as well.rnAmerican Jewry comprises not only arnreligious, cultural, ethnic, and social entity;rnit is very much a component in thernpolitics of the American power-system.rnIn their use of power Jews are like othersrnof their class, which is to sav, distinctrnsubdivisions within the American socialrnsystem. Just as Israel is like other states,rnso American Jewry is like other Americanrnethnic and social entities: similar to othersrnin many ways, different in some, distinctrnthrough and through.rnBut American Jews have also undertakenrnto negotiate on behalf of Israelrnwith the sworn enemies of that nation.rnAnd that represents the Jews’ adaptation,rnto their own circumstance, of Wilson’srnnotion of an interventionist foreignrnpolicy. It is one thing for the UnitedrnStates to counsel its clients and friendsrnon both sides as to how to make peace.rnBut what we have seen in the Jewish instancernis something else, namely, citizensrnof one state negotiating with representativesrnof another (soi-disant) staternconcerning the affairs of a third state,rnand we must regard such action as highlyrnirregular.rnIn affairs of state, third-partv interventionrnis ordinarily deemed an offensernand mav be construed as an act not ofrntreason or sedition but of war. When,rnfor example, in 1938 the French andrnBritish negotiated with the Germansrnover the fate of certain Czech territories,rnthe Czechs deemed that action anrnintervention and a betrayal. WhenrnAmerican citizens flew to Hanoi to lendrnaid and comfort to North Vietnam in itsrninvasion of America’s ally and cobelligerent,rnSouth Vietnam, many construedrnthat action as treason and sedition.rnThe two actions are, of course,rndifferent, since Chamberlain returnedrnnot to Prague but to London, while Fondarncame home to California. But thernsomewhat mixed analogies serve to makernthe simple point that third-party interventionrnis odd and offensive.rnYet, over the years, American Jewsrnhave made the pilgrimage to Tunis tornnegotiate with the PLO over Palestinianrnpolicy toward Israel. Take, for example,rnthe Stockholm Five, five Jews who somernyears back met, without Israeli authorizationrnor mission, with officials of thernPLO to negotiate the terms under whichrnverbal recognition would meet the conditionsrnset by the United States for legitimationrnof the PLO as a negotiatingrnpartner. Whom did the Stockholm Fivernrepresent? And what empowered themrnto enter into the political process? Theyrnare not Israeli citizens, so they cannotrnstand for any political faction in thatrnstate, let alone the foreign ministry ofrnthat state. They are not American diplomats,rnso they cannot claim to negotiaternon behalf of a party to the issue, Americanrnrecognition of the PLO being whatrnwas at stake. Do they speak for a deeplyrnconcerned party, American Jewry orrnwodd Jewry? Their sponsor, moneybagsrnPhilip Klutznick, perennial officeholderrnand self-promoter in world Jewish organizations,rncertainly thought so; but herncannot be accorded more standing andrnauthority than his money can buy him.rnSome years back, then, Stockholmrnpresented the spectacle of citizens of onerncountry negotiating with a second countryrnabout the most vital concerns of arnthird country, which is unprecedented inrnworld affairs. American Jews care deeplyrnfor what happens in and to Israel, just asrnAmerican Roman Catholics of Italianrnorigin are engaged by the affairs of thernChurch and the Italian state and politv,rnjust as American Roman Cathohcs ofrnHispanic origin care deeply about whatrnhappens in Mexico and Central America.rnBut caring for other Americans ordinarilyrndoes not spill over into meddling,rnand the intense and unrelenting engagementrnof American Jews in Israeli publicrnpolicy ordinarily does.rnI jee two solutions. First, AmericanrnJews have to recognize that, if they wantrnto tell Israel how to do its business, theyrnshould relocate there, pay taxes, serve inrnits army, and vote in its elections. Second,rnIsraelis have to declare their independencernfrom world Jewry. Both sidesrnneed to recognize the simple fact thatrnJewish Americans are not Israelis, that Israelisrncan be left to make their own mistakes.rnFor, after all, their political process,rndemocratic and just, must be free torndo its work—and will do its work. Wernwho live far away from Israel must givernup our prophet’s cloak and cease to condemnrnthe slightest Israeli infringementrnupon our heightened and selective sensitivityrnto the requirements of justice.rnIt is time for Israelis to recognize thatrnthe cost of the special relationship withrnworld Jewry exceeds the benefit. Insistingrnthat they form the center of woddrnJewry, proposing to utilize Jews throughoutrnthe wodd in the achievement of theirrnnational goals, subjects Israel to a politicsrnit cannot accommodate: constituenciesrnin not only Holon but also West Hartford.rnJust as the Israelis have built a normalrnstate, so they now have to rethinkrnthe requirements for the normalizationrnof relationships with Jews outside of Israel.rnNo other country in the world todayrnmanipulates its overseas friends inrnthe way the Israelis do, and 1 wonderrnwhen they will see the heavy price theyrnpay in overseas meddling.rn—Jacob NeusnerrnD R . JOCELYN ELDERS has beenrnelevated to what the New York Times callsrnthe Surgeon General’s “bully pulpit,”rnand President Clinton has uxoriouslyrncompared her to Harriet Beecher Stowe.rnYet Elders as the mouthpiece for thernhealing profession—not to mention thernallusion to her in a pulpit—is grosslyrnironic. Her insensitive, sometimes spitefulrnpublic asides reveal her to be more fitrnfor today’s bull pit of warring ideologuesrnthan for a bully pulpit. More critically,rnthere is mounting evidence that the publicrnschool sex-ed model she pushes is destructivernof our children.rnPediatrician (now First Healer) Elders’rnnonchalant contempt for fetal life is nowrna commonplace: her taunting of prolifersrnto cease their “love affair with thernfetus” savaged millions of Americansrnwho esteem the unborn as very youngrnhuman beings. (Consider, by analogy,rnthe likely reaction of black Americans tornthe following variation of her viciousrncomment: “African-Americans shouldrncease their love affair with slaves.”) Eldersrnalso derides pro-life Christians asrnhaving a “Bible-belt mentality”; pro-lifernCatholics, in particular, are singled outrnas belonging to “a celibate, male-dominatedrnChurch.” She does, however,rnplace special stock in molding little children.rn”Give me,” she says, “the choice ofrntrying to educate a 3-year-old or . . . anrn18-year-old and I’ll take the 3-year-oldrnevery time.” And what does she prescribernfor those in their formative years?rnEver more systematic, explicit, andrngraphic sex ed, launched in kindergarten.rnSince Elders sits on the board of thernAlan Guttmacher Institute, the researchrnarm of Planned Parenthood, it shouldrnnot be surprising if she adopts as part ofrnher sex-ed program for coed kindergartensrnthe Planned Parenthood suggestionrnthat children outline a friend’s bodyrnand verbally label all the parts, includingrngenitals and buttocks. By the time childrenrnreach third grade. Planned Parenthoodrncommends constructing modelsrnDECEMBER 1993/5rnrnrn