Blowing the whole house down
The US House of Representatives once again dabbled in policies pertaining to the Middle East. Nevine Khalil examines whether Resolution 294 is a dud or a torpedo for the ongoing peace efforts
Despite the fact that the near-unanimous resolution lambasted Hamas and Islamic Jihad and stressed that a Palestinian state cannot be created until "terrorism is defeated," it will not necessarily play a major role as events unfold on the ground in the Middle East. Unlike legislative bills, resolutions do not have the weight of law, but simply express the "mood" or "sense" of Congress. Nonetheless, they are often precursors to subsequent bills that change US law. If a resolution undercuts a presidential initiative, as HR 294 appears to do to the roadmap, it can serve as a shot across the bow, warning of future Congressional resistance in the form of new legislation or the exertion of fiscal control to stymie the administration.
Eleven of the 20 co-sponsors of the resolution are Jewish, while only five are Republicans. The most prominent amongst the co-sponsors are House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Hyde, the chairman of the International Relations Committee.
The resolution emphasised that "Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli counter-terrorist operations as the response of a legitimate government defending its citizens." And although it "commends [US President George Bush] for his vision of two states, living side by side in peace and security," the director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) James Zogby believes it was instigated to censure the administration for being too firm with Israel recently. Zogby told Al-Ahram Weekly, that it is "a slap on the wrist" for US President George W Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell, because the former criticised Israel's assassination attempt against Hamas political leader Abdul-Aziz Al-Rantisi on 10 June and the latter condemned the cycle of violence and counter-violence between the Palestinian and Israelis.
The resolution rejected the notion of "cycle of violence" as the appropriate terminology for the dynamic between the Palestinians and Israelis, since this "implies moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims." According to Zogby, "Congress wanted to stress that it is not about a 'cycle of violence'," but rather Palestinian terrorist actions causing Israeli defensive reactions.
David Dumke, principal of MidAmr Group, disagreed, believing that the timing of the resolution -- on the eve of the Palestinian factions announcing a ceasefire and the roadmap taking hold -- was "well planned." It serves as "a warning to both the Administration and the Palestinians that Congress is sceptical, at best, as to whether the PA is really fulfilling its commitments [in the roadmap]."
Dumke, whose organisation was formed to ameliorate relations between the Arab world and the US by influencing Middle East policy in Washington, told the Weekly that the resolution is "disappointing but not devastating." He noted that sometimes the administration "will let Congress run wild in an irresponsible manner to demonstrate to Arab nations that it faces its own domestic backlash by advocating balanced policies." He believes that at this point in time "there is much more to worry about on the ground than irresponsible acts of the US Congress." Nonetheless, it may make the administration think twice "before it puts Sharon's feet to the fire, lest it risk provoking the ire of Congress and Israel's US supporters," he said.
Casting the 'no' votes were four Democrats -- John Dingell, Nick Rahall, Jerry Kleczka and Lynn Woolsey -- and Republican Ron Paul from Texas. Dingell and Rahall have always been the most outspoken on the US's Middle East policies, and adamantly advocate "balance" and a US role as "an honest broker." Rahall, of Lebanese origin, is the only Arab-American representative who voted against the bill. The other three Arab- American members -- Darrell Issa, Chris John and Ray LaHood -- voted in favour of the resolution.
Kleczka's and Woolsey's votes were particularly out of character, according to a statement by the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI), "because they do not usually go out on a limb like this." The JPPI, which had urged citizens to lobby their representatives in opposition to HR 294, told supporters not to be discouraged, vowing "our work on this resolution is not done, even though it has passed."
Dumke noted that the resolution could undermine the American role as "an honest broker of peace" but may also be used as a tool by the Administration to force the hand of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. "Whatever the case may be, the Administration clearly did not put up a fight against its passage." Zogby agrees that last week's resolution "sends a negative message to the region and emboldens the most extreme forces in Israel to do what they want."
During the floor debate, Rahall argued for "some objectivity" in the resolution, stating that the PA should "make greater and more effective efforts against terrorists... but also let us call on the Israeli Government to stop making Mr Abbas's tasks more difficult." Rahall wanted Congressional pressure on Israel to end its policy of "political assassinations" because "we cannot allow the extremists on either side to sabotage the peace process."
Dingell called for more focus on "forcible, vigorous, strong efforts to achieve peace [and] bring the parties together." His priority is also to enforce the image of the US as an impartial intermediary. "This document is one-sided; I hear nothing about the United States [wanting] a termination of violence by all parties," Dingell noted. "That is clearly lacking here."
Kleczka also believes that the resolution is too biased to achieve any good. "Will this resolution enhance the peace process? I say the answer is no." Meanwhile, Woolsey felt that championing one side over another instead of concentrating on making progress in the roadmap will do more to "take us away from peace than bring us closer to an agreement." She criticised the resolution for not recognising Israel's humanitarian obligations and the suffering of the Palestinian people. "This Congress should recognise the pain of every mother that has lost an innocent child because of violence in the Mideast; not only Israeli mothers," she noted.
Mary Rose Oakar, the new president of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) told the Weekly that while the resolution was not legally binding this "doesn't excuse its imbalance." Oakar, herself a former member of Congress and an Arab-American of Syrian descent, believes that Congress should "allow the president to do what he said he would to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israelis," and not obstruct his efforts. "These resolutions don't help," she emphasised.
In Congress, Paul argued that instead of being pro-Israeli or pro-Arab, congressmen should be pro-American in their votes and resolutions pertaining to the Middle East. "There is a third option that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro- American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that, unfortunately."
Zogby concurred, saying that most legislators "don't see the damage such congressional decisions do to US national interests or its image. They don't think of the consequences because their main principle is to get re-elected," he said. Zogby added that the "junk and trash" coming out of Congress -- such as this resolution -- is initiated by a "small group of hardline, pro- Israel members of congress who push Israel's agenda."
