A congregation divided over politics

NICOLA MILTZ

The recent visit to the shul over Sukkot by Professor Farid Esack, has split the community, with some vehemently opposed to his presence, even contemplating resigning as members.

“People are fed up,” said one congregant who wishes to remain anonymous.” They do not want politics in their place of worship. The majority of members are devout Progressive Jews who love Israel and any interaction with BDS is unacceptable.”

The sentiment of those in opposition is that they love their shul and everything it stands for, but they don’t want it to encourage visitors who are vehemently opposed to the State of Israel. They have asked to remain anonymous, simply because they want the situation to change without being alienated by those they believe approve of the anti-Israel sentiment.

“This has been simmering for a number of years,” said one of those in opposition, referring to a so-called “left-wing element” at the shul which was threatening to divide the vibrant, all-inclusive community.

The chairperson of the South African Union for Progressive Judaism (SAUPJ), Monica Solomon, said this week: “Those who have spoken to me, or messaged me, have made it very clear that they are not happy with the situation as it is at present. This has caused great division in the community, not only within the South African Progressive community, but in the wider Jewish community.”

Meetings on the issue were held last week between the SAUPJ and Beit Emanuel senior leadership.

The shul this week again denied inviting Esack over Yomtov insisting that he chose to attend the shul’s open Sukkah event which was open to the public.

Chairperson of the shul, Liebe Kellen, told the SA Jewish Report: “Neither Beit Emanuel’s management, nor its rabbi, have ever endorsed BDS.”

Realising that his presence at the shul was causing some controversy among its members, Esack wrote a long letter to the shul recently, saying: “I have been coming to the shul in the last two years from time to time, usually for Shabbat, but also on the other odd occasion. I am given to understand that my presence has caused, or is causing, discomfort to members of the larger Jewish community.”

He said he understood the discomfort.

“For many in the Jewish community, the State of Israel is synonymous with one’s identity as a Jew and to oppose Israel and/or its policies, is to be opposed to (possibly even be an enemy of) all Jewish people.”

He said when he attends Beit Emanuel, which is in his area, he goes “as an ordinary person with an enquiring mind…” and remains as “unobtrusive as possible”.

“Coming to your shul provides me with much needed contemplative space where I can join in along and observe fellow worshippers of G-d and long-lost cousins.”

He said he acknowledged that it was difficult for some to separate his identity as a “believer and scholar of religion, from that of his work as an activist in the movement for justice for the Palestinian people”.

He assured the shul: “I mean no harm,” apologising for the discomfort caused and said he would “slide away gently” if it was in the shul’s best interests.

In another strongly worded, carefully re-crafted response to the SA Jewish Report article last week, Esack said it was “an untruth that anyone was shocked by my presence”.

 “I have been to Beit Emanuel about ten times in the last two years, and to Orthodox shuls about three or four times. To the latter, I have sometimes gone alone and sometimes accompanied by a whole class of university students, where we were welcomed and addressed by the rabbis who all acknowledged that I was there as an academic who wanted his students to be exposed to Judaism as an alive religion.”

Beit Emanuel’s Kellen said: “Lots of outsiders attend our services; that is part of our philosophy of openness. As long as they are unarmed and cause no trouble, we do not interrogate them on their views.”

Said one opposing congregants: “It is very sad when a sacred space of introspection, meditation and spiritual growth, becomes a platform for egos and private agendas.

“The problem is that a policy of ‘selective’ inclusion driven by and for the pompous gratification of a small group of individuals, has led to the fracturing and isolation of the Beit Emanuel community. It is now seen as a politically-driven community, attendance at which implies a buy-in. The broad religious and humanitarian ideals that drew congregants, have become collateral damage.”

In response to whether this issue was dividing the community, Kellen said: “Beit Emanuel prides itself on being the most diverse shul in the country: white, black, straight, gay, political, non-political, left-wing, right-wing… Keeping all of that together is a delicate balance in which each side needs to allow others their space.

“It has worked for many years. There are indeed, and have always been, strong differences of opinion. We call it democracy.”

Following last week’s article, a number of people posted anonymous letters on the SA Jewish Report website.

 One disgruntled member said: “Many of us would simply like our shul to be a place for prayer, study, and community, not a hotbed of radical politics… This is about the governance of the shul, and whether the shul is there to serve the broader membership, or only a small, self-appointed political clique, determined to use the shul to further their radical agenda.

“Beit Emanuel’s strength is (or was) that it is a diverse and inclusive congregation, with everyone made to feel welcome, irrespective of just about anything (including their politics). Lately, though, a form of political correctness has driven out this diversity of views, with only the politics of the hard left being tolerated as the  ‘official’ politics of the shul. Sad!”

In response to a SA Jewish Report question about members expressing their unhappiness anonymously for fear of offending the leadership of the shul, Kellen said: “This is utterly outrageous. Only ten days ago the shul held an open session to which all members were invited and asked to express opinions about the management or rabbi, either in public or in private, which a great many did.

“We regularly ask congregants for feedback and hold open discussion sessions, for example about the shul’s vision.”

Esack insisted in both his letter to the SA Jewish Report and the shul, that he wished no harm for any Jewish person. “An injury to one, is an injury to all.”