U.S. Jews Back Push for Israel Peace, Poll Shows

President Clinton would get overwhelming support from the U.S. Jewish community if he and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chose to pressure Israeli and Palestinian leaders to end a negotiating deadlock by meeting each other halfway, a poll of almost 1,200 American Jews indicates.

But several Middle East policy experts say Clinton already has more maneuvering room to pressure both sides than he seems willing to use.

Asked if the administration should “pressure [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Palestinian Authority President Yasser] Arafat to act more constructively and be more forthcoming,” 84% of the respondents said “yes,” while only 16% dissented. Leaving Arafat out of the question, 62% said it is important for the United States to exert its influence on Netanyahu; 33% said it would be wrong for Washington to push the Israeli prime minister.

The poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 16-21 by the New York-based firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland. The survey’s sponsor, the Israel Policy Forum, a New York think tank, supports the peace process and has been critical of Netanyahu’s hard-line policies.

Asked about Albright’s recent call on Israel for a voluntary moratorium on new settlement activity, 54% of American Jews surveyed strongly agreed with it and another 25% agreed somewhat--for a total favorable response of 79%. Only 17% disagreed. And by a 68% to 25% margin, the sample endorsed Albright’s call for a “timeout” on other provocative Israeli actions--including land seizures, confiscation of Palestinian identity cards and demolition of Palestinian homes.

For most of its tenure, the administration has been leery of pushing Israel to make concessions in the peace process. State Department spokesman James P. Rubin recently spoke of “the word we don’t use--the ‘P’ word” when asked if Washington planned to “pressure” Israel to stop expanding Jewish settlements.

Middle East experts say there are several reasons Clinton has avoided confrontational politics in the Middle East. But all agree that one significant explanation is the president’s reluctance to alienate the politically potent U.S. Jewish community, which gave him well over 80% of its votes in each of his campaigns for the White House. Should Vice President Al Gore run for president in 2000, as expected, he will also need votes and campaign money from the Jewish community.

The poll showed that on issues of Middle East peace and Israeli security, Clinton may enjoy more support in the American Jewish community than does Netanyahu.

Asked to evaluate Clinton’s support for Israel, 40% said he is “very supportive” and 51% called him “somewhat supportive,” for an overwhelming total of 91%. Only 8% of respondents said the president is either “not very supportive” or “not at all supportive.”

On the question of whether Israel is headed in the right direction, the sample said it is not--by a margin of 50% to 28%.

For most of the last half-century, American Jewish leaders have cautioned their government that any indication of friction between Israel and the United States would embolden Arab leaders to attack Israel. But the poll indicated that this argument is losing appeal, perhaps because of Israel’s demonstrated military superiority over its potential Arab adversaries.

Asked to evaluate the statement, “The best way to advance the peace process is to make sure there is ‘no daylight,’ i.e., no differences between Israeli and American policies,” 18% strongly agreed and 24% agreed somewhat, for a total of 42%. However, 28% disagreed somewhat and 23% disagreed strongly, for a combined 51%.

Richard Murphy, who was the State Department’s chief Middle East expert in the Ronald Reagan administration, said in a telephone interview: “I don’t hear what we heard in the past: ‘Don’t criticize Israel publicly.’ I’m not getting that at all.”

Murphy, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said the poll is just another indication that Clinton has a stronger hand in the Middle East than he seems to be willing to play.

“At the end of the day, a prime minister [of Israel] who cannot handle the American card is in deep trouble at home,” Murphy said. “Israelis do not like to see their leaders at odds with Washington.”

William B. Quandt, White House expert on the Middle East during the 1977 Camp David conference, said the Clinton administration has “perfectly valid credentials of being pro-Israeli. . . . If Clinton really wanted to put a little leverage on Netanyahu, I think he would get away with it in domestic political terms. I just don’t have much confidence that Clinton in the crunch will take action that may be controversial.”

Quandt, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said Netanyahu’s abrupt rejection of Albright’s call for a “timeout” on settlements and provocative actions was foolish and inept.

“These folks have lost Madeleine Albright as an ally on her first trip,” Quandt said.

Nevertheless, most Middle East specialists expressed doubts that the administration will push Netanyahu very hard.

One retired diplomat with wide experience in the region said he hopes that Albright will not become confrontational in her dealings with Netanyahu because Clinton would probably pull the rug out from under her if she did.

And I. William Zartman, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, said: “I don’t think this administration’s style is to tighten any screws.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Pressure on Israel

A new poll shows that most Jewish Americans would support greater U.S. pressure on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to end the stalemate in the peace process.

* An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that the Clinton administration should pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Yassar Arafat to act more constructively and be more forthcoming.

16% disagree

84% agree

*

Most agreed with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s call for a voluntary moratorium on new settlement activity.

Strongly agree: 54%

Agree somewhat: 25%

Disagree: 17%

Don’t know: 4%

*

Most respondents feel that Israel is headed in the wrong direction.

Headed in wrong direction: 50%

Headed in right direction: 28%

Source: Israel Policy Forum

Researched by NORMAN KEMPSTER / Los Angeles Times