Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 1987, page
5
From the Israeli Press
Pollard Case Shatters "Israelism" of American Jews
By Amnon Dankner
It is unlikely that relations between Israel and American
Jewry will ever be the same after the Pollard affair.
It was enough to read the articles published in the
US press on the Pollard case. Sharp comments were written by Jews
like William Safire of the New York Times and Richard Cohen
of the Washington Post. Besides the real anger they felt
over Pollard, they also used the opportunity to give vent to bitter
feelings against Israel, held by the writers even before this affair.
Of course, this is not the first time important American
Jews have spoken out against actions by the state of Israel. Many
have written and spoken about the occupied territories, and American
Jews aimed many arrows at Jerusalem at the time of the terrible
war in Lebanon. These, however, did not have such emotional impact
or such a feeling of estrangement and even of alienation.
It is reasonable to assume that this more pointed
response from American Jews occurred because the harm done to them
was this time more direct. They felt directly betrayed and deceived
by Israel, whose espionage services came to their own ground and
used one of their own people to bring shame on the whole community.
There is no need to speak about the damage caused
by the Pollard case, because this has already been widely discussed.
Instead, perhaps we can speak of the good things which might come
out of the affair. What the Pollard case may have done is break
the "Israelism" of American Jewry. Except for some isolated
islands here and there, "Israelism" has been the new faith
of American Jewry: a pro-Israeli orthodoxy which took precedence
over every other concern, "Israelism" was, to a great
extent, responsible for turning the connection between Israel and
American Jewry into an unhealthy relationship. Before the Pollard
case, US Jews, through their various leaders, accepted the positions
of the Israeli government on most issues, jumping to attention and
saluting. They advocated support for Israel even when it behaved
badly, and they refrained from arguing with the leaders of the Jewish
state. Even when Israel's behavior impaired the sacred values of
large sections of American Jewry, the Jewish leaders played it down
and did not start a real outcry. For instance: Israel's crude, negative
behavior toward Reformist and Conservative Jews, and its denying
of their rights in Israel, even though they constitute the majority
of active US Jews. Another example: the polite restraint of American
Jewish leaders regarding Israel's insolent demand that the US deny
Soviet Jews refugee status in the United States. Let us elaborate
on this, because it touches the roots of the issues.
During his last visit to the US, Prime Minister Yitzhak
Shamir appealed to leaders of Jewish organizations to support this
demand, which was not only insulting but also insensitive and rude.
What Shamir was actually asking was that the US Jews should disavow
the traditional values of the Jewish community and the deep feelings
of the whole American people. With the exception of the now large
group of emigrants from Israel itself, the Jewish community in the
USA is entirely a community of descendants of persecuted refugees
from Eastern Europe. When you ask them to help close the gates of
the United States to arrivals from the Soviet Union, you ask them
to revoke America's traditional role as a haven for the persecuted.
When you demand that Jewish and other Americans refuse the request
of emigrants from the Soviet Union for protection under the shadow
of the Statue of Liberty, you trample on an important national value
and symbol. Nevertheless, and even though they are repulsed by this
request, the Jewish leaders here treated Shamir most politely, promising
him that they will think over his demand. They refrained meticulously
from controversy.
The principal command of "Israelism" is
to honor Israel and its government. However, since that God has
failed, a new concept develops. Although it was conceived in sin,
it many be most valuable. Instead of unilateral, submissive relations
in political and social thinking, a first sign emerges of a healthy
dialogue between Israel and American Jewry. The Jewish-American
public and its sharp reaction in the Pollard case contributed significantly
to the Israeli government's decision to establish a commission of
inquiry. American Jews have revolted, and they have dispatched serious
messages to Israeli leaders. One may assume that the members of
the President's Committee of the Jewish Organizations spoke some
unpleasant words to Shamir, Peres, Rabin, and others about the affair.
Israel needs American Jews—not just as a milking
cow for contributions and for a political lobby in the US—but
also as an influential partner in a constant dialogue between diaspora
Jews and the State of Israel. If the statements voiced and written
in the US following the Pollard case mark the beginning of such
a dialogue, it is obviously for the better. But two sides are needed
for a dialogue. Israel should have been more sensitive (to how use
of an American Jew to steal classified US defense documents affects
the status of all American Jews). It is clear that no attention
was paid to this issue in Israel. The Israeli government's interest
in this aspect of the affair started only after the verdict. Until
then, the Israeli public and also most of the Israeli press were
indifferent.
Jonathan Pollard and his wife were the incarnation,
carried to absurdity, of the "Israelism" of American Jewry.
They were ultra-orthodox adherents of this religion, practicing
what they regarded as a supreme practical religious commandment.
The breakdown of the couple may cause the breakdown of this unhealthy
religion. Hopefully, from its pieces, something new will arise,
something more fertile, basing relations between the two Jewish
communities, the most important ones of today, on sincerity, truth,
and a creative tension.
This article from the Israeli newspaper Davar
was translated by Dr. Israel Shahak. The Washington Report periodically
reprints Dr. Shahak's translations from Israel's Hebrew press. |