June/July 2002, pages 20-22

Congress Watch

Israeli Onslaught Prompts Outpouring of Congressional Support

By Shirl McArthur

Israel’s re-invasion of much of the West Bank came as Congress was on its Easter recess, but that did not stop many members from speaking out in defense of Israel’s actions. The chorus of support grew even louder and stronger after Congress resumed April 8. Congressional comments, speeches, and letters too numerous to keep track of were accompanied by new pro-Israel and anti-Arab bills and resolutions.

Generally, the pro-Israel congressional comments and letters fell into three groups. The first, and largest, comprised those members who simply wanted to express their mindless love and support for Israel, “our greatest democratic ally in the Middle East.” This group includes most of those who spoke in the House on April 9 and again on April 17, when the House leadership scheduled free time so that members could “support Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Among those who spoke were Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Joseph Crowley (D-CA), Peter Deutsch (D-FL), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Steve Israel (D-NY), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Mike Pence (R-IN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Dave Weldon (R-FL), and Roger Wicker (R-MS). New rookie Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK), who replaced Rep. Steve Largent after Largent resigned, went so far as to suggest that Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasser Arafat should be executed—prompting one senior Republican staff member to comment, “This is a perfect example of why freshman congressmen are supposed to keep their mouths shut.”

The chorus of praise for Israel reached its apex during AIPAC’s annual meeting, held in Washington, DC the weekend of April 20 to 22. The meetings and concluding banquet were attended by half the members of the Senate and about 100 House members, along with several senior administration officials. Among those who spoke, all of whom expressed their unshakable support for Israel, were Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), and Reps. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

In the second group of congressional devotees of Israel—with considerable overlap with the first—were those who focused on criticizing Arafat, holding him personally responsible for the violence and calling him unreliable, a liar, and worse. This group includes California’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), whose sudden vocal support for Israel surely has nothing to do with the fact that he was the third largest recipient of pro-Israel PAC money in 2001, as reported in the May issue of the Washington Report. Several of the letters to President George W. Bush also fall into this category.

The chorus of praise for Israel reached its apex during AIPAC’s annual meeting.

In the third group were those commenting on the Bush administration’s handling of the crisis. Most broadly supported Bush’s actions, especially his decision to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East. Some Democratic senators and representatives were more critical, however, notably Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE), who chided Bush for not getting more deeply involved sooner. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) openly criticized the Bush administration for being timid and unwilling to risk its prestige by getting more deeply involved in the Middle East. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) criticized the president for “telling Israel, which is simply trying to defend itself, to pull back.”

A Few Balanced Voices

While one-sided support for Israel and blindness to the horrors inflicted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the Palestinians were the predominant congressional sentiments, there were a few more balanced and thoughtful responses (see box on facing page), and some signs that an increasing number of members of Congress are upset by the Israeli government’s excessive violence against the Palestinian people. There was even a report that one member of Congress wrote to the Israeli ambassador complaining about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “continuing this appalling wave of violence.” On the floor of the Senate April 11 Daschle called for restraint by his colleagues while delicate negotiations were under way. The next day, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) repeated Daschle’s plea in a balanced statement that included such comments as, “We understand Israel’s right to defend itself.…But it should not be at the expense of the Palestinian people—innocent Palestinian people and innocent Israelis who are paying a high price.”

In the House, even before Congress returned from its recess, Reps. Lois Capps (D-CA) and Jim Leach (R-IA) began circulating a letter to Bush urging him to ask former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Clinton to undertake a presidential mission to the Middle East to “get the parties back to a process that would lead to a diplomatic solution.” On the House floor April 11, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) called upon Bush to request a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to enforce an international “peacekeeping or enforcement action in the Middle East.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), in the context of a speech urging a “non-interventionist foreign policy,” pointed out that “the information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses 11 people to every one on the other side is portrayed as a sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists?”

House International Relations Committee chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) expressed concern that congressional actions could undermine the administration’s efforts to bring peace to the region, and he has sat on the several bills concerning the Middle East that have been referred to his committee. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) was quoted by The Washington Post as saying, “How do you become an honest broker when you give one side the feeling you’re against them?”

New Pro-Israel Initiatives

Congressional pro-Israel sentiment was translated into several legislative initiatives. The three gaining the most publicity, and the strongest support from AIPAC, were the “Solidarity with Israel” resolutions (H.RES. 392 & S. RES. 247), the “Arafat Accountability” bills (S. 2194, similar to the previous H.R. 1795 & S. 1409), and the “Syria Accountability” bills (H.R. 4483 & S. 2215).

Solidarity With Israel

The House version of the Solidarity with Israel resolution (H.RES. 392) was introduced by DeLay on April 18, and passed by the House—under a procedure originally intended to expedite routine, non-controversial measures—on May 2, by a 352-21 vote, with 29 voting present. When passed, it had 112 co-sponsors in addition to DeLay. The Senate version was introduced by Lieberman on April 22 and was also passed on May 2 on a roll-call vote of 94-2, as an amendment to an unrelated bill. It had 65 co-sponsors.

The DeLay resolution is by far the more extreme of the two, and was also the more controversial. It goes on for more than a page describing the evil deeds committed by the PA and “forces directly under Yasser Arafat’s control,” and concludes with 10 non-binding statements of support for Israel and condemnation of the PA and Arafat. The last three statements are relatively balanced, commending Bush for his leadership and efforts “to prevent a widening of the conflict,” urging “all parties in the region to pursue vigorously efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East,” and, in a last-minute addition intended to marginally soften the bill, encouraging “the international community to take action to alleviate the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.”

The Lieberman resolution is relatively more moderate. It does not include the lengthy preamble castigating the Palestinians, and its concluding statements are less harsh. It simply says the Senate is in solidarity with Israel and committed to Israel’s right to self-defense, and it condemns Palestinian suicide bombings and demands that the PA “fulfill its commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.” It concludes with the same statement as DeLay’s urging all parties to pursue a peaceful settlement. Lieberman claimed that his resolution was “not in any sense anti-Palestinian, it’s anti-terror.”

DeLay’s resolution was opposed by the White House, the State Department, and some statesmanlike members of Congress, because of its potential impact on the peace negotiations. The Washington Post quoted Hyde as saying, “I would have preferred a more balanced resolution, because I think we have to get beyond finger-pointing and ask ourselves, will this action help move us toward a cease-fire and a comprehensive peace agreement?” In the face of this pressure, DeLay reportedly agreed on April 26 temporarily to postpone bringing the bill to a vote. On May 1, however, congressional leaders told Bush they planned to bring both the DeLay and the Lieberman resolutions to a vote.

Why this sudden change of heart by DeLay and the congressional leadership? Perhaps it is just a coincidence that their about-face came as reports were surfacing that Bush’s meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah during several days at the end of April was very productive, resulting in increased U.S.-Saudi cooperation in, according to a New York Times report, “a new strategy of joint action and pressure to break the deadlock in the Middle East crisis.” According to the Times, this would include Bush’s speaking “bluntly” with Sharon, and Saudi Arabia and other Arab leaders doing the same with Arafat. The congressional votes came the same day that Powell announced plans for an international peace conference in the summer. None of this would be good news to Israeli extremists and their U.S. allies, whose views perhaps were expressed by House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX), who said he would be “content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank.”

Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) were the two who voted against the Lieberman resolution. Said Byrd, “This is not the moment for Congress to stir the Middle East pot; unfortunately, that’s what this resolution does.” Hollings described it as “ill-timed and not in the best interests of the United States and not in the best interests of Israel.”

The House members who voted against H.RES. 392 were Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), David Bonior (D-MI), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Gary Condit (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Dingell, Earl Hilliard (D-AL), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Gerald Kleczka (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), George Miller (D-CA), David Obey (D-WI), Paul, Thomas Petri (R-WI), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Nick Smith (R-MI), and Pete Stark (D-CA).

Those voting “present” were Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Bob Barr (R-GA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Eva Clayton (D-NC), Sam Farr (D-CA), John Hostettler (R-IN), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Kaptur, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Ron Kind (D-WI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Patsy Mink (D-HI), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Jim Moran (D-VA), James Oberstar (D-MN), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Lynn Rivers (D-MI), Martin Sabo (D-MN), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Karen Thurman (D-FL), Melvin Watt (D-NC), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Arafat Accountability

As expected, on April 18 McConnell and Feinstein introduced S. 2194, a much stronger version of their previous bill (S. 1409). The new bill specifically attacks Arafat personally, and would impose sanctions on the PLO and the PA unless Arafat and the PLO publicly condemn all acts of terrorism and destroy the “infrastructures of terrorism.” The new bill includes sanctions restricting the travel of the PLO representative to the U.N., seizing the assets of the PA and PLO and the personal assets in the U.S. of Yasser Arafat, and denying visas to officials of the PA and PLO. As opposed to the previous version, S. 2194 includes a presidential waiver provision only for the sanction denying visas. While S. 2194 and its House companion, H.R. 1795, are being pushed by AIPAC and gaining co-sponsors, it does not appear that they have the same momentum as the “solidarity” resolutions, and are not likely to be brought to a vote in the near future.

S. 2194 has 20 co-sponsors: Sens. Robert Bennett (R-UT), Boxer, Jim Bunning (R-KY), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Ensign (R-NV), Feinstein, Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), McConnell, Zell Miller (D-GA), Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Schumer, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Bob Smith (R-NH), and Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Meanwhile, H.R. 1795, the companion bill in the House introduced by Ackerman last year, continues to gain co-sponsors. It now has 158, including Ackerman. The new ones on board since the last issue of this magazine are Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Joe Baca (D-CA), Brian Baird (D-WA), Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Henry Brown (R-SC), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Clement (D-TN), Bud Cramer (D-AL), Jim Davis (D-FL), Susan Davis (D-CA), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Mark Foley (R-FL), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Michael Honda (D-CA), Rick Larsen (D-WA), Sander Levin (D-MI), John Lewis (D-GA), John Linder (R-GA), James Maloney (D-CT), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Jim Nussle (R-IA), Jack Quinn (R-NY), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Mike Ross (D-AR), Bill Shuster (R-PA), John Sullivan (R-OK), Thomas Tancredo (R-CO), and Mike Thompson (D-CA).

Syria Accountability

The third measure being pushed strongly by AIPAC is the so-called Syria Accountability bill. The Senate version, S.2215, was introduced by Boxer on April 18, and it has 15 co-sponsors, including Boxer. The House version, H.R. 4483, was introduced by House Majority Leader Armey, also on April 18, and has 50 co-sponsors including Armey.

Both versions go on for several pages elaborating on their opening statement, “to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East.”

The bills would provide that, until the president certifies that Syria has ended its support for terrorist groups, has withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, has stopped its development of ballistic missiles and biological and chemical weapons, and is compliant with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, several sanctions would be imposed. These include a ban on military exports to Syria, and a ban on U.S. government financial assistance to U.S. businesses investing or doing business in Syria, plus two more sanctions that the president can select from a menu of five (in the Senate version) or six (in the House), including prohibiting U.S. exports other than food and medicine to Syria, prohibiting U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria, and restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in the U.S.

The co-sponsors of S.2215 are Sens. Boxer, Carnahan, Cleland, Clinton, Collins, Michael Crapo (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Ensign, Russ Feingold (D-WI), Landrieu, Zell Miller, Rick Santorum (R-PA), Schumer, Bob Smith, and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Co-sponsors of H.R. 4483 are Reps. Armey, Aderholt, Shelley Berkley (D-NY), Berman, Cantor, Clement, Howard Coble (R-NC), Crowley, Deutsch, Diaz-Balart, Engel, Phil English (R-PA), Foley, Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), Sam Graves (R-MO), Felix Grucci (R-NY), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Alcee Hastings, J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Israel, Sue Kelly (R-NY), Mark Kennedy (R-MN), Peter King (R-NY), Nick Lampson (D-TX), Steve LaTourette (R-OH), Linder, Frank LoBiondo(R-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Butch Otter (R-ID), Pence, Todd Platts (R-PA), Ramstad, Ros-Lehtinen, Rothman, Edward Schrock (R-VA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Mark Souder (R-IN), John Sweeney (R-NY), Lee Terry (R-NE), Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Weiner, Weldon, Robert Wexler (D-FL), and Joe Wilson (R-SC).

More Aid for Israel and the Palestinians?

One of the clauses of the House version of the Israel Solidarity resolution says that the House “supports additional United States assistance to help Israel defend itself.” DeLay told the AIPAC conference that he intends to “use every tool at my disposal" to assure additional support for Israel. Although the original version of the $27.1 billion emergency appropriations request sent by the Bush administration to Congress March 21 for homeland security, economic recovery, and the war on terrorism included $200 million in aid to Israel, this was deleted after Sharon’s re-invasion of the West Bank. However, DeLay and others succeeded in restoring the $200 million for Israel in the House Appropriations Committee. When it became apparent that the money for Israel would pass, the committee at Powell’s request approved an amendment, proposed by foreign aid subcommittee chairman Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), also to add $50 million for humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians.

On May 15 the committee approved the emergency supplemental bill, now totaling $29.1 billion. It also approved the administration’s request for money for military, economic, training, and other aid for 11 “frontline” states, including Turkey, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, and Bahrain.

“Afghan Freedom Support Act” Clears Committee

The previously-described “Afghan Freedom Support Act,” H.R. 3994, which authorizes $1.05 billion over four years for a broad range of humanitarian, agricultural, economic, and security assistance for Afghanistan, was reported out of the House International Relations Committee on April 25.

SIDEBAR 1

Congressional Voices of Reason: Speaking Out for Justice in the Middle East

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)

“Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Here we go again. How many times has this body passed resolutions of this nature that are so unbalanced, so one-sided, that we become the laughing stock of the world?…Do we have peace today? Do we have peace today?…

“The bottom line is we cannot dispossess a people and then attempt to govern them by occupying their land, by forcing them to subsist in refugee camps, by blocking roadways to their jobs, by refusing access to medical attention, by cutting them off from their schools and universities, and by discounting their humanity. This is not the roadway to peace.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA)

“I...oppose this resolution because it is unbalanced and...counterproductive. It doesn’t reference President Bush’s words and America’s foreign policy that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian-controlled territories before peace can be achieved.”

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

“This resolution sends exactly the wrong signal at this perilous time. It will only further fan the flames of violence, increase regional instability, and compromises our war on terrorism.…”

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)

“Today, the United States is engaged in a critical war against terrorism. In my view the fight against global terror will only be strengthened when we secure a just and lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. For the sake of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples—and for our own sake—the U.S. government must be an honest, credible leader toward the path of peace. Our national interests give us no alternative.”

Rep. David Price (D-NC)

“The resolution appears designed to drive a …wedge among supporters of Israel for partisan purposes…A more adequate resolution would reiterate our support both for the security and integrity of Israel and for justice and self-determination for the Palestinians.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)

“I intend to vote against the unbalanced resolution on the floor today because it does nothing to advance peace.”

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)

“America’s ability to fulfill our manifest destiny as the only possible honest broker in the Middle East is damaged, is diminished, by a starkly one-sided resolution, a resolution that rightfully expresses our permanent unalterable national commitment to the security of Israel in its hour of trial, but wrongfully excludes any reference of our recognition, or our interest in recognizing, the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian nation of their own. This is our explicit national policy, but it is intentionally omitted for political purposes...”

Rep. David Bonior (D-MI)

“This resolution blindly supports Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and wholly denies the generations of suffering of the Palestinian people….

“Like most Americans, I support Israel. However, also just like most Americans, I do not support—and will not support—all Israeli policies.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

“Israel cannot make peace alone. This resolution envisions no Palestinian state as key in the peace process. At its worst, I fear it represents crass domestic politics in this election year.”

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

“Nowhere in this resolution is Israel called upon to fulfill its role in working for peace in the Middle East.…

“Where are the demands that Israel withdraw from Palestinian lands and cooperate in the establishment of a Palestinian state?”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)

“Mr. President, heed Secretary Powell and General Zinni’s counsel. Lead our foreign policy yourself—do not cede this critical mission to Sharon and [House Majority Whip] Tom DeLay.”

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

< Prev		Next >