The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s success in obtaining the release from Syria of captured Navy flier Lt. Robert Goodman may result in a major challenge to the Democratic Party’s traditional consensus in support of Israel.
Jackson and former Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota have, since entering the race for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, made no secret theydiffer from the six other candidates in that they believe that Israel should be pressured toward negotiations aimed at a Palestinian homeland.
But Jackson’s flight to Damascus has given him both the publicity and the credentials, at least in the media, to make foreign policy and particularly the Middle East a major issue in the Democratic primaries as the campaign is now in full swing. The civil rights leader had not even left Damascus when he began arguing that the U.S. cannot favor Israel at the expense of the Arab states. “Any policy that excites one nation and incites others is not a good policy,” is the way he puts it.
MUST EMPHASIZE TRADITIONAL U.S. ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP
By contrast, former Vice President Walter Mondale, and Senators John Glenn of Ohio, Gary Hart of Colorado, Alan Cranston of California and Emest Hollings of South Carolina, and former Flordia Governor Rubin Askew all have emphasized the traditional U.S. friendship for Israel. They have accused the Reagan Administration of straying from the principles of the Camp David agreements, and castigated it for arguing in public with Israel.
At the same time, a new consensus appears to be emerging in the Democratic Party to demand that the U.S. marines be pulled out of Lebanon as soon as possible. Glenn is the only one of the eight Democratic Presidential hopefuls who has not called for a pullout, although he has warned against an escalation that could lead to war between the U.S. and Syria.
However, even many of the supporters of the various candidates accept President Reagan’s views that such a pullout would end chances for uniting Lebanon and badly damage American interest in the Middle East.
Cranston addressed this issue in a recent interview with The New York Times. “If we pull out of Lebanon, we plainly would not be pulling out of our interests in the Middle East, our real interests,” he said. “I don’t think we have a deep national interest in Lebanon And we would maintain our close relationship with Israel and continue to be committed to Israel’s security and survival.”
COMMITTED TO ISRAEL’S SECURITY SURVIVAL
All of the Democratic candidates maintain they are committed to Israel’s security and survival. Mondale, the acknowledged frontrunner, has a long record of support for Israel and close ties to the Jewish community going back to his days as a Senator from Minnesota and as a protege of the late Hubert Humphrey.
However, some supporters of Israel have been put off by the fact that Mondale was President Carter’s Vice President. Moshe Dayan, in his memoirs, describes how Mondale was the Administration official selected to harshly criticize visiting Israelis. At the same time, Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his memoirs, criticizes Mondale for being opposed to pressure on Israel.
In the current campaign, Mondale has accused Reagan of undermining the Camp David peace process and failing to give the Middle East his personal attention.
He charges that the Reagan policy is built on “illusions” that Saudi Arabia can moderate the behavior of other Arab states, that King Hussein of Jordan would come to the negotiating table “if only we weakened our adherence to Camp David,” and that the U.S. “could make new friends in the region by holding Israel at arms length.”
Mondale said recently that “instead of backing away from strategic cooperation with Israel, as the Reagan Administration has done repeatedly, I would make it meaningful and permanent.” He said he would also urge Egypt to “resume its promised normalization of relations with Israel.”
Mondale criticized the Administration’s support of the meeting in Cairo last month between Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasir Arafat and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
GLENN’S POLICY IS INCONSISTENT
Mondale’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Glenn, has not had Mondale’s close ties to the Jewish community. While opposing the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia in 1981 he had approved the sale of F-I5s to the Saudis in 1978. He had strongly criticized Israel’s bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq and had supported a “moratorium” on settlements.
Glenn has also come under criticism for saying at various times that the U.S. should have contacts with the PLO. But in a speech to the Foreign Policy Association in New York in September he said the U.S. should “neither recognize nor negotiate” with the PLO until it abandons terrorism and renounces its pledge to destroy Israel.
In the same speech, Glenn opposed any concessions to the Arab states “that would endanger Israeli security.” He said that the U.S. may well limit the arms to Arab countries “so long as they remain outside the peace process.” He, too, has accused the Administration of retreating from Camp David and of a policy during its first 16 months of keeping Israel publicly at arms length. He has also faulted the Administration for making a public issue of its differences with Israel.
AVOWED SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL
The three other senators in the race are all avowed supporters of Israel. Cranston has been one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the Senate and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has constantly defended the Jewish State. He has opposed weapons to Arab countries for fear they will be used against Israel.
Cranston also has accused the Administration of backing away from Camp David. He has maintained that Israel is the only true friend of the U.S. in the region and once the Arabs realize that the U.S. will not abandon its commitment to Israel they will be willing to negotiate for peace.
Hart, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called Israel a “strategic” asset and a “dependable ally.” Support for Israel is morally right,” he said in a Chicago speech. “It was right in 1948. It is right today. And it will always be right.” He has opposed arms to Arab states who refuse to deal diplomatically with Israel. He has also warned that dependence on Arab oil is a threat not only to Israel’s security but to that of the U.S. itself.
Hart has also denounced calls for concessions by Israel until the Arab states agree to negotiate with Jerusalem. He has urged the Administration to stop “public statements that play into the hands of those who seek to deligitimize the very existence of Israel.”
HOLLINGS WAS IN HOT WATER
Hollings, like Glenn, voted for the sale of F-I5s to the Saudis but not against the AWACS sale. In addition, he got into some hot water when, during a Senate debate, he referred to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D. Ohio) as the “senator from B’nai B’rith.” He later apologized.
Hollings also has criticized the Administration for neglecting the Camp David process. He believes the autonomy talks should be revitalized as the best means of solving the problem of the West Bank, including settlements. He has called Israel “our best friend in the Middle East” and a strategic asset.
Askew has no national record on Israel but has maintained a pro-Israel stance in the campaign. He has been quoted as saying that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not an obstacle to peace and should not be moved. He added that Israel is justified in building the settlements as long as there is no peace agreement.
JACKSON TERMED INSENSITIVE, TROUBLING
Jackson maintains that he supports a secure Israel and supports the Camp David peace process. But he has criticized the recent agreement between the U.S. and Israel on strategic cooperation as a “blank check” for Israel without any concessions on the settlements in the West Bank or Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.
He charges also that the U.S. is in complicity with Israel in its invasion of Lebanon. Jackson argues that the U.S. must also seek friends in the Arab world. “The best way to defend Israel is to relieve Israel of having so many enemies,” he contends.
Jackson wants the U.S. to talk to the PLO and favors a Palestinian homeland in the West Bank and Gaza. He met with Arafat in 1979. He has also sought to separate Zionism from Judaism. “Zionism is rooted in race, it’s a political philosophy,” he said in a recent interview in New York magazine. “It’s a political philosophy. Judaism is religion and faith; it’s a religion.”
But during a July, 1980 address before the convention of the American Federation of Ramallah Palestine in Birmingham, Alabama, Jackson excoriated Zionism. He reportedly stated: “We have the real obligation to separate Zionism from Judaism … Zionism is a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism,”
A 19-page fact sheet sent last October 6 by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith to its national executive committee, before Jackson announced his candidacy, charged him with a wide array of “insensitive and troubling” public actions “particular in respect to Israel, the Holocaust and Black-Jewish relations.”
SAYS HE’S TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST
One such example cited in the ADL fact sheet concerns a statement Jackson made during his 1979 Mideast tour. He was quoted as saying: “I’m sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust and having America being put in the position of a guilt trip. We have got to get on with the issues of the day and not talk about the Holocaust.” He reportedly added: “The Jews do not have a monopoly in suffering.”
He recently claimed that this was not an anti-Jewish remark but that he was seeking to stress that unless the Holocaust is kept “in perspective it can be damaging. We have ugly dimensions of our past. They must give way to our hope for the future.”
McGovem also maintains that the U.S. has “a special commitment to Israel” and says he would be willing to enter a defensive agreement with the Jewish State. But he argues that the U.S. has to be “more even-handed” and “not give Israel a blank check unless they take more effort than I’ve seen on compromising on the West Bank and keeping open the door to eventual settlement of that area by the Palestinians.”
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.
