Is There a Jewish Foreign Policy?

IF it accomplished nothing else, the brouhaha over Georges Pompidou's American sojourn underscored the delicate dilemma of American Jews vis-`a-vis Israel. As individuals or as a community, they certainly had every right to express their feelings about the French President's pro-Arab views. But is it sound tactics or proper behavior for any group of U.S. citizens to insult a visiting head of state? Many sober-minded Jews who are ordinarily strangers to picket lines would answer that their consciences demanded loud protest. In fact, compared with other recent demonstrations, these were small and extremely orderly. Booing Pompidou, of course, is only part of a larger question: at what point does the emotional pull of Jerusalem distort the consideration of foreign policy in the U.S.? Is there what might be called a Jewish foreign policy?

Political pressure based on ethnic loyalty is a part of American democracy; it is hardly a recent phenomenon, or one unique to the Jews. In 1794, Irish immigrants protested the Jay treaty that improved relations with Britain. During the Boer War, Dutch-Americans tried to get the U.S. into war on the Boer side. German-Americans during the 1930s agitated on Berlin's behalf. The cold war produced anti-Soviet demonstrations by Americans of Slavic descent.

None of these groups, however, match 6,000,000 American Jews for economic and political support of another country. Since 1948, American Jews have raised more than a billion dollars for Israel, all of it tax deductible. At the same time, the U.S. Government allocated almost another billion in foreign aid to Israel. Jews account for only 3% of the U.S. population, but they are centered in such pivotal states as New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California. More than most ethnic groups, they vote regularly and are heavy campaign contributors. Thus politicians are aware of the potency of the Jewish vote. When the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations held a recent rally in Washington, about 400 Congressmen and 70 Senators signed the conference petition urging continued military and economic aid to Israel.

For all their material achievement in the U.S., for all the concern of tradition-minded elders about excessive assimilation and loss of identity, most American Jews have a fierce emotional attachment to Israel. The reasons are not difficult to find. Two thousand years of Diaspora and persecution have left a legacy of interdependence. The deaths of 6,000,000 during World War II, followed soon after by the rebirth of a Jewish state, added first unspeakable sorrow and then boundless pride to their outlook.

The average American Jew has no difficulty reconciling support for Israel with loyalty to the U.S. Obviously he rejects the Zionist formulation once put forward by David Ben-Gurion that "whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is considered to have no God." He can buttress his passion with reason. Israel is a democratic, modern, stabilizing force in a chaotic and brutally backward corner of the world. The Israelis have created a nation and made the desert bloom, thereby more than earning their right to national existence. Israel needs U.S. support to survive, and if Israel were some day to fall, U.S. interests would suffer.

All of this can be argued coolly, and frequently has been, ever since the time that Harry Truman overrode Secretary of State George Marshall's advice and recognized the new state. Yet, as the Israelis themselves point out, Washington's interests do not and need not necessarily mirror Jerusalem's at every turn. The U.S. is justifiably concerned lest the festering hostilities in the Middle East erupt into another major war, renewing the danger of a Soviet-American confrontation. It is not at all inconsistent for the U.S. to guarantee Israel's survival while at the same time seeking a solution to the impasse that may not satisfy Israel completely. Nor is it improper for the U.S. to attempt to maintain what influence it can among the Arab nations.

The vehemence of the American Jewish community's support for Israel creates an impression in the minds of some that Washington is acting not on the basis of national interest but out of fear of Jewish wrath. When public officials of national stature, such as John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller, abdicate their ceremonial responsibilities toward a foreign leader, it is a sign that pressure-bloc politics is taking precedence over common sense and public duty.

If carried to excess, pro-Israel passions might also be self-defeating. Every American President since Truman has materially supported Israel's sovereignty. Even Nixon, despite his scant debt to Jewish voters, despite lobbying by the oil industry, which wants good U.S. relations with the Arabs, despite his talk about "evenhandedness," has not really turned the Government to a new course. For this, he has good reasons and widespread support; opinion polls have consistently shown strong backing for Israel. Says Dr. William Wexler, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and one of the leaders whom Pompidou refused to see in New York: "Mr. Nixon's policy toward Israel is very much in line with Jewish desires. In this case, it's all a matter of what is right and best for the country." Philip Hoffman, president of the American Jewish Committee, considers that the demonstrations represented the popular view. He guesses that they might prove "counterproductive" if they were to alienate the Administration, but adds: "I would hope that Mr. Nixon would not allow them to cause permanent pique."

A risk factor enters the equation if the President and other officials even seem to be in a position of yielding to an influential minority. American Jews cannot and should not suppress their feelings about Israel. The problem is to find the dividing line between heated, even passionate advocacy, and pressure that is indeed counterproductive. The very intensity and single-mindedness of Jewish support sometimes overshadows support for Israel by other Americans, making it seem as if Israel were a purely Jewish cause.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.