Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Rabbi Gurevitz' creative works: Podcast, blogs, videos and more

Category: J Street

Relational Judaism and Israel – Rosh Hashanah 2 2013 sermon

September 11, 2013 /

I thought long and hard about this morning’s sermon. ‘To speak, or not to speak’… that was the question. Rabbi Melissa Weintraub writes, ‘In rabbinic circles, one increasingly hears sentiments like, “I’m not going to get fired for my politics on gun control or health care, but I could get fired for just about anything I say about Israel.” Rabbi Scott Perlo has coined this, the “Death by Israel Sermon.” So perhaps I should have waited until after my contract is renewed but… but…

Last week, there was a vigorous debate on the email listserv of the ‘Rabbis Without Borders’ Fellowship of which I am a part as to whether to broach the subject of Israel during these High Holydays or not. It was largely recognized that, just because we have a large, captive audience before us during this season, that our congregants don’t come at this time of year to hear politically-charged position papers. That doesn’t mean that we can never speak of anything that also occupies space in the political realm, but that we must choose our approach and our timing with thought. What do we seek to achieve? Who will feel ostracized or left out of the one-way conversation in which we hold court?

First, let me say something about what I won’t be talking about. I won’t be talking about the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East. As a Rabbi, I take a keen interest in the unfolding of events. Like you, I am concerned about the unrest in Egypt and Syria. The images we have seen reflecting the effects of chemical weapons in Syria are horrific, and our hearts are surely feeling enormous pain at seeing the suffering of children and hopelessness of a situation that has no easy solutions and seems unlikely to be calming any time soon.

While the situation may provide an opening for Israel and the Palestinians to work on making progress toward peace with less interference from nearby Arab countries, the possibility of violence spreading or being redirected, possibly with encouragement from Iran, also makes this a very uncertain time for Israel. The one thing we can say with any certainty is that we are witnessing change on a scale that we might never have imagined just a few years ago. And so, far from feeling that this round of peace talks is just the ‘same old, same old’, we should be heartened by the possibility of change there too, just as we have witnessed such enormous change in the region in a relatively short period of time.

I do not have the expertise to offer you a better analysis of the current situation than any you can read for yourself in the Jerusalem Report, Ha’aretz, or any other source penned by reporters or expert analysts. So that is not what I’m going to focus on this morning, important though it is.

This entire period of the High Holydays my focus is on Relational Judaism. In the book with this title, Rabbi Ron Wolfson outlines many aspects of the relational work that we should be doing in Jewish community: at the level of Self (developing personal spirituality), family, with friends, a sense of relationship with Jewish living, with Jewish community, connection to a sense of peoplehood, a relationship to Israel, a sense of global connections and, ultimately, our relationship with God. So it is evident to me that there is a relational way to talk about Israel and that, in the context of the work that I want us to do together as a community, this is an important conversation to have. And I believe that if we truly think about Israel, talk about Israel, and engage with each other on Israel from a relational perspective, we can go an awful lot further with the conversation than might otherwise be the case.

So this morning I’d like to share some stories to exemplify what I mean by a relational approach to Israel. These are stories about hope and about possibility. They don’t in and of themselves bring us peace in the Middle East. They don’t necessarily give us the answers that have eluded so many for so long. But, at a time when dialogue about peace between Israel and the Middle East often comes with the declaration ‘no preconditions,’ I believe that the relational approach is a precondition for true peace.

In his book, ‘Relational Judaism’, Rabbi Ron Wolfson discusses our relationship with Israel as one of the vital aspects of relationship building that needs to be deepened in Jewish communal life. He reports on the impact of ten years of programming in one congregation in St. Louis that sent their 15 year olds on a Summer-long program to live with Israeli youth in a Moshav in the 1970s. At the 30th reunion of those who had participated in the program, they surveyed the more than 300 people who had participated over the years. This revealed that the experience had created a ‘reference relationship’ with Israel that many respondents claimed was one of the most important influences in their lives, evidenced by many of the now-adult participants maintaining regular contact with their Israeli ‘families’.

Even with all of the options available today for teens, families and adults, 59% of adult American Jews have never been to Israel. Of the 41% who have made the trip, 19% have only been once. Only 36% of Reform Jews have visited Israel. 31% of American Jews say they have no interest in visiting Israel.

And yet, the same survey that produced these numbers found that 71% of those surveyed agreed that ‘caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.’ I know that a trip to Israel is expensive. But for those who are able to take other kinds of expensive trips, putting Israel on the priority list is one of the most transformative things you can do. The Federation is running a trip this November, and I would love to gather enough congregants together to lead our own trip in the next 2-3 years.  
Short of a trip to Israel, it is not easy to create opportunities for meaningful relationship-building with Israel located here in the US, but it is certainly possible. Our Israeli emissary program is one example of success – our kids build genuine relationships with the two young adults who come and serve our community every year. Many keep in touch with them once they have left via Facebook. For our younger kids, this is often the first time that some of their stereotypes about Israel and Israelis are challenged as they come face-to-face with a real-life Israeli who brings their love of their country with them.

When we ‘know’ Israel only through the cable news stories, and the politics of the peace process, it can be polarizing and complex. We want it all to be nice and neat. Only knowing Israel in this way is not an easy way to feel connected. For some, through their involvement in organizations such as AIPAC or J-Street, the connection can be made, and that is largely because of the conventions that both organizations run superbly, providing many opportunities to meet and talk with others. And both organizations seek our involvement so that we do our part to ensure that a strong relationship continue to exist between the US and Israel. But those calls to action can fall on deaf ears if we haven’t yet made that connection for ourselves.

So I want to share some stories with you. Stories of conversations and experiences that I have had. For me, these have been my way into feeling connected with Israel.

Just the other week I was asking one of our Israeli congregants about her memories of Sukkot in Israel. Listening to her describe the family and neighborhood traditions, I was reminded of my own first experience of being in Israel at Sukkot, hearing singing coming from the Sukkah on the balcony of the apartment across from mine, smelling the foods, and seeing everyone out in the neighborhood to visit with each other. The conversation was a window into an experience, with smells and tastes. Its an experience we want to taste at our Israeli-style Succot celebration this year, providing opportunities for all of us to hear stories, see images, and share an experience that brings Israeli culture to the fore.

I have always made it my mission, when visiting in Israel, to find opportunities to speak with Arab Israelis and Palestinians. I spent a year in Israel, arriving there shortly after the 2nd intifada began. The old city was quiet, and the shopkeepers had plenty of time to chat. I spent extended visits over mint tea with some of them, listening to their stories of what was happening in the West Bank, and the conversations taking place in East Jerusalem. I even traveled into the West Bank and two refugee camps, led by one of those who I had befriended over time, to see things for myself. It opened my eyes to another perspective that, when we only do ‘Jewish Israel’ we can never find. And, whatever you may think of that perspective, my understanding of what the conflict is about and what both sides want was enormously deepened by having taken the time to sit down and have those conversations.

Back in the US, it also gave me access to the Arab Muslim population that was involved in interfaith work with my congregation and others in my last community in Bridgeport. They invited me to speak about the Jewish and Israeli perspective on the peace process, because they knew that I had listened to their perspective, and we had a mutual respect and, eventually, love for each other, even though we disagreed when new events in the conflict arose. The bridge building we were able to do locally was built on friendship and trust first, and is something I dearly hope to develop again over time in our larger community here.

In my own family, there is a broad range of perspective and experience. Suri’s sister made aliyah to Israel when she was 19. Her husband taught for many years at the Technion and his column is published regularly in the Jerusalem Report. For many years they have been involved with the Masorti – the Conservative – Jewish community in Haifa. They have 4 adult children. 3 are progressive and secular.

One became ultra-Orthodox, is a physician and is married to a Rabbi who teaches in a yeshiva. They have 8 children. For a number of years they lived in a settlement in Gaza, until the evacuation several years ago. As you might imagine, there are many perspectives around that Shabbat dinner table. But there is respect, listening and learning, that takes place when complex issues come up for conversation.

One cannot help but emerge from these kinds of discursive and relationship-based conversations with a very different kind of personal connection to Israel and the people of Israel. One gains entry into the diversity of perspective and experience of Israel’s citizens. There can be no two-dimensional analysis or understanding of what is happening or what will happen – it is complex and multi-dimensional, and ever-changing. When one is tempted to make statements about Israel, the perspectives gained from relationship-based conversations with different people brings about a little more humility – an awareness of what we know and what we don’t.

But more than anything, taking the time to listen to Israelis and Palestinians, here, abroad, online, at conferences or Jewish learning workshops, with shopkeepers or neighbors you may know whose families come from the Middle East – opening the conversation in order to listen and get to know the other – is transformative. Here in Westborough we have neighbors from Syria – they need our concern and compassion. The JDC (Jewish Joint Distribution Committee), supported by us individually and through our Federation, is doing work on the ground to provide emergency supplies to Syrian refugees in Jordan. You need to know that the Jewish community worldwide is doing that. And so do our neighbors. We have neighbors from Palestine. We have neighbors from Lebanon. We have neighbors from Israel. Our kids are going to school with their kids. We shop in their stores. We work in offices with them. So, take a seat and make a friend in these places too.

Perhaps you can’t go to Israel this November with Federation. Perhaps you’d like to wait to travel with your congregation, or perhaps you’ll be inspired to start making plans for a family trip. In December, our Union for Reform Judaism Biennial conference will be held in San Diego. There are quite a few of us already planning to go. ARZA, the Reform Zionist Association, will be celebrating their 36th anniversary there. Ruth Calderon, an exceptional scholar who started a Talmud yeshiva for secular Israelis and is now a Member of the Knesset, will be teaching and speaking there. And other Israeli voices will be present among the keynote speakers and the musicians. Consider joining us there.

Whether with neighbors, fellow congregants, at conferences, or even reading widely online … a fully rounded and deeply grounded Jewish identity includes a relationship with Israel. So let’s not shy away from the conversations. We don’t have to debate, and we don’t have to argue. We just need to listen. Let the conversations begin.

A Two State Solution – Matters of Perspective

April 22, 2010 /

I’d like to bring your attention to the blog of Professor Stephen Healey, a dean at the University of Bridgeport.  His prior position was as Associate professor of World Religions and it was due to his expertise in that field that I originally met Stephen.  We both spoke on a panel at a World Religions day at Greens Farms Academy, Westport last year, me sharing some core beliefs of Judaism and he sharing some core teachings of Buddhism.  He subsequently visited our Comparative Religion class at Merkaz, our Hebrew High School program, this year, to introduce core concepts in Buddhism to students there.


Earlier this week I spoke at the University of Bridgeport on Jewish perspectives on a two-state peace in the Middle East.  While I offered some of my own perspectives on what such a peace may look like, based on some pragmatic assessments on what Israel might or might not ever be willing to contemplate as part of a peace settlement, I also attempted to convey a range of Israeli and Jewish perspectives, covering more left and right wing points of views, secular and religious Zionist perspectives.  In doing so, my goal was to share, before an almost entirely non-Jewish audience, what the Israeli side of the issue looks like, in its diversity, and the kind of beliefs, concerns, and demands that ‘the other side’ needs to be aware of and understand if we are to be able to move forward toward peace.  Professor Healey was the respondent to my presentation, before we took some questions from the audience during which I was pleased to hear respectful and thoughtful critique and alternative points of views from members of the Muslim community that our Tent of Abraham program has begun to establish trusting friendships with.  The tone of the conversation was very much about being able to express and hear this variety of perspectives, without anyone feeling the need to ‘win’ the debate.


I look forward to being able to continue the learning and dialog in contexts such as these.


Below is Professor Healey’s summary of the evening.  You can read more from his thoughtful blog, RITN: Religion in the News here:

Tonight in an event at the University of Bridgeport, I had the good pleasure to hear Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz’s views of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Gurevitz serves as a rabbi at Congregation B’nai Israel in Bridgeport, Connecticut.


Gurevitz began her presentation with a reflection on perspective. She argued that, depending on one’s perspective, the founding of the modern state of Israel is either a great blessing or a great catastrophe. Neither perspective, she said, is truer than the other; both are true insofar as they define the perspective from which the founding of Israel is viewed.


She expressed strong support for the two-state solution, which she described as a return to the borders of 1967, with some additional land swaps to be negotiated. For that to be possible from a Jewish perspective, she argued, security issues would need to be dealt with in a decisive fashion. There is an existential feeling of the threat of violence among Israelis. Israelis needs to be convinced that violence is contained and will not spread as a result of a return of territory. She added that religious and political ideologies make accomplishing this quite difficult. She also identified three additional issues that will make the path to peace a challenging way: that there should be no preconditions to beginning a dialogue about the two-state solution, that regional issues are interrelated with Israel-Palestine, and that from a Jewish perspective Palestinian refugees cannot be settled permanently in Israel. Tough news, but this is where real dialogue about this issue begins.

She concluded by holding out the prospect for peace, and referred to J Street, which is dedicated to finding a secure Middle East Peace. J Street also conducts polling to identify Jewish attitudes toward issues related to peace. She asked the audience to seek to identify a broad range of Jewish perspectives, and not to conclude that one view—even if it does receives most media attention—adequately represents the feelings, fears, hopes, and aspirations of the entire Jewish community.


Rabbi Gurevitz’s approach demonstrated, at least for me, that being committed to a perspective does not preclude, but may even facilitate, engagement with other points of view.

J Street & Lech L’cha

November 4, 2009 /

Rabbi Jim Prosnit, Senior Rabbi at Congregation B’nai Israel, offered the following thoughts on J Street in the light of his experience at the conference at Shabbat services last week. We share his reflections here. This coming Shabbat the blog moves away from our J Street reflections and back to thoughts on Jewish mindfulness and meditation, introduced last week.

It may come as a surprise to some of you to hear that I had a big problem with President Obama’s speech at Cairo University last June. Now, I did not have a problem that he spoke there, or that he spoke there before he spoke and visited Israel. I think it was important, vital for him to engage the Islamic world the way that he did. The problem that I had was the way he categorized the founding of the state of Israel.

Listen to what he said: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust… Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”

What’s wrong with that? On one hand nothing. It was good to see him use that forum to take on Holocaust deniers and those who invoke vile stereotypes of Jews. But my problem was that the president explained the existence of the State of Israel and the import and love that Jews have for the land of Israel in the context of a homeland emanating from a tragic history.

Now admittedly many Jews do that too. We even have programs that send our kids from the gas chambers of Europe to the streets of Tel Aviv – conveying to them that Israel’s existence is centered on the Shoah, the Holocaust.

And what’s the danger. First, we come to see Israel only in terms of being a haven for distressed Jews displaced after World War II and in so doing we justify the Palestinian view that they too are victims of the Shoah; In other words Europeans sought atonement for their treatment of the Jews by establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, thus displacing the Arab population and making them the ultimate victims of the Holocaust.

For the essence of a Jewish state, Zionism needs to go well beyond a homeland for suffering Jews and needs to take us back to the beginnings of Judaism – to this week’s Torah portion in fact. God’s call to Abraham is wrapped up and tied to the sacredness of land. Abraham is to leave home not because he and his people are persecuted, and not because enemies threaten to destroy him, but because God has another vision for him and his descendants. Their very identity and sense of peoplehood, their spirituality and faith is tied up in a sense of place. And it has been that way ever since. It did not begin with Herzl in the 1890’s nor with the end of the war in1945. The yearning has been a constant of not just 2 millennia, but closer to 4.

Of course the unfolding story in the Bible and throughout Jewish history are accounts of the glory, challenges and pitfalls of living in the land and what will happen to us if we squander God’s gift. And that leads me to one final point in these brief words this evening.

I believe that the concept of land and the reality of a Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel is crucial to the Jewish experience and the Jewish people and to fulfilling the Divine promise. But I also believe that a precise definition of what that land is to look like, how its dimensions and borders are determined has and needs to be drawn by contemporary political realities. Settlement of all the land the Bible describes at varying points, to me has never been the spiritual mandate.

With that in mind, as some of you are aware Rabbi Gurevitz and seven or eight other members of the congregation participated in the first JStreet conference earlier this week.

An organization that has received a fair amount of criticism, much of it unwarranted I feel, because it seeks to promote a Jewish and democratic Israel and sees a two state solution as the best path to that end. It refuses to believe that credentials for loving Israel belong only to those on the right and to those who imply that the more right wing you are the more pro Israel you are.

With that said, I also feel that JStreet is at a crossroads very early on in its young existence. It was pretty impressive that 1500 people attended a conference run by an organization a year and a half old. It obviously touched a nerve among pro Israel pro peace folks that brought many from across the country together in Washington. But while I believe that most of those who attended share the perspective of the JStreet leaders there were definitely attendees who were peace activists first and only marginally lovers of Israel. If the tent of JStreet is stretched so wide as to allow non- Zionists in, then it will not be the voice that I and I believe many others are looking for in the debate within the American Jewish community and within in Israel.

As the land is varied and rich so is the debate. Loving the land, supporting the people is a constant; determining what that means in the real politick is a subject for pluralistic voices both in Israel and in the debate here at home. No doubt there will be opportunities to speak and to engage you in the conversation. 

Reflections on the J Street Conference, Part II.

October 30, 2009 /
Three sessions in particular focused on the actual process of dialogue, offering thoughtful presentations on how to ensure that we have open, engaging and inclusive dialogue about Israel in our home communities. 
One, which I missed, by which was recorded in one of Rachel Barenblat’s blog reports, here, reflected on how delicately many rabbis feel they need to tread when speaking about Israel in their congregations and communities, and offered models for creating safe space and open dialogue that can help everyone feel more connected to Israel by not shutting down and shutting out voices that we may disagree with. The session began with Rabbi David Cooper who, among other things, talked about Project Reconnections. He referred to a metaphor that he uses often when talking about the work of this intra-communal dialogue project – that many Jews, when talking about Israel, tend to fall into one of two camps – either ‘prophets’ or ‘guardians’. Prophets are those who ask “if we are only for ourselves, who are we,” and guardians ask “if we are not for ourselves, who will be?” (Both of these questions come from Hillel.) “If we rabbis are going to take a role in trying to harmonize the prophetic side of our congregations and the guardian side of our congregations, it’s going to be up to us to do it, and I recommend that we do that first, before we begin to share our own individual positions about Israel/Palestine.” Once we’ve created space for dialogue, then we also have a space to speak, as long as we do so with humility. And if we rabbis will not promote a culture of dialogue, who will; “and of course, if not now, then when?” 
I find this metaphor very useful, because I am especially interested in ways of thinking about having dialogue in our communities, and creating safe, open dialogue both within Jewish communities, and with other faith communities. It is important that we not be afraid to hold different opinions, and to share multiple perspectives gathered from many places. For most of us who are not experts, how else do we remain truly informed so that we can make informed choices about what kinds of initiatives to support? Aside from my own personal leanings on the issue of peace in the Middle East, I went to J Street to listen and learn. And, from that experience I can share and teach, and wish to help create safe space for open, respectful community dialogue about Israel and the Peace process. 
To that end, Rachel Barenblat’s report on a session entitled ‘How do we stop talking to ourselves’, which I attended,  was one that I found particularly helpful for articulating what we can be doing to broaden the conversation within our communities and across different communities. Three young women, working in different kinds of dialogue projects, both in the USA and facilitating dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, offered hope through the sharing of their grassroots experiences. Such projects may not offer the political strategies and motivations that are needed to advance the peace process at an international level, but every grassroots project that helps to shape and shift the culture and perceptions held of ‘the other’ by each side of the conflict can only benefit the larger goals. 
Another excellent review of a session where the emphasis was on building relations with others so that we can have genuinely open conversation across different communities that is respectful and safe focused on dialogue between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I attended this excellent session, which is also recorded in detail by Rachel Barenblat here.  This session focused on interfaith dialogue in the USA that does not shy away from discussing the Middle East, but does so in a way that builds bridges and understanding between people. 
Time and time again, the message was clear. We must build meaningful connections and relationships with those who see the world differently to us. In so doing, we see each other as fully human, and begin to genuinely care about each other. This creates a safe space into which we can express our beliefs, hopes, fears, and ideas, and remain open to listening to others. We may not convince or persuade others to adopt our positions, but perhaps the path to peace, beyond the political level, between two peoples who one day wish to live side by side, can only come when we are open to hearing each other’s truths.

Reflections on the J Street Conference, Part I.

October 28, 2009 /

Today, somewhat of a detour from the usual content of this blog, to offer a summary of perspectives and thoughts on the J Street Conference in Washington D.C.  J Street, in the lead-up to this conference, was the subject of intense commentary and debate, from those who were skeptical and critical of how supportive of Israel it truly was (the question we so often ask… ‘Is it good for the Jews?’) to those who were excited and energized by the opportunity to come together to hear a multiplicity of voices of those who care deeply about Israel and also care deeply about peace, human rights, and justice.
I wrote about J Street, and my decision to attend the conference, in my congregational bulletin article this month, which you can read here:
This is a longer than usual posting. I want to emphasize several things about the nature of my report, and my focus and interest in J Street. As I had stated in my bulletin article, I had gone to listen and learn. I want to try and offer a summary of what I heard, considered, and the questions that remain. While I do have my own leanings on the issue of how to proceed in the Peace Process, I offer thoughts and information, in keeping with my role as a Rabbi – a teacher, but I wish to model open discussion and dialogue, and not present a bully pulpit for a particular point of view.
I have very vivid memories of my first year as an undergraduate at University College London, attending a Jewish student meeting about Israel where a student who tried to express a critique of a particular policy of Israel was shouted down by others who challenged the young man’s Jewish and Zionist credentials. It was made quite clear that thoughtful consideration and debate about Israel was not welcome there, and I was so thoroughly put off that I never attend a Jewish student society event again in the 7 years I attended UCL (3 years of undergrad, and 4 years for my PhD). And so, when the J Street conference opened by inviting us to turn to those at our table (as it did on several other occasions during the conference) and encouraged us to share our backgrounds, our questions, our concerns, I felt that I had come to a place where real dialogue, openness, and a willingness to hear perspectives different to our own were truly welcomed. Not that all perspectives would ultimately be represented by J Street, the organization, but that the conference itself was much more than just a platform for advocating a very specific agenda; at this first gathering, there was an attempt to set a new tone and foster and encourage a culture of dialogue that could be taken back to our home communities.
The fact that, to a large extent, this culture of dialogue was modeled at the conference is so important especially, it became clear, for engaging young adults and college students on Israel. We heard that too many of them today feel as I did nearly 20 years ago when I attended that Jewish Student Society meeting – feeling hopeless, unsure of their support for some of Israel’s actions, ambivalent about their own personal relationship with Israel, and disenfranchised from the possibility of meaningful dialogue. While some have debated whether young American Jews have a ‘right’ to feel as they do (see Daniel Gordis’ recent posting here, for example), I am simply concerned that they feel this way and want to do whatever we can to bring the next generation back into the conversation. For that reason alone I applaud J Street and would, without question, attend again for an opportunity to continue to learn and think deeply about the strategic, political and moral choices facing Israel and the Palestinian people as we continue to strive to make peace.
There were a number of sessions that explicitly focused on the work of developing a culture of dialogue and openness to debate with regard to Israel and the peace process, which I’ll say more about in a second posting. But first, having spent several hours reading many blogs, online magazine and news articles, and followed many tweets on the conference, I offer my own, selective, distilling of some good places to watch video, read detailed reports on specific sessions, and dip into a broad array of articles that I have tried, in keeping with my belief in broad and open dialogue, to represent voices from the left, center and right.
You can watch full recordings of some of the most important sessions here:
Both major English-language versions of Israeli newspapers offer thoughtful overviews of the conference, here at Ha’aretz, and here at The Jerusalem Post. In particular, I read the Jerusalem Post piece as accurately portraying J Street as a centrist organization that is Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace, in favor of a two-state solution, but rightly also raises the issue of the presence of some who were further to the left at the conference, and recognizes the challenges facing J Street in trying to be too much of a broad tent while remaining effective in Washington.
For a truly wonderful service to the community, I thank Rachel Barenblat, who blogs as The Velveteen Rabbi, who wrote very complete reports on many of the sessions, without adding any additional commentary – outside of the vimeo videos posted by Isaac Luria, at the link already mentioned, her reports are the best way to hear almost first-hand what was said in these sessions.
There were many different voices present among the participants at J Street, including Muslim and Palestinian voices, primarily there because they were hopeful that they had found a partner for peace. As an illustration of how our willingness to listen to the voices that are never usually a part of a ‘Pro-Israel’ dialogue, I was particularly touched by this report from a Jewish participant’s encounter with a young Palestinian man from Gaza in the hallway during a break:
And, in the interest of balance so that we can hear the voice of concern for J Street’s position, this article from Ynet news makes some powerful arguments:
The Jewish Week (NYC Jewish newspaper) also provide an excellent summary of the spread of perspectives in view at the conference, the great successes of the conference, and the questions and challenges ahead.
Of particular interest to Reform Jews will be the dialogue plenary between Jeremy Ben-Ami, Director of J Street, and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism. On all of the substantive and strategic questions, the two seemed largely in agreement. They differed on some details – such as the appropriate response to the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. These differences are not irrelevant but, in terms of the larger, strategic goal of a two-state solution, positions on the settlements, and the status of Jerusalem, there was substantial agreement.
Finally, one of the main topics of debate in the plenary sessions was dialogue about what it meant to be ‘Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace’. I would agree with a number of commentators who felt that, among the participants, some who were present might have been ‘Pro Peace’ but may well have fallen outside of any parameter that we could really call ‘Pro Israel’. I believe that they were in the minority, and I believe that the excellent speakers on the panels and the representatives of J Street themselves did a very good job of explaining why the particular policies that they support truly are both ‘Pro Peace’ and ‘Pro Israel’ – that these things can co-exist.
What I heard presented by several analysts, Israelis who have been engaged in high level diplomacy, and members of the Knesset, was that there are only a limited number of options to consider. The best solution for both Israel and the Palestinian people is a two-state solution, with two peoples living in peace side by side. The ynet article referenced above gives good voice to the security concerns that Israel has about trusting that path forward. I understand those fears, and I do share them. However, what many of the expert voices expressed at the J Street conference was a clear understanding of the alternative. While some might think it is possible to maintain the status quo indefinitely, with military power, borders and fences, continuing to expand settlements in the absence of a final proposal for peaceful resolution, the reality is that this approach is unsustainable. Many at the conference expressed its undesirability from a human rights perspective and, while I don’t debate the validity of many of their concerns, I am persuaded even by those who offer only a pragmatic analysis of the situation.
There is deep concern that, in the absence of renewed progress toward a two state solution, that there will be growing Arab and international support for a one-state solution; simply to allow the situation to continue until it becomes clear that there is an Arab, Palestinian majority when Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank are considered together. At that point, if Israel is to remain a democratic state that gives equality to all, it cannot sustain itself as a Jewish state. The alternative is for a minority to rule over a majority, and Israel risks losing the support of the international community in a way that could seriously jeopardize its viability were that to be the case.
This is why we must not delay in continuing to push both sides to engage in an ongoing peace process. Shlomo Ben Ami, Former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Public Security, in a panel that looked at the need for a regional approach to making peace, believes that the political infrastructure does not exist in either Israel or the Palestinian territories for these two parties to do this alone; ongoing engagement from the US government and Arab nations who have offered the normalization of relations with Israel as an important end-goal too, is absolutely necessary. I believe he is right, and this is why J Street’s contribution to seeking peace in the Middle East has the potential to be of such ongoing importance.
Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

© 2024 Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑