More than 600 people gathered for a packed, Dec. 15 virtual convening exploring “the depth and breadth of Reconstructionist engagement with Israel.” During a time of fractious debate and incivility, the convening modeled “covenantal community,” a Reconstructionist approach to conversation, deep listening and prioritizing relationships — especially in discussion about this most emotional and contentious of issues.
Organized by Reconstructing Judaism and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, the virtual convening was officially called “All of Israel is Responsible for One Another: Reconstructionist Values that Shape Our Relationship with Israelis and Palestinians” Yet, organizers noted, they could have simply called the gathering, “it’s complicated.”
Representatives from more than 85 percent of communities affiliated with the Reconstructionist movement participated, making it the largest Reconstructionist gathering since the 2022 convention. The convening aspired to create a space to delve into Israel in a safe, respectful setting grounded in Reconstructionist values. The significant response demonstrated the need for such a conversation and the respectful participation validated the approach.
The entire convening was guided by a set of values around Israel and participation was shaped by behavioral norms, including kavod: respect and inclusivity, with a commitment to treating every person with the knowledge that they are created betzelem Elohim — in the image of the divine. All participants agreed to the norms as a condition for attending. The norms created the container and the values and programming the content for creating an online, pop-up version of covenantal community.
“By covenantal community, we mean voluntarily choosing to co-create communities where we agree to a set of values and articulate norms that prioritize our interdependence over our individuality, that place abiding relationships over what people look like or believe,” Rabbi Deborah Waxman, Ph.D., president & CEO of Reconstructing Judaism, said in her opening remarks.
The program’s many speakers explored contentious points of difference through the framework of how much the majority of Reconstructionists agree on, including a deep and abiding love for the land of Israel and the Israeli people and a desire to see Palestinians and Israelis alike live in safety and fulfill their national aspirations. Many also articulated a strong critique of the policies of the Netanyahu government, both before Oct. 7 and in its aftermath.
Participants also poured their hearts out in a pre-convening survey. Some of those responses were shared in this video. Waxman acknowledged that the debate about Israel has long been particularly challenging for Jews of Color, a situation that has only intensified since Oct. 7. This video summarized responses of some North American Jews of Color.
Justin Rosen Smolen, Reconstructing Judaism’s vice president for thriving communities and partnerships, explained that the convening focused on relationships with Israelis and Palestinians, as well as how religious values guide such commitments. Much less emphasis was placed on ideological labels that too often polarize us and cloud agreement on core values.
“We do not think that there is a consensus about what those words really mean —especially in the current context,” Waxman, RRC ‘99, said. “In this polarized landscape, we have found that these designations do not adequately or consistently communicate the ideas and viewpoints they purport to represent. These binary terms cloud consensus on values and even policies that individuals in both “camps” may agree on.”
The opening plenary was moderated by Rabbi Barbara Penzner, RRC ‘87, interim CEO of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, and featured four diverse rabbinic leaders of the Reconstructionist movement. Rabbi Gail Diamond, Rabbi Sarah Brammer-Shlay, Rabbi Sandra Lawson and Rabbi Elliott Tepperman shared some of their most inspiring moments in Israel and some of the most heartbreaking.
“Grappling with narratives that at times conflict with one another, or challenge our own experiences or assumptions, is weighty,” said Smolen. “We featured these leaders in conversation with one another to highlight the richness, complexity, and sometimes fraught nature of how our diverse movement relates to this important topic — and how these perspectives can co-exist alongside one another.”
For instance, Lawson, RRC ‘18, Reconstructing Judaism’s director of diversity, equity and inclusion, shared the joy of celebrating Shabbat in Jerusalem and the pain of being attacked at the women’s section at the Western Wall because she didn’t fit into Jerusalem’s clear gender binaries. She also expressed pain that, though she’s avoided commenting on the war, many have assumed she holds certain positions on the Middle East based on their own biases.
“I have felt an additional burden to explain Black people,” said Lawson.
Diamond, RRC ‘93, made aliyah in 2001. She spoke about the differences between Israel as an ideal and Israel as a real, flawed place. She also shared how, despite the government’s response to Oct. 7, “members of Israeli society have stepped up and showed incredible resilience in all areas.”
Brammer-Shlay, RRC ‘22, discussed growing up in an Israel-centered household and, while in college, realizing how little she had considered the Palestinian perspective. She shared stories of activism in Israel and Palestine and recalled an episode in which she rode a Palestinian bus. The IDF, she said, stopped the bus and asked all the men to step off and show documentation in a manner that Jewish Israelis would never experience. Brammer-Shlay encouraged all Jews to grapple with Palestinian narratives alongside their commitments to Israel.
“What does it mean to not see Palestinians’ narratives and experiences as an inconvenience or a nuisance to us, but to actually see that as a core part of our relationship with Israel, Palestine as well.” said Brammer-Shlay.
Tepperman, RRC ‘02, reflected on a recent trip organized by T’ruah and J Street, in which the group visited the Bedouin village of Susiya, near Hebron in the West Bank. Tepperman recalled meeting a man who, as a teenager, had been held overnight by the Israeli Defense Forces, discovering upon his release that his home had been destroyed. The man went to bed vowing vengeance.
“Nonetheless, when he woke up the next morning, he was shocked to see a group of Israelis driving up with food and with tools ready to help him rebuild his home,” said Tepperman. “That moment he felt like he could let go of vengeance and begin the work of seeking peace.”
Breakout web sessions included gatherings hosted by Ritualwell, Evolve and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, and the Joint Israel Commission’s shutafut (partnerships) initiative. Additional sessions featured Reconstructionist rabbis serving on campus, resources to support affiliated communities and discussion of the intersection between antisemitism and the anti-Israel upswell and more. The concluding plenary featured Rabbis Amy Klein, RRC ‘96, Solomon Hoffman, RRC ‘23, Laurie Zimmerman, RRC ‘03 and Jonathan Kligler, RRC ‘89, sharing their aspirations for Israelis and Palestinians in the future. They expressly focused on what the Reconstructionist movement has to offer as a religious movement, distinct from policy or advocacy and how political labels advance or work against constructive conversations about the future.
Members of the event steering committee never intended for the speakers or the program to point toward a consensus about what is to be done. Indeed, the norms guiding the program included lo alenu hamelakha ligmor, meaning the work is ongoing. “We expect and accept a lack of closure in our discussions.”
Abraham Clott, a longtime member of SAJ: Judaism that Stands for All in New York City, was among the participants.
“The depth of support for Israel was deeply moving, especially in light of the great diversity and range of personal experience and political views,” Clott said after the convening. “ I came away with a strong sense that Reconstructionists are engaged with Israel — in many contexts, forums, and modes of action — differently but extensively. The program made clear the centrality of Israel to our experience as Reconstructionists and the vitality of our engagement.”
Smolen said that further programming and discussions will be forthcoming. Participants were asked to offer feedback regarding future programming. The convening included consideration of eretz yisrael, the land of Israel, medinat yisrael, the state of Israel and am yisrael, the people Israel, descended from Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with beings divine and human.
