April/May 1992, Page 34

Speaking Out

The Ultimatum That Causes Stir and Applause

By Paul Findley

The ultimatum issued to Israel in February by Secretary of State James Baker created a stir and senatorial threats on Capitol Hill and broad applause throughout the United States, but it is clear from responses by editorial writers and commentators that its fundamental, crucial importance is not yet fully appreciated.

Baker issued this ultimatum during testimony before the foreign operations subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. In his customary unemotional delivery, Baker said matter-of-factly that Israel must choose between settlements in the occupied territories and U.S. loan guarantees. He warned that Israel cannot have both. If it continues to build Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories it holds by force of arms, Israel will not receive the guarantees it wants to facilitate the financing of housing, highways and other infrastructure.

If Israel immediately halts the construction in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, the U.S. government will extend loan guarantees up to $2 billion a year. Baker added, however, and important provision.

Even if Israel halts this construction immediately, the U.S. government will deduct from the guarantees the value of all construction completed subsequent to Jan. 1, 1992. The language was unambiguous. Nor could anyone question that Baker spoke for President Bush. For months, ever since demanding that Congress delay consideration for 120 days, Bush had kept Israel guessing on his ultimate answer.

"The choice is Israel's," Baker told the congressmen. Democratic Rep. Larry Smith of Florida, self-proclaimed leader of the Jewish caucus in the House of Representatives, denounced Baker, asserting that the ultimatum disqualified the U.S. from the role of "honest broker" in the Arab-Israeli dispute. He asked why Baker would tie Israel's hands but not pressure Arab states for reforms.

"Nobody else is asking us for $10 billion in addition to the $3 to $4 billion we give every year (to Israel) with no strings attached," Baker responded while Smith fumed.

Overnight, Israel's lobby went into high gear, and the next day, before Baker could repeat his message on the other side of the Capitol building, several senators took turns denouncing the ultimatum. They warned that legislation to extend aid to the former Soviet republics-legislation requested by President Bush-would be held hostage until the administration accepts unconditional loan guarantees for Israel. Baker responded, "We have a right to know we're not going to be financing something that we oppose."

"We spelled out our policy," Baker said. "It is a proper policy."

Neither the U.S. Congress nor the state of Israel is used to such treatment.

Neither the U.S. Congress nor the state of Israel is used to such treatment. Just weeks ago, lobbyists for Israel announced they had secured signatures of more than 70 U.S. senators on a letter supporting unconditional loan guarantees.

U.S. congressional subcommittees dealing with Israeli aid requests are traditionally so compliant that members of Congress often privately refer to them scornfully as subcommittees of the Knesset.

During the eight years of the Ronald Reagan presidency, Israel's influence reached its zenith. The administration stood quietly by as Israeli warplanes supplied by the U.S. killed thousands of innocent civilians in the 1982 war on Beirut, then voiced scarcely a word of complaint as the Shamir regime began to build Jewish housing in the occupied territories at a feverish pace.

The construction of housing, although clearly illegal under the United Nations charter and the Geneva conventions endorsed by the United States and most other nations, seemed to bother the Reagan administration not at all. Indeed, with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Congress, the U.S. government sweetened the Israeli aid pot. It converted to a grant basis the entirety of its annual $3 billion aid to Israel.

Now a president of the United States is braced for a showdown over aid to Israel. For more than 30 years Israel, through its U.S. lobby, has won every battle in this realm. In fact, with the exception of two, Israel's lobby has won every battle over all aspects of Middle East policy.

Baker's ultimatum is reminiscent of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1956 showdown over Suez.

Historical Parallels

First and foremost, it comes when George Bush is in the midst of a contentious and potentially difficult re-election campaign. Bush advisers have warned him his showdown with Israel will cost him the 30 percent of the Jewish vote he received four years ago. The truth is that most of that vote was beyond Bush's reach long before the showdown over loan guarantees. Many U.S. Jews will support the election of anyone but Bush.

On the eve of his bid for re-election in 1956, Eisenhower demanded that Israel stop its military assault on the Suez Canal. Later he threatened to cut off U.S. aid if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai peninsula. It did. Although Jewish leaders and their puppets in Congress denounced him, Ike received more Jewish votes in his re-election campaign than he did in his first bid for the presidency.

Even though Israel's lobby is far stronger and better financed today than in 1956, it is advocating an issue that is considerably less popular than Israel's move to take over the Suez Canal. Public opinion polls show overwhelming support for the Bush-Baker opposition to loan guarantees, and even U.S. Jews are beginning to speak out publicly.

Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright urged Republican president Gerald R. Ford in 1975 to risk a showdown with Israel over the occupied territories. "I told Ford I didn't think he would be defeated if he put it the right way," Fulbright recalls. "He should say Israel had to go back to the 1967 borders. If it didn't no more arms or money. That's just the way Eisenhower did it. And Israel would have to cooperate. And politically, I told him he should say he was for Israel, but he was for America first."

Ford rejected the advice, even though he had announced that he would reassess U.S. Mideast policy. When 76 senators signed a letter urging that the U.S. continue its fealty to Israel, Ford caved in.

Had Ford taken Fulbright's advice, he would have spared Israel, the Arab world, and America untold agony. Now, 17 years later, another Republican president stands at a similar threshold of opportunity. By standing firm, he can save Israel from the stupidity of Prime Minister Shamir's policies and revive hope for a decent future for Palestinians, as well as regional harmony.

Former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley is chairman of the Council for the National Interest, a membership organization located at 1900 18th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009.

< Prev		Next >