The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA)  endorsed last week, for the first time, a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, and member-organization Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU) abstained.  It later released a statement of explanation, saying it dissents from the part of the resolution calling on the American Jewish community to support the two-state solution.

Representing 14 national American Jewish groups and 125 local American Jewish community relations councils, the JCPA called for the American Jewish community to "affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states - the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine- living side-by-side in peace and security.”

The abstention by the Orthodox Union, one of the 14 member national organizations, aroused great opposition in Israel's national-religious camp.  Representatives of this camp who asked why the OU did not actively oppose the creation of a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel were informed by the OU that it had "informed the JCPA of our intention to file a formal, written dissent from the portions of the resolution with which the OU disagrees." It did not explain, however, why it abstained and did not vote against the resolution.

The OU also took pains to explain publicly that it had taken an active role in the JCPA's debate on the resolution, attempting to remove two of its more controversial calls: a call for support of the “two-state solution,” and the call for American Jewish support for Israeli negotiations over the re-division of Jerusalem.  These two calls are included in the resolution, however.

The OU also said it succeeded in inserting two statements into the final resolution. The first statement was this: “Israel’s repeated offers to establish ‘two democratic states living side by side in peace and security’ have been met, time after time, by violence, incitement and terror.” In addition, a call for the American Jewish community to support Israel’s recognition by the Palestinian Authority as a “Jewish state” was included.

OU: Settlements not an "Impediment," But Shouldn't be Built

Finally, the OU explained, it succeeded in defeating a proposed amendment to the effect that the expansion of Israeli settlements is an “impediment to peace.”  The final resolution, however, expresses approval of Israel's commitment "[not to] allow any new settlements or land acquisitions that are not in accord with the provisions of the Roadmap;" the OU did not state that it objected to this clause.

Opposition to OU Stance

The fact that the OU did not originally come out clearly against a Palestinian state drew strong opposition.  Among those who expressed their disagreement were the Zionist Organization of America, Cities of Israel, the Hevron Jewish Community, Women in Green, Buddy Macy (a Jewish lay leader who resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Federation of Greater Clifton-Passaic to protest UJC’s refusal to initiate a campaign fund dedicated exclusively to helping the expelled Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria, and in protest of the silence of the Jewish Federation leaders regarding the police brutality at Amona), and more.

OU and Jerusalem

The OU was recently active in a campaign to ensure that Jerusalem remains undivided, setting up a web page calling on synagogues to promote the issue.  This stance would appear to necessitate opposition to a two-state solution, as it appears clear that the Palestinian Authority and its Arab allies would not agree to a two-state solution that does not include eastern Jerusalem as capital of the new Arab state.

2004, 2006 and Now

In its 2004 convention, the OU did not take a strong stand against the Disengagement plan, to the consternation of many of its constituents in Israel and the U.S.  The organization sufficed with a statement that it is "deeply aware that questions of Israeli foreign policy and domestic security are best left to the citizens of Israel and the State of Israel's democratically elected institutions..."

This, despite what the OU called "the profound identification that so many in our community feel with the plight of Jews who face removal from their homes in areas that resonate in Jewish history, and where their presence was encouraged and supported by the State of Israel."

In its 2006 convention, however, the tone was very different. Many speakers spoke of the "tragedy" and "fiasco" of the Disengagement, and of the OU's failure in not speaking out against it. As such, the following resolution was passed by a significant margin: "The Orthodox Union, in exceptional circumstances, may take public positions contrary to those of the Government of Israel. Such action shall be taken upon approval by the Board of Directors of the Executive Committee."

One leading delegate, Rabbi Yehoshua S. Hecht, the President of the Rabbinical Council of Connecticut, told Arutz-7 at the time, "This is a radical departure from previous OU policy. One speaker even compared our silence [in 2004] to that of Stephen Wise before the Holocaust. But there is now a different generation - people who are media-savvy, who read Arutz-7 and know what is going on and can come to their own decisions. The rank-and-file want to see a leadership that is more independent."

OU Calls for Support for Israel, Protests Aid to PA

On Tuesday of this week, in light of Israel's offensive in Gaza aimed at stopping the Hamas rocket attacks against Israel, the OU released a statement calling for support for Israel, the IDF and the besieged citizens of the Negev and Ashkelon areas. 

Also this week, the OU protested U.S. President Bush’s decision to waive Congressional restrictions to directly transfer $150 million to the Palestinian Authority.  "The restrictions were put in place to ensure that the money [does not] fund terrorist activities against Israel," the OU stated. "At this time the Palestinian Authority has not shown its ability to clamp down on anti-Israel activities, and we therefore see no reason to release these funds."