New Look at the Mideast

By George Moses

The congressional view of US policy in the Middle East is often and justifiably criticized for its institutional bias in favor of Israel. Yet in Congress there are many members who do not believe that US interests in the Middle East are exactly congruent with Israel's. Most of these members are rarely if ever heard on the subject. This is partly because they do not serve on committees which have legislative responsibility for these issues. However, some claim that it is also partly because no one whose primary agenda is other than support for Israel asks them to speak out.

The wife of one such member, since retired, observed to this writer that "when Jewish supporters of Israel called, they wanted to talk about Israel. When Arab-Americans called, they wanted to talk about their liquor licenses."

On the other hand, when this writer and colleagues suggested to senior members of the House Appropriations Committee actions they could take to express disapproval of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians, the subcommittee's chairman, Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin (whose distaste for Israel's recent conduct has been a matter of public record), remarked derisively, "You know what this place is like."

The congressional view of US policy in the Middle East is often and justifiably criticized for its institutional bias in favor of Israel. Yet in Congress, there are many members who do not believe that US interests in the Middle East are exactly congruent with Israel's.

Congressman Carroll Hubbard of Kentucky, an accomplished campaigner, observed to an audience of businessmen concerned with the Middle East that, like numerous other members, he has only a handful of constituents with a direct ethnic interest in Middle East affairs. This leaves him relatively free to approach foreign policy issues, even those involving the Middle East, on their merits. Yet, prior to the speech mentioned above, he had never been contacted to discuss either political or commercial Arab-American concerns.

Many US representatives operate in a political vacuum on questions relating to the Middle East. For every member like Larry Smith or Mel Levine, both strongly identified with the Israel lobby and strongly supported by pro-Israel donors, there are several relatively unfettered Carroll Hubbards. They are not in key positions in the foreign policy formulation apparatus. If they were, they would not be likely to hue such freedom. Their impact usually occurs only when such questions reach the full House or Senate.

But that impact could be substantial. No one compels legislators to support recommendations of the committees whose members have been co-opted by the Israel lobby. The majorities who support extreme pro-Israel resolutions and warnings to the executive branch are, in substantial part, made up of members who find it politically expedient to be part of a large majority and do not possess policy reservations strong enough (or a body of personal knowledge deep enough) to resist the temptation.

It is this imbalance in political force which creates the disastrous "skew" in the congressional view of US interests in the Middle East. It impacts US Arab political and economic ties negatively. It increasingly fuels accelerating Israeli extremism in the occupied territories.

Letters of concern being circulated by representatives to their colleagues indicate that many of them, and their aides, understand all this. Before they set out to right the balance, however, they need assurance that voters and donors in their own constituencies back home understand it as well.

George Moses, former president of the National Association of Arab Americans and former lobbyist for US manufacturers, is a Washington-based legislative consultant