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.