Behind the Headlines U.S. Jewish Leaders Are Redefining the Diaspora-israeli Relationship

In the aftermath of shock that followed Jonathan Pollard’s sentencing and other troubling events in Israel, American Jewish leaders sought to define and redefine the ambiguous parameters of the relationship between the world’s two most influential Jewish communities, the American diaspora and Israel.

The era in which American Jewish leaders expressed criticism or disenchantment with Israeli policy and actions in private only, drew to a close with the Pollard affair. More frequently in the recent past, American Jews have expressed consternation about the Lebanon war, trade with oppressive regimes, the issue of refugee status for Soviet Jews in America, the Iran-Contra ordeal and the Pollard case.

For years, American Jewish leaders made a concerted effort to create a public image of unity of direction and purpose. Support for Israel and enumeration of the mutual benefits reaped from the American Jewish-Israeli relationship were standard in American Jewish organizations.

But events of the past few years have pushed tensions to a head and revealed some stormy seas beneath the placid surface of Jewish unity.

‘WE ARE NOT ONE’

"We are not one," Natan Sharansky told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on their recent mission to Israel. Perhaps, he continued, we are not even two but three separate communities: Israel, American Jewry and Soviet Jewry.

The implication in Sharansky’s statement that these three communities frequently diverge on political, social, religious and cultural agendas challenges the image of Jewish unity that has prevailed in the past.

Sharansky concluded by saying, "We must agree that Israel is the spiritual center of the Jewish people." But even on this, there is no unanimity, he said.

‘THE QUINTESSENTIAL DILEMMA OF ZIONISM’

One member of the Presidents Conference called the continued existence of the diaspora following the establishment of the Jewish State "the quintessential dilemma of Zionism." This situation will always pose difficult and painful questions: How can Israel encourage aliya and deter yerida to countries that offer Jews a socially and financially secure existence? What are the roles of diaspora Jews vis-a-vis Israel in offering financial, political and moral support to Israel? And what if any obligations does this impose on Israeli leadership to be responsive to diaspora leaders’ ideas, to engage them in frank and open dialogue and inform them of the whole story.

"Inherent in the relationship is an asymmetry," said Al Chernin, National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC) executive director, during a session in Israel. "There is a frustration, a problem that results from the asymmetrical relationship that ‘we are heard but not heeded.’ That’s the nature of the relationship. That’s the ball game."

Israel and the American Jewish community are not peers, Chernin said. Israel and the American government are peers.

Minister-without-portfolio Moshe Arens, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, insisted that an ongoing dialogue exists between American Jewish and Israeli leaders.

"We have a dialogue. We have sat together, we will sit together. When it comes to decision-making, there are statutory limitations. That doesn’t hinder the dialogue. It doesn’t prevent us from telling each other exactly what we think."

Arens spoke of a community of beliefs, of ideals and common values. "Asymmetry comes to the floor when, despite common ideals, we find we have differences of opinion. They cause tensions," he said.

AN UNWRITTEN RULE

To the Israelis’ contentment, the American diaspora provides crucial political and financial support and in return is invited to participate in a dialogue with the Israeli leadership. As Arens indicated, the Israelis don’t feel any obligation to involve the Americans in decision-making on internal policy issues.

One unwritten rule that has governed the relationship between American Jews and Israel is that in matters that affect Israel’s security, Israel alone must decide.

"The attitude has been to give them enormous latitude in judging their decisions," said Morris Abram, chairman of the Presidents Conference. "I think that’s entirely justified when the decision is one affecting their security. Because it is they who die, not we, if they are wrong."

But even this seemingly simple definition of the relationship is a Catch 22. As Henry Siegman, American Jewish Congress executive director, pointed out, "There are few subjects, barring the religious disputes, that do not involve security considerations."

A partnership also does not accurately describe the relationship of Israel to the American diaspora, Siegman said. A partnership implies a full and open exchange on all the issues except election, Siegman said.

"Israel expects U.S. Jewry to provide political and philanthropic support. Beyond that, it would like U.S. Jews . . . to serve as cheerleaders, supporting uncritically whatever policies the government does," Siegman said.

INVOLVING THE SECURITY RATIONALE

Israeli leaders have averted all substantive discussions of serious policy questions with American Jews by invoking the security rationale, Siegman charged.

"The security argument has been used to mute criticism and serious public discussion of issues such as the Shin Bet scandal, the settlement policy in the West Bank, the disposition of the West Bank itself, Israeli military trade with repressive governments, differences in the standards of justice applied to Jewish and Arab citizens and arms to Iran," Siegman said.

The relationship that has resulted, Siegman said, is a "circumscribed notion of partnership . . . with no genuine dialogue aimed at influencing each others’ values."

He continued, "We have a highly utilitarian relationship. Whatever helps Israel economically and politically is welcomed and indeed expected. That which serves no such purpose is deemed irrelevant."

Indeed, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called on the Presidents Conference to act in concert with Israel with a unity of mind, a unity of action. "It must be our ambition to agree," he said.

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

But a unity of mind and a unity of action between the American diaspora and Israel have been notably absent in regard to Israel’s policy on South Africa, refugee status for Soviet Jews in America, Irangate, the Shin Bet scandal and surely in the Pollard affair.

Still, American Jewry seems to accept the lack of reciprocity in the relationship. They challenge Israel’s openness, its morality and its motivations in these controversial policies. But they never threaten to withdraw or diminish their support for Israel.

In the final analysis, the analogy to a team and its fans finds a comfortable place in the American Jewish mind’s struggle to define the relationship, as evidenced in the words of Presidents Conference chairman Abram.

"Israel has been like a winning basketball team and we are their fans," Abram said. "But they’re bound to lose some and if they lose, we can not cease to be their fans if we truly love them. But I think we have a much more realistic perception of them than we had in the past."

(Tomorrow: Part Two)