Open Secrets
ISRAELI NUCLEAR AND FOREIGN POLICIES
Israel Shahak
11
Israel and the Organized American Jews
(…)
(130)
Nir approves the fact that `the Washington-based leadership of AIPAC accommodates itself to changes on the political agenda of the new Israeli leadership', but, like a real Bolshevik, deplores AIPAC's inability to impose its authority over `the 55,000 AIPAC activists scattered all over the US whose accommodation to those changes is much slower. Unless the American Jews so accommodate themselves, they can in his view damage Israel badly, when `an administration with a "Jewish connection" as firm as Clinton's sits in the White House. Since Clinton feels so committed to the Jewish vote and even more to Jewish campaign donations, Jewish opinion has a great importance. A danger exists that the present US administration may stop heeding the voice of US Jewry as carefully as heretofore.' In order to avert this danger, Nir proposes several measures closely resembling the Nishma methods, like sending `people with authority in security affairs, plenty of generals', to educate the US Jews, because their prestige in the eyes of US Jews remains intact, while that of the Rabin government sadly does not.
A deeper, but still unsatisfactory insight came from the pen of Meron Benvenisti writing for Haaretz (l July). His opinions deserve to be quoted at length. After noting that `the Jewish American community' bears no less responsibility than anybody else for `the status quo' in the Territories, Benvenisti proceeds to describe this community's ways of influencing US policies. He recalls that `when the [US] mission headed by Denis Ross came to Jerusalem, a Hebrew paper [Maariv] described it as "the mission of four Jews", and gloated with pride while talking about the Jewish and even Israeli roots of all its members.' Other papers did likewise. The `Israeli roots' of those US diplomats comprising what went under the name of a `peace mission' included the fact that a son of one of them was said to be studying in a Hesder Yeshiva, to receive military training there. He was also said to be a sympathizer of Gush Emunim and was awaiting the opportunity to serve in the Israeli Army in the Territories. Benvenisti's comment is that `the ethnic origin of American diplomats sent here to promote peace may be irrelevant, but it is hard to ignore the fact that manipulation of the peace process was entrusted by the US in the first place to American Jews, and that at least one member of the State Department team was selected for the task because he represented the views of American Jewish establishment. The tremendous influence of the Jewish establishment upon the Clinton administration found its clearest manifestation in redefining the "occupied territories" as
(131)
"territories in dispute". The Palestinians are understandably angry. But lest they be accused of anti-Semitism, they cannot, God forbid, talk about Clinton's "Jewish connection". After all, for its own purposes, the PLO wants anything as much as to keep its lines of communication with the Jewish community in the US open, because it perceives that community as so formidably powerful. Let it be recalled that Arafat chose in 1988 a delegation of American Jews as a channel to publicize his decision to recognize Israel, because he 6elieved that only via them might he gain some legitimacy for himself.' Like the rulers of Third World countries whom I mentioned earlier, Arafat seems to have firmly believed in the myth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Benvenisti acknowledges that `Israel benefits from Jewish influence', but he also points to the resultant dangers: `The uncontrollability of the American Jewish establishment, together with its presumption that it represents Israeli interests "better" than Israel's elected government does, should be a matter for concern because American Jewish leaders tend to be more hawkish than the present leaders of Israel are.' Benvenisti observes that `their involvement in Israeli politics was recognized long ago as legitimate.' He also discusses their increasing financial support for the Israeli parties and movements as a manifestation of legitimacy. Even more importantly he indicates the difference between Israeli Jews and organized US Jewry: `The Jewish community in Israel is a sovereign body, its membership is determined by binding state laws and it bears full responsibility for its fate in every walk of life. US Jewry is a voluntary body, has power only over those who choose co accept its authority and even this power is limited in scope. Whoever wants to 6ear full responsibility should come and bear it here. Those who prefer to bear only a partial or marginal responsibility are free to choose so, provided they do not demand for themselves a status they do not qualify for.' It is rather curious that after defining the American Jewry as `a voluntary body', Benvenisti deplores its `uncontrollability'. But in Zionism such paradoxes abound.
(…)
