February 1992, Page 11, 12

Election Watch

Buchanan Candidacy Dismays Pro-Israel Bush Bashers

By Lucille Barnes

"The Wall Street Journal is downright anti-Buchanan. It has said little about him, but it has abruptly ceased criticizing Mr. Bush since Mr. Buchanan emerged as a challenger. Its editorial page editor, Robert Bartley, refers to Mr. Buchanan as a 'beer-hall conservative'-which, since 'beer hall' is not the American idiom for a drinking spot, clearly alludes to the notorious German fellow." -Syndicated Columnist Joseph Sobran, Washington Times, Dec. 31, 1991

Until late December, what can be described unblinkingly as the extraordinarily powerful pro-Israel establishment in the American media was out for the blood of George Bush. If the US president was overseas presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet empire, he was criticized for not spending enough time at home. When he postponed as Asian trip in order to stay home, he was criticized for not knowing what to do to bring the US out of the recession that began with the increase in world petroleum prices after Saddam Hussain's invasion of Kuwait in mid-1990.

Then, dramatically increased Saudi oil production brought down the price of oil by $5 a barrel in a matter of weeks late last year, and the US government lowered interest rates. US economic indicators turned up, and the stock market soared to a record high. A recovery, whether sluggish or rapid. clearly was in the cards for 1992.

Instead of explaining any of this, however, the media dwelled on an "unprecedented downturn in consumer confidence." It apparently counted on its powers of persuasion to turn gloomy prognostication into self-fulfilling prophesy. Bush could do nothing right, because the media said he couldn't.

It became obvious enough that in an eary January poll half of the respondents blamed the media for contributing to the recession. By then, however, the world had turned upside down for Israel's US media supporters.

They were hearing from Democratic members of Congress who were spending the holidays at home that constituents were warning against any additional economic aid for Israel so long as America was in economic trouble at home. Democratic members of Congress are the principal source of Israel's congressional clout, and the successful media hyping of recession and unemployment, aimed at undercutting support for Bush in the November election, also was foreclosing any chance that they would support US loan guarantees for Israel.

Equally jarring for Israel's US supporters was the decision by conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, perhaps the most outspoken critic of Israel among mainstream media figures, to compete with Bush in the New Hampshire Republican primary election.

Another Jarring Development

Arch-conservative Buchanan chose to open his campaign in a traditionally conservative state presently suffering from one of the nation's highest unemployment figures. Buchanan also secured the endorsement of the Manchester Union Leader, an influential and highly conservative New Hampshire newspaper.

It suddenly became clear that the first serious embarrassment to Bush in the 1992 election year very likely would be at the hands of Buchanan, upon whom the Israel establishment in the United States has been trying for years to pin the label "anti-Semite."

A good showing for Buchanan would signal all candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, that in 1992 criticism of Israel was no longer politically impossible, and might even be politically popular.

As the big ships in Israel's US media flotilla abruptly reversed course, they seemed to collide head-on with the hundreds of local editors, reporters, talk show hosts and media "analysts" still slavering for Bush's blood. As President John Kennedy once said, "There's always some poor s.o.b. who doesn't get the word."

In this case, a passel of people in the posse didn't know it was time to call off the manhunt. Given the tightly organized nature of Israel's support network, both on Capitol Hill and in the mainstream media, however, the participants soon will have the word.

Getting the Word

The Jewish Week, Inc., is a New York City link in the skein of weekly publications that, by blanketing the nation, binds together Israel's nationwide American support network. Here's how the newspaper's Dec. 19 edition described the current dilemma:

"Two months ago, Jewish Republicans were not very fired up about the 1992 presidential sweepstakes. Their party's standard-bearer had just declared war on the pro-Israel community; President Bush's news conference on Sept. 12 blasting supporters of $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel was the latest in a series of incidents that seemed to doom GOP efforts to win over a traditionally Democratic Jewish community.

"But now that equation has changed. And the reasons for the change can be summarized very succinctly: David Duke and Pat Buchanan. . . The dual threat has rallied Jewish Republicans to the president's banner. 'The presence of these men has accelerated the mobilization of Jewish Republicans behind Bush in the primaries,' said a leading Jewish Republican activist. 'Their presence means we can't afford to sit this one out just because we have had some problems with the Bush administration.'"

All that translates into advice for one-issue pro-Israel voters and, more importantly, donors, to support Bush in the Republican primaries in order to tame Buchanan and humiliate ex-Nazi Duke, but then feel free to turn around and support the Democratic nominee in the fall general elections.

Where Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand

By the time the general elections roll around in November, pro-Israel voters may find themselves faced with a Hobson's choice. Normally by this stage in a presidential election cycle every Democratic candidate for the presidency or for Congress would have expressed strong support for US military and economic aid to Israel.

By early January, however, only one of the major Democratic hopefuls had pulled out all stops to promise unstinting support both for continued unconditional economic aid to Israel and also for providing Israel $10 billion in US loan guarantees.

He was New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. It turned out, however, that he was not running for president after all. His statements were just politics as usual in a state where support for Israel has an even bigger political payoff than support for the Boy Scouts or Mom's apple pie.

Of the three strongest remaining Democratic candidates, only Arkansas Gov. William Clinton has allowed himself to be cajoled fairly regularly into talking about the Middle East. Clinton, who won 54 percent of the votes cast in a December straw poll of 1,800 Florida Democratic convention delegates, has criticized President Bush for being tougher on israel than on the Arabs.

When New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb followed up that comment by asking Clinton how he would handle the Middle East peace talks, the Arkansas governor ducked the question by saying he wanted to keep his options open.

Only a few days later, however, in the Dec. 15 first televised debate among Democratic candidates, Clinton was a little more talkative. When moderator Tom Brokaw asked him whether he would use US foreign aid leverage "to get the Israeli government to stop the settlements in the occupied territories," Clinton replied:

"Well, first let me say I compliment the president and the secretary of state for getting them to Madrid and now for getting them here in Washington. To have the Arabs and the Israelis talking is very important. What I would do in private is different from what I would say in public. I personally believe the president has made a mistake in singling out the settlements issue. . .

"Certainly the settlements policy of this [Israeli] government has not been helpful to the peace process, but that's not the only obstacle. I mean the Arabs, who still have 'Zionism is racism' as a resolution at the UN, who still have a boycott, who've still never had a recognition of Israel. So it is my view that the best policy now is for the United States to urge both sides, in private, to reach agreements, but not to give the public appearance that we can deliver Israel."

In an NBC "Meet the Press" interview on Jan. 5, Clinton said he supported loan guarantees for Israel, and that the administration was delaying as part of its peace conference strategy. Clinton suggested, however, that the size and timing of the guarantees should be negotiable.

If that seems fuzzy, but nevertheless considerably less one-sidedly pro-Israel than Democratic campaign statements of previous election cycles, it is a model of clarity compared to statements by Clinton's rivals.

By early January, however, the world had turned upside down for Israel's US media supporters.

Senator Tom Harkin, who was runner-up in the Florida straw poll with 31 percent of the vote, and who in five congressional campaigns received a mind-boggling $359,980 in campaign contributions from pro-Israel political action committees, has been relatively restrained as a presidential candidate in his praise for Israel. The most that Brokaw could get out of him in the Dec. 15 debate, where Harkin took a firm stand against unilateral US military action against Libya, was the following statement:

"We have to recognize that democracies don't attack each other. You know, we keep insisting on a list of conditions for Israel to meet. Why don't we start insisting that some of the Arab nations have democratic reforms, like Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia, countries like that. . . They ought to have a little bit of democracy in those countries, too, and respect for human rights. . . We ought to stand for our fundamental values as Americans: human rights, individual freedom, economic opportunity, democracy, not dealing with the Saddam Hussains and others like that."

Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who received 10 percent of the votes of Florida Democratic convention delegates, was not asked and did not volunteer an opinion about linking Israel aid to the peace process. He disagreed, however, with Middle East comments by Clinton. Clinton has said he would not rule out the use of force against Libya and that "the president was right to kick Saddam Hussain out of Kuwait and if he hadn't, he would still be there today, he'd be threatening Saudi Arabia, and the sanctions never would have worked."

Said Kerrey: "Governor, I disagree with you strongly and I am not prepared to admit that."

Pressed by Brokaw to elaborate, however Kerrey seemed to have second thoughts about criticizing Bush's war in the Gulf.

"I take nothing away from the accomplishments of that war," he told Brokaw. "I take nothing away from our ability to have decreased significantly the threat of Saddam Hussain in the region, although he's still alive and still running and still terrorizing the people of Iraq itself. I believe that we have to follow through on the Security Council resolution to make sure that we eliminate his nuclear weapons, eliminate his chemical and biological weapons."

Silence vs. Double-Edged Statements

Of the other candidates, none of whom received even two percent of the Florida straw poll votes cast, neither Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts (who received 1.8 percent) nor Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia (1.3 percent) took any position on aid to Israel in the televised debate.

Gov. Jerry Brown of California (who bottomed out at 0.2 percent) has pledged to accept no more than $100 from any donor. Therefore his rhetoric presumably is unfettered when it comes to special interests like the Israel lobby. In the debate he volunteered the following double-edged statement on loan guarantees to Israel:

"If we can provide a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel-which I think is fine-why can't we provide a $100 billion guarantee for the homeless and the middle class and poor and every other American who can't find the wherewithal to get a decent house? We are not getting a straight story about our capability. The world is changed, we are very connected, and what we need is straight talk and truth coming out of the White House."

Those latter sentiments may or may not play well in Peoria, and throughout the United States. But they, like Buchanan's candidacy and Bush's linkage of aid to Israel with Israeli performance at the peace table, have left hard-line Israel supporters throughout the United States in a state of unprecedented disarray at the beginning of the 1992 election year.

Lucille Barnes covers the Washington political scene for US and foreign news publications.

< Prev		Next >