April/May 1994, Page 64
Jews and Israel
By Sheldon Richman
Talbott: For and Against
Jewish American organizations lined up on both sides of the fight
over Strobe Talbott's nomination as deputy secretary of state. In
the end, President Clinton's nominee was confirmed, but not before
Talbott was accused of being anti-Israel and groups opposing him
were charged with sabotaging confirmation efforts.
Leading the pro-Talbott forces among Jewish organizations was the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which recently
got a new executive director, Neal Sher. AIPAC's president is Steven
Grossman, a former Democratic state chairman in Massachusetts. Also
supporting the nomination were Americans for Peace Now and the National
Jewish Democratic Council, both Clinton allies.
On the anti-Talbott side were the Zionist Organization of America,
newly led by the hawkish Morton Klein, National Jewish Coalition
(a Republican-related organization), Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs, and Jewish War Veterans. That coalition was credited
with mobilizing what Senate opposition there was. Leading the opposition
in the Senate were Sens. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), Connie Mack (RFL),
and Jesse Helms (R-NC). The Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations neither endorsed nor opposed the nomination
after meeting with Talbott, who is an old friend of the president's
from their days at Oxford University.
Klein became especially critical of AIPAC for its alleged disingenuousness
regarding Talbott's apparent change of views about Israel. The anti-Talbott
forces, using the former Time magazine staffer's Middle East
writings, argued that the nominee was hostile to the Jewish state.
At his hearing, he recanted and endorsed the U.S.-Israeli "special
relationship." AIPAC and the Clinton administration explained
that Talbott's change of heart occurred as a result of a visit to
Israel in January 1991. The trip was sponsored by the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, a Likudite think tank formerly headed
by Martin Indyk, who is now the Mideast specialist on Clinton's
National Security Council. (Indyk is also a former AIPAC official.)
On that trip, according to AIPAC and the administration, Talbott
realized his earlier attitude toward Israel was wrong. The weekly
Forward quoted a source knowledgeable about Talbott's views
as saying that "the trip helped him see a three-dimensional
Middle East, and his friends helped him see positive things in Israel."
For Klein, however, this was merely a confirmation conversion.
He pointed out that Talbott was still criticizing Israel in Time
for months after his visit. "He offered no explanation
as to how or why his anti-Israel views had changed after 10 years
of articles attacking Israel," Klein told Forward. "I
don't understand why AIPAC, whose officials are well aware of his
10 years of anti-Israel writings, did not take a stand. " According
to Forward, AIPAC has defended its position by pointing out
that the State Department team Talbott will be part of holds views
it generally supports. Grossman said he had "every confidence
that Ambassador Talbott will be fully supportive of the policies
of the Clinton administration."
Klein united with congressional Republicans and Center for Security
Policy director Frank Gaffney to oppose Talbott, futilely calling
on Clinton to withdraw the nomination. The Republicans had misgivings
about Talbott's support for aid to Russia. In calling for the withdrawal
of Talbott's name, Klein issued a statement saying that the former
journalist's writings indicate that "he has, over many years,
demonstrated a lack of understanding for the threats that Israel
faces, and tends to view Israel as the prime source of most problems
in the Middle East." The statement went on to say that Talbott
"fails to understand the value of a strong U.S. Israel relationship
based on shared strategic interests and a mutual respect for democratic
values. Talbott regards Israel as a liability, rather than an asset,
to American interests-a perspective at odds with the traditional
U.S. position."
At a press conference, Matthew Brooks, director of the National
Jewish Coalition, said that the "writings and views of Talbott
should be of great concern to the Jewish community. These views,
coupled with his performance as ambassador-at-large, raise questions
about his ability to serve effectively as the number two person
at the State Department."
Forward reported that shortly before his trip to Israel,
Talbott wrote an article in Time headlined "How Israel
is Like Iraq. " In that article, Talbott said that "Yitzhak
Shamir's talk of 'greater Israel' is as ominous for the prospect
of there ever being real and lasting peace in the region as Saddam's
militant nostalgia for Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian empire. "
Forward said he also compared the building of Jewish settlements
in the occupied territories to Saddam Hussain's conquest of Kuwait.
In earlier writings, he called Israel's siege of Beirut and the
bombing of Iraq's Osiraq nuclear-weapons facility embarrassments
to the United States and suggested that American aid be cut back
if such conduct continued.
A source in touch with the Clinton administration told Forward
that Talbott will not be the president's Middle East point man.
"That's something run by Indyk and [Dennis] Ross, and it's
one thing [Secretary of State Warren] Christopher wants to own."
Jewish Historian Sees the "End of Zionism"
Norman F. Cantor, author of a forthcoming history of the Jews,
wrote recently that the Israeli-Palestinian agreement "represents
the end of Zionism."
Pointing out that political Zionism has been more important for
Jewish self-identity than religion for the past 45 years, Cantor
wrote in the Commonweal that the agreement will cause a shift
"to exploring a reinvigorated religious identity. " He
added that "this will mean gains for various shades of Orthodox
and Hasidic Judaism, but more important it will refocus the search
for a liberal, reform, reconstructed Judaism of dynamic quality
and broad appeal that was pursued in the first 40 years of this
century but which, I would argue, largely lapsed because of the
shift of attention to political Zionism in the 1940s and 1950s.
"
He predicted a "Jewish religious renaissance in the Diaspora."
Cantor went on to write that the change will offer American Jews
opportunities for new cooperation with Christians. He said earlier
cooperation was harmed "by the unwise decision of the American
Jewish Congress and other communal leadership organizations to insist
on absolute separation of church and state, which contributed not
only to expunging prayer and Bible reading from public schools but
to the spurning of public aid for parochial education, with highly
negative consequences for financing Jewish childhood education."
He foresaw a day 20 or 30 years hence when American Jews would
be more involved with Catholics and Protestants than with an "Arabized"
Israel, which will have become "culturally alienated in large
part from English-speaking Jewry." His book, The Sacred
Chain, is due to be published by HarperCollins this year.
Sheldon Richman is a Washington, DC-based contributor to the
Washington Report. |