EDITORIAL
Eroding Support
For State Of Israel
Recent stories in the media, both in The
Jewish News and in the general press, have
raised some disturbing questions and focused
on the sense that an increasing number of
American Jews feel less attached to Israel
than in years past.
That sense of erosion appears to be part of a
national trend, according to a New York
Times/CBS News Poll released this week.
The results show that while "there is still an
enduring core of support for Israel, especially
when considered in relation to its Arab
neighbors, Americans no longer side strongly
with Israel against the Palestinians within
its borders," according to a report on the front
page of the New York Times on Monday. In
addition, "the majority of Americans who say
they favor sustained financial and military
aid to Israel has been reduced, and a growing
minority now advocates more sympathy for
the concerns of Palestinians inside Israel."
Among the highlights of the statistics: 61
percent of those polled (1,084 people around
the country) advocated sustaining or increas-
ing levels of aid to Israel, compared to 72 per-
cent responding to a similar poll in 1989.
Forty-seven percent support a Palestinian
homeland, compared to 40 percent in a 1988
survey.
Most dramatically, respondents were even-
ly split when asked whether the U.S. should
be more sympathetic to the concerns of Pales-
tinians in Israel. Two years ago, Americans
questioned in a similar poll said no by a 2-1
ratio.
Analysts can ascribe a variety of reasons
for this erosion of American support for
Israel. Critics of Israel say that Jerusalem
has resisted peace efforts, mistreated Pales-
tinians and receives too much financial aid
from Washington.
Much of this perception of Israel as intran-
sigent is due to Washington's obvious impa-
tience with the Shamir government, with the
Bush administration taking a more adver-
sarial role in its efforts to bring about a peace
settlement between Israel and her Arab
neighbors.
But such a characterization is superficial
and does Israel, and America, a serious
disservice. When President Bush tells a press
conference, as he did last week, that he has
been "on the phone" with Egyptian President
Mubarak and Jordan's King Hussein, one
wonders why he has not spoken to Israeli
Prime Minister Shamir for several months.
The American people are left with the im-
pression that Israel is the obstacle to pro-
gress, not that she is concerned about her
survival because most Arab states still ad-
vocate her destruction.
We don't hear President Bush expressing
concern about Saddam Hussein of Iraq
threatening to obliterate Israel, but rather
that the President feels Israel should "now
move forward again" on the peace process.
Ours is not an attempt to whitewash
Israel's diplomatic problems. The Shamir
government needs to take a less cavalier at-
titude to American criticism. But the fact
remains that when viewed in the perspective
of Mideast history, it is Israel that has con-
sistently sought a context for peace with her
neighbors. And it is the Arab states that have
launched the wars and refused to recognize
the reality of a Jewish state that will not
commit suicide.
44tirritm
I LETTERS I
Nelson Mandela:
Chutzpa Award
It pains me to have to con-
sider Nelson Mandela as a
possible recipient of the
"Chutzpa of the Year" award.
For Mandela to be an honored
guest of the United States, to
address Congress and then to
embrace the Puerto Rican in-
dividual convicted of the
lethal assault on the same
Congress in 1954, is
something I am totally in-
capable of understanding.
I can only hope that is is a
result of the unavoidable time
warp created by Mandela's
long incarceration.
Abe Pasternak
Southfield
Silence Of Acquiesence
On Saudi Weapon Sale
One indication of the deterioration in the
U.S.-Israel relationship of late is the fact that
a proposed $4 billion arms sale to Saudi
Arabia is sailing through Congress with vir-
tually no opposition from allies of Israel.
The American Israel Public Affairs Com-
mittee (AIPAC), the official lobby for the
Israeli government, used to oppose such sales
and lobby against them vigorously, or at least
urge that the sales be scaled down, arguing
that they represented a military threat to
Israel. But AIPAC is not opposing this sale,
and that makes it more difficult for pro-Israel
congressmen to do so. In the end, there were
only 10 sponsors of a House resolution to
block the Saudi sale.
While AIPAC officials say the rationale for
their position is that the sale will not hurt
Israel's security, a number of Mideast analy-
sts believe another factor is that the pro-
Israel lobby has less leverage these days.
Said one Israeli official in Washington: "A lot
of people realize that we now have a limited
amount of political capital in this town."
Part of this is due to perceptions of Israel as
intransigent and part is a result of resent-
6 FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1990
ment of AIPAC among lawmakers for its
alleged strong-arm tactics in the past. AIPAC
pushed hard, and successfully, for a largely
symbolic resolution earlier this year declar-
ing Jerusalem Israel's capital, and is said to
be gearing up for a showdown on an expected
major sale of fighter aircraft to the Saudis
later this year.
An additional factor in this year's sale to
the Saudis is the local support. Included in
the Saudi purchase are 315 M1A-2 tanks,
manufactured at the U.S. Automotive Tank
Command in Warren and at Lima, Ohio.
These facilities were scheduled to be closed in
1992 and 1993. USATACOM in Warren will
lose 700 assembly jobs anyway, but the Saudi
sale will preserve 500 component manufac- •
turing positions "and maintain our industrial.
base," says U.S. Senator Carl Levin.
As long as Saudi Arabia — the Arab
arsenal of the Middle East — does not use
these tanks, local jobs outweigh foreign af-
fairs. However, can we be unconcerned that
the major bankroller of five Arab wars
against Israel is continuing to build its huge
arsenal of offensive weapons?
Campaign Is Not
Single-Focused
Thank you for the article
about the new Jewish
charities (July 6). These
"alternative groups," as you
describe them, perform an im-
portant service and are wor-
thy of support.
At the same time, the arti-
cle leaves an erroneous im-
pression that requires correc-
tion. Beneficiary agencies
and institutions of the Allied
Jewish Campaign do in fact
concern themselves with
issues of poverty and hunger
in Detroit, with famine. in
Third World countries, with
democracy and pluralism in
Israel.
Your article praises an
organization for helping non-
Jews throughout the world.
And yet, one of the Cam-
paign's two major overseas
beneficiaries, the 75-year-old
Joint Distribution Commit-
tee, has provided tons of food
and an agricultural recovery
program for the famine-
stricken in Ethiopia, a mobile
dental clinic for Morocco,
medical aid to earthquake
victims in Armenia, and
relief to hurricane survivors
in Charleston, N.C. — only a
few of the most recent ex-
amples of the nonsectarian,
humanitarian outreach of
this marvelous agency sup-
ported by Campaign dollars
By its very nature, the cen-
tral fund-raising organization
of the Jewish community can-
not be single-focused. The ad-
vantage to supporting the
Allied Jewish Campaign is
that a donor's annual gift can
simultaneously help the ag-
ed, troubled youngsters,
distressed families and others
in need here and throughout
the world .. .
Larry Jackier
Birmingham
Editor's note: Jackier is co-
chairman of the 1991 Allied
Jewish Campaign.
Group Demands
Pressure On Israel
We are Arabs and Jews
engaged in a peace dialogue.
Though- there are issues on
which we disagree, we all feel
strongly that the failure of
the United States to use its
influence to advance the
Israeli-Palestinian peace pro-
cess has potentially
disastrous consequences.
Violence could easily escalate
beyond control, destroying op-
portunities that still exist for
a settlement and, more
generally, threatening world
peace.
We believe that the first
step toward a resolution of the
conflict between Israel and
the Arab world is a just peace
between Israel and the
Palestinian people. We know
that the Palestinians disagree
Continued on Page 10