The American Jewish Congress, until now one of the Jewish groups least hesitant to criticize Israel, has decided not to comment on Israel’s settlement policies until after the Knesset elections in June.
That policy was adopted last Friday at the group’s biennial convention here. The vote, held behind closed doors, reportedly was 89-63.
For those who believe American Jews should not criticize Israel, the AJCongress resolution is a significant victory.
The temporary no-comment resolution pushed aside a measure supported by the organization’s leadership that asked Israel to freeze settlements in the administered territories if Arab states recognized Israel’s legitimacy and lifted their economic boycott.
Henry Siegman, the group’s executive director, observed afterward that AJCongress “remains on record favoring territorial compromise or other functional arrangements that would end Israeli rule over the centers of Arab population in the territories.”
Siegman and other AJCongress officials have in the past denounced settlement activity as inconsistent with the peace process.
But until June 23, AJCongress officials are barred from making statements to the news media regarding the settlements, Siegman said.
Douglas Mirell, the convention’s co-chair, said the vote was more a reflection of skillful parliamentary maneuvering than of majority sentiment against taking a stand on settlements.
He pointed out that three AJCongress regions had proposed even harsher anti-settlement resolutions than that discussed at the convention.
A MORE CRITICAL ADMINISTRATION
Nonetheless, coming a week after the Bush administration refused to grant Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees on any terms short of a settlement freeze, the vote suggests that President Bush has helped rally American Jews around the Israeli flag.
Prior to the convention, Siegman indicated that American Jewry should be urging Israel to accept a settlement freeze to secure the loan guarantees. Now he will be barred from discussing the topic publicly, though he can still make the case in private Israeli or Jewish forums.
Mark Stanley of Dallas, who introduced the no-comment resolution, said that with the loan guarantee battle lost, there is no reason to discuss the settlements.
“If it had been two weeks ago,” the vote on the resolution “would have been different,” he said, explaining that he personally opposes settlements.
Stanley, who is co-chair of the AJCongress Governing Council, declined extended discussion of the resolution, and other backers refused to comment at all.
“The point of the resolution is we don’t want to say anything to the press,” one of them said following the closed-door meeting.
But according to notes taken by one AJCongress member and made available to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, one of those speaking out against speaking out said the Bush administration’s linkage of settlements to the guarantees should not be validated by American Jews.
“This administration is very different from previous ones — it’s more critical,” the person reportedly said. “We must be more prudent.”
He added: “Let the Israelis speak in their election process.”
SIEGMAN GETS VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
AJCongress President Robert Lifton said the tense vote foreshadowed increasing rancor within the American Jewish community as the stakes of the Middle East peace process get higher.
“As the issues get more and more defined, it’s making it harder and harder for people to agree on anything,” said Lifton, who was elected to a third two-year term.
Lifton took pride, however, in the fact that both sides in the convention debate on settlements were able to agree on the meaning of the adopted resolution’s broad phrasing.
The resolution “defers comment on the issues involved in the peace process that are highly controversial within Israeli society.”
Lifton accepted his renomination as president on condition that the resolution was understood to refer only to the Israeli settlement issue. Both sides accepted that interpretation before his unchallenged re-election.
The convention also offered a vote of confidence to Siegman in the face of attacks by the Jerusalem Post and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz.
The Post, which takes an editorial line to the right of the present Israeli government, has repeatedly criticized Siegman for opposing the Likud regime from the left. Like Dershowitz, it charges that Siegman speaks only for himself, not for the organization’s membership.
Noting these attacks, the convention voiced its “deep appreciation” for Siegman’s efforts on behalf of the State of Israel and his articulation of AJCongress ideals.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
