Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2001, page 19

Congress Watch

 

Cracks Beginning to Appear in Congress’ New-Found Sense of Responsibility

 

By Shirl McArthur

Most U.S. senators and representatives have behaved responsibly on Middle East issues while President George W. Bush’s administration attempts to build a broad-based coalition to confront terrorism, especially Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization. According to Arab American Institute president James Zogby, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told him that the Senate would not consider anti-Palestinian resolutions while Bush was engaged in building the coalition. On Oct. 18, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) read on the floor of the Senate a letter from a constituent, Ms. Sanaa Khan, in which she described in detail the five pillars of Islam. Reid took the opportunity to praise Islam and Muslims and decry “evil people around the world who would target the innocent in the name of Islam,” concluding, “I believe that the strength of Islam, and the faith and fortitude of more than one billion Muslims around the world, will overcome these evil people and their evil deeds.” Also on Oct. 18, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced, and the Senate immediately passed, a Senate Resolution condemning violence and discrimination against Iranian Americans.

In the House on Oct. 10, and again on Oct. 25, Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) gave a one-minute speech repeating what he said immediately after Sept. 11, that the U.S. must recognize statehood for Palestine. “Bombs alone will not stop terrorists. America must pursue a comprehensive strategy, and part of that strategy should support statehood for Palestine,” said Traficant. “Until the issue of a Palestinian homeland is resolved, there will always be terrorists.”

On Oct. 12, shortly after New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rejected Saudi Prince AlWaleed bin Talal’s offer of $10 million to help Americans in need as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) wrote to Prince Al-Waleed thanking him for his “demonstrations of empathy” with those suffering from the attacks. She said that “there are a growing number of people in the United States who recognize, like you, that U.S. policy in the Middle East needs serious examination.” She went on for the first half of her letter to succinctly describe some of the issues that cause animosity toward the U.S., such as the treatment of the people of Iraq, the “excessive, and often indiscriminate, use of lethal force by Israeli security forces,” and Israeli violations of international law in committing atrocities against Palestinians. McKinney did not stop there, somewhat diluting the impact of her letter by going on to say that there are many people in America, especially black people, who need Prince Al-Waleed’s generosity, and she would be glad to guide his generosity “to help improve the state of Black America and build better lives.”

 

Dingell Reintroduces His Balanced Resolution on Violence

On Oct. 25, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) introduced H.CON.RES. 253, an improved version of his previous resolution (H.RES. 205), a balanced bill that urges both the Palestinians and the Israelis to end the violence in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The new version goes a bit further than the previous one in that it specifically endorses the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. Dingell’s bill has 29 original co-sponsors, in addition to Dingell. They are Reps. David Bonior (D-MI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sonny Callahan (R-AL), Lois Capps (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Stephen Horn (R-CA), Amo Houghton (R-NY), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Ron Kind (D-WI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim Leach (R-IA), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Karen McCarthy (D-MO), Jim McGovern (D-MA), McKinney, George Miller (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), David Obey (D-WI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Tom Sawyer (D-OH), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), and Mark Udall (D-CO). Not surprisingly, perhaps, none of the co-sponsors were members of this magazine’s “Hall of Shame” (see Aug./Sept. 2000 Washington Report).

 

Die-Hard Israel Supporters Becoming More Shrill

In contrast to those positive signs, there has been a small group of representatives who seem determined to thwart any administration attempts to address the widespread criticisms of America’s policies in the Middle East. This was most apparent at the Sept. 25 hearing by the House Middle East subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), on “U.S. Policy Towardsthe Palestinians, Part II.” (The Part I hearing, held in July, was described in this magazine’s October issue.)

The tone was set right at the beginning of the hearing, when Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), not a member of the subcommittee but the ranking Democrat on the full committee, asked everyone to stand for a moment of silence not, as one might expect, in honor of the more than 6,000 people killed in the terrorist attacks, but in honor of an Israeli colonist killed the previous week in a shooting in the occupied territories. House staff members told the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call that they were outraged that Lantos had singled out only one side of the conflict. One, who identified himself only as “a Jewish staffer,” said “it was an unbelievably provocative act when the administration and the Congress are trying to keep the moderate Arab countries on board our coalition against terrorism.”

As the Jewish publication Forward pointed out in describing the hearing, “every Jewish lawmaker present was outspoken in rejecting efforts by administration defenders to draw distinctions between Palestinian terrorism and the kind identified with bin Laden.” Forward singled out for praise, in addition to Lantos, Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Gilman, and Brad Sherman (D-CA). “I am tired of hearing the idiots in the State Department continue to talk about Israel using so-called disproportionate force,” Engel said, “or asking Israel to use restraint in the fight against terrorism.”

The witnesses included former special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross and former Assistant Secretaries of State for the Middle East Martin Indyk and Edward Walker. Walker repeated current Assistant Secretary of State William Burns’ reaffirmation at the July 26 hearing of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of land for peace as the basis for resolving the dispute. Walker also said that there can be “no just and lasting peace in the Middle East without a resolution of all issues concerning the Palestinians. Israel’s security cannot be guaranteed unless the Palestinians are accorded a fair settlement.”

Ross, who now works with AIPAC-offshoot Washington Institute for Near East Policy, spent most of his time criticizing Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat for tolerating the use of terror. Even Ross, however, said that he was “not saying that the Palestinians specifically or the Arabs generally must give up their cause or their grievance; I continue to believe that the Palestinians have legitimate aspirations that must be addressed.”

For his part, Walker spent much of his time describing his view of Arafat’s motives and thinking in the days and weeks before and after Sept. 11, which led him to take significant steps to stop the violence from the Palestinian side. However, Walker said, “for his new calculus to be translated into a sustained effort to stop the violence and arrest the terrorists, Arafat will need Israeli reciprocal steps and American engagement.”

 

Gilman Seeks to Keep Middle East Cauldron Boiling

The Sept. 25 hearing was only one of three called by Gilman in the weeks following Sept. 11. He also called hearings on Oct. 4 to discuss Iraq and on Oct. 17 to discuss “developments in the Middle East.” For the Oct. 4 hearing, Gilman assembled three “experts” on Iraq and its programs to produce weapons of mass destruction: Geoffrey Kemp, former Near East officer at the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan; Charles Duelfer, former deputy executive chairman of UNSCOM, the U.N. commission charged with dismantling Iraq’s weapons programs; and Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. At the outset, Gilman, not uncharacteristically, made it clear where he stood. While acknowledging that the U.S. doesn’t want to complicate the struggle against Bin Laden, he said he was on record as advocating the overthrow of President Saddam Hussain, and, “while we’re striking at other terrorists, we ought to end the regime of a master terrorist like Saddam.”

Kemp said that the “only sure way to replace the Ba’athist regime is to invade and occupy Iraq.” He agreed that “the occupation of an Arab country by American forces would reinforce Muslim radicals’ basic tenet that we are intent on waging a war against Islam,” but said that “under certain circumstances we may have no option but to take such a step.” Milhollin and Duelfer went on in the same vein, with Duelfer concluding that regional countries are watching “how the present campaign against terror plays out. If it does not include an Iraq component, the conclusion will be drawn that either the United States accepts, if not desires, the present circumstances in Iraq—or is powerless to change them.”

The Oct. 17 hearing on developments in the Middle East gave Gilman the opportunity to lash out against all Arab countries, beginning with the Palestinians, as well as Iran. The hearing came the day after the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi, who once called the Palestinians “lice” (see article p. 13). Gilman railed against the assassination for three paragraphs, without once mentioning Israel’s state-sponsored assassinations of Palestinians. He also complained about the lack of democracy and openness in Middle East countries, and about Iran’s criticisms of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

When Ackerman’s turn to speak came, the New York Democrat used the opportunity to ask why Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine are not also being explicitly targeted. He said he was alarmed that the administration might be “looking to give away a piece of Jerusalem in a futile attempt to buy someone’s affection.” Lantos expressed outrage at the State Department’s criticisms of Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations.

The only witness was Assistant Secretary Burns, who, as he had at the July 26 hearing, emphasized the need for both sides “to put an end to violence, implement the tentative Mitchell plans and resume direct political dialogue.”

 

Money Bills Making Slow Progress, Retain Anti-Palestinian Provisions

On Oct. 24 the Senate passed its version of the Foreign Operations (foreign aid) bill. Since the House has already passed its version, the two bills must now go to a conference committee to reconcile the differences. The money parts of the bills are the same with regard to Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon: each calls for $2.04 billion in military grants and $720 million in economic grants to Israel, $1.3 billion in military and $655 million in economic grants to Egypt, and $35 million in economic grants for Lebanon. Both bills also say that $535 million of the military assistance for Israel may be spent in Israel. Only the Senate bill, however, also earmarks $150 million in economic aid and $75 million in military aid to Jordan, and $10 million in military aid to Tunisia, as well as $60 million to Israel for resettlement of “humanitarian migrants.”

Of most interest to the Middle East is that the House bill includes most of the provisions of H.R. 1795, introduced by Ackerman in May, which seeks to impose sanctions on the PLO and the PA unless they comply with all of a series of commitments they reportedly made in previous years. During the summer it was widely reported that Senators Feinstein and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) planned to introduce a similar provision into the Senate foreign aid bill in September. Instead, however, they introduced it into the Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill.

On Sept. 6, Senators Feinstein and McConnell, joined by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Thomas Daschle (D-SD), John Edwards (D-NC), John Ensign (R-NV), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), introduced S. 1409, which was essentially the same as the Ackerman bill. Then, they inserted it, as the “Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2001,” into the committee version of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, as reported to the full Senate. The full Senate has not acted on the bill.

Therefore, the PLO sanctions provision now exists in the House version of the foreign aid appropriations bill and the Senate version of the authorization bill and, as reported in the November issue of this magazine, the provisions recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel exist in the Senate version of the State Department appropriations bill, and not in the House version. It is possible, but perhaps not likely, that these provisions will disappear when the conference committees issue their reports. Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote to members of the Senate on Oct. 24 that “the Palestinian compliance legislation…would be counterproductive to our coalition-building and peace process efforts and we would like to see it withdrawn.”

 

Anti-Palestinian Bills Gain Co-Sponsors

Perhaps in anticipation that these provisions won’t survive the conferences, both the Ackerman and the Feinstein/McConnell bills have been gaining co-sponsors. They have not been acted on by either the House or the Senate relevant committees, however. H.R. 1795 now has 76 co-sponsors in addition to Ackerman. New co-sponsors since those reported in the October issue of this magazine are Reps. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Doug Ose (R-CA), Major Owens (D-NY), and Dianne Watson (D-CA). Co-sponsors of S. 1409 are, in addition to those named above, Sens. Wayne Allard (R-CO), George Allen (R-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Christopher Bond (R-MO), Larry Craig (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jesse Helms (R-NC), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller (D-GA), Don Nickles (R-OK), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

 

Afghanistan Freedom Act of 2001

On Oct. 5, Gilman, with Reps. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Ed Royce (R-CA) as co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3049, “to contribute to the defense of the U.S. against future terrorist attack by providing for the removal from power of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.” In spite of its grandiose title and imperious objective, the bill is an initial effort to provide a legislative framework for U.S. actions in Afghanistan. After declaring that it shall be U.S. policy to remove the Taliban regime from power in Afghanistan, the bill authorizes $300 million for military assistance to Afghan resistance organizations, $100 million in each of 2002 and 2003 for relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts, and $14 million to establish a Radio Free Afghanistan, in addition to other funds that might be provided. The bill also provides for U.S. sanctions against countries violating U.N. Security Council resolutions directed against the Taliban. No action has been taken on the bill.

 

Issa Victim of Profiling

Rep. Darrell Issa, the newest Arab-American member of Congress, was stopped on the first leg of an official trip to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Lebanon from boarding an Air France flight on Oct. 4. He was allowed to proceed the following day. Issa said he believed he was profiled by Air France because he had an Arab surname and a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia. He was traveling with Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)—an interesting combination—who had the same type of tickets but was not stopped. Issa said he wants Congress to consider legislation to ensure that “victims of racial profiling, whether Arabs, or Muslims, or African Americans,” wrongly denied service can file discrimination lawsuits. But, he said, “right now you wouldn’t get a fair and impartial hearing.”

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a consultant in the Washington, DC area.

< Prev		Next >