When an activist opposed to stationing U.S. peacekeeping forces on the Golan Heights thrust his position paper at Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) at a recent reception here, the longtime pro-Israel lawmaker swatted the packet away.
“I know Israel better than you do and I will make my own decision,” the irate senator said.
Mark Langfan of New York City, on the receiving end of Lautenberg’s dressing down, went off to greet another legislator in the House reception room where the Coalition for a Secure U.S.-Israel Friendship had gathered last week.
The coalition includes organizations adamantly opposed to the peace process, including Americans for a Safe Israel and the Christians’ Israel Public Action Campaign.
“I resent that I’m being pushed so hard,” Lautenberg said in a brief interview immediately after the episode.
He accused Langfan and the reception’s hosts of trying to use Congress as a “Pawn” in domestic Israeli politics.
“As an American official, I can not and will not get involved in a domestic political dispute in Israel,” Lautenberg said.
The exchange with Lautenberg capped off a frenzied week of lobbying on Capitol Hill by opponents of the peace talks with Syria.
These opponents say they plan to use congressional opposition to U.S. forces on the Golan as a way of toppling any future Israeli-Syrian accord that includes territorial concession.
Much to the dismay of Israeli officials and their allies here, the onslaught of activity also signaled that debate over this volatile issue has moved full force to Capitol Hill.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has made clear his desire for U.S. troops to monitor the Golan Heights if Israel returns all or part of the strategic plateau as part of a peace agreement with Syria.
During his visit to Washington in November, Rabin himself took to the hall of Congress to ask members to withhold judgment and debate on the issue until troops are actually requested by the parties involved.
But opponents of troops on the Golan have raised the stakes, bombarding members of Congress and their staff. The lawmakers are being asked to declare themselves opposed to sending American forces to the Golan and thereby pre- empting any possible deployment.
In response to the lobbying by opponents of troops on the Golan, mainstream Jewish organization moved to send their own messages to counter the opposition forces.
An Israeli official here said the “victories by the opponents of peace” served as a “wake-up call” to Israel as well as to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Jewish organizations committed to the peace process.
Until recently, Israeli officials and AIPAC lobbyists had quietly sought to persuade members of Congress that any debate or decision was premature until a formal request was made.
But the playing field changed dramatically last week when Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, secured an audience with the 11 freshmen senators or their aides to press for a debate and a congressional vote on sending troops to the Golan.
A staunch opponent of stationing U.S. soldiers on the Golan, Gaffney told Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla), the meeting’s hosts, that he would present the pros and cons of the plan. The invitation to the 11 senators also said representatives of the Jewish community would join the briefing. But only Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, joined the meeting to lobby against forces on the Golan.
The day after the Kyl-Inhoff meeting, more than 200 activists blanketed Capitol Hill, meeting with more than 150 members of Congress.
About two dozen lawmakers came to the reception at the end of the day and some two dozen others signed onto CIPAC’s “America’s Contract with Israel,” calling for an immediate debate and vote on future U.S. commitment to Golan monitoring.
Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.), chairman of the International Relations Committee, signed the eight-point contract.
Gilman, however, said he does not favor debate or hearings at this time. According to a staff aide, Gilman interpreted the contract as calling for a debate and vote only after a formal proposal was submitted to Congress.
The aggressive lobbying efforts caught the Israelis, AIPAC and most American Jewish leader off guard.
Fearing public declarations against troops- a position that many argue would derail already precarious peace talks with the Syrians- Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich led the charge to persuade the senators to keep an open mind and not rule out sending forces.
Senior members of the Clinton administration’s peace process team and mainstream Jewish organizational leaders joined the fray, pushing for equal time to present the benefits of U.S. involvement in monitoring a future peace between Israel and Syria.
In the end, the Israeli-American-Jewish team in securing a second briefing for the new senators as early as next week. Dennis Ross, the State Department’s Middle East coordinator, is scheduled to speak.
But the full court press to convey the opinion of most mainstream Jewish organizations was not without controversy.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations sent a confidential letter to Kyl and Inhofe, declaring that the Conference “has not taken a position on the issue” of “positioning U.S. troops on the Golan.”
The letter also said that “the majority of the organizations believe it is premature at this point when no agreement has, as yet, been reached.”
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents, drew the ire of the ZOA, as well as other member organizations for not consulting its members before sending the letter, which was signed by Hoenlein and Lester Pollack, chairman of the Conference of Presidents.
Hoenlein, who in an interview had initially denied the existence of the letter, argued that the letter was appropriate, especially because it stated that a majority of its member organizations have not taken a position on the issue.
But not all the umbrella group’s members are supporting Hoenlein’s decision on the letter, even those who support its content.
“It would have been preferable and more appropriate to wait until discussing it with the President’s Conference,” said David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. “People might read into the letter more than was intended. On the other hand, the letter is true and accurate.”
ZOA’s Klein said he was outraged by the letter.
“How dare they,” he said. “This is undemocratic, unfair and not part of the mission of the conference. There has been no debate and no decision of this policy.”
By the end of the week, after copies of the letter were leaked, Hoenlein faxed a notice to all his group’s members, promising a discussion and debate of the issue.
Meanwhile, another umbrella organization, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, joined the effort to influence lawmakers.
A memorandum obtained by JTA and sent to Community Relations Councils in states that have new senators called for a letter-writing campaign to support the Israeli government’s position to delay debate.
At the NJCRAC plenum scheduled here for early February, the subject of U.S. forces on the Golan is expected to be debated and formulated as a resolution. The public forum for discussion should help clarify the American Jewish community’s official position on the issue, observers say.
In response to the NJCRAC memo, Arizona Jewish leaders fired off letters to Kyl, the meeting’s chief sponsor, protesting the meeting and asking that he keep an open mind.
“There has been no request for U.S. troops to date and we feel that closing the door on this issue could disrupt the delicate and complex negotiating process,” wrote Robert Ross, CRC chairman of the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix.
The big lobbying push comes as opponents of sending U.S. forces are on the verge of securing a major victory – congressional hearings.
The senior leadership in both parties and key committee chairmen have agreed not to take a public stand on the issue.
But key congressional committees have already decide to hold hearings on the Middle East.
Hank Brown (R-Colo.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, will convene the first hearing which will “undoubtedly” include debate on the merits of stationing U.S. troops on the Golan, Capitol Hill sources say.
The issue already came up two weeks ago during House International Relations Committee hearings, when former Secretary of State James Baker urged members of Congress not to take sides in the debate on the Golan troops issue.
As the flurry of activity in the form of hearings and lobbying continues, many members of Congress remain confused on the issue.
As one freshman congressman said at the CIPAC reception last week, “I’ve never even known there was controversy about U.S. troops on the Golan Heights.”
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.
