The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

Mario Cuomo had a choice when he addressed an audience of Miami Jews on Dec. 5. He could score with some cheap political rhetoric, or he could tell the complicated, nuance-laden truth. Cuomo chose the former. In a speech that pushed every pro-Israel button known to man, New York's Governor singled out the Arab states' economic boycott of Israel for special condemnation. The applause increased when Cuomo identified Japan as a particularly egregious and cowardly collaborator. "I was in Japan ((in October)), talking every day about the Arab boycott," said Cuomo. "You know what a difference it would make if you could get Japan involved in business with Israel?"

On the surface, Cuomo's attack was unremarkable. Japan bashing is fashionable these days, and decrying the Arab boycott (which surely deserves it) is the quickest way to a Jew's heart. But Cuomo knew better. He knew that while the Japanese government has sent mixed signals to the nation's corporations about the boycott, Tokyo has officially called for its suspension. He also knew that several Japanese companies were already selling cars in Israel and that other Japanese enterprises would begin trading with Israel soon. In fact, Cuomo knew this all so well that in his conversation with Taro Nakayama, who was then the Foreign Minister, the Governor said he was "appreciative of" Japan's "changing attitude on the boycott."

Saying different things to different audiences is not exactly uncommon in politics. And ever since Dwight Eisenhower complained that his golf game suffered because someone was "always yelling Nasser at the top of my backswing," every politician with national ambitions has been attuned to how his Middle East views play on the U.S. political scene. Today's Democratic contenders are no exception. Even those who are toying with isolationism make an exception for Israel. They know that American Jews are a bountiful source of campaign contributions and that they vote in numbers far exceeding their percentage of the population. (In New York, for example, a Jewish population of 12% will probably account for more than 30% of the state's 1992 Democratic primary vote.)

From Israel's perspective, all of this year's Democratic candidates are "right" on the current litmus test -- Jerusalem's request for $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to resettle Soviet Jews. Beyond that touchstone, the contenders' stances fragment. The candidate in the most potential trouble with American Jews is Bob Kerrey, who's "right" now, but who refused to co- sponsor the Senate bill that would have authorized granting the loan guarantees last fall. Kerrey's other problems include his calling Israel's West Bank settlements "provocative" and his insistence that the U.S. embassy remain in Tel Aviv (a sore point with Israel's government, which wants it moved to Jerusalem).

Paul Tsongas and Douglas Wilder have been "good," according to Jewish + leaders who monitor such matters. Bill Clinton has lately made all the right noises, but he could be hit for merely asserting that Israel will "inevitably" have to trade land for peace, and for favoring an "evenhanded" Middle East policy -- "evenhanded" signifying an Arab tilt to some Jews.

Tom Harkin, who says evenhandedness is "ridiculous," has been all over the lot. While Jewish groups view him as generally "right," Harkin twice voted to cut foreign aid to all countries by 5%. He could be hurt as well by a May 13, 1991, letter to an Iowa constituent in which he supported "a negotiated settlement that would satisfy the national aspirations of both the Israelis and Palestinians," a formulation that apparently envisions an eventual West Bank Palestinian state.

None of the announced candidates can top Mario Cuomo, who scores a perfect 10 on the Pander Meter. Some highlights: in 1988 Cuomo unsuccessfully advised Michael Dukakis to break with the 30 Democratic U.S. Senators (most of them strong supporters of Israel) who had urged Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to negotiate with the Palestinians. In June 1990 Cuomo praised Shamir for "correctly refusing to offer any guarantees that would limit the settlement" of Soviet Jews "anywhere in Israel." Last month Cuomo derided President Bush's Middle East maneuvers, saying, "I don't believe you should be evenhanded between the people who share your values and have been your staunch allies -- always, without exception -- and people who have not." One can only hope that to further peace, a President Cuomo would mute such talk, but then again the Governor is famous for saying exactly what he means and acting accordingly.

Meanwhile, Bush, who won 31% of Jewish votes in 1988, plugs along. If ever he doubts that good policy is sometimes smart politics, he should recall history. Shortly before the 1956 election, Eisenhower took Egypt's side in the Suez Canal dispute. He warned Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion "not ((to)) make any grave mistake based upon ((your)) belief that winning a domestic election is as important to us as preserving the peace." Ike won in a landslide and captured 40% of the Jewish vote, still the high-water mark for a Republican. If today's peace talks produce significant progress before next November, Bush could confound everyone by replicating Ike's showing among Jewish voters -- and he would deserve to.