Analyst Says Anti-semitic Aspects of Awacs Debate Could Occur Again in Similar Debates in the Future

A noted political analyst has asserted that the anti-Semitic aspects of the recent AWACS debate — on whether the U.S. should sell AWACS aircraft and other sophisticated military equipment to Saudi Arabia — could fuel similar outbursts in the future if new events revived the “harmful perceptions that came to the fore” during the debate.

However, continues Milton Ellerin, director of Trends Analyses for the American Jewish Committee, research conducted since the debate does not indicate conclusively whether the AWACS question has substantially damaged American Jewry. Ellerin, whose statements are contained in a just-published AJCommittee report titled “The AWACS Debate: Is There An Anti-Semitic Fallout?”, added:

“Some three weeks after the AWACS vote, President Reagan indicated to Jewish leaders that he was disturbed at the anti-Semitic aspects the debate had revealed, and he expressed his desire to undo the harm. The implementation of this desire may play a large part in determining whether the harm inflicted by the AWACS affair is permanent.”

CITES ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATION

Reviewing the events of the AWACS debate, Ellerin notes that “for the first time in recent memory an American Administration impugned the loyalty of the American Jewish community, (saying) that Jews were ‘casting undue influence’ on the legislative process ….

“The Administration set the tone for the debate, managing to convey the notion that the American Jewish community was disloyal, that Jews who fought the sale were fighting against America’s best interests. Many non-Jewish legislators who opposed the sale on the merits were accused of bowing to ‘Jewish pressure,’ of fearing the cessation of Jewish financial support.”

Ellerin also points to “threats that dire consequences would ensue for Jews in America if the sale did not go through,” adding that one Washington observer charged that ‘the Administration has begun to poke at anti-Semitic cesspools beneath the surface of American society.'”

However, Ellerin stresses, “these themes found virtually no echo in the editorial pages of responsible newspapers outside the capital. The insinuations emanated from Washington and trickled downward; they did not come from America’s grassroots.”

SEES SOME CONSOLATION

Concluding, Ellerin says that Jewish leaders “draw some consolation” from the debate because, he says, they feel it “reinforced the American Jewish community’s determination to assert its right to participate in public debate on matters of vital Jewish concern.”

Nevertheless, Ellerin says, these same leaders also “feel troubled, not quite certain that the harm to Jewish interests and the insensitivity to Jewish concerns were indeed only passing phenomena.”