TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/050790/05071010.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 11.2 KB | 242 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 28

The Agony Over Israel


American Jews face a dilemma: how to criticize the Jewish state
without seeming disloyal

By CARL BERNSTEIN


    It has been an article of faith held by every government of
Israel since the Jewish state was founded: no matter how much
American Jews might disagree with Israeli policy, they could be
counted on not to make their criticisms public. No more. The
American Jewish community has become a house divided -- and
sometimes loudly so -- over Israel's treatment of Palestinians
in the occupied areas and its reluctance to pursue a
comprehensive settlement that finally might bring peace to the
region.

    A rising chorus of dissent and reassessment is being heard,
even from those known for their enduring commitment to Israel.
Last week it came from the most unlikely voice of all. The
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the principal
pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S., warned Acting Prime Minister
Yitzhak Shamir that his government's covert sponsorship of a
Jewish settlement in the Christian quarter of Jerusalem was
seriously threatening U.S.-Israeli relations, and might even
lead American Jews to cut back their financial support of
Israel.

    That was stunning confirmation of the depth of discontent
many American Jews are now expressing openly, among them leaders
of the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism and scores
of men and women who have held leadership positions in
organizations ranging from B'nai B'rith to Hadassah. Though
dissenting views are far from universal, "there is great sadness
toward Israel shared by growing numbers of American Jews,"
observes John Ruskay, vice chancellor of public affairs of the
Jewish Theological Seminary in Manhattan. "The sadness is that
after 40 years and a Holocaust we end up occupying thousands of
Palestinians against their will."

    Dismay over Israel's provocative settlement policies and
intransigence toward the Palestinians is not the only cause of
the unprecedented wave of criticism. Division and anxiety are
also increasing over Israel's military ties to South Africa and
the venturesome foreign policy that led to the Iran-contra
affair and the Pollard spy case. There is outright disgust with
the vulnerability of Israel's political system to the demands of
fanatical ultra-Orthodox sects, as demonstrated last month by
the ability of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, an 88-year-old
Brooklyn rabbi, to derail the Labor Party's attempt to form a
government. Last week, after Labor leader Shimon Peres' attempt
to forge a peace coalition collapsed, Shamir was given three
weeks to put together a government. In contrast to the unwieldy
Likud-Labor coalitions that have ruled Israel since 1984, Shamir
wants to install a narrowly based right-wing regime that his
party controls.

    The consequences of today's political ferment in the
American Diaspora are profound. Both the Bush Administration and
members of Congress are increasingly willing to pressure Israel
to move the peace process forward. AIPAC is the object of
surprising dissent within the Jewish community and deepening
resentment on Capitol Hill. Moreover, evidence abounds that all
but a few of the 38 Jewish members of Congress (eight Senators,
30 Representatives) favor a compromise in which Israel would
exchange territory for peace along the lines suggested by the
Reagan and Bush administrations -- despite their unwillingness
to say so publicly.

    Much to the chagrin of the Likud party and Israel's
representatives in Washington, the changing attitudes of
American Jews are showing up in recent polling. A study of 780
American Jewish leaders released this year by the
Israel-Diaspora Institute found overwhelming opposition to the
most fundamental Israeli (read Likud) policies of recent years.
The most surprising conclusion: 74% of the leaders approve of
private discussions between Israeli officials and moderate
leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

    Such findings flout the attempts by Israel's lobby in
Washington to portray American Jews as united in their support
for Israel's crackdown on the intifadeh and refusal to begin the
talks with Palestinian moderates urged by the U.S. The Israeli
government has gone to great lengths to discourage and even
suppress criticism from American Jews, especially by the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
an umbrella group that represents 45 associations. But those
efforts are becoming increasingly futile. Says Albert Vorspan,
senior vice president of the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations: "There is a gap between what American Jewish
leaders are saying publicly and privately. AIPAC and the
Conference of Presidents are weakening in their power to silence
Jewish debate. Their objective is to show we're a strong, united
Jewish community. But that can't be the case, because if Jews
in Israel are divided almost down the middle over the
Palestinian question, American Jews are going to be divided as
well."

    That last week's criticism of the settlement in the
Christian quarter was initiated by AIPAC and brought a similar
expression of concern from the Conference of Presidents is tacit
acknowledgment that Likud's policies are frightening even its
most influential and pragmatic defenders in the U.S. In the case
of AIPAC, there is fear that without a change in direction, a
new Likud government could ultimately undermine the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.

    Many American Jews believe that since Israel's disastrous
1982 invasion of Lebanon, a succession of governments has been
moving the country away from the liberal, democratic vision of
its Zionist founders. "There is alarm and anxiety about Israel's
well-being," says Leon Wieseltier, a scholar of Israeli politics
and American Jewry. "Some of the heat has gone out of the light.
It's the result of the intifadeh, but also it is the result of
the paralysis and pettiness of Israeli politics."

    The result is a contentious debate that not only mirrors
the deep political divisions among Israelis but also is
reminiscent of the intense dialogue that preceded the country's
founding in 1948. Back then, Zionists around the world hashed
out such fundamental questions as whether Israel should be
capitalist or socialist, secular or theocratic.

    Today, in synagogues and Jewish community centers across
the U.S., speakers who a few years ago were labeled
"self-hating Jews" and worse for advocating compromise with the
Palestinians are routinely welcomed and applauded, though often
uneasily. Says Gary Rosenblatt, co-editor of the Baltimore
Jewish Times: "If Jews are talking to the outside world, they
will be more inclined to rally around the Israeli position. But
if they're talking frankly among themselves, then you find a
more open sense of frustration with Israel."

    One of the first prominent dissenters was Arthur Hertzberg,
professor of religion at Dartmouth College. When Menachem Begin
came to power in 1977, says Hertzberg, American Jews "tried to
pretend to themselves that the Likud were a bunch of
tough-minded businessmen like their uncles who asked for the
maximum price and would settle eventually for something less --
but higher than they'd get otherwise." But after years of no
progress toward settling the Palestinian question, a more
disturbing realization has set in. Says Hertzberg: "Now we are
facing the fact that these Likud fellows -- Begin and Shamir and
[Ariel] Sharon and their likes -- are not reasonable fellows who
want the maximum deal, but nationalist ideologues who will pay
great, incalculable prices to maintain ideological purity and
a continuing war with the Palestinians."

    None of this means that the fundamental commitment of
American Jews and political leaders to Israel's security has
been diminished by the intense debate. Witness the outcry over
President Bush's clumsy remarks in March equating Jews moving
into new areas of East Jerusalem with settlements on the West
Bank, and the rallying of U.S. politicians around Israel in the
face of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's outrageous threats.

    The concern for Israel's safety puts Jewish critics in a
poignant bind. They agonize over how to make their feelings
known without endangering Israel's strength, capitulating to
anti-Semitism or giving demagogues in the Knesset an excuse to
make the conduct of American Jews an issue in Israeli elections.

    American Jewish leaders have been secretly carrying
messages to Jerusalem warning of the restiveness in the U.S.
Diaspora and among key policymakers in Washington. "The kind of
automatic support of Israel that existed for years on Capitol
Hill is simply not here anymore," says the administrative
assistant to a Jewish member of Congress. A case in point: the
reaction to a proposal by Senate Republican leader Robert Dole
to free up foreign-aid dollars for the fledgling democracies of
Eastern Europe and Latin America by cutting 5% from the $6.9
billion earmarked for five key allies, Israel included. Says a
Jewish member of Congress: "If a private vote were taken, Dole's
proposal would pass overwhelmingly."

    That is the message former Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak
Rabin picked up when he visited Washington last January.
According to an important Jewish leader, Rabin returned to
Jerusalem with a message for Israel's inner Cabinet: "This
year's money is safe, but there will be a future problem unless
Israel meets with the Palestinians and shows a willingness to
make peace."

    The growing impatience with Israel on Capitol Hill is
reflected in a gradual but perceptible ebbing in the power of
the so-called Jewish lobby. "Today the great and grievous fright
about AIPAC is gone," says a high-ranking staff member of the
House subcommittee on Middle Eastern affairs. "There is a real
sense of sorrow up here at what's become of Israel, that it's
been reduced to bashing Palestinians and producing leaders like
Shamir and Sharon." Such sentiments -- shocking at first hearing
when one considers that their source is a politician who has
worked closely with Jewish leaders for years -- are echoed in
frustration even among some Jewish lawmakers and their staffs.

    AIPAC's power remains formidable, not only because Israel is
a valued U.S. ally, but also because of its ability to help
target campaign money against those who fail to toe the party
line. "In terms of votes, people are just not prepared yet to
vote against the Israeli position on the big questions,"
comments an aide to one of the most powerful Jewish members of
Congress. "Sometimes the only explanation is that for
politicians the cost of opposing Israel is still greater than
the cost of not supporting it."

    But that could change. "The question on everybody's mind in
the Jewish community is, How long can this go on?" says the
congressional aide. "At some point, can Israel push Congress or
American Jews too far? There's been Lebanon, South Africa and
the intifadeh, but no discernible break in terms of numbers."
He pauses, then adds ominously, "Yet."