Reaction to Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove’s Call for a ‘New Zionism’ (Part One)

Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, of the Conservative Park Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan, has emerged as an influential public intellectual and a blessing to American Jewry. As one example of his cogent thinking, he raised awareness of an alarming crisis within the “pipeline” for future rabbinic leaders. In response, changes were introduced by many of the ordaining institutions addressing aspects of the “pipeline” challenge.

After the New York City mayoral election, Cosgrove, an avowed opponent of Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy, shifted his focus and perspective.

He wanted to understand how 30-plus percent of New York City’s Jewish voters supported this anti-Israel candidate. After speaking with a sizable number of Jewish supporters of Mamdani, Cosgrove formulated an analysis and presented it to the Biennial National Assembly of the American Zionist Movement (AZM) early in December. In his remarks, he also proposed a “New Zionism.”

At the AZM gathering, Cosgrove stated that “full-throated as my defense is of Israel, unflinching as my advocacy on its behalf…, not every Jew holds as I do.”

He went on to say that for young people today — Jews who are left-leaning and supported Mamdani, “Israel is the Goliath to the Palestinian David.” For them, “Israel’s decades-long expansionist settlement policy is perceived to have precluded the emergence of a Palestinian state. And the only Prime Minister that anyone really knows is one who either is a part of or is beholden to extremist parties whose views are antithetical to pretty much every value that liberal American Jews have championed these past decades.”

With this background in mind, the rabbi honed his assessment to pinpoint the alienation from Zionism experienced by some Jewish young adults. Cosgrove observed that this young liberal cohort felt there was “a marginalization from the organized Jewish community itself in whose presence a muzzling — implicit and explicit — occurred,” particularly in regard to Israel. Accordingly, they feel they constitute “an entire generation disenfranchised by the prior one.”

In consequence, Cosgrove has urged “the American Zionist community to engage in a heshbon ha-nefesh, self-audit” to explore how, by somehow making “unconditional support for the Israeli government a litmus test for Jewish identity,” the Jewish establishment has advanced the perception “that it is somehow treasonous to criticize this or that Israeli policy….”

As a remedy, Elliot Cosgrove has proposed “a new chapter of American Zionism infused with an appreciation of our internal pluralism…. An American Zionism that is capacious enough to hold multiple views at once.”

Nevertheless, he retains certain limits. “Against those who stand outside our tent” — i.e., who oppose the very existence of a Jewish state — “we must hold the line,” he said. And for American Jews “who seek to dwell within our tent, we must expand it.”

This important AZM address cries out for serious discussion.

First, the “perception” that the current spectrum of “permissible” American Zionist options is too narrow:

Whether accurate or not, as the rabbi asserts, “one’s perception is one’s reality.” But what is the truth? Is there no pluralism of views among Zionist groups, from the Far Right to the Far Left? Just as right-wing Zionists find a home during a Netanyahu government, what about left-wing Zionists? The fact is, the AZM is pluralistic. It is composed of 50-plus diverse Zionist groups, an umbrella organization that embraces virtually all ideological supporters of Jewish statehood.

Is only one age group welcome in the AZM? No! In selecting delegates to the World Zionist Congress, each slate was required to provide at least 25 percent of its appointees from the 18-35 age group. Nor were the other delegates all old men! In fact, a minimum number of female members of the delegation was 40 percent. Many leaders were only slightly older than age 35. For example, the president of Mercaz USA, Rabbi Hillel Skolnik, is in his late 40s.

The “internal pluralism” of the American Zionist Movement was in full evidence at the recent World Zionist Congress as well. Mirroring the diversity of views within Israel’s Knesset, the Congress embraced dozens of slates, from the Right to the Left. Predictably, right-wing Zionist delegates by and large supported initiatives of Netanyahu’s coalition. Yet contrary views held by the left-wing delegates were reflected in many of the Congress resolutions.

By a sizable majority, the pluralism of the Congress often rejected Bibi’s approach. Notably, it called for a “state-sponsored” — not government-sponsored — investigation of the failings that caused the tragedy of October 7, 2023. Approved Center/Left resolutions also called for enhanced “religious pluralism” in Israel, such as fulfillment of the “Kotel promises” made in 2016. Other approved center/left resolutions called for drafting or offering alternative national service to members of Israel’s Haredi population and rejected Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount and proposed Israeli resettlement in Gaza.

The diversity of the Congress did not lead to a forging of a right-wing Zionist “coalition agreement” to govern the next five years of the World Zionist Organization, Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, and the Jewish Agency for Israel. Nor did the coalition agreement favor the Left. Instead, a pluralistic “wall-to-wall Zionist coalition” agreement was crafted. As noted by Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal of the Conservative/Masorti movement, “The agreement balances representation and funding across a wide range of political and religious perspectives.” Governance among these “national institutions of the Jewish people” clearly reflects the diversity of views — both majority and minority — within the soon-to-change composition of the Knesset.

Since “internal pluralism” is abundantly in evidence, what is the cause of the incorrect “perception” of a monolithic view of Zionism among young Jewish Mamdani voters? Here the organized Jewish community is at fault; we are guilty of a failure of education.

Far too few American Jews of any age can articulate the roles played by the American Zionist Movement and its constituent organizations, let alone their degree of pluralism. Even fewer young folks know about the full range of Zionist groups that comprise the World Zionist Organization. I would guess the majority of American Jews do not even know the range of competing political parties within the Knesset. With a lack of knowledge of Israel’s and the Jewish community’s internal pluralism, by default many young folks identify “being a Zionist” only with being in sync with the policies of the Netanyahu government.

With the media sharing the point of view of Bibi and his allies, the AZM’s retaining of religious and secular Jews on the Right is much easier than embracing counterparts on the Left. Similarly, during the center/left Oslo Accord negotiations of the 1990s, the opposite challenge was true!

As Rabbi Cosgrove delineated, today we need a Zionist strategy for remaining attractive to left-wing, progressive Jews. An example is offered by Dr. Alex Sinclair in his 2013 volume “Loving the Real Israel: An Educational Agenda for Liberal Zionism.” Parallel to sharing right-wing views publicized by Bibi’s coalition, he says, Zionist umbrella organizations should also “generate a large repertoire of articles, quotes, op-eds, or YouTube videos…of Jewish, Zionist mainstream politicians or public figures who have gone on record criticizing [certain] Israeli policies….”

American Zionism already has abundant space for Jews on the Left as it does for Jews in the Center and on the Right. We are unified in support of Jewish statehood. Our institutional Zionist pluralist reality must be shared much more effectively, something revealed in the more than doubling of the number of individuals registered to vote in the World Zionist Congress elections. Post-October 7, we need to share just how wide our “big tent” of American Zionism is.

(Please look for Part Two of this blog post coming up.)