Ability of U.S. Jewish Groups to Set Clinton Agenda Depends on Media

By Dr. Israel Shahak

Foreword: Israel's foreign policies depend, first and foremost, on the huge amount of aid that it receives from the U.S. This in turn depends on the strong influence of the organized American-Jewish community in Congress and the administration. As the attached article, based upon sources in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, asserts, Israeli influence is greater in the Democratic than in the Republican Party. Under President Bill Clinton, as Israel's Hebrew-language press frequently reports, the Jewish influence on U.S. policies, and consequently the Israeli ability to dictate them, had reached an unprecedented level prior to the recent congressional elections.

The ability of the organized Jewish community to influence U.S. policies so effectively depends upon the fact that the American media universally avoid discussing the racism, religious zealotry and chauvinism that exist in the U.S. Jewish community. Most of the "leftist" American publications, including those pretending, falsely in my view, to "support Palestinian rights," are much worse in this respect than, for example, the Wall Street Journal. They have totally surrendered to the pseudo-left Jews in their ranks. Below is an article by Aluf Ben, considered a spokesman for Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, published in the March 17, 1995 edition of the mass-circulation Tel Aviv daily Ha'aretz.

This article, unpublishable in the U.S. daily press due to the Zionist influence on the American media, depicts only a part of the Israeli influence on President Clinton and his administration. In my own view, the extent of Israeli influence on American politics is even greater than that depicted in Aluf's translated article below:

As Patron of the "Peace Process," The Clinton Administration Is Prepared to Follow Rabin's Dictates

By Aluf Ben

Israel's relations with the United States have been weakened. The Republican victory in the congressional elections overturned the Israeli power triangle in the U.S. from which Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's government had greatly benefited.

This triangle consisted of Israel's very close relations with the Clinton administration, its support from U.S. Jews and its support from Congress, so long as Democrats controlled Congress. The last two were Israel's traditional power bases, but are now embarrassingly hostile to the Rabin government's policies.

The snags in the Rabin government's relations with U.S. Jews and the U.S. Congress have arisen at a time when Israel is struggling to perpetuate the existing level of its civilian aid from the U.S. and, in addition, to enlist American financial support for its Jordanian and PLO "partners in peace." The isolationist atmosphere permeating the new Congress does not create a comfortable environment for additional foreign aid, nor for agreements to position American soldiers in the Golan Heights.

Israel had achieved a perfect relationship with the Clinton administration.

The Congress also is working actively against the objectives of the Israeli government, circumventing its positions from the right by legislation for monitoring the activities of the PLO, Rabin's closest ally, and by an initiative to transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The latter places Rabin in an uneasy dilemma—how to oppose proposals which seemingly demonstrate support for Israeli interests.

In recent days, Israeli leaders have voiced concern regarding the state of relations with the U.S. Rabin told members of the Labor faction in the Knesset, "Today we have problems with the U.S." He blamed anti-Israeli government right-wingers inside the American-Jewish organizations and among the Republicans in the Congress.

This week Foreign Minister Shimon Peres held two discussions in his office concerning relations with the U.S. with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Itamar Rabinovich, who was in Israel for the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Peres told Rabinovich that he sensed a "loosening" in the relations of American Jewry with Israel and his conclusion was that an effort should be made to send to the American Jews the message that the peace process is currently the major factor in Israeli-U.S. relations.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials have been saying that most American Jews refuse to accept the agreement with the PLO, and do not hesitate to voice their opposition. They are supported by intensive activity by Israel's Likud party in America. Ambassador Rabinovich did not not agree. In his view the majority of the Jews identify, as always, with the Israeli government. The problem, he said, focuses on "islands" of opposition. In support of his views, Rabinovich argued that members of the Israeli cabinet and Rabin government coalition MKs voice a divided message to U.S. Jews regarding peace.

When he assumed his post, Peres told his ministry staff that there was no longer any need for Israeli propaganda, since the peace policy was its best propaganda. In the discussion held on Monday, Peres changed his tune. He has decided to start an intense propaganda campaign directed to Jewish communities in America. He charged his deputy, Yossi Beilin, with the job of finding appropriate speakers—generals, politicians and professors.

Israeli relations with the Clinton administration are the best that Israel has ever had with any administration. In their first meeting in March 1993, Rabin and Clinton agreed to place peace at the center of the relationship, sweeping all else aside. Political coordination on all possible issues between Jerusalem and Washington has reached its peak under Clinton: The U.S., as the patron of the peace process, is willing to accept Rabin's dictates, limiting its open involvement to mediating between Israel and Syria and presenting Israeli demands. In exchange, Rabin conceded only that in its own foreign policy Israel would follow U.S. policy with respect to Iraq and North Korea. Rabin has met more often with Clinton than any Israeli leader has met with any of the former American presidents—seven meetings with Clinton within two years...

Thus Israel had achieved a perfect relationship with the Clinton administration. By contrast, relations with previous administrations, even those considered to be friendly to Israel, suffered from confrontations due to scandals and political disagreements, sometimes aggravated by leaks from middle-level U.S. officials who accused their superiors of sacrificing vital foreign relations interests for the Jewish vote and, even more, Jewish money. Israel was often required "to give answers" to questions put to it by former administrations. All of that disappeared under Clinton except, perhaps, for the Pollard affair. Pollard is serving his 10th year in jail and Clinton seems unable to get him out.

From time to time American officials raise questions regarding Israeli weapons sales to China. Two months ago Israel answered these questions, saying that the volume of transactions in recent years amounted to only several tens of millions of dollars and that Israel transferred no American technology to China. The questions and answers passed through ordinary bureaucratic channels. The Israeli answer to any question is automatically accepted by the U.S. officials concerned. Thus the Israeli leaders remain untroubled.

The Clinton administration is more dependent than its predecessors on Jewish support, and especially on Jewish funding. Ninety percent of Jewish votes went to Democrats. More important is the fact that 60 percent of all financial help to Democrats came from Jewish sources. This is why so many Jews hold key positions in the Clinton administration. It is for this reason that this is the first U.S. administration which boasts of its close alliance with Israel and grants Israel unprecedented amounts of aid.

The aid is not only in money, but in the most advanced forms of technology. As Clinton said, "Israel is taking a chance for peace and we will do everything in our power to limit the risks." The State Department has publicly supported Israel's nuclear policies and has expressed its understanding for Israel's argument that national security considerations prevent it from signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clinton will continue to support Israel's nuclear policy in its fullest extent.

Understandings of this kind were previously discussed in secret, between presidents and prime ministers. Now they are open to all. This month will be "American month" in Israel. It will encompass the visits of Secretary of State Christopher and Vice President Gore, talks on close strategic cooperation, and large military maneuvers of the American and the Israeli armies to test common tactics.

This is not the first time, since such maneuvers have taken place every three years in southern Israel. But this time, in contrast to the past, the Pentagon agreed to prior publicity. The maneuver combines operational training of American forces and operating a joint command with the Israeli army for the purpose of strategic cooperation in flying supplies to Israel in an emergency. The claims that Israel was not a strategic asset that were raised following the Gulf war, when Israel remained outside the coalition, are gone forever.

Rabin believed that open channels to heads of the U.S. administration were the crux of the relationship. He opposed the faltering attempts of his predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, to fight President George Bush in the loan guarantees affair. In this spirit Rabin downplayed the importance of the pro-Israel lobby.

During his last visit to the U.S., in November 1994, Rabin found a new atmosphere on Capitol Hill. Some of the Republican legislators told him that the drive for cutting foreign aid would include Israel and that non-military aid to Israel would be reconsidered. Since then, Rabin has frequently voiced fear of U.S. isolationism and has said that America's military and financial support is a vital condition for peace in the Middle East.

Harsh Sentiments

Shimon Peres visited Washington in early February and heard even harsher sentiments. Sonny Callahan, chairman of the House subcommittee on foreign aid, told him the military aid is not in jeopardy but that Israel should propose a symbolic cutback of its civilian aid in order to help the U.S. economy. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms said he would propose substituting for aid to Israel a defense grant which should come from the Pentagon budget. This would demonstrate the savings resulting from Israel's contribution to U.S. defense. The Israeli foreign minister returned home full of doubts concerning the new Congress' willingness to support the peace process.

Immediately after the congressional elections, the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's policy planning division, Henry Kneital, wrote that the rules of the game had changed. From now on Israel will have to operate with a two-headed government in Washington and could not rely only on Clinton and his officials. In consequence, Israeli intelligence operations within the U.S. were intensified.

The assessment given to Israeli ministers last week was that, while the U.S. administration was "functioning," the Republicans would do everything to hinder the president. The test came when cancellation of Jordan's debts to the U.S. was debated. Over Israeli protests, Callahan's subcommittee agreed only to cancel one-fifth of the sum requested by the administration. Israel helped Clinton's lobbying efforts, which reached their peak in a phone conversation with Rabin two weeks ago.

The White House publicized the transcript of the conversation to attack the Republicans, to which House Speaker Newt Gingrich reacted with rage. Ultimately Rabinovich had to meet with Gingrich, and the ambassador now thinks that the aid to Jordan is guaranteed.

But in Israel the fears increased. Foreign Ministry Director Uri Savir and his deputy, Eitan Bentsur, wrote to the Israeli embassy in Washington that U.S. aid to Jordan, and even more to the PLO, was an Israeli interest of top priority. The prime minister vehemently denied any rumor of Israel having agreed to the cutting of American aid by even the smallest sum. He considers continuation of U.S. aid at its present level to be the most tangible expression of the special relations between Israel and the United States, not ever to be compared to those between the U.S. and any other country.

However, in the discussion initiated by Peres this week, Beilin suggested preparing for a possible cut in economic aid, and determining how vital this would be to Israel. The Foreign Ministry also proposed transferring to Jordan a part of U.S. aid to Israel. Most of the speakers opposed that step. Rabinovich said now is the time that Israel should demand publicly that the U.S. declare that it will continue aid to Israel at the current level, $3 billion, due to the prestige that this gives Israel in its relations with other countries.

"A symbolic cutback would not sacrifice anything and, due to Israel being a rich country, even the current aid is really only a symbol," said the ambassador, predicting that Israel would receive the entire amount again this year. The foreign minister adopted Rabinovich's position.

Rabinovich explained that dangers to the aid level derive from Congress' efforts to cut the federal budget, not from any worsening of the attitude of the Republicans toward Israel. The Republicans are largely considered to be supporters of Israel. Israeli propaganda efforts, therefore, are to be directed to the dozens of newly elected representatives who have not previously been educated in Zionism.

The Republicans also have given Israel an important political gain by forcing Clinton to increase the pressure on Iran and to issue a presidential order prohibiting new oil deals with Iran. Congress is expected to pass similar legislation.

Previously, Rabin had unsuccessfully attempted to convince the administration that it must take a firmer stance toward Iran. The Israelis told Clinton in no uncertain terms that they are fed up with hearing the Germans and Japanese rationalize their close contacts with Iran by saying, "The Americans have bigger business there than we do."

Clinton was told that he must bring those countries to heel. The next test in Israeli relations with the U.S. Congress and the Jewish community will take place on June 1, the date of publication of the president's report on the PLO's conduct. If the PLO fails this test, it will not be eligible for American aid. Rabin has told Christopher that the target date was approaching and that he should make this clear to Arafat.

Dr. Israel Shahak, retired professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights.