Engagement Over Antagonism
Approach to influential figures with anti-Israel views; politicians motivated by expediency, not conviction; engage rather than alienate potential allies; behind-the-scenes persuasion over public confrontation.
By the Grace of G-d
3rd of Sivan, 5744
Brooklyn N. Y.
Prof. [Alan Dershowitz]
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Greeting and Blessing:
...P.S. I wish to refer to your characterization of the person as described in your letter.
I trust you will agree that in regard to persons of influence, whether in Washington or elsewhere, the first objective should be to persuade and encourage such a person to use his influence in a positive way in behalf of any and all good causes which are important to us. We should welcome every public appearance which lends public support to the cause, especially when there is a likelihood that it may be the forerunner of similar pronouncements in the future. A case in point is the public stance of the very person who is the subject of your letter, on a matter which is surely close to your heart, as reported in the JTA Bulletin... (v. enclosure). I believe it is not the first of its kind, nor, I hope, the last.
My experience with such people—though I have never personally met the said person — has convinced me that politicians are generally motivated more by expediency than by conviction. In other words, their public pronouncements on various issues do not stem from categorical principles or religious imperatives. Hence, most of them, if not all, are subject to change in their positions, depending on time, place, and other factors.
I believe, therefore, that the proper approach to such persons by Jewish leaders should not be rigid. As a rule, it does no good to engage in a cold war, which may often turn into a hot war; nor does it serve any useful purpose to brand one as an "enemy" or an "anti-Semite," however tempting it is to do so even if that person vehemently denies it. It can only be counter-productive. On the contrary, ways and means should be found to persuade such a person to take a favorable stance, at least publicly. We haven't too many friends, and attaching labels, etc. will not gain us any.
Instances abound where the approach advocated above produced good results. To cite one well-known case — the leader of the Moral Majority has at times made highly unfavorable pronouncements, especially the one about missionary activities a few weeks ago. Yet the government in Eretz Yisroel made special efforts to gain his support, etc. etc.
There is surely no need to point out to you that responsible Jewish leaders consistently cultivated good public relations, indeed even cordial relations, with Pres. Carter and his predecessors going back to FDR, regardless of their sometimes openly negative feelings towards Jews and Jewish causes.
The wisdom of the said approach is borne out also by the experience in regard to helping Jews behind the Iron Curtain. There are those who claim that anti-Soviet demonstrations and similar actions will induce the Kremlin to change its policy. Others, myself included, are convinced that "quiet diplomacy" has been effective, and certainly not counter-productive. I urged and pleaded - behind the scenes, of course, for such an approach by Jewish leaders.
Unfortunately, my pleadings were unheeded.
This is one of the reasons why I write in reply to your correspondence this P.S., which has nothing to do with the person about whom you wrote in the hope that you may use your influence with your friends who are active in Jewish concerns, in the direction indicated above.
See the Quiet Diplomacy tag on the Rebbe Responsa app.
