Two Leading Rabbis Agree Israel Should Trade Territory for Peace

Leaders of two U.S. rabbinic organizations agreed Tuesday that Israel should be willing to trade territory for peace with the Arab states.

Rabbi Binyamin Walfish, executive director of the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox), said that he no longer disagrees with the Israeli Peace Now movement’s call for territorial compromise. He was referring to a statement of support by Rabbi Wolfe Kelman, executive director of the Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative).

They, along with Rabbi Joseph Glazer, executive director of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform), were discussing relations between the three branches of Judaism as well as other Jewish issues at a forum sponsored by the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, New York.

They responded to audience questions of their choosing.

“We should give up territory for the sake of peace and for the sake of Jewish lives,” said. Walfish, adding that he and Kelman did not necessarily agree on how much land Israel should relinquish.

Kelman said the Conservative movement’s dominant mood “would be pro-negotiations to the 1948 borders. Remember, there were debates then. The majority of the Jews accepted the partition plan and would accept it again.”

But, added Kelman, “I don’t feel outrage at the Israel Defense Force…They were the defenders, not the initiators” of the violence in the Israeli-administered territories.

PROBLEM WITH ILLEGITIMACY

The most problematic issue raised was that of “mamzerut,” the condition of illegitimate children under traditional Jewish law because the mother received a civil, but not a traditional Jewish, divorce. The condition lasts nine generations.

Glazer conceded that Reform rabbis have not pressed their congregants on the issue. “I quite agree that any rabbi ought to see to it that wherever there is a question…every step is taken to obtain a get (Jewish divorce), because I feel that the happiness of children is more important,” he explained.

Walfish admitted to “no halachic (Jewish legal) solution. But I see no problem. A mamzer is a full Jew, not a second-class citizen. The only problem is that a mamzer cannot marry a ‘bat Yisrael’ (Jewish woman),” he said.

Glazer disagreed. “You don’t think this is a problem?” he asked, his voice raised. “If people fall deeply in love, and they can’t have it, this is nothing? I would say this is a central disability and a crucial one.”

Walfish noted that such a situation brought about the institution of “shiduchim” (arranged marriages).

Glazer contended that “the Reform movement doesn’t oppose the ‘get.’ It only said 100 years ago it wasn’t necessary because civil marriage now accomplishes the same thing as religious. But this is not a closing of the door on the issue.”

The Reform leader acknowledged that his movement has “come to the conclusion that we have been lax…We must call for standards…of learning and practice. We now are…telling our rabbis, ‘You’re going to have to become a practicing Jew.’ We’ve come a long way.”

The rabbis also discussed the controversial issue of patrilineal descent, in which the Reform movement swerved from Jewish tradition to say that Jewish lineage can be transmitted either through the father or mother.

Glazer said the issue derived from “equality now between the sexes,” which is why he opposes it, and does not even agree with the term. “It’s lineal descent, because mothers and fathers are equal now,” he said.

He rejected the contention that “lineal descent” raised irrevocable barriers. “The person whose Jewishness is brought into doubt can always convert,” he said.

Walfish said he was certain these three Jewish branches would not reach agreement “in our time” on most of the religious issues. For him, then, the question was, “how will we be able to live together as a Jewish community?”

Walfish said none of the branches of Judaism was conceding any points to the others. “Seeking solutions is not a concession. We don’t concede to each other. We ask for understanding,” he said.