To go to war or not to go to war, that is the question facing many Jewish organizations, politicians and intellectuals in these tense days before the Jan. 15 deadline for Iraq’s unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.
As the United States, along with its Arab coalition against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, gears up for an attack if Kuwait remains occupied, some prominent Jews are finding that their historically liberal tendencies are giving way, at least on this issue, to a strong pro-war activism.
Many who worked against the Vietnam War, or were among the first to question U.S. military invasions in Grenada and Panama, are now standing up for an aggressive military policy toward Iraq following its Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait.
Among religious groups, the sentiment is overwhelmingly hawkish: the Synagogue Council of America, which represents 4 million Jews across the religious spectrum, passed a resolution two weeks ago calling for military action in the Gulf.
While stressing that peaceful means to end the conflict need to be explored, the Dec. 19 statement regards military action as “justifiable” in order to restore Kuwaiti independence and “effectively deter or end Iraq’s capacity to threaten other nations.”
The SCA statement followed statements by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of the Churches in Christ that questioned the use of force and called for ongoing dialogue to resolve the situation.
STRONG CONCERN FOR ISRAEL
But because of strong concern for Israel’s survival, Jewish groups face a different challenge than non-Jewish organizations in trying to establish a coherent policy on the Gulf, observers said.
“It was a very difficult decision,” said Albert Vorspan, vice president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Reform movement which was among the first to issue a statement in support of military action. “You have people who were dovish on Vietnam and passionate about peace.”
But Israel’s survival, and fears that it could not survive were Iraq’s war machinery to remain intact, “played a very powerful role in the decision,” he said.
According to Mitchell Cohen, co-editor of Dissent magazine and a political science professor at Baruch College and the City University of New York, previous U.S. administrations’ “blind intervention” into countries has made many people suspicious of any call for military action.
“The questions of Israel aside … (the decision for military action must be) based on the long-term danger posed by the Saddam Hussein regime,” said Cohen.
“The danger of an extremist regime with an agenda of regional dominance, at a minimum; genocide against an ethnic minority; and one that started a war (with Iran)” makes it imperative that Hussein is weakened and his military arsenal is destroyed, he said.
Many Jewish leaders and intellectuals say the assumption that opposition to the Vietnam War necessitates opposition to a war in the Gulf is overly simplistic, and does not fairly examine all the ways in which the two scenarios differ. Those differences, they say, make military intervention in the Gulf necessary.
But this also has the effect of making it virtually impossible to guess who will support what in this crisis.
In a move that came as a surprise to many, Michael Lerner, the editor of the leftist intellectual Jewish magazine Tikkun, came out in favor of military action in a recent Tikkun article.
Lerner, in the January/February issue of the magazine, wrote that he believes the “use of force might be justified if and only if the U.S. had first tried to do everything in its power to dismantle Iraq’s offensive military capacity through other means.”
‘LIKELY TO UNDERMINE OUR GOALS’
Other leftist groups, such as New Jewish Agenda and the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, have come out strongly against any military action.
In a statement that ran in some national and Jewish newspapers across the country, the Shalom Center said, “It is most likely that invasion or bombing of Iraq by U.S. forces would be likely to undermine our goals, not advance them.”
The Shalom Center stressed the need for a Middle East free from the danger of Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons, but said the best way to reach this goal was through economic sanctions and embargoes.
Still, the overall agreement among Jewish groups and leaders seems to be that military action is necessary should negotiations fail.
Two liberal Jewish members of Congress, and others involved in politics, have joined ranks with the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick, an outspoken conservative and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; as well as with Richard Perle, a Jewish Republican and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense during President Reagan’s tenure.
Last month, the new group, called the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, issued its first statement, emphasizing the need to prevail over Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s “brute force and naked aggression” in invading Kuwait and urging the United States to ensure not only Hussein’s retreat but the destruction of his weaponry arsenal.
MILITARY THREAT WOULD LEAD TO CASUALTIES
“A military threat would regrettably result in casualties; but ruling out the use of force would eventually be even more costly,” read the statement, whose 23 signers included four prominent Jewish political leaders.
The four well-known Jewish liberals included Reps. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Stephen Solarz (D-NY); Sol Chaikin of the International Ladies and Garment Workers Union; and Ann Lewis, former political director of the Democratic National Committee.
Ann Lewis, whose liberal political credentials include campaign adviser for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, says the decision to come out so strongly in favor of war was easy: “I didn’t have to stay up all night pondering what American policy should be.”
While interest in Israel’s survival may have had an impact on her decision to support military action, what most influenced her was the belief that American interests and the interests of national security were best protected by actively fighting Iraqi aggression.
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.
