10
Not All Jews Toe the line
The first edition of this book explained how the U.S. lobby for Israel is able to manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East, but it did not explain fully why the Israeli government, in the face of worldwide opposition—except in the United States—carried forward its expensive expansionist policies in the occupied territories. It was clear that the settlements were unpopular among many Israelis and a vexing thorn in the side of Israeli officials, as they were costly to subsidize and had become the main focus of international criticism of Israel.
Clearing the Path for the Messiah
A scholarly study by Vincent James Abramo, a veteran federal employee, showed that the settlements are deeply rooted in religion. A little-noted factor in the Middle East imbroglio is the rising power of ultraorthodox Jews in Israeli and U.S. politics. Their core beliefs demand implacable opposition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on any part of the West Bank, part of the area seized by Israeli forces in the June 1967 Arab—Israeli war and identified in the Bible as Judea and
5
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Samaria. Ultraorthodox interpretations of Judaic law that are found in the Torah, Talmud, and Halakhah prohibit Jews from sharing power with non-Jews in the "Land of Israel."
In April 2002, a convention of Sharon's Likud Party voted to oppose Palestinian statehood. The vote was seen as an appeal for continued support from ultraorthodox Jews and as an intra-party victory for former Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who was expected to oppose Sharon in the next Israeli election. Always a factor in Israeli politics, orthodox Jews became a powerhouse in the past decade. In his study of Orthodox Judaism, Abramo wrote: "The success of the religious parties in the 1996 and 1999 Israeli national elections vastly increased the influence of orthodox Jews in the Israeli political process. Politically influential and highly visible orthodox rabbis seek to convince Israel's religiously observant Jews that the Messiah will not arrive until Jews establish themselves as sole rulers in rhe biblical Land of Israel. They believe that any governmental compromise to return biblical lands to the Palestinians in exchange for a peace agreement is, in the eyes of God, a treacherous and punishable act. The orthodox are committed to derailing all Israeli government and international peace initiatives that would force them to give up any part of Jewish sovereignty, political autonomy, and administrative control over all of Israel's biblical land." Abramo estimated that 20 percent of Israel's Jewish population is committed to these beliefs and ideology. This small percentage has proved adequate to be decisive in close elections.
Orthodox Jews promoted the expansion of settlements and sanctioned violent acts by Jewish extremists. The Orthodox goal is simply the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank. The late Professor Israel Shahak, a survivor of a Nazi concentration camp who became a leading champion of Palestinian rights, wrote of Orthodox leaders: "All were outwardly dovish but employed formulas which could be manipulated in the most extreme anti-Arab sense." In 1993, they mobilized against the Oslo Accords, which contemplated an eventual Palestinian state in the West Bank. They can be expected to marshal all possible resources against U.S. pressure for a Palestine state.
The ruthless tactics employed by Israel's right-wing Orthodox parries assure that they will remain a major factot in Israeli politics for years to come, no matter what Israeli parry coalitions may be established.
Hot All Jews Toe the Line 5
Abramo warned of possible Jewish violence in the United States: "Continued U.S. pressure to compromise on East Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the right of return for an estimated 3.2 million Palestinians creates a scenario that could see the United States as a potential target of Jewish extremism in the future."
Aramo deplored the U.S. tendency to perceive Israel "as a like-minded country with similar democratic values." He warned, "This mirror-imaging has proven to be dangerous and misleading, because it deflects attention away from the powerful undercurrent of [orthodox Jewish] religion as a driving force in Israeli political life."
It Is Not for Us to Speak Dor Minds"
Despite the power of the Orthodox right, a number of Israel's most outspoken critics have been Jews themselves. In its efforts to quell criticism of Israel, the pro-Israel community's first goal is to still Jewish critics. In this quest it receives strong support from the Israeli government.
Every government of Israel gives high priority to maintaining unity among U.S. Jews. This unity is regarded as a main line of Israel's defense—second in importance only to the Israeli army—and essential to retaining the support that Israel must have from the United States government.
American Jews are made to feel guilty about enjoying safety and the good life in the United States while their fellow Jews in Israel hold the tamparts, pay high taxes, and fight wars. As Rabbi Balfour Brickner stated: "We hide behind the argument that it is not for us to speak our minds because the Istaelis have to pay the price." One Jewish reporter atttibuted Jewish silence to an organized enforcement campaign: "I have often been told—verbally, in Jewish publications, and in synagogues— that even if I have doubts about the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians, I should keep quiet about it and be steadfast in my support of a nation that needs to exist."2
For most Jews, open criticism of Israeli policy is unthinkable. The theme is survival—survival of the Zionist dream, of Judaism, of Jews themselves. The fact that the Jewish community in the United States has produced little debate in recent years on Middle East questions even within its own ranks does not mean that all its members are in agreement.
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Trampled to Death
Of the more than 200 principal Jewish organizations functioning on a national scale, only a few, like the New Jewish Agenda and its predecessor, Breira, have challenged any stated policy of the Israeli government.
In return for their occasional criticism of Israel's policies, the two organizations were ostracized and kept out of the organized Jewish community. Breira lasted only five years. Organized in 1973, its peak national membership was about 1,000. Named for the Hebrew word meaning "alternative," it called on Jewish institutions to be "open to serious debate," and proposed "a comprehensive peace between Israel, the Arab states, and a Palestinian homeland that is ready to live in peace alongside Israel." Prominent in its leadership were Rabbis Arnold Jacob Wolf, David Wolf Silverman, Max Ticktin, David Saperstein, and Balfour Brickner.
The National Journal reports that Briera was "bitterly attacked by many leaders of the Jewish establishment" and that a Breira meeting was "invaded and ransacked" by members of the militant Jewish Defense League. Some members of Breira came under intense pressure to quit either the organization or their jobs. Jewish leaders were warned to avoid Breira or fund-raising would be hurt.3
Israeli officials joined rabbis in denouncing the organization. Carolyn Toll, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who had been on the board of directors of Breira, quoted a rabbi: "My bridges are burned. Once you take a position like this [challenging Israeli positions], the organized Jewish community closes you out."4 Officials from the Israeli consulates in Boston and Philadelphia warned Jews against attending a Breira conference.
Breira came under attack from both right and left within the Jewish community. A pamphlet branding some of its members as "radicals" was quoted by Jewish publications and later distributed by AIPAC. Breira was accused of being allied with the radical U.S. Labor Party. An unsigned "fact sheet" suggested that the organization was really a group of Jewish radicals supporting the PLO.5 The Seattle Jewish Transcript said it was run by a "coterie of leftist revolutionaries" who opposed Israel.6
Irving Howe, speaking at the final national conference of Breira in 1977, said that the tactics used to smear the organization were an "out
Hot All Jews Toe the Line 5
rage such as we have not known for a long time in the Jewish community."7 At the same meeting, retired Israeli General Mattityahu Peled, who was often boycotted by Jewish groups while on U.S. lecture tours, said, "The pressure applied on those who hold dissenting views here [in the United States] is far greater than the pressure on us in Israel. I would say that probably we in Israel enjoy a larger degree of tolerance than you do here within the Jewish community."8 Breira disbanded shortly after that conference.
In December 1980, 700 American Jews gathered in Washington, D.C., to found another organization of dissenters, the New Jewish Agenda.9 Composed mainly of young liberals, it called for "compromise through negotiations with the Palestinian people and Israel's Arab neighbors," and it opposed Israeli policies in the West Bank and Lebanon.
It was soon barred from associating with other Jewish groups. In June 1983, its Washington, D.C., chapter was refused membership in the Jewish Community Council, a group that included 260 religious, educational, fraternal, and social service organizations. The council members voted 98-70 to overturn the recommendation of the group's executive board, which had voted 22-5 for the organization's admission.10 Irwin Stein, president of the Washington chapter of the Zionist Organization of America, charged that the group was "far out" and "pro-Arab rather than pro-Israel."11 Moe Rodenstein, representing the New Jewish Agenda, said the group would like to be a part of "the debate" and added, "We're proud of what we're doing."12
"It Is a Form of McCarthyism"
Like Jewish organizations, individual Jews rarely express public disagreement with Israel policies, despite the broad and fundamental differences they seem to hold. The handful who have spoken up have had few followers and even fewer defenders. To Carolyn Toll, the taboo against criticism was powerful and extensive:
I believe even Jews [when they are] outside the Jewish community are affected by internal taboos on discussion—for if one is discouraged from bringing up certain subjects within the Jewish community, think how much more disloyal it could be to raise them outside!13
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Toll lamented the "suppression of free speech in American Jewish institutions—the pressures that prevent dovish or dissident Jews from organizing in synagogues, Jewish community centers, and meetings of major national Jewish organizations." She also lamented the denunciations of American Friends Service Committee representatives as "anti-Semitics" and "dupes of the Palestine Liberation Organization" for insisting that "any true peace must include a viable state for the Palestinians."
A successful Jewish author suffered a different type of "excommunication" when she wrote a book that was critical of Israel.14 In The Fate of the Jews, a candid and anguished history of U.S. Jewry and its present-day dilemma, Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht explained that Zionism has become the "religion" for many Jews. This is why, she wrote, that "opposition to Zionism or criticism of Israel is now heresy and cause for excommunication," adding that the idealism attributed to Israel by most supporters has been marred by years of "patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism, and expansionism." She declared, "Israel shields itself from legitimate criticism by calling her critics anti-Semitic; it is a form of McCarthyism and fatally effective."
A year after its publication in 1983 by Times Books, the book was still largely ignored. The Los Angeles Times was the only major newspaper to review it.15 The publisher undertook no advertising, nor even a minimal promotional tour. Feuerlicht, the author of fifteen successful books, was subjected to what Mark A. Bruzonsky, another Jewish journalist, described as a "combination of slander and neglect." When copies sent to prominent "liberal Jews, Christians, civil libertarians and blacks" brought no response, Feuerlicht concluded, "It would seem that with universal assent, the book is being stoned to death with silence."
Other Jews who dare voice guarded criticism of Israel encounter threats that are far from silent. Threatening phone calls became a part of life for Gail Pressberg of Philadelphia, a Jewish member of the professional staff of the American Friends Service Committee. In her work she was active in projects supporting the Palestinian cause. She reported that abuse calls were so frequent that "I don't pay any attention anymore." One evening, after receiving several calls on her unlisted telephone in which her life was threatened for "deserting Israel," in desperation she left the receiver off rhe hook. A few minutes later the
Hot All Jews Toe the Line 5
same voice called on her roommate's phone, also unlisted, resuming the threats.16
In my twenty-two years in Congress, I can recall no entry in the Congressional Record that discloses a speech that was critical of Israeli policy and was presented by a Jewish member of the House or Senate. Jewish members may voice discontent in private conversation but nevet on the public record. Only a few Jewish academicians, such as Noam Chomsky, a distinguished linguist, have spoken out. Most of those are, like Chomsky, protected in their careers by tenure and are thus able to become controversial without jeopardizing their positions.
"Dissent Becomes Treason"
Journalism is the occupation in which Jews most often and most consistently voice criticism of Israel. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post is a notable example.
During Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Cohen warned: ". . . The administration can send Begin a message that he does not have an infinite line of credit in America—that we will not, for instance, approve the bombing of innocent civilians."
In a later column, Cohen summarized the reaction to his criticism of Israeli policy: "My phone these days is an instrument of torture. Merely to answer it runs the risk of being insulted. The mail is equally bad. The letters are vicious, some of them quite personal."17 He noted that U.S. Jews are held to a different standard than Istaelis when they question Israel's policies:
Here dissent becomes treason—and treason not to a state or even an ideal (Zionism), but to a people. There is tremendous pressure for conformity, to show a united front and to adopt the view that what is best for Israel is something only the government there can know.
In a world in which there are plenty of people who hate Jews, it is fidiculous to manufacture a whole new category out of nothing more than criticism of the Begin government. Nothing could be worse for Israel in the long run than for irs friends not to distinguish between when it is righr and when it is wrong.
5 They Dare to Speak Out
His reference to anti-Semitism was ironic. In April 2002, Cohen published an editorial in the Washington Post entitled "Who's Anti-Semitic?" in which he criticized the tendency in America to automatically portray critics of Israel as anti-Semites:
Here, criticism of Israel, particularly anti-Zionism, is equated with anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League, one of the most important Jewish organizations, comes right out and says so. "Anti-Zionism is showing its true colors as deep-rooted anti-Semitism," the organization says.
Cohen found this position ridiculous:
To protest living conditions on the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. To condemn the increasing encroachment of Jewish settlements is not anti-Semitism.
On the other hand, he noted, "To turn a deaf ear to the demands of Palestinians, to dehumanize them all as bigots, only exacerbates the hatred on both sides. The Palestinians do have a case."18
Mark Bruzonsky, a persistent journalistic critic of Israeli excesses, once said, "There's no way in the world that a Jew can avoid a savage and personal vendetta if his intent is to write a truthful and meaningful account of what he has experienced."
He may be right. Being Jewish did not spare the foreign news editor of Hearst newspapers from such problems. In early 1981 John Wal-lach produced a television documentary, Israel and Palestinians: Will Reason Prevail? It was funded by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a nonprofit institute established by Washington lawyer Merle Thorpe, Jr. Wallach's goal was to offer a fair, balanced presentation of the problems confronting Israel in dealing with the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza. Before the film was produced, Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz called Wallach, urging him to drop the project. When Wallach persisted, invitations to receptions and dinners at the Israeli embassy suddenly stopped. For a time he was not even notified of press briefings.
Public television broadcast the program without incident in Washington, D.C., New York, and other major cities, but Jewish leaders in Los Angeles demanded an advance showing.19 Upon seeing the film, they put up such a strong protest that station KCT inserted a statement disclaiming any responsibility for the content of the documentary.
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
Wallach received many complaints about the presentation, the most common being that it portrayed Palestinian children in a favorable light—some were blond and blue-eyed, and all were attractive—a departure from the frequently negative stereotype of Palestinians.
Wallach found himself in hot water again in 1982, when controversy erupted after a formal dinner he had organized to recognize Ambassador Philip Habib's diplomatic endeavors in Lebanon. Several cabinet officers, congressmen, and members of the diplomatic community attended. During the program, messages from several heads of government were read. Wallach asked Senator Charles Percy, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to read the one from Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the audience. On Wallach's recommendation, Percy did not read these two sentences:
In the wake of the Operation Peace in Galilee, Phil Habib made great efforts to bring about the evacuation of the bulk of the terrorists from Beirut and Lebanon. He worked hard to achieve this goal and, with the victory of the Israel Defense Forces, his diplomatic endeavors contributed to the dismantling of that center of international terrorism, which had been a danger to all free nations.
Moshe Arens, the Israeli ambassador, was furious. He sent an angry letter to Percy expressing his shock and stating, "Although I realize that you may not have agreed with its contents, . . . this glaring omission seems to me to be without precedent." He also wrote to Wallach, complaining of "unprecedented discourtesy" and calling the omission an attempt to "cater to the ostrich-like attitude of some of the ambassadors from Arab countries." Arens also wrote protest letters to the management of Hearst Corporation, which had picked up the tab for the dinner.
Wallach told another journalist the next day why he had recommended the omission: "I thought it was insulting to the Arabs [who were present] to have a message about war and terrorism at an evening that was a tribute to Phil Habib and peace."20 Wallach said, "The irony was that, while I got lots of harsh, critical mail from those supporting Begin, I got no words of support or commendation from the other side. It makes one wonder— when there is no support, only criticism, when one risks his career."21
Similar questions were raised by Nat Hentoff, a Jewish columnist who frequently criticizes Israel and challenges the conscience of his fellow
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Jews in his column for the Village Voice. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 he lamented:
At no time during his visit here [in the United States] was [Prime Minister] Begin given any indication that there are some of us who fear that he and Ariel Sharon are destroying Israel from within. Forget the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the groups they represent. They have long since decided to say nothing in public that is critical of Israel.22
Hentoff deplored the intimidation that silences most Jewish critics:
I know staff workers for the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee who agonize about their failure to speak out, even on their own time, against Israeli injustice. They don't, because they figure they'll get fired if they do.
Indeed, the threat of being fired was forcefully put to a group of employees of Jewish organizations in the United States during a 1982 tour of Lebanon. Israel's invasion was at its peak, and a number of employees of the Jewish National Fund (JNF)—a nationwide organization that raises money for the purchase and development of Israeli land—were touring Lebanese battlefield areas. Suddenly, while the group was traveling on the bus, Dr. Sam Cohen of New York, the executive vice president of the JNF, stood up and made a surprising announcement. A member of the tour, Charles Fishbein, who was at the time an executive in the Washington office, recalls, "He told us that when we get back to the United States, we must defend what Israel is doing in Lebanon. He said that if we criticize Israel, we will be terminated immediately."23
Fishbein said the group was on one of several hastily arranged tours designed to quell rising Jewish criticism of the invasion. In all, more than 1,500 prominent American Jews were flown to Israel for tours of hospitals and battlefields. The tours ranged in length from four to seven days. The more prestigious the group of visitors, the shorter, more compressed the schedule. Disclosing only Israeli hardship, the tours were successful in quieting criticism within the ranks of Jewish leadership, and they also inspired many actively to defend Israeli war policies.
Not AHJews Toe the Line 5
"The Time May Not Be Far Off"
Peer pressure does not always muffle Jewish voices. A pioneer in the establishment of the state of Israel, who helped to organize its crucial underpinnings of support in the United States, later became a frequent critic of Israeli policy.
Nahum Goldmann is a towering figure in the history of Zionism. He played a crucial role in the founding of Israel, meeting its early financial problems, influencing its leaders, and organizing a powerful constituency for it in the United States. His service to Zionism spanned nearly fifty years. During World War I, when Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire, Goldmann tried to persuade Turkish authorities to allow Jewish immigration. In the 1930s he advocated the Zionist cause at the League of Nations. During the Truman administration, he lobbied for the United Nations resolution calling for partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel.
After the 1947 UN vote for the partition, unlike most Jews who were eager to proclaim the State of Israel, Goldmann urged delay. He hoped that the Jews would first reach an understanding with the Arab states and thereby avoid war. He lamented the bitter legacy of the war that ensued.24 He wrote, "The unexpected defeat was a shock and a terrible blow to Arab pride. Deeply injured, they turned all their endeavors to the healing of their psychological wound: to victory and revenge." To the Israelis,
The victory offered such a glorious contrast to the centuries of persecution and humiliation, of adaptation and compromise, that it seemed to indicate the only direction that could possibly be taken from then on. To brook nothing, to tolerate no attack, cut through Gordian knots, and shape history by creating facts seemed so simple, so compelling, so satisfying that it became Israels policy in its conflict with the Arab world.
When the fledgling nation was struggling to build its economy, Goldmann negotiated with West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer the agreement under which the Germans paid more than $30 billion in compensation and restitution to Israel and individual Jews.25 Yet he was
5 They Dare to Speak Out
bitterly condemned by some Israelis for his efforts. Philip Klutznick of Chicago, Goldmanns close colleague in endeavors for Israel, recalled the tremendous opposition, particularly from such extreme nationalists as Menachem Begin, to accepting anything from Germany: "At that time, many Jews felt that any act that would tend to bring the Germans back into the civilized world was an act against the Jewish people. Feelings ran deep."
Goldmanns disagreement with Israeli policy toward the Arabs was his central concern. To those who criticized his advocacy of a Palestinian state, he responded,
If they do not believe that Arab hostility can some day be alleviated, then we might just as well liquidate Israel at once, so as to save the millions of Jews who live there. . . . There is no hope for a Jewish state that has to face another fifty years of struggle against Arab enemies.
Goldmann respected the deep commitment to the Jewish people of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, but he regretted that Ben-Gurion was "organically incapable of compromise" and that his "dominant force" was "his will for power." Goldmanns essential optimism and his instinctive striving to temper hatreds and seek compromise were qualities that distinguished him from so many of his contemporaries—on both the Arab and Israeli sides of the conflict.
"Goldmann might have been prime minister of Israel," Stanley Karnow wrote in 1980, "but he chose instead to live in Europe and act as diplomatic broker, frequently infuriating Israeli officials with his initiatives." Seeking an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, he attempted to visit Cairo at the invitation of Egyptian President Nasser in 1970. But the Israeli government, headed by Golda Meir, resented his maverick ways and blocked the mission.
Goldmann was sharply critical of the Israeli government of Menachem Begin. He decried what he saw as Israels denial of the original Zionist vision. He rejected the claim of some Israelis that they must occupy "Greater Israel" because it was promised to them by God. He called this thesis "a profanation." Goldmann understood the need for U.S. support. He lived in the United States for more than twenty years and knew American Jewry well. In 1969 he wrote approvingly of Zionist political action in the United States: "It is not fair to single out Zionist pressure for cen
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
sure. Democracy consists of a mutiplicity of pressure-exerting forces, each of which is trying to make itself felt."
Near the end of his life, however, Goldmanns views of the pro-Israel lobby changed. In 1980 he warned:
Blind support of the Begin government may be more menacing for Israel than any danger of Arab attack. American Jewry is more generous than any other group in American life and is doing great things. . . . But by misusing its political influence, by exaggerating the aggressiveness of the Jewish lobby in Washington, by giving the Begin regime the impression that the Jews are strong enough to force the American administration and Congress to follow every Israeli desire, they lead Israel on a ruinous path which, if continued, may lead to dire consequences.
He blamed the Israeli lobby for U.S. failures to bring about a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. "It was to a very large degree because of electoral considerations, fear of the pro-Israel lobby, and of the Jewish vote." He warned of trouble ahead if the lobby continued its present course. "It is now slowly becoming something of a negative factor. Not only does it distort the expectations and political calculations of Israel, but the time may not be far off when American public opinion will be sick and tired of the demands of Israel and the aggressiveness of American Jewry."
In 1978, two years before he wrote his alarmed evaluation of the Israeli lobby, New York magazine reported that Goldmann had privately urged officials of the Carter administration "to break the back" of the lobby: "Goldmann pleaded with the administration to stand firm and not back off from confrontations with the organized Jewish community as other administrations had done." Unless this was done, Goldmann argued, "President Carter s plans for a Middle East settlement would die in stillbirth." His words were prophetic. The comprehensive settlement that Carter sought was frustrated by the intransigence of Israel and its U.S. lobby.
President Ronald Reagan revived the idea of a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement just four days before Goldmanns death in September 1982. A state funeral was conducted in Israel. As Klutznick, Israeli Labor Party leaders Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and others stood on Israels Mount Herzl awaiting the great Zionist leaders burial alongside
5 They Dare to Speak Out
the five other former presidents of the World Zionist Organization, the conversation centered on the Reagan plan, which Prime Minister Begin had already rejected.
Symbolic of organized Jewry's reaction to Goldmanns life was the response of the Israeli government to his death. Begin gave permission for the burial but did not attend. In a strikingly empty commentary on the life of a man who had done so much to bring Israel into being and give it strength, Acting Prime Minister Simcha Ehrlich said only, "We regret rhat a man of so many virtues and abilities went the wrong way."26 It was a callous epitaph for one of Israel's great pioneers.
"You Must Listen When We Speak III"
At 7:45 a.m. the towering John Hancock Building in Chicago's downtown loop area was just beginning to come to life. On the fortieth floor were the offices of Philip Klutznick—attorney, developer, former U.S. secretary of commerce, president emeritus of B'nai B'rith, organizer and former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and president emeritus of the World Jewish Congress. At that hour only Philip Klutznick was at work.
He was on the phone, seated on a sofa at one end of his spacious office, his back to a panoramic view of the building across the street where he and his wife made their home. On the walls were autographed photographs of the seven presidents of the United States under whom he had served.
This morning, in the fall of 1983, he was talking with Ashraf Ghor-bal, Egyprs ambassador to the United States and a friend of many years. Ghorbal was preparing for a visit to the United States by his leader, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He wanted to make sure the right people would be available to meet with him. The right people included Klutznick.
Klutznick's vigorous appearance and unrelenting pace belied his seventy-six years. His deep, rich voice echoed around the near-empty offices. His eyes smiled through heavy glasses, and his firm, confident manner was that of a man in the prime of life. But his apparent confidence about the flexibility of U.S. Jews contradicted his own experience working within—and outside—the establishment for sixty years. A vis
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
itor sharing coffee and conversarion would never guess that this short, handsome, optimistic man—whose persistence and spirit had helped to create Israel, pay its bills, and provide its arms—had become, in the eyes of many Jews, a virtual castaway.
Measured by offices held and services rendered, his credentials in the Jewish establishment were impeccable. But in the eyes of most Jewish leaders, he was guilty of a cardinal sin: daring to publicly challenge Israeli government policy. This put him at odds with the very Jewish organizations he did so much to bring into being.
He spoke from a base of confidence that included business success, public office in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and high honors in the Jewish community. After seeing his savings wiped out by the Great Depression, he recovered, became a successful community developer, a millionaire, a leader of the Jewish community, and a diplomat.
In his early years he worked to bring strength and unity to the Jewish community, a quest that took on urgency in 1942 when word arrived of Adolf Hitler's barbaric program to annihilate European Jews. Henry Monsky, an Omaha lawyer and president of B'nai B'rith, convened a meeting in Pittsburgh, inviting the membership of forty-one major Jewish organizations. This gathering, identified as the American Jewish Conference, marked the first serious effort to unite U.S. Jews against the Holocaust.
"You know, we are an unusual group of people," Klutznick chuckled. "We fight over anything." This time the fight was over whether Jews would back the establishment of a national homeland. Monsky, the first committed Zionist to head B'nai B'rith, pulled the organization from its neutral stance into advocacy. When the conference met in early 1943 and cast its lot with Zionism, two of the largest Jewish organizations— the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee— walked out in protest.
"Anyway," Klutznick continued, "that meeting started a movement that stayed alive for four years." It also brought him for the first time in close association with Nahum Goldmann. Klutznick and Goldmann wanted the American Jewish Conference to be permanent. In this effort, Klutznick battled to win the support of B'nai B'rith. "It was an enormous fight, and we lost," Klutznick later recalled.
5 They Dare to Speak Out
The bruises were still felt ten years later when Klutznick became president of B'nai B'rith. His first decision put him at odds with Goldmann, who wanted him to help re-create the American Jewish Conference. Despite his earlier effort, Klutznick now felt it would be divisive. "I looked him square in the eye and said, Tm not going to do it. If I tried it now it would split B'nai B'rith right down the middle. At this moment B'nai B'rith is too weak. I need these people together.'"
Klutznick told him he would "go all the way" on a program for a Jewish homeland, but he had what he believed to be a better plan for coordination of American Jews: an organization consisting of just the presidents of the major organizations. For one thing, he felt, the leaders needed to get acquainted with each other. "Believe it or not," Klutznick recalled, "many had attained these high positions without even meeting the presidents of other major organizations." Klutznick told Goldmann: "If we really want to do something, the presidents are the powerhouses." Goldmann agreed to the plan.
Klutznick recollected changes: "The fact is, during the 1950s people weren't as intense as they are now." As an example, he cited the Jewish response to the Eisenhower Doctrine, which pledged U.S. help to any nation in the Middle East that was threatened by international communism. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion opposed such a sweeping commitment, arguing that it could lead to U.S. support for nations that were hostile to Israel. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations decided to support the United States' position.
Klutznick recalled the confrontation. "I presided at that meeting, and we took the position that we should not oppose the president of the United States, and we didn't. In those days," he said after a long pause, "we could have those arguments. There was mutual tolerance." Dealing with Israeli officials sometimes tested Klutznick's tolerance. In 1955 the United States was horrified by the Israeli massacre of Arab civilians in the Gaza raid, and Klutznick, as president of B'nai B'rith, reported the country's reaction to Jerusalem. He told Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett: "Moshe, it was terrible. It wasn't the fact [that] Israeli forces were defending Israel. It was the overwhelming response. It looked like a disregard for the value of human life."
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
After a pause, the prime minister answered quietly, "You know, Phil, I did not even know this was taking place. He [Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion] did this on his own. I hope you will tell him what you told me." Klutznick met Ben-Gurion the next day. "It wasn't long before he said, 'Phil, what was the reaction to the Gaza raid?' It was exactly the same question Sharett had asked, and I gave exactly the same answer."
Klutznick was astonished by Ben-Gurion's response:
He stood up. He looked like an angry prophet out of the Bible and got red in the face. He shouted, "I am not going to let anybody, American Jews or anybody else, tell me what I have to do to provide for the security of my people."
When the prime minister stood up, Klutznick stood up too. Ben-Gurion asked, "Why are you standing up?" Klutznick answered, "Well, obviously I have offended you, and I assume that our discussion is over." Ben Gurion said, "Sit down. Let's talk about something else." Klutznick recalled, "That's the way it happened. So help me God. That's just the way it happened, and we had a wonderful talk." Klutznick said Ben-Gurion could be as "tough or tougher than Begin," but when he had made his point he could go back to "being friends."
Klutznick had a similar experience years later with Prime Minister Begin. In the wake of the Camp David Accords, President Carter called in Klutznick and seven other Jewish leaders. Carter said, "Look, I need some help. I think I can handle [Egyptian President] Sadat. We have an understanding, but I am not sure that I can convince the Prime Minister [Begin]." One of the group interrupted and changed the subject: "Mr. President, Israel is upset because there will be arms sent to Arab countries. There is already a bill pending, as you know." Then the next man said, "Can't you do something to make it more comfortable for Israel?" Several men in a row spoke in a similar vein.
Klutznick noted Carter's irritation and undettook the role of peacemaker:
Mr. President, I don't think we've quite got your message. There are all of these requests for arms. I think what my colleagues are trying to say, if I
5 They Dare to Speak Out
may interpret them, is whether there is some way to defer these requests until the negotiations are over. I don't think it is for us with our limited knowledge to tell you who should get arms and who should not.
He recalled, "I said that if the questions of arms sales had to be answered during the Camp David negotiations, whichever way the president answered them would be difficult." Klutznick said he added, "And I am not here representing anybody except you, Mr. President. Our country has to back you as fairly as it can." Klutznick's remarks got the discussion back on the track Carter wanted, but they were badly twisted in a news report published the next day in Israel, where Klutznick was quoted as having told Carter that he was at the White House meeting representing Egypt, not Israel. He had, of course, said nothing of the kind, and he sent a cable to Begin denying the story. The next day when reporters asked about the incident, Begin said simply, "I have received a cable from President Klutznick of the World Jewish Congress. He denies any such statement was made, and that's the end of it."
But that was not the end of it. Klutznick flew to Israel in a few days for previously scheduled meetings, including an appointment with Begin. Klutznick recalled the frosty scene. It was the first time Begin did not stand up and greet him with an embrace. Klutznick spoke first:
Look, Menachem, I know you are angry, but I'm the one that's angry and entitled to be. When you told the press you got a cable from Klutznick and he denies it and that's the end of it—is that the right thing to say? I say no. If someone had said that about you to me, I would have said, 'I had a cable from the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister denies it. And I've known the Prime Minister for a long time, and his word is good enough for me.'
Begin turned to his assistant and said, "Get that cable." He read a cable from his ambassador to the United States that gave an inaccurate account of what Klutznick had told Carter, and asked, "What would you have done?" Klutznick responded, "I would have fired the ambassador. In his cable he wasn't writing about Phil Klutznick. He was writing about the president of the World Jewish Congress. If he had any such information his first duty was to call me, not you. He never called me." Overcome with emotion, Begin stood and embraced his visitor.
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
Despite such shows of affection, Klutznick did not pull punches in his criticism of Begins later policies and his recommendations on what the U.S. government should do. In 1981 he deplored the Israeli air attacks, first on the Iraqi nuclear installation and then in Lebanon. Later that year he traveled to the Middle East with Harold Saunders, a former career specialist on the Middle East who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs under President Carter; former diplomat Joseph H. Greene, Jr.; and Merle Thorpe, Jr., president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Upon returning to the United States, Klutznick joined in the group s conclusion that the Camp David peace process was not enough and that the Palestine Liberation Organization should be brought into negotiations.27
Later in the year, when Saudi Arabia announced its "eight-point peace plan," Klutznick called it "useful" and argued that Israel at least "should listen to it."
All of these positions, of course, were violently opposed by Israel and its U.S. lobby. But Klutznick was not deterred. In mid-1982, in an article published in the Los Angeles Times and other major newspapers, Klutznick wrote:
It is up to the Reagan Administration to face the realities of the Middle East as boldly as did the Carter Administration. The first step is to halt the conflict in Lebanon immediately and have Israel s forces withdrawn. This must be followed by an enlarged peace process that includes all parties to the conflict—including Palestinians. Only by doing so without apology and with determination can America pursue its own best interests, promote Israels long-term well-being and protect world peace.
Despite public condemnation for these statements from the Jewish leadership in the United States, Klutznick privately received praise: When I opposed the Iraqi raid, my mail from Jews was about four-to-one supportive, and about three-to-one when I proposed dealing directly with the PLO," he recalled. "But, you know, some of that support has to be discounted. There are people in the Jewish community who will assure me of their support even when they think I'm wrong."28
Many believed him wrong and said so. Abbot Rosen, Midwest director of the Anti-Defamation League in Chicago, rejected Klutznicks
5 They Dare to Speak Out
proposal to bring the PLO into the peace process and to establish a state for the Palestinians as "pie in the sky." He reported to the Chicago Sun-Times one of the lobby's tired cliches: "Under the present political circumstances, another Palestinian state, adjacent to Israel and Jordan, would provide an additional Soviet foothold in the region."
Robert Schrayer, chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago, joined the protest with another shibboleth: "Since no sovereign nation can be expected to negotiate its own destruction, Israel should not be pressured to negotiate with the PLO."29
The Near East Report, a weekly newsletter published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, editorialized against Klutznick's views, and accused him of promoting a "sinister canard" in calling the Palestinians "a special people in the Arab world, in some ways like the Jews were in the West following World War II."30
The next year Klutznick took his crusade to Paris, where he joined forces with his old, ailing compatriot, Nahum Goldmann, and Pierre Mendes-France, a Jew and a former prime minister of France, in a plea to end Israel's war in Lebanon. Klutznick's reason for going to Paris was to attend a meeting of the World Jewish Congress, but as soon as he landed, Goldmann, then living in Paris and critically ill, told him, "We've got to get fifty of the most distinguished Jews of the world to sign a statement to bring this war in Lebanon to an end." Klutznick responded, "But, first, let's see if we can write a statement."
Goldmann agreed and took up the subject at lunch the next day with Mendes-France, Le Monde correspondent Eric Rouleau, and Klutznick, agreeing to consider a draft statement the next day. That night Klutznick, with the help of his aide, Mark Bruzonsky, wrote a brief statement that became the basis for the next day's discussion. Klutznick recalls the scene, "Mendes-France is one of the best editors I've seen in my life. He would look at a word in typical French fashion in several languages, turning it around every which way. Four hours later, after sitting there fighting over every word, we had a statement."31
Its conclusion was forceful:
The real issue is not whether the Palestinians are entitled to their rights, but how to bring this about while ensuring Israel s security and regional stability. Ambiguous concepts such as "autonomy" are no longer sufficient, for
Not AH Jews Toe the Line 5
they too often are used to confuse rather than to clarify. Needed now is the determination to reach a political accommodation between Israel and Palestinian nationalism.
The war in Lebanon must stop. Israel must lift its siege of Beirut in order to facilitate negotiations with the PLO, leading to a political settlement. Mutual recognition must be vigorously pursued. And there should be negotiations with the aim of achieving co-existence between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples based on self-determination.32
When it was finished, Klutznick asked, "What do we do with the damned thing?" Goldmann said, "We've got to get those other fellows. Branch out and find them." Klutznick protested that there was not enough time and suggested that Goldmann and Mendes-France issue it in their own names. The former prime minister said, "I've never done anything like that. I don't sign statements with other people." Goldmann and Rouleau added their encouragement, and, finally, Mendes-France said, "I'll sign provided you can get an immediate answer from Yasser Arafat."
Isam Sartawi, a close associate of Arafat, was in Paris at the time and arranged for a response by the PLO leader:
Coming at this precise moment from three Jewish personalities of great worth, worldwide reputation, and definite influence at all levels, both on the international scene and within their own community, that statement takes on a significant importance.
Klutznick took the podium at the meeting of the World Jewish Congress, then underway in Paris, to explain the declaration. The atmosphere, he recalled, was anything but cordial:
Heated is not the right word. If it had been heated it would have been better. It was sullen, solemn, and bitter. I tried to have the delegates understand why we spoke up as we did. I told them it was the first such statement Mendes-France had ever made. And I said they also should know that Nahum Goldmann does what he thinks is right. And he's not been condemned just once. He's been condemned many times in the past by those who later chose to follow him.33
The declaration brought headlines around the world, wide discussion, and some editorial praise. But it received little support among leading
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Jews and was largely rejected by Jewish organizations as "unrepresentative and unhelpful." It was Goldmanns last public statement. He died within a month; a month later, Mendes-France also died.
A few Jews helped Klutznick defend the statement.34 Newton N. Minow, a prominent Chicagoan who served in the Kennedy administration, praised Klutznick's "exemplary lifetime of leadership to Jewish causes and Israel" and "his independence and thoughtful criticism" in a column published in the Chicago Sun-Times. "As an American Jew pondering past mistakes, I believe that the American Jewish community has made some serious blunders in the past few years by choosing to remain silent when we disagreed with Israeli government policy."
Shortly after the Paris declaration, the world was horrified by the massacre of hundreds of civilians in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian camps at Beirut. After four months of silence, Klutznick spoke at a luncheon in New York in February 1983. He launched a new crusade, pleading for the right of Jews to dissent:
We cannot be one in our need for each other, and be separated in our ability to speak or write the truth as each of us sees it. The real strength of Jewish life has been its sense of commitment and willingness to fight for the right [to dissent] even among ourselves.35
In November Klutznick took his crusade to Jerusalem, attending, along with forty other Jews from the United States and fifteen other countries, a four-day meeting of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East. Klutznick drew applause when he told his audience, which included several Israelis: "If you listen to us when we speak good of Israel, then you must listen to us when we speak ill. Otherwise we will lose our credibility, and the American government will not listen to us at all."
By the time of his death in 1999—despite his proven commitment to Israel, his leadership in the Jewish community, and his unquestioned integrity—Philip Klutznick was rejected or scorned by many of his establishment contemporaries. Said one professional in the Jewish lobby community: "I admire Phil Klutznick, but he is virtually a nonperson in the Jewish community." Another was harsh and bitter, linking Klutznick with other critics of the Israeli government as "an enemy of the Jewish people."
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
Charles Fishbein, who for eleven years was a fundraiser and executive of the Jewish National Fund, provided a partial explanation for the treatment Klutznick received:
When you speak up in the Jewish community without a proper forum, you are shunted aside. You are dismissed as one who has been "gotten to." Its nonsense, but it is effective. The Jewish leaders you hear about tend to be very, very wealthy givers. Some give to Jewish causes primarily as an investment, to establish a good business and social relationship. Such people will not speak up for a nonconformist like Klutznick for fear of jeopardizing their investment.36
These thoughts echo those of Klutznick himself in our last interview. "Try to understand. See it from their standpoint. Why should they go public? They don't want any trouble. They are a part of the community. They have neighbors. They help out. They contribute." He paused, pursed his lips a bit, then added, "They have standing. And they want to keep it."
Klutznick smiled. "They say to me, 'You are absolutely right in what you say and do, but I cant. I cant speak up as you do.'" Another pause. "Maybe I would be the same if I hadn't gotten all the honors the Jewish community can give me." Klutznick saw Washington policy as a major obstacle to reforming the lobby's tactics: "Let's not underestimate the damage that our own government does. Our government has been writing blank checks to Israel for a long time. As a result, Begin would come over here for a tour, then go back home and say, 'What are you complaining about? I go to the United States, where the government supports me and all the leaders of the Jewish community applaud and support me.'"
A Growing Gap in Oor Liberal Tradition
"Jews never had it so good as they've had in the United States," mused I. F. Stone, one of America's most respected Jewish journalists who called himself a radical. Famous for his periodical, /. E Stones Weekly, which he issued for nineteen years, and for his independent views, he discontinued the weekly because, as he once said with typical self-mockery, he became "tired of solving the problems of the entire world every week."37
5 They Dare to Speak Out
At seventy-six years old and with eyesight so weak he had difficulty reading even large type, Stone was anything but retired. He was still a hero on campuses across the country and in liberal circles for his views on non-Middle East topics. Indeed, even on those themes his following was always enthusiastic.
"Israel is on the wrong course," he said during an interview, just a few years before his death, while peering through the thick lenses of his eyeglasses. "This period is the blackest in the history of the Jewish people. Arabs need to be dealt with as human beings." "I am gloomy about the future," he said. He could name no one with the promise to lead Israel out of its disastrous policies.
Our conversation drifted to American Jews who dissent, and Stone recalled the day a publisher invited him to lunch and asked him to delete from a book he had written a passage recommending major changes in Israeli policy. The book, Underground to Palestine, deals mainly with Stone s experiences traveling with Jews from Nazi camps as they made their way through the British blockade to what is now Israel. The offending part was Stones recommendation of a "binational solution, a state whose constitution would recognize the presence of two peoples, two nations, Arab and Jewish," to encompass all of Palestine. Stone refused to delete it, and as he wrote in the New York Review of Books, "that ended the luncheon, and in a way, the book. It was, in effect, proscribed."
According to Jewish journalist Carolyn Toll:
From then on, Stone, who might have been a hero on the synagogue lecture circuit as the first American newsman to travel with Holocaust survivors, was banned in any Jewish arena by leaders determined to close the debate on binationalism and statehood.38
In Israel, where Jews establish their identity by birth rather than membership in an organization, Stone would be a full-fledged dissident. But in the American climate of insecurity about non-Jewish majority views, such arbitrary loyalty tests have not been challenged by the same Jews who vehemently champion others' rights to speak freely.
Two years later, Stone s book was published in Hebrew—in Israel— with the offending passage intact. The book was widely read in the Middle East.
While he objected to the "excesses" of the lobby, Stone understood its motivations:
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
The Jewish people are apprehensive, fearful. They are afraid about the future. They feel they are at war, and many of them feel they have to fight and keep fighting.
He added, after a pause, "When people are at war it is normal for civil liberties to suffer/'
Stone saw a dangerous gap growing in this liberal tradition:
I find myself—like many fellow American intellectuals, Jewish and non-Jewish—ostracized whenever I try to speak up on the Middle East, [while] dissidents, Jewish and non-Jewish, in the Soviet Union are, deservedly, heroes.39
But in the United States they are anything but heroes:
It is only rarely that we dissidents on the Middle East can enjoy a fleeting voice in the American press. Finding an American publishing house willing to publish a book that departs from the standard Israeli line is about as easy as selling a thoughtful exposition of atheism to the Osservatore Romano in Vatican City.40
Those who speak up pay a price, said Stone, noting that journalists with long records of championing Israeli causes are flooded with "Jewish hate mail, accusing them of anti-Semitism" if they dare express "one word of sympathy for Palestinian Arab refugees."41
In an essay in the Washington Post on August 19, 1977, Stone voiced his concern over "Bible diplomacy," particularly the effort to cite the Bible as the justification for Israel's continued control over the West Bank:
In the Middle Ages, as everyone knows, the Bible was under lock and key. The clergy kept it away from the masses, lest it confuse them and lead to schism and sedition. . . . Maybe its time to lock the Holy Book up again, at least until the Israeli-Arab dispute is settled.
Stone died on July 17, 1989. Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called him "the modern Tom Paine—as independent and incorruptible as they come. Notwithstanding poor eyesight and bad ears, he managed to see more and hear more than other journalists because he was curious and fresh with the capacity for both discovery and outrage every new day."42
5 They Dare to Speak Out
Outrageous in the eyes of many American Jews, Stone went so far in his life as to criticize the Jewish nature of the State of Israel:
Israel is creating a kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry. In the outside world, the welfare of Jewry depends on the maintenance of secular, nonracial, pluralistic societies. In Israel, Jewry finds itself defending a society in which mixed marriages cannot be legalized, in which the ideal is racist and exclusionist. . . . That is what necessitated a re-examination of Zionist ideology.43
"Anti-Zionist Jews"
Heading the reexamination were two American Jews, Elmer Berger and Alfred M. Lilienthal, Jr. From the very beginning, they warned against Zionism, forecasting grave danger to Judaism in the establishment of a Jewish state. With no apparent trepidation they separated themselves from what has become the mainstream of Jewish thinking and devoted their lives to a lonely, frustrating, and controversial crusade to alter the policies of the state of Israel. Long after Israel was established, broadly recognized, and supported by the world community, they continued to make a case against the Jewish state. Both were often scorned as "self-hating Jews."
Both Lilienthal and Berger persisted in their crusades despite attacks. The two constantly lectured, wrote extensively, and appeared at forums. Their work is as well known in the Arab world as in the United States, and more honored there than here.
In personality, the two had little in common. Lilienthal began as a lawyer, Berger as a rabbi. Lilienthal is a hard-hitting advocate in manner and speech. His mood shifts rapidly. Thoughtful and subdued one moment, he can be challenging the next. Berger, by contrast, was calm and unruffled, a patient listener. Even when his words thundered, his delivery was that of the soothing cleric.
Each had his audience, but neither had many outspoken disciples. The people who read Lilienthal's newsletter, Middle East Perspective, and followed his activities may not be numerous, but his books are found in public and personal libraries throughout the country and are frequently cited in speeches and articles.
Rabbi Elmer Berger s circle was perhaps smaller still—international audiences are hard to measure—but it appeared loyal. When he spon
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
sored a two-day seminar in May 1983 at the Madison Hotel in Washington, D.C., the gathering attracted over two hundred people, principally journalists, scholars, clergy, public officials, and diplomats. All had at least two things in common: an interest in the Arab-Israeli dispute and affection for Elmer Berger, "the epitome of scholarship."44 Berger died October 6, 1996.
Lilienthal began his crusade against Israel soon after the government came into being in 1948 and, at the age of seventy, had not let up when I interviewed him in 1984. His 1949 Reader's Digest article, "Israel's Flag Is Not Mine," warned of the consequences of Zionism. His first book, What Price Israel?, was published in 1953. It was followed by There Goes the Middle East in 1957 and The Other Side of the Coin eight years later.
In 1978 Lilienthal published his largest and most comprehensive work, The Zionist Connection, which focuses on the development and activities of the Zionist movement within the United States. An impressive 872-page volume that is studded with facts, quotations, anecdotes, and, here and there, colorful opinions and interpretations, it was described by Foreign Affairs as the "culminating masterwork" of Lilien-thal's anti-Zionist career.
By 1984, his crusade had taken Lilienthal to the Middle East twenty-two times and across the United States twenty-six times.
For all his long-standing and vigorous endeavors for the peaceful reconciliation of Jews and Arabs, Lilienthal remains a lonely figure who is often shunned in the United States, even by those whose banner he carries the highest. Lilienthal says some people kid him as being the "Man from La Mancha." And true to the characterization, he frequently brings audiences to their feet by quoting from the song that had Quixote "reaching for the unteachable stars."
His greatest accomplishment, he says, is getting "some Christians to have the guts to speak up on this issue." Supposedly excommunicated from the Jewish faith by a gtoup of rabbis in New York in 1982, Lilienthal scorns the action: "Only God can do that. I still feel very much a Jew."
"Affirm the Equal Value uf All Beings"
In 1996, Rabbi Michael Lerner of San Francisco, founded Beyt Tikkun, a Jewish renewal movement that describes itself as the "progressive
5 They Dare to Speak Out
pro-Israel alternative to AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]." The organization insists on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, an end to the Israeli occupation, and the dismantling of the Israeli settlements.
In an article in the Los Angeles Times on April 28, 2002, Lerner wrote: "[We should] affirm the equal value of all beings. Reject all anti-Semitism, as well as all demeaning of Palestinians and Arabs. Let our elected officials and media know that you will no longer tolerate a political culture that prevents balanced and honest discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But criticism of Israel must not slide into the denial of the validity of Israel s existence or anti-Semitic rhetoric.... Jews are affirming the highest values of their culture and religion when they conclude that being pro-Israel today requires pushing Israel to end the occupation. . . . All of us are outraged at the immoral acts of Palestinian terrorists. . . . But many of us also understand that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been immoral and outrageous."
He dismissed as false the common assumption that PLO leader Yasser Arafat should have signed the agreement proposed by Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon's predecessor as prime minister of Israel. Among other shortcomings in Barak's proposal, Lerner mentioned the plight of refugees: "Palestinian refugees and their families now number more than three million, and many live in horrifying conditions in refugee camps under Israeli military rule. Barak refused to provide anything at all in the way of reparations or compensation for the refugees." He could have added that the Barak proposal also left Israel in full control of all Palestinian borders and left most of the Israeli settlements intact. Lerner is the founder of a magazine named Tikkun.
Question Their Loyalty
While numerous Jewish academics, politicians, and rabbis have spoken out against Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians and the active support that treatment receives from America's pro-Israel lobby, it should be noted that many "everyday" American Jews are equally brave in standing up to intense peer pressure and speaking their minds. From journalists to sim
Hot AlUews Toe the Line 5
ply concerned citizens, the actions of these individuals defy the often-repeated conspiracy theories linking all Jews with Zionist aggression.
Haim "Harry" Katz—a New York Jew with a history of suing Jewish groups—is one such individual. In October 1992 he taped a telephone conversation with then-AIPAC president David Steiner in which the latter told Katz he had been "negotiating" with newly-elected President Bill Clinton over whom the president would appoint to the positions of secretary of state and national security advisor. Katz asked Steiner if AIPAC would actually participate in the selection of the new secretary of state. "We'll have access," Steiner replied. "We have a dozen people in [Clinton's] campaign, in the headquarters. . . . And they're all going to get big jobs."
Katz gave the tape to the Washington Times, citing a sense of fairness as his reason for doing so. "As someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews." The media maelstrom following the tape's release resulted in a full AIPAC denial of any truth to Steiner s comments, and in Steiner s resignation.45
In April 2002, after eighteen months of intense Israeli-Palestinian violence in a new intifada, Philadelphia Weekly managing editor Liz Spikol could no longer keep silent about the atrocities being committed by Israel in the occupied territories. After years of support, Spikol wrote, "Israel has crossed a line, and I—and many, many American Jews like me—will not be able to cross it with them." Despite explicit and implicit instructions never to publicly express disapproval of Israel's policies, Spikol felt a need to make her voice heard:
I'm frankly embarrassed that Israel, in the name of preventing further oppression of the Jews, has now become the oppressor. The hypocrisy is enraging. And as an American Jew, I'm ashamed of my own government's lack of action.
Spikol notes an aspect of the conflict that is rarely discussed:
Though people don't want to talk about it, this is also about race. Here in the United States, the rhetoric of racism was fashioned by slavery, by World
5 They Dare to Speak Out
War II, by Ezra Pound—the list goes on. That's why it's shocking to hear Jews talk about Arabs using similar terminology, including lampooning physical characteristics and religious beliefs.
Unlike Berger and Lilienthal, many American Jews, including Spikol, do not reject out of hand Zionism as a whole, and they believe in a strong Israel. "I also fear for Israel itself," Spikol wrote. "More than anything, I want it to prosper. But for now—and for a change—I'm going to concern myself with justice, not sentimentality. I may be called a traitor, but I wont be silent anymore."46 The reaction to Spikols article was upsetting on several fronts. Initial responses from American Jews were overwhelmingly negative: in an interview for this book, Spikol read from the local Jewish Exponent newspaper, which published "a rather unflattering" editorial declaiming Spikols "skewed thinking," then sent a copy to Spikols office. "I definitely perceived it as a threat," she says, "You know, were watching you.'"
In addition to being called "disgusting, repulsive, a self-hater" by numerous other Jewish Americans, Spikol was ostracized at community events. The day after attending a pro-Palestinian rally in Philadelphia, Spikol joined in a pro-Israel rally in order to report on the differences between the two. "As soon as people found out who I was, they didn't want to march next to me. With my own people, I'm persona non grata" Spikol said. Asked whether the harassment—including threatening calls to her mother's unlisted number—has affected her in any way, Spikols reply was affirmative. "The whole experience—people misinterpreting my words, using them to attack me. ... I just don't feel I should write on the subject again."47
While some speak out, others act. Jennifer Loewenstein, a Jewish human rights worker in the Gaza Strip, wrote a condemnation of those individuals who promote the false perception that Palestinians willingly offer up their children as part of a public relations campaign to gain sympathy. An e-mail full of expletives and abusive statements was quick to arrive.
Adam Shapiro, a nonobservant Jewish resident of Brooklyn, New York, received similar treatment. He joined an international solidarity movement on a trip to the besieged West Bank city of Ramallah in early 2002. While there, he met and shook hands with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The response at home was terrifying. Shapiro's family
Not All Jews Toe the Line 5
received so many death threats they were forced to move to an undisclosed location. Thankfully, the threats did not affect Shapiros belief in equality between Palestinians and Israelis. On May 26, 2002, he married fellow peace activist Huwaida Arraf—a Palestinian.
Another Jewish-Palestinian marriage sparked controversy a few months earlier in Kansas City. Livi Regenbaum, a writer for the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, filed a discrimination complaint against the publication after being fired, she believes, because of her husband s ethnicity. According to the Jewish Forward, Regenbaum claimed that editor Rick Heller "initially expressed happiness" upon hearing of the marriage, "then asked her to spell her husband's name, after which he grew hostile and said Tm going to have to think about this.'" He didn't have to think very long: Heller fired Regenbaum the next day.
The Forward article did its best to portray Heller and the Chronicle in a good light, which is not surprising given the paper's record of support for Israeli settlements and denial of Palestinian rights. But actions speak louder than words, and this wasn't the first time a Chronicle employee had accused the publication of discrimination: managing editor Deborah Ducrocq was fired in November 2001 for publishing a letter that was "sympathetic to Palestinians."48
A letter of a completely different nature was published in Forward a week after the Regenbaum story. Benjamin Fogel of Delray Beach, Florida, criticized left-wing Jews who expressed sympathy for Palestinians. The letter falsely equated Judaism with Zionism, and called into question the loyalty of Jews who do not unflinchingly support Israel:
I thought that Adolf Hitler and Stalin had taught them all that the only salvation for the Jews is a Jewish state that is viable and defendable. That was the case of all the leftists I knew. Most are now dead, but their conversion took place before they died. Unfortunately it seems not all were converted and not all died.49
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment