To the Editor:

I

n summing up his thoughts on the future of American Jewry [“The Jewish Future: A Symposium,” November 2015] John Podhoretz writes: “The respondents portray a Jewish future very much transformed from the Jewish present, especially in the United States. Most agree that the most significant aspect of this transformation will be the increased size and centrality of Orthodox Jewry.” And as Jay Lefkowitz notes in his entry, the ultra-Orthodox “constitute about 70 percent” of the Orthodox community. “Already, in New York City,” he writes, “more than half of Jewish children under 18 are being raised in Haredi homes.”

One might expect at least grudging respect for the segment of American Judaism most likely to further the Jewish enterprise. That, however, is not the view of many of your contributors, who demean Haredi Jews and the Judaism they practice. Some examples: David Wolpe dismisses Haredi beliefs as “fundamentalist” manifestations of “medievalism.” Paul Berman refers to them as mere “rabbinical fantasies” and mentions their “Islamic counterparts.” Jeremy Kalmanofsky groups Haredim with the “Amish” and pronounces them “irrelevant.” Eliot Cohen characterizes Haredi practice as “absurd.” Moshe Koppel looks down on the “exotic stringencies and haberdashery” of it all. Dan Smokler calls Haredi interests “parochial.” Both Dennis Prager and David Ellenson find Orthodox believers “insular.” And Eric Yoffie sees them as “coercive.”

These writers are responding to cartoons of Haredim. Their characterizations suggest that they have never met a real, live Haredi. If they have, they would know that Haredim include highly educated doctors, lawyers, professors, professionals, and business leaders who are very much at home with American life while choosing to live as Haredi Jews.

Perhaps we should not be surprised to see sectarian leaders lash out as they contemplate their own irrelevance to “The Jewish Future.”

As this was a symposium, I grant that COMMENTARY cannot be held accountable for the offensiveness of some participants. The bias in the magazine’s choice of contributors, however, was surprising. Mr. Podhoretz recognizes the centrality of Haredi Judaism to the Jewish future, yet only one self-acknowledged Haredi, Jonathan Rosenblum, appears in the symposium. In the introduction to COMMENTARY’s 1966 symposium on “The State of Jewish Belief,” editors wondered if the Orthodox were underrepresented owing to a resistance among some to writing English “passably well.” If that was ever true, it is certainly no longer so. Today there are many articulate Haredi leaders, thinkers, and rabbis: Aaron Feldman, Chaim Dovid Zweibel, Rabbi Moshe Wolfson, Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb, and Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen, to name a few. Why aren’t these brilliant people, and their peers, better represented in your symposium?

COMMENTARY is a conservative organ. The best conservative thinking on politics, society, business, and education appears in your pages. What about conservative religion? Viewed properly, Haredi Jews and Judaism represent the finest example of the actualization of conservative principles. Haredim strive to practice the religion of their ancestors in the same way their ancestors practiced it for thousands of years, without modifiers, such as “modern,” “open,” or “nationalist.” What could be more conservative?

The Jewish religion has been practiced in exile under every possible condition—ranging from bad to unspeakable. How has it survived and prospered? In your symposium, Jack Wertheimer cites “strong pro-natal norms and commitments to perpetuating Jewish life.” Those are, indeed, necessary, but they are far from sufficient. As Michael Medved points out, many once vibrant American ethnic communities have virtually disappeared. While other factors may play a role, there is one central explanation: Judaism in its classic, unmodified, halachic form has always provided the optimal answer to the question: “Which way of life is best and most satisfying for a Jewish person?” It is inconceivable that Jews and Judaism could have survived unless classic, Conservative Judaism satisfied the deepest, the most profound, human needs. As more Jews discover this simple truth, there will emerge a glorious Jewish future.

Jerome Widroff
New York City

To the Editor:

I

found COMMENTARY’s symposium on the Jewish future informative, but it failed to include an adequate portion of Israeli opinion. It would have been beneficial to hear the predictions of Israeli thinkers such as Yoram Ettinger, Moshe Sharon, and Caroline Glick. The Israeli perspective on the Jewish future is vital.

For a variety of reasons, many Israeli analysts think differently from their American peers. For starters, Jewish Israeli foreign-policy analysts and journalists, like the rest of Israel’s Jews, live in the Arab world. Many Israeli scholars and journalists fought in one or more of the wars against Arab armies and coped with terrorism while in the IDF.

Among the symposium’s contributors, only Ruth Wisse gave due credit to the IDF for Israel’s survival. It is the IDF that especially befuddles the rest of the world.  For 2,000 years, after the Romans conquered Jerusalem, Jews had no history of military prowess. Yet in 68 years, Israelis have built a powerful army, tank corps, air force, intelligence corps, and a small powerful navy. It was still a stretch, of course, for Wisse to suggest that the IDF would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 50 years from now. The Nobel judges are no more likely to experience a philosophical sea change than Arab nations are to disregard ancient Islamic tenets that define Jews as second-class citizens who must remain in subservient roles.

While a few of the writers alluded to the contribution Israeli industry has made to the success of the Jewish state, only Dan Senor provided detail. It would have been nice to hear more about Israel’s dynamic economy and its high-tech industry, for example. That dynamism is in fact connected to the success of the Israeli military, as Unit 8200 of the Israeli Intelligence Corps demonstrates. After leaving service, members of the unit bring high-tech concepts to the private sector and contribute to the sustained high growth rate of Israel’s economy.

None of the writers adequately discussed the increasing reluctance of world leaders to respect the success of Israeli Jews and what that might mean for the future. Israeli success deserves respect, when one considers that the ancestors of many Israeli Jews were spread around the world for 2,000 years as citizens of other nations, with no experience in building an economy and defending a nation of their own. It seems that Pentagon officials, alone among Western leaders, respect Israeli accomplishments.

In thinking about Jewish life and Israel 50 years from now, I am reminded of something said by Josef Goell, a writer with the Jerusalem Post: “One thing sure about the Middle East is its unpredictability.” That also likely applies to Jewish life in America 50 years from now.

Lawrence I. Gould
Pepper Pike, Ohio

To the Editor:

I

appreciated the symposium offering by Eric Cohen, who noted that in the future a smaller Jewish population will be more Orthodox in their religious practice, more conservative in their politics, and, therefore, strongly opposed to Jewish liberalism.

Having turned 80 last Veterans Day, I’ve seen more than my share of Jewish liberalism in America. The Orthodoxy of my grandparents’ and parents’ generations failed to grab me. But as a kid, I was instinctively drawn to Zionism and nationalism, even if others around me were not. I recall people at the Beth Shraga Institute in the Bronx arrogantly dismissing the Arab offensive during the Yom Kippur War. They were proved wrong.

When I worked in the court system, I became the go-to contact for secular Jews who knew nothing of religious matters. I was also the one some bigoted Gentiles officers and clerks asked: “Why are all Jews Communists?”

There is no denying, however, that liberalism is collectivism. And to this day, American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal. They turned out twice to vote for Barack Obama, and the rabbinate is afraid to tell their congregations that being a modern-day liberal or Democrat means adhering to a message on Israel that blends with rank anti-Semitism. The 2012 Democratic convention, with its platform amendment on Jerusalem, made that much clear.

Given that American Jews are so liberal (and considering the rising intermarriage rate and dropping birthrate), there is little reason to suppose that America Jewry, as Jewry, will survive. It remains to be seen how Eric Cohen’s prognosis for conservative orthodoxy in America pans out. I’ll be long gone 50 years from now, but others will find out.

Ira Silverman
New York City

To the Editor:

I

have some criticism of (and a word of praise for) your symposium. Peter Berkowitz writes: “It will not be enough for Jews to make sure that their children receive a Jewish education…. Jews must also construct private educational institutions that teach students the principles that support free and democratic governments.” The question is: Do we Jews favor such principles enough to send our children to schools that are not favored by college admissions boards? Or must we also, at huge expense, build colleges tolerably friendly to freedom, democracy, and Jews? And how, moreover, could we make colleges stay that way? We failed with Brandeis University.

We’ve also failed with regard to ethnicity and identity. Jon D. Levenson writes: “Evidence is mounting…that throughout the West, ethnicity and nationalism in general are now themselves in sharp decline.” This is not so. Every year racial discord grows uglier, at least in the United States. With ever fewer exceptions, all interaction is monitored for compliance to ethnic preferences. Punishments for deviations get more extreme, and protections for the accused are eroding.

Speaking of extreme punishment, Morton A. Klein writes that “in the wake of radical Islamic terrorists’ brutality toward Christians and others, Christians and others will increasingly see Israel as their only true friend in the Middle East.” He adds: “The Jewish people—and the world—will have also realized that appeasement of radical Islamic terrorists only encourages more terror.” Similarly, Ruth R. Wisse writes: “Sobered finally by the expansion of anti-Jewish hate propaganda, terrorism, and cyberwarfare, and Iran’s intention of making Israel a “one-bomb state,” Jews [will have] realized that God protects only those who do it themselves.” Why, I ask, aren’t Jews, Christians, and others sober now? And if they can’t see the truth now, why will they see it after 50 more years of the same experiment? Can we only hope, or can we help open people’s eyes?

Perhaps we could start with the eyes of William Kristol. He writes about the coming of “democratic China and India as key [American] allies in maintaining a world order that is friendly to liberty. “ Israel, he claims, will “enjoy strong regional allies in liberal democratic Iran and Egypt.” Mr. Kristol’s confidence that any nation can become a liberal democracy in 50 years, and that our most despotic enemies will do so, is extraordinary. But since he mentions it, notice how few people now profess that all states should be liberal democracies. At one time, nearly all Americans agreed that government is illegitimate without consent of the governed. Many Americans today, especially bureaucrats and students, doubt that even America should be a liberal democracy.

Last, I was struck by Dennis Prager’s big-picture assessment: “The purpose of the Chosen People is to bring the world to the God of the Torah, more specifically, the God of the Ten Commandments. Unless we do, the future is bleak. But who will do this? The only vibrant Jewish group, the Orthodox, is still overwhelmingly committed to Jewish insularity.” I have no disagreements with Mr. Prager on this. He gets to the central problem we face.

J. Aaronson
Address Withheld

To the Editor:

M

ost of the offerings to your symposium on the “Jewish future” are either from a “through the looking glass” or a “rear-view mirror” perspective. There are many shades of Lewis Carroll in the discussion both of American Conservative Judaism and conservative American-Jewish politics. Both those who support American Conservative synagogues and those who oppose them (sometimes the same people) envision total decline of American Judaism except for Orthodoxy. Jack Wertheimer, a Jewish Theological Seminary faculty member, foresees “the descendants of Conservative and Reform Jews, who will fashion eclectic Jewish identities.” Yet David Wolpe, a Conservative rabbi, chirps with confidence that “the faithful of Lakewood, New Jersey, are educating the next generation’s conservative Jews, after all.” The strategy should be to combat the worst-case scenario, in which lapsed Haredim become what sociologists now call the “nones,” those who no longer identify with religion at all.

I look to political conservatism as a necessary curative for our politically correct society, so I see no harm in the realization of Morton A. Klein’s forecast that Jewish conservatives will in time equal the numbers of Jewish liberals. But I am disappointed with what our Jewish conservatives do with Judaism. In 1997, Elliott Abrams published a book, Faith or Fear, which rightly criticized American Jews for aiming “to escape anti-Semitism by helping to create a nation where religion played a less and less important role.” Citing Seymour Siegel’s visionary teachings, he warned that blocking public recognition of religion would result in the weakening of Judaism. Abrams counseled that American Jews are doomed unless “they still believe they are above all else members of a religious community.” He felt that they should engage in study, ritual practice, and synagogue attendance if for no other reason than to preserve an openness to religion which is good for society in general and Jewish life in particular. What, then, are we to make of Abrams’s curt reference to Judaism “in whatever form” in the symposium?

William Kristol prophesies a crisis for “rabbinic and prophetic Judaism” but predicts that “thanks to a renaissance of several older Judaic traditions—biblical Judaism, historical and Zionist Judaism, and philosophic Judaism among them—what will be called ‘New Judaism’ will be a vibrant and compelling force in the civilized world.” But not among Jews? This is like predicting that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have expired, but that the Federalist Papers, American history, American patriotic literature, and American political philosophy will then be universally and eagerly studied.

Do the “through the looking glass” contortions of the Abrams and Kristol statements confirm Jon Levenson’s concern about “Jewish conservatives who hold an instrumental view of religion, treating it as useful to their causes and avoiding the nettlesome questions of theological meaning and personal practice”? Fortunately, the symposium included some engaging “rabbinic Judaism” homilies, especially those of Jacob J. Schachter and Motti Seligson.

Then there is the “rear view mirror” approach. Reading Yossi Klein Halevi’s assertion that Jewish religious institutions will be centers for spiritual growth, focusing on the refinement of one’s personality and traits, with special emphasis on Jewish meditation techniques, I wonder whether he really wants to perpetuate the stylized spiritual drills of our era.

While it is not clear whether or not Lynn Schusterman is interested in preserving classical Jewish observance, it does seem that she sidesteps traditional Jewish vocabulary, preferring New Age concepts. She predicts that “conscious Jews will vastly outnumber strict adherents of religious Judaism.” Will private foundations bypass classic Jewish beliefs, practices, and vocabularies by glorifying New Age catchwords in their “Jewish continuity” stereopticons?

And then there are the penchants for old-fashioned optimism and pessimism. More than one respondent branded the Haredim as “Amish.” Is that a helpful way to refer to a vital Jewish community and culture? Joshua Muravchik refreshingly provides a vision respectful of the role of Haredim in Israeli life and Jewish life in general. One respondent blames “defunct American heterodox movements” for “roiling” things in Israel, much as the Palestinians blame Israel for Arab internecine fighting.

Inspiring pieces by Joseph I. Lieberman, Dan Senor, and Avi Weiss were all distinguished by pluralistic visions presented with strong convictions. Haskel Lookstein’s historical perspective, beginning with COMMENTARY’s past, was most heartening, as was Natan Sharansky’s visionary and eloquent charge to the State of Israel to demonstrate the importance and potential of nation-states. Jonathan Sarna was both motivating and comforting when he warned that demographically speaking, Judaism could lose its world-religion status and remain, at best, a regional or First World religion but that, whatever we contemporary Jews allow or don’t allow, “the fear that Judaism might not survive will help ensure that it does.”

The Talmud states that only Moses among the Prophets beheld the divine through an illuminated, rather than a dim aspaklaria, which can mean “glass,” “mirror,” or “window pane.” According to the sages, this illuminated glass revealed the fewest specifics about the divine reality and about Torah and Israel. The ancient Rabbis prodded us forward by urging that we seek out God, Torah, and our fellow Jews through window, mirror, and prism alike, with the kind of work that Elliott Abrams urged in his book, if not in November’s COMMENTARY.

Rabbi Elliot B. Gertel
Chicago, Illinois