THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY JANUARY 28, 1991
Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat
By David Rogers, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON - When Congress debated going to war with Iraq, the pro-Israel lobby stayed in the background-but not out of the fight.
Leaders of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee now acknowledge it worked in tandem with the Bush administration to win passage of a resolution authorizing the president to commit U.S. troops to combat. The behind-the-scenes campaign avoided Aipac's customary high profile in the Capitol and relied instead on activists-calling sometimes from Israel itself-to contact lawmakers and build on public endorsements by major Jewish organizations.
"Yes, we were active." says Aipac director Thomas Dine. "These are the great issues of our time, If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice."
Swing Votes
In the end, pro-Israel lawmakers were divided on the vote. But the lobby's influence nonetheless was crucial, especially in helping the White House pick up Democratic support that has typically been denied to recent presidents in other foreign policy confrontations such as the covert war in Nicaragua. Democrats who have benefited from large contributions by pro Israel political action committees were among the swing votes, and the administration says that having pro-Israel liberals behind the resolution made it easier to hold moderate Republicans as well.
One Democrat who voted for the resolution is Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who received $155,590 from pro-Israel PACs when he was running for the Senate in 1986. Mr. Reid and other Democrats who voted for the resolution say their votes had nothing to do with the assistance they have received from pro-Israel groups. Still, in states as diverse as Nebraska, Alabama, California and New York, the administration won support by tapping into pro-Israel sentiment; at the very least, the Israel factor reinforced some wavering lawmakers by giving them an opportunity to satisfy an important constituency.
Rarely have the stakes been higher-or has a case of money and ethnic politics been more sensitive and complex. The debate revealed a deep ambivalence among Jewish lawmakers over what course to follow, pitting their generally liberal instincts against their support of Israel. Friends and families were divided. And even as some pro-Israel advocates urged a more aggressive stance, there was concern that the lobby risked damaging Israel's longer term interests if the issue became too identified with Jewish or pro-Israel polities.
"American Jews should have no fear in expressing their support for the president of the United States," says Jerry Lippman, editor of the Long Island Jewish World.
Yet Aipac took pains to disguise its role, and there was quiet relief that the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel. "It isn't such a bad idea that we were split," says one Jewish lawmaker.
Pulling Together
Iraqi missile attacks on Tel Aviv have since helped to solidify opinion; there is an effort now to pull together in anticipation of costly demands for increased aid to Israel. People on both sides of the issue "had Israel as part of their concern," says Malcolm Hoenlein. executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
But the debate has nonetheless left a trail of recriminations and political maneuvering. Republicans see an opportunity in the war vote to drive a wedge between Israel supporters and Democrats. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, for instance, has chastised pro-Israel Democrats who opposed the war resolution; the Mormon law maker recently startled a reporter from the Washington Jewish Week newspaper by unbuttoning his shirt to display a silver mezuzah, locket-like amulet with a Hebrew prayer inside.
New York Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato's list of possible re-election foes next year includes state Attorney General Robert Abrams, who is Jewish, and Rep. Robert Mrazek, a pro-Israel Democrat who opposed the war resolution; Sen. D'Amato lately has edoubled his efforts to show support for Israel, making a high-profile appearance at its embassy two weekends ago, traveling to Israel last week and Implicitly accusing pro-Israel Democrats of joining "this chorus of' Let's give Saddam some more time.' "
The pressure to mobilize pro-Israel forces on the Gulf issue came foremost from Rep. Stephen Solarz, the administration's chief Democratic ally in the House. After meeting with the Brooklyn Democrat, leaders of the Reform Jewish Movement approved a statement in December in support of the use of force, despite the misgiving of some members. At a private dinner two weeks later, Mr. Solarz urged Aipac's Mr. Dine to have the group play a larger public role in the debate. The congressman bluntly describes pro-Israel lawmakers who opposed him as "tragically shortsighted" in their understanding of American-Israeli interests.
Among the congressman's allies was his longtime friend, New York attorney Bernard Nussbaum, who serves as finance chairman for Rep. Nita Lowey (D., N.Y.) and is on the advisory board of the Washington Political Action Committee, a pro Israel PAC. Mr. Nussbaum was part of a strong-albeit unsuccessful-effort by Jewish supporters of Rep. Lowey to convince her to support the resolution. (Mr. Nussbaum refuses to discuss the matter.) "She came under a lot of pressure," said Richard Maass, a past president of the American Jewish Committee who opposed the war resolution. "My message to her was, 'Stand firm.' "
Like Aipac itself, Mr. Solarz's often-unnoticed strength is his ability to reach beyond his traditional base and find votes among Southern conservatives such as Rep. Ralph Hall, a Texas "Bell Weevil" Democrat who is warmly supportive of the New York congressman-and Israel. More broadly, pro-Israel PACs have poured money into campaigns for Southern Democrats not immediately identified with their cause.
For example, the Alabama delegation voted in a bloc with Mr. Bush in both the House and Senate. At first glance, this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro military character of the state. But pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats there in recent years. A total of 25 pro Israel PACs gave Sen. Howell Heflin $87,350 toward his re-election in the 1989-1990 election cycle. Federal records also list $51.375 in contributions from pro-Israel committees to then-Congressman Richard Shelby when he ousted GOP Sen. Jeremiah Denton in 1986.
Nevada is an example of a sparsely populated state where Aipac has maximized its leverage. Richard Bryan, a former governor and ally of Sen. Reid's, received $86,750 from pro-Israel PACs in 1987-1988-more than seven times the contributions to the man he defeated, GOP incumbent Jacob Hecht, who is himself Jewish. Sen. Bryan voted with President Bush on the war resolution.
Sen. Reid, whose alliance with the pro Israel lobby goes back to his days on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, says, "I'm sure [Israel] was a factor" in his vote, "but you had a 100 different factors." In deciding, he recalls speaking with three Nevadans: a political science professor, a former governor and war veteran, and Dorothy Eisenberg, a Democratic activist and the treasurer of a pro-Israel PAC based in Las Vegas that has supported him in the past.
Ms. Eisenberg recalls speaking to the senator about her family in Israel, but though she supported the resolution, both she and he say she never lobbied him. "I trust his judgment," she says.
In the ease of Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore, another Democrat who voted with the president, the ties with pro-Israel supporters are intellectual as well as political. Just as Israel faces a hostile world, those who support it often come to favor a more muscular foreign policy for the U.S. Mr. Solarz, who personally lobbied Mr. Gore, is part of this school. So is New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, who backed the war resolution and is a close friend of the senator as well as a major contributor to the pro-Israel National PAC.
"I wouldn't think this was an Israel-driven vote for him." says Mr. Peretz, and the senator himself agrees. Still, Mr. Gore's vote not only set him apart from many in his party but also raised his profile among Israel supporters. "It will definitely raise his stature," says Morris Amitay, a Washington lobbyist and pro-Israel activist.
More on the Jewish "Anti-Defamation League" (ADL)
Internet:
The Jewish-ADL Perspective
The Jewish "ADL" has developed a filter (ADL HateFilter™) that blocks access to Radio Islam and to other Web sites that contain "inappropriate" material!
STATEMENT OF THE "ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE " (ADL) BEFORE THE US SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
This text is published in the US Senate´s homepage
(http://judiciary.senate.gov/91499ad.htm):Ahmed Rami "One high-profile Arab Holocaust denier is Swedish-based Moroccan exile Ahmed Rami, creator of the Radio Islam Web site. Once a lieutenant in the Moroccan military, Rami reportedly played a leading role in a failed 1972 coup d'Ètat and fled, gaining political asylum in Sweden. In 1987, Rami began using a public access Swedish radio station to broadcast Radio Islam, ostensibly a public relations program for Sweden's Muslims but in fact a vehicle for unvarnished anti-Semitism.
Rami has rationalized his bigotry as support for Palestinian causes. While he has become a source of embarrassment for serious Palestinian activists, Holocaust deniers have unabashedly and enthusiastically associated with him. Rami spoke at the 1992 IHR conference and has often been praised by Ingrid Rimland, among others.
Off the air from 1993 to 1995, Rami's program returned in 1996, the same year that he established the Radio Islam Web site. From the start, Rami's site offered visitors anti-Semitic material in English, French, German, Swedish and Norwegian. Early versions of the site described the "so-called 'holocaust'" as a tool used by "Zionists" to win "sovereign rights to oppress and vilify other people," namely Palestinians. These "Zionists," according to Radio Islam, have a monopoly over "information services in the West" and bribe Western politicians to support them in their "Anti-Arab and anti-Moslem racism" and "hatred against everything German."
Today, visitors to the Radio Islam site are greeted with a statement that seems to deny Rami's extremism: "No hate. No violence. Races? Only one Human race." Yet his site has become even more bigoted than ever and demonstrates the implicit connection between Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism. Radio Islam promotes a myriad of anti-Semitic works in addition to those of Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson, Greg Raven, John Ball, and Bradley Smith.
The Radio Islam site continues to portray the Holocaust as part of a Jewish conspiracy to draw the world's attention away from "the ongoing Zionist war waged against the peoples of Palestine and the Middle East" and "Zionism's totalitarian and racist backgrounds." To support this theory, it provides numerous anti-Semitic texts that allege Jewish conspiracies for political domination, such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Expanding on the anti-Semitism expressed by its denial of the Holocaust, Radio Islam equates "Jewish Racism," envisioned as Jewish prejudice against Muslims, with "Jewish 'Religion,'" as outlined by the Talmud. Visitors to Radio Islam can read "The Truth About The Talmud" by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley, which asserts that Jews are impelled, by religious law, to mistreat and attempt to dominate non-Jews. The Nature of Zionism by Vladimir Stepin, also available at the Radio Islam site, declares that Zionism rests on three basic beliefs: that Jews are "God's chosen people"; that all others are "merely two-legged animals (goys)," and that "Jews have both the right and the obligation to rule the world."
Furthermore, according to Radio Islam, the Jews are not the "chosen people" for they are not "'descendants' of the mythic Jews of the Bible." Rather, today's Jews are "descended from Mongolians and other Asiatic peoples who had adopted 'Judaism' as their 'religion' over 1,000 years ago and had become know as 'Jews.'" Often advanced by Identity believers, this theory alleges that most, if not all, Ashkenazic Jews descended from the Khazars, an obscure Turkic people whose leaders converted to Judaism in the eighth century. While Identity adherents employ this theory in order to bolster their assertion that Anglo-Saxon whites are actually the biblical Church of Israel, Rami uses it to demonstrate that the ancestors of the Jews were not from Palestine, implying that Israel has no right to exist.
What are Internet "filters" and when is their use appropriate?
Filters are software that can be installed along with a Web browser to block access to certain Web sites that contain inappropriate or offensive material. Parents may choose to install filters on their children's computers in order to prevent them from viewing sites that contain pornography or other problematic material. ADL has developed a filter (ADL HateFilter™) that blocks access to Web sites that advocate hatred, bigotry, or violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other immutable characteristics. HateFilter™, which can be downloaded from ADL's Web site, contains a "redirect" feature which offers users who try to access a blocked site the chance to link directly to related ADL educational material. The voluntary use of filtering software in private institutions or by parents in the home does not violate the First Amendment because such use involves no government action. There are also some commercially marketed filters that focus on offensive words and phrases. Such filters, which are not site-based, are designed primarily to screen out obscene and pornographic material.
May public schools and public libraries install filters on computer equipment available for public use?
The use of filters by public institutions, such as schools and libraries, has become a hotly contested issue that remains unresolved. At least one Federal court has ruled that a local library board may not require the use of filtering software on all library Internet computer terminals. A possible compromise for public libraries with multiple computers would be to allow unrestricted Internet use for adults, but to provide only supervised access for children.
Courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of hate speech filters on public school library computers. However, given the broad free speech rights afforded to students by the First Amendment, it is unlikely that courts would allow school libraries to require filters on all computers available for student use."
|
Races? Only one Human race United We Stand, Divided We Fall |
 |
No time to waste. Act now! Tomorrow it will be too late |
|
