In its efforts to quell criticism of Israel, the pro-Israel communitys first goal is to still Jewish critics. In this quest it receives strong support from the Israeli government. Every government of Israel gives high priority to maintaining unity among US Jews. This unity is regarded as a main line of Israels Defencesecond in importance only to the Israeli armyand essential to retaining the support Israel must have from the United States government. American Jews are made to feel guilty about enjoying safety and the good life in the United States while their fellow Jews in Israel hold the ramparts, pay high taxes, and fight wars. As Rabbi Balfour Brickner states: We hide behind the argument that it is not for us to speak our minds because the Israelis have to pay the price. For most Jews, open criticism of Israeli policy is unthinkable. The theme is survivalsurvival of the Zionist dream, of Judaism, of Jews themselves. The fact that the Jewish community in the United States has produced little debate in recent years on Middle East questions even within its own ranks does not mean that all its members agree. In private, many American Jews hold positions in sharp disagreement with official Israeli policies. The differences are startling. A 1983 survey by the American Jewish Committee revealed that about half of US Jews favour a homeland for the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza and recommend that Israel stop the expansion of settlements in order to encourage peace negotiations. Three-fourths want Israel to talk to the Palestine Liberation Organisation if it recognises Israel and renounces terrorism. Only 21 per cent want Israel to maintain permanent control over the West Bank. On each of these propositions, the plurality of American Jews takes issue with the policies and declarations of the Israeli government. A phlurality also holds that American Jews individually, as well as in organised groups, should feel free to criticise Israeli policy publicly. Of those surveyed, 70 per cent say US Jewish organisations should feel free to criticise. On this question, even Jewish leaders say they welcome criticism: 40 per cent say organisations should feel free to criticise; 37 per cent disagree. This means that only one-third of the leaders say they want to stifle organisational criticism of Israel. The vote by individual Jews for free and open debate is even stronger. Only 31 per cent declare that American Jews individually should not criticise Israeli policy publicly; 57 per cent disagree. On this question, leaders and non-leaders vote exactly alike. The results of the survey are not easily reconciled with the facts about public dissent. While American Jews say they strongly oppose some Israeli policies and believe that organisations and individuals should feel free to criticise these policies openly, the simple fact is that public criticism is almost non-existent. The views expressed in the survey must be regarded more as a wish list than a statement of principles which the people surveyed actually try to carry out. In public, Jewish organisations in the United States support Israeli policies with a unanimity that is broken only in rare circumstances. They either give open support or remain silent. The leaders of Bnai Brith and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) expressed guarded support for President Reagans Middle East peace plan immediately after it was announced in September 1982, but these expressions occurred before the Israeli government had stated its position. Once Israeli opposition was known, these organisations dropped the subject. Trampled to Death Of the more than 200 principal Jewish organisations functioning on a national scale, only the New Jewish Agenda and its predecessor, Breira, have challenged any stated policy of the Israeli government. In return for their occasional criticism of Israels policies, the two organisations were ostracised and kept out of the organised Jewish community. Breira lasted only five years. Organised in 1973, its peak national membership was about 1,000. Named for the Hebrew word meaning alternative, it called on Jewish institutions to be open to serious debate, and proposed a comprehensive peace between Israel, the Arab states, and a Palestinian homeland that is ready to live in peace alongside Israel. Prominent in its leadership were Rabbis Arnold Jacob Wolf, David Wolf Silverman, Max Ticktin, David Saperstein, and Balfour Brickner. The counterattack was harsh. The National Journal reports that Briera was bitterly attacked by many leaders of the Jewish establishment and that a Breira meeting was invaded and ransacked by members of the militant Jewish Defence League. Some members of Breira came under intense pressure to quit either the organisation or their jobs. Jewish leaders were warned to avoid Breira or fund raising would be hurt. Israeli officials joined rabbis in denouncing the organisation. Carolyn Toll, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and formerly on the board of directors of Breira, quotes a rabbi: My bridges are burned. Once you take a position like this [challenging Israeli positions], the organised Jewish community closes you out. Officials from the Israeli consulates in Boston and Philadelphia warned Jews against attending a Breira conference. Breira came under attack from both right and left within the Jewish community. A pamphlet branding some of its members as radicals was quoted by Jewish publications and later distributed by AIPAC. Breira was accused of being allied with the radical US Labor Party. An unsigned fact sheet suggested that it really was a group of Jewish radicals supporting the PLO. The Seattle Jewish Transcript said it was run by a coterie of leftist revolutionaries who opposed Israel. Irving Howe, speaking at the final national conference of Breira in 1977, said the tactics used to smear the organisation were an outrage such as we have not known for a long time in the Jewish community. At the same meeting, retired Israeli General Mattityahu Peled, who was often boycotted by Jewish groups while on US lecture tours, said, The pressure applied on those who hold dissenting views here [in the US] is far greater than the pressure on us in Israel. I would say that probably we in Israel enjoy a larger degree of tolerance than you do here within the Jewish community. Breira disbanded shortly afterward. In December 1980, 700 American Jews gathered in Washington, D.C., to found another organisation of dissenters, the New Jewish Agenda. Composed mainly of young liberals, it called for compromise through negotiations with the Palestinian people and Israels Arab neighbours and opposed Israeli policies in the West Bank and Lebanon. It was soon barred from associating with other Jewish groups. In June 1983, its Washington, D.C., chapter was refused membership in the Jewish Community Council, a group which included 260 religious, educational, fraternal and social service organisations. The council members voted 98 to 70 to overturn the recommendation of the groups executive board. which had voted 22 to five for admission. Irwin Stein, president of the Washington chapter of the Zionist Organisation of America charged that the group was far out and pro-Arab rather than pro-Israel. Moe Rodenstein, representing the Agenda, said the group would like to be a part of the debate and added, Were proud of what were doing. It is a Form of McCarthyism Like the Jewish organisations, individual Jews rarely express public disagreement with Israel policies, despite the broad and fundamental differences they seem to hold. The handful who have spoken up have had few followers and even fewer defenders. To Carolyn Toll, the taboo against criticism is powerful and extensive: I believe even Jews outside the Jewish community are affected by internal taboos on discussionfor if one is discouraged from bringing up certain subjects within the Jewish community, think how much more disloyal it could be to raise them outside Toll laments the suppression of free speech in American Jewish institutionsthe pressures that prevent dovish or dissident Jews from organising in synagogues, Jewish community centers, and meetings of major national Jewish organisations and denunciations of American Friends Service Committee representatives as anti-Semitics and dupes of the Palestine Liberation Organisation for insisting that any true peace must include a viable state for the Palestinians. A successful Jewish author suffered a different type of excommunication when she wrote a book critical of Israel. In The Fate of the Jews, a candid and anguished history of US Jewry and its present-day dilemma, Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht explains that Zionism has become the religion for many Jews. This is why, she writes, that opposition to Zionism or criticism of Israel is now heresy and cause for excommunication, adding that the idealism attributed to Israel by most supporters has been marred by years of patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism and expansionism. She declares, Israel shields itself from legitimate criticism by calling her critics anti-Semitic; it is a form of McCarthyism and fatally effective. A year after its publication in 1983 by Times Books, the book was still largely ignored. The Los Angeles Times was the only major newspaper to review it. The publisher undertook no advertising, nor even a minimal promotional tour. Feuerlicht, the author of fifteen successful books, was subjected to what Mark A. Bruzonsky, another Jewish journalist, described as a combination of slander and neglect. When copies sent to prominent liberal Jews, Christians, civil libertarians and blacks brought no response, Feuerlicht concluded, It would seem that with universal assent, the book is being stoned to death with silence. Other Jews who dare voice guarded criticism of Israel encounter threats which are far from silent. Threatening phone calls have become a part of life for Gail Pressberg of Philadelphia, a Jewish member of the professional staff of the American Friends Service Committee. In her work she is active in projects supporting the Palestinian cause. She reports that abuse calls are so frequent that I dont pay any attention anymore. One evening, after receiving several calls on her unlisted telephone in which her life was threatened for deserting Israel, in desperation she left the receiver off the hook. A few minutes later the same voice called on her roommates phone, also unlisted, resuming the threats. In my 22 years in Congress, I can recall no entry in Congressional Record disclosing a speech critical of Israeli policy by a Jewish member of the House or Senate. Jewish members may voice discontent in private conversation but never on the public record. Only a few Jewish academicians, like Noam Chomsky, a distinguished linguist, have spoken out. Most, like Chomsky, are protected in their careers by tenure and thus are able to become controversial without jeopardizing their positions. Dissent Becomes Treason Journalism is the occupation in which Jews most often and most consistently voice criticism of Israel. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post is a notable example. During Israels 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Cohen warned: .The administration can send Begin a message that he does not have an infinite line of credit in Americathat we will not, for instance, approve the bombing of innocent civilians. In a later column, Cohen summarized the reaction to his criticism of Israeli policy: My phone these days is an instrument of torture. Merely to answer it runs the risk of being insulted. The mail is equally bad. The letters are vicious, some of them quite personal. He noted that US Jews are held to a different standard than Israelis when they question Israels policies. Here dissent becomes treasonand treason not to a state or even an ideal (Zionism), but to a people. There is tremendous pressure for conformity, to show a united front and to adopt the view that what is best for Israel is something only the government there can know. In a world in which there are plenty of people who hate Jews, it is ridiculous to manufacture a whole new category out of nothing more than criticism of the Begin government. Nothing could be worse for Israel in the long run than for its friends not to distinguish between when it is right and when it is wrong. Mark Bruzonsky, a persistent journalistic critic of these Israeli excesses, concludes, Theres no way in the world that a Jew can avoid a savage and personal vendetta if his intent is to write a truthful and meaningful account of what he has experienced. Being Jewish did not spare the foreign news editor of Hearst newspapers from similar problems. In early 1981 John Wallach produced a television documentary, Israel and Palestinians: Will Reason Prevail? funded by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a nonprofit institute established by Washington lawyer Merle Thorpe, Jr. His goal was a fair, balanced presentation of the problems confronting Israel in dealing with the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza. Public television broadcast the program without incident in Washington, D.C., New York and other major cities, but Jewish leaders in Los Angeles demanded an advance showing and upon seeing the film put up such a strong protest that station KCT inserted a statement disclaiming any responsibility for the content of the documentary. Wallach received many complaints about the presentation, the most common being that it portrayed Palestinian children in a favourable lightsome were blond and blue-eyed, and all attractivea departure from the frequently negative stereotype of Palestinians. Before the film was produced, Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz called Wallach, urging him to drop the project. When Wallach persisted, invitations to receptions and dinners at the Israeli embassy suddenly stopped. For a time he was not even notified of press briefings. Wallach found himself in hot water again in 1982 when controversy erupted after a formal dinner he had organised to recognise Ambassador Philip Habibs diplomatic endeavours in Lebanon. Several cabinet officers, Congressmen and members of the diplomatic community attended the dinner. During the program, messages from several heads of government were read. Wallach asked Senator Charles Percy, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to read the one from Israels Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the audience. On WalIachs recommendation, Percy did not read these two sentences: In the wake of the Operation Peace in Galilee, Phil Habib made great efforts to bring about the evacuation of the bulk of the terrorists from Beirut and Lebanon. He worked hard to achieve this goal and, with the victory of the Israel Defence Forces., his diplomatic endeavours contributed to the dismantling of that center of international terrorism which had been a danger to all free nations. Moshe Arens, the Israeli ambassador, was furious. He sent an angry letter to Percy expressing his shock and stating, Although I realize that you may not have agreed with its contents, this glaring omission seems to me to be without precedent. He also wrote to Wallach, complaining of unprecedented discourtesy and calling the omission an attempt to cater to the ostrich-like attitude of some of the ambassadors from Arab countries. Arens also wrote protest letters to the management of Hearst Corporation, which had picked up the tab for the dinner. Wallach told another journalist the next day why he had recommended the omission: I thought it was insulting to the Arabs [who were present] to have a message about war and terrorism at an evening that was a tribute to Phil Habib and peace. Wallach said, 'The irony was that, while I got lots of harsh, critical mail from those supporting Begin, I got no words of support or commendation from the other side. It makes one wonderwhen there is no support, only criticism, when one risks his career. Similar questions are raised by Nat Hentoff, a Jewish columnist who frequently criticises Israel and challenges the conscience of his fellow Jews in his column for the Village Voice. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 he lamented: - At no time during his visit here [in the United States] was [Prime Minister] Begin given any indication that there are some of us who fear that he and Ariel Sharon are destroying Israel from within. Forget the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations and the groups they represent. They have long since decided to say nothing in public that is critical of Israel. Hentoff deplored the intimidation that silences most Jewish critics: I know staff workers for the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee who agonize about their failure to speak out, even on their own time, against Israeli injustice. They dont, because they figure theyll get fired if they do. The threat of being fired was forcefully put to a group of employees of Jewish organisations in the United States during a 1982 tour of Lebanon. Israels invasion was at its peak, and a number of employees of the Jewish National Funda nationwide organisation which raises money for the purchase and development of Israeli landwere touring Lebanese battlefield areas. Suddenly, while the group was traveling on the bus, Dr. Sam Cohen of New York, the executive vice-president of the JNF, stood up and made a surprising announcement. A member of the tour, Charles Fishbein, at the time executive for the Washington office, recalls, He told us that when we get back to the United States, we must defend what Israel is doing in Lebanon. He said that if we criticise Israel, we will be terminated immediately. Fishbein said the group was on one of several hastily arranged tours designed to quell rising Jewish criticism of the invasion, In all, over 1,500 prominent American Jews were flown to Israel for tours of hospitals and battlefields. The tours ranged in length from four to seven days. The more prestigious the group of visitors, the shorter. more compressed the schedule. Disclosing only Israeli hardship, the tours were successful in quieting criticism within the ranks of Jewish leadership and also inspired many actively to defend Israeli war policies. The Time May Not Be Far Off Peer pressure does not always muffle Jewish voices. A man who pioneered in establishing the state of Israel and helped to organize its crucial underpinnings of support in the United States later became a frequent critic of Israeli policy. Nahum Goldmann is a towering figure in the history of Zionism. He played a crucial role in the founding of Israel, meeting its early financial problems, influencing its leaders, and organising a powerful constituency for it in the United States. His service to Zionism spanned nearly fifty years. During World War I, when Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire, Goldmann tried to persuade Turkish authorities to allow Jewish immigration. in the 1930s he advocated the Zionist cause at the League of Nations. During the Truman administration, he lobbied for the United Nations resolution calling for partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel. After the 1947 UN vote for the partition, unlike most Jews who were eager to proclaim the state of Israel, Goldmann urged delay. He hoped that the Jews would first reach an understanding with the Arab states and thereby avoid war. He lamented the bitter legacy of the war that ensued. He wrote, The unexpected defeat was a shock and a terrible blow to Arab pride. Deeply injured, they turned all their endeavours to the healing of their psychological wound: to victory and revenge. To the Israelis, The victory offered such a glorious contrast to the centuries of persecution and humiliation, of adaptation and compromise, that it seemed to indicate the only direction that could possibly be taken from then on. To brook nothing, to tolerate no attack, cut through Gordian knots, and shape history by creating facts seemed so simple, so compelling, so satisfying that it became Israels policy in its conflict with the Arab world. When the fledgling nation was struggling to build its economy, Goldmann negotiated with West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer the agreement under which the Germans paid over $30 billion in compensation and restitution to Israel and individual Jews. Yet he was bitterly condemned by some Israelis for his efforts. Philip Klutznick of Chicago, Goldmanns close colleague in endeavours for Israel, recalls the tremendous opposition, particularly from such extreme nationalists as Menachem Begin, to accepting anything from Germany. At that time many Jews felt that any act that would tend to bring the Germans back into the civilized world was an act against the Jewish people. Feelings ran deep. Goldmanns disagreement with Israeli policy toward the Arabs was his central concern. To those who criticised his advocacy of a Palestinian state, he responded, If they do not believe that Arab hostility can some day be alleviated, then we might just as well liquidate Israel at once, so as to save the millions of Jews who live there.. There is no hope for a Jewish state which has to face another 50 years of struggle against Arab enemies. Goldmann respected the deep commitment to the Jewish people of Israels first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, hut he regretted that Ben Gurion was organically incapable of compromise and that his dominant force was his will for power. Goldmanns essential optimism and his instinctive striving to temper hatreds and seek compromise were qualities that distinguished him from so many of his contemporarieson both the Arab and Israeli sides of the conflict. Goldmann might have been prime minister of Israel, Stanley Karnow wrote in 1980, but he chose instead to live in Europe and act as diplomatic broker, frequently infuriating Israeli officials with his initiatives. Seeking an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, he attempted to visit Cairo at the invitation of Egyptian President Nasser in 1970. But the Israeli government headed by Golda Meir resented his maverick ways and blocked the mission. Goldmann was sharply critical of the Israeli government of Menachem Begin. He decried what he saw as Israels denial of the original Zionist vision, He rejected the claim of some Israelis that they must occupy Greater Israel because it was promised to them by God. He called this thesis a profanation. Goldmann understood the need for US support. He lived in the United States for more than 20 years and knew American Jewry well. In 1969 he wrote approvingly of Zionist political action in the United States: It is not fair to single out Zionist pressure for censure. Democracy consists of a multiplicity of pressure-exerting forces, each of which is trying to make itself felt. Near the end of his life, however, Goldmanns views of the pro-Israel lobby changed. In 1980 he warned: Blind support of the Begin government may be more menacing for Israel than any danger of Arab attack. American Jewry is more generous than any other group in American life and is doing great things... But by misusing its political influence, by exaggerating the aggressiveness of the Jewish lobby in Washington, by giving the Begin regime the impression that the Jews are strong enough to force the American administration and Congress to follow every Israeli desire, they lead Israel on a ruinous path which, if continued, may lead to dire consequences. He blamed the Israeli lobby for US failures to bring about a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. It was to a very large degree because of electoral considerations, fear of the pro-Israel lobby, and of the Jewish vote. He warned of trouble ahead if the lobby continued its present course. It is now slowly becoming something of a negative factor. Not only does it distort the expectations and political calculations of Israel, but the time may not be far off when American public opinion will be sick and tired of the demands of Israel and the aggressiveness of American Jewry. In 1978, two years before he wrote his alarmed evaluation of the Israeli lobby, New York magazine reported that Goldmann had privately urged officials of the Carter administration to break the back of the lobby: Goldmann pleaded with the administration to stand firm and not back off from confrontations with the organised Jewish community as other administrations had done. Unless this was done, he argued, President Carters plans for a Middle East settlement would die in stillbirth. His words were prophetic. The comprehensive settlement Carter sought was frustrated by the intransigence of Israel and its US lobby. President Ronald Reagan revived the idea of a comprehensive Middle East peace just four days before Goldmanns death in September 1982. A state funeral was conducted in Israel. As Klutznick, Israeli Labor Party leaders Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and others stood on Israels Mount Herzl awaiting the great Zionist leaders burial alongside the five other former presidents of the World Zionist Organisation, the conversation centered on the Reagan plan, which Prime Minister Begin had already rejected. Symbolic of organised Jewrys reaction to Goldmanns life was the response of the Israeli government to his death. Begin gave permission for the burial but did not attend. In a strikingly empty commentary on the life of a man who had done so much to bring Israel into being and give it strength, Acting Prime Minister Simcha Ehrlich said only, We regret that a man of so many virtues and abilities went the wrong way. It was a callous epitaph for one of Israels great pioneers. You Must Listen When We Speak Ill At 7:45 A.M. the towering John Hancock Building in Chicagos downtown loop area was just beginning to come to life. On the fortieth floor were the offices of Philip Klutznick attorney. developer, former US secretary of commerce, president emeritus of Bnai Brith, organizer and former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, president emeritus of the World Jewish Congress. At that hour only Philip Klutznick was at work. He was on the phone, seated on a sofa at one end of his spacious office, his back to a panoramic view of the building across the street where he and his wife make their home. On the walls were autographed photographs of the seven presidents of the United States under whom he has served. This morning, in the fall of 1983, he was talking with Ashraf Ghorbal, Egypts ambassador to the United States and a friend of many years. Ghorbal was preparing for a visit to the United States by his leader, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He wanted to make sure the right people would be available to meet with him. The right people included Klutznick. Klutznicks vigorous appearance and unrelenting pace belie his seventy-six years. His deep, rich voice echoes around the near-empty offices. His eyes smile through heavy glasses, and his firm, confident manner is that of a man in the prime of life. But his apparent confidence about the flexibility of US Jews belies his own experience working within and outside the establishment for sixty years. A visitor sharing coffee and conversation would never guess that this short, handsome, optimistic man whose persistence and spirit helped to create Israel, pay its bills and provide its arms had become, in the eyes of many Jews, a virtual castaway. Measured by offices held and services rendered, his credentials in the Jewish establishment are impeccable. But in the eyes of most Jewish leaders, he is guilty of a cardinal sin: daring publicly to challenge Israeli government policy. This puts him at odds with the very Jewish organisations he did so much to bring into being. He speaks from a base of confidence that includes business success, public office in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and high honors in the Jewish community. After seeing his savings wiped out by the Great Depression, he recovered, became a successful community developer, a millionaire, a leader of the Jewish community, and a diplomat. In early years he worked to bring strength and unity to the Jewish community, a quest that took on urgency in 1942 when word arrived of Adolf Hitlers barbaric program to annihilate European Jews. Henry Monsky, an Omaha lawyer and president of Bnai Brith, convened a meeting in Pittsburgh, inviting the membership of 41 major Jewish organisations. This gathering, identified as the American Jewish Conference, marked the first serious effort to unite U.S. Jews against the Holocaust. You know, we are an unusual group of people, Klutznick chuckles. We fight over anything. This time the fight was over whether Jews would back the establishment of a national homeland. Monsky, the first committed Zionist to head Bnai Brith, pulled the organisation from its neutral stance into advocacy. When the conference met in early 1943 and cast its lot with Zionism, two of the largest Jewish organisations the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee walked out in protest. Anyway, Klutznick continues, that meeting started a movement that stayed alive for four years. It also brought him for the first time in close association with Nahum Goldmann. Klutznick and Goldmann wanted the American Jewish Conference to be permanent. In this effort, Klutznick battled to win the support of Bnai Brith. It was an enormous fight, and we lost, Klutznick recalls. The bruises were still felt ten years later when Klutznick became president of Bnai Brith. His first decision put him at odds with Goldmann, who wanted him to help re-create the American Jewish Conference. Despite his earlier effort, Klutznick now felt it would be divisive. I looked him square in the eye and said, 'Im not going to do it. If I tried it now it would split Bnai Brith right down the middle. At this moment Bnai Brith is too weak. I need these people together. Klutznick told him he would go all the way on a program for a Jewish homeland, but he had what he believed to be a better plan for coordination of American Jews, an organisation consisting of just the presidents of the major organisations. For one thing, the leaders needed to get acquainted with each other. Believe it or not, Klutznick recalls, many had attained these high positions without even meeting the presidents of other major organisations. Klutznick told Goldmann: If we really want to do something, the presidents are the powerhouses. Goldmann agreed to the plan. Klutznieks recalls changes: The fact is during the 1950s people werent as intense as they are now. As an example, he cites the Jewish response to the Eisenhower Doctrine, which pledged US help to any nation in the Middle East threatened by international Communism. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion opposed a commitment that sweeping, arguing that it could lead to US support for nations hostile to Israel. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations decided to support the US position. Klutznick recalls the confrontation. I presided at that meeting, and we took the position that we should not oppose the president of the United States, and we didnt. In those days, he said after a long pause, we could have those arguments. There was mutual tolerance. Dealing with Israeli officials sometimes tested Klutznicks tolerance. In 1955 the U.S. was horrified at the Israeli massacre of Arab civilians in the Gaza raid, and Klutznick, as president of Bnai Brith, reported the reaction to Jerusalem. He told Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett: Moshe, it was terrible. It wasnt the fact Israeli forces were defending Israel. It was the overwhelming response. It looked like a disregard for the value of human life. After a pause, the prime minister answered quietly, You know, Phil, I did not even know this was taking place. He [Defence Minister David Ben Gurion] did this on his own. I hope you will tell him what you told me. Klutznick met Ben Gurion the next day. It wasnt long before he said. 'Phil, what was the reaction to the Gaza raid? It was exactly the same question Sharett had asked, and I gave exactly the same answer. Klutznick was astonished at Ben Gurions response: He stood up. He looked like an angry prophet out of the Bible and got red in the face. He shouted, 'I am not going to let an