Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1998, pages 42-46

Election Watch ’98

Halls of Fame and Shame: Records of Every Member On Matters Related to the Arab-Israeli Dispute

By Shirl McArthur

With the 1998 election looming soon, the tables starting below present a very subjective picture of the positions of the members of the 105th Congress on Middle East issues. The tables are presented negatively; that is, an X shows an action against U.S. and for Israeli interests in the Middle East, as defined by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The tables do not include floor votes, because voting records are not always useful, for several reasons. For one thing, many of the more extreme bills and resolutions are passed by voice vote, with no record. Furthermore, with some bills there are other issues involved, and how a congressman votes may or may not have anything to do with the Middle East. For example, the recently passed Iran Missile Sanctions Act was strongly promoted by Israel, but it was also opposed by many people (including President Clinton, who vetoed it) because it limits the administration’s flexibility in dealing with Russia. Furthermore, the final version had the Chemical Weapons Treaty Implementation Bill attached to it, so many people who have strong beliefs about the chemical weapons treaty probably voted for the overall bill, regardless of their opinion of the Iran Missile Sanctions portion.

Co-sponsorship of certain anti-Arab resolutions seems to be a better gauge of a member’s true intent, so the tables include co-sponsorship of three resolutions in the House, and four in the Senate. In addition, since the recent congressional visit to Jerusalem to help Israel “celebrate” its 50th anniversary turned into such a fiasco, participation in that visit is also included. The rest of the tables show who signed the worst of the congressional letters opposing improved U.S. relations with the countries of the Middle East. Most of the issues selected concern Palestine and Israel; however, issues concerning Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are also included.

Finally, each table shows, in bold type, the “good guys” whose names appear in none of the ten columns, and, in italics, the “bad guys” whose names appear in at least five columns. It is perhaps interesting that 125 representatives—more than a quarter of the House—managed to avoid the AIPAC juggernaut and made the “good guys” list, compared with 22 “bad guys.” However, this probably is misleading, because many of the 125 are simply not interested in foreign policy issues, or would rather not get caught up in what they see as the turmoil of the Middle East. The tally in the Senate is closer to real life, with eight “bad guys” and six “good guys.”

SENATORS

REPRESENTATIVES