By M.J. Rosenberg
July 24, 2005
Those of us who want to see the Bush administration press hard for a permanent end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tend not to expect much from the United States Congress.
The reason is obvious. Most members of Congress reflexively support measures that can be deemed anti-Arab in the wrongheaded belief that anything that is good for Arabs is bad for Israelis.
In fact, most Congressional actions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not about Israel at all. The only major piece of legislation relating directly to Israel is the foreign aid package which is included in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The aid package, which is essential to Israel's security, is not controversial and is supported by virtually all House and Senate members. It is also essentially positive in nature; it is pro-Israel not anti-anybody. For those two reasons, the foreign aid bill does not lend itself to political grandstanding. Those determined to use Israel for that purpose have to look elsewhere.
And they do.
Routinely, Members of Congress (usually Representatives, not Senators) look to score political points by offering amendments designed to highlight their anti-Arab (and especially anti-Palestinian) bona fides. It does not matter to them whether the amendments offered are likely to actually become law, whether they advance U.S. policy goals or whether, if implemented, they would benefit Israel. The point is to go on record as blasting Palestinians in the hope that pro-Israel donors and voters believe that anything that hurts Palestinians helps Israel and that they will reward them accordingly.
Until this week, these amendments routinely garnered near unanimous support. Those lonely House members who ventured onto the floor to point out that a particular amendment was ill-advised and could damage U.S. and Israeli interests knew that only a handful of Members would join them in voting nay. They had to content themselves with cloakroom apologies from colleagues who conceded that their votes were wrong -- but that the President would waive the law anyway so there was no cause to risk offending pro-Israel hardliners in their district or donor base.
Wednesday's vote was different. One hundred House Members voted against an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act that served no purpose other than to "stick it" to the Palestinian Authority. At a moment when the United States is working to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas, and when Israelis are fearful that Abbas will be supplanted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, this amendment targets... Abbas.
It does this by requiring that aid to Abbas's Palestinian Authority be delivered not up front, as is aid to Israel and other countries, but in quarterly chunks. After each quarter, the President would have to certify that the PA has fulfilled a host of requirements, old and new, which would qualify it for their next quarterly allowance.
The requirements themselves are not objectionable although they are redundant. And the Palestinian Authority under Abbas could fulfill them.
But splitting Palestinian aid (a paltry sum to begin with) into four pieces would undermine the Bush administration's prime rationale for it. The aid is designed to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas's hands in dealing with the surging Hamas threat. Providing the aid up front would allow Abbas to spend it on projects that would improve Palestinian conditions immediately and hopefully improve his standing with the Palestinian people. Stretching out the aid would greatly reduce that effect. A little here, a little there, would add up to a whole lot of nothing.
In the meantime, Hamas could win the upcoming election or even take over without elections.
This is not to say that U.S. aid is the key determinant in Abbas's success or failure. It isn't. But it is a factor. And that is why the amendment is so sinister. Rather than buttress Abbas, as the Bush administration wants to do, it undermines him. And it is Hamas that benefits. Not Israel. Not the United States. But Hamas, and maybe Islamic Jihad.
One hundred Representatives understood that and voted "no" -- including pro-Israel stalwarts like Gary Ackerman, Howard Berman, Earl Blumenauer, Lois Capps, Barney Frank, Henry Hyde, Jim Kolbe, Nita Lowey, Nancy Pelosi, Steve Rothman and Robert Wexler.
Frank led the opposition. He said that President Bush needed the authority to provide aid to the Palestinians without Congressional micromanaging. "I trust George Bush on this," he said. "It is important for him to have flexibility."
Blumenauer said that "in light of Israel's impending withdrawal from Gaza, we need to preserve President Bush's flexibility to use U.S. assistance to promote American interests... This is one more unnecessary restriction that ties the President's hands in pursuing peace and security."
Capps said, "Instead of passing one-sided and punitive amendments like this one, it is incumbent upon the United States Congress to try to help both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront the extremists who seek to derail the peace process."
In the end, however the amendment prevailed 330-100 (although, fortunately, the bill it is included in is almost surely not going to become law). But as one senior House aide put it, "if ever there was a case when the side that lost by over 200 votes really won, this was it. Usually, these anti-Palestinian votes are political no-brainers for most Members. The fact that 100 Members could buck this trend and do what they know in their hearts is best for the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians may be a small sign that Congress is waking up."
It's about time.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
