Dole's Jerusalem Pandering Won't Get Him Votes or Money

By Lucille Barnes

Senator Bob Dole's May 1 promise at this year's annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel's principal Washington lobby, to introduce legislation to break ground for an American Embassy in Jerusalem in 1996, and complete the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv in 1999, was a stunning disappointment to those who saw him as one of only four Republican candidates who so far were unstained by pandering to Israel. (There are at present no such Democratic candidates in the wings, even if President Clinton were forced by the ongoing investigation into Whitewater-associated events to withdraw from the 1996 elections.)

Boosters of Dole's presidential candidacy pointed out that the legislation is the lesser of two evils. Proponents of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, including President Bill Clinton's ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, had said such a move now would "blow up" the peace process. What such a move would do in 1999 depends upon what has happened to the peace process by then. If it proceeds on schedule (although it's already way behind schedule), Jerusalem's final status will have been negotiated by then, and the current resolution will make little difference.

In the more likely event that the peace process has been abandoned or sidetracked by 1999, Israel gets a huge diplomatic victory without making any compromise toward peace at all. To date, only Costa Rica and El Salvador have embassies in Jerusalem. All the rest of the more than 100 countries with which Israel has achieved diplomatic relations, many thanks to the Oslo agreement, have established their embassies in Tel Aviv, where most probably will stay until Jerusalem's final status is agreed upon by Christian and Muslim countries as well as by Israel. The Israelis, however, don't care. The more they can isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world, they believe, the closer it makes the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Why did Dole do it? One theory is that he decided to out-pander the original "Pander Bear" Clinton (in the Massachusetts-accented words of former Sen. Paul Tsongas) for Jewish support from day one of the campaign. It might, however, have the uncanny effect of making Clinton look statesmanlike if he now vetoes such a bill.

If Dole did it for Jewish votes or campaign contributions, he's barking up two wrong trees. He won't get Jewish votes, 85 percent of which went for Clinton in 1992. And, strangely, he doesn't need the big Jewish contributors for his campaign. As reported by Stephen Engelberg in the April 29 New York Times, Republican House and Senate candidates raised $50 million more than their Democratic counterparts in the 1993-94 campaign with, in Engleberg's words, "most of the edge—more than $37 million—coming from individual contributors who gave less than $500, according to the Federal Election Commission."

In fact, of 900,000 people who donated money to the Republican Party in the past two years, three-fourths of the contributions were less than $100, according to Mary Crawford, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman. By contrast, according to a Federal Election Committee study, Democratic candidates raised more money among contributors of $750 or more and were way ahead in contributions from political action committees, raising $111 million from PACs compared to the $66.6 million PACs donated to Republicans.

The big Jewish contributors are expected to stay with Clinton, according to U.S. Jewish weeklies. The Jewish Week of Queens, NY quoted Charles Brooks, executive director of the National Political Action Committee, the largest pro-Israel PAC, as saying: "By some estimates, some 60 percent of his [Clinton's] campaign money has come from the Jewish community in the past." Editorialized the same newspaper on May 5, "One reason for Clinton's stepped up participation in Jewish affairs is his realization that he needs to raise more than $30 million for his re-election campaign, and the Jewish community will be a prime source."

Since the pro-Israel rank-and-file aren't going to vote for him, and the pro-Israel leadership isn't going to contribute to his campaign other than those hunting jobs or ambassadorships in a seemingly victory-bound Dole administration, the only other possible benefit from Dole's AIPAC gesture is an attempt to get the numerous pro-Israel media figures into his campaign tent. Judging by articles in the weekly Jewish press, from which many of those Israel sympathizers take their cues on items as diverse as campaign finance reforms to U.S. policy on Bosnia, Dole's pandering isn't going to work there either.

Here's what Douglas M. Bloomfield, syndicated political columnist for Jewish weeklies and a former legislative director for AIPAC, wrote in the Feb. 16 Washington Jewish Week: "Many Jewish voters have strong misgivings about Dole and he has been on the road quite a bit recently to try to mend fences and build support among Jewish Republicans. His calls to cut aid to Israel, his opposition to the loan guarantees and his accusations of 'selfishness' on the part of 'Jewish leaders' who support aid to Israel, along with other acerbic comments, mean he has a tough uphill battle to win Jewish support."

Wrote columnist James Besser in the Feb. 24 Jewish Week of Queens, NY: "Dole has sometimes earned the ire of pro-Israel groups for his critical statements about Israeli policy."

Bloomfield has negative feelings about four other Republican candidates. Of Sen. Phil Gramm he writes: "The flinty Gramm has a pro-Israel record and has been helpful on the Budget and Armed Services Committees, but on domestic issues, his stand on abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and gun control turns off mainstream Jewish voters."

Of former Education Secretary and Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, Bloomfield writes: "Jewish activists who met with Alexander recently reported he was not well informed about Israel or domestic issues of concern to the Jewish community. He described his education as a Christian, but demonstrated little understanding of policy or events." Bloomfield doesn't deign to assess candidate Pat Buchanan other than to dismiss him as "the conservative columnist widely considered anti-Semitic." Besser noted that Buchanan's "calls for a cultural and religious revolution have won him few Jewish friends."

Bloomfield deals with former Secretary of State James A. Baker III by reviving an unsubstantiated canard from the 1992 campaign. Writes Bloomfield of Baker: "As for being taken seriously in the Jewish community, too many recall his famous self-fulfilling prophecy, 'F*** the Jews; they don't vote for us.'"

So what Republican candidates does Bloomfield like? He calls former Rep. Jack Kemp's decision to drop out of the race "a major disappointment to Jewish Republicans. He is one of Israel's best friends and staunchest supporters in Washington."

Bloomfield writes that former Vice President Dan Quayle "was known as one of the friendlier faces in the largely unfriendly Bush administration and could have expected to inherit many of Kemp's Jewish supporters, but he tossed in the towel instead of his hat."

Continuing, Bloomfield notes that "Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania...is Jewish and a leader in the Senate on pro-Israel issues...but the other element of his record that makes him so appealing to Jewish voters, his moderate-to-liberal domestic views, disqualifies him for the powerful religious right wing of his party."

So is anyone left? According to Bloomfield, "in the present field of Republican wannabes, [California Gov. Pete] Wilson may have the strongest appeal to Jewish voters. He built a solid pro-Israel record in the U.S. Senate (after having been the only mayor in the United States to endorse the 1981 AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia) and maintains warm relations with the Jewish community in the state."

Syndicated columnist Richard Cohen summed up in a May 11 Washington Post column what the gesture to AIPAC and Jewish voters has gained, and lost, for the candidate who is so far out in front that such pandering seemed remarkably uncalled for:

"Ambition ill becomes Dole...By the time he gets to Iowa, he won't have any idea who he is and what he once stood for—and how he slowly managed to win the admiration of Americans who over the years have come to see his good qualities. Now he's inserted his candidacy in a foreign policy area where it does not belong...Israel's capital is Jerusalem, and the U.S. Embassy should be there—but the timing of the move is critical. Jerusalem will not be forgotten. Indeed, it will be remembered long after the nomination fight is settled and Dole—or someone else—has to deal with more serious matters than a few votes in some primary state."