The Israel-Gaza war, now in its 10th month, has intensified the polarization of American Jews with regards to their beliefs about supporting Israel as a Jewish state. The consensus around Israel has crumbled, if it ever existed. The ideological rifts among segments of the Jewish community, between friends and within families, have been painful.
Reconstructionist congregations have not been spared. When Rabbi Elliott Tepperman and I co-led a workshop entitled “Navigating Israel Politics in Your Community” at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association’s convention this past March, rabbis packed the room. While we each faced different challenges in our congregations, we shared a sense that leading our communities at this time was difficult and complicated, and at times, risky.
Members and rabbis of Reconstructionist congregations hold a wide range of politics. Many of our members found Reconstructionism because they were looking for a congregation that was more democratic, participatory, intellectual or open to minority perspectives. Many of our members also come from within the organized Jewish community. This invariably leads to difficult questions: Do we include a prayer for peace or a prayer for Israel in our services? Should we display an Israeli flag in our synagogue? Should our board sign a statement in support of a ceasefire?
The Reconstructionist movement is well-positioned to manage this diversity. We are committed to dialogue and talking through complicated issues when emotions run high. We value intellectual integrity and the importance of challenging each other’s ideas. We know how to build vibrant communities rooted in justice and compassion. We are always searching for creative solutions when challenging issues arise.
Most of our congregations have enjoyed significant consensus on issues such as racial equity, immigrant rights, gender inclusion and climate justice. While we might disagree on whether to work with a particular organization or attend a specific protest, most of our members would feel comfortable with their congregation participating in a Pride Shabbat or Juneteenth celebration.
With Israel, no such agreement exists. We feel unaccustomed to disagreeing so strongly with members of our communities over political issues that speak to our identity as Jews, as Americans, and as liberals or progressives. We cannot understand why people we respect hold such problematic perspectives.
Our communities hold two values, which are in tension: the desire to take a clear moral position as a congregation and the desire to welcome people, within broad limited, regardless of the politics they espouse. If the rabbi or the board of a congregation signs a ceasefire statement or attends an Israel solidarity rally, they potentially alienate their members. If they do not sign a ceasefire statement or attend an Israel solidarity rally, they also create the potential to alienate their members. And if they stay on the sidelines, members will wonder why they are not taking a moral position and living out their understanding of what Jewish ethics requires.
I work in a congregation with members who strongly oppose Israel’s war in Gaza and those who passionately support it. Soon after I became the rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Shamayim in 2003, a group of organizers asked the Madison Common Council to establish Rafah as a sister city with Madison, which led to bitter public debates that garnered international media. This issue divided our members, who spoke on opposite sides of the question. Looking back, I wish I had organized community discussions and programs that would have helped us navigate the controversy. As a new rabbi, I feared that the congregation would split and members would leave. It took me several years to learn that we must intentionally create a culture in our congregations that can withstand and even welcome a difference of opinion. We have to build the capacity to engage in difficult conversations.
Twenty years later, when our community gathered after Hamas’s October 7 attack and Israel’s war in Gaza, I felt confident expressing my belief that agreement is not important, but being part of a community built on trust and respect is extremely important. Some of our members strongly oppose Israel’s war in Gaza and some passionately support it. They know that I have taken a strong position in support of a ceasefire. We can disagree with one another and everyone can feel heard.
How to Address Controversial Issues
Leaders of congregations can address controversial issues through a range of approaches. Structured dialogues are a popular method which creates space for participants to share their feelings, perspectives and experiences. This is useful for strengthening a community and ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to express their ideas and be heard by others. It also builds our capacity to listen non-defensively even when we are uncomfortable.
I have found, however, that dialogue can have drawbacks. When they only focus on participants’ feelings, participants do not explore substantive political differences, which can limit the quality of the discussion. While it is important to talk about feelings, intellectual questions are also important.
When I lead dialogues, I often ask participants to read three to five articles with opposing perspectives about the issue in advance. I prefer this approach because participants can draw on and respond to the arguments presented in those articles. This allows people to express their feelings but also deepens the learning and conversation.
Sometimes, the leadership of a congregation must make decisions about a controversial issue. As I wrote above, the question might focus on whether to recite particular prayers in services, display an Israeli flag or sign a ceasefire statement. Each congregation must decide who should make that decision. Regardless, members of the community should be welcomed to express their opinions.
When dialogue only focuses on participants’ feelings, there is no exploration of substantive political differences, limiting the quality of the discussion.
The Reconstructionist movement can draw on its rich legacy of democratic decision-making. Our congregations have successfully navigated issues such as the participation of non-Jews in the Torah service, what kinds of food can be brought to a Shabbat potluck or whether the community will hire a gay or lesbian rabbi. We can and should discuss questions pertaining to Israel in the same way.
The Reconstructionist movement’s tradition of Values-Based Decision Making, articulated most frequently by Rabbi David Teutsch, provides an approach to formulating decisions on a difficult issue. Members of a community consider the historical and contemporary context of the issue, study Jewish texts, engage in a discussion of Jewish and contemporary values, and make decisions based on these discussions. Rabbi Amy Klein underscores the importance of creating a process which is democratic. She writes:
“Communities that engage in a serious process … become communities with clear norms that raise the level of Jewish learning, mutual commitment and ethical action of its members.”
Another approach, called deliberation, asks participants to consider a controversial issue together. Often used in high school social-studies classrooms, deliberation is used to teach students the skills they will need as future citizens to address public issues through collective decision making in communities or local institutions.
The goal of deliberation is to discuss an issue cooperatively and find common ground. It requires participants to study the issue together through reading a shared set of background materials. After this, they prepare presentations that argue for differing positions. This forces them to weigh arguments from opposing perspectives. Only after going through this process can participants share their thoughts and develop their own positions. Afterwards, they search for consensus. While they might not be able to reach consensus on the main question, they can search for agreement on tangential points. The process ends with a whole group discussion, debrief and reflection.
Drawing a Triangle of Curiosity, Empathy and Justice
I understand the reluctance of rabbis and synagogue leaders to create democratic, deliberative, decision-making processes on questions in their congregations related to the Israel-Gaza war. It can be time-consuming, polarizing and emotionally challenging.
The Reconstructionist movement’s tradition of Values-Based Decision Making provides an approach to formulating decisions on difficult issues.
But we should at least discuss the war, its historical context, and the deep divisions which have emerged among Jews and others in its aftermath. One way to frame a discussion is to draw a triangle with curiosity, empathy and justice on each point. I explain that to be curious is to be interested in someone else’s ideas. Too often, we listen in order to prepare our rebuttal. Considering someone else’s perspective, without defensiveness, is the basis of learning. From there we can identify someone else’s biases, challenge their assumptions, and analyze and evaluate their arguments. But first, we must seek to understand why someone believes what they do.
Empathy entails trying to feel what someone else feels. We can never fully understand someone else’s experience, but the act of trying is important. I have encouraged my students to try to feel empathy for the people they most disagree with. (It is too easy to empathize with people who look like us and act like us.) We do not need to agree with them, but we should try to imagine and try to understand someone else’s feelings and reactions.
Working towards social justice is an important value in our communities. Justice is the foundation of our system of ethics, though we might interpret the meaning of justice in different ways. We can discuss visions of justice in Israel-Palestine and ask whose voices and experiences we privilege. We can also explore the tensions between universalism with its focus on considering the needs of all people versus particularism which centers more around on the needs of the Jewish people.
I have used this triangle when speaking at my congregation’s annual meeting, leading small group discussions and teaching at three different public high schools. Each of us is more comfortable in one or two of these realms. But when we force ourselves to stand in the middle of the triangle, to struggle with the tensions produced by curiosity, empathy and justice, we deepen our understanding of these complex issues.
Communities of Agreement and Disagreement
In many cases, we have little control over who joins our congregations and with whom we find ourselves in community. While we might have the luxury of affiliating with a congregation in which we agree with most of the other members, often this is not possible. Invariably, we will meet people who hold different beliefs — at least regarding the Israel-Gaza war — than we do.
It can be challenging to be part of a community when we disagree with the rabbi, synagogue leaders or other members. Agreement can bring us much-needed comfort. This war is painful for American Jews, and we need friendship and political community to help us express our outrage, clarify our ideas and grapple with complicated questions.
But we cannot necessarily expect this from our congregations, which have a range of purposes. They offer spiritual spaces; community and friendship; opportunities for adult growth and learning; education for our children; social justice work; and life-cycle ceremonies.
If we need a community of like-minded people outside our congregation, we can create small havurot (fellowship groups), join a political organization, hold Shabbat dinners or participate in online forums.
Being in a community where we disagree with people works against polarization and forces us to consider ideas that make us uncomfortable. We can embrace a wide range of people and create relationships rooted in trust and caring that extend beyond our moral or political positions. We can work to strengthen discussion and deliberation in our communities and work diligently to ensure that our communities are democratic, participatory and transparent.
