TABLE TALK
Pompidou in New York
DENIS BROGAN
The reception (or rather the non-reception) of the President of the French Republic by the Mayor of New York during M Pompi- dou's recent American visit clouded over the not very brilliant prospect of reconciliation between France and her quondam ally the United States of America. The whole episode illustrated some of the problems of conducting diplomatic intercourse in New York City. From the beginning, I (and other people) thought it was a mistake to put the United Nations in Manhattan, a centre of many militant 'ethnic' groups and, although not the capital of the United States, the biggest and most famous city, whose Mayor naturally has representational functions as well as the almost impossible task of ruling it. But the picketing and booing directed at Monsieur Pompidou have made me reflect on some of the illusions and dangers of these ethnic pressure groups.
I am convinced that many of these examples of ethnic indignation are counter- productive. A great many New Yorkers who are not in the least anti-Semitic and are, in fact, probably pro-Israel, may be highly annoyed by the organisation of hostility to the official head of the French state on an issue which is not an issue of American foreign policy or of American politics. It is an example of the sacrifice of good manners and perhaps of real American interests to the very natural influence of a numerous, wealthy, and well organised minority group.
It is true that some of the propaganda for Israel is taking the form of representing Israel as a natural ally for the United States, as a stronghold of democracy, as a young nation rightly striving to exist. All of this is represented as part of the interests of the United States. It may well be part of the interests of the United States, but no one really believes that that is what drove people to picket Monsieur Pompidou either in New York or in Chicago. And a great many Americans resent the pressure brought to bear by any ethnic group on American policy for reasons having nothing at all to do with the general interests of the United States. This view is held by people whose record shows that they are not anti-Jewish (although they may be anti-Ziopist) and who have in fact demonstrated at a high level in American politics friendship for Israel. So the demonstrations could be counter-productive.
But the whole problem of New York is perhaps insoluble. No mayor running again for office, as, I presume, Mr Lindsay is, can afford to alienate the numerous and wealthy and confident Jews of Manhattan. It is a tradition of New York politics that the Jewish vote is decisive. Whether in fact this is so has been the subject of a critical and rather sceptical article in that admirable Jewish monthly Commentary, but as long as the politicians believe that the Jewish vote is decisive, they will let it decide. It is a tradition in New York politics that politi- cians must cultivate the 'three Is': Ireland, Israel, Italy. I can remember an eminent New York Democratic politician exploding when he learned that Mr Robert Briscoe, the visiting Lord Mayor of Dublin, was of Jewish origin: 'A Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin! Why hasn't he got an Italian mother? He could then run for anything!'
Of course, these ethnic groups, although often vociferous and sometimes powerful, sometimes settle for emotional satisfactions rather than concrete concessions, as Messrs Glaser-Mynahan have pointed out. They do not necessarily respond in a totally objective way to problems of foreign policy. For example, a great many Italian Americans were not pro-fascist, but they were pro. Duce. After all, he had put the Italians on the map! Their most representative leader was not an ideologue, but that interesting padrone Don Generoso Pope. And of course New York is full of minorities, aggressive, angry, and perhaps more dan- gerous than the Jewish minority (for even on Manhattan Island the Jews are in a minority) who picketed President Pompidou.
I remember being in New York during Mr Khrushchev's famous, or notorious, visit to the United Nations. I was staying in my club, which happened, unfortunately for me, to be close to the then Soviet head- quarters. Since a great many people in New York had no reason to admire Mr Khrush- they, police precautions taken round the Lotos Club, 5 East 66th Street, were as elaborate as any taken round the Elysee, and more elaborate than those taken round the White House. This was very awkward for me since I found myself being continu- ally held up by armed police.
Guarding Mr Khrushchev put a very great strain on the New York police, who
had many other things to do, and it cost the City of New York a great deal of money in overtime pay, etc. It also produced a crisis in the relationship between the Com- missioner of Police and the Jewish members of the police force facetiously called 'the finest'. The Police Commissioner, an Irish- man, wanted to call out the police reserve to carry on regular police work, since the police force was depleted to an alarming degree by the need to protect Mr Khrush- chev. But the visit happened to take place during one set of 'the high holy days', a period in which even not very observant Jews in New York still go quite frequently to their temples. (Temple is American for synagogue.) At his wits' end to preserve order and keep down crime, the Commissioner rashly said that he knew that the policemen who had not responded to his call to come back into service were not in fact in the temple celebrating Yom Kippur or whatever the festival was, but were out playing golf. There was a great explosion of Jewish wrath. The Commissioner pointed out that, far from being an anti-Semite, he had a Jewish wife and many Jewish in-laws. and knew how, in practice, the high holy days were observed by a great many of his subordinates. So I imagine the present Chief of Police is more annoyed at the strain put on his reserves by the Zionists than he is by the reflection on the hospitality of the City of New York.
I was struck in New York by a certain lack of skill in the Zionist propaganda, for no one really believes its chief motivating force is to protect democracy in the Middle East or the American position in the Middle East. It is to protect Israel. This was and is an extremely natural attitude for American Jews to adopt, but it is possible that it may produce, or has produced, a backlash. One firm threatened a great New York bank with a boycott in its financial dealings. This bank could probably buy Israel, if Israel were for sale. At any rate, it is not in the least likely to be intimidated by the threat of the withdrawal of Jewish accounts. More than that, such visible economic pressure sets up a reaction and in fact appears to justify a common anti-Semitic charge, that Jewish wealth is used to promote purely Jewish objects. Mark Twain unconsciously fostered anti-Semitic feeling by a foolish pamphlet pointing out how very rich and powerful American Jews were and how they controlled American business. They didn't, and don't; but the praise that Mark Twain gave the Jewish community was rather expensive for that community.
All of these demonstrations by remote control against various tyrants excite my scepticism. I remember during the war when the loudest of Labour statesmen, Dr Hugh Dalton, was trying to set Europe on fire through the operations of SOE, one of my colleagues in that operation, an Armen- ian born in Istanbul or, as he and other natives of Byzantium always said, 'the City', was commenting on how these protests and gestures of strong hostility to various mon- sters sometimes back-fired. 'We noticed in the Armenian quarter in the City that after a great public meeting in Madison Square Garden or the Albert Hall, the Sultan
hanged a few of us, but otherwise did not respond. We didn't like it.' And I suspect
that some of the recent demonstrations don't do Israel or the Israelis any good although they might help people running for office in New York—which is not quite the same thing.
Previous page
