DAVID ISAAC: STRATEGY FOR A STRONG POR-ISRAEL LOBBY…PART 1
http://shmuelkatz.com/wordpress/?p=436&Source=email
Strategy for A Strong Pro-Israel Lobby: Part 1
By David Isaac
Do you know who your American Jewish leaders are?
In last week’s blog, we discussed the massive Saudi arms deal and Israel’s failure to protest it. AIPAC, (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), America’s chief pro-Israel lobby, slavishly followed Israel’s lead and it, too, did nothing.
The reason is that both have been, in Shmuel Katz’s words, “cowed by experience.” Most observers regard AIPAC’s no-show as an after-effect of its 1981 battle to keep AWACS radar planes out of the hands of the Saudis. AIPAC acts like a boxer who left too much of himself in the ring during a title fight and hasn’t quite been the same since.
But there’s another reason AIPAC can’t work up the moxie to battle Israel’s enemies. Israel doesn’t do it either. If Israel’s government shrugs off a Saudi arms deal, why should AIPAC second-guess it? It begs the question: What is the appropriate role for a pro-Israel lobby in the Diaspora? Should it set its own course or follow unquestioningly one set by Israel?
Shmuel, who had a very definite opinion on the subject, was guided by the principle that American Jews have every right to pressure the American government on issues important to the Jewish state. At the same time, Shmuel opposed the idea that Diaspora Jewry should try to undermine Israeli policy from abroad.
In a Letter-to-the-Editor to The Jerusalem Post (May 13, 1986), Shmuel wrote:
I have told American Jews – including supporters of my views – that, if they want to interfere in Israeli politics, the only honourable way of doing so is to come and live in Israel and get the vote.
In that same letter, a response to a distortion of his views by Abraham Foxman, (Foxman would, soon after, become head of the Anti-Defamation League – a sorry replacement for the thoroughly admirable Nathan Perlmutter), Shmuel wrote:
Sir, – I am astounded at the gross misrepresentation in the article by Abraham Foxman, “To speak or not to speak” (April 28) of the work I have been doing in the United States for some years. He claims that I have been urging American Jews to press the Israeli government to change its policies. This is almost diametrically opposite to the message I have been conveying.
On my first visit to the U.S. as an independent commentator (in April 1971), I summarized my purpose at a meeting with academics in Boston: “It is not in order to criticize the government of Israel that I come to you, but to demand of you that you effectuate your right as American citizens and say to President Nixon and Secretary of State Rogers: ‘Hold it! For the good of the United States too, lay off, and don’t demand of Israel concessions that will jeopardize her security, because her security is also one of the conditions for the security of the United States.’
Because it became apparent that the pattern of Israel-U.S. relations was largely one of pressure by Washington on the Israeli government to do things against its better judgment, I decided that the most important service I could render would be to persuade Americans – non-Jews as well as Jews – to use their legitimate influence with their government to stop twisting Israel’s arm. This is the appeal I have made in just about every public speech in the U.S. and indeed to every group of American visitors to Israel that I have had the opportunity of addressing.
In fact, Shmuel viewed it as an obligation of American supporters of Israel to take action when America pursued policies dangerous to the Jewish state. In “Surrendering to Pressure” (The Jerusalem Post, April 11, 1986), Shmuel urged action, even if it meant taking a harder line than Israel’s own government.
Weakness of character in the Israeli government increases the responsibility of the American Jewish community to be supportive of Israel. Administration pressures can be countered. There is a tremendous body of support for Israel in the American political world. It stems from the perception that the U.S. and Israel share not only common values, but also common interests.…
Surely the role of the U.S. Jewish leaders is clearly indicated. They should undoubtedly join in the opposition to the deal – but they must go further. They must take direct issue with the administration on the subject of the bullying of Israel. They must assert their refusal to have their intelligence insulted, and to have their hands tied, by the derisory notion that Jerusalem is happy with the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.
This demands a change in their policy – of pretending once Israel has given in, that “If Israel agrees, who are we to interfere?” If they recognize an obligation to stand up for the security of Israel, they should protest not only against the arms deal but also against Washington’s policy of “twisting Israel’s arm” to acquiesce in measures inimical to its security.
Such a bold move will also add heart to Israel’s political friends; and give direction to an all-too-often bewildered Jewish community.
Strong, confident, courageous, aggressive – it’s a far cry from the approach taken by major American Jewish organizations today. If America’s largest pro-Israel lobby can’t muster more than a worried Web page when $60 billion worth of the most advanced military hardware is proposed for a country whose king says Israel shouldn’t exist and whose Mideast Peace Plan means peace of the dead for Israel, then we have a problem.
It would go a long way towards fixing the problem were American Jewish organizations like AIPAC to adopt Shmuel’s position. While Shmuel’s approach may seem like a balancing act, in fact it offers Israel’s supporters a wide, graceful path on which to take a range of independent actions in defense of the Jewish state without veering off the two cliffs – either becoming mindless automatons in ‘sleep’ mode because they haven’t received a signal from Israel, or subversive foreigners, crossing the red line into pressuring Israel’s duly elected government simply because it has staked out policies with which they don’t agree.
Clearly, an independent approach isn’t without its challenges, not least of which are the political and psychological difficulties of taking a stronger stance than Israel on matters affecting her security. When this writer was a child, Shmuel would frequently visit his parents’ home during his trips to the U.S. He would have a running argument with this writer’s mother, Rael Jean Isaac, urging that more must be done in the U.S.
“I would say that it was tough to be more Catholic than the Pope,” she would respond. “I would contend that until Israel’s government adopted a policy assertive of Jewish rights, it was an uphill battle here to persuade the Jewish community and the political elite, however supportive of Israel they might like to be. Shmuel did not want to hear this, insisting that our efforts in showing that a strong Israel was in U.S. interests were quite independent of what went on in Israel. In the end Shmuel would pound the table, and that would end our chicken and egg discussion—at least until his next visit.”
More Jewish leaders — recognize any?
In addition to the above problem, there is the issue of who these leaders are. Our so-called representatives are not chosen for any particular devotion to Zionism. Most are selected by a board. The poor quality of Jewish leadership only gets worse in other countries. British journalist Melanie Phillips recently visited Canada where she “was struck by the beleaguered state of many Canadian Jews.”
“They were battling the usual mad barrage against Israel… But perhaps the most troubling aspect was that they appeared not to possess the verbal ammunition with which to respond,” she writes. Phillips points out that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a much firmer grasp of the motives of the anti-Israel mob than do most Canadian Jews. Clearly, Canada’s Jewish leadership is doing a less than adequate job.
Mick Davis, self-appointed Jewish leader
And in Britain last week, Mick Davis, an “ideal type” of Diaspora leader in that he is unelected and uninformed, caused a storm of controversy when he said a number of odious things in a speech to an audience at the London Jewish Cultural Center, including that Israel could be heading toward apartheid.
It seems world Jewry overall is saddled with flaccid leadership. To put in its place a Jewish leadership worthy of the name will be a formidable challenge. Shmuel is no longer with us to pound the tables. So we must pound our own, until we find the strength to separate these unelected “representatives” from their chairs.
Uphill battle, indeed. But we must do what we can.
Next week I will set forth what from Shmuel’s perspective would be a strong American-Jewish platform for Israel.
Comments are closed.
