Blogs > Cliopatria > The (anti-)Israel House Lobby

Jan 12, 2009

The (anti-)Israel House Lobby




Last week, the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution addressing the situation in Gaza. In the nine-part measure, the House recognized Israel’s “right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas's unceasing aggression”; encouraged “the Administration to work actively to support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza,” including urging Egypt to prevent arms smuggling into the Gaza; reiterated “that humanitarian needs in Gaza should be addressed promptly and responsibly; called for Hamas to release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit; and expressed “its strong support for . . . the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel.”

As normally occurs in such symbolic resolutions, the legislation’s text was abstract enough to make the measure almost impossible not to support. It therefore was striking to see five members vote against the resolution, and 22 others abstain.

The five negative votes included the three most extreme members of the House—Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters, Republican Ron Paul—plus Nick Rahall, a West Virginia congressman of Lebanese descent not known for his pro-Israel views; and Milwaukee congresswoman Gwen Moore. The 22 abstentions (all Democrats) tilted heavily toward the left wing of the party’s caucus, with two exceptions: James Moran, the Virginia congressman notorious for wild statements about the Israel lobby; and Michigan congressman John Dingell, whose district contains a good portion of Michigan’s Arab-American population.

The anti-Israel bloc drew disproportionately from two groups. Although Speaker Pelosi strongly supported the resolution, abstentions came from five other Northern California Democrats—Pete Stark, Sam Farr, Barbara Lee, George Miller, and Lynn Woolsey. And of the anti-Israel bloc’s 27 members, one-third (Waters, Moore, Lee, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Hank Johnson, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Donald Payne, and Diane Watson) are African-American.

The latter figure was an especially troubling aspect of the vote. In the 1980s, the affinity for the PLO from members the Congressional Black Caucus (combined with rising black anti-Semitism in cities like New York and Chicago) weakened the traditional alliance between blacks and Jews. For most of the 2008 campaign, the legacy of this split posed problems for Barack Obama in Florida and Nevada—ironic, of course, since Obama had a very good record on issues related to Israel, and had come under attack in his 2000 primary challenge to Bobby Rush as being too close to North Side Jews.

That, in the end, Jews backed a black candidate with percentages similar to those given to white Democrats in 2000 and 2004 suggested that the breach of the 1980s and 1990s had healed; it would be a shame if the Gaza operation undid this aspect of the political benefits of the Obama victory.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


John Darrell - 1/19/2009

Yeah - why on earth should it be "impossible not to support" this resolution? Why should the US "reaffirm" its "strong support for Israel", rather than say enough is enough? Why support a resolution that, with breathtaking hypocrisy, talks of Israel "facilitat[ing] humanitarian aid" to a Gaza suffering shortages not just of medicine and fuel but even of food due entirely to the Israeli blockade? Why endorse the racist idea of an ethnically defined state in Israel, or anywhere else, when the founding fathers of the US had the good sense to reject the idea of a state for a single ethnic group? Why endorse a resolution that makes the verifiably false claim that Hamas was responsible for breaking the calm? How dare they ask Egypt to stop the smuggling that Israel's blockade has made the only way for Gazans to get basic supplies? And above all, how inconsiderate do you have to be to pass a resolution like this in the midst of the slaughter of hundreds of civilians? Even some Israelis would consider this resolution as too one-sidedly pro-Israel to be taken seriously. And because a tiny handful of representatives rejected this you start worrying that black people are becoming anti-Semitic? Gimme a break.


Jonathan Dresner - 1/13/2009

Funny, I clicked through to look at the resolutions, and found something very different than I was expecting. I wouldn't describe it as "abstract" or "vague" in the slightest, except in the sense that they don't commit troops or mandate a 1, 2, or 3 state solution.

I was trying to figure out why you were tagging the abstainers as "anti-Israel": if the resolution was as fuzzy as you said, that wouldn't make sense. But the resolution was unambiguously pro-Israel: someone who was neutral, or even mildly pro-Palestinian, would have to swallow hard to vote for this.


Ralph E. Luker - 1/12/2009

Israel must make its own judgment about the impact of its actions on support for it in the United States. Support for Israel has declined in the House of Representatives. Perhaps that will encourage Israel to show greater restraint in dealing with the Palestinian people.


T F Smith - 1/12/2009


Another member:

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&;task=view&id=5188