Chapter 4 The Structure of Organized Pro-Israelism

Chapter 4

The Structure of Organized
Pro-Israelism

What American Jews have done for Israel is well known. What Israel has done for American Jews is perhaps less obvious, but hardly less important. The need to create Israel, and the need to sustain it, obliged the Jews of America – from the Biltmore Conference of 1942 on – to seek, find and wield political power at the national level, for an international purpose.1


Starting in 1967 an increasing number of Jews defined their Jewishness in terms of Israel. The nature of Israel-based Jewish identity has been evolving ever since. The story of that evolution is manifested in Jewish organizational life. That the American Jewish community is highly organized is universally apparent. What most people do not instantly fathom is that the degree of organization results from an equally high level of diversity. There are so many Jewish organizations because the community is deeply divided on a wide range of issues. Since the causes of the fragmentation cannot easily be solved, differences are bridged with layers of organizations and umbrella organizations.

Still, no one speaks for the 6 million Jews of America.2 Similarly, the 1.6 million Jews of metropolitan New York, the most well known Jewish community in the country, are divided along religious, social and political lines.3 Outsiders seldom appreciate the cross-cutting cleavages that make a mockery of the myth of Jewish unity. These schisms have direct bearing on the role the Jewish community plays in the American political system.4

The purpose of this chapter is to present a broad overview of the structure of Jewish organizational life in the United States in order to place the groups that will be referred to later on into an overall context. This taxonomy will highlight, although not be limited to, groups whose leadership played a prominent role in the U.S.-PLO dialogue issue. For purposes of exposition, groups of a more ad hoc nature established to foster a U.S.-PLO dialogue will be described in the following chapter.

Support for the idea of a Jewish State within the American Jewish community is, nowadays, taken as a given. In fact, the attitude of the American Jewish leadership toward Zionism has not always been sympathetic. Since the Shoah (destruction of European Jewry during WWII), however, even ideological opponents of Jewish nationalism and Zionism became generally supportive, and in some cases, outright pro-Zionists.5 From 1945 until around 1949 (when the War of Independence ended) Jewish involvement with Israel was at its zenith. Afterwards, for about eighteen years interest in Israel waned.

Pro-Israelism, as a defining characteristic of American Jewry, developed in the wake of the June 1967 Six Day War. Groups which had not previously been devoted to pro-Israel work abruptly shifted gears to pursue pro-Israel activism. The 1967 war reinvigorated the pro-Israel community. In the face of Arab bellicosity and the possible destruction of Israel, the community raised several hundred million dollars in contributions along with $75 million for Israel Bonds during and immediately after the war. Pro-Israel consciousness was further mobilized among American Jews as a response to anti-Zionist propaganda emanating from the American Left. Another factor was anti-Semitism associated with African American militants, starting in the 1960s.6 Arthur Hertzberg, historian and Zionist practitioner, explained pro-Israelism as: “The sense of belonging to a worldwide Jewish people, of which Israel is the center, is a religious sentiment, but it seems to persist even among Jews who regard themselves as secularists or atheists. There are no conventional theological terms with which to explain this.”7 So, while only twenty percent of American Jews have formal ties with a Zionist organization, Jewish identity, since 1967, has become closely linked with the fate of Israel.8

Jewish Organizational Life

There are hundreds of national Jewish organizations in the United States, large and small. Their activities run the gamut from religious and charitable work to international nonsectarian philanthropy to Zionist and pro-Israel political activism to improving human relations.9 Three main religious congregational branches (Reform, Conservative and Orthodox) add to the organizational blend.10

While the Jews of Canada are represented by the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jews of Britain are represented by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, there is no single address of the organized Jewish community in the United States, though the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, commonly known as the Presidents Conference, comes close.11 The late Wolf Kelman, a prominent Conservative rabbi, explained: “What actually happens in the American Jewish community is that insofar as there is a recognized comprehensive structure, it tends to be local. The smaller the community, the easier it is to have a structure which everyone recognizes, where the people they represent have a direct relationship to the people who speak for them.”12

The organizations described in this chapter, except where noted, comprise what is generally considered to be the Jewish establishment. Within the establishment, the Presidents Conference, American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations played a vanguard role in reflecting and promoting changing perceptions of the Arab-Israel conflict.

The Presidents Conference

To the extent that the American Jewish community ventures to speak with one voice – to other actors in the American political system, as well as within the larger IR system – its mechanism is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. By tradition, “whoever is serving as chairman of the Presidents Conference, at any time, is recognized as the spokesman of the American Jewish community on Israel-related issues by the American government.”13 The Presidents Conference does not generate its own political power so much as it evinces the cumulative political influence of its constituent agencies.

Like most of the influential Jewish organizations, the Presidents Conference is headquartered in New York City.14 Until 1990, the Presidents Conference was located at 515 Park Avenue at 60th Street. When the Jewish Agency sold this stately building to raise funds for Operation Exodus (the resettlement of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews to Israel), the Presidents Conference moved around the corner to its present modern quarters at 110 East 59th Street, It is not uncommon for Israeli prime ministers, cabinet ministers and Knesset members, high-level American government officials, presidential candidates, political aspirants, foreign leaders, ambassadors and other notables, to be seen at the offices of the Presidents Conference. Dignitaries come to communicate expressly with American Jewish leaders or to indirectly signal Israeli decision makers. Not a few world leaders assume that they can promote their country’s standing with Congress through an appearance before the Presidents Conference. The Presidents Conference does not attempt to dispel the aura of Jewish political influence.

Unlike an earlier ill-fated umbrella organization, the WWII-period American Jewish Conference, decisions of the Presidents Conference are reached in private by consensus. No votes are taken.15 Because they set the agenda, the Chairman and Executive Director wield formidable influence over what issues come before the representatives for discussion. The real decisions are made prior to formal meetings through discreet contacts with leading organizational representatives. They know the players, positions, ideologies and cleavages. Certain areas of discussion, because they are divisive, are simply avoided if at all possible since they project precisely the image that the Presidents Conference has institutionally sought to avoid: disunity.

Structurally, the Presidents conference is the paramount coordinating body of the organized American Jewish community.16 O’Brien has identified three main functions of the Presidents Conference. They are:
To interpret and convey the position of American Jewry to the U.S. government, policy makers, and the media, to the Israeli government, and to other countries and international bodies; second, to interpret and convey the U.S. government and public’s position to the Israeli government and the American Jewish community; and third, to present the Israeli position to the U.S. government, the American Jewish community, and the general public.17


But more importantly, for our purposes, the Presidents Conference is the single best indicator of the political direction and level of cohesiveness of the American Jewish leadership. For the outside analyst, seeking to assess the Conference of Presidents’ center of power is akin to a former Soviet specialist engaging in Kremlinology. As an approach, it has legitimate analytical value and produces fruitful insights, but it is necessarily based on elliptical evidence about hidden internal struggles and the wording of public pronouncements.18

The Presidents Conference was formally organized in 1955.19 In 1954 an ad hoc group of sixteen executive directors or presidents had come together for informal consultations.20 In the early years there was no staff, budget or permanent address.21 In 1966, the Presidents Conference formally became a representative body of its member groups.22 Also in 1966, the Presidents Conference “decided to establish and maintain ongoing contacts with world Jewish bodies to facilitate the exchange of information, opinions and ideas.”23

The criteria for membership in the Presidents Conference are that “an organization must be national in scope, have an independent budget, at least one staff member dealing with national affairs, and make its own policy independent of others.”24 The Chairmanship of the Conference changes, usually, every two years. The Executive Vice President of the Presidents Conference from its founding until his death in 1986 was Yehuda Hellman, “a close friend of Nahum Goldmann.” Perhaps more than anyone else Hellman, as its full-time paid head, shaped the orientation of the Conference from behind the scenes.25 After Hellman’s death Malcolm Hoenlein, who had been Executive Director of the New York Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) since 1976, became the second Executive Director of the Presidents Conference.26

Goldmann and another key figure of the organization’s early days, Philip Klutznick, left the Jewish establishment and became associated with what I have identified as the outside elite.27 Klutznick became a supporter of a U.S.-PLO dialogue through his affiliation with the International Center for Peace in the Middle East (ICPME). It is enough to note, at this stage, that together with Goldmann and several other Presidents Conference chairmen, Klutznick opposed “Israeldolatry.” As a former World Jewish Congress president, former Chairman of the Presidents Conference and Cabinet member in the Carter Administration, Klutznick was one of the first mainstream Jewish leaders to work actively at bringing the PLO into the diplomatic process.

The unremitting media attention Israel received after the Six Day War and especially after the 1973 Yom Kippur War helped catapult the chairmen of the Presidents Conference into the domestic and international political spotlight.28


Internal Opposition

The Presidents Conference is both an actor and a venue. Within the Presidents Conference the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress and National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council comprised the hub of the internal opposition. This vanguard force led the opposition to Likud policies from within the establishment, sought to separate support for Israel from support for Israeli security policies in the Administered areas (“disassociation”) and strongly supported the Labor opposition.

The major branches of Judaism are represented in the Presidents Conference.29 The Reform movement is the most politically engaged and organized. It is also the largest branch of Judaism in the United States. In the metropolitan New York area, one-third of adult Jews identify themselves as Reform.30 The Reform movement is represented at the Presidents Conference by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations of America (UAHC) headed by Rabbi Alexander Schindler (and until his recent retirement by Schindler’s number-two Albert Vorspan). Under their leadership, the UAHC has been a pillar of the internal opposition. Schindler is one of the most influential Jewish establishment figures in the country and has served as a chairman of the Presidents Conference.

The premier Jewish establishment organization is the American Jewish Committee. In the pantheon of Jewish establishment groups, the AJCommittee together with the AJCongress and the Anti-Defamation League comprise a “prestige three.” Both AJCs were a driving force in opposition to Israeli policies.

Like much of the internal opposition, with the exception of the Reform movement, the AJCommittee wields power disproportionate to its membership numbers.31 The late Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once asked Morris Abram, then-AJCommittee president, how many members the organization had. Abram responded: “We don’t count AJC members, Mr. Prime Minister, we weigh them.”32 In fact, the AJCommittee was not formally a member of the Presidents Conference until March 1991. The AJCommittee had held official observer status since 1968.33

Established in New York by affluent acculturated “uptown” German Jews in 1906 in reaction to the bloody Kishinev (Russia) pogroms, the AJC sought, out of a sense of noblesse oblige, to protect their Jewish co-religionists abroad. AJCommittee leaders, including Jacob Schiff, Mayer Sulzberger and Louis Marshall, discreetly sought U.S. diplomatic intervention with foreign rulers, “to prevent the infraction of the civil and religious rights of Jews, in any part of the world.”34

Prior to 1948 the AJCommittee was the leading non-Zionist (often anti-Zionist) Jewish organization. Its leaders viewed Judaism as a religious or cultural movement and opposed the idea of “Diaspora nationalism.” If Jews pursued an identity as a distinct people what would become of their status in a pluralistic United States, the group’s leaders worried. Nevertheless, the Committee endorsed the Balfour Declaration in 1917. In 1942, however, it opposed the Biltmore Program. In response to the problem of displaced European Jewish survivors of WWII, the AJCommittee somewhat hesitatingly supported the creation of Israel. The AJCommittee did not make Israel’s survival a key agenda item until after the 1967 war. Much of their public work had been dominated by domestic concerns such as Negro civil rights. These days, AJCommittee activities include: monitoring public attitudes toward Israel; promoting U.S.-Israel relations; sponsoring professional polling of U.S. public opinion (some of which is never made public); holding private as well as public meetings with key policy makers; maintaining important contacts with labor, ethnic, Christian and African American communities; and developing “think-tank” reports on issues of concern to American Jews and the pro-Israel community. The group has carved a special niche for itself (largely through the path-breaking work of the late Rabbi Marc Tennenbaum) in Christian-Jewish relations. In order to get a sense of the political pulse inside the Beltway, the group maintains an office in Washington, D.C. (until recently headed by Hyman “Bookie” Bookbinder). It also maintains offices in key international cities as well as in Jerusalem.35

The AJCommittee raises funds through direct fund raising from wealthy patrons, endowments, bequests, legacies, and, as a beneficiary of UJA/Federation. It maintains a wide range of activities in support of a progressive-liberal domestic agenda.

The most audacious of the internal opposition groups is the American Jewish Congress. Originally started as an anti-elitist and Zionist alternative to the AJCommittee, the AJCongress was formed in 1918 by prominent Zionists including Louis D. Brandeis and Stephen Wise. Their intent was to create an ad hoc umbrella organization to represent Jewish interests at the Peace Conference in Versailles. In 1928 the AJCongress reconstituted itself as an independent membership organization. During the 1930s, when the AJCommittee favored quiet diplomacy, the AJCongress under Rabbi Wise sponsored a mass rally in Madison Square Garden against Nazi Germany.36

After the war the AJCongress pursued a liberal-progressive domestic agenda and, like the AJCommittee, became active in the civil rights movement.37 The AJCongress was also an early opponent of the war in Vietnam. It did establish a special niche for itself in the 1960s, within the Jewish community, by opposing the Arab economic boycott of Israel. Since the 1970s the Congress and the Committee have been so indistinguishable that they episodically consider merging. Personality rather than policy differences have kept this from happening.38 These days, the AJCongress says it “works to foster the creative cultural survival of the Jewish people; to help Israel develop in peace, freedom and security; to eliminate all forms of racial and religious bigotry; to advance civil rights, protect civil liberties, defend religious freedom and safeguard the separation of Church and State.”39

Smallest of the three prestige organizations, the AJCongress raises much of its funds through wealthy patrons and from UJA/Federation allotments. A significant portion of its “membership” is comprised of individuals who have participated in AJCongress sponsored tours (long strapped for funds, tours have been an important money source). Real decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of its President Robert Lifton, a lawyer-financier, and the group’s top professional, Henry Siegman.40

Lastly, internal opposition pressure at the Presidents Conference came from the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC, pronounced “nat-rack”). An umbrella group, rather than a program group, NJCRAC was founded in 1944 to loosely coordinate 102 community relations organizations whose emphasis is, supposedly, community relations.41 NJCRAC members include the AJCongress,
Figure 2: U.S.-PLO Dialogue. American Jewish Political Spectrum
U.S.-PLO Dialogue
Guide to American Jewish Political Spectrum

American Council of Judaism & Satmer (Neturei Karta)
* Share opposition to existence of Jewish State; ACOJ (now largely defunct) on grounds that Judaism is not a nationality. In the case of the ultra-Orthodox haredim of Satmer/Neturei Karta, on grounds that only the Messiah can re-establish Jewish sovereignty in the form of a theocracy. Neturei Karta maintains ties with the PLO.

Peace Camp
* Share progressive politics; support both Arab and Jewish State in Western Palestine (Judea & Samaria). Ties to PLO.

Outside Elite
* Share Establishment politics; support Palestinian-Arab state alongside Israel in Judea and Samaria. Ties to PLO.

Orthodox Independent (Agudath Israel)
* Non-Zionist; politically and socially conservative; occasional voice against U.S.-PLO dialogue.

Zionist Right
* National Camp; plays vanguard role in opposing drift in American Jewish support for Israel; favors Jewish sovereignty over all of Western Eretz Israel.


Inside Arc

Presidents Conference
* The “establishment” or “mainstream.” Includes most national Jewish groups. Tends to be functionally oriented and apolitical on issues dividing community. Several (AIPAC, ADL and ZOA) hold the “middle ground” in wanting the Presidents Conference to support the Israeli government and “let Israelis decide” security issues.

Internal Opposition
* Vanguard force within Presidents Conference. Leads opposition to Likud policies and promotes disassociation. Works with Israeli Labor Opposition.
AJCommittee, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and Hadassah. The bulk of NJCRAC organizations are community councils. The New York Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) is a member of NJCRAC. The JCRC is itself comprised of over 70 local New York City organizations. NJCRAC seeks to avoid duplication of communal efforts. But in practical terms it has no enforcement power.

NJCRAC devotes a significant portion of its energies to coordinating pro-Israel work among its constituent agencies. At its annual conference attended by American Jewish communal leaders and important Israeli political figures, NFCRAC issues the annual Joint Program Plan on Israel.42 Under the leadership of Ted Mann, who has served as Chairman of the Presidents Conference, NJCRAC helped redefine pro-Israelism. Mann has been a vigorous spokesman for internal opposition policies.

* * * * * * *

With incumbency the chairman of the Presidents Conference is expected to project an image of judicious non-partisanship. Even outright opponents of Likud policies such as Ted Mann did not use the office to publicly champion Labor over Likud.43 So, by etiquette and tradition it devolved to the Chairman to hold the internal opposition in check and to uphold the standards established by his predecessors.

The political spectrum within the Presidents Conference is far too complex to delineate in terms of “left” and “right.” In the context of the U.S.-PLO dialogue, the internal opposition was held in check by the restraining influence of the chairman and political pressure from centrist organizations The bulk of constituent members were not actively engaged in the issue (one way or the other) and moved from the periphery only episodically or not at all.44 The two organizations that held the center were AIPAC and ADL.

During much of the period under study, AIPAC’s leadership came to be accused of adopting the Likud foreign policy line. AIPAC was also charged with favoring Republican candidates over its traditional liberal Democratic friends. These criticisms are simplistic and miss the point. AIPAC takes a purely pragmatic approach to pro-Israel work.45 Its leadership aspires to do what is best for U.S.-Israel relations at a given time. And AIPAC tends to reflect the prevailing political line Israel is taking.46

While legions of Jewish and Zionist organizations are politically active, most of them are too small, unprofessional, underfunded or spread too thin to influence policy. Of those that are taken seriously, few have the standing, professionalism, clout and prestige of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is registered as an American, not a foreign lobby.47 AIPAC is best known for lobbying on Capitol Hill. But it also now works at the state, local, and even precinct level. As Mitchell Bard points out, AIPAC is a “formal” lobby because it seeks to directly influence policy makers. “In addition,” Bard writes, “there is a large component of Jewish political influence that is unorganized – Jewish voting behavior and public opinion. These indirect means of influence may be designated the informal lobby.”48

Founded in 1959, AIPAC was built through the indefatigable efforts of the late Si Kenen. Today, AIPAC’s well-attended Annual Policy Conferences bring together a vast array of political activists, Israeli politicians, Washington insiders and those who want to be seen in their presence. AIPAC strives to closely coordinate its activities with other establishment groups. Formally, AIPAC is a member of the Presidents Conference and the Presidents Conference is a member of the AIPAC Executive Board. As AIPAC’s Executive Director, Tom Dine consulted frequently, often speaking by telephone several times a day, with Malcolm Hoenlein at the Presidents Conference.49

Alongside AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith held the political center within the Presidents Conference on the U.S.-PLO dialogue issue. ADL was founded in 1913 as an arm of B’nai B’rith. The parent group had been established in 1843 on the Lower East Side of New York. Unlike the AJCommittee, B’nai B’rith is staunchly pro-Zionist and established its first chapter in Jerusalem in 1888.

ADL is primarily concerned with domestic sources of racism and Jew-hatred. Unlike the AJCs, ADL has consistently and actively (outside critics charge too energetically) invested its resources in “fact-finding” – original research and investigation of racist, Jew-hating and, more recently, anti-Zionist groups. It did not become active in pro-Israel political activities until after the 1967 war. Since then, the ADL has sought to establish a strong link between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It has issued reports on the radical left, radical right, Arab propaganda in the United States and on the wellspring of Jew-hatred among certain African American groups.

ADL is led by Abraham Foxman, a survivor of Hitler’s war against the Jews of Europe. ADL pursues a “centrist” line along the Jewish political spectrum. This means that ADL consistently, regardless of changing circumstances, opposes American Jewish criticism of Israeli policies (from either direction). Rael Isaac, of Americans For A Safe Israel, asserts that after taking over from Nathan Perlmutter, Foxman re-directed ADL policy leftward: “The Perlmutter ADL and the Foxman one are very different organizations.”50 In recent years ADL’s domestic niche has been challenged by the California-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. Still, Foxman successfully staked out a claim for ADL as the most vocal establishment critic of Black anti-Semitism. The group’s funds come from direct mail solicitations, support from wealthy patrons and allocations from the CJF’s Large City Budgeting Conference (described below).51

Money

All establishment groups cultivate relationships with wealthy benefactors. For obvious reasons they target most of their “development” efforts on big givers. Nevertheless, the business and culture of philanthropy permeates all organized Jewish life. This dominion is managed, in almost 200 American cities, by local Federations. Beneficiaries of Federation money agree not to further fund-raise without Federation approval. The local federations are tied to the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF), an umbrella group, founded in 1932, through the Large Cities Budgeting Conference (LCBC).52 CJF does not actually raise money but coordinates how local federations spend it. In addition, CJF tries to provide national support and coordination (administrative, human resources and planning) to local welfare and community centers (which raise their funds locally). Reflecting the interlocking directorate that is the Jewish establishment, CJF leaders sit on the board of the United Jewish Appeal / Federation of Jewish Philanthropies Joint Campaign. They participate in the allotment of financial resources raised by the Jewish community. As Maslow explains: “As coordinator of the local Jewish federations and their affiliates, CJF acts as the overall budgetary, planning, allocating, and supervisory body of the organized American Jewish community.”53

CJF trustees work closely with United Jewish Appeal (UJA), United Israel Appeal (UIA) and the Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint or JDC) in making recommendations to the Jewish Agency. The bulk of all Federation allocations for Israel are allocated via the Jewish Agency.54 Here too, an interlocking directorate serves both the CJF and the Jewish Agency.55

Through the CJF-Large City Budgeting Conference, dollars are also funneled to national groups including the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, American Jewish Committee and American Jewish Congress. Power is diffuse within the Jewish community. But certainly the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds Annual Assembly brings together a multitude of Jewish establishment power brokers under one roof. The late Wolf Kelman explained that these meetings:
. . . become the venue for the three thousand or more representatives of the Jewish communities gathered to meet one another, to hear various reports, and to recruit personnel, and generally comes closest to serving as a Jewish “parliament” without any legislative authority, in the organized North American Jewish community. Its Large City Budgeting Conference makes recommendations about how much each federation should give to a particular national agency which depends on the federation for their support. Its primary purpose is a manifestation of Jewish solidarity and concern.56


By the mid-1980s, this quintessential Jewish establishment body, under pressure from the internal opposition, began to debate (but did not approve) political resolutions calling for a freeze in Jewish settlement of the Administered Territories.

Money for Israel

The American Jewish philanthropic relationship with the Jews of Palstine dates back to the colonial period.57 These days, the “official” building money transferred directly to Israel is raised by the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) (in conjunction with the various Federations). The United Israel Appeal (UIA) then serves as a conduit channeling UJA funds to Israel.

Beyond raising money for Israel through donations to the United Jewish Appeal, the American Jewish community lends money to Israel through the Israel Bond Organization. Additionally, many Israeli charitable institutions (hospitals, religious schools, orphanages, Israel’s version of the Red Cross and USO, etc.) raise funds independently in the United States.

The Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) or “Joint” is one of the oldest organizations dedicated to “rescue, relief and rehabilitation of distressed Jews abroad.” Established in 1914 in an attempt to unify Jewish self-help efforts on behalf of the Jewish communities of Europe, the JDC is today a beneficiary of UJA funds.

After the First World War there were divisions within the community over the allocation of dollars for the Yishuv (Palestinian Jewry). The Zionist minority broke away to create, in 1925, the United Palestine Appeal. Later, to bridge the Zionist/ Non-Zionist gap, in 1929, Chaim Weizmann invited the non-Zionist U.S. Jewish leadership to serve on the Jewish Agency board. However, financial support for the Palestinian Jewish community was hard to come by.

In 1937, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Board brought the Joint and the Jewish Agency together so that fundraising could be better coordinated. As the threat Hitler posed to Jewish survival in Europe became apparent, by 1939, the Joint, United Palestine Appeal and the National Coordinating Committee Fund joined forces to create the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees and Overseas Needs (UJA).

Eventually, the local federation system was put in place. That system is today comprised of UJA, UIA, JDC (“Joint”) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF). JNF funds are spent for afforestation, land reclamation and development in Israel.58 Once the Jewish Agency outlines its budgetary needs, the UJA raises the funds with the support of the CJF. The UJA conducts its fundraising activity jointly with the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies.

Afterwards, as O’Brien summarizes:
The UJA hands over about 80 percent of that amount to the UIA, which in turn moves that money . . . to the Jewish Agency for allocation to Israel. Of the remaining part of the UJA’s share, 10 to 12 percent is allocated to the JDC and about 3 percent to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the New York Association for New Americans (NYANA) . . . the JDC spends about 32 percent in Israel. . . . On the average, therefore, about half of the total funds raised by the UJA-Federation joint . . . campaign goes to Israel.59


“. . . The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime”60

In November 1982 a group of Orthodox rabbis constituted themselves as a Beth Din (supreme rabbinical court) and excommunicated Noam Chomsky, all members of the New Jewish Agenda, which favored a U.S.-PLO dialogue, and others who had signed an anti-Israel advertisement in The New York Times earlier in the year.61 A month after the Rabin-Arafat accord of September 1993, another group of Orthodox rabbis led by the revered Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik traveled to Jerusalem to personally tell Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that they opposed the Labor Government’s deal with the PLO.62 These events are noteworthy because they are atypical. Those Orthodox Jews who favored Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Israel did precious little, in the period under study, to politically advance their position. Their organizations entered into the fray only ineptly and episodically.63

The Orthodox branch of Judaism is the least organized and most fragmented.64 It is “represented” by a number of groups, most prominently Agudath Israel (which is not a Presidents Conference member by choice) and the more “modern Orthodox” Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (popularly known as the “OU”) and the National Council of Young Israel (NCYI). Julius Berman of the OU served as chairman of the Presidents Conference during the Lebanon war.65 Though one might have expected otherwise, none of these groups played a consequential role in the U.S.-PLO dialogue issue.

Of the three main branches of Judaism, the Conservatives are the most theologically comfortable with Zionism. Nevertheless, Conservative Jews tend to be political liberal. Institutionally, the Conservative branch avoided the kind of critical activism undertaken by the more progressive Reform Jewry, and entered the political fray to criticize Israeli policies relatively late in the game. Conservative synagogues are linked nationwide by United Synagogue of America. In a private capacity, Conservative leaders, like Rabbi Wolf Kelman, were active in the internal opposition, and most Conservative rabbis (with a few notable exceptions) ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary tend to be supportive of the Israeli left.

The American Jewish Right

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), organized in 1897, consistently opposed the internal opposition. Of the major “establishment” groups with a political orientation, it was the most naturally sympathetic to the Likud policies. Although a Presidents Conference member, ZOA could not muster the influence, clout or leadership to seriously challenge the direction of the more prestigious and powerful groups.66

The central address of the Jewish right during much of the period under study was outside the Jewish organizational “establishment.” Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) played the gadfly role in strenuously objecting to a redefinition of the Arab-Israel conflict along non-zero-sum terms. AFSI, which was formed in 1971, opposes “land for peace,” favors “peace for peace,” and frontally challenges the idea that the conflict has shifted to a non-zero-sum struggle. It strongly supports the formal incorporation into Israel proper of the lands captured in June 1967. AFSI’s overall scant influence is attributable to several factors including: operating in a media-hostile environment, lack of resources and an almost Leninist refusal to allow internal democracy or organizational cooperation with ideologically compatible groups.67 Politically, AFSI aligns itself with the Israeli settlement movement.68

Originally begun as a “think tank,” AFSI went through several organizational incarnations and claimed a mid-1980s membership of 6,000 in 12 chapters across the United States.69 As a media monitor, AFSI successfully impugned U.S. media coverage of the 1982 Lebanon War (among other things). Under Zweibon’s leadership, AFSI has steadfastly refused to bill itself as a Jewish group, preferring to project a more broad-based image. Zweibon pledged that AFSI would never apply for Presidents Conference membership. This made it impossible for the Jewish Right to directly ameliorate Presidents Conference policies from within. AFSI has frequently skirmished with the establishment over the vitality of their pro-Israel commitment.

In the role of gadfly, AFSI successfully challenged the legitimacy of peace camp critics of Israeli policies. Zweibon and Isaac led the attack against Breira, the New Jewish Agenda (which Zweibon labels “the old Arab agenda”), the World Jewish Congress as well as elements of the internal opposition.70 Its exposé of Breira, in particular, embarrassed the Jewish establishment into breaking ties with the group.

* * * * * * *

Who Runs the Jewish Establishment?

To place the emergence of the internal opposition as well as outside counter elite, in connection with the U.S.-PLO dialogue issue, into an overall context, a succinct sketch of the sociology of Jewish leadership is useful.71

The mantle of Jewish leadership has its enticements: to be quoted in a newspaper article; participate in a high-level delegation being briefed by the Secretary of State; share the same dinner table with the Prime Minister of Israel; and for the select few, receive a White House invitation.

None of this is lost on government policy makers. As Hendrick Smith explained in a less parochial connection, politics is about access:
To politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, journalists, staff aides, and high-level policy makers, access is bread and butter. There is always another circle of power to penetrate; access is the open door, the answered phone call, a couple of minutes with a key player in a corridor or committee room. ... But access in the power game is not merely physical; it is mental, too. It is not only entry to the inner sanctum; it is being in the power loop – being chosen to receive the most sensitive information, as fresh grist for the policy struggle. Being “cut out” on information, or being “blindsided” as the power lingo has it, can be crippling.72


The domestic political context of the U.S.-PLO issue was manipulated by Administration officials. Access was granted or withheld as circumstances warranted. Leadership elements who supported the Administration’s approach were brought into the political loop and those opposed often temporarily excluded.

“American Jewry today lacks not only charismatic leadership but even leaders who are well-known to rank-and-file Jews,” Will Maslow wrote perceptively some twenty years ago.73 Jewish leaders are an amorphous group. Many are wealthy lay people who are benefactors to their respective organizations.74 Some are “freelancers” – politicians, academics, intellectuals, entrepreneurs and even entertainment personalities with little in the way of an organizational base. As Wolf Kelman points out: “The last 20 years have seen an astronomical growth in individuals, now numbering thousands, who have direct access to the local and national power establishment and the community no longer needs to depend on a handful of shtadlanim.”75 In this world, people of wealth can become people of influence and people of influence can become people of communal prominence.76

The second tier of influence is comprised of salaried managers. Because the first tier tends to be made up of very busy professional and business people, the second tier wields significant influence on the political direction of the community. Their futures may well depend on securing a client-patron relationship. Fewer than two dozen establishment professionals actually dominate Jewish policymaking.77 In a sense, they maintain a sort of permanent dominion over the Jewish polity. Maslow describes what it means to be part of this class:
“In some organizations he shares the spotlight with the elected president. In some respect, the leading American Jewish professionals are like the top permanent civil servants in Great Britain who continue functioning despite changes in administration. But British civil servants are unknown to the general public. American Jewish civil servants make speeches, publish articles, appear on radio and TV and serve (along with their lay leaders) as spokesmen for their agencies.”78


The interlocking directorate mentioned earlier is another phenomenon of Jewish organizational life. Lay-leaders seem to move laterally from one group to another.79 Wolf Kelman notes:
There is an interlocking group of professionals and communal leaders, many of whom have developed strong ties of loyalty and mutual support, who often sit on many of the boards of the major national and international organizations. It is not uncommon to see the same faces in leadership roles at the Presidents Conference, the American Section of the World Jewish Congress, HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), or in the various synagogal groups.”80

One former head of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry and the Chairman of the Presidents Conference during the climax of the U.S.-PLO dialogue issue, “retired,” the Bush Administration appointed him U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. After that job ended in 1993, the World Jewish Congress, a driving force of the outside elite, appointed Abram to serve as chairman of its new “UN Watch” project in Switzerland.81

* * * * * * *

In summary, Jewish leadership is very much an elite affair. As political scientists Thomas R. Dye and Harmon Zeigler explain:
Elites, not masses, govern all societies. Elites are not a product of capitalism or socialism or industrialization or technological development. All societies – socialist and capitalist, agricultural and industrial, traditional and advanced – are governed by elites. All societies require leaders, and leaders acquire a stake in preserving the organization and their position in it. This motive gives leaders a perspective different from that of the organization’s members. An elite, then, is inevitable in any social organization. As the French political scientist Roberto Michaels put it, “He who says organization, says oligarchy.”82

What is true for the larger political system is likewise manifest within the Jewish organizational subsystem. The Jewish leadership had a stake in refashioning Israeli conduct and bringing it into harmony with their interests as members of the American elite.

The Jewish oligarchy, like the elite strata in general, is fairly porous. “In fact,” as Dye and Zeigler note, “a certain amount of ‘circulation of elites’ (upward mobility) is essential for the stability of the elite system.”83 In the Jewish communal context, the interests of virtually all the key players demanded that they challenge Israeli policies with regard to the retention of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The question was limited to how this would be done. The Presidents Conference had no way to impose communal discipline but neither did it have an overwhelming desire to do so. Still, there was a tradition and etiquette to follow regarding Jewish elite criticism of Israeli security policies. In this context, the internal opposition buttressed the Administration’s policy of disassociation (removing Israel from the West Bank and Gaza). It adhered to the Presidents Conference (and Labor Party) consensus position against a U.S.-PLO dialogue.

Those who no longer felt bound by the constraints of Jewish elite etiquette (for one reason or another) comprised what I have opted to categorize as the outside elite. Together with the peace camp (who were altogether new to Jewish communal affairs and had entirely different motivations), they actively sought to pave the way for a U.S.-PLO dialogue, a main difference being, aside from the absence of previous communal ties, that the peace camp favored an unconditional dialogue while the outside elite sought to facilitate a dialogue by bridging the gap between U.S. prerequisites and Palestinian Arab needs.