Reform Zionism – Is There Any Such Thing?
   Dr. Michael Livni
Comments made in a panel on Reform Zionism at the 18th  Convention of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ) 19 Iyar 5768 – 24 May 2008
*******************

Firstly, we must ask what Zionism means today. Only then can we ask whether Reform Zionism exists or not.

We should recall that since its inception, there have been two aspects to Zionism – political Zionism and cultural Zionism.

In political Zionism, Herzl’s goal was political, defined, and finite. He sought to secure a state of the Jews like all the other nations and recognized by all the other nations. Political Zionism was a response to the physical and economic deprivation faced by the Jews as the result of rising violent nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The vision was of a democratic, liberal, and tolerant state according to the enlightened Western model, as portrayed in Herzl’s Altneuland. 

Political Zionism achieved its goal. The State of Israel exists and we are celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. It might seem that all that matters now is for us to be good citizens, pay our taxes, and meet our obligations to help defend the country. As far as political Zionism is concerned, it could be argued that we are now in the post-Zionist era.

Cultural Zionism as expounded by Ahad Ha’am has always stood as an alternative approach to political Zionism. Cultural Zionism advocated a Jewish state with a unique, purposeful character, and rejected the idea of “normalizing” the Jewish people in its own state “like all the other nations.”

According to cultural Zionism, the threat facing Judaism in modern times is the threat to Judaism as a culture, or as a civilization, to use the term preferred by Mordechai Kaplan, Ahad Ha’am’s American student. Ahad Ha’am argued that the mission of Zionism is to ensure the continued creative survival of the Jewish people per se. This meant a Jewish national home, with a uniquely Jewish character and purpose, whose influence radiates out to the Diaspora. Thus the National Home will provide a barrier against physical and cultural assimilation. It is important to note the difference between the defined and finite goal of political Zionism as opposed to the infinite goal and mission of cultural Zionism – to repair the people (Tikkun Am). There can be no “post-Zionism” when it comes to cultural Zionism.

Components and Characteristics of Cultural Zionism in Israel
Here in Israel, various cultural Zionist movements have developed distinct and sometimes contradictory visions regarding the character and form of the Jewish state. These movements have attempted to answer two interconnected questions:
1.	What will be the content of the Jewish state in terms of national values?
2.	On the basis of what principles or norms are these values to be realized?

With hindsight, it seems that in order to answer these questions, every cultural Zionist movement required three components that were intricately connected:
1.	Vision – ideas and ideals – ideology. 
2.	An education system – formal and informal.
3.	Projects which seek to realize the vision.
In addition, the movement required both practical and spiritual leadership capable of leading it to its objectives.

1. The Ideological Component
First and foremost, there was a need for a vision expressed in ideas and ideals, ideology, and a resulting action plan. The vision and action plan had to be capable of recruiting a critical mass of members willing and able to advance the vision passionately, “with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their might.

Both political and cultural Zionism were based on an ideology intended to realize a vision.

In his book The Zionist Ideology, Gideon Shimoni defines the term “ideology” as follows: “…a coherent action oriented set of ideals that provides those who subscribe to it with a comprehensive cognitive map of their position and purposes.” 

Today, however, there are many who reject ideology as a foundation for thought. This is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern era. We must address the ramifications of postmodernism for Zionism and for our work in the IMPJ.

Modernism and Postmodernism
Eliezer Schweid has compared modernism and postmodernism. A modern ideological movement posits a desirable reality toward which we should aspire. On the basis of this desirable reality, the modern movement determines an action plan for realizing its preferred vision. Reality cannot be ignored, but ideology provides a map and a starting point for beginning to promote the idea.

Postmodernism negates ideology and exploits the social sciences in order to determine the actual situation on the basis of the forces and opinions in a given field. This approach forms the foundation for action.

The reality in the context of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism is that for years it has been unable to establish an ideological committee. On the other hand, we have invested considerable sums in a market survey to promote a process of branding. Accordingly, we have branded ourselves in the following terms:
“The Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism is a Jewish religious stream that offers contemporary Jewish identity to those wishing to relive their Jewishness while maintaining a free way of life.” 
The direction is one of marketing to individuals; there is no mention of affiliation to a movement. The word “Zionist” is avoided in presenting the concept of “Progressive Judaism.” Our branding and self-image are not merely post-Zionist; they are above all the product of a postmodernist process.

In order to illustrate the difference between modernism and postmodernism, I shall quote a comment by Leo Baeck regarding the harbinger of Zionism Moshe Hess:
“He saw the present from the vantage point of the future… He did not want to shape the future on the basis of what existed in the present.” The first of these is modernism; the second is postmodernism.

An even clearer example is Herzl’s maxim “If you will it – it is no dream.” This is a modernist statement, defining a vision and a goal even if these seemed very far removed from the “reality” of the period.

According to the postmodernist, the starting point is what the existing reality defines as forseeable. By contrast, the starting point in a modernist movement is what is desirable, not the existing reality. For although “all is foreseen” nevertheless “free will is given.”

My friends, without an ideology that offers an action plan for realizing a vision, there is no Zionist movement. And “When there is no vision, the people become unruly” (Proverbs 29:18). There can be no such thing as a postmodern Zionist movement – the concept is logically impossible.

2. An Education System =- Formal and Informal
The second vital component for a cultural Zionist movement is an educational system, both formal and informal, based on the movement’s ideology. This implies a system with an educational rationale extending from pre-school through 12th grade and beyond. It also implies a staff of educators who embody the movement’s ideology in their personality.

3. Projects which Realize the Ideology
The third and crowning component of a cultural Zionist movement is the same today as it was in the past: Intentional communities which seek to embody a way of life which realizes the vision on a daily basis in practical terms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the past and present of cultural Zionism, there have been two outstanding examples of movements that met the three criteria we have discussed – ideology, education, and intentional communities for realization.

Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Labor Zionist movement was the most prominent example. The Labor settlements (kibbutzim, moshavim) in their various forms constituted the enterprise for realization. The schools of the “Workers’ Stream” in formal education, and the “blue-shirt” youth movements (and, indeed, the Scouts movement of the time) constituted the infrastructure in informal education. We should note, however, that even during the peak years of the kibbutz movement, those choosing this form of realization constituted a small minority of the graduates of the “Workers’ Stream” schools and the youth movements. Nevertheless, this minority exercised a decisive influence over the emerging nation.

After the Six Day War, militant religious Zionism gained prominence, and Gush Emunim provided the clearest example of an alternative cultural Zionist vision that continues to exert a profound influence over Israeli society. This cultural Zionism is fed by the graduates of the State-Religious education track, the yeshiva high schools, and Bnei Akiva as it has emerged over the past generation. Again, settler activists and the “youth of the hilltops” constitute a small minority within Orthodox Zionism. Despite this, every day’s headlines remind us of the influence this minority wields.

In practical terms, only those who have educated the younger generation, and thereby managed to establish intentional communities for realization based on a vision and an action plan, have managed to leave their mark on Israeli society!

Is There Such a Thing as Reform Zionism?
So now we come to our question: is there such a thing as Reform Zionism. You may judge for yourselves where the IMPJ stands today in terms of the three criteria we proposed above: ideology, education, and realization.

My friends: to judge by our budgetary behavior – and that is what counts – what interests us as an apparently post-Zionist and postmodernist association of congregations forming a religious stream is the financing of the operations of our local congregations. In particular, budgets are devoted to maintaining buildings and to personnel – rabbinical and other. We should note that houses of worship and associated activities have never formed part of the criteria of cultural Zionism.

Moreover, national movement activities are not a priority. If you would like to change this situation, you are invited to join Chavruta – the Reform Zionist lobby working in the IMPJ and elsewhere. 

We were asked to address the Question: What do we have to offer Zionist Discourse?
If a Reform Zionist movement existed, its task would be to promote activities of repair/transformation (Tikkun) in the spirit of the prophets, addressing the relations between humans and between humans and the “Place”. “The Place has many entrances.” In our times, the Hebrew word “Place’ (Makom) not only refers to the God idea, but also serves as symbol for the unity and purpose of all spheres of individual and communal life; it also refers to the Creation that is available to us, and which too many are intent on spoiling.

In practical terms, however, the question as to “our place in Zionist discourse” is irrelevant. The question should be about our place in Zionist deeds! Only deeds can serve as a platform for discourse; discourse without deeds has no value. In a pluralistic and democratic society, deeds must certainly lead to discourse, and such discourse is beneficial if people are open to it. There is one condition for Zionist discourse, however: Deeds!

Unfortunately, however, we are not engaged in Zionist deeds, or at least not adequately in terms of the standards we discussed above. The scope of national movement action is insufficient. There are “islands” of education, and some of them are very successful in their own right, but they do not combine to form a national network from pre-school through the end of military service. Neither does the movement offer diverse frameworks for realization. The frameworks that exist (despite yesterday’s awards) are disconnected from the educational system and regarded by many as an irrelevant anachronism. 

Above all, we lack people – “soldiers” for the movement. Let each of us here examine ourselves in this respect. For sure, we have paid workers – rabbis and others. In fact, they constitute the “movement.” There is no body of rank-and-file members who are deliberately active on the national level in order to realize a Reform Zionist vision, establish an education system, and develop new foci of realization that serve as a model for a potential Reform Zionist vision.

Our Reform Zionist “Go Forth” is vague and hesitant. We have not managed to achieve the critical mass of those who would say –
“I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” (Isaiah 6:8)

This, perhaps, is the challenge of Reform Zionism, for each one of us and for us all together.

Thank you for listening. Good luck to us all!

*********************************************************************