The Israel Lobby Bashes Bush, Ponders Perot and Co-opts Clinton

By Richard H. Curtiss

"American Jewish organizations are trying to make peace with the Bush administration—and rationalizing their actions—after spending the longest time telling us that this administration is a disaster for Israel. The reasoning involves simple arithmetic: four more years." Editor Gary Rosenblatt, Detroit Jewish News, May 22, 1992

The pro-Israel establishment's stand on the three 1992 presidential candidates could be discerned, darkly, by the eve of the Democratic presidential convention. While seemingly conflicting statements are orchestrated to shield candidates from backlash, only a little of the confusion is genuine.

American Jews, wisely, refrain from putting all of their eggs in either party's basket. Traditionally, the Jewish vote splits along the lines of 70 percent for the Democratic candidate and 30 percent for the Republican candidate, as was the case in the 1988 presidential contest between Democrat Michael Dukakis and Republican George Bush. Deeply conservative Orthodox Jews are more likely to vote Republican than are Reform or Conservative Jews, with their more liberal political as well as religious orientation.

Since Jews in the United States number no more than 5 million, constituting about 1.9 percent of the population, "the Jewish vote" by itself is no longer very important except in states with a very high concentration of Jewish residents—meaning New York, California and Florida, and perhaps Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Far more important than Jewish voters are Jews with a role in the media—including journalists, publishers and major advertisers—and Jewish campaign contributors. American Jews are accustomed to donating more generously than many other Americans, not only to religious, cultural, civic and charitable causes—but also to Israel and to pro-Israel political action groups.

Half of the funds collected in the U.S. for Israel remain in the United States to support national Jewish organizations working largely on behalf of Israel. The approximately $10 million raised in the course of every two-year election cycle by pro-Israel political action committees also is divided, with about half going into direct contributions to congressional candidates, and another half used to run the PACs and raise more funds for them.

It is what the pro-Israel PACs are doing, and to a large extent what journalists are writing in weekly Jewish newspapers that tell the tale of how the pro-Israel establishment regards the candidates.

In general, pro-Israel votes will go to Gov. William Clinton. Although he initially was careful about the Middle East positions he took, hot competition for the Democratic nomination took its toll. The domestic positions of Paul Tsongas attracted liberal Jewish support. To counter this, Clinton supported U.S. loan guarantees for Israel and criticized the Bush administration for tying the loan guarantees to a freeze on Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Far more important than Jewish voters are Jewish campaign contributors.

Speaking to a May 17 American Jewish Committee dinner in Washington, Clinton said he applauded Bush administration actions during the Persian Gulf war and in bringing Israel and the Arabs to the peace table. "Since that time, virtually everything which has been done has been wrong," Clinton added, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Israel has been singled out for repeated attacks by this administration."

That should have ended all doubts, but many savvy politicians within the pro-Israel establishment consider Clinton unelectable in a two-way race with George Bush. In addition to negatives that turned up in the primary campaign, they assume Republicans are holding back some other revelations for release in the fall, if necessary, to damage the Democratic challenger at the time it hurts his election chances most.

For this reason, a number of media and other pro-Israel establishment figures initially welcomed the boom for H. Ross Perot. At the AIPAC national convention last April, every mention of President Bush's name was booed. By contrast, the AIPAC audience cheered whenever Perot was mentioned.

Conservative pro-Israel activist Amos Perlmutter said he would vote for Perot because "Bush should not be rewarded for his attacks on jews and on Israel," and if Clinton wins, "even without [Jesse] Jackson, he would be in debt to forces not friendly to Israel or Jews."

Conventional wisdom was that although he had no chance of being elected himself, Perot could talk away enough votes from both candidates to throw the election into the House of Representatives. There, a Democratic majority provided the best, perhaps only, chance for a Clinton victory.

But Perot was looking for more than passive acceptance from American Jews. After a seven-minute speech at an American Jewish Committee fund-raiser May 12 in New york, Perot promised that his long-time Jewish business associate, Morton Meyerson, and other Jewish colleagues would donate $100,000 to that organization. Later, when that didn't happen, Perot sent a $100,000 check from the Perot Foundation with the explanation that he was donating the money himself in honor of five Jewish friends, including Meyerson.

Contemplating the Unthinkable

As the Perot balloon rose higher, pro-Israel commentators began contemplating the unthinkable—a two-way contest between Bush and Perot. This explains the sudden hardening of attitudes toward the Texas billionaire in columns by such syndicated stalwarts of the Israel lobby as A.M. Rosenthal, William Safire and George Will.

It wasn't anything Perot said. Eluding specifics on tiresome "issues," Perot avoided taking any position on the loan guarantees and on settlements. Aside from that, however, his statement that Israel "proved in technicolor that it is our friend in the recent war"; his suggestion that instead of sending its military forces into action the U.S. should have sent "a hit squad," possibly in conjunction with Israel, to deal with Saddam Hussain; and his allegations that the Bush administration "pampered and powdered" the Iraqi president and actually encouraged his aggression against Kuwait were calculated to appeal to pro-Israel sentiments.

Nevertheless, Perot began to look like their worst nightmare to some in the Israel lobby. His positions were alarmingly simplistic and his religious orientation sounded increasingly Christian fundamentalist. He might assume unwelcome positions as president on First Amendment guarantees, or school prayer, or even on the Middle East after one of his "teams of experts" explained the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to him.

"From what he has said about the Middle East, he does not seem terribly well informed," American Enterprise Institute analyst Norman Ornstein told James Besser, Washington correspondent for a number of Jewish weeklies. Political historian Alan Lichtman went further:

"For the Jewish community, I think there is strong apprehension about Ross Perot because the community is concerned about anybody who appears to be an authoritarian personality, who's used to operating that way. I haven't heard any charges of anti-Semitism against Perot. But for Jews, the nature of his campaign and his personality are going to be very problematic."

Worse, the $100 million to $300 million Perot says he will spend "to buy" the presidency "for the American people" is on a totally different order of magnitude from the $50 million to $60 million each of the other two presidential candidates expects to spend, and also from the, at most, $20 million spent by pro-Israel Jewish donors on personal and PAC contributions to all candidates at all levels in the course of each election.

A Reassessment

The result is Jewish reassessment of the Bush administration. It's ironic, since bitter opposition to George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker was the one thing that united Democrats, Republicans and independents within America's pro-Israel establishment with both Likud and Labor establishment figures in Israel. Now there is public reassessment of Bush in the Jewish press, on the assumption that if the Perot balloon descends as rapidly as it rose, "we'll have to deal with Bush for four more years."

Among those advocating such a rapprochement is Executive Director Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has released a handwritten note (see "Jews and Israel," page 65) he received from President Bush indicating a desire to repair relations with the U.S. Jewish community after the Israeli elections.

"I think we've reached bottom," Foxman said. "There's a clear effort on both sides to repair the damage—to assuage the anger and change the perceptions. There's an effort to smooth the jagged edges."

Political specialists disagree, but only marginally, on how the "Jewish vote" will be distributed in November. A spokesman for the National Jewish Democratic Council exults that "Democrats could get 90 percent of the Jewish vote this year."

Another Democrat who supports Clinton, consultant Mark Siegel, said at the end of May that if the election were being held then, Clinton would receive 75 percent of the Jewish vote, Perot would receive 15 percent and Bush would receive 10 percent.

At the same time, but from the Republican side, executive director Matthew Brooks of the National Jewish Coalition said that if the election were being held then, Clinton would get 45 percent of the Jewish vote, Perot 38 percent, and Bush 17 percent.

As it stands, it's safe to predict that the stealth criticism of Bush in the mainstream media by pro-Israel journalists, concentrating on all Republican weaknesses, not just Middle East policy, will continue unabated. At the same time, overt criticism of the Bush administration in the Jewish press, and perhaps even among the pro-Israel syndicated columnists, will moderate or be partially deflected to Perot.

The point of it all will be to defeat Bush, if possible, but without burning any more bridges to his administration, given the likelihood that he will win regardless of what friends of Israel want to happen. The same pro-Israel establishment will tolerate Perot as a possible spoiler of Bush's re-election, unless Perot begins to look like the possible winner himself. Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority within the pro-Israel establishment will support Clinton, and pray for the Perot factor or some other miracle to elect Clinton president, despite his negatives.

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