Our Leaders, Ourselves
The state of modern Jewish leadership.

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition & host of a daily radio show in Seattle
February 27, 2001 9:50 a.m.

he weekly Torah portion read in synagogues has an uncanny way of commenting on the events the week has brought. Take this past week when the reading, from Exodus, warned the leaders of Moses's day not to be swayed by gifts from defendants in legal proceedings: "And thou shalt take no bribe; for the bribe blinds the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous" (23:8). Listening on Saturday, February 24, as this was chanted, many of us reflected sadly on the state of modern Jewish leadership.

By traditional reckoning, the week began on February 18. That Sunday, Mr. Clinton published an Op-Ed article in the New York Times defending his pardon of the accused $48-million tax-cheat Marc Rich. Among his rationales was a statement that, in effect, the Jews made him do it.

The Forward has published a list of some of the Jewish worthies who contributed letters of commendation for Mr. Rich — political, cultural, and religious leaders — not all of whom knew that their letters would appear on Mr. Clinton's desk. Many of these individuals represented groups that over the past 20 years had benefited from Mr. Rich's $100 million in largesse. Not "bribes," exactly, but too close to that for comfort.

There was, for instance, a letter to the President by Rabbi Irving Greenberg of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council asserting that to pardon Mr. Rich would be "one of the most Godlike actions that anyone could ever do." A philanthropic interest linked with Rabbi Greenberg had received from Mr. Rich some $5 million. Such sums can indeed "blind the wise" and "pervert the words of the righteous."

Now the New York Jewish Week has noted the eerie silence of the typically voluble Jewish-defense organizations, like the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress. Normally the Anti-Defamation League itself would be the first to loudly denounce a politician, at least a conservative politician, who said anything that might be construed as portraying Jewish people in a negative light. Yet the week went by without a peep from the ADL.

Presumably this was because the ADL's Abraham Foxman himself had contributed a letter on behalf of Mr. Rich, citing "humanitarian" concerns. Mr. Foxman declines to say whether the ADL received money from Mr. Rich, explaining that, "It's absurd to say [Clinton] is pointing a finger at the American Jewish community." Oh really? This was the week that began with an ABC News headline, on the news zipper above Times Square, that crystallized the story: "Clinton Cites Jewish Pressure for Rich Pardon." Rarely in modern America does one come across a clearer incitement to anti-Semitism.

What are the lessons to be drawn here? Alas, the episode underlines how enthralled the Jewish establishment has become to a pair of dangerous addictions: money, and liberalism.

Marc Rich never offered money to the national educational organization I direct, Toward Tradition. Had he done so, I would have turned it down. For there is the strong appearance that some part of his fortune was unlawfully withheld from the U.S. Treasury, and Jewish tradition severely instructs us that the law of the land is the Law. In Jewish-American organizational life, the culture of fundraising has undermined the wisdom and righteousness of Jewish leaders.

Our usually ferocious Jewish-defense groups were silenced also by their allegiance to the political philosophy of Bill Clinton. Toward Tradition was founded to counter the orthodox liberalism of the Jewish establishment, which constitutes the circumcised wing of the Democratic party. This orthodoxy has done our community little good in the past, and now it has given comfort to anti-Semites.

Loyalty to a patron — whether Liberalism, Money, or Marc Rich — can be tricky. I think of another news story. The New York Times reported on the loyalty of Mr. Rich's lieutenant, the similarly fugitive Pincus "Pinky" Green, who was willing to let Mr. Rich abandon him if that would help the latter's attempt to get himself pardoned. Mr. Rich wrote that he would have the petition submitted "principally in my name," that he hoped including Mr. Green "will not detract significantly from the main objective." Some patron.

From now on may our righteous leaders, in deciding where to cast their loyalty, and by implications ours, show more wisdom than did Pinky Green.