President Carter reaffirmed the “moral and strategic” value of close U.S. Israel ties and said he was committed to “an undivided Jerusalem” and opposed to a Palestinian state in response to questions submitted to him and seven other Presidential candidates by the magazine, Jewish Living.
The questionnaire was compiled by the editors of the bi-monthly and by Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Daniel Landes of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies at Yeshiva University in Los Angeles. The replies appear in the January-February issue due out this week.
The questionnaire covered a wide range of subjects, including affirmative action, state aid to parochial schools, and Soviet Jewry. But they focussed primarily on the Middle Past. Neither Carter not those seeking to replace him in the White House responded directly to the entire questionnaire. They sent the magazine supplementary statements and prepared texts.
VIEWS OF CARTER AND KENNEDY
Carter said he “will work diligently to bring as still closer to Israel because close U.S. Israel ties are in the moral and strategic interest of both our nations.” While asserting his commitment to “an undivided Jerusalem” he did not indicate whether this meant that Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital or if it should belong to Israel.
On a Palestinian state, he reiterated what he has stated on previous occasions — that such a state would be “a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would not serve the interests of the United States.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D. Mass), who is challenging Carter for the Democratic Presidential nomination, also advocated close U.S. ties in this statement to Jewish Living, Kennedy observed that “The security of Israel is indispensable to the security of the United States.” He cautioned that “We cannot and must not trade the security of Israel for a barrel of oil” and called for $350 million more in economic assistance to Israel in the coming fiscal year.
CONNALLY REITERATES HIS CONTROVERSIAL VIEW
Of the eight Presidential hopefuls queried, only former Texas Gov. John Connally expressed viewpoints not calculated to appeal to Jewish voters. Connally replied to the questionnaire by submitting the text of the controversial address he delivered at the Washington Press Club last fall which infuriated Jews by linking a solution of the Palestinian problem to America’s need for an assured oil supply from the Middle East.
Connally said, “Except for minor border rectifications,” Israel must withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, all of which would be demilitarized. According to Connally’s plan, “Israel will be permitted to lease military strong points in each of these areas.” He added that “the United States should maintain a strong military presence in the vital area, including major Air Force components ….”
In discussing the future of Jerusalem, Connally mentioned several “workable alternatives,” including “Arab or Israeli sovereignty based in residential patterns (or) a dual sovereignty for the entire municipal region, with individuals deciding which passport they prefer to carry …” He cited acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 242 as the criterion for talking with “the Palestinian leadership.”
Of all the candidates, only former California Gov. Ronald Reagan had no answer for the question “Should U.S. officials have formal contact with Yasir Arafat’s PLO.” Six others either answered “no” or said the U.S. should not negotiate with the PLO unless it recognizes Israel’s right to exist. The six are Rep. John Anderson (R. III.); Sen. Howard Baker (R. Tenn.)’ Gov. Edmund Brown Jr. of California, a Democrat; former UN Ambassador George Bush, a Republican; Kennedy and Carter.
VIEWS ON THE MIDDLE EAST
Anderson stressed that the U.S. should not try to impose a solution in the Middle East because such a solution would “tend to unravel, leaving all the parties worse off.” On the question of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he said he does not presently support such a move but could see it as part of a future “larger set of actions.”
Discussing arms sales, Anderson said that weapons should be sold to Middle East countries “only if there is a compelling military requirement consistent with our own national security interest.” He added that Israel’s ability “to maintain the regional military balance” must be considered.
Baker said the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel is fundamental to the security of the U.S. He added that he strongly supports the Camp David process and that the U.S. can assist the maintenance of peace by fostering economic development in the Middle East. On the matter of arms sales, Baker said his decision would be based on “the degree of commonality of interest between the United States and the recipient country and whether the sale will enhance or degrade the stability of the region.”
Brown mentioned the relationship between energy and the U.S. role in the Middle East. “Until the U.S. can develop its energy independence, the country’s leadership must recognize that Israel is the foremost democratic and stabilizing political and military presence in the Middle East,” he said. Brown added that on both “moral grounds” and “the self-interest of the United States,” he advocated continuing and strengthening the commitment to Israel.
Reagan, who presented his views in the form of an xeroxed copy of an article published in The Washington Past, expressed the need for close U.S. Israel ties. He observed that Israel is “perhaps the only remaining strategic asset in the region on which the United States can truly rely.” He added that “…if Administration policies should serve to weaken Israel … a determined barrier to Soviet expansion in the region would have been withdrawn ….”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
