Israel’s direction poses ‘existential threat’ to Judaism, UK’s leading progressive rabbis warn
The UK's leading progressive rabbis, Charley Baginsky and Josh Levy, warn that Israel's current political trajectory poses an 'existential threat' to Judaism, arguing that criticism of the Israeli government is a Jewish obligation, not disloyalty. They emphasize that diverse perspectives within Judaism strengthen the community and assert a vision of religious Zionism rooted in pluralism and justice. Their comments accompany the release of a new book featuring 40 essays on Jewish identity, Zionism, and Israel. Progressive Judaism, representing a third of UK synagogues, is reviewing its relationship with Israel without imposing political litmus tests on members.
Full article excerpt tap to expand
Rabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Levy co-edited 40 essays from Jewish clergy and community leaders on debates surrounding Jewish identity, Zionism and Israel. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The GuardianView image in fullscreenRabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Levy co-edited 40 essays from Jewish clergy and community leaders on debates surrounding Jewish identity, Zionism and Israel. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The GuardianJudaismIsrael’s direction poses ‘existential threat’ to Judaism, UK’s leading progressive rabbis warnRabbis Charley Baginsky and Josh Levy say criticising Israeli government is not disloyalty but a Jewish obligationAamna Mohdin Community affairs correspondent Tue 28 Apr 2026 00.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 28 Apr 2026 00.01 EDTSharePrefer the Guardian on GoogleThe UK’s most senior progressive rabbis have warned that Israel’s current political direction risks becoming “incompatible with Jewish values”, while insisting that criticism of the country’s government is “a Jewish obligation” rather than an act of disloyalty.Rabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Levy, co-leads of Progressive Judaism – the newly formed movement representing around a third of synagogues in the UK – said Israel’s trajectory could pose an “existential threat” not just to the country itself but to Judaism.Speaking ahead of the launch of the movement’s first book, Progressive Judaism, Zionism and the State of Israel, they also expressed hope that change remains possible.“We’ve often talked about the direction of Israel being an existential threat not to Jews per se, but to Judaism,” Baginsky said. “What happens when the direction of the government within Israel takes Israel down a line that makes it incompatible with our Jewish values? That’s a huge worry.”That question lies at the heart of the book Baginsky co-edited with Levy, which brings together 40 essays from Jewish clergy and community leaders, reflecting a wide range of perspectives on the fraught debates surrounding Jewish identity, Zionism and Israel.Levy argued that exploring these tough questions is not a sign of disloyalty to Israel or to the Jewish community. “It is to be part of a millennial conversation about Jewish values and what God wants of us in the world and our relationship with the land.”He added: “What the government of Israel does reflects on us as Jews and reflects on our Judaism. Therefore, it is our Jewish obligation to be in dialogue with that in some way.”While Progressive Judaism is a Zionist movement committed to a Jewish, pluralist and democratic state in Israel, the collection of essays also includes contributions from voices who would not describe themselves as Zionists.The book forms part of a wider review being carried out by Progressive Judaism into its relationship with Israel and Zionism.“One of the things that we have seen in the world by the Jewish community is the view that diversity of voice is somehow weakening,” Levy said. “But what sits underneath the book is the idea that holding differences makes us stronger.”Baginsky said the mission of Progressive Judaism was to insist on living within that complexity. “To say you’re a Zionist, to say you’re critical of the Israeli government, and to also talk about antisemitism means there are very few spaces that you can’t be criticised in,” she said.Both were keen to stress that any guidelines resulting from the review would not impose a top-down view on what congregants should think or feel.“Just as there is no…
This excerpt is published under fair use for community discussion. Read the full article at the Guardian.