PART 12:THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT ISRAEL'S LOBBY:REPAIRING THE DAMAGE

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


12 

Repairing the Damage 

In gathering material for this book I sought answers to troubling questions: Was my congressional experience at the hands of the Israeli lobby "just politics" or part of a broader attempt to silence criticism of Israeli policy? Do other Congressmen and officials of government encounter similar pressures? What about people in other occupations on the campus, in business, the pulpit, the news rooms, in everyday life? The answers I found are not reassuring. They can be summed up in a single sentence: A dangerous erosion of free speech is occurring in the United States. 

It is clear that many Americans do not feel they can speak freely on one of most complicated and challenging current issues: the Arab/Israeli dispute. The relatively few people who have ventured into this arena have found their cherished vision of the free and open society an illusion. Unlike other controversies, those on one side of the argument leave no room for honest disagreement. The only side that can be advocated with impunity is the Israeli side. 

Those who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful and relentless retaliation, and even loss of their livelihood, by pressure by one or more parts of Israel's lobby. Presidents fear it. Congress does its bidding. Prestigious universities shun academic programs and grants which it opposes. Giants of the media and military leaders buckle under its pressure. Instead of having their arguments and opinions judged on merit, critics of Israel suddenly find their motivations, their integrity, and basic moral values called into question. No matter how moderate their criticism, they may be characterized as pawns of the oil lobby, apologists for Arab terrorists, or even AntiSemitic. 

The charge of Antisemitism is a worrisome one, particularly because its use is becoming more widespread. Listen to Ben Meed, president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors: "Years ago they used to call it Antisemitism. Today they call it anti-Zionism, but actually it's the same thing." In other words, by his definition, if you are against Israel, you are against all Jews. 

In its latest usage, the term antisemitism stands stripped of any reference to ethnic or religious descent, signifying nothing more than a refusal to endorse all policy decisions of the government of Israel. As such, it no longer refers to a despicable social phenomenon-classic antisemitism-but is a charge employed by pro-Israel partisans as a weapon. Although no longer used to describe only the ethnic and religious bigotry which originally gave the word meaning, Israel's most spirited supporters have found that the mere accusation of antisemitism is enough to silence most critics. It has been a powerful factor in stifling debate of the Arab-Israeli dispute, causing many people in the United States, religious and secular, to censor their own speech, not on the basis of truth but rather on how their remarks will be construed by Israel's lobby, a particular group with a strong vested interest in silencing critics. 

The lobby has already attained strength far beyond the level its numbers would suggest. Those active in its ranks constitute a tiny part of the population of the United States, but their demographic concentration in states critical to deciding national elections, combined with their unique ability to mobilize campaign resources and public opinion, gives them influence in the political process far out of proportion to their numbers. Even more significant is the remarkable commitment and devotion which lobby partisans bring to their cause. They give generously of their time, money and energy. Many are leaders in government, public information, education and politics. Their activities are supported by the government of Israel, openly through its embassy in Washington and consulates in our major cities and clandestinely through the extensive operations that Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, undertakes throughout the United States. 

The lobby's success in stifling dissent is shocking, particularly in Congress. Polls show that a plurality of American Jews-and of the American people as a whole-oppose certain Israeli policies. Normally this division would be reflected in the statements and voting records of their legislators. But on this issue, the views of these pluralities are not represented. In fact, the gulf between the expressions in Congress on the Arab-Israeli dispute and the views held by private citizens is probably greater than on any other topic. 

The lobby has made free speech a casualty by skillful use of our free institutions. In most cases, it stays carefully within the letter of the law, but it abuses the spirit of fairness and tolerance that is so vital to public debate, effectively denying those who oppose its policies the constitutional right to free speech. It's one thing to know before you speak out that people will disagree with you. It's quite another to know they will seek to discredit you and destroy your reputation. To say the least, the threat of this kind of retaliation curbs the open exchange of ideas that is essential to the development of sound policy in a democracy. 

The result is that most people come to consider Middle East issues "too hot to handle" and keep their views to themselves. They see what happens to their bolder colleagues and hesitate to voice their opinions. They censor themselves out of fear that the Israeli lobby will censure them if they do not. 

The damage to U.S. institutions is clear. What may not be clear is why the lobby came into being and pursues its intimidating activities with such zeal. 

Its origin and motivation can be summed up in just one word: fear. Many Jews are afraid, and their fear is understandable. Remembering Adolf Hitler's terrible program, which exterminated six million Jews, they see Israel as a place of refuge, perhaps the only one, if such horror should someday return. A resident of Potomac, Maryland, Perry J. Saidman, expressed this fear in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post: 

Nearly all Jews believe that the survival of Israel is synonymous with the survival of Judaism. This is easy to understand in view of the Holocaust, since Jews in the diaspora now know that the only country that will not refuse them during the next Holocaust will be the Jewish state of Israel. 

To Saidman, and to many other Jews, another holocaust is entirely possible, especially if criticism of Israel goes unpunished. To such people, the Holocaust is not only a historical event but a personal ordeal in which relatives or family friends were ruthlessly destroyed. 

Fear of future ordeals is deep-seated. During his earliest shuttle diplomacy mission to the Middle East, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, musing privately over the possibility that unwise policy by Israel might someday provoke a wave of Antisemitism in the United States, said to a colleague, "I worry about my son when he grows up a Jew in America." A Jewish woman who voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 Michigan primary election was warned by her outraged brother, "You will die someday in a gas chamber." 

Jewish ties to Israel are powerful and intimate for other reasons, too. Beyond being a place of ultimate refuge, Israel is the physical repository of Judaism, the fulfillment of age-old Jewish dreams and the symbol of Jewish resilience and achievement. Equally important, it is linked by family ties to American Jews, most of whom have relatives and other acquaintances there and feel keenly the sorrow of Israeli families who have suffered death or injury in conflicts with Arabs. 

These ties are deepened and made urgent by Israel's own sense of insecurity. Despite its unmatched war machine and expanding military capability, Israel remains at war with all its neighbors except Egypt. The nation is widely seen by its citizens and other Jews as struggling for survival in a vast and growing sea of hostile Arabs. It is a tiny country, only about nine miles wide at one point. This bleak prospect keeps military forces on a constant state of alert, produces in many Israelis a siege mentality and causes them to accept restrictions on civil liberties that they would consider anathema in other circumstances. The press, both Israeli and Arab, is censored, and Arab populations, especially in the occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza, have their liberties restricted and are often brutalized. 

This siege outlook pervades not just Israel but much of the U.S. Jewish community. Because Israel remains at war, many U.S. Jews feel they too are at war. Worried about Israel's survival in a generally inhospitable world, they accept tactics which stifle dissent in their own communities and throughout America as necessary measures which, in their view, enhance the likelihood that the United States will continue to serve as Israel's lifeline. 

And, indeed, the United States is Israel's lifeline. Most observers feel that Israel could not have won the 1967 war without U.S.-supplied weapons. In the 1973 war, Israel's survival was in question until the United States undertook two extraordinary measures: ordering its own forces to a high state of alert worldwide in order to forestall a larger Soviet role in the war, and ferrying vast armor and supplies to Israel in an intercontinental airlift. The rescue operation demonstrated Israel's loneliness. Faced with the necessity of refueling its air transport fleet during the long journey to Israel, the United States found Portugal the only nation among our allies in western Europe willing to permit the use of its bases for this purpose. If another war with Arab states should occur-and many Jews feel it is only a matter of time-most Jews are convinced that Israel's prospects will be bleak without unqualified United States help. 

For many concerned Jews, establishing the conditions which assure continued U.S. backing is a task which merits the highest priority-and one that justifies extraordinary measures. Consciously or not, leaders of the pro-Israel lobby accept the impairment of free speech in the United States as a price that must be paid to assure Israel's survival. 

Whenever anti-Israel or pro-Arab expressions appear, the lobby's response is usually prompt and overwhelming. The aim is to protect Israel from all criticism, but the tactics go beyond legitimate response to argument. They are varied and sometimes ugly: smear and innuendo, complaints to superiors at the workplace, mention in published "enemies lists," ostracism, hate mail, anonymous phone calls, threats to one's personal safety, and, in a few cases, physical attack. This is a process which most Americans know only second hand. We recognize it and never cease to condemn it in the Soviet Union and in other totalitarian societies; yet it recalls an ugly chapter from our own past as well. 

Thirty years ago we knew it in a more virulent form as McCarthyism. After a shameful delay, we finally found the will to expose it, denounce it and put a stop to it. Now, as then, the people most ridden by fear are the ones most intolerant of dissent. In their zeal to silence critics they employ extreme measures. 

Few are aware that these measures-and the fear that made them so effective-have found their way back into our political process. In new hands now, in response to a different issue, the tools of intimidation are wielded less visibly, less crudely, but no less effectively. And those who wield them are driven by a similar conviction of moral righteousness. The process is less visible because, unlike Senator Joseph McCarthy of yesterday, today's would-be enforcers of political conformity often shun the limelight. Despite its success, the pro-Israel lobby is little known. It prefers to avoid public attention and scrutiny, working behind the scenes, motivating other individuals or institutions to take the lead. 

The lobby works diligently in the wings and the corridors to provide Israel with uncritical support. Whatever Israel undertakes is characterized as helpful to the United States, an attitude that makes criticism of Israel "un-American" and therefore unthinkable. Its partisans have defined the terms for discussing Middle East issues so rigidly that debate itself is excluded. "If you are not for us," its members say, "you are against us." There is no middle ground. Issues are painted in black and white. The gray area where truth is often found is considered too dangerous. 

Driven by deep-rooted fears, activists for Israel create fear in others. In conducting interviews for this book, time and again I found professors, politicians, business leaders and others anxious lest their identity as a source of information become known. One said, "If my name gets into this, my career will be ended." When a university administrator supplied me a document issued by the American Jewish Committee, he warned, "You must never tell anyone-not anyone where you got this." Others said, "I applaud what you are doing and would like to help, but I am afraid." A Texas professor, after suggesting a source of information in Arizona, pleaded, "Please forget you made this call." A businessman said: "I am taking a big chance in telling you this. I hope I can trust you to keep this confidential." A scholar who supplied details of his own encounters with lobby pressure, called in anguish, "I can't let you publish that information after all. I fear for my very life." A well-known retired diplomat, now providing consulting services part-time in Washington, encouraged me to write this book, but withdrew his offer to write a public endorsement when he learned this would upset his major client. "I'm embarrassed to admit it," he said ruefully, "because my decision is an example of the intimidation which is the central theme of your book." 

I was struck by the fact that many of the people who dare to speak out have personal income that is not jeopardized by their forthrightness. Most academicians who speak out are protected in their careers by tenure. So, too, J. William Fulbright, Adlai E. Stevenson III, George W. Ball, Dean Francis B. Sayre, Philip M. Klutznick, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Alfred M. Lilienthal, Jr., speak from a base of financial security. 

Public awareness of this critical erosion of free speech is especially important at this time when the Middle East looms as a possible arena of superpower confrontation. Today, more than ever before, the American people-Jews and non-Jews alike-must examine the lobby's methods openly, hold it accountable for its actions and insist on the right of all to be heard. 

In the months ahead life-and-death decisions must be made concerning the role of the United States in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and these should emerge from an atmosphere of civility in which arguments are heard and judged on their merits, without labelling or emotionalism. The dispute is a ticking bomb that grows steadily more dangerous. Renewed fighting in the Middle East would carry the risk of increasing U.S. military involvement, as well as escalating political and economic costs. Recent conflict in the Middle East has claimed the lives of 264 Marines, and even after our military withdrawal from Lebanon more than 1,000 U.S. troops remain stationed near the border between Egypt and Israel as a peacekeeping force. Israel and Syria, as well as several other neighboring states, are engaged in an accelerating buildup of highly destructive new weapons, and no reconciliation of their mutual hostility is in sight. 

If our citizens, whether in private life or public office, are able to hear only one side of the issue, they are seriously handicapped as they attempt to define intelligently their interests and set wisely the policies to be followed. From a fettered and unbalanced dialogue truly awful decisions may emerge. 

In a democracy, the position taken by a large citizens' group-like those making up the Israeli lobby-must, of course, be taken into account. The United States, in addition to its moral interest in the survival of Israel, has a legitimate reason and an obligation to act in accordance with the wishes of its citizens, so long as the preferences of a particular special interest group do not violate the interests of the majority. But this does not require blind conformity. Surely one can criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Israel, just as one can criticize American policies without being anti-American. 

Getting free speech off the casualty list requires realism, attention and commitment on the part of us all. As a starter, we must dis-enthrall ourselves from the false notion that the Israeli lobby is "bigger than life." Its members are neither superhuman nor especially blessed with the truth. The lobby consists of a relatively small group of people, not more than 200,000 at the most, and the core activists who keep things rolling are but a fraction of that total. Although its leaders are highly professional and highly committed, these same qualities can be found in other citizens. The lobby raises a lot of money and marshals broad support, but it cannot prevail over an informed and determined majority of our citizens. 

Knowledge is power-as the lobby well knows-and the best way to demolish its facade of invincibility is to understand its tactics. It is often able to create a false impression of numbers. For example, several years ago one hundred identically worded telegrams were sent to Senator Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois, protesting against legislation he was proposing. The telegrams bore serial numbers in sequence, indicating that they were ordered by a single individual even though each carried a different name. During the same period, Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut received twenty-eight telegrams. All carried identical wording and were charged to the same telephone number in Hartford, but each bore a different name as the sender. 

Even two or three telephone calls can create the image of substantial constituent protest, even though the few actually placing the calls may be the sum total of protesters. Only a few telephone calls persuaded fourteen freshmen Congressmen in 1983 to take the exceptional step of changing their votes on legislation providing aid to Israel. These calls would have had far less impact if counterbalanced by even one call expressing the opposite view to each wavering Congressman. When Congressmen hear only one side of an issue by mail, telegram, telephone call, personal visit-or in public debate-they naturally assume there actually is only one side worth considering. 

My own defeat in 1982 is often cited as an example of the lobby's power. It need not be so viewed. My margin of defeat was so narrow,less than one percent of the total votes cast, that it could be blamed entirely on anyone of several other political and economic developments: redistricting, which added large new Democratic areas to my district; the recession, which caused record unemployment in Decatur, my largest new city; or a general downturn in economic conditions, which caused unrest throughout the district, especially among farmers. 

Yet for understandable reasons, the Israeli lobby claimed responsibility for my defeat. In fact, the lobby's principal role was in simply supplying my opponent with extraordinary amounts of money. Under the circumstances my vote total could be cited as a moral victory. Despite the many varied challenges, I nearly won. Money from Jewish sources poured in against me, but my supporters matched these contributions. 

I was subjected to this nationwide attack because I was the only critic of Israeli policy on the Congressional scene. In the future if just a few brave souls speak out on Capitol Hill at the same time, the lobby will face multiple problems and cannot therefore focus exclusively on the defeat of just one of its critics. 

Until now, the lobby has been effective mainly because it has had the field of Middle East policy largely to itself. It has no serious competition in the corridors and chambers of government. Other highly professional, committed people are needed to counter its arguments, challenge its theories and match its enthusiasm in the public arena. 

The lobby's influence rests mainly on mythology which a reasonably broad educational program can readily destroy. 

For example, the lobby has successfully promoted the myth that an oil lobby, sometimes called an Arab oil lobby, operates in the United States, menacing our institutions of higher education. Jerome Bankst, research director for the Anti-Defamation League in New York, warns: "Our main concern is the possibility that academic freedom will be compromised. We're concerned that there could be Arab influence on the objectivity of teaching at these universities and discrimination against Jewish faculty." Bankst uses the word "Arab" as a negative stereotype, a form of bigotry that would evoke cries of outrage if one were to substitute the words "Jewish" or "Israeli" for the word ''Arab.'' 

While Arab governments and oil companies have contributed to educational projects, this money has not been used as a device to harm scholarly objectivity. Research for this book disclosed no instance in which oil interests attempted to impair academic freedom or influence selection of faculty. Considering the enormous damage done to academic freedom in recent years by Jewish activists, as chronicled in earlier chapters of this book, Bankst's warning might more suitably be directed against his colleagues in the Israeli lobby. 

Nor does the "oil lobby" attempt to control U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The late Evan Wilson, a specialist in the Middle East, concluded that the oil companies exert little or no pressure on U.S. policymakers. Professor Seth Tillman of Georgetown University corroborates Wilson's assertion: 

Supporters of Israel sometimes cite the major oil companies as participants in the 'Arab lobby,' but the allegation does not stand up under close scrutiny. Outside the realm of energy costs, uses, and taxation, the oil companies have in fact been chary of taking public positions on Middle East issues, much less of pressing these on Congress. 

The lobby also benefits from other public misconceptions. 

• There is the unfounded reputation that the lobby can deliver a powerful Jewish constituency on election day. Few Congressional districts have a constituency that is more than one percent Jewish. In only twelve states do Jews make up as much as three percent of the population. Even making adjustment for the fact that a higher percentage of Jews vote on election day than non-Jews, they can be crucial only in extremely close races. 

• Few people are aware of the magnitude of aid to Israel. They do not know that one-fourth of all U.S. aid worldwide goes to that one country-the equivalent of $750 a year for each Israeli man, woman and child. This unawareness has added importance in light of the general disfavor of the U.S. public toward foreign aid. 

• Most citizens have little knowledge about U.S. policy in the Middle East. If constituents held House and Senate members closely accountable for their positions on aid to Israel, for example, substantial changes in either membership or positions might soon occur. In the spring of 1984, 379 Congressmen voted for a $250 million gift to help Israel enlarge its own fighter aircraft industry. Only 40 Congressmen voted no. Given the importance of the U.S. aircraft industry to the U.S. economy, not to mention the heavy deficit in the U.S. federal budget, the vote to provide a substantial direct subsidy to foreign competition was extraordinary. Constituents could reasonably demand that the 379 explain why they supported this unprecedented subsidy. 

• The Israeli lobby has the Middle East policy field largely to itself. To help correct this extreme imbalance, Americans of Arab ancestry need to discover the ingredients of successful political action. Democratic Congressman Merwyn L. Dymally of California observes that most ethnic Americans do not engage in lobbying activity because they do not understand its importance. Nor do they, he adds, have a "sense of political philanthropy." American Jews give generously of both money and energy to political candidates while Arab Americans rarely give either. Although the Arab American population at two million is one one-third the size of the Jewish population, this base is sufficient to provide enough people, financial resources and commitment to offset substantially the activities of the Israeli lobby. 

In assessing the strength of the Israeli lobby, it is important to remember that a majority of American Jews disagree on important points with the policies of the Israeli government and the work of its lobby. A few thousand highly motivated citizens willing to work together and acquire the sense of political philanthropy Dymally mentions could profoundly influence public discourse. 

The activities of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Association of Arab Americans are signs of progress, but neither group has established a program rivaling the grassroots activism that gives the Israeli lobby influence even where Jewish numbers are small. A dramatic illustration of this weakness occurred in June 1984 when the forty House members who voted for the amendment cutting U.S. aid to Israel's fighter aircraft industry were smothered with protests from pro-Israel activists but received almost no calls or letters supporting their action. In the wake of that experience, the forty Congressmen are unlikely to support similar amendments in the future. 

People of Arab ancestry often shy away from asserting their interests. One day on the floor of the House of Representatives I asked James Abdnor, a Republican from South Dakota who is of Lebanese ancestry and now serves in the Senate, to join me and several other Congressmen in signing a letter protesting Israel's use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Lebanon. Abdnor paused and said, "Oh, I'd better not because of my nationality." I did not sense that he was trying to hide his ancestry; rather, he just did not want his colleagues to think he was parading it. In contrast, Jewish members of Congress rarely fail to take a stand for Israel. 

The U.S. Jewish community, acting alone, could retrieve free speech from the casualty list, and this action would be consistent with the great Jewish tradition of supporting civil liberties and opposing intimidation and oppression. Indeed, some of the most thoughtful and outspoken critics of Israel are Jews. But they speak out as individuals. They are not seen as Jewish leaders. 

More voices of individual conscience would be welcome, but the greatest need is for forthright statements by leaders of Jewish organizations. Philip M. Klutznick set a courageous example in 1958 when, as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and president of B'nai B'rith, he supported the Middle East Resolution recommended by President Dwight Eisenhower, despite strong opposition by Israel's prime minister. In 1982 the leadership of B'nai B'rith, after responding warmly to President Reagan's September Peace Plan, fell silent once Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin announced his opposition. 

Nowhere is free speech more restricted in America than within the organized Jewish community. Jewish leaders are afraid to speak out against Israeli policy or even defend the right of others to do so. They look the other way when lobby activists stain the reputation of Israel's critics through misuse of the term "antisemitism." 

Few Jews expressed concern over the 1983 decisions by A.I.P.A.C and the Anti-Defamation League to publish "enemies lists" or spoke up in 1982 against the flood of smear and innuendo against Adlai E. Stevenson III when he campaigned for governor of Illinois. A few leading Jews haltingly voiced concern for a while over the brutal 1982 Israeli attack against Beirut, but under lobby pressure most of them changed positions, either defending the war or saying nothing. American Jews flocked to dinners in 1983 featuring former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, despite his own responsibility for the circumstances a few months earlier that led to the massacre of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Few Jews speak up for academic freedom at Palestinian universities on the occupied West Bank, where Israeli troops routinely arrest students and order the schools closed on the slightest pretext. 

In part, Jewish silence results from ignorance. Unfortunately, Israel and its lobby attempt to shield U.S. Jewish leaders from harsh reality when they visit Israel. These leaders usually see only selected places and people, have no opportunity for candid conversations with Arabs in the occupied territories, and return to the United States unaware of the brutality of the Israeli occupation. 

The manipulation of Jewish leaders continues in the United States, where they receive a constant stream of messages and visits from Israeli officials and other lobbying agents. These U.S. leaders would render a great service to their fellow Jews, as well as to their country, by insisting on setting their own agenda when they visit the Middle East-having private discussions with Arab leaders inside and outside Israel, and interviewing Palestinians to learn what life is like in the West Bank. This would help to sweep away stereotypes and prejudices that infect both sides. 

But ignorance cannot excuse Jewish silence on lobby excesses that occur in this country. During the University of Arizona's three year ordeal at the hands of Carol Karsch and the Tucson Jewish Community Council, Jews were silent. With the exception of Professor Jerrold Levy, they said nothing and did nothing when blind loyalty to the Israeli cause damaged academic institutions. Several officials of national Jewish organizations privately said that Karsch had gone too far, but they complained only to each other. If just a few people, local or national, had joined Levy in protesting publicly, the excesses might have ended. 

The danger in the Karsch "success" reaches beyond Tucson. While the tactics she used were designed and carried out locally, they may be used elsewhere. One "success" inspires others and, indeed, chapter seven demonstrates that this fanaticism-reflecting the mania that produced the Salem witch-hunts in early U.S. history-is already spreading. 

Most Jewish Americans will be troubled by the examples of fanaticism reported in the pages of this book. But if they react by keeping their concerns to themselves, they permit the fanatics to create the impression that all American Jews are joined in a plot to alter our schools and other institutions of our society in order to shield Israel from criticism and stigmatize its Arab neighbors. 

Chapter eleven recounts episodes involving people in various occupations widely scattered throughout the country. Many of them have one thing in common: they were harassed and stigmatized for' their ethnic heritage-which happens to be Arab. If Jews suffered the same treatment, a national uproar justifiably would ensue, and people of all faiths would join in the protest. Yet despite their memory of similar mistreatment, Jews, with few exceptions, remain silent-as do most other Americans-at discrimination against Arabs. 

Their silence is but a part of the unwillingness of Americans generally to discuss troubling issues arising from the Arab-Israeli conflict. This larger conspiracy of silence engulfs much of the U.S. Christian community as well. Some conservative Christian leaders accept, even rejoice in, the violence and shedding of blood to serve Israel's political ends. After the Israelis used U.S.-supplied F-16 aircraft to strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor, evangelist Jerry Falwell congratulated Israel on "a mission that made us very proud that we manufacture those F-16's." Similarly, evangelist Mike Evans proclaimed as "a miracle" the safe return of all Israeli aircraft from strikes against unfortified targets in the commercial heart of Beirut-raids which resulted in countless civilian deaths. 

As moral leaders the clergy have a duty to champion the oppressed and denounce racism, but few church leaders have challenged the inaccurate and inflammatory misuse of the term "antisemitism" or the ugly stereotypes applied generally to Palestinians and other Arabs. Instead, they duck controversy and thus strengthen the position of those who wish no debate at all. Many defer to Israel's historic claims out of convenience rather than conviction. 

For centuries the region has held many religious and ethnic groups, and the issues which divide them are complex. The application of biblical principles will certainly aid in the quest for peace, but as the Reverend Jesse Jackson has advised, "We shouldn't try to use the Bible as a real estate guide." Solutions are simply not that easy. The way to discerning the divine plan for the Middle East certainly involves meditation and prayer, but in a free society like ours, we should also be able to enjoy the benefit of insights gained and shared through free and open debate in an atmosphere of tolerance and recognition of common purpose. 

Public officials cannot escape a major responsibility to promote free discussion of Middle East policy. Chief among them, of course, is the'president of the United States. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, observes: 

Success depends very much on the willingness of the President to have a confrontation with the lobby. If the issue is drawn in terms of whether the President will be supported or not, most presidents will be backed by Congress. 

House and Senate members have a similar responsibility. My own experience notwithstanding, most Congressmen could survive even a sustained attack by the Israeli lobby. But, like other politicians, they crave public approbation, and, in this regard, they don't respond just to the threat of losing an election. They respond first to the threat of losing a supporter, for whatever reason. Thus, as long as pro-Israeli activists care enough to threaten to withhold approbation while others are indifferent, the situation cannot change. To most Congressmen. taking a controversial position which might leave them standing alone-even in their own party-just does not make sense. 

From this. I must conclude that public officials are unlikely to take the initiative to restore healthy discourse. Reform must come from citizens at the community level. 

All Americans-not just Jews, Christian clergy. Arab Americans and politicians-have a stake in promoting open debate of Middle East policy. Our young people will have to assume the military risks of our present policy. and all citizens must share in meeting the other costs: the budgetary outlays and, more important. the damage to our institutions. All citizens, therefore, should demand accountability from those who seek and serve in federal office, insisting that they take positions and then defend them. 

On the 1984 presidential and congressional campaign trails the Arab-Israeli dispute was a non-issue. Except for brief statements by presidential candidates Jesse Jackson and George McGovern, no candidate for any federal office challenged basic U.S. policies in the Middle East at least not loudly enough to receive national attention. Even those considered "shoo-ins"-those running unopposed for election-made no recommendations for course changes. The 1988 elections were the same. 

More surprising, not even an echo was heard bemoaning the unprecedented $3 billion grant that is going to Israel, as well as the $2.1 billion to Egypt, at a time when popular U.S. domestic programs are being cut. Candidates and public officials are silent on these issues because their constituents permit them to be silent. The arena in which reform must occur is not Capitol Hill in Washington but Main Street, in suburbia and in rural America. 

Fortunately, the open character of the U.S. political system places the process of effective challenge within everyone's reach. 

Congressmen and candidates for Congress are accustomed to answering specific questions on public policy from the League of Women Voters, organized labor, business councils and other interest groups. Furthermore, most Congressmen and candidates respond to such questions during public meetings. If they are pressed during their candidacies or public service, most will eventually take a position on a carefully defined issue. They can duck and dodge only so long. 

As the Israeli lobby has proven, a small number of highly committed people can have substantial effect on public policy. Partisans of Israel press early and often through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, political action committees, other organizations and as individuals. They seem never to sleep, guarding Israel's interests around the clock. 

Those citizens who favor a more balanced U.S. policy in the Middle East based on fundamental ideals of justice and peaceful settlement of international disputes, like the pro-Israel activists, may work through established organizations and supplement this work with personal activity. If they bring a high level of commitment to these endeavors, candidates and officials will respond. The majority of Congressmen resent heavy-handed tactics by the Israeli lobby and will welcome constituent pressure to modify their habit of voting for whatever Israel wants. 

This process of challenge would help not just the United States, but the interests of Israel as well. The usual objection to a more conciliatory Israeli policy is that Israel possesses no margin for error-that any concession to Arabs, particularly Palestinians, will endanger the country's existence. Yet national security is not exclusively-or even principally-a military proposition. The survival of Israel does not entail simply the retention of a specified number of acres of land. In the modern era a hill or river no longer provides security from attack. As Nahum Goldmann, pioneer in the creation of Israel and first president of the World Jewish Congress, observed: 

In a period when warfare is based on supersonic airplanes and missiles. the importance of borders, from a security point of view. has not disappeared but has greatly decreased. 

True security arises more from the values and ethical principles, the way of life, which give a country its character. Military policy must serve the principles which the country seeks to live by and keep alive, and the security of a democracy like Israel-or the United States-is preserved more effectively through respect for the ideals of freedom and democracy than through demonstration of the force of its arms. Thus an atmosphere conducive to free discussion in the United States will also improve the scene in Israel, where opponents of government policy often declare that uncritical support provided by the United States only strengthens the hand of the hard-liners who oppose negotiations and advocate narrow military solutions to complex social and political problems. 

Israel's problems are, however, unique. The layers of mutual distrust, bitterness and hatred that separate Israel from its neighbors are so numerous and deep that the parties cannot be expected to overcome these barriers without substantial outside encouragement and help. With that in mind, I introduced in several different Congresses a resolution under which the United States would guarantee Israel's pre-1967 borders within the context of a comprehensive settlement which would end the state of war, establish normal diplomatic relations among all parties, and extend the right of self-determination to the people living in territory under Israeli military occupation. I felt that this proposal, if adopted by the United States, would provide the necessary incentive to bring Israelis and Arabs together and provide the best hope for enduring peace in that region. 

But U.S. policy in the Middle East must be tested first and foremost by our own national requirements. In this process, Israel must be an important consideration but not the only one. On a number of issues United States interests are not identical to those of Israel. Considering the differences in history, region, culture, and international responsibilities, this is not surprising. 

Interests and policies differ sharply, for example, on nuclear weapons policy. In order to discourage the proliferation of weapons and carry out treaty obligations, the United States provides a "nuclear umbrella" over many nations. It encourages all nations in the Middle East to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under which signatories pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has refused to ratify the treaty and carries forward nuclear research and development in secrecy at Dimona, where experts believe it has clandestinely produced a number of nuclear warheads. 

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Israel attempted to shoot down a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft which overflew Dimona, even though the U.S. at the same time was ferrying arms to Israel. Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, reports that Israel picked up the aircraft on its radar, identified it correctly as a U.S. SR-71 and "ordered its fighter planes to down it." Israel considers secrecy that important when it comes to Dimona. Fortunately, Moorer adds, "The plane was flying too high for the Israeli fighters to reach," and it returned safely. 

While Israel may be convinced that it must take extreme measures to shield its nuclear facilities, such a policy is in conflict with our government's long-standing commitment to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Nuclear weapons policy is but one of the fundamental differences which separate the United States and Israel. Other obvious ones are the occupation of territory taken by force of arms and relations with Israel's Arab neighbors. 

In fashioning our policies toward the Middle East, we must recognize that we will differ with Israel on important issues while cooperating fully on others. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk observes, "Israel has demonstrated over and over again that it is not a satellite of the United States. It is just as important for everyone to recognize that the United States is not a satellite of Israel. " 

Our goal must be decency, fair play, and security for all parties in the region. In particular, we must demonstrate our concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have lived under Israeli military occupation for more than twenty-two years. All through our history, we have recognized self-determination as the most fundamental aspect of democracy. It is hallowed in our traditions, and on several occasions the United States has taken the ultimate step, going to war in order to promote, among other objectives, self-determination for the people in Western Europe, Korea and Vietnam. It is inconsistent, to say the least, for the United States to advocate self-determination for everyone except Palestinians. While we should not-and need not use military force to demonstrate our concern for the Palestinians, we must avoid uncritical support of Israel's military policies which deny human rights to these people and degrade the great moral traditions of Judaism-lest our own nation's moral values suffer. 

Indeed, the United States can serve Israel best by regaining its position as the respected advocate of even-handed policies that are fair to all parties. There is already a realization by many Israelis that their democracy will best be preserved, not through unquestioning support by the United States, but through thoughtful analysis and free debate by all-Jews as well as non-Jews. U.S. support could go far in furthering the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace, but it cannot be applied effectively so long as the lobby, as the voice of the U.S. Jewish community, demands that the United States give unquestioning support to the sterile military view of national security now current in Israel. 

As Washington columnist Richard Cohen warned during the Israeli war in Lebanon in 1982: 

The age-old dream of an Israel that incorporates the very best of Judaism, the dream that propelled kids like me out of the house with a canister for the Jewish National Fund, is turning very slowly into a nightmare. 

For the American Jewish community to defend the indefensible would only isolate it from the American community at large and transform a moral force in this country into nothing more than a lobby. 

Our concern must reach beyond the damage being done to the moral force represented by our Jewish community, even though all citizens suffer as this force withers. All Americans must recognize the broader threat-the damage being done to our cherished institution of free speech as citizens fear to speak out on Middle East policy. 

We could hardly do better than follow the vision-and heed the warning-which Israeli writer Amos Oz offers for his own country: 

If there are people who could 'cure' us of the curse of pluralism, and open, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, the eyes of whoever does not see the light as they do, then there is bound to be an ugly, even a dangerous, struggle. But if the confrontation is a matter of lobbying, with recognition of the legitimacy of differing positions and a willingness to be persuaded, then there will be fertile, creative tension. 

Throughout history, the greatest threat to our society has come from within: the tendency of fearful people to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. Abraham Lincoln warned that those who, in the name of national security, "destroy the spirit that prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands everywhere" have effectively "planted the seeds of despotism around your doors." Democracy cannot function in an atmosphere in which citizens fear to speak out. 

If one powerful group can succeed in inhibiting free expression on a particular topic, others inevitably will be tempted to try the same in order to advance their favorite causes. If the great institutions of education can be forced to ignore challenges to academic freedom on one subject, they will be fair game on other subjects. If a great newspaper can be pressured into letting the agent of a lobby look over the shoulders of editors as they prepare coverage of the war in Lebanon, other lobbies have a precedent on which to base similar demands. If a Catholic nun and an Episcopalian dean can be vilified as anti-Semitic because they apply religious principles to the tragedy of the Middle East, and if these same principles can be bent to political ends, religious freedom everywhere is endangered. If a lobby can force government officials into ignominious silence in one vital area of public policy, other parts of the body politic could be similarly disabled. 

In short, when a lobby stifles free speech nationally on one controversial topic-the Middle East-all free speech is threatened. 

next...conclusion
America's Intifada