Moving beyond anti-occupation conflict framing to an equality framework in 2004 and 2017

   Continued Oslo Accord negotiations, after 2000, were resisted, by Israelis, and Palestinians were blamed more than Israelis for the delay (school and infrastructure 'incitement' by naming places after bombers like Dalal Mughrabi, Farfur kid's videos in Gaza and school textbook dumbfounding anecdotes of pmwatch.org.il and memri.org).  Wye River negotiations in 2007, and 2009 and 2013-14 negotiations and the lack of a final status, conflict-ending peace treaty between Israeli and Palestinian public officials don't belie that Israel resisted negotiations.  A 'pro-Israel narrative' (actually pro-occupation security) was also developed by positioning Israel as a weaker victim to some stronger enemy if not Palestinians (one Iran nuke bomb existentially threatening Israel's 200 nuke bombs or Iran support of some pro-Palestinian political organizing group, sharia law from al qaeda, Hezbollah or ISIL) helped suppress public support for the Geneva Accord despite representing citizen diplomacy that produced a long term, final status, two state peace framework built around equal rights in 2004.


  Yousef Munayyer's 2017 New Yorker article about moving beyond an occupation framework is a restatement of the equality framework for a 'final status' peace behind the citizen diplomacy since the 1993 and 2000 Oslo Accord and 'Camp David' negotiations.  Citizen diplomacy that resulted in the Geneva Accord was the 'people peace' AIPAC used to decry, in its Near East Report newsletter between 1990 and 1992, the lack of in the Israel-Egypt relationship.  That "people peace" successfully negotiated the Geneva Accord as 'peace between governments' has failed (viewed from a long-term perspective by 2017).  Munayyer's article about moving beyond a two state framework is an update and a restatement of a 'final status' peace based on equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims and Christians living on land where Israel's government and IDF controls freedom of movement of people and goods as well as displaced populations' rights to return OR compensation for lost property.

  Back in 2004 the Geneva Accord was attacked for "lack of clarity" on Palestinian right of return while the attackers ignored compensation for lost property.  Records are documented by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine and could be accessed to ascertain family relationships for compensating heirs of refugees  and described in a book by Michael Fischbach called "Records of Dispossession." 

Conservative movement head gets flak for Powell meeting
Fingerhut, Eric. Washington Jewish Week. Gaithersburg: Jul 22, 2004. Vol. 40, Iss. 30; pg. 5

Copyright Washington Jewish Week Jul 22, 2004

Many Israel supporters disdain the Geneva Accords for it['s] lack of clarity on Palestinian right of return.
 

  "Lack of clarity" on a "right of return" was an oversimplification of equal rights for all faiths, nationalities and citizens living on the same land where one faith, citizenship and nationality controls freedom of movement. A similar type of oversimplification was used to demonize and delegitimize the incumbency of former Rep. Donna Edwards MDCD4 from 2009-2012 and the CACD36 Congressional candidacy of Marcy Winograd in 2010.

Leo Rennert, as a conservative Jew and written about in a prior post,  simply agreed with Nathan Diament's views when he attended an event as an individual, presumed by others to be representing OU,







But some local Conservative Jews are not pleased at Epstein's political activism at the June 1 [2004] meeting with Powell, which included more than 30 Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders, including Reform and Reconstructionist officials and the leadership of two Conservative rabbinical schools.
Rennert says the appointment of an U.S. envoy to the Middle East would put the two parties on equal footing and enhance the stature of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.
Rennert and Mike Steinberg, a member of the Israel action committee at Congregation Beth El of Montgomery County in Bethesda, both point out that the interreligious group's Web site (www.walktheroadtopeace.org) expresses support for the Geneva Accords and endorses Israel's security fence only if it is built on the Green Line (Israel's pre-1967 borders).

Many Israel supporters disdain the Geneva Accords for it lack of clarity on Palestinian right of return.

Earlier this month, Rennert and David Moses, who chairs the Israel solidarity committee at Chevy Chase's Ohr Kodesh, met with Waldman about Epstein's participation in the meeting.
As a result, Waldman said, USCJ will ask the interreligious group to remove a statement by Crane on its Web site endorsing the Geneva initiative.
"That is not a position of United Synagogue," Waldman said, adding that the quote is now "a moot point" because Crane no longer works for the organization. Crane also told him she never said such a thing.
The Conservative movement has no official position on a Middle East envoy or the U.S. role in the peace process. Its most recent policy resolutions on Israel were a general call to support Israel financially and a condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.
Religious leaders at the June 1 [2004] meeting said that the United States should not be perceived as "one-sided" in the conflict.
Epstein acknowledged that no one has taken "the pulse" of USCJ's members on the issue, which is why it would be "chutzpah" for him to speak for the Conservative movement -- a view he says he has always made clear.
He added that he does not agree with everything the interreligious group endorses, but his participation gives him an opportunity to "shape the dialogue" with other faiths and provide a Jewish perspective it might be lacking otherwise.
Rennert has no problem with Epstein's taking a position as an individual on any issue, but believes that most people see the rabbi's participation in the interreligious group as an endorsement by USCJ.
Rennert suggests that the interreligious group put an asterisk beside Epstein's name on the Web site indicating his USCJ title is for identification purposes only.


 
more than he agreed with Rabbi Jerome Epstein (Conservative Movement synagogue supported by USCJ and its funding 2 rabbinical seminaries) speaking at a press conference of the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in 2004.

  Rabbi Jerome Epstein didn't sign a letter in 2006 after fear of more 'who speaks for whom' 'drama' or 'controversy startups').  By 2017 Rabbi Jerome Epstein was no longer working as the congregational rabbi at Ohr Kodesh. Rabbi Lyle Fishman replaced Rabbi Jerome Epstein by 2017.  Could the 2004 political disagreement led by Leo Rennert and David Moses, perhaps bolstered by donations or withholding thereof (BDS tactic also known as donor pressure) have been one reason among the many that Ohr Kodesh synagogue hired a new rabbi?

copy-paste again from Washington Jewish Week of March 2006 as no content online in 2017 to link to

3/1/2006 8:59:00 PM
Back to the road map?
Despite Hamas' ascension to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, a coalition of 25 Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders is urging President George W. Bush to pick up Middle East diplomatic efforts pretty much right where they left them before the election.
Washington Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and Central Conference of American Rabbis executive vice president emeritus Rabbi Paul Menitoff were among the leaders at Tuesday's press conference of The National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East.
The group, which also met with State Department official Karen Hughes, told the president in a letter that it supported his "careful response" to Hamas' victory and his "firm insistence" that the terrorist group reject violence and recognize Israel.
But the letter also urged Bush to "press the Palestinian Authority and Israel to implement their commitments to reciprocal, simultaneous steps as obligated in the Road Map" and to appoint an "on-the-ground special envoy to manage and monitor negotiations."
A number of prominent Reform and Reconstructionist leaders signed the letter, however, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism executive vice president Rabbi Jerome Epstein, a supporter of past initiatives, was not listed.



  Leo Rennert, and David Moses, disputed the process of why and how Rabbis are invited to speak, and who they speak for, when applying the tenets of their faith by building an ecumenical consensus, in modern secular life. 



 Leaders of other Jewish religious movements differed in their reactions to Epstein's explanation.
Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union's Institute for Public Affairs, said that "nine times out of 10" when he attends an event, he is representing his organization -- particularly, he added, in a meeting with a high government official.




 Leo Rennert and David Moses essentially 'whipped' their synagogue base in a more rightward, zionist direction and a more Orthodox, rather than Conservative, direction by replacing religious ritual observance (described in the Yiddish word 'frum') with increased Israel advocacy/zionism.  Mike Steinberg of Congregation Beth El of Montgomery County in Bethesda helped in the 'whipping' of views on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his synagogue as well. I use the term "whipped" or "whipping" as an analogy to House and Senate persuasion to vote a certain way on legislation.


The Reform movement's view on the peace process -- supportive of strong U.S. involvement -- is similar to the interreligious group's aims. But Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that he is sometimes invited to join initiatives as an individual, and his participation does not necessarily mean he is speaking for the Reform movement.
"It may be an issue where [my organization] doesn't have a position," he said, noting that such distinctions are "case specific."
Saperstein believes that Epstein sufficiently conveyed that he was not representing the entire Conservative movement.
But critics like Steinberg say they find it "hard to believe" that Epstein would be invited to a meeting with the secretary of state if he were not the leader of USCJ.
Waldman said Rennert and Moses were the only two people who complained about Epstein's participation in the meeting, and Epstein said he received much more praise than criticism.
But Moses said he has spoken to members of other local synagogues' Israel committees who were displeased. Steinberg said a number of fellow Beth El members agreed with his views.

 The full copy-paste of the article quoted from above is below and included to provide full context for the quotes above.  Nothing to link to again. 

Conservative movement head gets flak for Powell meeting
Fingerhut, Eric. Washington Jewish Week. Gaithersburg: Jul 22, 2004. Vol. 40, Iss. 30; pg. 5

Copyright Washington Jewish Week Jul 22, 2004

Leo Rennert was surprised when he picked up the paper last month and saw that a Conservative movement leader was joining other religious leaders in urging Secretary of State Colin Powell to appoint a high [ ] level envoy to the Middle East.
"I'm a Conservative Jew. Who is Rabbi Epstein to represent me with these views?" wondered the Bethesda resident and member of Ohr Kodesh Congregation's Israel solidarity committee, noting that he
did not recall the movement taking an official position on the issue.
The movement does not have a stance on that topic, but United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism executive vice president Rabbi Jerome Epstein said his participation in the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative meeting with Powell was not on behalf of his organization.
He was merely stating his personal views, Epstein said -- an explanation that has not completely satisfied Rennert and others.
The issue arises as USCJ moves its public policy operation from New York to the Washington area.
In addition to his position as executive director of USCJ's Seaboard region, Mark Waldman will now serve as the organization's director of public policy from the region's Rockville offices.
The change comes after the movement's dismissal last month of Sarrae Crane, who had been serving as USCJ's director of social action and was based in New York.
Epstein said Crane was dismissed for budgetary reasons, but that her departure presented an "opportunity to move our base of operations into Washington."
The Conservative movement has long lagged behind the Reform and Orthodox movement in political activism. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism has been headquartered in the nation's capital for more than four decades, while the Orthodox Union opened an office in the District in 1999.
While Waldman will be dividing his time between his seaboard region responsibilities and his public policy duties, Epstein said he hopes the Washington public policy office will expand in the future.
He also said that USCJ would be "re-examining" the issues "we have been involved in" to decide where efforts should be focused.
But some local Conservative Jews are not pleased at Epstein's political activism at the June 1 [2004] meeting with Powell, which included more than 30 Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders, including Reform and Reconstructionist officials and the leadership of two Conservative rabbinical schools.
Rennert says the appointment of an U.S. envoy to the Middle East would put the two parties on equal footing and enhance the stature of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.
Rennert and Mike Steinberg, a member of the Israel action committee at Congregation Beth El of Montgomery County in Bethesda, both point out that the interreligious group's Web site (www.walktheroadtopeace.org) expresses support for the Geneva Accords and endorses Israel's security fence only if it is built on the Green Line (Israel's pre-1967 borders).

Many Israel supporters disdain the Geneva Accords for it lack of clarity on Palestinian right of return.

Earlier this month, Rennert and David Moses, who chairs the Israel solidarity committee at Chevy Chase's Ohr Kodesh, met with Waldman about Epstein's participation in the meeting.
As a result, Waldman said, USCJ will ask the interreligious group to remove a statement by Crane on its Web site endorsing the Geneva initiative.
"That is not a position of United Synagogue," Waldman said, adding that the quote is now "a moot point" because Crane no longer works for the organization. Crane also told him she never said such a thing.
The Conservative movement has no official position on a Middle East envoy or the U.S. role in the peace process. Its most recent policy resolutions on Israel were a general call to support Israel financially and a condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.
Religious leaders at the June 1 [2004] meeting said that the United States should not be perceived as "one-sided" in the conflict.
Epstein acknowledged that no one has taken "the pulse" of USCJ's members on the issue, which is why it would be "chutzpah" for him to speak for the Conservative movement -- a view he says he has always made clear.
He added that he does not agree with everything the interreligious group endorses, but his participation gives him an opportunity to "shape the dialogue" with other faiths and provide a Jewish perspective it might be lacking otherwise.
Rennert has no problem with Epstein's taking a position as an individual on any issue, but believes that most people see the rabbi's participation in the interreligious group as an endorsement by USCJ.
Rennert suggests that the interreligious group put an asterisk beside Epstein's name on the Web site indicating his USCJ title is for identification purposes only.
Leaders of other Jewish religious movements differed in their reactions to Epstein's explanation.
Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union's Institute for Public Affairs, said that "nine times out of 10" when he attends an event, he is representing his organization -- particularly, he added, in a meeting with a high government official.
The Reform movement's view on the peace process -- supportive of strong U.S. involvement -- is similar to the interreligious group's aims. But Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that he is sometimes invited to join initiatives as an individual, and his participation does not necessarily mean he is speaking for the Reform movement.
"It may be an issue where [my organization] doesn't have a position," he said, noting that such distinctions are "case specific."
Saperstein believes that Epstein sufficiently conveyed that he was not representing the entire Conservative movement.
But critics like Steinberg say they find it "hard to believe" that Epstein would be invited to a meeting with the secretary of state if he were not the leader of USCJ.
Waldman said Rennert and Moses were the only two people who complained about Epstein's participation in the meeting, and Epstein said he received much more praise than criticism.
But Moses said he has spoken to members of other local synagogues' Israel committees who were displeased. Steinberg said a number of fellow Beth El members agreed with his views.