PART 2:THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT

THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT
PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS 
CONFRONT ISRAEL'S LOBBY 
by Paul Findley

2

Stilling the Still, Small Voices

The youthful Congressman from California listened as his House colleagues expressed their views. His earnest manner and distinctive shock of hair roused memories of an earlier Congressman, John F. Kennedy. For more than an hour, between comments of his own, Representative Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey yielded the floor to other Congressmen, 23 in all. While they cooperated by requesting from Speaker "Tip" O'Neill allocations of time for the debate, most of them did so in order to avoid a sticky issue. They were ducking legislative combat, not engaging in it. 

Real debate was almost unknown on the subject McCloskey had chosen,aid to Israel. Most Congressmen, fearing lobby pressure, carefully avoid statements or votes that might be viewed as critical of Israel. Not McCloskey. Admired for his courage and independence, he began opposing the Vietnam war long before most Americans, withstood the lobbying of Greek Americans to cut off military aid to Turkey, consistently supported controversial civil rights measures, and now challenged conventional wisdom on Middle East policy. He and I were members of a tiny band of Congressmen willing to criticize Israel publicly, and both of us would soon leave Capitol Hill involuntarily. 

On that June afternoon in 1980, most of McCloskey's colleagues provided him with debate time-and joined him in the discussion because they saw this as the only way to keep him from forcing them to vote on an amendment cutting aid to Israel. Some of them privately agreed with McCloskey's position but did not want his amendment to come to a vote. If that happened, they would find themselves in the distressing circumstance of reacting to the pressure of Israel's lobby by voting against McCloskey's amendment-and their own conscience. 

In offering his amendment, McCloskey called for an end to the building of Israeli settlements in the territory in the West Bank of the Jordan river which Israel held by force of arms. To put pressure on Israel to stop, he wanted the U.S. to cut aid by $150 million-the amount he estimated Israel was annually spending on these projects. In the end, tough realities led him to drop his plan to bring the amendment to a vote: 

Friend and foe alike asked me not to press the amendment. Some of my friends argued that if I did get a roll call, the amendment would have been badly defeated. If that happened, they argued, Israel would take heart-saying "Sure, somebody spoke out, but look how we smashed him." Every Jewish Congressman on the floor of the House told me privately that I was right. 

Representative James Johnson, a Republican from Colorado and one of the few to support McCloskey, was aware of the pressure other Congressmen were putting on him. Johnson declared that many of his colleagues privately opposed Israel's expansion of settlements but said Congress was "incapable" of taking action contrary to Israeli policy: "I would just like to point out the real reason that this Congress will not deal with the gentleman's amendment is because it concerns the nation of Israel." 

It was not the first time peer pressure had stopped amendments viewed as anti-Israeli, and McCloskey was not the first to back down to accommodate colleagues. Such pressure develops automatically when amendments restricting aid to Israel are discussed. Many Congressmen are embarrassed at the high level of aid-Israel receives one-fourth of all U.S. foreign aid-and feel uncomfortable being recorded as favoring it. But, intimidated by Israel's friends, they are even less comfortable being recorded in opposition. How much of the lobby's power is real, and how much illusion, is beside the point. Because they perceive it as real, few Congressmen wish to take a chance. Worrying endlessly about political survival, they say: "Taking on the Israeli lobby is something I can do without. Who needs that?" On several occasions, sensing I was about to force a troublesome vote on aid to Israel, a colleague would whisper to me, "Your position on this is well known. Why put the rest of us on the spot?" 

Most committee action, like the work of the full House, is open to the public, and none occurs on Israeli aid without the presence of at least one representative of A.I.P.A.C. His presence ensures that any criticism of Israel will be quickly reported to key constituents. The offending Congressman may have a rash of angry telephone messages to answer by the time he returns to his office from the hearing room. 

Lobbyists for A.I.P.A.C are experts on the personalities and procedures of the House. If Israel is mentioned, even behind closed doors, they quickly get a full report of what transpired. These lobbyists know that aid to Israel, on a roll call vote, will receive overwhelming support. Administration lobbyists count on this support to carry the day for foreign aid worldwide. Working together, the two groups of lobbyists pursue a common interest by keeping the waters smooth and frustrating "boat rockers" like McCloskey. 

Assaulting the Citadels 

For McCloskey, compromise was an unusual experience. Throughout his public career he usually resisted pressures, even when his critics struck harshly. 

This was true when he became nationally prominent as a critic of the Vietnam war-an effort that led him in 1972 to a brief but dramatic campaign for the presidency. His goal was a broad and unfettered discussion of public issues, particularly the war. The wrong decisions, he believed, generally "came about because the view of the minority was not heard or the view of thinking people was quiet." He contended that the Nixon administration was withholding vital information on a variety of issues. He charged it with "preying on people's fear, hate and anger." 

When McCloskey announced for president, his supporters sighed, "Political suicide." His opponents, particularly those in the party's right wing, chortled the very same words. Although the Californian recognized that his challenge might jeopardize his seat in Congress, he nevertheless denounced the continuation of the war: "Like other Americans, I trusted President Nixon when he said he had a plan to end the war." McCloskey agonized over the fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers continued to die, and United States air power, using horrifying cluster bombs, rained violence on civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. 

McCloskey knew war's effects firsthand. As a Marine in Korea he was wounded leading his platoon in several successful bayonet assaults on entrenched enemy positions. He emerged from the Korean war with a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. He later explained that this wartime experience gave him "a strong sense of being lucky to be alive." It also toughened him for subsequent assaults on entrenched enemies of a different sort-endeavors which brought no medals for bravery. 

For protesting the war, McCloskey was branded "an enemy of the political process," and even accused of communist leanings. ''At least fifty right-wing members of the House believe McCloskey to be the new Red menace," wrote one journalist. The allegation was ridiculous,of course, but party stalwarts in California clearly were restive. So much so, according to the California Journal, that he "needed the personal intervention of then Vice-President Gerald R. Ford to save him in the 1974 primary." 

His maverick ways exacted a price. He was twice denied a place on the Ways and Means Committee. Conservatives on the California delegation rebuffed the liberal Republican's bid for membership, even though he was entitled to the post on the basis of seniority. 

By the time of his ill-fated 1980 amendment on aid to Israel, McCloskey had put himself in the midst of the Middle East controversy. After a trip to the Middle East in 1979, he concluded that new Israeli policies were not in America's best interests. He was alarmed over Washington's failure to halt Israel's construction of West Bank settlements-which the Administration itself had labeled illegal-and to stop Israel's illegal use of U.S.-supplied weapons. The Congressman asked, "Why?" 

The answer was not hard to find. The issue, like most relating to the Middle East, was too hot for either Congress or the White House to handle. A call for debate provoked harsh press attacks and angry constituent mail. To McCloskey, the attacks were ironic. He viewed himself as supportive of both Jewish and Israeli interests. As a college student at Stanford University in 1948, he had helped lead a successful campaign to open Phi Delta Theta fraternity for the first time to Jewish students. He reminded a critic, Earl Raab of the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, that he had "voted for all the military and economic assistance we have given to Israel in the past." McCloskey also vigorously defended Israel's right to lobby: "Lobbying is and should be an honorable and important part of the American political process." He described the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as "the most powerful lobby in Washington," insisting there was "nothing sinister or devious" about it. 

Still, McCloskey had raised a provocative question: "Does America's 'Israeli lobby' wield too much influence?" In an article for the Los Angeles Times he provided his answer: "Yes, it is an obstacle to real Mideast peace." McCloskey cited the risk of nuclear confrontation in the Middle East and the fundamental differences between the interests of Israel and the United States. He observed that members of the Jewish community demand that Congress support Israel in spite of these differences. This demand, he argued, "coupled with the weakness of Congress in the face of any such force, can prevent the president, in his hour of both crisis and opportunity, from having the flexibility necessary to achieve a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace."

He pleaded for full discussion: 

If the United States is to work effectively toward peace in the Mideast, the power of this lobby must be recognized and countered in open and fair debate. I had hoped that the American Jewish community had matured to the point where its lobbying efforts could be described and debated without raising the red flag of Antisemitism. • • • To recognize the power of a lobby is not to criticize the lobby itself. 

The article appeared shortly before McCloskey's bid for his party's nomination for the 1982 Senatorial race in California. It was an unorthodox opening salvo, to say the least, and most of the reaction was critical. One of the exceptions was an analysis by the Redlands Daily Facts (California) which called his campaign a "brave but risky business." The newspaper described him as "the candidate for those who want a man with whom they will disagree on some issues, but who has the courage of his intelligent convictions." 

On the other hand, Paul Greenberg, in a syndicated article in the San Francisco Examiner, wrote that McCloskey had accused the Israeli lobby of "busily subverting the national interest" and linked him with notorious anti-Semite Gerald L. K. Smith. This time, McCloskey did not need to fight back. A few days later, the same newspaper published an opposing view. Columnist Guy Wright noted that Greenberg had accused McCloskey of McCarthy era tactics without quoting "a single line from the offensive speech." Wright observed that this was itself a common tactic of McCarthyism. He cited with approval several of McCloskey's recommendations on foreign policy and concluded: "Now I ask you. Are those the ravings of an anti-Semite? Or fair comment on issues too long kept taboo?" 

Such supportive voices were few. An article in the B'nai B'rith Messenger charged that McCloskey had proposed that all rabbis be required to register as foreign agents, declaring that he had made the proposal in a meeting with the editors of the Los Angeles Times. The author assured his readers that the tidbit came from a "very reliable source," and the charge was published nationally. The charge was a complete fabrication, and Times editor Tony Day was quick to back up McCloskey's denial. 

The Messenger published a retraction a month later, but the accusation lingered on. Even the Washington office of the Israeli lobby did not get the retraction message. In an interview about McCloskey two years later, Douglas Bloomfield, legislative director for A.I.P.A.C, apparently unaware of the retraction, repeated the accusation as fact. Such false information may have colored his view of McCloskey,whom he described as "bitter" with "an intense sense of hostility" toward Jews: 

I hesitate to use the term that he was anti-Semitic. Being anti-Israeli is a political decision. Being anti-Semitic is something totally different. I think he did not just creep over the boundary. 

Despite the Messenger's retraction, there was no letup in criticism of McCloskey. The Messenger charged McCloskey with denigrating "the Constitutional exercise of petitioning Congress," with "obstreperous performances," and with marching on a "platform of controversy unmindful of the fact that the framework of his platform is dangerously undermined with distortion, inaccuracy and maybe even malicious mischief." Another Jewish publication published his picture with the caption, "Heir to Goebbels." An article in the Heritage Southwest Jewish Press used such descriptive phrases as "No.1 sonovabitch," "obscene position against the Jews of America," "crummy" and "sleazy" in denouncing him. 

Although used to rough and tumble partisanship, McCloskey was shocked at the harshness of the attacks. No rabbis or Jewish publications defended him. One of a small number of individual Jews who spoke up in his behalf was Merwyn Morris, a prominent businessman from Atherton, California. Morris argued that "McCloskey is no more anti-Semitic than I am"-but he still switched his support to McCloskey's opponent in the Senatorial election. 

Josh Teitelbaum, who had served for a short time on McCloskey's staff and was the son of a Palo Alto rabbi, resigned from McCloskey's staff partly because he disagreed with the Congressman's attitude toward Israel. But he also defended his former employer: "McCloskey is not anti-Semitic, but his words may give encouragement to those who are." 

McCloskey's views on Israel complicated,to put it mildly campaign fund raising. Potential sources of Jewish financial support dried up. One former supporter, Jewish multimillionaire Louis E. Wolfson, wrote: "I now find that I must join with many other Americans to do everything possible to defeat your bid for the U.S. Senate and make certain that you will not hold any future office." 

Early in the race, when McCloskey was competing mainly with Senator S.I.Hayakawa for the nomination, he felt he had a chance. Both were from the northern part of the state, where McCloskey had his greatest strength. After Hayakawa dropped out and Pete Wilson, the popular mayor of San Diego, entered the contest, McCloskey's prospects declined. 

When the primary election votes were counted, McCloskey had won the north but lost the populous south. He finished 10 percentage points behind Wilson. Still, his showing surprised the experts. Polls and forecasters had listed him third or fourth among the four contenders right up to the last days. Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr., the early favorite, emerged a poor third, and Robert Doman, another Congressional colleague, finished fourth. 

The final tally on election day was close enough to cause a number of people to conclude that without the Jewish controversy McCloskey might have won. All three of McCloskey's opponents received Jewish financial support. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, drew a definite conclusion: "Jewish political participation" defeated McCloskey. 

The lobby attack did not end when the polls closed, nor did McCloskey shun controversy. On September 22, 1982, a few days after the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in the refugee camps at Beirut, McCloskey denounced a proposed new $50 million grant for Israel in a speech on the House floor. He warned that the action "might be taken as a signal of our support for what Israel did last Thursday in entering West Beirut and creating the circumstances which led directly to the massacre." Despite his protest, the aid was approved. 

In the closing hours of the 97th Congress, after 15 years as a member of "this treasured institution," McCloskey invoked George Washington's Farewell Address in his own farewell, citing the first president's warning that "a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils." 

McCloskey found this advice "eminently sound" and said that Congress, in action completed the day before, had demonstrated a "passionate attachment" to Israel by voting more aid per capita to that country "than we allow to many of the poor and unemployed in our own country," despite evidence that "Israel is no longer behaving like a friend of the United States." 

McCloskey's Academic Freedom 

With his political career interrupted, if not ended, McCloskey planned to return to a partnership in the Palo Alto law firm he helped John Wilson, a fellow graduate of Yale Law School, establish years before. "Many of my old clients are still clients," he said, "and I wanted to go back to them. I never thought of going anywhere else." 

But others had different thoughts about McCloskey's future. Ken Oshman, president of the Rolm Corporation, the firm's biggest client, warned that his company "might take their law business elsewhere".If  McCloskey were to rejoin the firm. The senior partners invited McCloskey to lunch and told him the episode would not cause them to withdraw their invitation, but they wanted McCloskey to be "aware of the problem." McCloskey's response, "I don't want to come back and put you under that burden." In a letter to Oshman, McCloskey expressed his dismay. In reply, the industrialist said his company really wouldn't have taken its business elsewhere but reiterated his disagreement with McCloskey's views on Israel. 

McCloskey accepted a partnership with the San Francisco law firm of Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison, but the pressures followed him there. The firm received a telephone call from a man in Berkeley, California, who identified himself only as a major shareholder in the· Wells Fargo Bank, one of the law firm's major clients. He said that he intended to go to the next meeting of the shareholders and demand that the bank transfer its law business to another firm. The reason: the San Francisco firm was adding to its partnership a "known anti-Semite" who supported the Palestine Liberation Organization and its chairman, Yasser Arafat. McCloskey's partners ignored the threat, and the bank did not withdraw its business. 

A tracking system initiated by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith assured that McCloskley would have no peace, even as a private citizen. The group distributed a memorandum containing details of his actions and speeches to its chapters around the country. According to the memo, it was designed to "assist" local A.D.L groups with "counteraction guidance" whenever McCloskey appeared in public. 

Trouble dogged him even on the campus. McCloskey accepted an invitation from the student governing council of Stanford University to teach a course on Congress at Stanford. Howard Goldberg-a council member and also director of the Hillel Center, the campus Jewish club-told the group that inviting McCloskey was "a slap in the face of the Jewish community." Student leader Seth Linfield held up preparation of class materials then demanded the right to choose the guest lecturers. McCloskey refused, asserting that the young director had earlier assured him he could choose these speakers himself. 

Difficulties mounted as the semester went on. Guest speakers were not paid on time. McCloskey felt obliged to pay such expenses personally, then seek reimbursement. His own remuneration was scaled downward as the controversy developed. Instead of the $3,500 stipend originally promised, Linfield later reduced the amount to $2,000 and even that amount was in doubt. According· to a report in the San Jose Mercury News, the $2,000 would be paid only if Linfield was satisfied with McCloskey's performance. One student, Jeffrey Au,complained to school authorities that the controversy impaired academic quality. Responding, Professor Hubert Marshall wrote that he viewed the student activities as "unprecedented and a violation of Mr. McCloskey's academic freedom." 

McCloskey reacted sharply to his critics at Stanford: 

It's a kind of reverse anti-Semitism. It is the Jewish community saying we don't want this person teaching at Stanford and, if he does teach, we don't want him using this material. 

The San Francisco Chronicle observed that McCloskey's appointment had provoked interest beyond the university campus, noting that "Jewish leaders around the Bay Area expressed concern when Stanford's student government voted narrowly to hire McCloskey." 

By mid-May, the controversy elicited action by the university provost, Albert H. Hastorf, who apologized in a letter that made news from coast to coast. He expressed the hope that McCloskey might derive "some small compensation" in knowing that his case "will cause us to revise our procedures so that future guest professors and other instructors at Stanford will enjoy the special protections that their positions warrant." With the apology came a payment which brought his stipend for the course to the $3,500 agreed to originally. 

McCloskey told the Peninsula Times-Tribune, "Stanford doesn't owe me an apology." He said his satisfaction came when all but one of the fifty students rated his class "in the high range of excellence," but he warned that other schools might face trouble. He noted that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "has instructed college students all over the country to take similar actions." (see chapters six and seven) 

The end of the course did not terminate McCloskey's activities in foreign policy. Throughout 1983 and into 1984, while engaged in the practice of law, he filled frequent speaking dates on the Arab-Israel dispute in the United States, flew several times to Europe and the Middle East, and wrote numerous newspaper and journal articles. 

While castigating Israeli policies, he also appealed to Palestinians and other Arabs to recognize the right of Israel to exist and on one occasion even traveled to Europe to make the appeal. In September 1983 he addressed the International Conference on the Question of Palestine at Geneva, urging the Conference to endorse all United Nations resolutions concerning the Middle East conflict. This, he explained, would put the group on record in support of Palestinian rights but also in support of Israel's right to exist on the land it occupied before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. He offered amendments designed to lift a pending declaration from the level of "partisanship" to that of "fairness and truth," thus giving the conference effect beyond its membership and answering "the doubters and faint hearts" who had boycotted it. 

McCloskey urged a call for the security of Israel, as well as justice for the Palestinians, and forecast that such action could "change American public opinion and ultimately the actions of the U.S. Congress." The conference rejected his advice. 

"It Didn't Cripple Us" 

But While McCloskey, a leader in the white Republican establishment, battled for universal human rights and against further United States involvement in the Vietnam war, a black Baptist preacher from the District of Columbia, known nationally as a "street activist," pursued the same goals within Democratic ranks. 

Both were members of the House of Representatives, good friends, and both undertook controversial journeys to Lebanon in behalf of peace. Both paid a price for their activism, but the preacher survived politically, while the ex-Marine did not. The preacher is the Reverend Walter Fauntroy. Working for justice in the Middle East-not their record of activism for civil rights at home or opposition to the Vietnam war-caused trouble for both of them. 

In large measure, Fauntroy's problems began over another black leader's endeavors for justice in the Middle East. Andrew Young resigned under fire as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in August, 1979, after it was revealed that he had met with the PLO's U.N. observer, Zuhdi Labib Terzi. Many blacks were outraged by the resignation, blaming it on Israeli pressure and, like Young, found unreasonable the policy which prohibited our officials from talking even informally with PLO officials. 

Relations between American blacks and Jews-long-time allies in the civil rights movement-had already been strained by disagreements over affirmative action programs intended to give blacks employment quotas and by Israel's close relations with the apartheid regime in South Africa. The resignation of Young, the most prominent black in the Carter Administration, intensified the strain. "This is the most tense moment in black and Jewish relations in my memory," said the Reverend Jesse Jackson shortly after the resignation. 

During the civil rights movement of the 1960's, Fauntroy, one of the blacks most disturbed by the resignation, had worked with Young in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (S.C.L.C) under the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. They had acquired the nickname "The Brooks Brothers" because of their habit of wearing suits and neckties on civil rights marches while most of the others were dressed more casually. 

To show support for Young and disagreement with United States policy, Fauntroy and S.C.L.C President Joseph Lowery traveled to New York in the fall of 1979 to meet with Terzi. Fauntroy said he hoped to help establish communication between Arabs and Israelis and so promote a nonviolent solution to Middle East problems, adding, "Neither Andy Young nor I, nor other members of the S.C.L.C, apologize for searching for the relevance of Martin Luther King's policies in the international political arena." 

While Terzi said he was "happy and gratified" at the meeting with the black leaders and hoped "much more will be learned by the American people," prominent members of Washington's Jewish community were upset. 

"I don't think a responsible Congressman should have any truck with terrorists," complained Rabbi Stanley Rabinowitz. Although most Jews echoed this sentiment, a few stood by Fauntroy. Prominent Jewish businessman Joseph B. Danzansky said Fauntroy "has a right to do what he thinks his position entitles him to do." Danzansky, a friend and political ally of Fauntroy, added, "I'd be very shocked if there were any trace of anti-Jewish feeling. I have confidence in him as a human being." 

In an attempt to calm the critics and demonstrate their "fairness," Fauntroy, Lowery and other S.C.L.C leaders met with U.S. Jewish leaders and with Israel's U.N. ambassador, Yehuda Blum. Afterwards, Fauntroy told reporters that the black leaders were "asking both parties in the Middle East dispute to recognize each other's human rights and the right of self-determination." But pro-Israel interests saw the outcome differently. Howard Squadron, president of the American Jewish Committee, emerged from the meeting to say that the S.C.L.C contact with Terzi was "a grave error lending legitimacy to an organization committed to terrorism and violence." 

Against this tense background, black leaders from across the United States convened in New York to express their concern over the Young resignation and to affirm their right to speak out on matters of foreign policy. 

Some said they were making "a declaration of independence" in matters of foreign policy. Fauntroy said: 

In every war since the founding of this nation, black citizens have borne arms and died for their country. Their blood was spilled from Bunker Hill to Vietnam. It is to be expected that should the United States become drawn into war in the Middle East black Americans once more will be called upon to sacrifice their lives. [His words were prophetic of the sacrifices blacks were soon to make in Lebanon. While blacks constitute only 10 percent of the total U.S. population, 20 percent of the Marines killed in the terrorist truck bombing at Beirut-47 of 246-were black.] 

Even as they chafed at the criticism of their involvement in the Palestinian question, black leaders worried about how it would affect their efforts to advance civil rights in the United States. Jewish Americans had long been active in advocating civil rights and were often a major source of financial support for those efforts. Three of the four original organizers of the NAACP were Jewish. The Washington Post reported that during their meetings several black leaders "stressed the need to present a unified front on the self-determination issue, while at the same time acknowledging that some black organizations' heavy reliance on Jewish philanthropy might temper their views." The validity of this concern was borne out by reports that Jewish contributors had informed the NAACP and the Urban League that they would no longer be providing financial support. 

"It didn't cripple us," says Fauntroy, who also serves as chairman of the board of the S.C.L.C. "It just made us more resourceful and more sensitive to our need to put principle above politics on questions that bear on nonviolence and the quest for justice." It hurt fund raising for his personal campaign: "No question about that. Some of my former close supporters flatly stated to me that they were not going to contribute to my candidacy because I had taken the position that I did." 

He demonstrated his persistence three weeks later when he joined Lowery on a controversial trip to the Mideast. As they departed, Lowery declared their determination to "preach the moral principles of peace, nonviolence, and human rights." 

In a meeting with Yasser Arafat, they appealed for an end to violence, asking the PLO leader to agree to a six-month moratorium on violence. Arafat promised to present the proposal to the PLO's executive council. 

Fauntroy recalls the dramatic moment, "We asked Dr. Harry Gibson of the United Methodist Church to pray. Then a Roman Catholic priest said a prayer in Arabic. We wept. At the end of the prayer, someone-I don't know who-started singing 'We Shall Overcome: and Arafat just immediately crossed his arms and linked hands." 

Jews in the United States, who had joined with blacks in singing the same hymn during the tense days of the civil rights movement in America, found this episode offensive and were alarmed at photos showing Fauntroy embracing Arafat. Some feared the emotional meeting symbolized a new black alliance with the PLO and a betrayal of their own support of blacks. They rejected the black leaders' insistence that they were impartial advocates of peace. 

The controversy deepened when Fauntroy, on his return from the Middle East, announced that he had invited Arafat to speak in the United States at an "educational forum" to be sponsored by the S.C.L.C. It would be the first in a series where opposing views could be considered. 

He explained, "It would offer an opportunity for the American people to hear both sides of the conflict, to understand it and to influence our government." Predictably, the announcement sparked criticism. Rabbi Joshua Haberman of Washington Hebrew Congregation declared that the Arafat visit would "fuel the flames that have been festering." 

At a news conference at his New Bethel Baptist Church, Fauntroy described his mission for peace and said he would persist: "I am first and foremost a minister of the gospel, called to preach every day that God is our father and all men are our brothers, right here from this pulpit." He added: "I could not be true to my highest calling if, when an opportunity to do so arose, I refused." 

He challenged his critics: "So let anyone who wishes run against me. Let anyone who wishes withdraw his support. It doesn't matter to me." 

Nor did Fauntroy budge when an issue close to his heart became threatened-the proposed Constitutional amendment to give full Congressional representation to the people of the District of Columbia. With the amendment pending before several state legislatures, Fauntroy's critics said his peacemaking efforts would jeopardize approval. He said he would not be moved by "people who are narrow and who want to protect our self-determination rights in the District of Columbia but refuse to see the right of other people who are also children of God." 

Fauntroy's resolve was to be tested during the Maryland legislature's consideration of the issue. Before the vote on this wholly unrelated matter, two Jewish delegates, Steven Sklar and David Shapiro, who had supported the amendment the previous year put Fauntroy on notice. They warned Fauntroy that unless he condemned the PLO they would defeat the amendment by reversing their own votes and persuade others to join them. Fauntroy rejected the demand, but the news coverage got twisted. In an editorial entitled "Groveling for the DC Amendment," the Washington Post reported that Fauntroy had promised to issue the required statement and chided him accordingly: "a handful of Maryland delegates have got Walter Fauntroy jumping through a hoop." Fauntroy called the Post story "a total fabrication."

The amendment was subsequently approved by a single vote, but without the support of delegates Sklar and Shapiro. 

Fauntroy's Middle East problems took on a new dimension in mid October when Vernon Jordan, president of the National Urban League, delivered a speech denouncing contacts between black leaders and the PLO as "sideshows" that distracted attention from the "vital survival issues facing American blacks at home." Some black leaders, including civil rights activist Bayard Rustin of the A. Philip Randolph Institute and a number of NAACP representatives, aligned themselves with Jordan. Before leaving for Israel to express solidarity, Rustin said he wanted Israelis to know that "there are great numbers of black people who want the United States to give Israel whatever support it needs." 

Other blacks supported Fauntroy and angrily denounced Jordan, accusing him of "selling out to the Jewish-Israeli lobby." 

"Any civil rights organization that cannot take a stand without being worried about its white money being cut off doesn't deserve to be a civil rights organization," said the Reverend George Lawrence of the Progressive National Baptist Convention. "We understand where Vernon is coming from ... He doesn't want his bread cut off. We support the right of Israel to exist, too. But we also support justice for the Palestinian people." 

Even before these exchanges among black leaders, Fauntroy announced that he had withdrawn his invitation to Arafat to visit the United States, citing the PLO failure to order a moratorium on violence. Even so, he said he would continue his peace efforts: "We think it is ludicrous to suggest that an appeal to the PLO to end its violence against Israeli men, women and children and to recognize the right of Israel to exist is tantamount to supporting terrorism and the destruction of Israel." Fauntroy added that he favored a 10 percent reduction in U.S. military aid to Israel, which, he said, would "send a message to Israel" not to use U.S.-supplied weaponry "on non-military targets." 

While considered unbeatable in the District of Columbia, Fauntroy's Middle East stand provoked minor competition in his bid for reelection in 1982. Announcing her intention to seek Fauntroy's Congressional seat, Marie Bembery emphasized that she wanted "to protest Walter Fauntroy putting his arms around PLO leader Vasser Arafat and singing, 'We Shall Overcome.'" She declared that she would take no position on the Middle East conflict, stating that the District of Columbia's delegate should "take care of problems here first." 

A month later, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, she raised the issue again at a candidates' forum at the Washington Hebrew Congregation. She baited Fauntroy: "I must say that I am shocked that Fauntroy would have the temerity, the gall to even show up at this forum, given his history of insensitivity to, and blatant misrepresentation of the Jewish community." Later in the evening, she said that if Washington's delegate were Jewish and hugged the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, there was "no way he could come back to D.C. and tell me he represents me as a black resident and voter of the district." [Amazing how these people will prostitute themselves for jewish support D.C] 

Fauntroy, speaking later to the same tense audience, stated, "I am a supporter of Israel and Israel's right to exist, and I have the same sensitivity to the people in diaspora who are the people of Palestine. I continue to support the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland today." 

Both candidates gave crisp responses when they were asked if they supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Fauntroy responded, "No." When Bembery said, "Yes," the audience stood and applauded. The challenger's campaign fell far short on primary election day, with Fauntroy receiving 85 percent of the vote. In the heavily Democratic district, Fauntroy was unopposed in the November general election. 

In the summer of 1983 Fauntroy found himself again embroiled in black-Jewish controversy. As chairman of the twentieth anniversary commemoration of the Rev. Martin Luther King's march on Washington, Fauntroy cooperated in a vain effort to win broad Jewish support for the celebration. He agreed with other leaders to revise a "foreign policy position" paper for the march to eliminate phrases offensive to Jewish leaders. The final version dropped a sentence saying there is general opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East, as well as phrases referring to "Palestinian rights" and calling on both Israel and the United States to talk directly with the PLO. Despite these concessions, most national Jewish groups refused to participate. 

Reflecting on the problems created by his quest for self determination of people in the Middle East, as well as in the District of Columbia, Fauntroy calls it "a growing experience" and plans to push ahead on both fronts. 

"Three Calls Within 13 Minutes" 

Few members of the House of Representatives, besides McCloskey and Fauntroy, have criticized Israeli policy in recent years. To a great extent this results from the vigilance and skill of that government's lobby on Capitol Hill which reacts swiftly to any sign of discontent with Israel, especially by those assigned to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

A young man working in 1981 in the office of the late Democratic Congressman Benjamin S. Rosenthal of New York, who was then the leader of the House's "Jewish caucus," witnessed firsthand the efficiency of this monitoring. 

Michael Neiditch, a staff consultant, was with Rosenthal in his office one morning when, just before 9 A.M., the phone rang. Morris Amitay, then executive director of A.I.P.A.C, had just read the Evans and Novak syndicated column that morning in the Washington Post and he didn't like what he read. The journalists reported that Rosenthal had recently told a group of Israeli visitors: "The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is like someone carrying a heavy pack on his back-the longer he carries it, the more he stoops over, but the less he is aware of the burden." Rosenthal had personally related the incident to Robert Novak. Although he used the descriptive image "ever so gently," according to Neiditch, it caused a stir. 

Amitay chided Rosenthal for speaking "out of turn." About five minutes later, Ephraim "Eppie" Evron, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, called with the same message. Then, just a few minutes later, Yehuda Hellman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations called. Again, the same message. Neiditch remembers that Rosenthal looked over and observed, "Young man, you've just seen the Jewish lobby's muscles flex." Neiditch recalls: "It was three calls within 13 minutes." 

Another senior committee member, an Ohio Congressman who was more independent of Israel's interests than Rosenthal, nevertheless found his activities closely watched. Republican Charles Whalen felt the pressure of the lobby when he accepted a last-minute invitation to attend a February 1973 conference in London on the Middle East. It was held under the auspices of the Ford Foundation. No Israeli representative was present, but to his surprise, on his return to Washington, Whalen was called on by an Israeli lobby official who demanded all of the meeting's details-the agenda, those present, why Whalen went and why Ford had sponsored it. 

Whalen recalls, "It was just amazing. They never let up." Whalen believes it was the last such conference Ford sponsored. "They got to them," Whalen speculates and adds that the experience was a turning point in his own attitude toward the lobby: "If I couldn't go to a conference to further my education, I began to wonder what's this all about." 

A Minnesota Democrat had reason for similar wonderment after he left Congress. Richard Nolan, now a businessman in Minneapolis, discovered the reluctance of his former colleagues to identify themselves with a scholarly article on the Middle East. He individually approached fifteen Congressmen, asking each to insert in the Congressional Record an article which discussed the potential for the development of profitable U.S. trade with Arab states. Written by Ghanim Al-Mazrui, an official of the United Arab Emirates, it proposed broadened dialogue and rejection of malicious stereotypes. Under House rules, when such items are entered in the Record, the name of the sponsoring member must be shown. 

Nolan reports, "Each of the fifteen said it was a terrific article that should be published but added, 'Please understand, putting it in under my name would simply cause too much trouble.' I didn't encounter a single one who questioned the excellence of the article, and what made it especially sad was that I picked out the fifteen people I thought most likely to cooperate." The sixteenth Congressman he approached, Democrat David E. Bonior of Michigan agreed to Nolan's request. The article appeared on page E 4791 of the October 5, 1983, Record. It was one of those unusual occasions when the Congressional Record contained a statement that might be viewed as critical of policies or positions taken by Israel or, as in this case, promoting dialogue with the Arabs. 

It was one of several brave steps by Bonior which may make him a future target of Israel's lobby. Speaking before the Association of Arab American University Graduates in Flint, Michigan, two months before the 1984 election, Bonior called for conditions on aid to Israel, declaring that the United States has been "rewarding the current government of Israel for undertaking policies that are contrary to our own," including Israel's disruption of "U.S. relations with long standing allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia." 

''An Incredible Burst of Candor" 

Even those high in House leadership who represent politically safe districts are not immune from lobby intimidation. They perceive lobby pressure back home and sometimes vote against their own conscience. 

In October 1981 President Reagan's controversial proposal to sell AWACS (intelligence-gathering airplanes) and modifying equipment for F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia was under consideration in the House. Congressman Daniel Rostenkowski, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the most influential legislators on Capitol Hill, got caught in the Israeli lobby, counterattack. It was the first test of strength between the lobby and the newly-installed president. Under the law, the sale would go through unless both Houses rejected it. The lobby strategy was to have the initial test vote occur in the House, where its strength was greater, believing a lopsided House rejection might cause the Senate to follow suit.

Under heavy pressure from the lobby, Rostenkowski cooperated by voting "No." Afterwards he told a reporter for Chicago radio station WMAQ that he actually favored the sale but voted as he did because he feared the "Jewish lobby." 

He contended that the House majority against the sale was so overwhelming that his own favorable vote "would not have mattered." Overwhelming it was, 301 to 111. Still, the Israeli lobby's goal was the highest possible number of negative votes in order to influence the Senate vote, and, to the lobby, Rostenkowski's vote did matter very much. 

Columnist Carl Rowan called Rostenkowski's admission "an incredible burst of candor." While declaring "it is as American as apple pie for monied interests to use their dough to influence decisions" in Washington, Rowan added, "There are a lot of American Jews with lots of money who learned long ago that they can achieve influence far beyond their numbers by making strategic donations to candidates ... No Arab population here plays such a powerful role." Rostenkowski, however, was not a major recipient of contributions from pro-Israeli political action committees. In the following year, his campaign received only $1,000 from such groups. 

While the lobby is watchful over the full membership of the House, particularly leaders like Rostenkoswki, it gives special emphasis to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where the initial decisions are made on aid, both military and economic. 

Allegiance to Israeli interests sometimes creates mystifying voting habits. Members who are "doves" on policy elsewhere in the world are unabashed "hawks" when Israel is concerned. As Stephen S. Rosenfeld, deputy editor of the editorial page of the Washington Post, wrote in May 1983: 

A Martian looking at the way Congress treats the administration's aid requests for Israel and EI Salvador might conclude that our political system makes potentially life-or-death decisions about dependent countries in truly inscrutable ways. 

Rosenfeld was intrigued with the extraordinary performance of the Foreign Affairs Committee on one particular day, May 11, 1983. Scarcely taking time to catch its breath between acts, the panel required the vulnerable government of El Salvador to "jump a series of extremely high political hurdles" in order to get funding "barely adequate to keep its nose above water," while, a moment later, handing to Israel, clearly the dominant military power in the Middle East, "a third of a billion dollars more than the several billion dollars that the administration asked for it." One of Israel's leading partisans, Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, spoke with enthusiasm for the El Salvador "hurdles" and for the massive increase to Israel. 

"Nobody in the Leadership Will Say No" 

Israel's lobby is especially attentive to the person occupying the position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, because of his or her ability to control the agenda at legislative meetings, takes a close interest when a vacancy occurs in the chairmanship. 

In January 1977, activists for the lobby found reason for concern when Clement J. Zablocki of Wisconsin, after waiting eighteen years as second-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, was in line to take over after the retirement of Chairman Thomas E. Morgan. A group of younger Democrats, led by Benjamin S. Rosenthal of New York, tried to keep Zablocki from the chairmanship. They based their challenge on allegations contained in a closely-held 38-page report prepared by Rosenthal's staff which contended that Zablocki had voted against too many Democratic foreign policy initiatives and had dubious Korean connections. 

Zablocki dismissed the Korean charges as "outright lies," and the Congressional Quarterly voting study reported that he had voted with his party 79 percent of the time in the previous Congress. Zablocki declared that the real complaint of Rosenthal and his associates was "a feeling that I was not friendly enough toward Israel." Yet, with the exception of one key vote, he had always supported aid to Israel. He told columnist Jack Anderson, who had publicized the Rosenthal report: "I'm not anti-Semitic, but I'm not as pro-Israel as Ben Rosenthal. Even then Israeli Prime Minister Rabin doesn't satisfy Rosenthal." 

Despite the lobby's opposition, Zablocki was elected chairman, 182 to 72. But the experience may have dulled his enthusiasm for Middle East controversy, as he did not again issue statements or cast votes opposing lobby requests. An aide said Zablocki could hardly be blamed, since the House leadership, principally Speaker ''Tip'' O'Neill, discourages opposition to Israel: "Nobody in the leadership will say no to the Israeli lobby. Nobody." 

"Outdoing the United Jewish Appeal" 

Stephen J. Solarz, a hard-working Congressman who represents a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn, prides himself on accomplishing many good things for Israel. Since his first election in 1974, Solarz established a reputation as an intelligent "eager beaver," widely traveled, aggressive, and totally committed to Israel's interests. In committee, he seems always bursting with the next question before the witness responds to his first. 

In a December 1980 newsletter to his constituents, he provided an unprecedented insight into how Israel-despite the budgetary restraints under which the U.S. government labors,is able to get ever increasing aid. Early that year he had started his own quest for increased aid. He reported that he persuaded Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to come to his Capitol Hill office to talk it over. There he threatened Vance with a fight for the increase on the House floor if the administration opposed it in committee. Shortly thereafter, he said Vance sent word that the administration would recommend an increase-$200 million extra in military aid,although not as much as Solarz desired. 

His next goal was to convince the Foreign Affairs Committee to increase the administration's levels. Solarz felt an increase approved by the committee could be maintained on the House floor. The first step was a private talk with Lee H. Hamilton, chairman of the subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, the panel that would first deal with the request. Tall, thoughtful, scholarly and cautious, Hamilton prides himself on staying on the same "wavelength" as the majority-whether in committee or on the floor. Never abrasive, he usually works out differences ahead of time and avoids open wrangles. Representing a rural Indiana district with no significant Jewish population, he is troubled by Israel's military adventures but rarely voices criticism in public. He guards his role as a conciliator. 

Solarz found Hamilton amenable: "He agreed to support our proposal to increase the amount of military assistance ... by another $200 million." That would bring the total increase to $400 million. Even more important, Hamilton agreed to support a move to relieve Israel of its obligation to repay any of the $785 million in economic aid. The administration had wanted Israel to pay back one-third of the amount.

"As we anticipated," Solarz reported, "with the support of Congressman Hamilton, our proposal sailed through both his subcommittee and the full committee and was never challenged on the floor when the foreign aid bill came up for consideration." Democrat Frank Church of Idaho, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Jacob Javits, senior Republican-both strongly pro Israeli-guided proposals at the same level smoothly through their chamber. 

Solarz summed up: "Israel, as a result, will soon be receiving a grand total of $660 million more in military and economic aid than it received from the U.S. government last year." He reflected upon the magnitude of the achievement:

Through a combination of persistence and persuasion, we were able to provide Israel with an increase in military-economic aid in one year alone which is the equivalent of almost three years of contributions by the national U.J.A [United Jewish Appeal]. 

In his newsletter Solarz said that he sought membership on the Foreign Affairs Committee "because I wanted to be in a position to be helpful to Israel." He explained that, while "hundreds of members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats" support Israel, "it is the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, who are really in a position to make a difference where it counts-in the area of foreign aid, upon which Israel is now so dependent." 

Solarz's zeal was unabated in September 1984 when, as a member of the House-Senate conference on Export Administration Act amendments, he demanded in a public meeting to know the legislation's implications for Israel. He asked Congressman Howard Wolpe, "Is there anything that the Israelis want from us, or could conceivably want from us that they weren't able to get?" Even when Wolpe responded with a clear "no," Solarz pressed, "Have you spoken to the Israeli embassy?" Wolpe responded, "I personally have not," but he admitted, "my office has." Then Solarz tried again, "You are giving me an absolute assurance that they the Israelis have no reservation at all about this?" Finally convinced that Israel was content with the legislation, Solarz relaxed, "If they have no problem with it, then there is no reason for us to." 

A veteran Ohio Congressman observes: 

When Solarz and others press for more money for Israel, nobody wants to say "No." You don't need many examples of intimidation for politicians to realize what the potential is. The Jewish lobby is terrific. Anything it wants, it gets. Jews are educated, often have a lot of money, and vote on the basis of a single issue-Israel. They are unique in that respect. For example, anti-abortion supporters are numerous but not that well educated, and don't have that much money. The Jewish lobbyists have it all, and they are political activists on top of it. 

This Congressman divides his colleagues into four groups: 

For the first group, it's rah, rah, give Israel anything it wants. The second group includes those with some misgivings, but they don't dare step out of line; they don't say anything. In the third group are Congressmen who have deep misgivings but who won't do more than try quietly to slow down the aid to Israel. Lee Hamilton is an example. The fourth group consists of those who openly question U.S. policy in the Middle East and challenge what Israel is doing. Since Findley and McCloskey left, this group really doesn't exist anymore. 

He puts himself in the third group: "I may vote against the bill authorizing foreign aid this year for the first time. If I do, I will not state my reason." 

Solarz has never wavered in his commitment to Israel. Another Congressman, although bringing much the same level of commitment when he first joined the committee, underwent a change. 

"Bleeding a Little Inside"
 

Democratic Congressman Mervyn M. Dymally, former Lieutenant governor of California, came to Washington in 1980 with perfect credentials as a supporter of Israel. He says, "When you look at black America, I rank myself second only to Bayard Rustin in supporting Israel over the past twenty years." Short, handsome and articulate, Dymally was the first black American to go to Israel after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. 

In his successful campaign for lieutenant-governor, he spoke up for Israel in all the statewide Democratic canvasses. He co-founded the Black Americans in Support of Israel Committee, organized pro-Israeli advertising in California newspapers and helped to rally other black officials to the cause. In Congress, he became a dependable vote for Israeli interests as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Nevertheless, in 1982 the pro-Israeli community withdrew its financial support, and the following year the A.I.P.A.C organization in California marked him for defeat and began seeking a credible opponent to run against him in 1984. Explaining this sudden turn of events, Dymally cites two "black marks" against his pro-Israeli record in Congress. First, he "occasionally asked challenging questions about aid to Israel in committee"; although his questions were mild and not frequent, he stood out because no one else was even that daring. Second-far more damning in the eyes of A.I.P.A.C-he met twice with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. 

Both meetings were unplanned. The first encounter took place in 1981 during a visit to Abu Dhabi, where Dymally had stopped to meet the local minister of planning while on his way back from a foreign policy conference in southern India. The minister told him he had just met with Arafat and asked Dymally if he would like to see him. Dymally recalls, "I was too chicken to say 'no.' but I thought I was safe in doing it. I figured Arafat would not bother to see an obscure freshman Congressman, especially on such short notice."

To his surprise, Arafat invited him to an immediate appointment. This caused near panic on the part of Dymally's escort, an employee of the U.S. embassy, who was taking Dymally on his round of appointments in the ambassador's car, a vehicle bedecked with a U.S. flag on the front fender. Sensitive to the U.S. ban on contact between administration personnel and PLO officials, the flustered escort removed the flag, excused himself and then directed the driver to deliver Dymally to the Arafat appointment. "He was really in a sweat," Dymally recalls. 

After a brief session with Arafat, he found a reporter for the Arab News Service waiting outside. Dymally told him Arafat expressed his desire for a dialogue with the United States. That night Peter Jennings reported to a nationwide American audience over ABC evening news from London that Dymally had become the first Congressman to meet Arafat since Ronald Reagan became president. 

The news caused an uproar in the Jewish community, with many Jews doubting Dymally's statement that the meeting was unplanned. Stella Epstein, a Jewish member of Dymally's Congressional staff, quit in protest. 

Dymally met the controversial PLO leader again in 1982 in a similarly coincidental way. He had gone to Lebanon with his colleagues, Democrats Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and David E. Bonoir of Michigan, and Republican Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey to meet with Lebanese leaders, visit refugee camps and view the effects of the Israeli invasion. 

Dymally was shocked by what he saw: ''There's no way you can visit those Palestinian refugee camps without bleeding a little inside." After arrival they accepted an invitation to meet with Arafat, who was then under siege in Beirut. 

His trouble with the Jewish community grew even worse. Dymally was wrongly accused of voting in 1981 for the sale of AWACS intelligence-gathering aircraft to Saudi Arabia. He actually voted the way the Israeli lobby wanted him to vote, against the sale. Moreover, to make his position explicit, during the House debate he stated his opposition in two separate speeches. He made the second speech, written for him by one of his supporters, Max Mont of the Jewish Labor Committee, Dymally explains, "because Mont complained that the first was not strong enough." 

Still, the message did not get through or by this time was conveniently forgotten. Carmen Warshaw, long prominent in Jewish affairs and Democratic Party politics in California-and a financial supporter of his campaigns-accosted Dymally at a public dinner and said, "I want my money back." Dymally responded, "What did I do, Carmen?" She answered, "You voted for AWACS." 

Dymally finds membership on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East a "no win" situation. He has alienated people on both sides. While one staff member quit in protest when he met Arafat. another, Peg McCormick, quit in protest when he voted for a large aid package that included money to build warplanes in Israel. 

For a time Dymally stopped complaining and raising questions about Israel in committee. Asked why by the Wall Street Journal, he cited the lobby's role in my own loss in 1982 to Democrat Richard J. Durbin. He told the Journal reporter. "There is no question the Findley-Durbin race was intimidating." 

Dymally found intimidation elsewhere as well. Whenever he complains. he says, he receives a prompt visit from an A.I.P.A.C lobbyist. usually accompanied by a Dymally constituent. He met one day with a group of Jewish constituents, "all of them old friends," and told them that, despite his grumbling, in the end he always voted for aid to Israel. He said: "Not once. I told them. have I ever strayed from the course." One of his constituents spoke up and said, "That's not quite right. Once you abstained." "They are that good." marveled Dymally. "The man was right." 

"I Hear You" 

After coming to Congress, Dymally waited two years before he complained publicly about aid to Israel. He first voiced his concern on a wintry day in 1983 in a Capitol Hill hearing room so crowded only those with sharp elbows could get inside the door. The newly-formed House subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the 98th Congress was meeting to hear testimony on how much economic aid should go to Israel. Those attending learned why such aid flows smoothly through Congress-and usually is increased en route. 

Sitting at the witness table was Nicholas Veliotes, at that time the assistant secretary of state for Mideast and South Asia Affairs. The tall, dark-haired career diplomat of Greek ancestry had previously served in Israel and Jordan and was on Capitol Hill that day to explain why the Reagan Administration wanted Congress to approve $785 million for economic support of Israel as part of a $2.5 billion aid package for the coming fiscal year. The totals were exactly the same as those requested the year before, but the administration had decided, in a proposal helpful to the U.S. budget, to require that Israel pay back one third of the amount it received for economic purposes. 

Taking part in the discussion were seven Democrats and one Republican, freshman Congressman Ed Zschau of California. 

The news media gave the event full coverage, with floodlights adding both heat and glare to the packed room. The lights weren't the only source of heat. For two sweltering hours Veliotes was roasted. Five of the Congressmen took turns pelting him with statements and questions which, in essence, castigated the administration for attempting to cut Israeli aid slightly from the amount approved the previous year. Only Dymally sided with the administration. 

The nature, intensity and imbalance of the grilling might have led a stranger to assume that Veliotes was being examined-not by U.S. Congressmen-but by a committee of the Israeli parliament. 

In two turns at questioning, Democrat Tom Lantos of California, a white-haired refugee from Hungary, sternly lectured Veliotes for being unresponsive to the new threats to Israel posed by the placement of new Soviet missiles in Syria as well as the expansion of Soviet arms sales to Libya. Lantos belittled as "skyhook policy" the insistence by the administration that all Israeli forces be removed from Lebanon. 

Those who had followed Lantos' 1982 campaign for re-election were not surprised at his line of questioning. At fund-raising events Lantos hammered at the theme, "Israel needs a voice in Congress." He offered himself as that voice. In that subcommittee hearing "the voice" was tuning up. 

A number of freshmen Democrats pursued similar questioning. Lawrence J. Smith of Florida saw Israeli military operations in Lebanon as a "substantial gain" toward "total peace" and wanted more money for Israel because aid dollars had been "eroded" by inflation. 

Mel Levine, another Californian, chimed in, noting Israel's "loss" in revenue when it yielded control of the Sinai oilfields to Egypt in compliance with the Camp David agreement. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey suspected "coercion" because the administration did not increase its request for Israel. 

Committee veteran Solarz reinforced the theme by recalling that over the last few years Congress had annually "adjusted upward" the level or "rearranged the terms" of aid in order to be "more helpful to Israel." 

Only Dymally complained that aid to Israel was too high. "How can the United States afford to give so much money in view of our economic crisis ... to a country that has rejected the President's peace initiatives and stepped up its settlements in the occupied territories?" he demanded. 

Ed Zschau, a freshman Republican from California, provided the only other break from the pro-Israel questioning: "Do you think there should be conditions on aid to Israel that might hasten the objectives of the peace process?" Getting no response, he pressed on: "Given that we are giving aid in order to achieve progress in peace in the area,  wouldn't it make sense to associate with the aid some modest conditions like a halt in the settlements policy?" 

Veliotes gave only cautious responses to the challenges. When Zschau pressed for a direct answer, Veliotes answered simply, "I hear you." Whatever his private sentiments, he had no authority to encourage the conditions Zschau suggested. 

Dymally spoke up again a month later when the Middle East subcommittee acted on the legislation to authorize aid to Israel and several other Middle East countries. Dymally offered an amendment increasing military aid to Egypt, half of it to be a loan and the other half a grant. He had logic behind his amendment: it would establish "parity" in the way the United States treated Israel and Egypt. Both were parties to the Camp David accords and considered friendly to the United States; and, Dymally argued, because Egypt's economic problems were more severe than Israel's, Egypt should receive U.S. generosity at least at the same level as that extended to Israel. 

His amendment was defeated. Congressman Lantos spoke against it, citing "budgetary reasons." Only Dymally voted "yes." Its rejection came moments after the subcommittee had passed without opposition an amendment to increase military "forgiven direct credits" to Israel a euphemism for outright grants-by $200 million, plus a hefty $65 million increase in economic aid. This time, the subcommittee was unmoved by "budgetary reasons," despite the increase in the federal budget deficit the amendment would cause. Only Dymally had the virtue of consistency that day: he voted in favor of both amendments. 

During the same session the subcommittee voted to place legislative strings on the sale of jet fighters to Jordan. Before getting the aircraft, King Hussein would first be required to begin negotiations with Israel. This restriction reflected the expressed sentiments of the House of Representatives, as 170 of its members by then had signed a public letter to that effect. Although this public rebuke would undercut President Reagan's private efforts to win Hussein's cooperation, Robert Pelletreau, who as deputy assistant secretary of state was present to speak for the administration, sat silently in the crowded hearing room as the subcommittee adopted the restriction. Pelletreau's silence demonstrated the administration's unwillingness to confront the lobby. 

"The Administration 

Can't Call the Tune" 

Although administration officials often blame Congress for aid increases to Israel, they should save some of the blame for themselves. A month after Dymally's amendment was defeated in sub committee and Pelletreau's unbecoming silence-the full committee on Foreign Affairs took up the same bill. This time the administration witness, Alvin Drischler, also a deputy assistant secretary of state, managed to land on both sides of the same question, destroying whatever influence his presence might have had. 

Under consideration was an amendment offered by Congressman Joel Pritchard of Washington to rescind the $265 million additional grant aid approved for Israel by the subcommittee and to bring the total amount down to the level originally requested by the administration. Asked for comment, Drischler told the committee, "We support the administration's request." That is, he supported the Pritchard amendment, a position that was not surprising. However, Drischler quickly added: "But we do not oppose the add-on." 

The committee room rocked with laughter when Chairman Clement J. Zablocki complained: "We're confused." Clearly, administration resolve, if it ever existed, had vanished. Pritchard was left fighting for the administration amendment without administration support. He warned that the administration would lose leverage in dealing with Israel if Congress approved the increase, but he added candidly: "There has always been the feeling that in Congress Israel has enough support to checkmate any administration initiative." 

Democratic Congressman George Crockett of Michigan warned that the increase would "free additional capital for Israeli Prime Minister Begin to continue building settlements." But Kansas Republican Congressman Larry Winn countered by stating that increasing the grant money would "help" Israel meet its debt service obligation to the United States, which in 1983 would top $1 billion. Winn, in effect, was arguing that the United States should give Israel money to repay its debt to the United States. That sort of "logic" prevailed. The Pritchard amendment was defeated, 18 to 5. A lobbyist for the U.S. Agency for International Development later admitted that no fight was made for the Pritchard amendment because "the votes just aren't there." 

Pritchard, witnessing Israel's influence on Congress, puts it differently: "The administration can't call the tune of American foreign policy." [And that in a nutshell trumpets the truth in America,even more so now in 2017 DC]

"I Do Not Feel As Free" 

Dymally's occasional independence in speaking and voting on Middle East questions predictably brought complaints from Israel's activists in his home district, and, although they did not succeed in finding a credible candidate to oppose him in 1984, he sees no likelihood that the breach will be closed. He says membership on the Foreign Affairs Committee is a "no win" situation. 

"I must confess to you that I do not feel as free to criticize Israel as I do to criticize Trinidad, the island on which I was born," Dymally declares. Noting that Trinidad was one of the islands supporting the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, he says his own strong opposition to the invasion did not cause the islanders to tum against him. "Sure, some of Trinidad's leaders were unhappy with me. But they are not boycotting my campaign for re-election. In fact, people from that area are putting on a fundraiser in New York for me. They don't see me as anti-black, anti-Grenada, anti-West Indies. They just disagree with me on the invasion, but they don't fall out." 

He contrasts this reaction with that of his Jewish critics in California. "What is tragic is that so many Jewish people misconstrue criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic." He speaks admiringly of the open criticism of Israeli policy that often occurs within Israel itself: "It is easier to criticize Israel in the Knesset [the Israeli parliament] than it is in the U.S. Congress, here in this land of free speech." 

Dymally notes that 10 of the 37 members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are Jewish and finds it "so stacked there is no chance" for constructive dialogue." He names Republican Congressman Ed Zschau of California as the only member of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East who "even shadow boxes." No one on the subcommittee, he says, is in there "punching." 

Dymally believes the political scene in the United States would be improved "if citizens of Arab ancestry became more effective lobbyists themselves and became convinced of the need to give money to their cause." One of their problems, he says, is their lack of understanding of how to present their interests on Capitol Hill. "Foreign ethnics don't understand the importance of lobbying. Nor do they seem to have a sense of political philanthropy." Peter Spieller, a former student aide in his Congressional office, told him, "The word is out in the Jewish community that you have sold out for Arab money." Dymally chuckles. "I told him I wished the Arab Americans would give me some money." He says they have not helped, despite his need to pay some of his campaign debts from his 1980 campaign. Prior to that year, Dymally had been able to count on several thousand dollars in campaign contributions each time from Jewish sources. After he met Arafat and began to raise questions about Israeli policies, this money "dried up." In the 1982 campaign he says a Jewish friend bought two $100 tickets to a dinner. "That," he said, "was the extent of Jewish financial support that year." 

Dymally's Committee on Foreign Affairs is easily dominated by the Israeli lobby partly because most Congressmen consider assignment there a political liability. With most Americans wanting foreign aid cut back, if not eliminated altogether, Congressmen representing politically marginal districts take a gamble when they support foreign aid and a still bigger gamble if they are assigned to the committee that handles it. 

Donald J. Pease, a senior Democrat from Ohio, formerly a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, explains why Congressmen with a special interest in Israel have no difficulty getting assigned to the committee: "It is one of the least sought after committees. If you ask for it, you are sure to get it. One year Democrats had to hunt for recruits just to fill their seats. The committee is looked on as a liability by most Democrats. It is an asset only to members with large Jewish constituencies." Republicans feel the same way. 

Fourteen Freshmen Save the Day 

Under the watchful eye of Israel's lobby, Congressmen will go to extreme measures to help move legislation providing aid to Israel. Just before Congress adjourned in December 1983, a group of freshmen Democrats helped the cause by taking the extraordinary step of changing their votes in the printed record of proceedings, a step Congressmen usually shun because it makes them look indecisive. This day, however, under heavy pressure from pro-Israel constituents, the first term members buckled and agreed to switch in order to pass catch-all legislation known as a Continuing Resolution. The resolution provided funds for programs Congress had failed to authorize in the normal fashion, among them aid to Israel. Passage would prevent any interruption in this aid. 

For once, both the House Democratic leadership and A.I.P.A.C were caught napping. Usually in complete control of all legislative activities which relate to Israel, A.I.P.A.C failed to detect the brewing rebellion. Concern over the budget deficit and controversial provisions in the bill for Central America led these freshman Democrats to oppose their own leadership. Unable to offer amendments, they quietly agreed among themselves to oppose the whole package. 

When the roll was called the big electric board over the Speaker's desk showed defeat,the resolution was rejected, 206 to 203. Twenty four first-term Democrats had deserted the leadership and voted no. Voting no did not mean they opposed Israeli aid. Some of them, concerned over the federal deficit, viewed it as a demand to the leadership to schedule a bill raising taxes. For others, it was simply a protest. But for Israel it was serious. 

"The Jewish community went crazy," a Capitol Hill veteran recalls. A.I.P.A.C's professionals went to work. Placing calls from their offices just four blocks away, they activated key people in the districts of a selected list of the errant freshmen. They arranged for "quality calls" to individuals who had played a major role in the recent Congressional election. Each was to place an urgent call to his or her Congressman, insist on getting through personally and use this message: 

Approval of the continuing resolution is very important. Without it, Israel will suffer. I am not criticizing your vote against it the first time. I am sure you had reasons. However, I have learned that the same question will come up for vote again, probably tomorrow. I speak for many of your friends and supporters in asking that you change your vote when the question comes up again. 

Each person was instructed to report to A.I.P.A.C after making the calls. The calls were accordingly made and reported. 

The House of Representatives took up the question at noon. It was the same language, word for word, which the House had rejected two days before. Silvio Conte, senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, knowing the pressure that had been applied, during the debate challenged the freshmen Democrats to "stick to their guns" as "men of courage." Republican leader Bob Michel chided those unable to "take the heat from on high." 

Some of the heat came, of course, from the embarrassed Democratic leadership, but A.I.P.A.C was the institution that brought about changes in votes. On critical issues, Congressmen respond to pressures from home, and, in such circumstances, House leaders have little leverage. To Republicans Conte and Michel, the main issue was the need for budgetary restraint. They argued that the measure should be rejected for that reason. During the debate, no one mentioned that day-or any other day-the influence of the Israeli lobby. 

The urgent telephone messages from home carried the day. When the roll was called, 14 of the freshmen-a bit sheepishly-changed their votes. They were: C. Robin Britt of North Carolina, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward F. Feighan of Ohio, Sander M. Levin of Michigan, Frank McCloskey of Indiana, Bruce A. Morrison of Connecticut, James R. "Jim" Olin and Norman Sisisky of Virginia, Timothy J. Penny of Minnesota, Harry M. Reid of Nevada, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, John M. Spratt, Jr. of South Carolina and Harley O. Staggers, Jr., of West Virginia. 

To give the freshmen an excuse they could use in explaining their embarrassing shift, the leadership promised to bring up a tax bill. Everyone knew it was just a ploy: the tax bill had no chance to become law. But the excuse was helpful, and the resolution was approved, 224 to 189. The flow of aid to Israel continued without interruption. 

Subsidizing Foreign Competition 

The final vote on the Continuing Resolution authorized a remarkable new form of aid to Israel. It included an amendment crafted by A.I.P.A.C and sponsored by ardently pro-Israeli Congressmen Clarence Long of Maryland and Jack Kemp of New York that permitted $250 million of the military grant aid to be spent in Israel on the development of a new Israeli fighter aircraft, the Lavi. The new fighter would compete for international sales with the Northrop F-20 and the General Dynamics F-16-both specifically designed for export. The amendment authorized privileged treatment Uncle Sam had never before extended to a foreign competitor. It was extraordinary for another reason: it set aside a U.S. law that requires that all foreign aid procurement funds be spent in the United States. 

During debate of the bill, Democrat Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia was the only Congressman who objected. He saw the provision as threatening U.S. jobs at a time of high unemployment: 

Approximately 6,000 jobs would be lost as a direct result of taking the $250 million out of the U.S. economy and allowing Israel to spend it on defense articles and services which can just as easily be purchased here in the United States. 

Americans are being stripped of their tax dollars to build up foreign industry. They should not have to sacrifice their jobs as well. 

That day, Rahall was unable to offer an amendment to strike or change this provision because of restrictions the House had established before it began debate. All that he, or any other member, could do was to vote for or against the entire Long-Kemp amendment which included controversial provisions for El Salvador and international banks, as well as aid to Israel. The amendment was approved 262 to 150. Unlike Rahall's, most of the 150 negative votes reflected opposition to other features of the amendment, not to the $250 million subsidy to Israel's aircraft industry. 

The following May, during the consideration of the bill appropriating funds for foreign aid, Rahall offered an amendment to eliminate the $250 million, but it was defeated 379 to 40. Despite the amendment's obvious appeal to constituents connected with the U.S. aircraft industry, fewer than 10 percent of House members voted for it. It was the first roll call vote on an amendment dealing exclusively with aid to Israel in more than four years, and the margin of defeat provided a measure of A.I.P.A.C power. 

After the vote, A.I.P.A.C organized protests against the 40 legislators who had supported the amendment. Rahall recalls that A.I.P.A.C carried out a campaign "berating those brave 40 Congressmen." He adds, "Almost all of those who voted with me have told me they are still catching hell from their Jewish constituency. They are still moaning about the beating they are taking."

The "brave" Congressmen got little thanks. Two ethnic groups, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Association of Arab Americans, congratulated Rahall on his initiative and urged their members to send letters of congratulation to each of the 39 who supported his amendment. The results were meager. As the author, Rahall could expect to receive more supportive mail than the rest. He received "less than 10 letters" and speculates that the other 39 got still fewer. 

"Don't Look to Congress to Act'' 

The reluctance of Congressmen to speak of Israel in critical vein was apparent in 1983 when the House gave President Reagan permission under the War Powers Act to keep U.S. Marines in Lebanon for 18 months. The vote took place a few days before the tragic truck bombing killed over 240 Marines in Beirut. At the time the House acted, several Marines had already died. A number of Congressmen warned of more trouble ahead, opposing Reagan's request and strongly urging withdrawal of the U.S. military force. Five others took the other side, mentioning the importance of the Marine presence to the security of Israel's northern border. 

In all, 91 Congressmen spoke, but they were silent on the military actions Israel had carried out in Lebanon during the previous year,its unrestricted bombing of Beirut, forcing the evacuation of the PLO fighters and then failing to provide security in the Palestine camps where the massacre occurred. These events had altered the Lebanese scene so radically that President Reagan felt impelled to return the Marines to Beirut. In other words, it was Israel's actions which made necessary the Marines' presence, yet none of these critical events was mentioned among the thousands of words expressed during the lengthy discussion. 

A veteran Congressman, with the advantage of hindsight, explained it directly. Just after the terrorist attack which killed U.S. Marines who were asleep in their Beirut compound, Congressman Lee Hamilton was asked if Congress might soon initiate action on its own to get the Marines out of Lebanon. The query was posed by William Quandt, a Middle East specialist who had served in the Carter White House, at the close of a private discussion on Capitol Hill involving a small group of senior Congressmen. Hamilton, a close student of both the Congress and the Middle East, responded, "Don't look to Congress to act. All we know is how to increase aid to Israel." 

The next year, discussions leading to the decisions on Israeli aid by Hamilton's subcommittee were less a public spectacle and Hamilton himself became less directly involved. In late February 1984 he was not consulted on aid levels, even privately, until the "Jewish caucus" led by freshman Democrat Larry Smith of Florida had worked out the details. Others in the caucus, all Democrats, were Mel Levine and Tom Lantos of California and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey. Torricelli, of Italian ancestry, represents one of the nation's most heavily Jewish districts. His colleagues often refer to him teasingly as "a non-Jewish Jew." 

The group's four votes could always prevail in the ten-member subcommittee, since the other six members never voted against a pro Israeli motion, and only Democrat Mervyn M. Dymally and Republican Ed Zschau even raised questions. Other Jewish Democrats on the full committee-Howard L. Berman of California, Ted Weiss and Gary L. Ackerman of New York, Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut, Howard Wolpe of Michigan and Stephen J. Solarz of New York accepted the decisions of the "Jewish caucus." This established Smith as almost the de facto leader of the 29 Jews in the House, a remarkable role for a freshman. Asked to explain how a freshman could reach such influence, a Capitol Hill veteran said, "He's always there. He never misses a meeting. He never misses a lick." 

Confronted by the caucus on the economic aid level, Hamilton agreed to support their recommendations with one modification. He insisted that the grant to Israel be increased by only $250 million above the administration's request for $850 million, rather than the $350 million increase the caucus wanted. With all of the items settled ahead of time, the subcommittee approved the unprecedented provisions for Israel without discussion, and then took up questions related to aid for other Middle East countries. The panel approved an amendment offered by Congressman Zschau stating that the funds were provided "with the expectation that the recipient countries shall pursue policies to enhance the peace process, including giving consideration to all peace initiatives by the president and others." By the time the amendment reached the full committee, A.I.P.A.C, without consulting Zschau, demonstrated its control over such things by arranging to have the language tied to the Camp David Accords rather than the Reagan recommendations. Written by A.I.P.A.C lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield, the substitute language was accepted on a voice vote. 

In either form the amendment was innocuous, but that could not be said of two other amendments drafted by the lobby and passed overwhelmingly by the subcommittee. The first amendment, accepted without opposition, would prohibit all communications between the PLO and the U.S. government, even through third parties, until the PLO recognizes Israel. It was intended to bar the sort of informal contact with the Palestinian leadership maintained by both the Carter and Reagan administration. The other amendment, approved 7 to 2, would prohibit the sale of any advanced aircraft or weapons to Jordan until that country becomes "publicly committed" to recognizing Israel. When King Hussein of Jordan later criticized Israeli lobby influence in Washington in early 1984, he cited both of these amendments. 

Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of California secured hearings on a bill that would add an unprecedented new dimension to U.S. aid to Israel. Introduced in June 1984, it proposed granting $20 million to finance Israel's own foreign aid projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It would openly authorize activities similar to those that have been covertly financed by the CIA for 20 years (see chapter five). 

Democrat Larry Smith of Florida applauded Berman's bill: "I think it will enhance the image of the U.S. in the Third World." Republican Larry Winn of Kansas gave it bipartisan support but noted that the initial $20 million would be "only a drop in the bucket; we're going to have to look further down the road at a lot more money." Although the bill remained in committee through the 1984 session, its supporters believe this type of aid to Israel will eventually be approved. 

Clearly, the road Winn mentioned will slope upward. Aid to Israel-despite U.S. budget problems and Israel's defiant behavior toward the United States in its use of U.S.-supplied weapons and its construction of settlements on occupied territory-is still rising with no peak in sight.  

next
The Deliberative Body Fails to Deliberate