In Shift, Likud Opposition Takes Case to Capitol Hill

In a move stirring controversy, officials of Israel’s former Likud government have been making the rounds here, voicing a less-than-optimistic view of the Middle East peace process and the way the Labor government is handling it.

Among the Likud officials meeting recently with members of Congress was Yossi Ben-Aharon, who served as director-general of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s office.

“We came to the United States to present views critical of the government’s policy on the agreement” with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ben-Aharon said last Thursday in a telephone interview from Israel.

“We believe that, contrary to impressions, there is a groundswell of opposition to the government’s policy,” he said.

The visits of Ben-Aharon and other opposition figures have revived a longtime controversy in the American Jewish community about whether and to what extent Israeli political debates should be exported to the United States.

In previous years, when the Israeli government was controlled by the Likud, members of the Labor Party tended to show up in Washington to offer their opinions, which often differed from the positions of the Likud government.

And the Likud government was known to complain bitterly about such activities.

The recent flurry of meetings on the Hill and elsewhere here represent a turning of the tables.

The Likud party is in the opposition, having lost to the Labor Party in Israel’s 1992 elections.

The Likud has, for the most part, expressed pessimism and skepticism about the Israeli-Palestinian accord negotiated by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s government.

DEBATES WILL DILUTE UNDERSTANDING

Some in the American Jewish community, like Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, have long believed that the phenomenon of Israeli opposition figures criticizing the Israeli government in the United States is counterproductive.

“It’s inappropriate and ill-advised today, just as it was in the days when Labor was in the opposition,” Foxman said in an interview.

Such debates should take place in Israel, not in the United States, he said.

“It will dilute the understanding and support of the American people and Congress when Israel will really need it,” Foxman said.

Former Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval also recently visited Washington.

Ben-Aharon said he is aware the current Israeli government is concerned about the Likud visits, but said the times demand such meetings.

The situation “is so critical and vital to Israel’s security that political considerations are overshadowed by the need to explain our viewpoint,” both in Israel and in the United States, Ben-Aharon said.

Israeli officials in Washington note that it is not unprecedented for opposition figures to hold meetings in Washington.

But once the opposition figures start talking about bringing down the government, or saying that the government’s policies will lead to disaster, the level of concern at the embassy starts to rise, as has been the case recently.

And groups on the left of the political spectrum here, like Americans for Peace Now, who came in for their share of criticism during the Shamir years for questioning Israel’s policies, are now calling the Likud figures’ activities hypocritical.

Ben-Aharon and two of his colleagues met here with members of Congress, pro-Israel and Jewish groups, and think tank scholars the week of Nov. 15.

The former Likud officials stressed two major points on which they would like American help, Ben-Aharon said.

The first is their belief that the United States should not grant waivers to the PLO.

Since the Sept. 13 signing of the Israeli-PLO accord, Congress has approved temporary waivers allowing some U.S. money to go to international organizations financing the PLO and allowing the PLO to reopen its office here.

The second point concerns the issue of American security guarantees on the Golan-Heights.

Reports indicate that if Israel and Syria agree on some sort of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, American troops could be deployed there.

CONGRESS SAID TO BE SYMPATHETIC

Ben-Aharon and his colleagues think it would be a mistake for Israel to withdraw from the Golan, and a mistake to depend on American troops.

He said the response from the members of Congress was “sympathetic.”

Among the members of Congress with whom he met were Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), who heads the House’s Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.

Following his meeting with the Israelis, McCollum released a statement Nov. 19 summing up their positions, including their idea that the Israeli-PLO accord could lead to further destabilization in the region and more enmity toward Americans.

“This is not a far-fetched scenario,” McCollum said. “Since the peace process, there has been an increase in terrorism in the Middle East.”

Ben-Aharon also said he met with Sens. Hank Brown (R-Colo.), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and with Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn.).

A Capitol Hill source present at one half-hour meeting said that the Likud figures did not urge Congress to do anything in particular about the peace process, but merely sought to present their perspective.

“I wouldn’t portray them as lobbying against government policies,” the source said, but as “reporting on the view and opinion in Israel and their perspective. They weren’t saying, ‘We need your help in killing this thing.’ “

Ben-Aharon was joined by Yigal Carmon, who served as Shamir’s adviser on terrorism, and Yoram Ettinger, who previously worked at the Israeli Embassy here.

All three are private citizens now, Ben Aharon said.

“We did not represent formally any political party. We are not politicians,” he said. But he added, “We are in contact with some in the Likud.”