What Would Maimonides Do?

On December 13, 2005 -- two days before the historic parliamentary election in Iraq -- the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) faxed a letter to George W. Bush, enclosing a copy of the URJ’s “Resolution on the War in Iraq,”

The letter told the President the resolution was “the first by any major Jewish organization” to speak to the nation’s “failures before and during the war” -- a “major tragedy” that had “brought us to the very brink of disaster.” 

The resolution called for a “clear exit strategy with specific goals for troop withdrawal,” demanded “appropriate flak jackets, armor and other equipment” for the troops, “adequate funds” for “the highest quality medical care . . . including counseling,” a tax increase to pay for the war, an “independent commission” to determine the lessons from our “failures,” went on to condemn “in the strongest possible terms” the . . . well, you may as well just go to MoveOn.org to find the rest. 

The resolution ended with a call for Reform congregations across the nation to “advocate consistently on behalf of the principles set forth in the resolution.”

As a political document, the resolution is convincing only if -- like the URJ -- you were against the war before it started and remain unalterably opposed to it now, even though “[i]t is true that a brutal dictator has been removed . . . there has been movement toward democracy and toward freedom of press and speech that was unimaginable just a few years ago . . . [and] a long-time destabilizing regional force has been eliminated.”

But the resolution doesn’t purport to be a political document.  It purports to be a religious document, “based on Jewish teachings on war” and the obligation to “fulfill the responsibility of our prophetic tradition.”

And as a religious document, it is an embarrassment.

The following are the “insights from Jewish moral rules regarding war and related issues” that the resolution cites as the “touchstone for assessing our current policy in Iraq:”

the obligation to defend innocents derived from the duty to rescue (Lev. 19:16:“Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor;” BT Sanhedrin 74a, Baba Kama 28a, Shulchan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 425:1); the justifications for preemptive wars (BT, Sotah 44b, Eruvin 45a) and how it [sic] applies to a situation where non-conventional weapons were widely suspected; the need to pursue vigorously peaceful options before the use of force could be justified (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Melachim 6:1); the need to protect civilians (MT Melachim 6:7); and the need, derived from the rules of bal taschit (do not waste), to provide for the protection of environmental and economic infrastructures that would allow civilian life to resume as soon as possible after warfare (Deut. 20:19-20; Ibn Ezra commentary on Deut. 20:19; MT Melachim 6:10). A variety of other insights from the Jewish tradition are also relevant, from the protections of captives (See, e.g. Deut. 21:10-14), to the obligation of the judges and leaders of the community to be forthright people who would neither lie nor mislead (Deuteronomy 16:18-20).

In other words, as we learn from Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Bush LIED!!!

The prophetic tradition demands an exit strategy, a tax increase, and an independent commission.  Just consult Maimonides.

A religious tradition that emphasizes the obligation to defend innocents and rescue neighbors might be proud of removing a brutal dictator from a terrorized people, bringing the beginnings of freedom and democracy, and eliminating a long-time destabilizing force in a critical region of the world.

It might be proud that it supported action, instead of standing by, when weapons of mass destruction were “widely suspected” to be in the hands of someone who had used them before, who had already attacked Iran, Kuwait and Israel, who was a declared enemy of the United States, and who had repeatedly refused the “peaceful option” of complying with binding UN resolutions.

But maybe not -- reasonable religious people can differ.  Jews of all denominations, however, should be appalled at the sight of the URJ, invoking religion and specious citations to Jewish texts, trying to use congregations to support the political agenda of MoveOn.org., and sending a letter of stunning moral presumption to the President.

Comments

[Isaac B2]

Here's the thing -- if, as many Reform Jews did, you opposed the war before we got into Iraq, on the grounds that this was not a necessary war, then I believe the Torah backs you up. But if you committed to the war and then changed your mind later, you're stuck -- cuz we're already there, and leaving now just isn't tenable.

[RR]

Also see Lawrence Kaplan's piece "Whose Jews?" in the December 25, 2005 Wall Street Journal Online:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007725

[Former Belgian]

URJ = UnReformed Jackasses

I am not as observant as I should be, but if I ever had any doubts about the half-arsedness of the URJ approach, this latest buffoonery removed all doubt.

FEH!