Lessons from 1988's Middle East Electoral Initiative

By Abram V. Martin

Two propositions on local ballots in the November elections produced results which, on the surface, seemed to indicate surprisingly different attitudes toward Palestinian rights in the populations of San Francisco and Cambridge, MA.

Proposition W on the San Francisco ballot called for US "recognition of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and statehood in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza side by side with the state of Israel with guarantees for the security of both states." This proposition was defeated 68.5 percent to 31.5 percent.

Question 5 on the ballot in 44 precincts of Cambridge and six of Somerville, MA called for: " 1) demanding that Israel end its violations of Palestinian human rights and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; 2) stopping all expenditures of US taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; 3) favoring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with peace for all states in the region, including Israel." Question 5 won by 52.7 percent. These are startlingly different results from two communities which are generally categorized by the rest of the nation both as progressive and quite similar in their political attitudes.

The campaign for Question 5 in Cambridge, MA, differed markedly in several respects from the campaign for Proposition W. First, Question 5 pulled no punches, demanding an end to Israeli "violations of Palestinian human rights and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza" and stopping all expenditures of US taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation." The ethical and humanitarian concern was open and undisguised, in contrast with Proposition W, whose authors took great pains to phrase the proposition in such a way that, they hoped, it would be acceptable to most pro-Israel Americans. Evidently they were wrong. The fact that Question 5 was unambiguous and hard hitting was a major factor in its success.

Debates Spark Interest

A second major difference was the fact that in Cambridge there were at least two widely-publicized, spirited debates involving well-known personalities. One debate was between Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, and Dr. James Zogby, director of the Arab American Institute. The other debate was between Dershowitz and Kathryn Silver, coordinator of a local "Coalition for Palestinian Rights." The interest aroused by these debates was undoubtedly partly responsible for the fact that 90 percent of those who voted in Cambridge and Somerville responded to Question 5. In San Francisco, only 78 percent of those who went to the polls took the trouble to vote on Proposition W.

A major reason for the massive defeat of Proposition W in San Francisco was financial, stemming from the very early decision of pro-Israel forces to spare no expense and effort to defeat it. The campaign for W (referred to hereafter as YES) spent $85,000; the campaign against W (referred to as NO) spent $1.3 million-more than a 15-to-1 difference. The pro-Israel forces hired the Campaign Performance Group to run the NO campaign for $170,000, twice the total budget of YES. No's campaign mailings were designed for specific ethnic and social groups in the city. For example, a flyer for the black community pictured Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington and California State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a black resident of San Francisco. Other flyers were targeted to other specific groups.

Before the campaign ended, NO obtained the endorsement of every elected politician in the city except one-a city supervisor who did not run for re-election. NO used its huge warchest to flood TV, radio, and newspapers with advertisements, listing over and over again the officials and prominent citizens who endorsed NO. YES's advertisements were drastically limited by its comparatively tiny budget of $85,000.

Local Politicians Threatened With Defeat

And yet despite this massive propaganda campaign made possible by the overwhelming financial advantage of NO, 31.5 percent of the people voted for W, while not one of the elected politicians endorsed it. How did this huge gulf open between the politicians and the public? The answer, according to The Progress newspaper of San Francisco, was that "local politicians have been threatened with defeat if they support W."

Such threats by pro-Israel forces carry very strong Credibility with politicians. As host Mike Wallace stated Oct. 23, 1988, on the CBS program "60 Minutes," "In recent years, AIPAC and the pro-Israel PACs have helped defeat, among others, Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois and Pete McCloskey of California, Senators Harrison Schmidt of New Mexico, Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois." (AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is registered in Washington, DC, to lobby on behalf of Israel).

Here we have vivid confirmation of the statement by former Undersecretary of State George Ball: "Practically every Congressman and senator says his prayers to the AIPAC lobby. They've done an enormous job of corrupting the American democratic process." Not only have the pro-Israel PACs corrupted the democratic proem, they have done an equally impressive job of corrupting individual politicians.

The lesson to be learned from 1988 is to word these initiatives clearly, to foil the obfuscators, and forcefully reflect the increasing impatience with Israeli human rights violations now so clearly reflected in public opinion across the United States.

The two congresswomen from San Francisco, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, lent their names and pictures to a large, four-page glossy brochure with a picture on the cover of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Oscar Arias. On page two they quoted the statement by Arias: "Support the forces of peace instead of the forces of war. Send us plowshares instead of swords." Representatives of the Costa Rican government protested the distortion of President Arias' views, which related to Central America, and not to the Middle East, but the cynical, dirty deed was done. Since the US continues to send billions of dollars worth of military aid to Israel, but none at all to the Palestinians, no amount of twisting and distortion could make the argument of the congresswomen into a reason for voting NO on W. Pelosi had received $9,500 from pro-Israel PACs as of Sept. 30, more than any other House member from California in 1988.

The argument to which Mayor Agnos lent his name and his picture was equally absurd: Proposition W "places preconditions on delicate negotiations." To speak of "delicate negotiations" at a time when the Israelis are broadening the orders permitting their soldiers to dynamite Palestinian homes and kill unarmed Palestinians ventures beyond intellectual dishonesty into the realm of depravity.

There will almost certainly be future local electoral initiatives to require Israel to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians, including the rights of self-determination and statehood, or lose US support. The lesson to be learned from 1988 is to word these initiatives clearly, to foil the obfuscators, and forcefully reflect the increasing impatience with Israeli human rights violations now so clearly reflected in public opinion across the United States.

Abram V. Martin is a freelance writer based in San Francisco.