wisdom, the short answer is an une- quivocal yes. Israel, the client, should be more sensitive to the needs and interests of its superpower patron. Instead, Israeli arrogance, fed by a benign and forgiv- ing Washington, has been transform- ed into a dangerous illusion of grandeur which has led Jerusalem gratutiously to defy its greatest friend. Professor Gabriel Sheffer, a specialist on Israel American affairs at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, believes the relationship between Israel and the United States is, and will remain, unbalanced simp- ly because Washington is not depen- dent on Israel. "Certainly," he says, "Israel is not giving back $3 billion in services to the United States." The "soft," non-quantifiable fac- tors — Israeli democracy, American Jewry, philo-Semitism, the Holocaust and scientific technological coopera- tion — far outweigh any "hard" factors. And so, Israel continues to be perceived as a beggar — one of a long line — incessantly pounding on Washington's door in search of crumbs from the High Table. But that is only one side of a debate that is gathering momentum in Jerusalem. For an articulate body of opinion within Israeli society is emerging to challenge vigorously this stereotypical view of the American- Israeli relationship. While not comparing Israel to the United States in terms of size, wealth, power and influence, the stri- dent new voices are nevertheless con- tending that in the context of the Mid- dle East, there is a certain symmetry in relations between Washington and Jerusalem, with the United States perhaps enjoying a slight edge. The $3 billion a year in aid and grants which Washington provides Israel is a tangible, concrete expres- sion of its contribution to the relation- ship; but the traffic in largesse, they contend, is not simply one way. The problem for Israel is that its contribution to the relationship is far more difficult to quantify or define. It is, nevertheless immense. • What value can be placed on the battle-testing of America's state- of-the-art conventional weapons against the most sophisticated Soviet counterparts? • What value can be placed on the strategic alliance, written and un- written, between Washington and Jerusalem? • What value can be placed on having a regional superpower capable of checking Soviet military ambitions in a turbulent-area? • What value can be placed on an alliance which greatly enhances American And Israeli Jews: Who Needs Who More? "Is America Exile?" The subject of the debate—between a leading Israeli political scientist and an American Jewish leader - attracted a packed audience at a Jerusalem auditorium. Such intense interest was a symp- tom of the fundamental questions that are now being raised about the complex relationship between Israel and American Jews, particularly in the wake of the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal. The protagonists were Shlomo Avineri, professor of modem history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Abe Foxman, associate director of the Anti- Defamation League of Bnai Brith. The result of the debate was predictable enough (Avineri in- sisting that America was a unique and remarkable galut (Diaspora); Foxman countering that the very question was simply "irrelevant to most American Jews"). But what gave the evening a special significance was that it pro- vided fresh evidence of a sea-change in relations between American Jewry and Israel. Jonathan Pollard, said Avineri, had merely crystallized an issue that had been dormant at the heart of this relationship for 39 years; an issue that flowed from the Pollard affair, but one that also transcended Pollard. "It is a moment of truth," he said. "American Jewry and Israel have never spoken candidly to each other on issues where they feared dis- agreement." In his view, American Jews have a distorted notion of their own power and of the importance of their financial contribution to Israel. Israel's strength, he declared, does not derive from the political power of American Jewish leaders. Rather, he said, "the strength of American Jewry derives from Israel." Without Israel, and without their links to Israel, American Jewish leaders would be no more important than the communal leaders of any other religious or ethnic group in America. Their access to the White House and other centers of power are due solely to their close ties to the Jewish State. Avineri called for relations be- tween American Jewry and Israel to be "emancipated from the cash nexus." "We know that at least half of the cash raised by the UJA stays in the American communities," he said. "And we all know that if those com- munities did not have Israel as a rallying symbol they would prob- ably not be able to raise that money. "You depend on us," he told his American interlocutor, "probably more than we depend on you." "If the UJA stopped sending "Get rid of the cash nexus and the debate between us will be on a very different level." Israel $450 million, it would be a hardship," said Avineri, "but in the long run it would do Israel a lot of good. It would force reforms that won't be carried out otherwise, and we would rid ourselves of the false sense of dependency [on American Jewry] that poisons our relations." There was a time, he said, when American Jewish contributions were of tremendous importance to Israel. But today, the combined con- tributions of world Jewry account for less than 2 percent of the coun- try's $25 billion annual budget. "Get rid of the cash nexus," he said, "and the debate between us will be on a very different level. We can start talking about spiritual, political and intellectual ties without the constant pressure of money?' Abe Foxman said he would be willing to "take the risk" of American Jewry being able to raise its own internal funds without wav- ing the Israeli flag. If Israel does not want the money, he said wryly, "you have only to say " And if stopping the contributions "will clear some of the constraints in our relationship," he said, "per- haps it is worth doing it." The central issue of the Pollard af- fair was not that it had exposed the paranoia and galut mentality of American Jewry, said Foxman, "but that it had hurt American Jewry's ability to help Israel. "For 39 years we have labored, without fear and cringing, to create a relationship based on mutual trust, understanding and credibili- ty," he said. "Pollard undermined all those things, the basic foundations of our relationship. "Israel, by its actions, highlighted the question of American Jewish loyalty. The Pollard 'affair has left scars on our relationship and we should face them. Instead you have reacted with arrogance, calling us names, as a people living in a soured `promised land."' There was indeed, said Foxman, a need to review the fundamentals of the Israel-American Jewry partner- ship, "which for years has been based on sloganeering—that we are one, shareholders." "You never really meant it," he said, "while we in the galut believed it and acted on it. But when Pollard happened, we realized that we are not one, or at least, very junior part- ners." Foxman acknowledged an ele- ment of inequality in the relation- ship. "Not because you are eman- cipated and we are galut, but because yours is a prime respon- sibility and ours is secondary. You vote and we do not. But we share in your fate. "Neither you nor we should pre- tend to be what we are not. But if we begin to approach each other honestly—in a relationship built on mutual respect, it makes little dif- ference whether we live in the galut or the Promised Land." Professor Gabriel Sheffer, an ex- pert on Israel-America relations at the Hebrew University of Jeru- salem, is a strong advocate of both honesty and mutual respect in deal- ings between Israel and American Jewry. He is, however, scornful of the tedious string of dialogues, which are mostly overladen with one vested interest or another, as a tool for achieving such ends. "Dialogues are useless," says Shef- fer, who has participated in more than he cares to remember. "They are always mediated by organiza- Continued on next page Continued on next page 23