Focus on Issues Jewish Leaders Grappling with Issue of Israel’s Trade with South Africa

American Jewish leaders have begun to grapple with the uncomfortable issue of Israel’s military trade with South Africa, a subject obscured by strict secrecy, distortion by Israel’s enemies and by the minuscule amount of factual information actually available.

Few governments like to discuss their military exchanges with the racist regime of South Africa despite evidence that military exchanges with Western countries continue on some levels while tapering off in past months.

Israel is no different. With the government facing intense pressure from the U.S. Congress and from American Jews to cease military trade with South Africa, there is little said publicly on the exchanges.

At least part of the American Jewish leadership has taken an active role in the anti-apartheid movement in this country, on the picket lines and in divestment campaigns. Some even risked arrest for civil disobedience at South African installations throughout the country. But many Jewish leaders have chosen to remain silent — or at least discreet — about Israel’s military trade with South Africa.

“The inconsistency is troubling American Jews,” Allan Kagedan, an American Jewish Committee policy analyst said. “On the one hand, they are anti-apartheid morally. On the other hand, they support Israel who sells arms to South Africa. But no one is willing to publicly defend Israel arms sales to South Africa.”

EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN

A sampling by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of American Jewish leadership revealed a real reluctance to discuss openly — and sometimes on the record — what they know of Israel’s military trade with South Africa. But the same leaders indicated that they have told the Israeli officials privately that they should not ignore the growing anti-apartheid sentiment in the American public and Congress and should not lag too far behind the pro-sanction mood of Western governments.

American Jewish leaders emphasized the primacy of Israel’s security, survival and sovereignty to decide with whom and what it trades. On the other hand, the same leaders said they feel it is incumbent upon them to let Israel know that its South African policy is affecting them negatively in their efforts to deal with other domestic and foreign issues.

A pervasive argument by some Jewish leaders against the trade is that Israel’s military relations with South Africa are increasingly straining Jewish-Black relations in this country and providing an excellent excuse for Black African countries not to resume relations with Israel.

Elan Steinberg, World Jewish Congress executive director, said although the military trade has been distorted, it has affected attitudes in the anti-apartheid community. “There is a perception that Jews and Israel are not in the forefront of anti-apartheid,” he said.

The distortion of and disproportionate attention focused on Israel’s trade with South Africa was one of the great propaganda coups of Israel’s enemies in the past decade. American Jewish officials are sensitive to the singling out of Israel for criticism when other Western, Arab and Soviet-bloc countries provide far more valuable and critical support for the South African regime.

UNFAIR TO SINGLE OUT ISRAEL

On April 1, the State Department is scheduled to submit a report to the President containing an account of countries receiving U.S. foreign aid which are supplying military materiel to South Africa. Countries which continue the military exchanges could risk forfeiting their U.S. foreign aid, in Israel’s case $1.8 billion. One Israeli expert on South Africa, who asked not to be identified, said the Congressional legislation has turned Israel’s military relations with South Africa from a moral issue to a real politic issue.

Malcolm Hoenlien, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, was among other officials who said they are concerned that this legislation has singled out Israel and one or two other countries and would effectively overlook the major trading partners of South Africa who are also U.S. allies.

Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, AJCommittee director of international affairs, said “I hope the report to the President will give an overview which will talk about the UK, Soviet Union, Japan and others to keep it in perspective. Israel is not the primary culprit in sustaining South Africa.” Kagedan said the legislation is unfair because it would not potentially hurt 20 other countries which sell much more to South Africa.

Kagedan, Tanenbaum and others said they believe a large volume of weapons is flowing from the West to South Africa despite the mostly “symbolic” Western arms embargo. “The same standard should apply to Israel as everyone else, no more, no less,” Tanenbaum said.

Kagedan said, “There is a sense on the part of Israelis that Western nations are immensely hypocritical on sanctions.”

REVIEW OF POLICY WITHIN ISRAEL

Within Israel, the policy on military trade with South Africa has been under review for about six months. Although a small group of intellectuals headed by Yossi Beilin (Labor), political director general of the Foreign Ministry, argue the trade is counterproductive foreign policy, the Israeli expert said the majority still advocates continuing the military trade.

The advocates of trade argue that it brings in much needed foreign capital and provides valuable research and development opportunities for Israel. Many also argue that severing relations with Pretoria could threaten the security of South Africa’s 119,000 Jews.

There are also reports that South Africa has threatened to reveal the details of the cooperation if Israel severs relations. “There is tremendous resentment in Israel over what is seen as attempts to blackmail and manipulate Israel . . . South Africa revels in pointing out the similarities between itself and Israel,” the Israeli expert said.

Kagedan said, “The South African government has an interest in projecting itself associated with Israel. It helps (Prime Minister Pieter Willem) Botha to appear to the U.S. as another Israel.”

One expert said the official military transfers from Israel to South Africa are now virtually non-existent. But according to some sources, private arms dealers have taken up the slack of arms sales and some forms of military trade continue. Israel’s stated position is that it is adhering to the 1977 United Nations arms embargo. Although press reports and information from trade monitoring agencies on the military exchanges have never been confirmed by Israel and are difficult to corroborate, experts interviewed by the JTA said there are four major areas of military exchanges between the two countries:

Exchanges of military hardware, technologies, electronic surveillance systems and radar. In March 1985, the Washington Post reported that South Africa bought up to 35 percent of Israel’s $1 billion per year arms exports.

Israelis training South Africans were observed and reported. One expert said there is “a fair amount of evidence to bear this out, especially in the early 1980’s.”

R and D, joint development of military technologies such as a sophisticated mid-air refueling system. Some observers note that the South African Cheetah fighter bomber bears a striking resemblance to the Israeli Kfir.

Nuclear technology and cooperative research. These exchanges have been reported on frequently but never confirmed.

The Israeli expert said there is clearly a dramatic reduction of the Israel-South Africa conventional arms trade in the past decade as a result of significant development of South Africa’s domestic arms industry and the availability of new markets to the Israelis.

BASIS FOR ISRAEL’S TRADE

The most outspoken opponents of the military trade in the American Jewish community come from the New Jewish Agenda (NJA). In a draft of a position paper, Agenda attributed the trade relationship to Israel’s dependence on military exports and the military industrial complex for sources of foreign income. By 1981, Agenda noted, Israel’s arms exports rose to $1.3 billion or 40 percent of Israel’s exports. This reliance, according to Agenda, partners Israel with repressive regimes around the world.

But the Agenda paper also stated repeatedly that Israel should not be singled out for criticism among South Africa’s other major trading partner.

Rabbi Balfour Brickner, vice president of the American Israel Civil Liberties Coalition and spiritual leader of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York, said the trade with South Africa is “a source of embarrassment for American Jews which is causing them to silently walk away from their heretofore unqualified support for Israel.”

AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION

Israel should have halted the military exchanges long ago, Brickner said. But pressure from American Jews was not enough. Only pressure from Congress will instigate a change in Israel’s South Africa policy, he said.

“I don’t think the trade is in Israel’s best interest,” Brickner said. “Interest has to be measured in terms other than dollars. Israel’s South Africa policy could erode American Jewish support for Israel.”

Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, described the uncomfortable position of American Jews on the military trade. AJCongress took a leading role in the Jewish community in pushing to impose sanctions on South Africa, Siegman said. Its leaders were arrested in an act of civil disobedience in front of the South African Embassy to protest apartheid. “We obviously cannot begin to sanction the sale of arms from Israel. We have to assume this kind of trade is going on and from our point of view, it cannot continue,” Siegman said.

“The pressure should not come only from Congress,” he said. “There ought to be moral pressures within Israel itself. The Israeli government has to understand that there are things it cannot do.” Arms supplies allow a government to stay in power, Siegman said.

“The Jewish State was not created to supply oppressive regimes with the tools of oppression,” Siegman said. “If there is not that internal pressure within Israel, American Jews have to make it clear that (military trade with South Africa) is unacceptable.”