Dr. Michael Livni

THE PLACE OF ISRAEL 
IN THE IDENTITY
OF REFORM JEWS

With a Joint Response by
Dr. Lisa Grant 
Rabbi Michael Marmur

Excerpted from
Dr. Daniel Ben Moshe and Zohar Segev, Ed.
ISRAEL, WORLD JEWRY 
and IDENTITY

Sussex Academic Press
(September 2007) 

MICHAEL LIVNI
Dr. Michael Livni is a member of the Reform kibbutz – Lotan. Livni (then Langer) was the first shaliach (emissary) to the Union for Reform Judaism. He has been active in Reform Zionism for thirty years.  His books include Reform Zionism: An Educator’s Perspective, published by Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem 1999 and HaOptzia Hareformit: Zionut Acheret  (The Reform Option: A Different Zionism), published by Tzell Hatamar, Kibbutz Lotan 2002.

LISA GRANT
Dr. Lisa Grant is Associate Professor of Jewish Education at the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute for Religion in New York

MICHAEL MARMUR
Rabbi Michael Marmur is the Dean of the Jerusalem School, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute for Religion.

This offprint has been sponsored by the Reform Zionist Publication Fund,
Tzell Hatamar  (Registered Society)

ABSTRACT

The Place of Israel 
in the Identity of Reform Jews

A.  Identifying With Israel
The term, "identifying with Israel" straddles the entire range from passive pro-Israelism to active Jewish-Zionist commitment. We must differentiate between political Zionism and cultural Zionism. The finite aim of political Zionism, establishing a state for the Jews, has been achieved and has become pro-Israelism. The aim of cultural Zionism is to utilize the framework of the Jewish state to ensure the continued creative existence of the Jewish people. This aim is infinite. All cultural Zionisms had/have their vision with an ideological action plan, a committed minimal critical number for its realization, and an educational program for its propagation. The dynamics of Jewish-Zionist commitment are a process whereby an individual grows into a group which is Zionist and where one identifies with Zionist role models.

All Zionisms were/are modern ideologies based on the assumption that free will can shape reality – i.e. prophetic. They are incompatible with “priestly” post-modernism which seeks to adapt to reality rather than changing it. 

B.  Statistics and What They Mean. 
Some 90% of Reform Jews, 1.4 million, live in the United States. Only 34% have visited Israel. Only 21% feel very emotionally attached to Israel. Surprisingly, 57% have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Reform Jews affiliated with congregations, number only 754,000. 

There are no hard statistics for Reform Jews outside of the United States. Where it currently exists, NETZER (Noar Tzioni Reformi), the semi-autonomous Reform Zionist youth movement, serves as a partial indicator of the potential place of Israel in the identity of their community. As of 2006, the 40,000 strong Progressive community in Britain sends 15 to 25 high school graduates to a ten month NETZER program every year. A critical element appears to be a youth empowered process built on the principle of identifying with Zionist role models. The non-American Diaspora shows that there is no inherent contradiction between a pro-Israel Reform Judaism and more intense Reform Zionist commitment.

C.  Reform and the Zionist Enterprise.
The basis of the classic Reform rejection of Zionism lay in its rejection of peoplehood as such. The Columbus Platform of 1937 affirmed the concept of Jewish peoplehood and partially endorsed the Zionist idea. An important background factor in this partial endorsement was the identification of many in the Reform rabbinate with the prophetic as expressed in the intentional communities of the Labor Zionist variant of cultural Zionism. 

The impact of the Six Day War created a shift in Reform social action from the universal to the particular. By 1974, the Reform movement had affiliated with the World Zionist Organization. The Labor Zionist orientation of key Reform rabbis in working with youth paved the way for the establishment of two Reform kibbutzim, Yahel and Lotan. The initiators of the kibbutzim hoped they would be a focus for Reform Zionist identification in both the Diaspora and in Israel. Additional impetus to Zionism resulted from the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism. 

Identification with Israel peaked in the early nineteen eighties. After this, Reform Zionist commitment began to lose ground. Personnel changes in the Youth Division of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in the United States, as well as the passing of the “Labor Zionist” rabbis played a role, as did the waning of Labor Zionism in Israel. The development of an embryonic Reform Zionist youth movement in America was aborted. Yet in other Diaspora countries, NETZER began to establish itself. 

D.  What Can Be Done?
Strengthening the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews is dependent on a process which can create foci of Reform Zionist commitment where the young (and not so young) can identify, at some level, with intentional communities that project a Reform Zionist cultural vision even if only in part. It is the proactive task of the Reform Zionist movement in the Diaspora to further this aim. In particular, a variety of Reform Zionist intentional communities (kehillot kedushot) have to emerge. They will significantly reinforce the identity of Reform Jews with Israel.

E.  The Obstacles
There are a number of obstacles to be overcome. The first is the mistaken classical Reform idea that the synagogue rather than an intentional community is the foundation of Jewish life. The second is the professionalization of Judaism that leaves no room for non-professional role models for an alternative to the above view. The institutions for the training of rabbis are a particularly formidable obstacle. The future leadership of the Reform movement is not exposed to alternative visions of Reform Judaism, or extant examples of intentional community. Their Israel experience is largely limited to academic study with academic role models. Finally, in the Diaspora, the Reform Zionist movement cannot concern itself only with political matters. It must give equal priority to educational outreach to congregations in the field. 

February 2006

The Place of Israel 
in the Identity of Reform Jews:
Examining the Spectrum from Passive Identification with Israel to Active Jewish-Zionist Commitment

Dr. Michael Livni

What Does Identifying with Israel Mean?
The term “identifying with Israel” straddles the entire range from pro-Israelism as a passive element in a Jewish IDENTITY all the way to active Jewish-Zionist COMMITMENT. 

Social psychologist, Simon Herman (1912-1995) has noted that in conscious Jewish-Zionist identity the individual identifies with and is committed to Israel as an expression of “a balance between a past, present and future orientation to the condition of the Jewish people.” Significantly, the title of the chapter in Herman’s book on Jewish identity which is relevant to our discussion here is entitled “Zionism and Pro-Israelism: A Distinction with a Difference.”1

In today’s reality there is usually a continuum between these two poles. Transforming passive pro-Israelism to active Jewish-Zionist commitment is an ongoing challenge faced by the Zionist movement world wide. 

What are the implications for Jewish-Zionist commitment in the 21st century? Posing this question requires a brief preliminary re-examination of the concept “Zionism” as a category of commitment for Diaspora Jews (and Jews in Israel). Such an examination must identify the separate historical roots and approaches of political and cultural Zionism respectively. 

These two approaches were not necessarily mutually exclusive, notwithstanding the tension between them insofar as priorities were concerned. In fact, there always was (and there is today) a “mix” of both approaches in the different Zionist ideologies.

Political and Cultural Zionism
The driving force behind the establishment of Zionism as a national (political) movement by Theodore Herzl was the existential threat posed to JEWS from WITHOUT in many lands of the Diaspora. Political Zionism (a State for the Jews) was a response to the emergence of a malignant anti-Semitism as a byproduct of perceived threats to indigenous national identity by “foreign elements” in a number of emerging nation-states in nineteenth century Europe.

Hence, the FINITE aim of political Zionism was a State for the Jews “like all the nations” in order to remedy the “abnormal” situation of Jewish vulnerability - everywhere a minority, nowhere a nation. 

The finite aim of political Zionism has been achieved. Political Zionists in the Diaspora have become pro-Israel - i.e. supporters of the State of Israel. 

Within Israel, political Zionists have become conscientious citizens, paying taxes and doing army service as required. Both in Israel and in the Diaspora, political Zionism as such has, in fact, become “post-Zionism”.

The motivating force in the cultural Zionism of Achad Ha’am however, was the threat posed to JUDAISM from WITHIN. That threat was the result of the direct impact of modernity (the Enlightenment) on Jewish corporate society initiated by the Edict of Emancipation (1791) in France.

The Emancipation created a dynamic which resulted in the disintegration of traditional Jewish society and the exposure of the individual Jew to the Enlightenment. Judaism became a matter of individual conscience. It was now possible to limit the function of Judaism to that of a creed with its particular rituals and symbols – similar and parallel to the format of the various Christian denominations – particularly those of Protestantism. This was the path chosen by classical Reform at the beginning of the nineteenth century. 

The response of CULTURAL ZIONISM to the threat of cultural assimilation was the establishment of a Jewish center in Palestine to ensure the continued CREATIVE existence of the Jewish people wherever they may be. Such an aim was (and is) INFINITE.

The national center would be the place where a Jewish polity would contend with all the challenges of modernity – political, social and economic as perceived through the prism of the Jewish heritage. By doing so, cultural Zionism would renew the role of the Jewish people as a creative force in the history of the nations – a role which ceased with the cessation of prophecy and the destruction of the Temple. 

Achad Ha’am’s seminal essay, “Priest and Prophet” was written in 1893. He posited that the creativity reflected in the Bible stemmed from the tension between the prophetic drive for social justice and the norms of the “establishment” personified by the priests (and kings). A renewal of that creative tension could only take place in an autonomous Jewish center in the historic Jewish homeland.2

There never was and there is not now a consensus regarding a cultural Zionist vision of what a Jewish state should be. However, there have been three common denominators to all of the visions that had a Zionist impact either in the past or the present. 

First of all, the various cultural Zionist visions had an ideology. Gideon Shimoni has explained the concept of ideology as “...a coherent, action oriented set of ideals that provides those who subscribe to it with a comprehensive cognitive map of their position and purposes.”3

Secondly, the vision and the ideology for its realization had to be capable of mobilizing a minimal critical number prepared to invest their personal lives and resources in realizing the ideology. This usually necessitated life in partnership with like-minded others – i.e. life in a community of purpose (intentional community).4

Lastly, in order to ensure continuity, the ideological nucleus both inside and outside the intentional communities had to establish an educational system, formal and informal, both in Israel and the Diaspora.

Before the establishment of Israel, the premier cultural Zionist ideology was that of Labor Zionism: Hebrew land, Hebrew labor, Hebrew language and social justice. Its role model was the chalutz (pioneer) in the framework of the kibbutz intentional community.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, the Zionist vision of Gush Emunim stemming from messianic Orthodox Zionism and catalyzed by the Six Day War, has been a striking example of cultural Zionist commitment and intentional community (the “Settlements”), regardless of one’s personal opinion regarding its nature. 

Zionism and Post Modernism
Both political and cultural Zionism were ideological Jewish responses to modernity. The Enlightenment legitimized free will as a force in human affairs. Ideology proposes plans of action to realize a vision. Herzl’s “If you will it, it is not a fairy tale” reflects the modern belief that ideology embodied in free human will can shape reality. 

It is a hallmark of POST-MODERNISM that it rejects ideology and has recruited the social sciences to ascertain “reality” as the benchmark for proposing policy. The Israeli philosopher Eliezer Schweid contrasts the modern with the post-modern: “Guidelines based on ‘modern’ philosophy and ideology deal with what is ‘desirable’. They are determined by the subjective interests of individuals, groups, classes, political parties and peoples. Instead of this we (now) have (the ‘post-modern’) objective and scientific guidelines where the weighted common interests of all are objectively determined...this demands a reform in the social sciences...it demands theory which reflects actual practice as determined by objective investigation.”5

The post-Zionism of pro-Israelism (both in Israel and the Diaspora) is in fact, an expression of post-modernism. Neither are conducive to the propagation of norms based on a cultural Zionist ideology concerning what the Jewish state should be. 

The contemporary priests of post-modernism in the Jewish polity are the Jewish professionals, who have been trained in the post-modern approach of social science, and their non-ideological moneyed supporters. They have delegitimized the prophetic demand of “the desirable that should be” no less effectively than the rabbis who ruled that prophecy had ceased in Israel.6

In light of the foregoing general discussion, we now need to examine the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews on the spectrum of passive pro-Israelism to active Jewish Zionist commitment.

REFORM WORLD JEWRY and ISRAEI IDENTIFICATION
Simon Herman studied the dynamics of education towards Zionism in the mid-twentieth century. “The general rule … is that Zionist education requires Zionist groups. Becoming a Zionist is in fact a process of growing into a group which is Zionist.”7 In practice, Herman was talking about Zionist youth movements and camps that constituted a significant framework for Zionist commitment at that time. 

But Herman also pointed out that identification and commitment within such frameworks were usually mediated by role models representing a particular cultural Zionist outlook. These could be older madrichim (youth leaders) or shlichim (educational emissaries) from Israel who embodied in their personal lives Torat Chaim, a way of life and a Jewish-Zionist vision. This vision was based on a particular value world which reflected a concept and vision of what the Jewish state should be. 

Thus, active identity and commitment to the Zionist enterprise meant identifying with a particular vision of Israel.

What do statistics tell us about the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews? Some 90% of Reform Jews live in the United States. However it is of importance to relate to other Diasporas in order to ascertain if the place of Israel and/or the Jewish-Zionist commitment of Reform Jews in other lands parallels that of America

United States
Thanks to the National Jewish Population Survey of 2000-01 (NJPS) conducted by the United Jewish Communities, the statistically best documented group of Reform Jews is that of the United States, the largest Jewish Diaspora.

According to the NJPS there are 5.2 million Jews in the United States. Denominational identification was surveyed among 4.3 million Jews who had “stronger Jewish connections”. Of those, 35% “consider themselves” Reform. 26% of Jews “consider themselves” Conservative, 10% Orthodox, 20% “just Jewish” and 9% “other.” The NJPS determined that the Jewish population in Reform households totaled 1.4 million. It is also of significance that some 45% of those considering themselves Reform were not raised Reform.8 In the United States, the trend is in the direction of Reform.

However, it must also be noted that the NJPS records that the actual population affiliated with Reform congregations encompasses a much smaller number – 754,000.9

As for the place of Israel in the identity of those considering themselves Reform Jews compared to other sectors of U.S. Jewry, the NJPS records the following results:10

	Orthodox	Conservative	Reform	“Just Jewish”
Ever Visited Israel – %	73	 53	34	27
Emotional Attachment				
Very Attached to Israel – %	68	39	21	24
These are surely disappointing statistics from any Zionist point of view. They are even more disappointing in light of the finding that 57% of all Reform Jews and 68% of those affiliated with Reform synagogues claim to have “a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people.”11 This disconnect is surely worth further investigation. 

Another indicator of Israel involvement is youth travel under Reform sponsorship. Before the second Intifada, the North American Federation of Temple Youth (NFTY) six-week summer tours peaked at 1400 participants. This was still a modest number but, in the wake of Oslo Accords in 1993, it was slowly climbing. 

In 2001, at the height of the second Intifada, the Union for Reform Judaism (known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations UAHC until 2003) was the only Jewish organization to cancel Israel tours outright. This was done in spite of the protest of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ) and in spite of the fact that the NETZER countries (see below) carried on. In 2005 there were again 600 participants on these NFTY tours. One hundred high school students attended the semester long NFTY Eisendrath International Exchange (E.I.E.) program. The only post-high school program, the recently initiated “Carmel” program based in Haifa had 12 participants in 2005/2006.12

Other Diaspora Countries
There are a number of common denominators among the Reform movements outside of the United States.

1	They exist in Jewish communities which are younger, more cohesive, and more compact than Reform Jewry in the United States. Hence the Jewish ethnic connection has remained stronger. Zionism/pro-Israelism are more normative in the Jewish community as a whole.
2	The Reform community constitutes a minority, sometimes not officially recognized, within the total Jewish community. Access to the Jewish people’s national institutions such as the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and the Jewish Agency is of particular importance to these Reform communities.
3	In the Jewish communities of the former Commonwealth countries, the venue of a semi-autonomous Zionist youth movement as a framework for informal education was much more established than in the United States – the partial exception of Young Judaea notwithstanding. In order to prevent attrition of Reform youth to secular Zionist youth movements such as Habonim, the Reform movements of countries such as Britain, Australia and South Africa found it expedient to support the establishment of NETZER.

A major methodological problem in assessing the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews outside of the U.S.A. is the lack of NJPS equivalents in the other countries of the Diaspora. In the absence of reliable statistics, the elucidation of a specific Reform behavior as common denominator to all Reform Diasporas becomes a problematic quest.

NETZER as Indicator of Reform Jewish-Zionist Identity
The Reform Zionist youth movement, NETZER, (Noar Zioni Reformi) was established in 1980. Initially, NETZER was established in Britain, Australia and South Africa with the informal help of the Israel office of the UAHC Youth Division. The World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) adopted it as its youth arm.

For a number of Diaspora countries, the activity of NETZER is at least a partial indicator of their relationship to Israel. This is so for two reasons:
1	Statistics regarding participation in long-term Israel programs are available from the NETZER Olami office in Jerusalem.
2	Surveying the performance of NETZER has predictive implications for potential Jewish Zionist commitment and identification with Israel in the coming generation. 

In addition, the influence of cultural globalization has impacted on the value orientations of Jewish youth (certainly Reform Jewish youth) in the entire Western world – including Israel. Thus, an extrapolation from NETZER to Reform youth in America has become increasingly relevant. This has already been a factor in the recent (2005) formal affiliation of NFTY with Netzer Olami.13

It is of major significance that NETZER was established as a semi-autonomous Zionist youth movement. The empowerment of youth (in the absence of money and/or availability of professional staff) and the organic unity of work with youth through and into young adulthood, was and is a major difference between NETZER and NFTY. The implications of this will be discussed below.

In Britain and Australia in particular, twenty-five years of NETZER have shown that this was a correct strategic choice for ensuring future Jewish-Zionist leadership, professional and lay, for these smaller Reform communities.

In 2004, NETZER reported a membership of 1,400 in Britain – ages 10-25.14 The fact that 1,400 young people are active in an avowedly Zionist youth movement and are the recognized youth arm of the Reform/Liberal movement in Britain clearly indicates a high level of integration of Israel with Reform identity. 

The combined NETZER movements of Britain annually send cohorts of 15 to 25 high school graduates for a ten month “Shnat” NETZER program to Israel. If we extrapolate the lower number to the 754,000 Jews actually affiliated to the congregations of Reform Judaism in the United States, we would have a youth movement of 26,000 with annual cohorts of some 280 high school graduates on long term Israel programs. 

Australian NETZER parallels the example of British NETZER. There are probably between 15,000 and 20,000 Reform Jews in Australia. NETZER counts 410 members. Annual cohorts of 5 to 10 high school graduates from Australia participate in the 10 month NETZER “Shnat” program. 

In the last few years there has been an encouraging development of NETZER in countries of the Former Soviet Union (FSU). NETZER claims 2,000 members in the FSU. Reliable figures for affiliation with Reform congregations are unavailable.

There is a NETZER presence in other countries of the Diaspora as well – South Africa, Germany, Holland, Spain and Argentina. NETZER has not yet found a way to establish itself in the small French Reform community. NETZER has not organized in Canada because of the affiliation of the Canadian Council of Liberal Congregations with the Union for Reform Judaism (U.S.A.), hence the Canadian youth are affiliated with NFTY.

The major conclusion to be drawn from the NETZER experience is 
that there is not now any inherent contradiction between a pro-Israel Reform Judaism as such and a more intense Jewish Zionist commitment promoted by a Reform Zionist youth movement. 

An additional significant conclusion is that the adult institutions of the Reform movement in NETZER countries have come to see NETZER, a semi-autonomous Reform Zionist youth movement, as normative for the informal education of their youth. In those countries where NETZER has already existed 25 years (Britain, Australia), the adult movement has undertaken considerable financial responsibility for the financing of NETZER staff (including shlichim) and NETZER activities. NETZER graduates, lay and professional, are coming to play a significant role in this continuing support. 

Hence, we must inevitably return to the question of what factors, particular to Reform Judaism in the United States, have made the place of Israel (and by extension – Jewish-Zionist commitment) in the identity of American Reform a challenge? 

The Evolution of Reform thought on and Identification 
with the Zionist Enterprise
The Reform attitude specifically, of the Reform rabbinate to the Zionist enterprise, has undergone a sea change over a period of 120 years. This is so with regard to both the political and cultural parameters of Zionism. 

The basis of the classic Reform rejection of Zionism lay in its rejection of Jewish peoplehood as such. The concept of Judaism as a religious community (kultusgemeinde) was influenced by the model of the Protestant church. The rationale of classic Reform was that it was the Jewish mission to propagate universal (prophetic) values by means of the Jewish dispersion among the Nations. 

A detailed history of the relationship between Reform Judaism and the Zionist idea is not within the scope of this essay. A good general rendering can be found in Michael Meyer’s history of the Reform movement.15 David Polish has given a “blow by blow” description of the stormy path of the Zionist issue in the arena of the American Reform rabbinate.16

In the twenty years between the two World Wars the travails of European Jewry inexorably drove the Reform movement to amend its position. A new generation of Reform rabbis from East European backgrounds catalyzed the process. The Columbus Platform adopted in 1937 affirmed the concept of Jewish peoplehood and even partially endorsed the Zionist idea.17

What is of significance is that the rabbis adopted a statement affirming both the physical need of some Jews for a “Jewish homeland” (de facto political Zionism) as well as a cultural Zionist concept – “a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life”.

The cultural Zionist affinities of many in the Reform Rabbinate were influenced by the ideas of Achad Ha’am, A.D. Gordon, and, the founder of Reconstructionism, Mordecai Kaplan.18 However, it was the personal contact on the part of Reform rabbis with cultural Zionism in its Labor Zionist variant in Palestine that had a major behind the scenes influence in the formulation of the Columbus platform.19 In describing the chalutzim, the words of Maurice Eisendrath, the future president of the Reform movement in America (1943-1971), are illustrative: “...they take somewhat more seriously than we the ethical behests of the Torah, the categorical imperatives of the prophets...where has the much vaunted passion of Reform Judaism for social righteousness and justice been so tangibly adumbrated as in the labor colonies and cooperatives of Zion...”20

Many rabbis were more outspoken than Eisendrath. They formed a group of Labor Zionist sympathizers but their operative influence would not come to fruition for another thirty years.

The Holocaust almost inevitably created a broad consensus, including within Reform, for political Zionism. The establishment of Israel marked a watershed in the attitude of the Reform movement as a whole.

The Impact of the Six Day War
It was the impact of the Six Day War that generated an unprecedented response on the part of Diaspora Jewry, including the American Reform movement. It was not only a visceral reaction to the possibility of another catastrophe befalling the Jewish people. It was the realization that the Jews stood alone. 

In the wake of the war, there was a major shift on the part of American Jews (certainly including Reform Jews) from involvement in general causes (civil rights, anti-Vietnam war protests) to the particular Jewish causes. A leading figure in this shift was Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch who was one of the first to moot the idea of a Reform kibbutz and was instrumental in the transfer of the World Union for Progressive Judaism headquarters office to Jerusalem in 1973. In 1974 Hirsch persuaded the WUPJ to affiliate with the World Zionist Organization – 
a process that was consummated in 1976.21 The establishment of ARZA (the Association of Reform Zionists of America) in 1977 as a Reform Zionist party was the final step in the process. 

In 1963, David Ben Gurion granted the then president of the Hebrew Union College (HUC), the archaeologist Nelson Glueck, a plot of land in Jerusalem. Glueck promised to bring rabbinic students to Israel for a year. The promise came to fruition in 1970. Unfortunately, the impact of this experience did not bring about the hoped for results (See below).

A dedicated group of Zionist Reform rabbis under the leadership of Stephen Schafer assumed professional leadership of the UAHC Youth Division which Schafer directed from 1971-1983. Ever larger contingents (in the hundreds) of Reform youth came on Israel summer trips under their auspices. 

The Labor Zionist orientation of many of the Reform rabbis, already evidenced a generation earlier, resulted in two dialogues with educators and cultural activists of the kibbutz movement. These dialogues held in 1971 and 1973, in Oranim, a kibbutz movement seminary for training teachers, helped pave the way for the proactive role of the UAHC Youth Division in undertaking to establish a Reform kibbutz.22

A central element in Schafer’s rationale for being the “point person” for the kibbutz and establishing a seminar center there, was his awareness that Reform youth needed a place and young adults in Israel with whom they would be able to identify. Yahel, founded in 1976, was to be both a symbol as well as a practical venue for imparting Reform Zionist identity. The second Reform kibbutz, Lotan, was founded in 1983. 

The 1975 United Nations Resolution equating Zionism with Racism galvanized the UAHC Biennial Convention being held in Dallas which I also attended. 

From the podium, Rabbi Alexander Schindler, then UAHC President, declared: “We are all of us Jews and whether we use the small z or the large Z we are all of us Zionists. The land of Israel which is Zion, and the children of Israel who constitute the Jewish people and the God of Israel are all bound together in a triple covenant. At no time in our history have we ever stopped praying or longing or working for Zion.”23

I was eyewitness and joined the hundreds of delegates who snaked through the convention center singing “Am Yisrael Chai” galvanized by Schindler’s speech. 

There are no hard statistics available, but my impression is that the place of Israel in the identity of those Reform Jews affiliated with synagogues apparently peaked in the early nineteen eighties. 

Reform Zionist Commitment Loses Ground
During the last two decades of the twentieth century, the place of Israel and Reform Jewish Zionist commitment lost ground rather than gaining in strength. Surely this is now reflected in the place of Israel in the identity of American Reform Jews.

There is little documentation for this period. My analysis stems from my personal involvement, beginning with my shlichut to the Youth Division of the UAHC in 1975.

It is possible to adduce a host of general factors which were not conducive to furthering either an ideology or an identity with Israel. Such factors would include a shift to individualism in America symbolized by the election of Ronald Reagan. One could also note that the waning of an ideologically orientated Labor Zionist Movement and the ascent to power of right wing Zionism all had a negative impact on the image of Israel. The Lebanon War added question marks to identifying with Israel.

The retirement of Rabbi Stephen Schafer resulted in the gradual abandonment of long-term Israel programs and the break up of Garin Arava, the Aliyah framework for Reform youth. An emphasis on summer Israel trips continued, but the development of an embryonic Reform Zionist youth movement was aborted. Aliyah of NFTY graduates to Israel in general, and the kibbutzim in particular, ceased almost entirely. Not only did this put the kibbutzim themselves into a precarious position with regard to their Reform identity, but they also found it more difficult to play an educational role in relation to NFTY youth groups. 

The few long-term programs still maintained were based near Jerusalem. Yahel and Lotan in the Arava were “far away”. Stephen Schafer’s vision of the impact of Reform kibbutzim on the Jewish-Zionist identity faded.

The professionals who replaced Stephen Schafer had a particular aversion to empowering college age youth in an autonomous framework. In a personal conversation with me in 1978, the future director of the Youth Division made it plain to me that he would not continue with Schafer’s policy of youth autonomy.

Nothing could have been more symbolic of the change in Youth Division priorities than the location of the shaliach office within the Youth Division complex. Under the aegis of Schafer the office was located near the entrance not far from the director’s office. When I visited in the mid-eighties, the shlicha had been relegated to a small and cramped back room. 

In Israel itself, the implosion of the kibbutz movement, ideologically and economically (in that order), eroded its credibility as a political partner at a time which also marked the gradual passing of that generation of rabbis whose affirmation of the Zionist enterprise stemmed in part from their identification with the chalutzim and the accomplishments of Labor Israel. 
 
In the last two decades of the twentieth century, ARZA was unwilling and unable to deal with Reform Zionist education. The will was not there. 

It is only in the last few years that the World Reform Zionist movement, ARZENU, influenced by the relative success of NETZER, has begun to be cautiously proactive. A youth task force has been established. ARZA has become the locus of the shaliach, rather than the Youth Division. The latter, has become more Zionist oriented in its Israel programming. 

Rabbinic Training and the Identification with Israel 
The premier Reform rabbinical seminary is the Hebrew Union College (HUC) with its home campus in Cincinnati. It has branches in Los Angeles, New York and, since 1970, in Jerusalem. In my opinion, HUC has proved itself to be a Zionist and more particularly a Reform Zionist failure for a generation.24 The vast majority of that generation of HUC graduates who now lead most congregations have little or no commitment to Reform Zionism in spite of the fact that they spent a year of their studies in Israel. If they were committed, ARZA would have 200,000 members rather than 50,000 members. Congregational visits to Israel would triple. Each of the larger congregations would have student scholarships for Reform Zionist Year in Israel programs. 

The HUC Year in Jerusalem has missed many opportunities of exposing its students to non-academic Jewish-Zionist role models. If the students’ cognitive understanding of Zionist spirituality is negligible, the experiential encounter of the students with Zionist spirituality is closer to nil. 

An extreme example of the HUC avoidance of experiential and cognitive encounter with Reform Zionism is the token involvement with the Reform kibbutzim – arguably the only examples of Reform Zionist intentional community currently in existence. Kibbutz Lotan rates a two hour visit in the HUC curriculum. Nor do the kibbutzim figure in the program of the Leo Baeck College in London.

The college has been unable to entertain the idea that part of the year in Israel should be spent in Israeli academic institutions (teachers seminaries in particular) rooted in a humanist Zionist philosophy, and in contact with educators who embody that philosophy, quite compatible with Reform Judaism.

The net result – most Reform rabbis are not even partial Reform Zionist role models. The lukewarm attitude to Israel among many rabbis is a serious impediment to strengthening the role of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews – particularly in the United States. 

What Can Be Done to Improve Prospects 
for Reform Zionist Identity?
All the foregoing leads to clusters of working assumptions for those who seek to reinforce the role of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews. 

Strengthening the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews is dependent on creating foci of Reform Jewish Zionist commitment where youth and young adults can identify with people (role models), places, and communities that project a Reform cultural-Zionist vision even if only in part. It is mainly youth and young adults who are accessible to value change as they go through the process of their personal identity formation. The process of identification must be affective AND cognitive. Today, those loci of Reform Zionist commitment that exist, particularly the Reform kibbutzim, are under utilized. 

Groups realizing a Reform Zionist commitment would have a “ripple effect”, (family, friends, the local Jewish and even general media) and thus upgrade the place of Israel in the identity of a larger number of Reform Jews. As mentioned above, by virtue of NETZER, educational processes incorporating nuclei of Reform Zionist acculturation already exist, in part, in a number of Diaspora countries. However, by virtue of its numbers, the Reform community of North America constitutes the major challenge.

Promoting Educational Reform Zionist Process
It is THE function of the Reform Zionist movement in the Diaspora to be proactive, directly and indirectly, in promoting an educational succession, affective and cognitive, of Reform Zionist education. A good conceptual point of departure would be to focus on the gap shown in the NJPS between the 68% of Reform Jews actually affiliated with congregations who have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, and actual emotional identification with Israel – 21% for Reform Jews in general and 28% of those congregationally affiliated.25

The summer camps of the Reform movement are ideal transient intentional communities with great potential for the start of the process. Deliberate placement of Reform Zionist role models, graduates of Reform Zionist programs in Israel, should be empowered to have some input into the camp programs, both experiential and cognitive.

For those college age youth choosing to be active, there has to be a semi-autonomous framework. Professional leadership inevitably encroaches on the “living space” of young adults and saps their motivation. Optimally, informal education at this stage has to be provided by role models who themselves live in Reform Zionist intentional communities (shlichim). This is not always possible. The shlichim will work in tandem with the top level professional. Young adults must make their own way within the framework of a given budget and within the framework of the WUPJ ideological consensus. This is what defines them as being autonomous but not independent.

It would be truly in the spirit of Achad Ha’am’s approach to cultural Zionism if local chapters of ARZA were to intensify initiatives for Zionist cultural events on various topics – evenings which, in addition to the cognitive, would also feature an experiential aspect. Would it not be suitable for Reform Zionist groups to sponsor the Seder Tu B’Shvat (New Year of the Trees) in their congregation as well as celebrations of Israel Independence Day? Such initiatives in the local congregation could make a specific substantive contribution. No less important, in the context of such educational activity, specific congregation members appear as role models for fellow-congregants with less Jewish-Zionist commitment.

The centerpiece of such a succession of learning experiences would be long-term, properly structured Reform Zionist Israel Experience programs. The potential of such an experience for those who return to the Diaspora cannot be properly utilized without a framework (at the college level) within which these returnees continue to function and express their Reform Zionist commitment. Such frameworks cannot be professionally run from above. They must be semi-autonomous in order to generate continued motivation. That is the essence of youth movement which I have discussed in detail elsewhere.26

As the experience of Britain and Australia show, this redounds to the benefit of the Reform community as a whole and upgrades its qualitative relationship to Israel as a Zionist enterprise.

Reform Zionist Intentional Community
A major challenge facing Reform Zionism is the question of Reform Zionist intentional community in Israel – Reform Zionist kehilla kedusha. Currently, the communal movement uses the term “intentional community” internationally.27 The degree of cooperation in intentional communities varies as does their orientation to outreach (mission, shlichut). The common denominator of all intentional communities is that they are composed of a group of people who have chosen to live together with a common purpose, working cooperatively to create a lifestyle that reflects their shared core values. 

There can also be a spectrum of substance. For example, a Reform Zionist intentional community may choose to emphasize educational outreach. This is the path chosen by the Humanist-Zionist intentional community of Kibbutz Tamuz in Beit Shemesh.28 Another example, Kibbutz Lotan defines itself as a Reform Zionist kibbutz, maintains a collective framework and emphasizes Eco-Zionism.29

Let there be no misunderstanding. Within the Zionist enterprise , intentional community as an individual choice for self-realization (hagshama atzmit) has always been the choice of the few. In its heyday, the kibbutz movement did not constitute more than 7% of the Jewish population. Generally it was 3%.30 Its educational significance lay in the fact that tens of thousands, particularly in the youth movements, passed through it as part of a normative process of acculturation to the Labor Zionist ethos. As mentioned above, this was to be the role of Reform kibbutzim as envisaged by Stephen Schafer. 

It is the sincere belief of most Reform rabbis, including those truly active and committed to furthering Reform Zionism that “the synagogue remains the foundation of Jewish life...”31 This is surely a valid statement for the post-Enlightenment Diaspora but its uncritical transposition to Israel is a tragic conceptual error. The foundation of Jewish life has been the community – the kehilla kedusha. After all, the renewal of holy community in modern garb was and is a central theme in the rationale of cultural Zionism.

The historian Uriel Tal (1926-1984) has noted: 
“The community is the medium for the actualization of the covenant...it is the particularistic community which enables man to practice universalistic ideas...”32

Indeed, the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism must eventually confront the question of whether it remains a federation of congregations on the Diaspora model or whether it is also the basis for a Reform Zionist movement. A central feature of such a movement has to be intentional community seeking to impact on nascent Israeli society with its unique vision of what a Jewish state should be.33

 The direction of the IMPJ will inevitably influence the degree to which it stimulates identity and passion in the younger generation in Israel and, among Reform Jews (especially youth) in the Diaspora.

(A Reform Zionist movement in Israel would engage in other activities as well. A positive existing example is the Israel Religious Action Center – IRAC. IRAC was an ARZA initiative. As well as being of service to the IMPJ it has impacted on Israel as a whole. However this area is not under purview in this essay.)

Ideology and Vision
Can Reform Judaism generate a Jewish-Zionist commitment which would meld Reform values, attitudes and behavior into a unique Reform Zionist vision realizable through intentional community? 

Creating intentional communities of Reform Zionist commitment is predicated on the assumption that there is a Reform cultural Zionist vision. Any cultural Zionist vision will be based on a world outlook that expresses itself in an action-oriented ideology. Ultimately, any cultural Zionist vision remains just that if there is no ideologically oriented process that educates towards intentional communities that seek to realize that vision.

To this end, a Reform Zionist ideology with an action plan for its implementation, piece by piece, has to be formulated (including allocation of resources). 

Simply put: The prophetic (modern) element inherent in the idea of “movement” must impact on the priestly outlook of (post-modern) “organization”. Or, we can juxtapose post-modernity to modernity: “Everything is foreseen, but free will is given.”34

If Reform Zionism can contend with the challenge of a Reform Zionist educational process, the challenge of a variety of Reform Zionist intentional communities and the challenge of Reform Zionist ideology then it is my opinion that there will be two results:

1	The place of Israel in the identity of the Reform Jew will be significantly reinforced.
2	The profile of Reform Judaism in Israel will be markedly enhanced. 

The question becomes: Is there the will in the institutions of Reform Judaism and Reform Zionism to contend with the challenge posed by Israel for the identity of Reform Jews? 

The very fact of positing this question reflects a modernist as distinct from post-modernist stance.

Conclusion
In summary, the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews can be notably augmented by an action program which will generate a process of Reform Zionist commitment. The focus should be a cultural Zionist educational continuum for youth and young adults. Reform Zionist commitment must be expressed through intentional communities in Israel. Such communities, with even a partial expression of prophetic ideals can be the source of inspirational feedback and pride to Reform Jews both in Israel and the Diaspora. By means of identification with Reform Zionist community in Israel, the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews will be enhanced.

Response: 
The Place of Israel in the Identity of Reform Jews

Dr. Lisa Grant
Rabbi Michael Marmur 

Michael Livni has written a position paper reflecting his unique and important voice in the debate about Reform Zionism. He provides contextualization and explores the contemporary challenge of strengthening the place of Israel in the identity of Reform Jews. He also offers a critique of many of the institutions within the Reform Movement that are charged with this complex task. 

As representatives from the educational arm dedicated to the preparation of the future leadership of the Movement, the two of us have decided to co-author this response in an attempt to contribute to a unified conversation; one which bridges the Great Divide between Israel and the Diaspora. Although differences – cultural and political – 
separate these perspectives, lines of division do not run in a simple way between Diaspora and Israel. Rather, the relationship between Jews “here” and “there” (as the Talmud phrases the distinction) is far more nuanced and complex. We believe that it is possible to gain depth of vision by fusing the two perspectives. Given our institutional commitment to training Reform religious leaders in both Israel and the Diaspora, we need to develop a unified vision that articulates the role of Jewish peoplehood in shaping Reform Jewish identity. And indeed, Israel is at the heart of any conversation about Jewish peoplehood.

Attempts to deepen awareness of and commitment to Jewish peoplehood in North America and elsewhere are taking place on many levels. In recent years the Reform Movement has dedicated itself to cultivating a stronger sense of Jewish peoplehood, through symbolic acts such as the unification of NFTY (the North American Federation of Temple Youth) with Netzer Olami, the network of Reform Zionist youth movements, the revitalization of ARZA (the Association of Reform Zionists of America), the establishment of post - high school programs such as Carmel at the Leo Baeck Education Center and the University of Haifa, and the recent upsurge in enrollment of high school students at the Eisendrath International Exchange program. Congregational trips to Israel and elsewhere in the Jewish world are flourishing. Indeed, in a February 2006 survey of Reform educators in North America, 60% of respondents noted that their congregation has recently been to Israel, or is planning to bring a group within a year.

It might be tempting to conclude that all these indicators demonstrate that the sense of affiliation to the Jewish people is higher than ever within the Reform movement, but alas this is not the case. Indeed, there is ample evidence – anecdotal and empirical – to suggest that we are currently witnessing a significant disconnect between the lay and professional leadership of the Reform movement in this regard. For example, in a recent survey of current HUC students, 78% reported they were either satisfied or very satisfied with how their training prepared them for connection to and familiarity with Israel. Yet, only 3% noted that this connection to and familiarity with Israel would contribute significantly to their professional success. Similarly, educational initiatives within the Reform movement seem to fall far short of their goals with regard to the teaching of Israel. The same 2006 survey of Reform educators cited above revealed a significant disconnect between those who espoused a goal of connecting Israel education to Reform Jewish life (41%) and those who set a specific curricular objective to achieve that goal (17%). Likewise, 48% of respondents noted that one of their three top educational goals was to encourage travel to Israel, yet only 17% listed travel as a specific curricular objective.

These findings are sadly contextualized by examining Reform Jewish attitudes and behaviors as reported in the 2000/2001 National Jewish Population Study (NJPS). Here, Reform Jews report lower levels of attachment to Israel than either of the other two major denominations. Reform Jews travel to Israel less often, and send their children to Israel less often as well. Indeed, only about 38% of Reform Jews say they strongly agree with the statement that Jews in the US and elsewhere around the world share a common destiny, as compared to 51% of Conservative and 72% of Orthodox Jews who strongly agree with this statement.

These data are evidence of a well-documented decline among Jews in North America (and elsewhere) in a sense of ethnic connection. This is particularly salient amongst younger Jews, who are emblematic of an ethos that allows for and even celebrates the personal freedom and the constructed nature of identity in a post-ethnic world. Given this contemporary reality, we understand that we cannot recover or impose a singular ideological focus on Jewish peoplehood. The idea of total immersion in one or another aspect of Jewish expression is neither possible nor desirable from our perspective. Rather, we understand our educational and theological goal to be the provision of a complex weave of materials, sources, and experiences. As in all weavings, the warp begins with a fixed foundation, which in our case is rooted in Jewish traditions, sources and values. Individuals create the woof by interweaving their own textures and colors through that foundation to create a pattern that fits with their lives. 

In our view one of the foundational strands of any Jewish tapestry must be that of Jewish peoplehood and Israel. A Jewish identity devoid of that strong sense of peoplehood is a ‘thin’ identity that will be difficult to sustain over time. Without this essential dimension, Jewish life becomes narrow, attenuated and will ultimately unravel. Against this backdrop, the need to articulate and effectuate a compelling vision of peoplehood education for the future leadership of our movement is so much the greater. 

Let us consider two focal activities currently underway that are designed to redress the absence of a strong sense of connection to either Israel or Jewish peoplehood in Reform Jewish identity. The first is within ARZA, the Association of Reform Zionists of America, an affiliate of the Union for Reform Judaism, the central body of the Reform Movement of North America. The second is the Year in Israel program of the Hebrew Union College, which is mandatory for rabbinical and cantorial students at all Stateside campuses, as well as for education students enrolled at the Rhea Hirsch School of Jewish Education at HUC in Los Angeles. 

In fulfillment of its mission of Israel advocacy and education, ARZA has taken the lead in striving to develop a greater conscious about Israel and Jewish peoplehood in the daily lives of Reform Jews. Over the past two years, this work has emanated from a Think Tank whose members represent a rich cross-section of academics, rabbinical students, congregational rabbis, educators, and Reform Jewish lay leaders committed to developing a sophisticated ideological and philosophical foundation for new policies and programs focused on strengthening both a Zionist consciousness within American Reform Judaism and a liberal religious consciousness among Jews in Israel. 

The Think Tank’s work takes place in three domains:
1	the ongoing intellectual exploration and deliberation on the many dimensions of the central question: “Why Israel should matter to Reform Jews?”.
2	the translation of these ideas into educational products, including publications and programmatic materials for congregations and other educational settings.
3	ongoing advocacy for broader integration of Israel and the Jewish peoplehood into not just what it means to be a Reform Zionist, but what it means to be a Reform Jew.

The Think Tank also creates a bridge between North American and Israeli initiatives to define and strengthen Reform Zionist identity. Israeli representatives of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism participate in the North American Think Tank and starting in 2006, ARZA is supporting the development of a parallel initiative in Israel. In the coming months, this Israeli counterpart will begin to generate working papers and project ideas to further its goals for fostering Reform Jewish identity both in Israel and the Diaspora. 

Over the last five years, Israel education has come to play a central role in the HUC Year in Israel program, and today it constitutes some 25% of the formal curriculum. However, we recognize that further work needs to be done to help students develop a stronger personal connection to contemporary Israel. Like many programs and curricula, the Year in Israel program aims to meet a number of goals, and often the tension between these goals for priority and emphasis is tangible. Some of our interlocutors would be happy to see the majority of the year given over to experiential education and ideological formation, while others are primarily concerned about the program’s academic goals. For some, it is the Hebrew of the streets we should be teaching, and for others the Hebrew of the Bible and the Mishnah. We are convinced that it is possible to build a program in which these goals can serve each other, rather than compete. At the time of writing, an unprecedentedly frank conversation is taking place within the College community with a view to giving the Israel and Peoplehood component its due place in the program, both in Jerusalem and in the subsequent years of the program.

The attempt to restructure the Year in Israel Program is rooted in the goal of helping students recognize that a commitment to Israel and the Jewish people are core ingredients of Reform Jewish identity. Ultimately, we hope that at the close of their year in Israel, students will be able to comfortably and coherently articulate an answer for themselves as to “why Israel matters” to themselves first and foremost, and to Reform Jews in general. This kind of exploration must include intellectual inquiry, but also requires experiential activities that allow for meaningful and sustained encounters with a broad mix of Israelis, as well as opportunities for personal reflection on the significance of Israel and the Jewish people to their own lives as American Jews and as future leaders of the Reform Jewish community.

To meet this goal, a number of practical steps are now being seriously contemplated. Our first initiatives in this arena will be to strengthen the American students’ connections and interactions with Reform Jews in Israel. We will do this through a variety of means that will affect the program’s content and structure. Internally, we will align the academic calendars of our Israeli and North American programs, so that the programs may be better integrated. We also plan to introduce a Hebrew standard for completion of the course which will require continued Hebrew studies for those who have not gone sufficiently far during their time in Jerusalem. 

One under-utilized weapon in our educational arsenal is the link between our students and the communities of Israeli Progressive Judaism. Like ARZA’s initiatives in collaboration we see the potential for developing closer personal relationships among Reform Jews in Israel and North America will benefit all concerned. To that end, we plan to initiate a more active program of twinning between our students and Israeli students and families. This will include creating internships in Reform communities in Israel and opportunities for North American students to shadow Israeli Reform rabbis working in the field. 

Both the ARZA and HUC initiatives address the future of Reform Judaism. We believe that our task to foster “thicker” Reform Jewish identity is inextricably bound up with our challenge of creating both immanent and transcendent connections to Israel and the Jewish people. This begins by enriching aspects of Reform Jewish life that people already connect to and know something about, through 
conversations, texts, and images about Israel, personal encounters with Israelis, and of course visits to Israel.

Our work must not shy away from the complex realities. The days in which hearts and minds could be won through ideological rhetoric or fervent sloganizing have passed. If we are to teach our students and ourselves to weave, we will need to find a place in the fabric for dark shades and rough textures. Our aim is not to raise the price of Israel stock at the expense of some other component of contemporary Jewish identity. It is rather to regard a sensitivity to the lived reality of Jewish peoplehood, and in its particular manifestation, Jewish political sovereignty as a necessary strand in a great and rich creation – a Judaism so “thick” it can provide resilience, warmth and meaning.

Glossary 

ARZA	Association of Reform Zionist of America
ARZENU	International  Federation of Reform and Progressive 
	Religious Zionists
E.I.E.	Eisendrath International Exchange (URJ High School 
	semester program in Israel)
HUC	Hebrew Union College
IMPJ	Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
IRAC	Israel Religious Action Center (in Jerusalem)
NFTY	North American Federation of Temple Youth (North America)
NJPS	National Jewish Population Survey (U.S.A.)
RSGB	Reform Synagogues of Great Britain
UAHC	Union of American Hebrew Congregations 
	(North America)  renamed URJ in 2003 (below)
ULPS	Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues (Britain)
URJ	Union for Reform Judaism (until 2003 – UAHC)
WUPJ	World Union for Progressive Judaism
WZO	World Zionist Organization 

Dr. Michael Livni
Kibbutz Lotan, D.N. Chevel Eilot
ISRAEL  88855
mmlivni@gmail.com
Michael@klotan.co.il

1   Simon N. Herman, Jewish Identity: A Social Psychological Perspective, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills and London, 1977, pp. 116-134. The direct quote is on p. 125.

2   Achad Ha’am, “Priest and Prophet (1893)” in Leon Simon,ed., Selected Essays of Achad Ha’am (1912), Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1962, pp.125-138.
3   Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, Brandeis University Press, 1995, p. 3.
4   See Uriel Tal, “Structures of Fellowship and Community in Judaism,” Conservative Judaism. Vol. 28, No. 2, Winter 1974, pp. 3-12. Tal relates the “intentionalist character of the Torah” to the concept of kehilla kedusha (holy community) and identified the Kibbutz Dati as a contemporary example. The term “intentional community” is currently in general use in the communal movements throughout the world. See note 27.
5   Eliezer Schweid, “Humanism, Globalization, Post-Modernism and the Jewish People”, New Gordonian Essays, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel Aviv, 2005, p. 14. (Hebrew -translation M.L.)
6   “Since the deaths of Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit has ceased in Israel.” See detailed note with sources on cessation of prophecy in Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ZAKHOR: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, University of Washington Press, 1996 edition, p.124, Note 28. Thus, authority passed from the prophets to the Knesset Gedola (Avot 1:1) and their inheritors – the chachamim (the rabbis). 
7   Simon N. Herman, “Education Towards Zionism”, Forum 5, World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem, January 1962, p. 84.
8   NJPS 2000-01, “Reform Jews”, A UJC Presentation of Findings for the Union for Reform Judaism Board of Trustees, Denver, Colorado, June 11, 2004 (There are no page numbers).
9   Ibid.
10   “Israel Connections and American Jews,” Report 12, United Jewish Communities Report Series on the NJPS – 2000-01, August 2005.
11   NJPS 2000-01, “Reform Jews.”
12   Terry Hendin, Director of Student Services, URJ Youth Division Office, Jerusalem. Personal Communication, February 9, 2006.
13   At this writing this affiliation is mainly symbolic and does not yet express itself in joint programming. In his report to ARZENU in June 2005, Maoz Haviv, General Secretary of NETZER, noted that: “We are well aware ...that in order to fill up the decision with real content, there is quite a lot which has to be invested by both sides...during the coming years.” 
14   All figures for NETZER membership were supplied by the NETZER Olami office in Jerusalem as of January 2006. These figures include membership from age 10 up to and including the young adult sector – TAMAR (Tnuat Magshimim Reformim).
15   Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, Oxford University Press, 1988. See in particular Chapters 7 and 8.
16   David Polish, Renew our Days. The Zionist Library, Jerusalem, 1976.
17   “Judaism is the historical religious experience of the Jewish people...Judaism is the soul of which Israel is the body... In the rehabilitation of Palestine, the land hallowed by memories and hopes, we behold the promise of renewed life for many of our brethren. We affirm the obligation of all Jewry to aid in its up building as a Jewish homeland by .endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life”. (Columbus Platform – 1937 cited from Renew Our Days, p.199-200).
18   Renew Our Days, p. 191.
19   The late Gideon Elad documented the evolution of the relationship between the Reform movement (in particular, the rabbinate) and Labor Zionism in detail. This relationship eventually led to the founding of the first Reform kibbutz – Yahel and Kibbutz Lotan which followed seven years later. Elad’s research project has been translated into English and is soon to be published: “Light in the Arava? – Yahel: Dialogue and Challenge – On the Relationship between the Kibbutz Movement and the Reform Movement, 2000. See also: Renew Our Days, pp. 192-198.
20   Maurice Eisendrath, CCAR Year Book, Vol.47, 1937, pp. 218-19.
21   Richard G Hirsch, From the Hill to the Mount: A Reform Zionist Quest, Gefen and the Zionist Library, Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 49-67.
22   Documented in detail by Elad, Or B’Arava? – Note 19.
23   cited from: Michael Langer (Livni) ed., Reform Zionist Perspective, UAHC Youth Division, (offset) New York, 1977, p. 292.
24   Michael Livni, “A Reform Zionist Policy for Hebrew Union College,” Reform Zionism: 20 Years, pp. 254-58.
25   NJPS 2000-01, “Reform Jews” see Note 8.
26   Michael Livni, “Aspects of Zionist Jewish Education” Reform Zionism: Twenty Years – An Educator’s Perspective, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York, 1999. See Section 4 for a general discussion on Jewish Zionist education and Section 5 for the implications with regard to the Reform movement.
27   See for example: Eurotopia: Intentional Communities and Ecovillages in Europe, 2005, <www.eurotopia.de> ; Communities Directory: A Guide to Intentional Communities and Cooperative Living, Fellowship for Intentional Community, Rutledge ,Missouri, 2005 <www.ic.org>
28    Website: <www.tamuz.org.il>
29   Kibbutz Lotan <www.kibbutzlotan.com>. In particular see: “Vision Statement.” See also: M. Livni, Case Study: Kibbutz Lotan-Eco-Zionism and Kibbutz, 2004. (ICSA Lectures at <www.chavruta.org.il>).
30   See Michael Livni, The Kibbutz and its Future: Historical Perspective, ICSA Lectures, Previous note. 
31   Peter Knobel, Israel in Reform Jewish Liturgy, (paper delivered to ARZA Reform Zionist Think Tank, Malibu Calif., January 2005). 
32   Uriel Tal, “Structures of Fellowship and Community in Judaism”, Conservative Judaism, Vol. 28, No. 2, Winter 1974, pp. 3-12. See also remarks in note 4.
33   See Michael Livni, “More Than Worship is Needed,” Judaism, Fall 1982, Vol. 31:4 as well as “Reform Judaism and Reform Zionism in Israel,” CCAR Journal, Spring 1991. Both essays can also be found in Reform Zionism: Twenty Years – An Educator’s Perspective, Section 2.
34   Avot 3:16 in the original Mishnah.