Hear, O Israel

Israeli leaders need to remember that when embarking on a new plan, the Diaspora’s Jewry is yet another constituency—albeit not a directly enfranchised one—that needs to be addressed.

This past October, as Israeli officials began publicly speaking about a possible agreement that would divide Jerusalem, the Orthodox Union decided to act. The group, representing the American Modern-Orthodox community, sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, urging him to make clear that Jerusalem would not be discussed in peace talks. When weeks passed without word from the Prime Minister’s office, the group ran the letter as a full-page ad in the Jerusalem Post. Only then did it receive a short, vaguely worded reply from one of Olmert’s advisers.

The episode illustrates a larger trend: Israelis don’t take kindly to Jews of the diaspora meddling in their affairs.

The Orthodox Union’s protest, later taken up by other hawkish Jewish-American groups, did little to change Olmert’s mind, but it did re-ignite the dispute over what role Diaspora Jews should play, if any, in shaping Israeli policy.

It’s a tricky question that quickly slips into the usual exchange of barbs between right and left, rarely reaching the point of any real discussion. Drowning out the occasional dissenters is the loud voice of the diaspora majority that reflexively agrees with Israel’s every move, chanting: “We support the policy of Israel’s democratically elected government.” Further silencing debate is the even harsher argument of some Israelis: “We’re the ones sending our sons and daughters to the army, and we should be the only ones deciding our country’s destiny.”

But the matter isn’t so simple. First of all, what exactly is the “policy of the democratically elected government” of Israel? Is it Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman’s opposition to any territorial compromise, or is it Vice Premier Haim Ramon’s willingness to go farther than any other cabinet member and suggest a division of Jerusalem? Is it Labor’s support for a negotiated agreement or Kadima’s fascination with unilateral steps? Reflecting the old joke about “two Jews, three opinions,” Israel’s democratically elected government has a plurality of views—and why shouldn’t Diaspora Jews have a say in which one they’d like to support?

But even the idea of an Israeli consensus is a myth. Is it true that only the army-serving, tax-paying, life-risking Israelis should have a monopoly on making decisions about their country’s future? If Israel were any other country, the answer would be in the affirmative, just as Americans are the only ones to determine what course the United States should take. But Israel, defined as the state of the Jewish people, is in a slightly different position. It has an inherent need to represent not only its own people but also Jews at large, and even though most Israelis wouldn’t like to hear it, that means that on some issues, Diaspora Jews in fact do have a say.

The great challenge is agreeing upon just which issues these are. Some are easy: Almost all would agree that Diaspora Jews have a right to voice their opinion on issues relating directly to how Israel treats them. One example is the legislation known as “Who Is a Jew,” which was the subject of a huge debate in the 1980s when some Israeli lawmakers proposed not recognizing as Jewish those converted by non-Orthodox rabbis. Other examples are the details of the Law of Return and the treatment of Reform and Conservative movements in Israel.

But other cases are more difficult. Some groups contend that the future of the holy places is one of those issues on which Diaspora Jews should have a say. After all, if Jerusalem is the capital of all the Jewish people, then its future should not be decided only by the portion that happens to live in Israel. But an argument like this could lead to a slippery slope. After all, most decisions made by the Israeli government will have an effect on the holy places and on the prospects for peace.

Israeli discomfort with American Jews’ attempts at meddling is understandable. But the automatic reaction, which ranges from dismissal to outrage, is not serving either side. It might be time for a novel policy, one that has hardly ever been tried. It’s called dialogue: A simple but real conversation between Israeli and diaspora leaders in which concerns are raised and addressed.

It wouldn’t mean that American Jews would vote in Israeli elections. But it would mean that Israel’s government would be reaching out and listening to Diaspora Jews. And this wouldn’t be wholly altruistic on Israel’s part: Though the six million Jews of America are not a constituency of Israeli politicians, it is undoubtedly a good strategy to sometimes treat them as if they were. They don’t have a vote in the Knesset, but they do have a lot of clout within the United States that can be used in Israel’s favor.

Yitzhak Rabin didn’t consult the diaspora before signing the Oslo accords and found himself with an international Jewish community that was confused and only half-heartedly supportive; Ariel Sharon hardly had any conversation with American Jews before the Gaza disengagement and faced similar consequences.

Now, with his plans for Jerusalem, Olmert is making the same mistake. Israeli leaders just need to remember that when embarking on a new plan, the Diaspora’s Jewry is yet another constituency—albeit not a directly enfranchised one—that needs to be addressed. Answering their letters on time is a good place to start.

Nathan Guttman is a reporter for The Forward.