Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Haaretz | 3 comments

Do’s and Don’ts of Discussing AIPAC

Rabbis who have controversial things to say should not hesitate to say them in public, even if their congregants don’t like it.

The B'nai Jeshurun Synagogue in New York City (Photo by Google Street View)

The B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue in New York City
(Photo by Google Street View)

When they do this, of course, the possibility exists that what they say might be wrong, or naïve, or misguided—and in that case, there will be plenty of people to point this out.

This is my response to the latest contretemps at B’nai Jeshurun, the upper west side congregation known for its social activism and spirited worship.

Rabbis Rolando Matalon and Felicia Sol, respected colleagues who have done so much to make B’nai Jeshurun a vibrant center of Jewish life, signed a letter criticizing Mayor Bill de Blasio for his strong statement vowing to stand by AIPAC “in Washington and everywhere.” The letter was signed by approximately 50 liberal Jewish activists and affirmed that “AIPAC speaks for Israel’s hard-line government and its right-wing supporters, and for them alone; it does not speak for us.” (I was also critical of de Blasio, although for a different reason; I thought that it was silly and contrary to his own guidelines on governance to insist that a large meeting in midtown Manhattan be seen as “off-the-record.”)

When the letter to de Blasio was made public, 48 members of B’nei Jeshurun wrote an open letter of their own. Addressed to Rabbis Matalon and Sol, it rebuked the rabbis for the content of their communication to de Blasio. “You should have stood by Israel and urged its authors not to send it because it ran counter to the truth…,” they wrote. Subsequently, Jonathan Tobin in Commentary praised the congregants for speaking up, and also denied that rabbis are intimidated by wealthy members from criticizing Israel; in his view, rabbis are far too quick to “use their pulpits to undermine the pro-Israel community.” And Shmuel Rosner expressed dismay at what he sees as an organized campaign against AIPAC and joined Tobin in applauding those at B’nei Jeshurun and elsewhere who are fighting back.

I admit that I am somewhat puzzled by all of this. The passionate pluralism of the American Jewish community is a blessing, and so too is the diversity of views in the American rabbinate on every topic imaginable, including Israel. Still, even recognizing the differences that exist on settlements and other hot-button issues, I see no evidence of any significant defections from any part of the rabbinate from pro-Israel positions. All of American Jewry’s major rabbinical organizations have remained resolutely and emphatically pro-Israel.

I am also a bit bewildered by the suggestion that rabbis are not pressured to rein in their opinions on Israel. Of course they are; it happens all the time. Given that ours is a contentious community and that Israeli is a profoundly visceral issue, it could not be otherwise. In the Reform movement, I have seen rabbis with rightwing views who are criticized by members for their sermons and public statements; but more frequently, it is rabbis on the left who are pressured into silence.

In virtually all cases, I urge rabbis and members alike to dive right in and engage in the debate, with civility as the only condition. In fact, I suggest that controversial sermons and statement be shared on the congregation’s website, and that members be invited to respond. Rabbis are not functionaries or bureaucrats; they are teachers of Torah and shepherds of the community. And members of their congregations are hungry for religious leadership on all matters, including Israel, the central Jewish issue of our time. Surely the task of rabbis is to fearlessly provide it.

Are there limits beyond which rabbis should not go? There are, and I have written elsewhere about where the red lines are. But Rabbis Matalon and Sol have crossed no lines; they have expressed a legitimate point of view, to which members of their synagogue have taken legitimate exception.

Having said all this, I have one more not-so-minor point to add: On the issue in question, I side mostly with the critics and not with the rabbis. I don’t agree with AIPAC on everything, but I agree with them most of the time; and the harsh dismissal of AIPAC by the signatories to the letter troubles me greatly. A Washington without AIPAC would not mean an Israel at peace; it would mean an Israel isolated and vulnerable, lacking the anchor that AIPAC has long provided and without which peace would be impossible.

So let’s not worry about outspoken rabbis, and let’s encourage dissenting congregants to say their piece. There are some risks involved in the debate, but so be it; the great majority of rabbis that I know are serious about the Jewish tradition that rests on their shoulders and work hard not to compromise the moral standards to which they adhere. But at the same time, with America beset by turmoil and the course of her foreign policy often uncertain, it would be wise to keep in mind one simple fact: AIPAC is Israel’s safety net, and it is now more important than ever.

Agree or Disagree?
Post your comments at http://ericyoffie.com/aipac-discussions-2014-02-19/

 

3 Comments

  1. Rabbi, Your article is somewhat contradictory. While you give high praise to the BJ Rabbis you acknowledge that their comments about AIPAC are inaccurate (albeit in the 11th paragraph near the end of your article). YOu fail to note that the Rabbis KNOW they are inaccurate and ill informed. Do you then believe that a Rabbi is not crossing a red line when s/he stands before the congregation and deceives them for propaganda purposes? Because from time to time that is what Rabbis Sol and Matalon do. I’ve been a member for years and when it suits them, they simply distort the truth for their political aims. Calling everyone a rascist after the Travon Martin trial verdict, calling those who live in the West Bank akin to Amelek, calling Israel an occupying army in violation of international law, supporting a seminar in support of BDS are just a few of their activities. Youfail to acknowledge they are supporters of J Street and thus have a hidden agenda when they attack AIPAC. The discussion at BJ is not really whether these 2 Rabbis cross a red line but rather how many times.

    In the end, they don’t serve truth or justice. They promote a distillation whereby those that agree with them stay and those who know them to be deceivers stay for religious or convenience reasons; or leave in disgust. The latter are not going to return to Judaism. That raises the final question you ignored, for all of the healthy “debate” albeit completely one-sided at BJ, your comments fail to calculate how many leave synagogue life by the actions of these Rabbis. I have seen many leave BJ in disgust never to attend a synagogoue again.

    • You and I are at very different places on this matter. In the Jerusalem Post, I explained what my red lines are for rabbis. I have no reason to believe the BJ rabbis have crossed those lines. Obviously, you disagree. Also, you suggest that many of those who are turned off by the rabbis at BJ leave the congregation and never attend another synagogue. I doubt that very much. There are many rabbis, many synagogues, and many points of view on the upper west side. If members are truly unhappy, I suspect that most find a home elsewhere. The diversity of American Jewish life is a wonderful thing.

  2. There must be some red lines for rabbis. Without mentioning names, or affiliations, there exists a sizable number of ultra leftists rabbis supporting BDS, the one state solution, membership in JVP (which reflects both those positions), and attacking Israel proper for being racist, etc. One wonders if they believe in G-d at all, the Torah as something holy and not mere fantasy, and the divinely ordinated land of Israel for the Jewish people, though most of us understand we cannot currently claim control of the entire historic Israel/Holy Land and must make sensible compromises for a secure peace. Do they not realize that it’s more than ironic to condemn the rights of, and need for, a Jewish state when none of them criticize the many openly declared Islamic states, some of which are truly exclusionary of Jews, and the rest very hostile to the few Jews left? Whatever they think they believe in, it has nothing to do with Judaism.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Like It? Share it!