<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">First, I want to thank Tammy Weiss for sharing Eliahu Toker's poem and her thoughts on it with us. I might argue it expresses more clearly and perhaps more truly Rawidowicz' intentions than the latter's own words.<div><br></div><div>Reading him reminded me of the old French saying: "<i>plus ca change</i>..." In 1949 he upbraids the writers of the Israeli constitution for giving such short shrift to the rich creativity of the Jewish Diaspora. Nothing has changed on that front. I remember discussing with my own children (who were born and raised in Israel) what they learned in school about Jewish history. Essentially the Israeli curriculum goes something like this: spend quite a bit of time on the ancient Israelites and then the period of the Second Temple. Spend only a brief amount of time discussing 2000 years of Jewish suffering in the diaspora (what Salo Baron used to call "the lachrymose view" of Jewish history). Then the bulk of the "Jewish history" curriculum is the history of Zionism and the State of Israel.</div><div><br></div><div>Personally I am suspicious of Rawidowicz version of the Jewish constitution: "Israel is One." I know he did not intend it this way, but from my own experience and from what I have seen both in Israel and the Diaspora, "Israel is One" is usually taken to mean we are all Jews bound together -- as long as you accept <i>my</i> version of Judaism. G-d forbid I should see your alternative as a legitimate and creative expression. </div><div><br></div><div>There is a real denial of history in such a statement. From the beginning of time when Jews became known as <i>Yehudim</i> (probably in the Persian period) there were multiple and diverse views of what it meant to be a Jew. Only in retrospect, do the "victors" in these internal divisions declare themselves as the one true faith from time immemorial. The fact that Rabbinic Judaism prevailed over Karaism for example, was not a foregone conlusion, and there was a period when there were probably as many Jews who were Karaites as not. Someone mentioned how the Rambam solved the problem of what it means to be a Jew 500 years ago. And yet, in his own time, there were many who wanted to declare him a heretic and many more who bitterly opposed his "<i>Mishne Torah</i>." Let us not forget ]that in his chapter on <i>Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah </i>he declares belief in Aristotle's scientific viewpoint as being one of the foundations of the Torah (which is one reason he was so controversial then). Do we want to accept that as defining what it means to be a Jew today?</div><div><br></div><div>Within each group today there are multiple and mutually exclusive viewpoints of what it means to be a Jew. Do we accept the Satmar's anti-Zionism or Habad's semi-Messianism to name just two viewpoints inside the Orthodox world? Do we accept Reform's multi-lineal approach for defining who is a Jew (on the grounds that when Jews were sent to the death chambers that was the definition) or adhere to the traditional matrilineal approach?</div><div><br></div><div>I would argue that it was actually Mordehai Kaplan who had the most persuasive view of who is a Jew and what Judaism is. He argued the Jews are members of an ancient civilization (like the Chinese) and Judaism is the culture of the Jewish people in all its aspects - language, food, religion, literature, art and music. A Jew is anyone who identifies with any aspect of this culture, and lives their life accordingly. I believe this is quite similar to Rawidowicz' view, perhaps with a greater emphasis on diversity within the thousands of years of development of this culture.</div><div><br></div></body></html>