The URJ Resolution on Iraq
Sermon, March 2, 2007
Rabbi Bruce Kadden

At the Union for Reform Judaism’s biennial convention in Houston this past November, delegates passed a resolution on the war in Iraq which has generated some controversy.  A group called the Republican Jewish Coalition responded with full-page advertisements in the New York Times, The Forward and other secular and Jewish publications calling the resolution “misleading and wrong.”

These ads, in turn, prompted criticism and responses in letters from Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the URJ and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center (who, by the way, will be our scholar in residence the first weekend in February. 

This evening I want to speak about the resolution and response to help us better understand it.  I have made a few copies of the resolution, as well as posted the full-page ad and have listed web-sites in the orders of worship where you can download them.

First of all, let me say that the URJ regularly issues resolutions on a wide variety of topics.  The resolution on Iraq was one of 17 approved at the Houston biennial; among the others were resolutions opposing the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court; on global poverty; engaging the religious right; opposing divestment and other economic tactics directed toward Israel.  The URJ, as any religious organization, has a right, and many would argue a responsibility, to take stands on issues of the day.

The URJ, of course, does not claim to speak for every Reform Jew.  There is, however, no reason to believe that the delegates to the biennial do not represent the opinions of the Reform Jewish community.  Congregations have voting delegates proportional to their size.  The vote on this resolution, after significant debate, was overwhelming. 

The resolution itself begins with a long introduction, outlining the history of the URJ position on the war in Iraq.  In 2002, the URJ’s executive committee adopted a position supporting military action in Iraq under a number of conditions, including congressional approval, exploring all non-military means to resolve the situation, and expressing a strong preference for international, rather than unilateral action.

The resolution then goes on to discuss the war and issues that it has raised, including the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the lack of an adequate supply of flak jackets and Armored Personnel Carriers, and the rising cost of the war.

It then discusses public opinion, which is now decisively opposed to the war and in favor of bringing American troops home safely and quickly, and the various groups and coalitions that have been actively opposing the war, distancing itself from ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) and similar groups which have espoused anti-Israel rhetoric, but aligning itself with other groups that have taken more moderate positions.

After this introduction the resolution offers these action points:

--it commends those who are serving in the war, demanding that they receive needed equipment and that those who are wounded “receive the highest quality medical care available;”

--it calls upon the Bush administration “to provide more transparency regarding all aspects of the war and a clear exit strategy…with specific goals for troop withdrawal…in a way that maintains stability in the nation and empowers Iraqi forces to provide for their national security;”

--it calls upon Congress to provide “more diligent oversight of the war” as well as to promote efforts in support of withdrawing troops;

--it calls upon all nations to support Iraq’s democratically elected government, support the development of its security force and assist in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure;

--it condemns violations of the Geneva Conventions “including torture and abuse of prisoners and detainees in U.S. custody;”

--and it condemns those who “use opposition to the war…as justification for anti-Israel efforts.

Overall, it is a well-thought out and reasonable resolution, which I believe reflects where most in the Jewish and general community are with regard to the war.  I can certainly understand why some would oppose the resolution and align themselves with the administration, just as some might feel that the resolution does not go far enough.

However, I do think that the full page ad of the Republican Jewish Coalition is misleading.  Its headline is “Freedom is worth fighting for,” implying that the resolution disagrees with that premise.  It also says that the URJ does not speak for us, but many of those listed do not have any connection to Reform congregations.  In fact, Rabbi Saperstein wrote a letter in response to this ad raising these and other points.

More disturbing was an opinion column by Mona Charen, entited “Jewish useful idiots” which called the URJ arrogant, obtuse and illogical.  Now, I suppose it is the job of such columnists to be controversial, but her rhetoric seemed particularly harsh.

Indeed, the resolution itself calls for Reform congregations to provide a venue to discuss these issues; the responses that I have seen do not promote a thoughtful discussion of the issues, but instead tends to polarize and close off opportunities for thoughtful debate.

Some have even criticized the placing of such an ad in the New York Times as inappropriate, arguing that we should keep our disagreements within our community.  I disagree with such criticism.  The resolution itself received national coverage, as one would expect, so responding in a national publication is appropriate.  It is not the response, but its content that I find problematic.

The war in Iraq is a complex issue, with no clear, easy solution.  I urge you to read the URJ resolution, as well as material opposing it, so that you can decide for yourself the appropriate position, and then act on that position.  In this way, we will make our voices heard on this very important matter.

[back to list of sermons]

[back to top]