Both Houses Vote to Lift Bosnian Arms Embargo

By Lucille Barnes

The media made much of the conflict between two Senate resolutions on lifting the U.N. arms embargo on countries of the former Yugoslavia, pointing out that eight senators voted for both, and six senators voted against both. Most who voted for both resolutions, however, said they saw the resolutions, each of which passed by 50-49 votes, as expressions of sentiment against the embargo. Whatever its original purpose, in practice the embargo keeps only the Muslim-led Bosnian government forces from getting the arms they need to defend their borders against Serb aggression.

The first resolution, sponsored by the Democratic leadership, called upon President Bill Clinton to support a lifting of the embargo only in consultation with U.S. allies. Later in the same day the Senate passed the second, Republican-sponsored resolution calling upon Clinton to lift the embargo unilaterally.

House members were less ambiguous. They approved by 244 to 178 a Frank McCloskey (D-IN)-sponsored bill to lift the embargo unilaterally and rejected 242 to 181 a Lee Hamilton (D-IN)-sponsored bill calling upon Clinton to seek international support for lifting the embargo.

More Catholic Than the Pope

Attendance at the 1994 AIPAC national convention was way down in terms of numbers, and also in demographics, with half the attendees college students on subsidized invitations. Revenues for AIPAC and its political action committees also are way down. Proving that Congress is the last place to know, however, a record 37 senators and 87 House members attended. Speakers, besides Vice President and ex-Senator Al Gore,* included Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA)*; Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY)*; and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA).*

Harkin and D'Amato led the charge against a U.N. resolution on the Hebron massacre. Objections centered on the wording which defined East Jerusalem as "occupied territory," just like the West Bank and Gaza. That's merely a reiteration of continuous U.S. policy over six administrations from Lyndon Johnson through George Bush. But now members of Congress are scrambling to get aboard the Clinton administration's new bandwagon, which calls East Jerusalem "disputed territory."

The facts, however, are not in dispute. When the U.N. partitioned Palestine into what was to have been a Jewish and a Palestinian state in 1947, Jerusalem was to go to neither, but remain a "corpus separaturn." But by the time the fighting had ended in 1948, Israel had seized West Jerusalem by force of arms and Jordan had seized East Jerusalem. During the 1967 war, Israel then seized East Jerusalem from Jordan, completing Israeli occupation of the entire city that the U.N. had said should remain under international control. There's no dispute about that, or the fact that the Charter of the United Nations, and thus the basic premise of international law, forbids the acquisition of territory by war.

Nevertheless, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)* and Sen. Connie Mack (RFL)* circulated a letter that garnered 82 senatorial signatures calling upon President Clinton to veto the U.N. Security Council resolution. Their action was not inspired by the government of Israel, or even its AIPAC lobbyists. Neither wanted the administration to veto the resolution, which they believed would kill any chance of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat returning to the peace table.

It was a clear case of the 82 senators being more pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian than the incumbent Israeli government, which had suggested the U.S. abstain from voting on the Jerusalem wording, but not veto it to assure that the resolution as a whole was passed. A similar letter exceeding the wishes of Israel's Rabin government was sponsored in the House by Representatives Ben Gilman (R-NY)* and Charles Schumer (D-NY) and garnered 27 additional signatures.

Hebron Massacre Resolution Deflects Criticism of Israel

Conflicting resolutions on the Hebron massacre of Feb. 25 clearly reflected the massive congressional opposition to an evenhanded U.S. Middle East policy. Representatives Nick Rahall (D-WV) and David Bonior (D-MI) introduced a resolution on March 17 condemning the massacre, extending "congressional sympathy and condolences to the Palestinian people and the families of the victims," expressing "grave concern over the continuing violence against the Palestinians" and urging "all parties to the Middle East peace process to return to the negotiating table."

Israel's apologists were just as fast off the mark with resolutions in the House and Senate which denounced the massacre but sought to deflect criticism from Israel for permitting the growth of the settler culture from which Dr. Baruch Goldstein emerged to shoot down 29 Muslim men and boys at prayer. "Many of us felt that it was important to condemn the massacre in very strong terms, but also to state that we think the government of Israel should be commended for the way it responded," said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY).*

Among those were Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA)* and Carl Levin (D-MI),* and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).* They introduced resolutions that met criteria formally set down for themselves by some Jewish members of Congress that: "It's very, very important that we as a community respond quickly to lead the way in condemning this kind of wanton killing. It is also important for those of us who are strong supporters (of Israel) to define the playing field, to shape the debate."

More random pandering to the Israel lobby included an amendment introduced in the House by Rep. Charles Grassley (RIA)* to transfer from the Treasury Department to the State Department responsibility for compiling the federal government's annual report on terrorist organizations' financial assets in the U.S. Grassley complained that the Treasury Department had performed this function inadequately. His amendment was passed by a voice vote.

That requirement is mild compared to the one imposed on the State Department to report to Congress every 120 days on PLO activities if the administration is involved in a dialogue with the PLO. Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)* and Mack criticized the latest such report, saying "the State Department report glosses over and excuses indications that the PLO may be unwilling or incapable of completing such a transformation."

It's not clear when there will be time for the dialogue between a State Department charged with preparing three reports on the same subject every year, and the tiny PLO representation in the U.S. charged with filling in the blanks.

The Senate also adopted by a 93-to-O vote in February an amendment sponsored by Senators Hank Brown (R-CO)* and Moynihan prohibiting arms sales to any country which complies with the secondary and tertiary boycotts of Israel. It would be interesting to hear how California, Missouri and state of Washington senators explain such a vote to their aircraft industry constituents, who are dying to sell U.S. military aircraft to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, all of whom, as Arab League members in good standing, comply with various aspects of the Arab League boycott. In fact, such pandering amendments contain a clause allowing the president to waive them if he judges it to be in the national interest, meaning they have no real-world significance, but enable those who sign them to get their snouts into the overflowing trough of campaign donations by pro-Israel individuals and PACs.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)* offered an amendment expressing the "sense of the Senate" that all foreign assistance recipients should recognize Israel. Again, the amendment, which can be waived, is virtually meaningless, since more than half of U.S. foreign assistance worldwide already goes to Israel, or to Egypt for recognizing Israel.

Red Alert on Foreign Aid

As congressional pandering droned on, Israel's insiders in the Congress went on red alert to stop the Clinton administration's new Foreign Assistance Act. It would remove the ability of Congress to earmark foreign aid specifically for Israel. Instead, aid to Israel and Egypt would fall under an umbrella category called "promoting peace."

This would enable the administration to tie the aid to its foreign policy objectives, instead of just dump it into Israeli and Egyptian coffers annually, no matter how the worldwide total of other U.S. foreign aid shrinks around it.

Writes Deborah Kalb of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "Some in the pro-Israel community continue to worry that if aid to Israel is formally justified solely on the basis of the Middle East peace process, the aid will not necessarily be guaranteed in the long run."

"Jewish groups have stayed out of the debate so far, in part because of the strategic judgment that any anti-reform effort could generate a new backlash," wrote Washington correspondent James D. Besser in The Jewish Week of Queens, NY. "As it's turning out, pro-Israel opposition may not be needed ' "

The reason, Besser wrote, is that congressional opponents of the bill believe there will be no problem in postponing any debate on the subject until after the November elections. Besser quoted an unnamed congressional staffer "who has been in the thick of the aid debate" as saying:

"There simply isn't time ... We're going to go through the process of marking up a bill in the next few weeks, but it's very unlikely there will be floor time in the Senate before the end of the session. Nobody... wants to vote on anything relating to foreign aid in an election year."

Not so reluctant to take on the Israel lobby over foreign aid was The New York Times, which offered strong support to the Clinton reorganization proposal with an editorial entitled "Extricate Foreign Aid From the Mire." It pointed out that the administration wants to increase the percentage of the $20.9 billion in foreign aid it is seeking next year for such uses as promoting democracy in the former Soviet bloc countries, curbing arms proliferation, covering the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping in the Middle East and elsewhere, and sustaining economic development with such indigenous non-governmental programs as stabilizing population growth through educating and empowering women and protecting the environment.

"The Administration has crafted a sound new approach to foreign aid," the Times noted. "But it will not begin to work unless Congress is persuaded to act."

Good thinking.

Lucille Barnes covers political affairs for U.S. and foreign publications.

SIDEBAR

Many members (and former members) of Congress with populous Jewish communities like New York and California do not need to accept money from pro-Israel PACs to meet their campaign requirements. Others mentioned in this article who have accepted pro-Israel PAC donations, and their career totals, follow:

Boxer, Barbara $52,421

Brown, Hank 57,500

D'Amato, Alfonse 95,550

Engel, Eliot 64,950

Gilman, Ben 44,625

Gingrich, Newt 66,250

Gore, Albert, Jr . 133,640

Grassley, Charles 76,985

Harkin, Thomas 367,230

Hatch, Orrin 39,700

Levin, Carl 422,038

Lieberman, Joseph 132,258

Mack, Connie 98,422

Moynihan, Daniel 55,000

Waxman, Henry 19,832