President Clinton’s eleventh-hour pardons, in particular the pardon of fugitive-billionaire Marc Rich, have raised a near-universal storm of protest. Fellow Democrats and longtime supporters of Clinton have joined in the expression of outrage. Clinton’s defense of the pardon, offered in a recent New York Times Op-Ed, has won little acceptance. Even his attempt to tar three Republican lawyers has failed to summon the spirit of Democratic partisanship, as it would have done in the past. But one core constituency of the Democratic party, and of the Clinton presidency in particular, has been uncharacteristically silent--the American Jewish community.

So far the only Jewish leader to step forward has been Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the synagogue arm of Reform Judaism.

Complaining about the silence of the American Jewish community--then breaking it in an article entitled, "We should be ashamed of ourselves"--Rabbi Yoffie declared: "The result [of this silence] is that we have undermined our community’s moral fabric, jeopardized our political standing, disillusioned our youth, and compromised the sacred values of our tradition. In short, the moral stain of this sordid affair has begun to engulf us."

Strong words, but not excessive. "Engulf," in particular, may be just the right word. But the disgrace, particularly in the case of the pardon of Marc Rich, derives from more than mere silence. It has already emerged that well-known Jewish leaders in both America and Israel, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote letters on Rich’s behalf. In America, the list so far includes Rabbi Irving Greenberg, the chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Council, and Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League. (Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate and friend and frequent guest of Bill and Hillary Clinton, has admitted that "Avner [Avner Azulay, head of Marc Rich’s Israeli foundation] came to see me" but denied that he had spoken to Clinton on behalf of Rich. But his reasons were frivolous--"Intuitively, I said, I don ’t think it can work"--and his proof a species of silly vanity--"Had they believed that I did have something to with their ‘victory,’ how come they never called to say ‘thank you.’")

The problem of Jewish quiescence is especially troubling since some of the community’s spokesmen, including Foxman and Greenberg, routinely cast themselves as moral leaders. In the case of Marc Rich, it is now asserted that efforts on his behalf were partially motivated by recognition of his benefactions, both in Israel and America. (Greenberg said in a statement defending his actions, "I became aware of other of his good works, including matters done with no expectation of recognition or reward.") But at least $50 million worth of these benefactions were owed to the U.S. government and its citizens for unpaid taxes.

There is a remarkable irony in this particular defense. Some Jewish leaders have recently proclaimed themselves opposed to President Bush’s new initiative to use so-called faith-based organizations to address social problems. The alleged problem is that religious organizations would compete for and perhaps receive government funds. Rabbi Yoffie’s colleague, Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, was particularly hostile, declaring that the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives "takes us down a path that too often in our history has turned out to be disastrous for religious freedom and religious tolerance."

However, the "philanthropic" defense of Marc Rich basically boils down to saying that it’s okay to use government funds to subsidize religious institutions providing you have first stolen those funds from the government. This distinction may not impress non-Jewish Americans. Indeed, Mr. Foxman, whose organization ’s sole purpose is to protect American Jews from racist bile, is more likely to foster anti-Semitism with this line of defense.

One thing is certain. Clinton, whom Rabbi Yoffie continues to describe as a "good friend of the Jews," will only compound the difficulties. He already has. Seeking to defend himself from the charge that the motive for the pardon was contributions to his campaign, his presidential library, etc., Clinton has pointed the finger in the direction of Israel and in particular at Ehud Barak.

Barak certainly called several times on behalf of Rich, including the day before Clinton left office. Hence, the defense of the Rich pardon also celebrates Rich’s alleged service on behalf of Barak and, putatively, the quest for Arab-Israeli peace. But exactly what service was that?

It may have included contributions to Barak’s election campaigns in 1999 and 2001. And these contributions ultimately may reveal another scandal or two.

Barak’s 1999 fundraising is already under investigation in Israel for violations of the law prohibiting foreign contributions. The 2001 campaign may yield more of the same. But the fundraising is part of a larger, even more sordid affair--the wholesale intervention of the Clinton administration in both Israeli elections, with the assistance and blessing of some American Jewish leaders, who, like Clinton, sought the defeat of Benjamin Netanyahu and, more recently, of Ariel Sharon.

Leaving aside the questionable legality of these interventions, the outcome of the first and the intended effect of the second should be additional sources of shame. The tenure of Barak was a manifest failure. His concessions in negotiations have led to open warfare and grave threats to Israel’s very existence. Surely, with Netanyahu as prime minister, things would not have come to this pass. Israel’s chances of emerging from this mess now depend upon Ariel Sharon.

As yet, the full ramifications of the Rich pardon are unknown. Congressional committees and U.S. attorneys will be investigating it for some time. But it is not too early to ask, "What were American Jewish leaders thinking?" The probable answer is that they were not thinking much at all. Given their recent experience, especially during the Clinton years, it is almost possible to understand their thoughtless presumptuousness. It was boosted time and again by innumerable visits to the Clinton White House, by the extraordinary "access" enjoyed by American Jewish leaders--which they came to crave and of which they frequently boasted.

But the presumptuousness of Jewish leaders was also the result of an enormous moral free pass. Since WWII, America has afforded its Jews a gift, if that is the proper word, on account of their brethren murdered in the Holocaust. It was a gift that came too easily and was too easily abused. Some Jewish leaders found offence among non-Jewish Americans where none was intended and gave it where none was merited. But that moral immunity may now be over. Coincidentally, their political immunity ended with the election of President Bush. The American Jewish community expended and wasted much of its moral and political capital on the dubious embrace of President Clinton.

It is unclear what American Jewish leaders will now do. Will they begin to rethink their positions? Perhaps. At all events, they will not be able simply to presume respect; they will have to earn it. They may begin with an honest discussion about Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich.