Banning anti-Zionist rabbis is the enlightened and liberal position - opinion

The author strongly criticizes certain American Jewish institutions for welcoming anti-Zionist rabbis, labeling this approach as "appalling" and a mistake that confuses "trendy popularity for moral clarity." The piece argues that those unwilling to defend themselves or their people will fail to earn self-respect or respect from others.

“

Any seminary” that “acquires the reputation of being hostile to Zionism” or “ordains anti-Zionist clergy has no future in America.

The Reform movement's internal divisions over "anti-Zionist enabling" are highlighted, specifically referencing Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch's critique of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion for accepting anti-Zionist rabbinical students. Hirsch warned that any seminary gaining a reputation for hostility towards Zionism or ordaining anti-Zionist clergy would have "no future in America."

In response, the seminary's president, Andrew Rehfeld, accused Hirsch of embracing "anti-intellectualism" and attacking "the very Enlightenment principles that founded our movement." The article points out that Rehfeld rejects such "litmus tests," yet the movement would not ordain male rabbinical students who pray separately from women. Other leaders are described as avoiding the issue by pretending one must choose between social justice and Zionism.

“

embracing “anti-intellectualism” and attacking “the very Enlightenment principles that founded our movement.

The author dismisses this dichotomy as "poppycock," asserting that liberal Zionists who question Israel's tactics are not the same as "Zio-deniers" who dishonor Israel's president or refuse to stand for "Hatikvah." The piece argues that the "blue-and-white tent" is broad enough for critical liberal Zionists, contrasting them with Jewish anti-Zionists whose actions encourage antisemitic anti-Zionists. The author criticizes the "appeasers" for swallowing "the slow-acting sweet-tasting poison of inclusivity" and suspending judgment, while warning against "imposing orthodoxies."

“

Liberal Zionists questioning Israel’s tactics are not Zio-deniers who dishonor Israel’s president or won’t stand for “Hatikvah.”

Drawing on Enlightenment philosophy, the article posits that while Enlightenment thinkers envisioned open societies, they also understood that "a community without boundaries is as doomed as a language without grammar." John Locke's concept of toleration is invoked, noting his warning against positions "prejudicial to the commonweal of a people." The author concludes that liberals must "juggle" these principles, recognizing that while intellectual freedom is vital, functional communities require boundaries and defined identities.

“

Our blue-and-white tent is broad enough to welcome critical liberal Zionists.