Julius Berman, who officially becomes chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations tomorrow, discusses the role of the Presidents Conference, in this second and final installment of his hour-long interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Excerpts from the interview follow:
Q. What is your conception of the President’s Conference as an organization?
A. I believe that the Presidents Conference is an unbelievable phenomenon in the history of the American Jewish community. We all realize that American Jews are the most over-organized entity probably in the world. Over-organization usually means disorganization, with everyone speaking for himself or herself. The ability of the various national organizations, now totalling 36, to come together and work out a consensus on a specific subject and to continue to work together, on that issue, without in any way homogenizing the rest of the organizational world and covering up the numerous areas in which there might be disagreement, can be called a miracle of modern times. Over the years, slowly but surely, both within the American Jewish community and within the public at large, including the powers in Washington, a consensus has grown that the Presidents Conference reflects the position of the total American Jewish community.
Q. Where is the boundary between the views of the Israeli Government and the views expressed by the Presidents Conference?
A. The Presidents Conference reflects only, and I repeat only, the views of the American Jewish community. At no time does it speak on behalf of the Government of Israel, nor should any of its statements be construed as such.
DECISION MADE BY AMERICAN JEWS
Q. Do you foresee a situation where, at least theoretically, there will be a confrontation or a difference of opinion between the Israeli Government and the Presidents Conference?
A. Being a conservative lawyer, I have always taken the position that I do not speculate on possible hypotheticals. I take the issues as they come up. Please do not misunderstand me. We will rarely take a position on any issue involving Israel without ascertaining the position of the people who live, breathe and work in that land. However, the ultimate decision is one made by the American Jewish community as reflected through the Presidents Conference.
Q. How would you assess the present relationship between the Presidents Conference and the Government of Israel?
A. When everyone talks of relationships we must remember that I can only talk from one side of the equation. From our perspective, we believe that we generally have a good relationship for the simple reason that the overall interests are similar.
Q. How do you assess the power of the Presidents Conference in real terms — political terms — in regard to the Administration in Washington?
A. Initially I should say that it is the type of question that should be addressed to the Administration rather than to the Chairman-elect. My own feeling is that it turns on the positions we are taking. If they are considered, well-reasoned positions that take into account the interests of the United States and all its citizens, they should have a very telling effect upon the Administration.
Q. In your view, is the current Administration pro-Israeli?
A. I don’t like to put labels on an administration. Certainly I would not want to do that at the beginning of my term in office. In general, I prefer focusing on individual issues and decisions. I find those types of adjectives as not serving a purpose.
CONFERENCE HAS ACCESS TO WHITE HOUSE
Q. During the term in office of your predecessor, Howard Squadron, there was a question of accessibility to the White House. Can you comment on that?
A. In terms of the Presidents Conference, there never in recent years has been a problem of access to the White House. Indeed, although I was elected on June 9 to a term as Chairman, which does not commence until July I, the fact is that in less than 24 hours from the election I was in the White House with a delegation from the Presidents Conference to meet with Vice President George Bush, who, in the absence of the President in Europe, was heading the crisis team in charge of the Lebanon situation.
Q. Do you have on your agenda, in the near future a meeting with Administration officials?
A. It is in the nature of the position. A few days ago there was a meeting with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Realizing that we do not arrange for ceremonial meetings, but acknowledging that we are in the midst of a crisis period in the Mideast, I tend to believe that there will be meetings with the Administration repeatedly in the near future.
Q. During the AWACS debate, the question of dual loyalty among Jews was raised. What is your answer if this, in the context of the present conflict, would come up again?
A. This is a subject which has been on my mind for many months now. When we met with President Reagan in the Cabinet Room of the White House, the issue was raised by the Jewish representatives because at that time a suggestion was made by a member of the Administration relating to a possible charge of dual loyalty. We said then, and I want to repeat now, that as citizens of the United States, a free and open democracy, we shall never fear or be inhibited from stating our position on matters that come on the agenda of this nation, and we will do so openly and with pride, exercising our full rights as members of this great nation. If the Jewish community ever started thinking in the terms, and inhibited itself or refrained from stating its position because of the fear of such a libelous charge, I believe that it would be the beginning of the end of this community.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
