Arab Americans Still Bewildered by the "New Dole"

By Lucille Barnes

"When people don't believe Clinton, it hurts Clinton: but when they don't believe Dole, it helps Dole." Unidentified "presidential aide" quoted by columnist William Safire, New York Times, May 25, 1995.

"Why did he do it?" was the most commonly asked question by crestfallen Arab Americans and Muslim Americans this summer. No one had to explain that "he" was Republican Senator Bob Dole and "it" was his pandering May 1 pledge at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention to introduce legislation in the Senate, coordinated with legislation to be introduced in the House of Representatives by Speaker Newt Gingrich, threatening a cutoff of funding to the State Department if it did not break ground for a new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem before the end of 1996, and complete the move before the end of 1999.

By itself the threatened legislation had no more practical consequences than the "sense of the Senate" letter sponsored earlier this year by New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and New York Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato calling upon the State Department to establish its embassy in Jerusalem by 1999.

Sponsors told the 93 senators who signed the letter, including a reluctant Dole who was one of the very last to do so, that the site already picked for the future embassy was in West Jerusalem and therefore not on disputed land seized by Israel during the 1967 war. Further, under the original timetable for the Oslo accords, negotiations on the final status of Jerusalem were scheduled for completion before the end of 1999 in any case. But, if the original letter had no significance, why introduce legislation that, if signed by the president, could, in the words of U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, "explode the negotiations"?

The answer, apparently, lies in the Dole record of having rejected just such legislation in 1993. Dole also was on record as opposing increases in the size of U.S. foreign aid to Israel and, more inexcusably in the eyes of Israel's Washington, DC lobby, from time to time making tart statements about the U.S.-Israeli relationship surpassed in the Senate only by the ever-pungent and disapproving comments of former Senate Democratic Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Among such memorable remarks was Dole's comment, upon learning that in retaliation for an Israeli raid on south Lebanon Hezbollah kidnappers had hanged a U.S. hostage, Marine Colonel Richard Higgins, that since the U.S. shared the crash landings of Israeli policies, it would be nice to be informed before the takeoffs.

Clearly somewhere between his reluctance to sign the Senate letter, and his eagerness to introduce legislation codifying the same thing, "the new Dole" was born. The new Dole apparently had decided to erase his image as one of Israel's few Senate critics with one bold stroke that might even put President Bill Clinton, the champion panderer to Israel among Democratic presidential candidates in 1992, in the almost inconceivable position of having to veto a pro-Israel bill.

Most bewildered were Arab and Muslim Americans, who had regarded Dole as a sympathetic senator who seldom hesitated to speak to Arab-American groups, who seemed to understand the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestine problem, and who was the most willing of any member of the Senate to force a unilateral lifting of the U.N. arms embargo that keeps the Bosnian government from helping itself.

Predictably there were suspicions that wealthy Jewish backers of Israel, hedging their bets on Clinton, had promised healthy infusions into Dole's presidential campaign war chest. There also was a rumor that Republican Senator Alfonse D'Amato had promised to help Dole carry New York in the Republican presidential primary elections if Dole would make a spectacular pro-Israel gesture.

Whatever the reason for Dole's move, it nipped in the bud plans to give Arab and Muslim Americans some political visibility for the first time in history by raising sizable contributions for use by Dole in the primary elections. Said one disgusted Arab-American businessman who had set himself the personal goal of raising $200,000 before the end of the year for the Dole campaign, "Today I wouldn't be able to persuade anyone to give $5 dollars to Dole. Maybe in a month or two people won't feel so strongly, but I'm not sure now that I care."

Whether or not Arab Americans could have made good on their plans, comments by pro-Israel activists indicated that Dole's gesture had little resonance among Jewish leaders, who boast that 85 percent of Jewish votes went to Clinton in the 1992 election. Wrote Stanley Hilton, a former Senate committee staffer in an "unauthorized" biography of Dole scheduled for publication by St. Martin's press this fall under the title Senator for Sale: "Like his hero Richard Nixon and many other traditional WASP Republicans, Dole has sometimes been critical of Jews, their policies and their financial power." In a chapter entitled "Summer Soldier for Israel: From Staunch Supporter to Angry Critic," Hilton charged that Dole turned against Israel after not receiving enough "Jewish money" for his 1988 presidential bid, and changed his tune again this year when "a stampede of Jewish moneymen" signed on to his 1996 campaign. Dole campaign spokesman Nelson Warfield called Hilton's charges "wild, unfounded accusations by a low-level committee staffer who never had any direct access to Senator Dole."

Democratic Party and Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg, in an interview with the Washington Jewish Week, predicted that American Jews would stand by Bill Clinton in 1996, just as they did in 1992. He said that Jews, by and large, share Clinton's beliefs on many social issues and that the concept of the New Covenant, articulated in Clinton's 1995 State of the Union speech, "resonates with the Jewish community." Also, Greenberg pointed out, U.S.-Israeli relations are close to or at an all- time high because Clinton has succeeded in "understanding Israel's interests." Concluded Greenberg, "I don't sense at any point that this is a president that is badgering Israel to do things that would be in violation of its national interest."

In fact, Dole's gesture may have little long-term effect on the election. Neither his nor similar bills to move the embassy seem likely to pick up enough support to pass in either the House or Senate. The Israeli government does not support them, now, so AIPAC is quiet on the subject, even though three other Republican candidates also have called for the embassy to be moved.

They are conservative Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who changed parties in the 1980s and of whom one veteran Texas newspaper columnist remarked, "Even his friends don't like him"; Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, whose support in the polls remains in the low single digits; and Gov. Pete Wilson of California, favorite of most pro-Israel Republicans, who has gotten off to a very slow start because of problems with his voice, and with his political record at home.

A July 1 poll showed approval ratings for Clinton at 47 percent, a rise of three points, and for Dole at 48 percent. With no other Republican candidate in even the same ballpark, it increasingly appears that in the absence of other factors such as the appearance again of third-party candidates, Dole is the only Republican likely to be able to beat Clinton in the November 1996 general election.

Dole's strength also is reflected in campaign fund-raising reports filed by the end of June, which showed he has raised more than any Republican rival for the nomination. He collected more than $9 million in the second quarter of 1995, giving him a total to date of $13.2 million, 40 percent of which has been raised by direct mail contributions averaging $35 each. That is a higher figure than any presidential candidate ever has raised so early in a presidential campaign. After deducting campaign expenses, the Dole campaign had $6.5 million in the bank as of July 1.

Close behind in fund-raising, if not in the polls, is Senator Gramm, who raised $8.7 million in the first quarter of the year and $3.4 million in the second quarter for a total of $12.1 million to date. He still has $7.2 million unspent.

Former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander has raised $7.6 million to date. Wilson reported raising $3.8 million and spending $1.6 million to date. Sen. Richard Lugar has raised just over $3 million since entering the race in March, and Senator Specter has raised $1.7 million. Reports for candidates Patrick Buchanan, Alan Keyes and California Rep. Robert Dornan had not been filed as of July 1. The deadline is July 15.

Under Federal Election Commission rules, to qualify for federal matching funds presidential candidates are limited to spending just over $30 million for primary elections and can spend an additional $10 million on fund-raising, accounting and legal costs. To qualify for federal matching funds, they must raise between $25 million and $28 million through the end of primary election cycle. The rest of the $40 million will become available through the matching funds, starting in January.

Two other candidates besides Dole have appeal for Arab-American voters. Commentator Buchanan has been outspokenly critical of the extent of U.S. foreign aid devoted to Israel, but his appeal to Muslim-American voters is undermined by his isolationist stance on Bosnia. Sen. Richard Lugar is even more supportive of Bosnia than is Dole, and Lugar has not compromised his relatively evenhanded stands on the Middle East peace process with last-minute pandering to Israel. However, as with all of Dole's competitors for the Republican nomination, Lugar's poll numbers do not yet indicate that he can secure the Republican nomination or defeat Clinton in the general election.

Explaining Dole's huge lead over other Republican candidates in the polls, and persistent edge over Clinton, the frustrated White House aide quoted at the top of this article explained that when people trust a candidate they will forgive him gaffes, blunders and even statements they know he does not believe. That is why Dole's pandering to capture the extreme right-wing support he thinks he needs to clinch the Republican nomination so far hasn't hurt him much with moderate voters. On the other hand, when voters no longer trust a candidate, the same statements are labeled sellouts, bribes and lies. So far, it seems, trust is the key factor that is buoying up Dole's campaign and weighing down Clinton's.

Lucille Barnes writes on national affairs from Washington, DC.