O nce again American non-Orthodox Jews are upset with an Israeli government decision — this time about denial of Western Wall space for Reform-Conservative prayer. Once again the old shopworn clichés are trotted out: Diaspora Jewry is being disenfranchised.
Cut away the underbrush of bromides and puzzlement emerges. For example:
The Conservative-Reform concern about praying at the Wall is odd given the fact that they have historically offered more obeisance to the teachings of the NY Times than to the teachings of the siddur. Not to mention the odd interest in prayer emanating from secular Jewish organizations whose connection to davening is at most rather tenuous. To get so agitated about prayer is admirable but one is unaware of any great concern for prayer by the non-Orthodox. One is unlikely to find daily minyanim for Shacharis Minchah and Maariv at one’s friendly neighborhood Reform temple. As for Shabbat morning without bar mitzvahs Conservative and Reform temples unfortunately are virtually empty of worshippers. With their own adherents hardly focused on davening the sound and fury about how they might pray at Judaism’s holiest site is mystifying. (Question: Would modern Catholics dare insist that the Vatican change its prayer protocol for the Sistine Chapel?) Are there possibly considerations other than the holy yearning of the Jewish soul for communion with its Maker?
Another buzz-slogan: the Wall belongs to all Jews but non-Orthodox Jews are being denied the right to pray there. Strange. Thousands of individuals pray daily at the Wall. Every single Jew — Orthodox Conservative Reform secular — is welcomed. Ah but the Conservative-Reform leadership wants to conduct prayer services in their own way in contravention of Jewish law and of millenia-old Wall practices — services that replicate their American temples sitting next to their wives and girlfriends. (So far no demand for organ playing.) Obviously the Wall rabbis vetoed this and then the inevitable Pavlovian reaction: These are benighted haredim who oppose “equality.” But how is maintaining classic Wall policy an attack on gender equality?
