A.I.P.A.C. CONFERENCE SHOWS AMERICAN JEWRY IS DUBIOUS ABOUT PROSPECTS FOR REAL MIDEAST PEACE

(Washington, D.C.): The 1996 annual policy conference of the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has just
indisputably established a point all U.S. policy-makers should
bear in mind: The American Jewish community is not
monolithically supportive of several specific initiatives that
are supposed to produce real peace for Israel with the PLO and
Syria. To the contrary, according to opinion research
reported to the attendees today by nationally renowned pollster
Frank Luntz and analysis supplied yesterday by a leading member
of the Center for Security Policy’s Board of Advisors, Douglas J.
Feith, there is a healthy skepticism among many American Jews
about these initiatives and the policies of which they are a
product.

It follows, therefore, that American officials can
formulate and implement policies bearing on related questions on
the basis of what is in the best interests of the United States,
the security of the State of Israel and a robust U.S.-Israeli
relationship and enjoy considerable support within the
influential Jewish community for doing so. Such questions
include:

• Should Syria remain on the list of nations sponsoring
  terrorism and drug-trafficking as long as it continues
  to aid or abet such activities?
• Should U.S. personnel be deployed on the Golan Heights as
  peace-keepers or -monitors if Israel surrenders the
  Heights to Syria?
• Should U.S. taxpayer funds be provided to Syria if it
  signs a peace accord with Israel?
• Should the United States give the PLO millions of
  additional dollars even if it fails to honor its
  commitments under the Oslo accords?

The Luntz Data

The Luntz Research Company’s national survey of 650 Jewish
American adults conducted from May 2-5 produced a number of
interesting insights. (The poll has a theoretical margin of error
of plus or minus 3.8% at the 95% confidence level.) The poll
first confirmed what is widely understood to be the basic outlook
of that community: It is relatively liberal, Democratic and
supportive of the generic effort to achieve peace between Israel
and its adversaries. The poll established, nonetheless, that a
majority are critical of the accords reached with the PLO and
those in prospect with Syria.

Declining Confidence in the PLO Deal: For example,
roughly 56% of those polled responded that the Oslo agreements
with the PLO have been either somewhat unsuccessful (36%), very
unsuccessful (14%) or a complete failure (6%). Only 42% believe
that these accords have been successful (40%) or very successful
(2%). 61% do not trust Yasser Arafat (up from 38% in September
1993) compared to only 37% who do — either some or a great deal
— (down from 59% at the time of the White House signing
ceremony).

Skepticism Concerning A Deal With Syria: Concerning
the prospective agreement with Syria, American Jews are
overwhelmingly distrustful of the man with whom such a deal would
be struck, Syrian President Hafez Assad. 62% responded that they
would not or probably would not trust Assad to “keep his
promise of peace” versus only 29% who said they would or
probably would. If asked whether Assad could be relied upon to
honor an agreement to refrain from terrorist activity against
Israel, fully 70% said they probably or definitely would not
trust him versus just 23% who would or probably would.

When asked about particular initiatives being contemplated in
support of an Israeli-Syrian agreement, the following responses
were obtained: 57% opposed Israel giving up its security zone in
Lebanon, versus only 34% in favor. 59% would oppose the U.S.
giving Syria foreign aid, versus just 32% in favor. And 65% would
oppose Israel giving up the Golan Heights versus only 28% in
favor. Overall, 51% said they would oppose “a treaty between
Israel and Syria in which Israel would withdraw from the Golan
Heights in exchange for an agreement from Syria for peace with
Israel.” This compares to just 39% who say they would favor
such a treaty. (The corresponding breakouts for September 1993
were 47% opposed and 40% in favor.)

With respect to the controversial issue of deploying American
troops or other personnel on the Golan Heights in support of a
peace agreement with Syria, American Jews are evenly divided with
46% favoring the idea to 48% opposed. (This compares with a
35%-68% pro/con split among the population as a whole.) What is
more, 53% of those polled in the U.S. Jewish community expressed
the view that congressional hearings should be held on this
initiative “before an agreement is reached calling
for U.S. armed forces participation in the peace-keeping or
peace-monitoring process on the Golan Heights.” A minority
of 40% think such hearings are not required before making such a
commitment. (Among the general population the split is 66% to
28%.) Clearly, there is no basis for believing that all — or
even most — Jews in America think that an American deployment on
the Golan is an essential ingredient to the peace negotiations,
let alone that hearings into this issue would be undesirable
during the delicate period when negotiations are underway prior
to an agreement.

Perhaps reflecting this more accurate understanding of
the sharply divided sentiments of the American Jewish community,
AIPAC has recently decided to support congressional hearings and
a broader debate on the wisdom of deploying American personnel on
the Golan Heights. An important indication of this welcome new
attitude was evident in its decision to sponsor a panel
discussion of this issue at the annual policy conference. It
featured Douglas J. Feith, who formerly served as a Middle East
expert on the staff of the National Security Council and a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy in the
Reagan Administration. Other participants included Peter Rodman,
a former State Department and NSC official, and AIPAC’s Marvin
Feuer.

In the course of remarks that illuminated the myriad dangers
associated with a negotiated agreement with Assad’s despotic
regime, Mr. Feith made the following trenchant observation:

“Israel cannot have a true and lasting peace if Syria
does not have a government willing and capable of delivering
such a peace. And it is not within Israel’s power to bring
about such a government in Syria. There are limits to what
Israel can accomplish through diplomacy and through
concessions to Damascus. Israel may be able to get a peace
agreement with the Assad regime, but it will not get peace
unless the nature of the regime in Damascus changes
radically.”

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy applauds these important
contributions to an informed and critical analysis of peace
process-related issues — issues that may shape U.S. interests in
the Middle East and Israeli security for years to come. It
appreciates AIPAC’s current support for congressional hearings
concerning these and related matters. The Center reiterates its
belief that such hearings must be held quickly if they are to
allow the legislative branch an input when that input can be constructive,
namely prior to the completion of an agreement.