FRAUDULENT ‘UNITY’

(Washington, D.C.): Last week, the Center for
Security Policy warned that the 10 December rally in New
York City’s Madison Square Garden could prove to be less
the advertised “memorial tribute” for Yitzhak
Rabin and vehicle for fostering “unity” among
Israelis and American friends of the Jewish State than a
political operation that would exacerbate divisions in
the pro-Israel community.⁽¹⁾
This prediction appears to have been borne out by
events.

Clearly concerned about criticism prompted by their
refusal to invite prominent opposition figures to address
the rally, leaders of the Conference of Presidents of
Major Jewish Organizations did invite senior Likud
representatives to attend. Deputy Speaker of the Knesset
Ovadia Eli and Likud Foreign Relations Bureau chairman
Ambassador Zalman Shoval declined to participate,
however, when told that they would not be afforded a
chance to make remarks. Another top Likud Member of the
Knesset, Benjamin Begin, who was in New York at the time,
was never even contacted about attending.

It was, nonetheless, announced in the course of
the Madison Square Garden rally that all three were
present. When asked how such a gross
misrepresentation could have occurred, Malcolm Hoenlein
— the Conference of Presidents’ Executive Director —
reportedly shrugged and said it was a mistake. He
compared it to another confessed mistake: the failure to
acknowledge Members of Congress who were present, but not
introduced.

‘No Accident, Comrade’

But the fact is that the organizers were aware that
two of the three had specifically declined to attend
(because denied an opportunity to speak) and the third
had not been invited. This makes the “mistake”
look like a conscious misrepresentation. In any event, it
had the effect of fostering the impression of
“unity” without affording the loyal Israeli
opposition an opportunity to show that — while there is
unanimity with respect to the need to pursue peace —
profound disagreements exist over the Rabin-Peres
government’s strategy for doing so.

No less troubling are reports that an effort is now
underway to disenfranchise critics of the Israeli
government’s peace policies. The Center has learned
that the American Jewish Committee and the
Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai Brith propose to
discipline two other, major American Jewish organizations
— the National Council of Young Israel and the Zionist
Organization of America — for declining to join fellow
members of the Conference of Presidents as sponsors of
the rally. The apparent goal is to have Young Israel
and the ZOA ejected from the Conference.

Such a step would make a mockery of democratic
principles. It would be all the more remarkable given
the positions taken in the past by member organizations
of the Conference of Presidents — notably the American
Jewish Congress (AJC) and by Abe Foxman, the
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League — and by
now-Prime Minister Peres. Consider the following:

• In September 1987, the AJC called for an
  international Middle East peace conference — an
  initiative that was at that time strongly opposed
  by the Israeli government of Yitzhak Shamir.
  The Committee said it did so on the grounds that
  “the government of Israel is itself divided
  and deadlocked over how to approach the peace
  process.” According to the 23 September 1987
  edition of the Jerusalem Post, the AJC
  believed “it is therefore ‘necessary and
  appropriate’ for American Jews to take part ‘in
  the current historic debate.'”

• The AJC’s president Theodore Mann said at the
  time: “For a great Jewish community like
  ours to be silent, to stand aside and to simply
  observe such historical events unfolding would be
  unforgivable. American Jewry must take part in
  the historic debate, because on its outcome hangs
  the future of Israel and world Jewry.”

• Mr. Foxman responded to the American Jewish
  Committee’s public opposition to the peace
  policies of the democratically elected government
  of Israel by saying: “We respect the
  right of the AJC to do what they did, but we
  are not ready to substitute ourselves for the
  Israeli government.” The Post
  reported: “Foxman said it was perfectly
  legitimate for the AJC to take the stand it did
  because ‘we are a pluralistic Jewish community
  and everyone is free to articulate their
  beliefs.'”

• On 2 October 1987, the Jerusalem Post
  reported that then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres
  called on “American Jewry to become actively
  involved in the debate over the nature of the
  Middle East peace-making process….American
  Jewish organizations have an absolute right to
  express their views publicly on the Middle East
  peace process — even if those views
  contradict positions taken by high Israeli
  leaders.” Mr. Peres observed
  pointedly, “We shall decide on matters of
  life and death in our parliament. But not to
  listen to you, not to have a dialogue, not to
  express a view? Who wants something so
  disciplined, so unJewish?“

The Bottom Line

Today, unfortunately, the answer to these rhetorical
questions appears to be clear: The government of Shimon
Peres and its partisans in the American Jewish community
want something “so disciplined, so unJewish”
concerning its peace policies as no dialogue, no
dissenting views, no opposition. Indeed, recent
statements from senior government officials about
“marginalizing,” “crushing” and
“pulverizing” the opposition are particularly
troubling as Mr. Peres embarks upon a redoubled effort to
secure an exceedingly risky peace agreement with Syria.

The Center for Security Policy believes that real
unity in the Israeli body politic is a precondition
for Israel to secure a real — and durable — peace with
its enemies. A genuine dialogue is, in turn, a
precondition to achieving such unity. Every effort should
be made at this juncture to encourage and accommodate
those who are willing to engage in responsible debate
about “matters of life and death” for Israel,
not to penalize and excoriate them.

(1) See the Center’s Decision
Brief entitled You Can’t Make Unity Without the
Loyal Opposition (No. 95-D
102, 8 December 1995).