Catering to the Jewish Vote

AFAR-REACHING trade agreement is about to be signed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Pens are poised, smiles are set--but wait! There is a last-minute snag. By vote of the Politboro, the Russians refuse to sign until the U.S. agrees to integrate all its public schools. This is a matter of principle with the Russians; they will not budge. The American public is outraged. As if busing was not bad enough, to bus on Communist command! Just what anti-busers said all along: it's a Communist plot. Negotiations break down.

A totally implausible scenario? It depends upon where one sits. From the Soviet point of view, they were treated to a somewhat similar spectacle by the U.S. Senate last week. Just as the finishing touches were being put on a trade agreement laboriously worked out after the President's visit to Moscow last spring, 75 Senators sponsored an amendment to block the pact when it comes to a vote next year unless Russia rescinds the tax it has imposed on Soviet Jews who want to leave the country. If the Senate action was an intrusion into Russian affairs, it was also a remarkable display of the power of the Jewish vote in America. For weeks Jewish organizations had worked the corridors of Congress, lining up Senators to support the amendment. Those who hesitated received phone calls. Charles Percy, who refused to knuckle under, was attacked on the issue by his Democratic opponent in his senatorial campaign in Illinois. It was not a reassuring performance from a body that feels it should have more say in foreign policy.

The proposed amendment also contradicted what many liberal Senators have been declaiming for years: that the U.S. should not meddle in other countries' affairs, that free and unrestricted trade is in the best interest of everyone. John Foster Dulles was excoriated for preaching the American gospel to wayward nations; whenever the U.S. intervened abroad, however gingerly, it was bound to suffer a certain amount of liberal rebuke. Yet here were liberals telling the Russians how to behave at home --although many of them would hardly have suggested a trade embargo of the Soviet Union because of similar treatment meted out to the Ukrainians, for instance, or because of the fact that thousands of nameless Russians are in labor camps, or even because of the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The conservatives who voted for the amendment are hardly more consistent. While usually ready enough to put pressure on the Soviet Union, they resist similar actions proposed by liberals against right-wing regimes, for instance, in Greece or Brazil.

Embargoes. To rationalize the Senate's act, the author of the amendment, Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "There are no internal affairs left on our crowded earth." In reply, Gaylord Nelson, who voted against the amendment, mused: "I do not understand why the policy, if we are going to apply it, should not apply, for example, to Uganda, which is arbitrarily driving out of the country some 60,000 natives who were born and raised there, not only charging a fee but confiscating all their property. Or why it should not apply to all dictatorial countries where emigration is denied to its citizens or where excessive emigration fees are imposed as in the Soviet Union."

The U.S. has in fact held up a loan to Uganda, but not suspended regular aid. Trade embargoes and other forms of economic pressure are legitimate tools of any world power, in some situations. Moreover, no one denies that the fate of the Soviet Jews is pitiable and that they should be helped. There is a question, however, whether such help is best offered through clumsy economic blackmail or through more subtle means. An even larger question is at what point the desire to bring justice to persecuted minorities in other lands should override the clear U.S. national interest. Despite some doubts, the trade deal with the Soviet Union seems to be very much in America's and the world's interest. It is part of a major Nixon effort to reshape global relationships and end the last of the cold war. Were it not an election year, it would be hard to conceive of so much moral concern driving so many Senators of normally diffuse and diverse zeals into common action.

The threat of a Jewish defection alarms politicians. Nixon entertains visiting Israelis every chance he gets; since the campaign began, McGovern has probably been in more temples and synagogues than Methodist churches. More substantively, for the first three years of his Administration, Nixon pursued a relatively evenhanded policy. But as the campaign got closer--and the Soviet arms buildup in Egypt continued --he grew more nervous and sided increasingly with Israel. Even when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat tossed out the Russians last July, Nixon was reluctant to make any overt move toward the Arabs, although it seemed like a prime opportunity for the U.S. to gain some of the influence the Soviets were obviously losing. Aside from not wanting to offend Jews, Nixon was worried about ruffling Soviet sensibilities at a time of delicate negotiations. To his credit, the President has refused to "demagogue," as he puts it, on the subject of the Soviet Jews. He took the political risk of urging Jewish organizations not to force a "harsh confrontation" with Russia. He was trying to help the Soviet Jews with quiet diplomacy, and word had been dropped by Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko that the tax might be reduced or phased out.

McGovern has felt pressured to talk even tougher than Nixon. His record on Israel has been considered too spotty by Jews; at one time he had urged the Israelis to return most of the territories conquered in the Six-Day War and to internationalize Jerusalem. Jews are even more alarmed by McGovern's staff. Aide Rick Stearns once signed a New Left, pro-Arab newspaper ad; last month, Campaign Manager Gary Hart said that he thought McGovern should condemn Israel for its retaliatory raids on Lebanon. McGovern is not about to take that advice. He told a crowd in New York that he would be willing to commit U.S. troops to Israel to prevent the nation from being overrun --a pledge not even the most ardent Israel supporters have asked from the candidates.

Bond. Jews constitute only 3% of the population, but they are strategically located in the big electoral states. They vote proportionally in greater numbers than any other ethnic group. They are prominently represented in the press and academic professions, and they also contribute more heavily to political campaigns. Their power is enhanced this year because their vote is split. For the first time, the Republicans feel they can slice heavily into a normally Democratic vote. Nixon is expected at least to double the 15% of the Jewish vote he won in 1968; he plans to pick up $5,000,000 in Jewish contributions. Beyond that, the Jewish voters may be even better mobilized this year because they seem to feel somewhat on the defensive. Many blacks are openly showing hostility to Jews. Quotas, the devices that once kept Jews out of universities, professions and government service, are making something of a comeback (TIME, Oct. 9).

Quite apart from such current preoccupations, American Jews continue to feel a profound and almost mystical bond with Israel. As Milton Himmelfarb wrote in Commentary with a prophetic pessimism worthy of Ezekiel: "Our overriding interest of any kind is Israel. If--which God forbid--Israel should cease to exist, do we not know in our bones that the Jews could cease to exist?" In fact, of course, U.S. policy is firmly committed to the existence of Israel and undoubtedly would be even without Jewish political influence in the U.S. Moreover, the Jewish vote does not act monolithically, and current Jewish uneasiness about McGovern, for instance, is probably caused by his economic policies as much as by doubts about his Israeli commitment.

But vast numbers of Jewish voters do judge any political candidate on the basis of his support for Israel, which has tended to imbalance U.S. politics and limit the freedom of U.S. foreign policy. Judging U.S.-Soviet relations primarily by how Moscow treats Russian Jews is similarly risky.

All kinds of interests, very much including big business, constantly exercise their right to lobby and persuade; minorities traditionally try to influence American diplomacy. But the process cannot be overloaded indefinitely with special demands; it just might break down. If the U.S. can help cool off the world, everyone--Israel and American Jewry included--will ultimately benefit.

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