|
11
Israel and
the Organized American Jews
(…)
(130)
Nir approves the fact that `the
Washington-based leadership of AIPAC
accommodates itself to changes on the political
agenda of the new Israeli leadership', but, like
a real Bolshevik, deplores AIPAC's inability to
impose its authority over `the 55,000 AIPAC
activists scattered all over the US whose
accommodation to those changes is much slower.
Unless the American Jews so accommodate
themselves, they can in his view damage Israel
badly, when `an administration with a "Jewish
connection" as firm as Clinton's sits in the
White House. Since Clinton feels so committed to
the Jewish vote and even more to Jewish campaign
donations, Jewish opinion has a great
importance. A danger exists that the present US
administration may stop heeding the voice of US
Jewry as carefully as heretofore.' In order to
avert this danger, Nir proposes several measures
closely resembling the Nishma methods, like
sending `people with authority in security
affairs, plenty of generals', to educate the US
Jews, because their prestige in the eyes of US
Jews remains intact, while that of the Rabin
government sadly does not.
A deeper, but still unsatisfactory insight
came from the pen of Meron Benvenisti writing
for Haaretz (l July). His opinions deserve to be
quoted at length. After noting that `the Jewish
American community' bears no less responsibility
than anybody else for `the status quo' in the
Territories, Benvenisti proceeds to describe
this community's ways of influencing US
policies. He recalls that `when the [US]
mission headed by Denis Ross came to Jerusalem,
a Hebrew paper [Maariv] described it as
"the mission of four Jews", and gloated with
pride while talking about the Jewish and even
Israeli roots of all its members.' Other papers
did likewise. The `Israeli roots' of those US
diplomats comprising what went under the name of
a `peace mission' included the fact that a son
of one of them was said to be studying in a
Hesder Yeshiva, to receive military training
there. He was also said to be a sympathizer of
Gush Emunim and was awaiting the opportunity to
serve in the Israeli Army in the Territories.
Benvenisti's comment is that `the ethnic origin
of American diplomats sent here to promote peace
may be irrelevant, but it is hard to ignore the
fact that manipulation of the peace process was
entrusted by the US in the first place to
American Jews, and that at least one member of
the State Department team was selected for the
task because he represented the views of
American Jewish establishment. The tremendous
influence of the Jewish establishment upon the
Clinton administration found its clearest
manifestation in redefining the "occupied
territories" as
(131)
"territories in dispute". The Palestinians
are understandably angry. But lest they be
accused of anti-Semitism, they cannot, God
forbid, talk about Clinton's "Jewish
connection". After all, for its own purposes,
the PLO wants anything as much as to keep its
lines of communication with the Jewish community
in the US open, because it perceives that
community as so formidably powerful. Let it be
recalled that Arafat chose in 1988 a delegation
of American Jews as a channel to publicize his
decision to recognize Israel, because he
6elieved that only via them might he gain some
legitimacy for himself.' Like the rulers of
Third World countries whom I mentioned earlier,
Arafat seems to have firmly believed in the myth
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Benvenisti acknowledges that `Israel benefits
from Jewish influence', but he also points to
the resultant dangers: `The uncontrollability of
the American Jewish establishment, together with
its presumption that it represents Israeli
interests "better" than Israel's elected
government does, should be a matter for concern
because American Jewish leaders tend to be more
hawkish than the present leaders of Israel are.'
Benvenisti observes that `their involvement in
Israeli politics was recognized long ago as
legitimate.' He also discusses their increasing
financial support for the Israeli parties and
movements as a manifestation of legitimacy. Even
more importantly he indicates the difference
between Israeli Jews and organized US Jewry:
`The Jewish community in Israel is a sovereign
body, its membership is determined by binding
state laws and it bears full responsibility for
its fate in every walk of life. US Jewry is a
voluntary body, has power only over those who
choose co accept its authority and even this
power is limited in scope. Whoever wants to 6ear
full responsibility should come and bear it
here. Those who prefer to bear only a partial or
marginal responsibility are free to choose so,
provided they do not demand for themselves a
status they do not qualify for.' It is rather
curious that after defining the American Jewry
as `a voluntary body', Benvenisti deplores its
`uncontrollability'. But in Zionism such
paradoxes abound.
(…)
|