[Peace-discuss] Zogby: Story Behind Pro-Israel Resolution (fwd)

[C. G. Estabrook]

[An interesting column by James Zogby. --CGE]


ON MAY 2, the Department of State made a surprise announcement that they
would work to convene an international Middle East peace conference later
this summer. Since plans for the conference are still vague, some
reporters were confused by what some described as a "premature"
announcement.  It appears, however, that there was a story behind the
story.

The State Department hoped that the news of the intended conference might
drown out news created by the fact that, on the same day, both Congress
and Senate had passed unbalanced resolutions "in solidarity with Israel".

If that was the story behind the announcement, there was yet another story
behind the pro-Israel resolutions - a story that needs to be told. When
that story is known, it will be clear that far from a defeat, the
resolutions exposed an intense new debate in Congress and a growing
uneasiness that characterises current congressional support for Israel.

As late as April 29, Congress was not scheduled to vote on this pro-Israel
resolution. Yielding to pressure from the State Department, the House
bill's original Republican co-sponsor stepped aside and said he would no
longer push the effort. At that point, the Republican whip, Tom Delay
(R-TX), an extremist right-winger, stepped in as the bill's sponsor and
said he would push for its passage. The bill was set for a vote on April
30.

When the congressional Democrats were told that this would occur at their
weekly meeting on April 25, a number of members protested.  Their
objections, coupled with State Department pressure, forced Delay to
announce, on April 26, that he was withdrawing the resolution from
consideration. Then, on April 29, at their weekly congressional leadership
meeting with President George Bush, Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) informed
the president that he would bring a milder version of a pro-Israel
resolution up for a Senate vote later that week.

Since the president indicated that he had no objections, Daschle felt free
to move forward (the White House's apparent support for the effort was
later reaffirmed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice). On
hearing of the Senate's decision to move forward with their amer version -
a pro-Israel resolution that avoided excessive condemnation of the
Palestinian National Authority and its president Yasser Arafat - Delay
announced that he would push his House resolution with its harsh
anti-Palestinian language. In one fell swoop, both the State Department
and the moderates in the Congress had been undercut.
 Even more interesting than the antics that led up to the final
introduction of the resolution was the fascinating public debate that took
place on the day that the bills were being considered. At the last minute,
one of the Democrats' leading members, Congressman David Obey (D-WI),
introduced a substitute resolution that was a balanced statement of US
policy towards the Middle East. It appeared during debate that this
resolution would have the support of more than one-third of the Democrat
caucus (about 75 of the 211 House Democrats). Furthermore, when the Delay
resolution finally came to a vote, 82 members did not vote for it. This is
a record number of members of Congress who broke rank with both the
pro-Israel lobby and the leaderships in both parties who were pressing
them to toe the party line and vote for the bill.

More impressive still was the public debate that took place on the House
floor during the resolution's consideration. During the day's debate, 35
members of Congress spoke out in opposition to the unbalanced provisions
of the resolution.  Some were remarkable statements of principle, like the
speech given by Congressman David Bonior (D-MI), who spoke in opposition.  
Bonior's remarks were so important they deserve to be quoted at length:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This
resolution blindly supports Israel's actions against the Palestinians and
wholly denies the generations of suffering of the Palestinian people. This
would be wrong at any time, but in light of what has happened at Jenin and
Bethlehem, Ramallah, Haifa, Jerusalem and Netanya, and what continues to
happen today, this resolution is dangerous.

"Like most Americans, I support Israel. However, just like most Americans,
I do not support and will not support all of Israel's policies.
Generations of Palestinians and Israelis have suffered in the region, but
the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be examined or
addressed in isolation of decades of occupation of millions of
Palestinians.

"Israeli suffering is something that this body understands and discusses.
But what of the suffering of the Palestinian people? What of the history
of land confiscation, water rights, torture, settlements, collective
punishments, home demolitions, curfews, administrative detentions,
expulsions, child labour?

"Where is the language about the 1,000-plus Palestinians killed in the
last 19 months, bodies found under rubble? Where is the language about the
thousands made homeless by the bulldozers in Jenin alone?  Where is the
language about the relief agencies denied access to treat the sick and
wounded?

"We know that relief agencies, including the International Committee of
the Red Cross, were prevented from reaching and evacuating and treating
the sick and wounded throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, resulting in
untold deaths, from the mother who bled to death from a normally unfatal
wound in front of her children, to the couple buried alive under rubble
for eight days. The stories coming to light are horrific.

"Rarely on this floor is there discussion of the nearly 420 Palestinian
villages destroyed at the time of Israel's founding in 1948, or the 3.8
million refugees registered by the United Nations or the estimated 2
million others not registered. Palestinians live in 59 different
recognised refugee camps in misery, in poverty, with no hope of a better
future for the next generations that are born into those camps."

Equally important to note was the obvious discomfort of many of those who
voted for the bill. At least 12 of those who did so were so troubled by
the unbalanced nature of the resolution and by the obvious politics that
brought it to a vote in the first place.

Exemplifying their attitudes were the comments of Congressman Jim Leach
(R-IA): "Mr Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution, with
reservations... This resolution is pressed in this body at this time
without administration support and without review by the committee of
jurisdiction, all apparently because of concern that the Senate might
competitively address the issue before the House.

"Substantively this resolution is unbalanced, untimely and potentially
counterproductive to the foreign policy interests of the United States
and, implicitly, the viability of the state of Israel."

By day's end, almost 100 members of Congress had either refused to vote
for the pro-Israel resolution or publicly made clear their reservations to
the bill, despite their reluctant vote for it. This represents a
significant change in congressional balance.

It will be recalled that during the last public debate on a pro-Israel
resolution, only four members spoke against the resolution.  And the
previous record number of those who failed to vote for such a resolution
was 52. And so, when you read the headlines "State Department announces
plans for a new Middle East Peace Summit", followed by the sub-headline
"Congress passes pro-Israel resolution", you should know that there was a
story behind the story, behind the story. And that is that there is an
intense debate both within the administration and within Congress.

Attitudes are changing, maybe too slowly for some, but changing
nevertheless.

	--30--