips is probably right that the future of the diaspora lies with the Orthodox community. The problem is that most Jews (myself included) are not Orthodox because, in the light of modern science, they simply cannot believe the supernatural nature of the Torah.
They are proud of their heritage but want to live modern pluralistic lives as secular or Reform Jews — a more pragmatic form of Judaism -- even if this risks eventual assimilation.
The irony is that so many famous Jews, such as Baruch Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn and Karl Marx, owe their success to the profound thinking engendered in them by the very Orthodox background they have rebelled against.
Stan Labovitch
Windsor
This week, I learned from Melanie Phillips that I carry a “religious auto-immune disease” and that all hope for me, outside her perceived elite, is lost. Similarly, Naftali Bennett said that diaspora Jews “don’t care about their Judaism and don’t care about Israel”.
Neither of them, it seems, spend time actually looking at what’s going on. Young people across the religious and political spectrum have stepped up to lead as they abandon their responsibility for us, whether it is building new communities or speaking up for peace and democracy in the Middle East.
In their cowardly attacks this week, we’ve seen that it is not that Phillips and Bennett are scared of Progressives, it’s that they’re scared of progress.
Amos Schonfield,
Chair of Noam/Marom, Yachad board member
Only surface injustice
In his letter (December 7), Mark Goldberg refers to two instances of Israeli injustice — where Ahed Tamimi being sentenced to detention for striking an Israeli soldier and Elor Azaria, receiving nine months for the alleged murder of a Palestinian.
Mr Goldberg, albeit a compassionate person, fails to understand the underlying issues of these sentences.
Ahed Tamimi was already being groomed by the Tamimi family to think as a terrorist and a hater of Israel. Her detention — not imprisonment — resulted in changing her life from one of a violent future to one of pursuing a law degree to become a human-rights lawyer.
All the fuss made by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign about child detention is highly misleading. The “guards” in the detention centres are sensitive to the appalling brainwashing by some Palestinian parents of their children to hate Jews and Israel. Therefore, the staff in the detention centres are trained to help the children see things differently by talking to the children about a non-violent future.
With regard to Elor Azaria, there exists a state of war between Israel and Palestine. The pressure on conscripted Israeli soldiers is enormous. The sentence by the Israeli courts of nine months reflects this.
During the times that British soldiers served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, there were many similar, tragic deaths where fear and uncertainty pulled the trigger instead of a self-defence move.
Mike Abramov,
Ilford
Ben Uri lacks ‘vision’
I read with interest your Ben Uri debate last week. Once again, David Glasser has used the opportunity to roll out the same justifications he made in his letter, (JC, November 16).
When leading members of the arts establishment such as Sir Nicholas Serota resign from advisory roles, in protest at art sales, you have to ask if they have a point. But Mr Glasser just thanks them and carries on regardless.
I disagree with the idea that the idea of a close-knit community and culture with the Ben Uri at the centre is long gone. Both JW3 and the Jewish Museum have proved you can do it, if you have the vision and ambition and put the necessary marketing push behind it, as well as finding a better location. But central to their success is having an undoubted pride in Judaism and Jewish culture. Being “out and proud” has made the difference.
In contrast, it is clear that with so few references to Jewish items in their strategic plan, the Ben Uri trustees clearly lack, or are embarrassed by, the Jewish aspect of their institution. They just want to turn it into an immigrant art museum, but for whom? Their market will be less specific, and less relevant as a result.
If a major synagogue with the artefacts that the Ben Uri had decided to sell its collection and repurpose itself as a religious centre for all, there would be an outcry. A close look at their Charity Commission constitution suggests that their plans may go against the whole rationale of the Ben Uri’s existence.
I do feel there is a role here for the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies to intervene on behalf of the community to stop the wilful destruction of a unique contributor to Jewish life. I fear in ten years, the money will be spent and the Ben Uri will not exist. Let’s campaign to save it before it is too late.
Gordon Kay
Brighton
Chanukah wars
Last year, pro-Palestinian activists planning to protest outside a public Chanukah event in Brighton were branded antisemites by a vice-president of the Board of Deputies who claimed that Chanukah is “a festival which has no link with the current situation in the Middle East.”
Yet, at last week’s Chanukah reception in Westminster, in comments similar to those made by various Israeli ministers defending the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the Israeli ambassador explicitly linked the ancient Hasmonean victory to Israel’s wars of 1948 and 1967. Is this an example of “English irony” British Zionists don’t understand?
David Chesler
Edgware
Oh Carol!
Listen to the message of the seasonal carols. Bethlehem is “royal Jewish David’s city” (city of Ruth and Boas, burial place of the Jewish matriarch Rachel). “Born is the King of Israel”, not “born is the King of occupied Palestine”. The ancient carols speak for themselves. “Peace on Earth to men/ women of good will”.
Joseph Feld
London NW11
