-Caveat Lector- http://jewishworldreview.com/0799/golan.html U.S. troops on the Golan? A debate resumes Opponents of plan split over whether to renew their campaign By Michael Shapiro Washington Jewish Week http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- DURING THE LAST ROUND of intensive negotiations between Israel and Syria, a heated debate erupted in Washington over whether U.S. troops should be stationed on the Golan Heights to monitor a peace deal between the two longtime foes. Hard-line American and Israeli critics of the peace process, who opposed the use of American troops to monitor a deal, pressed the issue. Back in 1994, they took out newspaper ads showing the body of a U.S. soldier who was killed while serving in Somalia and lobbied unsuccessfully to have Congress impose restrictions on the use of American soldiers before any agreement � including what role the United States and its soldiers would play � could be reached. At the time, top U.S. officials said they were prepared to send troops as part of a monitoring force if both Israel and Syria requested such a move. Strong supporters of the peace process saw these lobbying efforts as trying to scuttle the negotiations. While a number of observers and participants in that debate said discussing the issue of U.S. troops in the context of an Israeli-Syrian deal on the Golan Heights is premature, there are signs the issue is once again emerging as both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak � who is holding a bevy of meetings here this week � and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad have said they are eager to restart negotiations. Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank in Washington that has a number of Jewish financial backers, is one of those involved in the earlier debate who is calling for the issue to be discussed now. Gaffney, deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, has been a vocal opponent of stationing U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, arguing that American soldiers would be targets of terrorism and that the likelihood of the United States being drawn into a Middle East war would increase. �These facts demand that the question of deploying U.S. forces on the Golan Heights be subjected to rigorous debate now, before such a deployment becomes an integral part of any Israel-Syria deal,� the center said in a July 6 press release. �Otherwise, Congress is likely to be presented with another Clinton fait accompli, whereby any action to prevent an ill advised-commitment of American troops is portrayed as a mortal threat to the �peace process� and, therefore, politically untenable.� Another key participant in the 1994 campaign also is making some noise. In recent missives to fax machines in Washington, Yoram Ettinger, who was head of congressional liaison at the Israeli Embassy during the Likud-led government of Yitzhak Shamir and later lobbied members of Congress opposing U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, argues that Syria cannot be trusted and is reminding people here that Syrian-sponsored terrorists blew up the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut in 1983, killing more than 250 Americans. �Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights would not moderate the Mideast nor would it advance U.S. national security interests,� Ettinger wrote, stressing that the disappearance of an Israeli military presence close to Damascus will allow Syria to flex its military muscle and expand its support of terrorism. In addition to his faxes, Ettinger has met with staffers on Capitol Hill to discuss the Syrian threat, according to Hill sources. Reached in Israel on his cell phone, Ettinger acknowledged he was in Washington �a month ago� but said he was here working on other issues. While he would not say if he would be involved in a lobbying campaign similar to last time, Ettinger said: �If I will be asked my opinion, I will gladly share it.� Some members of the organized Jewish community who are active on the Hill and hold similar views to that of Gaffney and Ettinger predict another round of debate over whether U.S. troops should be stationed on the Golan Heights. If the �same issues are brought to the table, the same debate will ensue,� said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America. However, others who actively opposed stationing troops on the Golan while the Labor-led government of Yitzhak Rabin negotiated with the Syrians are not as eager to raise the issue at this time. As Tom Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, pointed out, his reticence to raise the issue now is a twist on the debate from last time around when more dovish forces, including Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, argued that raising the specter of U.S. troops on the Golan before such an agreement was reached was premature. But now, Neumann does not want to raise the issue because he does not see an agreement between Israel and Syria happening any time soon. He also believes President Clinton will be hesitant to commit troops to a Golan Heights monitoring force because members of Congress and many other Americans have �no stomach for another deployment [of U.S. troops], whether it is for peacekeeping or war.� A recent poll sponsored by the Israel Policy Forum, a group that lobbies in support of the peace process, shows that American Jews are split on whether the United States should provide troops to a peace-keeping force on the Golan. In the survey of 606 people, 46 percent favor such a move and 44 percent are opposed. Observers such as Jess Hordes, director of the Anti-Defamation League�s government and national affairs office, predict that rather than focusing on whether Israel should withdraw from the Golan Heights � which is not as divisive an issue in Israel or within the American Jewish community as it was five years ago � the likely debate will center more on the issue of American involvement abroad. The U.S. military has its lowest personnel levels since 1950, but is engaged in numerous peacekeeping and relief operations around the world, including in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf and the Sinai Peninsula, where 870 American troops serve in a multinational observer force which was established in 1982 to monitor the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The Sinai force has long been talked about as a model for any international presence on the Golan Heights. One official Israeli source said the numbers of American soldiers needed for what would amount to a �political force� would be �miniscule,� and believes that Clinton would not be hesitant to provide troops if that is what it takes to cement a deal between Israel and Syria. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Michael Shapiro is a staff reporter for Washington Jewish Week. Let him know what you think by clicking here. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
