The minefield of pulpit politics

GEOFF SIFRIN
The killing in Gush Etzion this week by a Palestinian affiliated with Islamic Jihad, of Israeli woman Dalia Lemkus, whose parents made aliyah three decades ago, raises not just sorrow for her and her family, but also political questions about Israel and Palestine.

Lemkus was a resident of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa. Telfed – the SAZF’s Tel Aviv branch – was represented by its CEO at her funeral.

In the period when the Lemkus family left South Africa along with many other Jews – in the mid-1980s – South Africa was in the grip of a desperate attempt by the apartheid regime to control the country and suppress all dissent. The outlook seemed bleak and likely to end in a racial bloodbath. In June 1986 a state of emergency was in place with security forces patrolling black townships.

Not only Jews – many of whom went to Israel as passionate Zionists – but other whites as well, were seeking alternative places to live. Australia, Canada, the UK, the United States – any Western country which would take them.

Israel was seen at the time as having a reasonable chance of solving its conflict with the Palestinians and was not yet viewed as the “bad-boy” by the international community to the extent it is now.  

Fast forward to today: Israel is mired in what increasingly looks like the beginning of a third Palestinian intifada; peace prospects are receding further and further. Lone terrorists attack Israeli civilians on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and elsewhere – like the one who killed Dalia Lemkus.

The security establishment is warning of violence spiralling out of control.  

In South Africa, by contrast, we have defied the pessimists. We are a democracy with a good chance of a bright future, notwithstanding our problems.

Something else has also changed in South Africa, particularly in Jewish community attitudes towards Israel. When people like the Lemkus family went on aliyah, South African Jews viewed Israel in fairly similar ways.

The gap between the right and left was not so wide. Many saw Israel as a “David” standing up against a “Goliath”, and believed that if it persevered, sanity would ultimately prevail between Israelis and Palestinians and peace would be achieved. And from a religious point of view, what was said in most synagogues regarding Israel, was not that different to the views of the moderate mainstream.

Today there is a new scenario, with separate religious factions and their shuls openly taking specific political stances about Israeli politics, ranging from the far left to the far right.

The latest example involves Temple Emanuel, the flagship synagogue in Johannesburg of the Progressive movement, which is causing dissension among its members. Its rabbi, Sa’ar Shaked, last week put out a statement on the synagogue’s letterhead supporting the Jewish group Jewish Voices for a Just Peace (JVJP), which is politically far to the left of mainstream SA Jewry.

His statement congratulated them on the “Breaking down the wall” event held recently at Constitution Hill in Johannesburg and invoked the legacy of Madiba in seeking peace. And recently, Progressive Rabbi Greg Alexander from Cape Town attended an event with Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, evoking questions among Progressive members about whether he did so officially or in his private capacity. Both events painted Israeli actions as a key obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.   

Should a synagogue take such a clear public position on Israeli politics and risk alienating members and potential members whose politics may differ? Does the synagogue view the killing of Dalia Lemkus as a consequence of Israeli intransigence and West Bank settlements? Or an example of inherent Palestinian violence towards innocent Israelis?

If the Progressive movement wants to attract mainstream Jews in terms of attitudes to Israel, and not just be a place for Jews far to the left of the mainstream, it needs to think clearly about whether it is primarily a place of worship or politics.