“Men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.”

On April 4, 1967, forty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke these words at Riverside Church in New York City on a panel which included Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, one of the great rabbis of the 20^th century, and a civil rights leader in his own right. The gathering was called by the Clergy and Layman concerned about Vietnam , and as I read the text of the speech this past week, Dr. King’s words moved me to tears.

Dr. King said that he had decided to attend the event because his conscience left him no other choice. The clergy group had recently issued a statement which began: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." Dr. King felt that the time had come, in April 1967, for him in relation to Vietnam .

Tonight, on April 6, 2007, considering myself no Dr. King but a student of his teachings, I feel that the time has come for me with regards to the war in Iraq . As Dr. King said, “The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.”

So it is that I speak tonight with some trepidation, knowing as I do the diversity of political views in our own congregation. I know that I must speak with the humility that is appropriate to my limited vision, but speak I must.  I speak tonight, as those religious leaders chose to in the late 1960’s,  to “move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience.”

I have come to feel in these four years of war, that we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close all around us. In retrospect, it seems not too strong to say that it has been a betrayal of my responsibilities not to have spoken about the war, and I have thought long and hard about why I chose not to. The freedom of this pulpit, with which you have entrusted me, is worth nothing if I choose not to use it. But over recent times, as Dr. King said, “I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart.”

In recent years, it has been deemed unpatriotic, even un-American, to speak out against the policies of the current administration. Perhaps I have somehow bought into that rhetoric, and have resisted speaking out for fear that not everyone would agree with me. I have decided not to be afraid any longer.

This speech is not addressed to Sunnis or Shia. It is not addressed to the United Nations. Nor it is an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Iraq . Neither is it an attempt to make the Ba’athists or the Kurds paragons of virtue, not to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem.

While many parties may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States , life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Sunni and Shia, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. As we Jews celebrate our festival of freedom, we know that we are never truly free while there are other people in the world who are not free. There are many peoples of the world who are not yet free—a reality that saddens us even as we celebrate the greatest redemption we’ve ever known. One of the groups of people who are not yet free is the Iraqi people themselves. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. AS Jews, knowing the hearts of a stranger, we are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America 's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Iraq . It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land, and for the freedom of others.

Whether one is for or against the war, the key to stability is to have an Iraq that, in the words of the president himself, can “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.” Achieving that goal is largely dependent on the political reforms that Iraqi leaders have promised but failed to put in place in their country.

And as I ponder the madness of Iraq and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that place. I speak now not of the combatants of each side, not of the ideologies of the mullahs, not of the militants, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

Leon Panetta wrote recently that every military commander that the Iraq Study Group talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq . As one American general said, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress on reforms, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”

Instead of dividing over the strategy on the war, the president and the Congress should make very clear to the Iraqis that there is no open-ended commitment to our involvement. As the Iraq Study Group recommended, Iraqi leaders must pay a price if they continue to fail to make good on key reforms that they have promised the Iraqi people.

In calling for a specific withdrawal date, the House and Senate versions of the supplemental spending bill send a clear message to the Iraqis (even if they do face a certain veto). The worst mistake now would be to provide money for the war without sending the Iraqis any message at all about their responsibility for reforms. Both the president and the Congress at the very least must make the Iraqi government understand that future financial and military support is going to depend on Baghdad ’s making substantial progress toward the milestones Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has publicly committed to.

Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, little progress has been made. Consider efforts toward stabilizing democracy and achieving national reconciliation:

•By March, the government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments (no progress).

•By May, the prime minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias (no progress); the approval of the amnesty agreement (no progress); and the completion of all reconciliation efforts.

•By June, the Iraqi government promised to hold provincial elections (no date has been set).

Particularly in terms of reforms needed to reconcile Sunnis and Shiites, progress has been minimal. And unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.

In seeking support for the so-called surge and the supplemental spending bill, the Bush administration argues that American forces have to provide temporary stability to enable the Iraqi leaders to negotiate political solutions. True, but after a while this becomes an excuse for inaction on the political reforms that are essential to stability itself.

This is why the Iraq Study Group report made clear that “if the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi government.”

Until the Bush administration and Congress can jointly convince the Iraqi government that this threat is real, there will be little chance of reaching the one goal on which Republicans and Democrats can agree: a safe, stable and prosperous Iraq .