Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Raleigh News and Observer

March 21, 2006
Rabbi John Friedman

Along with nearly 400 of my rabbinic colleagues from all over the United States, I recently signed a letter to President Bush urging him to "maintain constructive engagement with the Palestinians" in spite of the recent success of Hamas in the Palestinian elections.

Why? This seems counterintuitive, to say the least. After all, conventional wisdom claims that the consensus within the American Jewish community favors the isolation of any Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. What is going on?

My colleagues and I believe that this administration needs to think through its attitude toward the new Palestinian political realities with the utmost care. On a pragmatic level, making any decision without waiting to see how the Palestinian leadership actually behaves now is surely not the wisest course. In political terms, introducing draconian aid-cutting measures and imposing diplomatic isolation will serve only to diminish U.S. influence and close off opportunities for dialogue, both of which are vital to achieve the goal of a negotiated, final settlement.

Our letter, spearheaded by Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, emphasizes not losing sight of this ultimate objective. And it is noteworthy not only because of the message it contains but also because it attests to a genuine diversity of opinion that exists within the American Jewish community. Likewise, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are of one mind.

A number of voices in the Israeli intelligence community have spoken out in favor of continuing to deal with the Palestinian Authority, reasoning that isolation and punitive tactics will merely reinforce anti-Israel and anti-Western views among the Palestinians, making it much harder for moderates to advocate for cooperation. As one Israeli reserve general put it, there is little to be gained by cutting off ties, and little to be lost by keeping open channels of communication to see if they can lead to constructive dialogue.

• • •

To be sure, the face of the new Hamas-led Palestinian leadership appears hostile and intransigent. Close examination shows, however, that the Hamas victory was far less overwhelming than initially portrayed. In fact, it appears that most voters were rejecting Fatah more than they were endorsing Hamas, and that Fatah was further weakened because support for it was split among multiple candidates.

In fact, nationally, Hamas won only 44 percent of the vote, compared with Fatah's 41 percent, while on the regional ballot it received 53 percent to Fatah's 47 percent. Surveys also indicate that even most Palestinians who voted for Hamas do not support the party's stated agenda of destroying the State of Israel. The Near East Consulting Institute poll following the election found that 73 percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas should drop its call for the destruction of Israel, while 84 percent want an agreement.

My colleagues and I are further concerned about the moral implications of withholding aid from a Palestinian population already suffering under the yoke of the conflict. In Exodus, the Torah instructs us that "when you see your enemy's ass lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him."

Is it not wrong to worsen an already miserable humanitarian situation for political ends? And practically speaking, will not deterioration in the plight of the Palestinians only increase support for extremism, which in turn endangers Israel?

A policy that encourages engagement with the Palestinians, not isolation, is the promising one for nurturing hope of a negotiated settlement, the only kind that can be sustained in the long term.

(Rabbi John Friedman is the rabbi of Judea Reform Congregation in Durham, and a board member of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace.)