October 1989, Page 24

Public Opinion

Polls Show Growing Gap Between Public Opinion and Congressional Action on Aid to Israel

By Fouad Moughrabi

The East Iowa Presbytery has 21,500 members. Regular meetings of the Presbytery are attended by the clergy of the region and by lay representatives who are elected by the governing board of their local churches. At its April 25, 1989, meeting, the Presbytery of East Iowa Peacemaking Committee asked members to fill out an opinion survey on the Middle East. Eighty questionnaires were returned. Respondents included 56 males and 24 females. Seventy-seven of the eighty were of voting age.

Sixty-six percent of the East Iowa Presbytery respondents think there "should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel." Eighty-six percent think the US government should do more to try to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Seventy-four percent think Israel is using too much force against the Palestinian uprising. Ninety-three percent of the respondents think it was the right decision for the US to open talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

More than half of the respondents (42 out of 80) favor the cutoff of US aid to Israel as a result of its handling of Palestinian unrest. Of those who expressed opinions, 17 respondents thought the PLO is sincere in wanting peace with Israel, while only 7 thought Israel is sincere about wanting to negotiate peace with the PLO. Correspondingly, 42 respondents out of the 80 now have a more favorable view of the PLO while only 4 have a more favorable view of Israel. And 70 respondents (88 percent) think there should be an international peace conference on the Middle East.

The results were sent to Iowa's senators, Charles Grassley, a Republican, and Thomas Harkin, a Democrat, both strong supporters of Israel. Senator Grassley, who prides himself on being one of Israel's best friends in the Senate, sits on the Appropriations Committee, as does Senator Harkin. Both are therefore well-positioned to vote on US foreign aid bills which presently provide Israel $3 billion a year in assistance, far more than any other country. This amounts to nearly $1000 per every Israeli man, woman and child. Thus, an Israeli family of four receives the equivalent of $4000 dollars in outright assistance (not loans) from US taxpayers.

In 1984, Senator Harkin received a total of $800,827 from various political action committees (PACs), of which $110,330 came from pro-Israel PACs. Senator Grassley received $971,730 in PAC contributions for his 1986 election campaign, of which $16,600 came from pro-Israel PACs.

Senator Grassley was a banquet speaker at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC, May 21-23, 1989. In his speech, Grassley emphasized the consistent support he has given to Israel in the form of foreign aid and pro-Israel legislation. He stressed that he had sponsored the congressional letter that pressured the Reagan administration to deny Yasser Arafat a visa to speak at the UN. Most recently, both Grassley and Harkin voted to restrict the US-PLO dialogue and to give a political boost to Mr. Shamir.

Based upon responses from the community leaders who filled out questionnaires in the East Iowa Presbytery, the gap between the actions by the senators and the wishes of their constituents is wide indeed.

Iowa Reflects Broader Trends

While the East Iowa poll is not based on a large, random sample, its results do correspond to those obtained by established polling organizations in nationwide studies. This is especially the case when one compares the attitudes of community leaders in southeast Iowa with those of other community leaders throughout the United States.

A Gallup survey of Feb. 26-March 7, 1989, asked a nationwide sample if they "favor or oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." Fifty percent of college graduates were in favor, 22 percent were opposed, and the rest were not sure.

The same Gallup survey asked respondents: "Because of the way Israel has handled Palestinian unrest in Gaza and the West Bank, do you think US aid to Israel should be increased, kept about the same, decreased, or stopped altogether?" Among college graduates, 32 percent thought US aid should be decreased and 15 percent thought US aid should be stopped altogether. Only 7 percent thought it should be kept about the same. A Martilla and Kiley survey (April 1988) on behalf of the American Jewish Congress asked a nationwide sample of registered voters: "Do you favor or oppose creating an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank?" Fifty-one percent of college graduates and 53 percent of postgraduates favor a Palestinian state.

Well-informed community leaders in southeast Iowa therefore reflect the attitudes of similarly well-informed respondents throughout the United States. These attitudes are sharply at odds with the voting record of their representatives in Washington, DC. The question is why?

One of the most important reasons is money. In the 1988 election, some 84 active pro-Israel political action committees spent $5,610,412 in direct contributions to the campaigns of 500 candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives, according to the latest figures compiled by the American Educational Trust, publishers of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Morton Kondracke writes in the New Republic (August 14, 1989) that there is discussion, for the first time, in the House Appropriations Committee about having a floor debate on aid levels for Israel. He quotes a usually pro-Israel committee member as saying: "If there were a secret ballot, aid would be cut severely. It's not out of affection anymore that Israel gets $3 billion a year. It's from fear that you'll wake up one morning and find that an opponent has $500,000 to run against you."

Pro-Israel groups have intimidated so many Congressmen and Senators that they now have an automatic majority in both houses and a near veto power on American foreign policy decisions toward the Middle East. To appease these pro-Israel forces and to ward off the danger that opponents will receive massive infusions of funds to run against them, and overwhelming number of members of Congress adopt every suggestion made by the pro-Israel lobby.

What can be done to bring the Middle East actions of members of Congress closer to the wishes of their constituents? First, reform of campaign financing could lessen the dependence of members of Congress on narrow special interests. Secondly, the administration could also go to the American people directly, explain the issues, and rely on already existing public support for a more balanced approach in the Middle East. Finally, an effort must be made to translate public sentiment into votes, the most potent weapon in a democratic society against special interest funding.

Fouad Moughrabi, a professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, is coauthor ofPublic Opinon and the Palestine Question.