CJF Panelists Differ over American Policy and Response by U.S. Jewry

Jewish leaders expressed concern that the Carter Administration may endanger the Middle East peace prospects if it pushes too fast to complete the peace treaty being hammered out by Egyptian and Israeli delegations in Washington; and if the Administration pressures them to write an accord which links Israeli withdrawal from Sinai with other issues, such as the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Palestinian question.

At the same time, notes of caution were sounded against engaging in rhetoric and exaggerating every word and move by the Administration as anti-Israel. These concerns were expressed at a forum at the 47th General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations dealing with the prospects for peace in the Middle East in the aftermath of Camp David. Some 1500 of the 3000 American and Canadian Jewish leaders attending the General Assembly were present at this two-hour forum.

CARTER WARNED AGAINST HASTE

The sharpest note of caution about the Administration’s role in the treaty negotiations came from Max Fisher, former CJF president and presently chairman of the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency, who had a prominent role in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. Fisher urged President Carter to refrain from rushing a comprehensive peace treaty and not to try to negotiate for King Hussein of Jordan or for President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. “If he would just let all the parties settle down and let the process evolve, things would move very rapidly toward peace,” Fisher said. Edward Sanders, senior advisor to President Carter and his liaison with the Jewish community, responded by noting that Carter’s intervention into the peace process had enabled both sides to keep going and that without Carter, there would have been no Camp David summit conference.

Some panelists were deeply concerned with what they saw as the Carter Administration’s shift toward seeking a comprehensive Mideast settlement through a linkage of issues. Some were also concerned that the Administration might be reversing its attitude on a number of vital issues affecting Israel. One such shift cited was the issue of Jerusalem. It was noted that Assistant Secretary of State Harold Saunders, in a recent statement dealing with the status of East Jerusalem since 1948, described Israel’s role since the Six-Day War as one of “occupation” while describing Jordan’s role between 1948 and 1967 as one of “administration.” Saunders’ double-track approach on this issue was described by some of the panelists as “invidious.” Fisher noted that no previous Administration had ever referred to Israel as “occupying” East Jerusalem.

DE-ESCALATION OF RHETORIC URGED

Steven Spiegel, a political science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, cautioned that rhetoric on the part of both the Administration and the Jewish community can have a negative effect on the peace treaty negotiations. He said that claiming the Administration is returning to a comprehensive approach “is an overstatement.” There is no U.S. policy that settlement in Sinai would serve as a precedent for the West Bank, Spiegel said. Theodore Mann, Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC), questioned whether there is any reason to believe that the Administration would support Arab sovereignty in East Jerusalem. Sanders contended that the Administration is not seeking a comprehensive settlement nor is there any evidence that the Administration is pushing for linkage in the peace treaty. After a member of the audience pointed out that Carter had pushed for a linked settlement in his press conference Thursday in Kansas City, Sanders shook his head in disagreement and said it was news to him. “I told him to call me if there were going to be any surprises,” Sanders said.

CONCERN OVER JERUSALEM ISSUE

In response to a question by a member of the audience as to why the American Jewish leadership appears so reticent in speaking out on the issue of Jerusalem and making it clear that Jerusalem can never again be a divided city, Mann pointed out that there are priorities. All Jews, he said, are as one on the issue of a united Jerusalem. “But we feel we should make as few waves as possible till the peace treaties are signed,” he said. “If we criticize the Administration for bad timing, we should also be sensitive to bad timing.” The focus, he noted, should now be on the treaty between Israel and Egypt. Once that is signed, other issues will fall into line and representations can be made accordingly. When one member of the audience noted that it would be good for “some Israelis to keep a low profile,” at this time, a panel member shot back, “from your mouth to Begin’s ear.” At another point, Spiegel affirmed that the Camp David accords held great potential for making a new Middle East. “But the real success depends on the actions of the current Administration and the criticism, involvement and interest of concerned American citizens like yourselves.”