TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 050790 / 05071010.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 11.5 KB | 230 lines

<text id=90TT1156> <title> May 07, 1990: The Agony Over Israel </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 May 07, 1990 Dirty Words </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 28 The Agony Over Israel </hdr> <body> 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." </body> </article> </text>