Congregation Etz Chayim has recently cancelled membership for an individual and all members of their household.
The synagogue wrote to congregants as follows:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately."
The letter indicated these individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim and are not able to participate in any of its programs.
I think it is best if the family in question who have been removed from the synagogue and cannot attend its premises or any of its programs release the correspondence to the media, such that readers can make their own independent assessment of the letter. But it’s also certainly possible that legal counsel for the family ( ssuming they have legal counsel) may decide that is not in their best interests.
I do not have all the facts, have not read the correspondence in question and I do not wish at this stage at least, to state and evaluate whatever the particulars are. Rather, I would like to explore several hypothetical situations involving synagogues in general.
I have asked myself whether a synagogue would be within its rights to exclude someone from belonging to the congregation based on that individual’s political beliefs alone? Theoretically for example, what if a synagogue member viewed the birth of the State of Israel as a disaster in that it resulted in approx. 700,000 Palestinians being displaced? What if that member did not take into account the fact that had the Palestinians agreed to the 1947 UN Partition Plan or the even earlier 1937 Peel Commission Plan, there would have been no 1948 war and Palestinians wouldn’t have been displaced at all. Would a synagogue exclude a member solely on the basis that he or she was an anti-Zionist and believed that the State of Israel should be dismantled such that it, the West Bank and Gaza would become a one state where Jews could become a minority in this new one state? There may be synagogues who would not exclude a person based on the fact that they are an anti-Zionist with the above described beliefs but would not a synagogue be within its rights to say its core values include a belief in the right of Israel to exist as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people?
Further, what would happen if a person was friends with an extremist anti-Israel advocate who has shouted from the River to the Sea, has urged anti-Israel demonstrators to wear masks such that they can’t be identified by police, does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, has praised Sinwar for planning the Oct 7 attacks, or shouted abusive chants such as “All Zionists are racists”? And what if the synagogue member wanted the synagogue to let an extremist anti-Israel advocate (of any ethnic or ideological background) to attend synagogue prayer services or to speak at an event in the synagogue? What if a synagogue member wanted to organize a protest with radical anti-Israel advocates outside the synagogue, making synagogue members less likely to feel comfortable entering the synagogue? I would venture to say in such a scenario if the synagogue member used aggressive language in the letter to the synagogue or suggested that a certain anti-Israel advocate had to be admitted inside the synagogue premises notwithstanding the synagogue had already said this person was not allowed, this could be problematic and could cross a line. I could imagine that there could be a situation where it would be very reasonable for the synagogue on consultation with the police to find that for the safety of its members and/ or staff, the individual and their family could no longer be members of the synagogue.
My own view is that hat is at stake is not only a question of safety, but the necessity of congregants feeling a “'sense of security" as opposed to being fearful of physical violence or psychological abuse when attending synaogogue, especially in light of violent incidents that have taken place in the last few weeks in D.C. and Boulder Colorado. Furthermore, in my view a synagogue would be within its rights to take the view that its values, including religious identity, requires that participation in its services or entry unto its grounds requires a level of respect – or at least not open contempt – for its collective beliefs, which might include that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their traditional and religiously mandated homeland.
Now I wonder, is it also possible that in the case of Congregation Etz Chayim, it gave the individual in question a previous warning about their behaviour? I do also wonder if there were any signs of this coming, and what those signs were? But I have no answers in this regard.
Alas, we live in a small community and everyone will know soon enough which the family has been excluded from Congregation Etz Chayim. If the family in question attended synagogue weekly, then it will be very obvious to synagogue regulars when this family is missing for weeks. Will this family try to join a different synagogue? Time will tell.
