Election Year Politics

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Specter Embattled

Lest anyone has forgotten, 1986 is an election year; a time when U.S. congressmen and senators bend over backward to prove their devotion to Israel in an effort to gain the electoral and monetary support of America's powerful pro-Israel lobby—even at the expense of larger U.S. interests. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), a first-term senator who faces a tough reelection campaign against popular Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Bob Edgar, is a prime example.

Specter, who is Jewish himself, has courted the pro-Israel vote during his six years in office by strongly backing aid for Israel and opposing arms sales to moderate Arab countries. Last June, for example, Specter voted against the Reagan administration's $264 million arms sale to Saudi Arabia, commenting flatly during the debate preceeding the vote that "the Saudis have not contributed to the Mideast peace process." Similarly, earlier in the spring Specter added his name to a letter sent to Secretary of State George Shultz opposing a possible visit by PLO (Palestine liberation Organization) Chairman Yasser Arafat to the United Nations this fall.

Now, Specter, in his position on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee (this subcommittee establishes the guidelines for all U.S. foreign aid appropriations), plans to introduce an amendment banning future U.S. contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Specter claims that UNRWA, rather than aiding Palestinian refugees, has become a front for the PLO and that the monies contributed to this UN organization could be put to better use. Last fiscal year (FY 1986) the United States spent approximately $20 million to support UNRWA activities, while sending some $3.75 billion to the Israeli government in the form of grant economic and military aid. [FY 1986 aid to Israel was inflated by a $1.5 billion emergency economic aid package approved in FY 1985 and disbursed evenly during the 1985 and 1986 fiscal years.] For FY 1987, which begins October 1, 1986, the administration has requested a similar sum for UNRWA activities, while proposing $3.0 billion in grant economic and military aid to Israel. Not surprisingly, Israel's $3 billion is safe. What will happen to the approximately $20 million proposed for UNRWA, however, is uncertain.

These staunchly pro-Israel activities have made Specter a darling of the approximately 80 pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) that have sprouted across the U.S. in the past four years. Through the second quarter of 1986, 28 of these pro-Israel PACs had contributed approximately $95,000 to Specter's reelection campaign. These contributions represent some 13 percent of Specter's overall PAC monies—certainly not an inconsequential sum and one that is likely to rise much higher as the November elections draw closer. [In a forthcoming book, AET will examine the contribution totals and patterns of these pro-Israel PACs as well as their impact on the 1986 election cycle.]

The Lavi's Nine lives

Senator Specter was by no means alone in his pro-Israel efforts last month. Despite the continuing disagreement between the U.S. and Israeli governments over the feasibility of Israel's program to build its new Lavi jet fighter, Representative Mel Levine (D-CA)—a staunchly pro-Israel, Jewish member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee—headed a group of eight representatives who wrote to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in mid-July urging the secretary to release a total of $67 million for contracts for the controversial fighter plane that had been withheld by the department pending the completion of a review of the entire project. (A similar letter was sent by a group of pro-Israel senators including, not surprisingly, Senator Specter, as well as Senators Robert Kasten (R-WI), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) among others.) These pressure tactics were successful. In mid-August the department announced that it had released the monies, even though the review was still in progress.

In similar fashion, Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY)—a strong supporter of Israel who is the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and a likely contender for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination—pledged his "absolute" support for the Lavi program in his keynote address at the public roll-out ceremony in Lod, Israel, of the first prototype in late July. In his speech, Kemp said it was Israel's decision "and no one else's" to produce the plane, adding: "I am convinced that the Reagan administration and the American people will stand behind your decision." All this despite the fact that the U.S. government—in reality, the U.S. taxpayer—has so far footed the entire bill, now close to $2 billion, for the research and development phase of the project. Former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens even suggested earlier this year that "if we (Israel) play our cards right," there is no reason why the U.S. government wouldn't also support the production phase of the Lavi project. Arens was probably right. In the foreign aid bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee at the end of July, $450 million of Israel's $1.8 billion in military aid was earmarked for the Lavi program. [See the August 11, 1986, Washington Report for complete details of the U.S. foreign aid program for fiscal year 1987]

Yarmulkes in the Armed Forces?

Just before adjourning for its three-week August recess, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 255 to 152, approved an amendment to the 1987 Department of Defense Authorization Bill that would permit members of the U.S. armed forces to wear "neat and unobtrusive" headgear while on active duty. [Exactly what "neat and unobtrusive" means, however, is not defined by the amendment; a situation which has led many of the proposal's critics to charge that there would be chaos within the armed forces until a precise definition was agreed upon. For example, these critics ask, would a Sikh's turban be considered "neat and unobtrusive?"] The "yarmulke amendment," so named because it was proposed following an unsuccessful court fight by a Jewish member of the armed forces who claimed that his religious freedom was being violated because he was being prevented from wearing his yarmulke while on duty, was strongly supported by Norman Sisisky (D-VA), a Jewish member of the House Armed Services Committee and Stephen Solarz (D-NY), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who is also Jewish. Despite the strong backing of Carl Levin (D-MI) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), both Jewish members of the Senate, a similar amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate. Consequently, the dispute will have to be resolved by a conference committee when Congress reconvenes in September.

The Jerusalem Bill: Defeat for the pro-Israel Lobby?

Ever so quietly, Congress deferred taking action on Senator Jesse Helms' controversial amendment to the diplomatic security bill (H.R. 4151) that would have forced the United States to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In a conference committee decision, Senator Helms' amendment was deleted; in its place, the committee inserted language prohibiting any money from being spent to upgrade any U.S. diplomatic facilities in Israel. As a result of Senator Helms' amendment, and Congress' all-too-obvious unwillingness to deal with such a controversial issue so close to the 1986 elections, U.S. diplomats in Israel will remain in substandard quarters for the foreseeable future. This issue—which involved a Hobson's choice between a setback for the pro-Israel lobby in Congress or a very serious setback for U.S. policy throughout the region—received almost no media coverage.

Dennis J. Wamsted is News Editor of the Washington Report.