Los Angeles - When a prominent Orthodox rabbi broke ranks with the official Orthodox line last week and called for an open discussion of the division of Jerusalem, the backlash was swift — though not entirely unexpected.
Yosef Kanefsky, senior rabbi of B’nai David-Judea Congregation, a Modern Orthodox synagogue in Los Angeles’s Pico-Robertson neighborhood, is no stranger to controversy, and when Orthodox leaders rushed to condemn an opinion piece he wrote for the October 26 edition of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, he was unruffled by the response.
Headlined “An Orthodox Rabbi’s Plea: Consider a Divided Jerusalem,” the piece called on Jewish leaders to approach the Israeli-Palestinian peace conference scheduled to take place in Annapolis, Md., with an open mind, especially on the question of Jerusalem.
“I wanted to stimulate conversation and discussion, and I think I have,” Kanefsky said in interview with the Forward. “I knew that this is a point of view that’s not usually expressed in public.”
The discussion he sparked was so robust, in fact, that it made it into the pages of the Los Angeles Times, which ran a story on Kanefsky’s opinion piece on the front page of its October 28 “California” section. A thread of more than 100 comments streamed into the Jewish Journal, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America submitted a rebuttal for publication.
“These are extremely difficult thoughts for me to share, both because they concern an issue that is emotionally charged, and because people whose friendship I treasure will disagree strongly with me,” Kanefsky wrote in his article. “And also because I am breaking a taboo within my community, the Orthodox Zionist community.”
The 44-year-old Kanefsky, a former associate rabbi at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale — a New York congregation led by Orthodox maverick Avi Weiss — said that what led him to take action were recent efforts to have Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert keep the possibility of a divided Jerusalem off the table during peace talks. Kanefsky said he learned to speak out from Weiss, who is known for advocating liberal positions that often put him at odds with the Orthodox establishment. For example, both Weiss and Kanefsky allow women to read from the Torah in their own prayer groups.
Daniel Korobkin, a West Coast representative for the Orthodox Union and a personal friend of Kanefsky’s, noted that given his training with Weiss, it is not surprising that Kanefsky follows the religiously liberal positions that are consistent with Weiss’s so-called Open Orthodoxy. What is different about Kanefsky, Korobkin said, is his take on geopolitics.
“His political positions are not necessarily aligned with liberal Orthodoxy or with his teacher, Rabbi Avi Weiss,” Korobkin said. “Rabbi Kanefsky not only takes a liberal religious worldview, but he does the same thing with his politics.”
The immediate past president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis, Kanefsky is active in Jewish circles well beyond the confines of the Orthodox world. According to the executive vice president of the board of rabbis, Mark Diamond, Kanefsky is well known for his interdenominational work, including bringing together rabbis from all the movements for Torah study.
Some Orthodox leaders, despite their vocal disapproval of Kanefsky’s message, downplayed the impact of his opinion piece. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, said the fact that Jews have different opinions on things is “nothing new.”
“Rabbi Kanefsky is certainly not the only person who has this view, and he’s entitled to it,” Weinreb said. “But we disagree with much of what he is saying.”
I agree totally with Miriam. Chazak U'Braukh Rabbi Kanefsky for your courage. You are our own Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And Miriam the majority is silent no more!
"...than to hate, oppress, dominate, torture, demonize and murder Palestinians..." Huh? Isn't Islamic radicalism an issue? You may have heard of bus bombings in Tel Aviv, yet terrorism doesn't seem to rate on your list of grievances.
Rabbi Kanefsky's proposal shows decency, courage, and common sense.
Weinreb is entitled to his injudicious view...but as we all learned as children...SHARING is not only neighborly it is the RIGHT thing to do. Since when did JUSTICE exit Judaistic theology? When did LAW BREAKING become the "norm" ? Better to have no state than to hate, oppress, dominate, torture, demonize and murder Palestinians. Since when did acting like a mensch warrent BACKLASH? THANKS to Rabbi Kanefsky..you speak for many of the silent majority...!
Rabbi Kanefsky was off the mark, because like all the others who suddenly have his "epiphany," they neglect, or forget, that the Palestinians do not want peace. Peace could have been had a million times, and could be had today. The Arabs want all the land, they want no Jewish state, no Jews, and have settled for a policy of piece by piece. So each time Israel surrenders territory, regardless how they delude themselves, they are furthering their own demise.
Big deal. We already have rabbis claiming to be "gay and orthodox" so what's the big deal with being "pro-Palestinian and Orthodox?" Rabbi Avi Weiss would not support dividing Jerusalem
Sephardiman - 'silent majority' of whom?
I think that Rabbi Kanefsky's view shows when you have imbibed from the post Zionist narrative-one forgets that the 1967 war was forced upon Israel, that the "friendly" Jordanian occupation of the previous Old City and the forced emigration of its Jewish population resulted in Jewish gravesstones being used for toiletseats and the inability of Jews to visit the Western Wall. R Kanefsky seems unaware that since 1967 Israel has allowed untrammedled access to the Al Aksa and the raizing of any remnants of the Second Temple by its current occupants,despite its being a center for anti Israel propaganda and violence and the Christian holy sites as well. IMO, only someone who believes in the post-modern and post Zionist so-called "narratives" could have written such an article. FWIW, I anticipate that some posters will toss the views of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik ZTL in my face on this issue. I remain unconvinced that Rabbi Soloveitchik would have ever approved of a peace process that was fostered upon the Israeli military establishment by the left wing of its intelligentsia within the diplomatic corps.
Divid Jerusalem to creat a terrorist state? Rabbi Kanefsky reflects a schizoid personality that the so-called ‘progressive’ Jews of LA suffer of, regretfully. In effect, they feed the anti-Semites and those who wish to wipe Israel off the map and at the same time encourage those intractable enemies of the West who seek world dominion such as fanatical Islam today, which include most of the Arab/Palestinians society. Rabbi Kanefsky is removed from reality, facts and history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO RABBI KANEFSKY, A MUST READ. EDUCATIONAL. Dear Rabbi Kanefsky, Your efforts at upholding the truth are quite commendable. As you rightly said in your last paragraph, “There will be peace the day after there will be truth.” Unfortunately, truth has been ignored by politicians since the “peace process” started in 1993, which explains the existential anguish that Jews and Israelis are going through. I hope Israeli leaders will heed your call for disclosing the full truth so that they can embark upon a new era of lasting peace. Of course, the pursuit of truth requires knowledge first. What are we to call “truth” if we have no clue of reality? Also, reality should be known in its entirety and this knowledge should not be truncated, as the Palestinians do, a point you aptly emphasize in your article. It is only when all the facts are brought to light that the full story can be told honestly. I have no doubt that honesty is paramount to you, as you mentioned this term – and any variations thereof – no less than 21 times in your piece. I am prepared to grant you the mantle of honesty but only partially, very partially. Knowingly or not, you jumped on the honesty wagon before ascertaining the truth of what you wrote. And what you omitted from your exposé is so glaring that you are misinforming your readers in a grand scale. Like the Palestinians who regularly present their narrative in their distorted fashion, you too have grossly truncated the truth by limiting your view of reality to the post 1967 period. Had your vision not been so narrowly limited, you would have discovered that the international community recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to the whole of Palestine, including Jerusalem, back in 1920; that Jewish settlement of the whole land, including Judea and Samaria, was not only allowed but highly encouraged; that these territories were not to be ceded to any foreign power; and that all those provisions received the imprimatur of international law. Instead, you write that Israel is illegally occupying these territories; that the settlement of these lands should not have taken place; that this situation violates international law; and that those who challenge these views “refuse to read history honestly.” The most eminent legal experts in international law – Stephen Schwebel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone and many others – would strongly disagree with each and every one of your assertions. On your side, though, you may find some allies in characters like Jimmy Carter; Arab academics of dubious credibility; the Neturei Karta sect; the leaders of Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, as well as a host of their Jewish sycophants who have been thoroughly brainwashed by the very kind of article you just wrote. I leave it to you to choose the most credible camp. Allow me, Rabbi Kanefsky, to conclude with a saying from the Talmud: “If you add to the truth, you subtract from it.” What you did in your article is far worse: you started by subtracting from the truth. This can only be attributed to ignorance, sloppiness or, dare I say, malice. Whatever the case may be, your 21 instances of the word “honest” ring hollow. I don’t know what drove you to jettison the collective rights of the Jewish people and to disparage Jewry in the process. But I suggest that you and your supporters get better informed and, most importantly, get finally over your guilty Jewish hang-ups. Best regards, S.B. Toronto, Canada P.S.: You claim that those who oppose your views “have never offered any alternative solution.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Consider just a few of the alternatives: - Dr. Martin Sherman: “The Humanitarian Solution”, - MK Benny Elon: “The Israeli Initiative”
Isn't Israel a democracy? There is no absolutely no majority in favor of giving away half of Jerusalem, not in Israel nor, might I add, among world Jewry. Olmert and Peres simply do not have the mandate. Kanefsky does not speak for the majority and he is boring us from his soapbox from LA. He will not be in the receiving end of rockets. By the way, I live in LA and he is not an influential Rabbi here. The fact that his words appeared in the LA Times is further proof of their anti-Israel agenda, not of this Rabbi's popularity or influence.
I favor giving away Rabbi Kenefsky's home. I believe it should be sold and the money from its sale should go to a fund to help the children of Sderot. Just as the Rabbi supports giving away other Jews home he should support losing his own for the children. After all he has given no other suggestion on how to raise money for the children of sderot
He dared to speak that truth, that in spite of the presence of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, that much of East Jerusalem really has a character which is not Jewish at all, and its inhabitants are not Jewish, and they have no use for the Jewish/Israeli "reunification" of the city which does, in and of itself, result in their oppression. I am certain that more orthodox rabbies know this, and even have thoughts of a similar nature. He is being punished for stating the obvious, which is considered a sort of sacralige.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.