November/December 1993, Page 67

Jews and Israel

By Sheldon Richman

Support for Israeli-PLO Accords

An overwhelming majority of American Jews believe that Israel's recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will be good for the Jewish state. A somewhat smaller majority look favorably on an eventual Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those were the findings of a survey taken by the American Jewish Committee in the wake of the historic agreement between Israel and the PLO that will bring immediate self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho and set up negotiations for extending autonomy to much of the rest of the West Bank.

According to the survey, 90 percent of American Jews said Israel will benefit from dealing with the PLO. Fifty-seven percent expressed approval of the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. Those results are similar to polling results in Israel. The American Jewish Committee poll also found that 47 percent said Israel should not build more Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, 43 percent said more settlements should be built. A plurality of 42 percent expressed doubt that the PLO can be trusted "to honor its agreements and refrain from terrorist activity against Israel."

Before the Labor Party displaced Likud in the Israeli leadership last year, American Jews were staunch opponents of negotiations with the PLO. The favorable reaction to recognition of the PLO and a Palestinian state represents a dramatic reversal of U.S. Jewish opinion. Anticipation of that reversal even before announcement of the agreement troubled Mitchell G. Bard, hard-line former editor of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) weekly newsletter, Near East Report. He wrote in Washington Jewish Week: "With it becoming obvious that top Israeli officials are holding direct talks with the PLO, American Jewish organizations are going to have to begin spinning a new tune that will inevitably make them look foolish. . . The fact that the Israeli officials did not give their supporters here a warning of a change in policy has exacerbated the problem because no preparations have been made for the 180-degree turn we soon are going to have to make."

Bard sees a resulting credibility problem for American Jews. That, however, is not the biggest problem, in his view.

"Open talks with the PLO could potentially cause the biggest rift between Israel and American Jewry since the 'Who-is-a-Jew?' controversy," he wrote. Yet Bard believes that "in the end [American Jewish organizations] will likely follow the Israeli government lead. . . The establishment will take the company line that once Israel's elected government has decided that it is in the nation's interest to pursue this course, it is not for Americans 6,000 miles away to say this is dangerous."

But, Bard adds, if the Likud should ever return to power, "American Jews will spin again, even if they know they will look like Linda Blair in the 'Exorcist.'" The turnabout Bard anticipated could be seen almost immediately. After the White House agreement-signing ceremony, the American Jewish Congress and the National Association of Arab Americans jointly sponsored a reception where a diverse group of Jewish leaders—from Steve Grossman, president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to Letty Cottin Progrebin of Americans for Peace Now—mixed with Palestinians and Arab-Americans such as Faisal Husseini, leader of the Palestinian delegation to the Washington peace talks, and James Zogby of the Arab American Institute. Tom Smerling of Project Nishma, a Jewish educational organization, said the reception was "the largest gathering of Jewish and Arab-American leadership in the history of the Israeli peace process." A similar reception took place earlier in the day at the Israeli Embassy. The day after the signing, Jewish Americans and Arab Americans were walking the halls of Congress together to win foreign aid for the PLO.

Jewish Press Reaction

In its editorial before the signing, Washington Jewish Week stated that "in front of the whole world, the Rabin government has shown the imagination and willpower not only to negotiate with the PLO but also to demand that it view Israel as a sovereign, legitimate state.'' The editorial praised the Clinton administration for its steadfast support of Israel, which "forced [Yasser] Arafat to the negotiating table." It chided those who have criticized the agreement, saying, "For American Jews to throw cold water on the proposal now is to deny Israel the credit it deserves in doing everything possible for peace."

In an editorial titled "The Dangers Ahead," the weekly Forward said that "the argument over the accord then is not over whether there are risks involved ahead. Instead, it centers on comparing these risks, as well as the opportunities inherent in the accord, with those attached to the 'so-called status quo,' to borrow a formulation from Mr. Rabin . . . The status quo is intrinsically unstable."

The editorial dismissed Israel's "radical right" programs, saying, "transferring population has always been anathema."

Summing up, Forward said: "So now Israel's supporters must renew their commitment to a long and difficult transition. The potential for internecine struggle is to be found among both Palestinians and Jews. With a state and a democratic tradition, the Jews are in a better position to carry on this struggle constructively."

Forward predicted that if the agreement blows up, Iran will be a key reason. "But no one knows that better than Mr. Rabin, and maybe now he can bring America to focus on the scale of the threat from the Iranian regime," the Forward editorial concluded.

While editorially supportive of the agreement, Forward also published a column by Daniel Pipes, director of the hawkish Foreign Policy Research Institute, who wrote that "the PLO had not a change of heart—merely a change of policy." But even Pipes conceded the possibility that the agreement could "induce peace."

"In short," Pipes wrote, "the Rabin-Arafat accord opens up many new possibilities. If they go badly, the accord could bring anarchy to Gaza and help fundamentalists overthrow the government in Egypt. If all goes well, it reduces the emotional quality of the Arab-Israeli conflict and helps bring further diplomatic agreements (most notably between Syria and Israel). Only time will tell whether it makes things worse or better in the Middle East."

Sheldon Richrnan is a Washington, DC-based contributor to the Washington Report.