The position of the organized American Jewish leadership on the sharply controversial issue of whether they have the right and obligation to take public positions on matters affecting Israel’s security and foreign policy, was made clear in a letter by Morris Abram, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to Premier Yitzhak Shamir and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
In the letter, which Abram released Sunday, he stated that “Restraint in giving public advice to Israel on matters of security has been the tradition of the Conference of Presidents from its very beginning” but at the same time, “membership in the Conference does not restrict constituent organizations from taking their own individual positions subject to their sense of the common good.” Last month, the American Jewish Congress, a constituent of the Presidents Conference, released a policy statement supporting an international conference for Middle East peace and a compromise solution for the Israel-administered territories, positions favored by Peres and his Labor Party but fiercely opposed by Shamir and Likud.
Some media reports here inferred a rebuke to the AJCongress in Abram’s letter. But AJCongress president Theodore Mann, reached by telephone at his Philadelphia office Monday morning, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that his organization “approved” Abram’s letter and “we think it is correct, absolutely correct.”
He stood by the AJCongress’ policy statement and predicted that “other major American Jewish organizations will soon essentially be covering the same ground” and will take positions “similar to ours.”
In releasing his letter to Shamir and Peres, Abram explained that the latest phase of the debate, which in fact began with the founding of the Jewish State nearly 40 years ago, was touched off by the widely publicized AJCongress statement. It erupted again when Peres, answering questions following an address to the Presidents Conference Sept. 30, appeared to endorse the AJCongress’ initiative.
The Israeli Foreign Minister stated that while it is up to Israel’s parliament to “decide on matters of life and death” for the nation, he “would be very surprised” if American Jews remained “neutral on the issue of peace.”
SHAMIR’S LETTER TO ABRAM
Abram released a letter to him from Shamir, dated Oct. 1, in which the Premier stressed that “. . . all of us, here and abroad, have adhered to the principle that matters of existence and security must be left to those who are called to shed their blood for the country. Thus and only thus has the American Jewish leadership been able to present to the world a united front on the fundamental issues of Israel’s existence and help it immeasurably in its struggles. . .”
Shamir added, “The regrettable recent attempt to breach this understanding sets a dangerous precedent. There is a shock of disbelief in Israel . . .” The Premier seemed to be referring to both Peres’ remarks to the Presidents Conference and the AJCongress policy statement.
Abram also released Peres’ rejoinder to Shamir, dated Oct. 4, in which he said he was “very surprised to read your reaction to my address” to the Presidents Conference. He took the Premier to task for “criticizing the activities of the Foreign Minister in his absence from the country . . .”
ABRAM’S LETTER TO SHAMIR AND PERES
Abram, in his letter to the two Israeli leaders, dated Oct. 7, stated: “American Jewry has been a partner in the effort to create a sovereign State of Israel. . . None of us would by deed or word, impair the sovereignty or security of this State. The essence of sovereignty is the right and power of a state to decide for itself the great issues of life and destiny. Fortunately, sovereignty in Israel is vested in its people acting through a democratically constituted government.
“Since its establishment as a Jewish state, Israel and its governments have always been receptive to the expressions of the diverse views of Jews abroad . . . Internal examination and debate of issues faced by governments of Israel is in the best tradition of American Jewish life, and the channels to Israel have always been open to communicate divergent views on every political and communal concern. As an individual or representative, I have publicly expressed viewpoints on matters of Jewish communal interest — at times different from existing Israeli government policy–but not on matters which affected the State’s ultimate existence and sovereignty.
“Such restraint in giving public advice to Israel on matters of security has been a tradition of the Conference of Presidents from its very beginning. At the same time, membership in the Conference does not restrict constituent organizations from taking their own individual positions subject to the sense of the common good.
“The Conference itself has used its channels to communicate to Israeli officials views and opinions representing consensus, near consensus and dissent on the range of Israeli policies. Restraint by the Conference on the public airing of contrary views on matters of the safety of the State rests not solely on abstract theory but on a practical reality. . .”
PRIMARY EMPHASIS OF THE AJC
Mann told the JTA that the primary emphasis of the AJCongress policy statement was not support for an international peace conference but a “correction of the status quo” which itself is the subject of vigorous debate in the Israeli media.
He observed that many in Israel critical of the AJCongress’ stand did not read its policy statement. In order to make its position clear, the AJCongress is publishing in Hebrew the text of its policy statement in advertisements in five major Israeli daily newspapers, appearing Monday and Tuesday.
THE DEBATE CONTINUES
Meanwhile, the debate continued to boil over the AJCongress policy statement and Peres’ strong advocacy of an international conference during his visit to the U.S. last month.
Bernice Tannenbaum, chairperson of the World Zionist Organization-American Section, declared that “It is unfortunate that an important American-Jewish organization has taken a public stand concerning an issue which is clearly to be decided in the Israeli political process . . . American Jews and their responsible organizations, have the right and even the obligation to contribute their views on issues and events concerning Israeli society . . . . However, our comments and interventions transgress the obligation of responsibility when they trespass into issues of Israel’s security and political future,” Tannenbaum said.
An opposite view was taken by Isak Arbus, president, and John Ranz, executive secretary, of the Holocaust Survivors Association U.S.A. who stated in a letter to the AJCongress: “We strongly believe that it is in the best interests of the State of Israel to adhere to the democratic ideals of its founders. We commend you therefore for the courageous stand you have taken on two vital issues to the Jewish state and the Jewish people: The central one of the West Bank and the need for an international conference on Middle East peace.”
Gloria Elbling, national president of NA’AMAT USA (formerly Pioneer Women-NA’AMAT) stated that “Our 50,000-member organization strongly backs the position forthrightly expressed by Israeli Foreign Minister Peres in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly and to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations of which NA’AMAT USA is a member.” Rabbi Alexander Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), stated, “The current debate on the peace conference is a focal issue, as is the issue of religious pluralism (in Israel) on which it is our obligation to make ourselves heard. I see nothing inappropriate about Foreign Minister Peres’ call to involve ourselves in the current debate on the peace process.”
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.
