U.S. Muslims May Put Themselves on American Political Map in 1998

By Richard H. Curtiss

Hopefully the world will soon see a flurry of resolutions by Organization of Islamic Conference and Arab League member states designed to help solve the intertwined problems of sharing Jerusalem and human rights for Palestinians. These certainly will help in the short run.

In the long run, however, some American Muslim leaders are concluding that there probably is only one way to deal with the Middle East matters in which the U.S. has abandoned its traditional support for self- determination, human rights and fair play. That is for U.S. Muslims to take the lead in helping the American people take back control of their own Middle East policy.

Right now it is totally controlled by a single special interest—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israeli government's Washington, DC lobby, with 150 employees and a $15 million budget. AIPAC, in turn, is backed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. That is an umbrella group comprising 52 separate U.S. organizations whose primary concern is Israel. Some of those groups have budgets much larger than AIPAC's and several have Washington lobbyists of their own. Together they also have formed some 126 political action committees which have played an active role in rewarding members of Congress who follow AIPAC's wishes, and punishing those who do not.

And what incredible results they have achieved over the years. Together they have obtained for Israel $84.8 billion in grants and loans at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $134.8 billion. Or, put another way, they have obtained $14,630 for every Israeli man, woman and child at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $23,240 for every Israeli.

These results, obtained purely by domestic political pressure, began more than half a century ago.

In 1947 the heads of U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East convened in Washington, DC to advise President Harry Truman against the partition of Palestine, saying it would result in a bloodbath in the short run and major problems for the U.S. in the Middle East in the long run. They were right, as history has proven. But President Truman's reply at the time was, "I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." At Truman's insistence, the United Nations partitioned Palestine in November 1947.

In May 1948, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall threatened to resign if President Truman recognized Israel before it defined its borders. But Clark Clifford, President Truman's domestic political adviser, told Truman that unless he recognized Israel unconditionally, he might lose the 1948 election.

Truman recognized Israel within 11 minutes of its establishment, immediately began to receive praise and editorial support in the U.S. media, reportedly received millions of dollars in clandestine Zionist campaign contributions, and went on to win the 1948 election.

The pro-Israel tilt in U.S. foreign policy is motivated by domestic political interests.

Israel's lobby has come a long way since those days when it successfully defied the American foreign affairs establishment. Today it is America's foreign affairs establishment.

Let's ignore Madeleine Albright, whom the Israeli press describes as Jewish because she was born to a Jewish mother. She was raised a Catholic and became an Episcopalian. In America you are what you say you are, so that's that. But she's secretary of state because she was appointed by President Clinton who, according to U.S. Jewish community newspapers, got about 85 percent of the Jewish vote in 1992 and perhaps 88 percent of the Jewish vote in 1996.

Bill Clinton won't be running again. But his loyal vice president, Al Gore, will be. And Gore is not going to let Clinton, or Madeleine Albright, do anything to alienate the Israel lobby.

What else has Bill Clinton done? His top two White House foreign policy advisers, National Security Council director Samuel Berger and his deputy, John Steinberg, are Jewish, not to mention the current State Department spokesman, James Rubin.

Perhaps most important, the assistant secretary of state-designate for Near East Affairs, Martin Indyk, who has just completed an assignment as U.S. ambassador to Israel, not only is Jewish, but all of his previous employment before joining the Clinton administration has been in support of Israel.

And that's not all. Both the State Department official in charge of U.S. participation in the peace process, Dennis Ross, and his deputy, Aaron David Miller, are Jewish political appointees who in the past have had grants from pro-Israel foundations and, like Indyk, also have lived and studied in Israel on their own.

An Unseemly Imbalance

There's no reason why American Jews should not be involved in the Middle East peace process. But it's unseemly, to put it mildly, that every member of the U.S. Middle East peace team is Jewish, without even token Christian or Muslim representation. And, of course, more than 10 percent of the members of Congress are Jewish and there have been several Jewish cabinet members in both the first and second Clinton administrations. Finally, of nine members of the Supreme Court, two, both of them Clinton appointees, are Jewish.

By contrast, there are no Muslims in policymaking positions in either the White House or the State Department, no Muslims on the Supreme Court, no Muslims in the Clinton cabinet, and no Muslims among the 535 members of Congress.

Yet the U.S. Muslim population outnumbers the U.S. Jewish community, which does not exceed five million, and the former is growing steadily while the latter remains static or may actually be declining. U.S. Muslims already are estimated at six to eight million people. In addition, Islam is America's fastest-growing religion, and 14 percent of immigrants to the United States are Muslim.

At the same time, since the election of Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel, Americans who are neither Muslim nor Jewish are increasingly becoming aware that the pro-Israel tilt in present U.S. foreign policy is not in any way related to the American national interest or to U.S. strategic concerns. Instead it is motivated 100 percent by domestic political interests. It's the strength of the pro-Israel lobby that has enabled pro-Israel elected officials and political appointees to take control of U.S. Middle East policy away from the professional diplomats, starting just 50 years ago with the partition of Palestine. But it can be taken back. And that would be a very welcome gift from the American Muslim community to the American people as a whole.

One reason this is possible is that while most old-line American Jewish leaders can be counted upon to support any Israeli government, no matter how racist or bigoted its policies, a growing number of younger American Jews do not. They are dropping out of the Israel-right-or-wrong column.

Conversely, while many leaders of America's relatively new Islamic organizations have been wary of becoming embroiled in the Palestine problem, their rank-and-file followers—whether of African-American, South Asian, Middle Eastern, European or other ethnic origins—are becoming increasingly aware of, and concerned about, Jerusalem and the Palestinians.

To address these problems, American Muslims must assess what has gone wrong up until now. By learning from mistakes of the past, they can avoid them in the future.

Arab Americans, both Muslim and Christian, first organized politically in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At present they have four major national groups—the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA), Arab American University Graduates (AAUG) and the Arab American Institute (AAI).

Until recently, all have proceeded on the theory that a primary role of ethnic groups is to help their members become activists in the Democratic or Republican parties. The problem is that a full generation after these groups began, they have had little real influence on U.S. Middle East policy. The Clinton administration will give the presidents of these and many smaller Arab-American groups a courtesy call before it takes a Middle East policy step. But in the end the policy is designed solely to please the Israel lobby and its media supporters, whose words can make or break candidates.

Presidents and members of Congress are frightened of what they call "the Jewish vote," which in fact combines great strength in the national media, Jewish voting strength in a few key states like New York, New Jersey, Florida and California, some major Jewish financial contributors, particularly in the greater New York metropolitan area and in Southern California, and the network of active pro-Israel political action committees.

By contrast, no one fears anything called "the Arab vote" because, to date, there has been none except in a few instances where an Arab American has run in a district or state with a significant Arab-American population, as was the case with Sen. Spence Abraham in Michigan. Except in such instances, the Arab-American groups have not sought to persuade their members to vote as a bloc, largely because all or nearly all of the leaders of those groups seem to be Democrats or Republicans first, and Arab Americans second.

However, national Muslim-American organizations are new. To date the groups with the largest membership are those like the Islamic Society of North America—a roof organization for hundreds of local groups which attracted 22,000 U.S. Muslims to its annual convention in Chicago this September—that limit themselves largely to religious concerns, and the problems of raising a Muslim family and living an Islamic life in secular America.

But there are national organizations like the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), the American Muslim Council (AMC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) working to bring Muslims off the political sidelines and onto the political playing field.

Many national Muslim leaders are hoping that prior to the 1998 primary elections, in every American city with a significant Muslim population, leaders of the different mosques and Islamic centers can come together to invite both Democratic and Republican candidates to meetings where the candidates can listen to major Muslim concerns and then state their own positions on those issues. Out of such meetings should come unified Islamic endorsements of candidates in both Republican and Democratic primaries.

In the summer and fall of 1998, similar meetings could again be held with the candidates to reach agreed endorsements of senatorial candidates, House candidates, and candidates for some state and local offices in the general election.

The secret of success will be not to look for perfection. There probably are no perfect candidates who also are electable. But generally one is better than the others in terms of Islamic concerns.

Putting together a Muslim voting bloc on a national scale for the presidential election in the year 2000 involves more lead time, but the other principles are the same. The first thing Muslims must remember is that the point is to become known as a community that votes, and can vote as a bloc when one candidate is judged better suited on the basis of Islamic standards.

That's far more important than trying to support a winner. In fact, the moment Muslims become preoccupied with picking the winner, it means the candidates no longer have to be concerned with courting the Muslim vote. The point of the bloc vote is to prod candidates to take positions to attract Muslim votes. And the way to begin is to identify the key issues that unite American Muslims.

On foreign policy there are three things on which all Muslims everywhere agree: Sovereignty for the Palestinians in their own land; real self-determination for the Kashmiris; and support for the legitimate, multi-sectarian Muslim-led government of Bosnia.

There also are foreign policy points on which Muslims may disagree, depending upon their ethnic origins. But if U.S. Muslims are to vote as a unified bloc, they must forget the differences and select candidates on the basis of the convictions they all share.

Socially, most Muslims believe in conservative family values. They don't want their children exposed to Hollywood trash. They want families to stay together, with all members assuming their responsibilities. And they want separation of church and state in the United States.

Diverse as the Muslim community seems economically, it is united by strong support for economic and social justice. No one in the community supports welfare over workfare. Similarly, no one in the community wants anyone to fall through the social safety net.

So putting together agreed standards by which a unified Muslim community can judge candidates is not so difficult, so long as their leaders stay away from the divisive issues on which not all Muslims can agree.

Leaders of U.S. Muslim organizations are talking of drawing up a single questionnaire to send to all candidates for federal office in the United States. Then they hope that the answers, and the records of the candidates, will be discussed in every mosque in America.

If candidates for the Senate and House know that a recommendation will be made in every mosque in their state for the primary elections, and again for the general election, they will start paying attention to the issues which concern the Islamic community. It will also make the parties pay attention to Muslim political activists and Muslim candidates.

That's not an impossible dream. By starting now, Muslims can make their presence felt in local and state elections in 1998 and on the national scene in the year 2000. Their bloc, organized around social justice and morality at home, and an even-handed U.S. foreign policy in support of human rights, self-determination and fair play abroad, could make a huge difference on the American political scene.

For example, it was believed in the 1996 election that neither candidate could win the presidency without winning California. With between 600,000 and 800,000 Muslims in California, perhaps in the year 2000 it will become known that neither presidential candidate can win California without winning the Muslim vote.

Such an example of Muslim unity in the United States could be the biggest gift American Muslims could give to Muslims overseas. It also would be a significant gift to their fellow Americans because, unlike the Israel lobby, American Muslims are not asking special aid or favors for any foreign country. They are asking only that the U.S. government act in America's own best interest—which is friendly, peaceful and cooperative relations with all countries which support peace with justice in the world.

American Muslim leaders hope that 1998 will be the year in which they demonstrate the unity to accomplish this vitally important transformation within the political system of the world's only remaining superpower. If they can do it, the entire human race will be the beneficiary.

Richard Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.