Iraq War: RJC vs. URJ = Pee Wee vs. Arnold

On Monday, the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) leadership meets to consider a resolution calling for a “timetable for the phased and expeditious withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq” and comes down against the Bush administration’s “escalation” of U.S. troop strength there. The policy statement, however, doesn’t demand that Congress cut off funding for the war. [For more details, see our post of March 6.]

Nonetheless, the Republican Jewish Coalition [RJC] is shocked — shocked! — writes James D. Besser in the March 9 edition of the New York Jewish Week. (Click {here} to read his article.)

According to Besser, an RJC spokesman sputtered that the Reform movement is being “hijacked by politically motivated efforts to undermine the war on terrorism.”

But Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, isn’t fazed. Recent polls, he notes, show American Jews overwhelmingly oppose the war [see our post of Feb. 28.], and two-thirds of non-Democratic Jews currently line up against the war.

Ira Forman, director of the NJC’s counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council, gets the prize for pith. “I don’t get it,” he says.

If you read the polls these guys don’t even represent the views of most Republican Jews. Now they are picking a fight with the largest Jewish denomination in America — it’s like Pee Wee Herman trying to pick a fist fight with Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

— Barnett Axelrad

Union for Reform Judaism considers a resolution on the war in Iraq

The Union for Reform Judaism’s Executive Committee has circulated to congregational rabbis and presidents an advance copy of a proposed resolution on the U.S. war in Iraq, which is scheduled to be considered on March 14. (A copy can be downloaded in the form of a Microsoft Word .doc file by clicking here.)

Though the URJ does not take a pacifist position with regard to war, the resolution's discussion of “Jewish Values Regarding Rules for War” provides persuasive ethical considerations for determining that U.S. military action in Iraq has been misbegotten from its start.

Here are some highlights of the resolution:

Noting that its reading of Jewish tradition “offers ethical analysis as to the causes justifying the use of force (‘just cause’),” the resolution notes:

Nonetheless, just because a government has a right to do something does not make what it does right — or wise. Further, meeting one just war norm does not justify the violation of others.

. . .

The halachah is clear about the need to pursue vigorously peaceful options before the use of force could be justified (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Melachim 6:1). This was a requirement that the 2002 URJ Executive committee decision called for and one that the 9/11 Commission found we had failed to achieve.

. . .

In conclusion, our failure to pursue all reasonable alternatives to war, to mobilize the kind of broad-based international cooperation we had in the first Gulf War, the array of faulty justifications for war offered, the woeful lack of planning for the aftermath of the traditional warfare component of the war, the disgraceful failure to protect the civilian infrastructure (bal tashchit), the abuses of prisoners, the alarming devastation wrought on civilians — all these and more raise significant abuses and failures of Jewish just war standards.

The URJ’s proposed statement concludes with the following resolutions to:

1. Reaffirm the principles stated in the 2005 Resolution on the War in Iraq, particularly:

A. Commending our service women and men (and their families) who have answered duty's call and served our nations honorably…and support generous benefits for them;

B. Encouraging the involvement and support of the international community towards a working democratic Iraqi government and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure;

C. Ensuring the United States government provides sufficient armor, supplies, and security for our troops through the completion of phased withdrawal;

D. Providing diligent congressional oversight of the war and related expenditures;

E. Ensuring that the financial burden of the war falls not just on the poor and on future generations, but be shared equitably;

F. Immediately begin the process of phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq now that Iraqi Parliamentary elections have occurred; and

2. Call on President Bush to:

A. Clearly set and announce a timetable for the phased and expeditious withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq;

B. Include the estimated cost of the war in the annual budget request and not through emergency supplemental bills; and

3. Oppose an escalation in troop strength; and

4. Call upon the United States and Canadian governments and the international community to:

A. Encourage Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Malaki to resume reconciliation talks with the full range of Iraq's political leaders;

B. Actively support a dialogue between Iraq and all its neighbors, especially in regards to helping to stop civil strife and terrorism and helping finance Iraqi job programs and reconstruction.

— Posted by Adam Simms

News Caravan - Stories You Might Have Missed

IRAN

Nuclear Watch

Eric Hundman of the Center for Defense Information, writing on the Wire Blog Network’s Danger Room – What’s Next in National Security blog, reported 2/23/07 that the International Atomic Energy Association reported the previous day that despite a UN Security Council resolution, Iran continues its uranium enrichment program.

However, Hundman noted, the IAEA also reported:

First, Iran has only enriched uranium up to 4.2% U-235, just about the level required to fuel a proliferation-resistant light-water reactor. This is still far below the threshold required to make nuclear weapons (20% U-235 is the minimum required to make a weapon, but most use about 90%). Unfortunately, just because Iran hasn’t enriched further doesn’t mean they can’t; the report says nothing about possible technical problems.

Second, the IAEA’s inventory of nuclear material at the Natanz pilot plant is “consistent with” the inventory supplied by the Iranians themselves. This gives some assurance that nuclear material is not being diverted to secret facilities. However, the main (underground) enrichment facility is not mentioned.

Third, while Iran has “declined to agree at this stage” to the use of remote monitoring, in the interim it has allowed “frequent inspector access” to the main underground enrichment plant at Natanz – the IAEA has eyes there, occasionally at least. This agreement will satisfy the IAEA only until the number of centrifuges reaches 500.

Fourth, there seem to be only about 500 fully installed centrifuges at Natanz – if all of them were running at full speed it would take about six years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. However, Iran claims it has roughly 350 more “in final stages of installation;” this seems to be happening sooner than many experts expected.

Fifth, the IAEA has found no indications that spent fuel is being reprocessed for plutonium, at any of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities. However, construction continues at Iran’s planned heavy-water reactor, which could produce fuel for nuclear weapons. These are some pretty dim glimmers of hope, but they do indicate that some time remains before Iran will even have enough material to build a nuclear weapon. Given some hints that sanctions and financial pressure might be starting to work, who knows -- there might even be enough time to reach some sort of agreement.

War Watch

Haaretz 2/24/07 quoted Britain’s Daily Telegraph's report that “Israel is negotiating with the United States over permission for an ‘air corridor’ over Iraq should an attack on that country's nuclear facilities become necessary.”

Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh denied Saturday that Israel was conducting such negotiations.

Meanwhile, The Times of London 2/24/07 reported that Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair said “publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran.” Blair was quoted in a BBC interview on Thursday as saying: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

The Times also reported that U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates “who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.” In addition, it reported that “Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical."

IRAQ

US Casualties Watch

The Huffington Post reported via Associated Press correspondent Michelle Roberts’ story of 2/23/07 that:

...nearly 800 civilians working under contract to the Pentagon have been killed and more than 3,300 hurt doing jobs normally handled by the U.S. military, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.

Exactly how many of these employees doing the Pentagon's work are Americans is uncertain. But the casualty figures make it clear that the Defense Department's count of more than 3,100 U.S. military dead does not tell the whole story.

. . .

Employees of defense contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwater and Wackenhut cook meals, do laundry, repair infrastructure, translate documents, analyze intelligence, guard prisoners, protect military convoys, deliver water in the heavily fortified Green Zone and stand sentry at buildings -- often highly dangerous duties almost identical to those performed by many U.S. troops.

Speak-Up Watch

JTA reported 2/20/07:

The Union of Reform Judaism’s executive committee, due to meet March 12, is considering a resolution to oppose Bush’s troop surge in blunt terms. Reform leaders will raise the issue during the Jewish Council for Public Affairs plenum that begins Feb. 25.

The URJ draft resolves to “oppose an escalation in troop strength.” “Escalation” is a word the White House has said is loaded and has urged others to avoid in describing the additional 21,000 troops Bush has assigned to the region.

. . .

A resolution opposing the war, passed overwhelmingly at the Reform movement´s biennial general assembly in late 2005 was less confrontational, calling for the United States to begin considering a withdrawal.

ISRAEL

Settlement Watch

Peace Now in Israel (Shalom Achshav) 2/21/07 reported that the number of settlements did not grow during 2006. However, Interior Ministry figures put the number of settlers at 268,000, a growth of 5% during the last year. Peace Now noted that growth in the settler population remains steady.

The number of outposts stands at 102. No new outposts were established during the previous year, and 1 was dismantled. Approximately 2,000 settlers currently live in outposts. Peace Now stated that despite the government's commitment to delimitate six outposts, they did not stop growing in 2006 and they are now building permanent housing units. In May 2006, in response to a petition filed by Peace Now with the Supreme Court, the government promised to present an overall outpost evacuation plan. The court is scheduled to discuss the petition again in March.

Click here to read the full report.

-- Posted by Barnett Axelrad