After the 1st International Meeting of 1986, that of 1988 (in Brussels), and that of 1990 (in Chicago), the International Federation of Secular [laïques] and Humanistic Jews held its 4th Conference in Jerusalem, from 14 to 18 October 1992.
During this 4-day cultural marathon, delegations from many countries of the world had come to represent the member organizations — chiefly from the United States, Israel, Belgium, Italy, Eurasia, and France, of course. Let us recall that the Federation also includes small groups in Australia and Argentina.
Four “non-stop” days of lectures, workshops, festivities, and working sessions, in the course of which humanistic and secular Jews were able to exchange and compare their Jewish realities, across the very diverse horizons in which they live. The main theme of the congress was “Judaism and Humanism.” A striking fact: the similarity of the preoccupations of all these Jewish communities. For what do secular Jews discuss when they meet one another? As everywhere… as among us, in France: about Judaism, of course, but also about transmission, education, secularism (laïcité), and the future of the Jews in the world.
Gathering several hundred people, the day of 17 October was marked by a prestigious public conference at the “Khan Theatre” in Jerusalem. From 9 in the morning until 11 at night, speakers of great quality — historians, philosophers, parliamentarians, teachers, politicians — addressed the themes “being a secular Jew in Israel” and “being a secular Jew in the Diaspora.”
The two most powerful moments were, on the one hand, the interventions of the member of the Knesset Naomi Chazan, of Prof. Yehoshafat Harkabi, and of Prof. Menahem Brinker. Current events cast a heightened light on the acute manner in which the Israelis posed the problem of the ties between Religion and the State. Indeed, that very day, the declarations of the Minister of Culture and Education, Shulamit Aloni, were published in the country’s newspapers. We know the stormy consequences they provoked within the Government. I was struck by the remarkable knowledge the speakers had of secularism in Europe, and especially in France, as well as by the virulence they displayed in this struggle. The AJHL was then keen to bear public witness, before our Israeli friends, to its support for their secular struggle in Israel.
The other high point was, incontestably, the presence — in numbers and in dynamism — of those whom it is customary to call the “Russian Jews.” They were massively present, and a simultaneous translation (Hebrew–English–Russian) made it possible to grasp the scale and the stakes of the phenomenon, and their particular situation.
The presence, first, of the Russians newly immigrated to Israel. Beyond their difficulties of settlement, their cultural predicament is heightened by a broad attempt at appropriation on the part of the religious authorities. In this regard, the International Federation voted a resolution insisting on the indispensable respect for their cultural and spiritual integrity. The high level of their questions, marked by series of interrogations, bore witness to their great interest in secular Judaism and its foundations. Then there were the interventions of those coming from Eurasia — several delegations that had come to attend the Congress, from Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia. All were attending the conference for the first time; they had very recently joined the International Federation, some of them explaining that they had created, only a few weeks earlier, local associations of “Humanistic and Secular Jews.” The importance of the documents already published by these brand-new associations attested to their astonishing commitment and their dynamism, as well as to the considerable effort made by the Federation’s leaders (notably Zev Katz) to assist them.
The importance of the event justified the decision to choose MOSCOW for the next international meeting, two years hence. I was struck by the great interest they took in the secular Judaism of the Diaspora and principally by their community of thought with the Europeans, and above all with the French. We, at the AJHL, did not fail to forge relations and contacts that have already been strengthened since.
A prestigious evening, devoted to “Pluralism and Humanism in Judaism,” provided the occasion to hear the “Lesson” of Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, for whom, rather paradoxically, it was the terminology of “humanistic Judaism” that presented more contradictions than “secular Judaism.”
In the course of this same evening, a very young pianist from the Music Academy of Jerusalem helped to soften the mood of these quite serious debates.
Finally, the Federation had the privilege of receiving one of its Honorary Presidents, Justice Haim Cohn, to whom a remarkable tribute was paid. Let us note that Albert Memmi, another honorary president, who could not be present, had been asked to submit a text on humanism; the AJHL delivered this masterly text in his place. It will be published simultaneously in the Israeli and American journals. We are also publishing it in this first issue of “Plurielles,” the journal of the AJHL.
No respite being granted to the participants, working meetings multiplied during these days, in debates on “a teaching for a humanistic Judaism — how?”; finally, one day was devoted to the Administration of the Federation and of the Institute for a Humanistic and Secular Judaism. This will be the subject of further developments as to its purpose and its means in our next issues. Let us note that the Institute appointed two representatives of the AJHL to its eminent Board;
as well as a member of the AEJL. Long and arid juridical discussions took place on the functioning, which is not the place to debate here.
In summary, the Federation took decisions relating to its proper functioning, its budget, the renewal of its Board, the appointment of a full-time staff member whose role