Jews Uniting to End the War and Heal America - Conference | War and Peace

Jews Uniting to End the War and Heal America - Conference

Published November 25, 2008 @ 12:58PM PT

This past weekend I attended Jews United to End the War, organized by the Shalom Center, Workmen's Circle and endorsed by many of the other upstanding Jewish groups I respect. Overall it was a successful effort, with speakers from a wide range of backgrounds covering many of the relevant issues. That being said, there are critiques one can make, in the spirit of advancing the peace camp within the Jewish community.

The Huge Irony

Among the truths that emerged was the analysis of the mainstream Jewish community's logic before the war began. We now know that the Israeli leadership was opposed to the war. Sharon told Bush a few things, including:

Make sure you have an exit strategy.

Plan for guerrilla warfare.

We aren't really in favor of the war, because Iraq is not the biggest threat; Iran is.

Bush listened respectfully, and then asked Sharon to remain silent about his views and about the war in general, so as not to complicate matters.

While this was going on, two groups gathered their rhetorical missiles and prepared for combat. The Jewish right wing, representing less than a quarter of Jewish public opinion, loudly championed the war, and claimed that it was in Israel's interest. They were able to connect the ‘democratize the Arab world' meme that Netanyahu advanced in the 90s and bring it home to the White House in a full neo-con circle.

Much of the radical left was advancing the story that Israel was the reason why Bush wanted to go to war. They often continue to claim that U.S. imperial adventures in the Middle East were intertwined with U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, making both issues actually one issue with two heads. Finally, they saw opposition to the war in Iraq as an opportunity to build organizations and movements that would promote a political agenda far beyond the immediate necessity of ending the war.

The leadership of the generally liberal, mainstream Jewish community looked right, looked left, and mostly decided to passively go along with the right. They did it by remaining silent, voicing criticism in mild, hushed tones, refused to join broad anti-war coalitions, and exerted pressure within the community to stay the hell away from those willing to speak out on the injustice of the war.

[Side note: I remember speaking with very well known reform rabbi and environmental leader in the DC area. He told me about a meeting of rabbis with a senior official from the Israeli Embassy where, in grave, authoritative tones, he heard how Iraq was actually a severe threat. These kinds of briefings were taking place across the country, and while they didn't necessarily persuade everyone to hawkishly support the war, they drove war opponents into silence for many years.]

So what is the irony? That the war was AGAINST Israel's real interests, and much of the Jewish community refused to oppose the war because just maybe, Israel would benefit. After all, Saddam was a nasty dictator who rewarded the families of suicide bombers with cash - no one would be sad to see him toppled.

The cowardly silence of liberal, mainstream Jewish leaders who often did oppose the war is the perfect complement to the arrogance and undeserved clout of the unrepresentative Jewish right. Together they turned the Jewish voice - so strong in support of gay rights, the environment, civil rights and social justice - into mush. So many of the religious leaders I want desperately to respect stood aside when the butcher knives were being sharpened, stood aside when the blood began to flow, and to this very day have never been held to account for that silence.

[sidenote: the Jewish left is so damned pleased that some mainstream groups finally joined them, that they don't want to bring up the moral responsibility angle. Gotta embrace the peacenik turtles - we don't want them retreating back into their shells, do we?]

In some ways, it's bigger than the black mark of supporting the Israeli boot as it stands on the Palestinian face. After all, in that conflict, there really are two sides, and one of them is family, so a lot of the nonsense makes sense on a gut level. Some Palestinians really do engage in terrorism. But Saddam never had WMD's, and YOU KNEW IT.

Now, the representatives of the Reform Movement who attended might disagree with some of this screed. After all, before the war they wrote a document in which they expressed doubt that it would be a ‘just war' unless Bush exhausted ‘all options' before launching the attack. They joined Win Without War, the coalition whose website appears to be defunct. Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center expressed what looked like pride over the decision in 2005 to make a formal statement against the war.

This post is kind of long, so I'll wrap it up and give a shout out to Jeremy Ben-Ami of J-Street, who was smart, insightful, and informative. There's a lot more I could report back from this conference, - why not take a look at the MondoWeiss blog and see what he wrote?

Share this Post

Comments (6)

thanks for the update on what happened, I wanted to be there, but am being held hostage by a 15 month old girl.

Posted by kaphtziel hamalakh on 11/25/2008 @ 01:14PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by kaphtziel
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
1. Palestinians have engaged in 1/10 the terrorism Israelis have. Israeli terrorism is supported by U.S. religious and governmental bodies to the tune of billions of dollars. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who attacked his neighbors a couple of times, and no doubt he caused the deaths of more people (mostly when he was our ally) but he didn't support terrorism anywhere near as much or attack neighboring countries as many times as Israel.

2. You state categorically that the war on Iraq was against Israel's interest. There's no real evidence that militarily Israel didn't gain by having the U.S. bully Iraqis in a similar way to how Israel has been bullying it's neighbors. A divided Iraq makes for much easier infiltration from Israel - just like Lebanon's civil war allowed Israel a pretty strong foothold in that country. Bad for Iraqis and Lebanese, but good strategically speaking for Israel. And what's this about Iran being a threat? Nonsense. Why are you even giving the least credence to the idea that the U.S. should make war on Iran for Israel's sake anyway?

3. I don't personally know a single member of the Jewish community who was in favor of the war. I know few members of the radical left who believe that support for Israel was the reason for going to war on Iraq. Almost everyone says it's oil and corporate profits. "Much of the radical left" "advancing the story that Israel was the reason Bush wanted to go to war" seems to be the kind of tautological thinking I'd expect from you.

I guess I should leave you to your Jewish family in Israel, those who claim supreme privileges, including the power of life and death over anyone who protests against the Jewish state, or just happens to be living in land coveted by Zionists, the freedom to commit mass murder, theft, and expulsion of non-Jews from their homes. Such as Zionists have always claimed. You can congratulate each other on your superior morality, and really, I can't do anything to stop mutual encouragement of delusions, so I should probably stay out of it.

Posted by Kay Swen on 11/25/2008 @ 10:40PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Kay
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
A couple of things that seemingly contradict each other are stated above. One the one hand it is stated that Sharon told Bush--at least this how I understand the statement as written--that Israel did not consider Iraq as a threat--third bullet
"We aren't really in favor of the war, because Iraq is not the biggest threat; Iran is." Further down in the side note it is stated:
"He told me about a meeting of rabbis with a senior official from the Israeli Embassy where, in grave, authoritative tones, he heard how Iraq was actually a severe threat."
Supposedly the Embassy official is not speaking in his private capacity but as a representative of the Israeli government. So which statement is true?
Ami Isseroff-- Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/clean_break.htm -- writes:
" Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction."
Again did Israel consider Iraq to be a threat or not?
A document prepared by some of the prominent neo-cons who figured prominently in the Bush Administration advising Netanyahu called for the regime change in Iraq Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} “This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” (Emphasis added by me.)
Is it far fetched then to assume that there was and still is a convergence of interests between the Bush neocon administration and Israel's strategic interests in the region?
In my opinion it is very short sighted to look at events from a very narrow view point and dissociate them from other events because in reality this dissociation leads to faulty conclusions. The war in Iraq is not all that dissociated from the attempt at dominating the Palestinians and setting the stage for the neocon agenda as stated in their advice in "A Clean Break" where it is clearly stated that Israel should forget the formula of "land for Peace" and reconfigure the Middle East to serve the interests of Israel. Is it then far fetched to link the issue of Palestine to that of Iraq? Is it a surprise to anyone actually that when those people had a ready and willing ear in the White House they would carryout their plan which they have formulated years earlier? The problem is that the liberal crowd in this country is asleep and is certainly complicit in the events which led to this war. By refusing to address the issues because "we don't want to alienate the Jewish population and we don't want to be labelled anti-semites" or "we do care about Israel and its security" they allow the manipulation of US foreign policy by likes of AIPAC and its various arms and tentacles.
Yes there is a link between Isarel, Palestine and Iraq that is what most people in the Middle East believe not because they are anti-Jewish but because they are more aware of the collusion between Israel and the United States which has been going on for decades.

Posted by A N on 11/26/2008 @ 08:32AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by A
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I am terribly sorry for the formatting issues above with this paragraph.

Ami Isseroff-- Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/clean_break.htm -- writes:
" Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction."
Again did Israel consider Iraq to be a threat or not?
A document prepared by some of the prominent neo-cons who figured prominently in the Bush Administration advising Netanyahu called for the regime change in Iraq Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} “This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” (Emphasis added by me.)

It should be the following:
Ami Isseroff-- http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/clean_break.htm -- writes:
"Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction."
Again did Israel consider Iraq to be a threat or not?
A document prepared by some of the prominent neo-cons who figured prominently in the Bush Administration advising Netanyahu called for the regime change in Iraq “This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” (Emphasis added by me.)

Posted by A N on 11/26/2008 @ 08:41AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by A
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Netanyahu is the Israeli leader most closely associated with the Project for a New American Century and the neo-con plan to democratize the Middle East. He belonged to the losing faction within the Likud that was defeated by Sharon. Sharon actually took the step of splitting the Likud to create the new party Kadima.

It all serves to make another point clear: that Israeli politics can be convoluted. What does 'acting on behalf of Israel' mean when the Israeli leadership does not hold a single opinion about how best to serve its interests?

We know that Shraon did not support the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that he, and Israel, could not find at least some positive benefits from an overall negative action.

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/26/2008 @ 03:36PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charles
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Charles.

I have crossed swords with you, because I am basically pro-Palestinian, but, considering your natural bias (as a jew), I think that you have been very fair in your post and comment.

It's as if a christianist (which I once was, albeit a long while ago) was prepared to make radical concessions to what he was brought up to believe in ... not easy, e.g. coming to terms with the fact that the Crusades were a vicious and genocidal attack on Arabs/Islam, whilst equally persecuting jews for "having killed Jesus".

What a load of nonsense! But the theme goes on.

Do you seriously imagine that (let's say) the WASP empire of the US and the rump of the London Empire really give a stuff about jews and Israel?

Israel comprizes an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for projection of Washington force in the ME ... primarily to control oil supplies in the region.

In my view both you and Aref are wrong and are getting bogged-down in fine detail over the relatively simple fact that the Washington Empire could not survive wthout huge quantities of conventional oil, which happen to be mostly in the ME, which Israel is ideally positioned to project military power for ... like sundry forts were used to project Washington force against native Americans and the Mexican Empire, whilst the mainland Washington/US Empire was being established, from the original 13 colonial states put in place by the London Empire.

I really can't be bothered to explain. Either you know history, or you don't.

Either you know that the so-called "anglo-saxon-christianist" thrust has been to corrupt everyone, or you don't.

Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/27/2008 @ 07:32PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Gerry
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Charles is a nonprofit professional with 20 years of experience working with nonprofit organizations in Israel, Palestine and the U.S. For the past few years, he's been specializing in online organizing.