The Jewry in America
A comprehensive discussion of the American-Israeli relationship ne�cessitates examining the role of the American Jewry. This topic can�not be overlooked since it concerns American domestic and foreign policy and is an extension of Israeli policy. Unfortunately, its discus�sion has lacked clarity, partly due to generalization, exaggeration of details, and neglecting to recognize all the elements. All relevant ele�ments and their political characteristics will be outlined, namely the nature of the Jewry and specifically the American Jewry; important and particular points related to American foreign policy, and the na�ture of the Jewish influence.
American Jewry
The subject of American Jewry is broad and can be approached from many perspectives. However, we are concerned with answering two political questions relevant to the subject at hand: The nature of the Jewish community in general; and the reality of the American Jewry, and whether they are an external or foreign entity in American society.
By studying the Jewish community in general, and not just in America, one will discover that it is not monolithic but rather composed of many variant opinions and attitudes ranging from secularism to ultra-ortho�dox. Such incoherence has led to an atmosphere of difference and tension to exist both within Israel, between Ashkenazi (European), Sephardic (African and Oriental) and countless other Jews, as well as outside Israel, between the Jewry in Israel and the Diaspora. Ben Gurion even acknowledged the splintered makeup of the Jewish community, specifically describing Israel as follows: " There are 55 nations of origin ...and you have no concept of how great the distances are and how considerable the differences between these national groups. The great majority of our nation is not yet Jew�ish, but human dust, bereft of a single language, without tradition, without roots, without a bond to national life, without the customs of independent society. "
Of the many trends, the Zionist movement/thought had the greatest impact upon the Jewry, due to its political outlook and its success in establishing a Jewish homeland. Although the Zionist movement has been primarily associated with its call for a Jewish homeland, its out�look served as a catalyst for a much deeper cultural and revolutionary change. Its philosophical outlook came against the backdrop of the Renaissance in Europe and specifically the French Revolution. Hence. it was significantly shaped and influenced by the intellectual climate of Europe at the time. J.J. Goldberg, in Jewish Power: Inside the Ameri�can Jewish Establishment, observes: "Zionism began as a movement among secular intellectuals who were rebelling against traditional Judaism. The rabbinic legacy taught that the Jews had been exiled from Jerusalem as divine punishment for their sins. Only God could restore Zion, the rabbis taught, by sending the anointed Messiah to usher in the End of Days. The first Zionists were late late-nineteenth-century modernists who insisted that history was shaped by human will, and that Jews need no longer accept the cruel fate God has chosen for them. The Zionists urged Jews to take their own destiny in their hands and strive for "normalization. ""
The Zionist movement was or is not, by any means, a homogenous movement; within the movement many trends were visible even on fundamental issues such as the aims and significance of the national revival. However, its call for a Jewish homeland touched the emotions and sentiments of the European and Russian Jewry against their de�prived social/economic condition. Consequently, it became a popular movement, especially when the situation of Jews worsened in Europe. Only after establishing a homeland did the intellectual and cultural orientation of the Zionist founders, pragmatism and secularism, take root in Jewish public life.
Before the birth of Zionism, the Jewry in America and in other parts of the world were assimilated in their respective society's culture, bear�ing in mind that the assimilation process in each society had its own unique dimensions. Zionism appealed mostly to the non-orthodox ele�ment because it served to justify their assimilation, about which Goldberg notes: "...it combined ritual observance and philosophical pragmatism. Its most important concession was its willingness to coexist peacefully with the heresies that dominated Jewish life in Israel and America ... That is, theology and modernism were to coexist peacefully, not try to ex�plain one another."
Zionism was able to gain a wider appeal in Europe and Russia than in America due to the social/economic condition of the Jews living in Europe and Russia. Walter Laqueur notes in A History of Zionism that: "... the impact of the movement was hardly felt in American life. Eu�rope, after all, was far away and the situation of American Jewry and its prospects gave no cause for concern."
Only later, when Zionist leaders began experiencing difficulty with the British policy over Palestine (such as the White Paper) and the grow�ing importance of America upon the world scene, did they divert their political activity towards America. They began organizing annual con�ferences and working towards bringing organizations and groups to�gether for political objectives, most notable of which was the Biltmore conference in 1942. However, the nature of support by the American Jewry towards Israel has varied, both historically as well as recently. Not all influential American Jews support the views of Israeli politi�cians. A fair number of them support the American policy towards Israel, and in this regard, America utilizes them to address Israeli policy. Many examples of the U.S. utilizing Jews from corporate America to address Israeli policy exist, and as a result they serve as an instrument of American diplomacy. As an example, CEO of Koor industries, an Israeli company, said: "Israel's emerging economy cannot proceed without the peace process."
And an article in Business Week was titled: " Recession threat. Israel's $90bn economy could sour if foreign investment dries. " In addition, the US Under-Secretary for International trade said: "...trade and in�vestment are the essential foundations to undergird the peace process. We can't have one without the other. "
As stated earlier, the Jewry in America had existed prior to Zionism and was very much a part of the American melting pot. The situation of Jews fared far better in America than in Europe, despite the fact that they were commonly discriminated against. Apparently, the change of attitude towards them is surrounded with many unanswered questions, about which Goldberg himself was not able to explain in a convincing manner. He notes: "Beginning in late 1945, American attitudes toward Jews underwent a sudden, still-unexplained reversal ... Only this is certain: the astound�ing drop in American anti-Jewish prejudice between 1945-1950 is prob�ably the least studied aspect of Jewish political power in the modern era; yet it may be the most important. In the space of five years, America's Jews changed from conspiratorial foreigners to good neigh�bors. As a consequence, the Jewish community at last was able to present its opinions on various issues and hope to be heard. The simple fact was that Americans for the first time were willing to listen to them."
Whether the change of attitude was part of an overall domestic policy or motivated due to other reasons remains unanswered. Regardless, their presence and contribution can be found in many sectors and pro�fessions of the society. Hard work and strong motive coupled with avail�ability of opportunities led them to achieve such a status. However. their presence, identity, and thinking is similar to any other minority group in American society. Goldberg observes: " Until a generation ago, Jewish attachment was a complex bundle of intense family and community ties, shared culture, and religious ta�boos and rituals. No longer: for most American Jews, Judaism is be�coming less a religion of laws and more a personal attribute. Like so much else in American culture, Judaism is turning into a free floating set of fee lings, interests, and occasional actions, which the individual Jew feels free to adopt or discard at will. "
The claim of a national or international Jewish conspiracy, as it is of�ten heard, is an exaggeration and far removed from the reality. Such views probably arose from mass propaganda against the Jews in Eu�rope during WWI and WWII. One has to only read the difficulty of the Zionists in achieving their homeland to realize that no such conspiracy exists. This is despite the fact that Jews can be found in prominent industries such as finance, media, and education. Such industries or institutions are part of a coherent Capitalistic society in America and are not alterable by an individual or a clique. However, the presence of prominent Jewish figures has given them access to political circles to argue their case, which will be discussed shortly.
While short of a Jewish conspiracy, the following factors have made the Jewish presence pronounced in American society:
1. Success in furthering their cause and interests through in�volvement in local communities, alliances with interest groups and other minorities, establishing a sophisticated internal network, and aggres�sively defending their civil rights.
2. Gaining public sympathy through propagation of education and cultural programs depiciting their plight such as the Holocaust experience.
3. Building a common bridge with Christians through the com�monality of Jerusalem and other grounds.
4. Active involvement in domestic politics, where both public figures and policy makers are continuously reminded of the moral and strategic responsibility of supporting Israel. Additionally, historical ani�mosity and oddity surrounding Muslims and Arabs in the society have further aided their agenda.
The Jewish presence becomes more conspicuous to Muslims due to their domestic maneuverings in support of Israel.
American Foreign Policy
Much has been discussed and written about the Jewish influence and particularly of its political arm upon the American policy towards Is�rael. To evaluate the extent and dimensions of this influence, general issues surrounding foreign policy and of certain peculiarities in the American foreign policy must be mentioned.
The factors which serve as a basis for a nation's foreign policy repre�sent the fundamental features of that nation and of its people, such as: Their way of life and outlook, the political and cultural makeup of the society, historical experiences and cultural tendencies, and the nation's material resources and capabilities. The foreign policy of any indepen�dent nation, let alone a superpower, is not subjected to influence by interest groups or purchased or decided by a Yes/No vote, but rather is formulated based upon substance, Raymond Seitz, a former U.S. am�bassador in London, correctly pointed that: "If foreign policy is merely an _expression of our diverse domestic poli�tics, then American leadership, as f in a pinball machine, will ricochet from one interest group to another and seek to satisfy the most clamorous lobby."
Therefore, to think that an interest group would shape a superpower's foreign policy is absurd, despite the fact that such an understanding is commonly held by the people, As mentioned earlier, foreign policy is formulated based upon substance. J.L. Gaddis, in Strategies of Con�tainrnent. raises the following substantial questions, when studying the basis of what constitutes American foreign policy:
I. What conception did the administration in question have of Ameri�can interests in the world at the time?
2. How did it perceive threats to those interests?
3. What responses did it choose to make, in the light of those inter�ests and threats?
4. How did it seek to justify those responses?
According to Gaddis, "for any administration, there exists certain "stra�tegic" or "geopolitical" codes, assumptions about American interests in the world, potential threats to them, and feasible responses, that tend to be formed either before or just after an administration takes office, and barring very unusual circumstances tend not to change much thereafter."
Therefore, foreign policy is tailored around the sacred goals and ob�jectives of a nation. Inevitably, such a subject matter demands a con�fined circle of qualified individuals possessing deep and profound awareness of the nation and its role in international affairs. Hence, it is natural for unadulterated circles to exist, having nothing but the nation's interest in mind. George Kennan expounded on the subject in the fol�lowing words:" The understanding of governmental policies in the field of foreign affairs cannot be readily acquired by people who are new to that feld, even when they are animated by the best will in the world. .. It is a matter of education and training, for which years are required ...I think we must not fear the principle of indoctrination within the government service... The Secretary of State is charged personally by the President with the conduct of foreign affairs, and there is no reason why he should not insist that his views and interpretations be those of the entire offi�cial establishment. "
In another place he remarked: "The pursuit of power by diplomatic means - like the pursuit of power by military means - cal[ for discipline, security, and the ability to move your forces swiftly and surely, taking full advantage of concealment of your own thoughts and the element of your surprise... [Clan you con�duct a modern foreign policy where one great part of your action can be determined on a day-to-day basis... by persons subject to profes�sional discipline in matters of security and other matters, whereas an�other great part of your action has to be determined in bodies which meet only periodically and take their decisions under the peculiar pres� sures of public debate and compromise? ... It is simply not given to hu�man beings to know the totality of truth...sintilarly, no one can see in its totality anything so fundamental and so unlimited in all its implica�tions as the development of our people in their relation to their world environment. "
Besides formulating foreign policy, its management and administra�tion is another delicate matter. Oftentimes, the visionaries behind its formulation are the ones who in turn manage it because they acutely understand the rationale behind the policy or of its tenets. Therefore, it is not odd for Kissinger to remark that: " The outsider believes a Presi�dential order is consistently followed out. Nonsense. I have to spend considerable time seeing that it is carried out and in the spirit the President intended. "
Also, Brezezinski stated, remarking on Carter's immersion in certain substantive foreign policy issues: "At times I thought he was like a sculptor who did not know when to throw away his chisel.
In addition, Roosevelt virtually excluded the State Department or at a minimum reduced its contact with the Soviet Union fearing that a State Department bureaucrat could potentially worsen the relationship over nominal matters concerning repayment of economic assistance during WWII. And Kennan mentioned that American-sponsored reconstruc�tion effort in Europe proceeded based upon a plan, arguing that, "It doesn't work if you just send the stuff over and relax. It has to be played politically when it gets over It has to be dangled, sometimes with�drawn, sometimes extended. It has to be a skillful operation. "
The formulation, implementation, and management of a foreign policy is a very delicate matter which is entrusted to the most trusted and qualified individuals. This must be the case since the fate and vital interests of a nation potentially rests upon their shoulders! Therefore, not surprisingly, even Congress is often kept in dark or not fully in�formed regarding foreign policy. The influence of external elements in the designing of a foreign policy does not arise. However, influence could arise in its implementation, which will be discussed shortly.
The existence of a political clique does not imply that political dis�course is exclusively confined to this circle. Great care is taken to avoid portraying the existence of such a group in a negative light. The elite clique serves many purposes such as enriching the political medium. Be it Kissinger, Brezenski, or James Baker III, all influential and no�table personalities participate in specialized political institutions. Ad�ditionally, the American political medium consists of countless insti�tutions, official as well as unofficial, each with its own unique outlook, awareness, and level of participation in the making of a foreign policy. The American society accommodates many political spectrums; how�ever, not all of them represent the American policy or its views. For instance, the Most Favored Nation status for China is debated annually due to China's record of human rights violations, but human rights has no bearing on the American policy, despite it being discussed even in Congress.
The Nature of Jewish Influence upon American-Israeli Policy
Undoubtedly, the Jewish influence exists in some notable political spec�trums. It stems from their intrinsic presence in the American society. This presence, through lobbyists and prominent figures, has given them access to both the Executive office and the Congress, where the topic of votes and campaign contributions strike a personal chord. However, what must be noted is the difference between their strong and visible presence and their ability to exercise this influence, concerning which Goldberg makes a striking observation: " ...American Jewry's vaunted "power" through the years has not been true power, but merely influence. That is, Jews have frequently been able to reach the decision-makers and convince them to make favorable decisions. "
Thus, they have access to influential figures but not the ability to script the foreign policy, which remains immune from external influence. A strong presence does not automatically translate into success, because for one thing the Jews have to contend against other very powerful elements. Graham Fuller, a former CIA analyst, was reported to have said during a conference on Political Islam and the West that the power of the Israeli lobby, strong as it may be, is not invincible. Fuller notes that the petroleum industry as well as the Pentagon have problems with Israel's policies in the region, and he also asserts that the end of the Cold War has diminished Israel's significance.
Chaim Weizmann also commented about the State Department that: " Our difficulties were not concerned with the first rank statesmen ... It was always behind the scenes, and on the lower levels, that we en�countered an obstinate, devious, and secretive opposition which set at nought the public declarations of American statesmen. "
Within, the American establishment itself, one can trace the friction between the Congress on one hand, and the Executive office and State Department on the other hand, over US-Israeli policy. On the flip side, the Jewish presence in many ways becomes an obstacle in the imple�mentation, but not the formulation, of a policy. Nixon commented in his memoirs: �One of the main problems I faced ... was the unyielding and short�sighted pro-Israeli attitude in large and influential segments of the American Jewish community, Congress, the media and in intellectual and cultural circles. In the quarter century since the end of World War II this attitude had become so deeply ingrained that many saw the cor�ollary of not being pro-Israel as being anti-Israel, or even anti-Semitic. I tried unsuccessfully to convince them that this was not the case."
Therefore, appointment of Jews to prominent positions aids in absorb�ing domestic Jewish influence and in furthering American policy abroad. Concerning the appointment of Jews to influential positions such as Kissinger's or Albright's appointment as Secretary of State, such posi�tions are an integral element of the American establishment represent�ing American policy, for which individuals are selectively chosen based upon their unwavering loyalty to American policy. Assuming that a biased inclination was discovered from an official, even then he or she would be unable to change the policy because policy is coordinated and implemented at many diplomatic levels requiring coherency in thought and attitude. It is similar to a Republican or Democratic Con�gressman, whose institution and function caters to all people regard�less of their partisanship. Quoting Rabbi Israel Miller, Goldberg stresses the same point that: " My premise is that these are people (Jews in public office) who are not working for the Jewish community... Their constituency is the whole American people. Many people feel Kissinger was unfriendly. I think they take it out on hint because he was a Jew 1 think he was doing his job as lie saw his job. "
kissinger himself remarked, "The United States is committed to de�fend Israel's existence, but not Israel's conquests." And during the 1967 War, Golda Meir claimed to Kissinger: "You're saying we have to accept the judgment of the U.S... we have to accept your judgment? Even on our own affairs? On what is best for us? " to which Kissinger replied, " We all have to accept the judgment of other nations.
Other prominent Jews have displayed their unwavering loyalty towards U.S. policy during the presidencies of Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton, where the American policy has clearly been of exerting pres�sure upon Israel to consolidate the U.S. objectives in the Middle East.
In politics, drawing parameters and guidelines on an issue while being cognizant of natural exceptions is vital. Such natural exceptions can result from numerous factors, such as the personality or leadership of the presidency, domestic factors, the world and regional order, the stage at which a policy is at, and other factors. An example of an exception is the weakness of the American president Truman at the time of Israel's establishment. Truman commented in his memoirs: " The Department of State's specialists on the Near East were, almost without exception, unfriendly to the idea of a Jewish state. "
High ranking US officials such as George Kennan and George C. Marshall had urged the President against partition. But why did Truman ignore the overwhelming advice of his advisors? It was election year and Truman needed all the votes he could muster, especially from a large Jewish constituency. The decision, therefore, was made on the advice of his domestic political advisor, Clark Clifford, that he might lose the 1948 election if he did not support the partition. The decision occured despite Secretary of State Marshall's ensuing conversation with Truman: "I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the presi�dent. "
Truman, although unwisely, supported the decision of the United Na�tions Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) that the Palestinian mandate be divided between an Arab and a Jewish state. Only later would Truman lament that, "We could have settled this Palestine thing if U. S. politics had been kept out of it. Terror and (Rabbi Hillel) Silver are the contributing causes of sortie, if not all, of our troubles. "
The aforementioned example should be taken as an exception to the rule and not the rule. Even recently, Clinton's precarious situation did not cause America to retreat or delay its diplomacy. If the situation is critical, then America will not hesitate to approach it with a stick. As an example, during the Suez crisis, America did not tolerate Israeli policy and took a very firm stand. Eisenhower angrily told Dulles that: "Foster, you tell'em, goddamn it, we're going to apply sanctions, we're going to the United Nations, we're going to do every'thing that there is so we can stop this thing. " He later explained: "We just told the Israe�lis it was absolutely indefensible and that if they expect our support in the Middle East and in maintaining their position, they had to behave... We went to town right away and began to give them hell. "
In response to Eisenhower's decisive action, Jewish American organi�zations tried to gain congressional support. Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, protested to Dulles against the administration's stance. Threatening Dulles of "domestic political im�plications and threatening to revolt. " Dulles answered," We cannot have all our policies made in Jersualem. " Dulles further added:
"First, sanctions would be necessary to compel Israel's withdrawal and a withdrawal was needed to maintain the American position among the Arabs ... [Second] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this coun�try to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. Marshall and Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one. That does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another should not interfere."
American policy concerning Israel is a long-term policy which utilizes many means at its disposal with all the available carrots and sticks. Massive aid appropriated by the Congress is one manifestation of the carrot, which serves to contain and enslave the Israeli policy. As an example, American military aid towards Israeli restricted its ability to influence events during the Second Gulf War, and the Bush adminis�tration utilized huge loan guarantees as leverage against Israel. A detailed discussion of American policy regarding Israel will be left for another article, but what must be understood is that U.S. policy to�wards Israel is an independent policy which serves American (not Is�raeli) interests. In conclusion, the extent and dimensions of the Jewish influence must be recognized in its true light, and the strength of America diplomacy must also be realized.
Back to Home Page