U.S. Staying in Tel Aviv

By Allan Kellum

The closing days of Congress are generally hectic, chaotic times and this year was no exception. Uncertainty about the fate of the "Jerusalem Bill," the proposed free trade area for Israel, and the details of Israel's $2.6 billion aid package persisted until the last days of the 98th Congress.

The legislation to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem finally ground to a halt on October 2. After seven hearings and testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, the two House subcommittees charged with the legislation finally passed a watered-down version—in the form of a non-binding resolution—by voice vote. Opponents felt a measure of success for having stalled so that there was insufficient time to go on to the next steps—consideration by the full committee and the full House. And, at the same time, proponents say they were pleased to have completed the first legislative hurdle with their congressional support intact.

In September, proponents of the "Jerusalem Bill," acknowledging its shaky constitutional basis and faced with an uncompromising White House, dropped the bill and switched to a "Jerusalem Resolution." The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. embassy in Israel "should be moved to Jerusalem at the earliest possible date"—but does not force President Reagan to do so.

Prior to the October 2 vote, three Representatives—George Crockett (D-MI), Larry Winn (RKS) and Ed Zschau (R-CA)—voiced their opposition to the resolution. Later, when conducting the voice vote, the Mideast Subcommittee Chairman himself, Lee Hamilton (D-IN), cast a clear "no"—but the majority voted "yes."

Most fervent of the resolution's opponents was Michigan Democrat George Crockett, who decried the "hypocrisy" which he said underlies discussions of Middle East policy. Countering the argument that Israel is the only country whose capital the U.S. doesn't recognize, Rep. Crockett said: "The more truthful statement... (is that) Israel is the only country in the world that attempts to establish its capital on foreign soil." By this, Rep. Crockett meant that the U.N. designation of Jerusalem as an international city took precedence over Israel's unilateral claims to the city.

Rep. Crockett, concluding his remarks, said: "When all is said and done, this legislation is going to pass because of political pressure. The strongest lobby operating in Congress today is the Israeli lobby... I've seen year after year how that lobby has increased its power ... to the point where there are very few who dare to speak out against their efforts. I don't have any reluctance in that regard. I am strongly supportive of the continued existence of Israel, but I'm strongly supportive of the morality, correctness, (and) the legality of American foreign policy. And when I consider what this legislation is doing to American foreign policy, I have to speak out."

On the other hand, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who sponsored the resolution, told this reporter that its passage was "a tremendous step forward." Acknowledging that time would run out this year before the next legislative step could be taken, Rep. Lantos emphasized that it wasn't important whether final passage is "next week or next February." He said that "what is important is that at the first legislative showdown... we carried the day."

In other words, the "Jerusalem Resolution," while a dead issue in the 98th Congress, will again be a live issue when the 99th Congress starts up next year.

As anticipated, the FY 1985 foreign aid program was funded under a continuing resolution, which Congress stayed to approve after its scheduled adjournment. That funding measure provides Egypt and Israel with the lion's share of U.S. aid: Egypt is to receive $2 billion and Israel will get $2.6 billion. As a money-saving measure, the House voted 273-to-134 on September 25 to cut foreign aid spending by two percent, except for funds to Egypt and Israel.

Some special features of the Israeli aid program include the following:

All $2.6 billion (as well as Egypt's $2 billion) will be provided entirely on a grant basis, with no loans to be repaid.
The $1.2 billion economic component will all flow to Israel as a cash transfer during the first quarter of FY 1985, i.e. prior to January 1.
Israel can use up to $400 million of its U.S. military aid on the development of its own jet fighter aircraft, the Lavi.
Israel will, for the first time, be able to bid on U.S. Agency for International Development (A.I.D.) development projects.
A "Sense of the Congress" resolution was approved urging that all future annual appropriations of economic aid to Israel be at least as much as Israel's annual debt repayment to the U.S.

Another new provision states that an additional $2 million "shall be made available only for cooperative projects among the United States, Israel and developing countries." This is the essence of a bill introduced this year by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA). According to a spokesman in Rep. Berman's office, he plans to reintroduce his bill next year and, now that the precedent has been set, hopes to gain about $20 million for U.S.-Israel-third world development projects.

The legislation giving the Administration the go-ahead to negotiate a free trade area (FTA) with Israel passed the Senate September 20 as part of an omnibus trade and tariffs bill, which was approved by a vote of 96-to-O. An FTA with Israel—the first of its kind ever to be negotiated between the U.S. and any other nation—would, in its purest form, drop all tariff barriers and allow duty-free shipment of each country's products to the other. On October 3, the House passed its own separate FTA bill (H.R. 5377) by a vote of 416-to-6. In the final legislative step—a House-Senate conference—the two bodies reconciled their differing bills, thus clearing the way for the Administration to conclude an FTA agreement with Israel.

Allan Kellum is editor of the Mideast Observer. A sample copy of his publication may be obtained by writing Mideast Observer, P.O. Box 2397, Washington, D.C. 20013.