Getting over Yasser Arafat a struggle for Congress

By M.J. Rosenberg
April 13, 2005

Will someone please tell Congress that Yasser Arafat is dead and the Middle East has changed dramatically?

President Bush knows it.

He feels particularly good about developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Violence is way down. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pulled back forces from Jericho and Tulkarem and will pull out of Gaza this summer. With Arafat gone and Mahmoud Abbas in Arafat's old job, Bush feels that at last he has a Palestinian leader he can work with.

Sharon feels the same way. Israel would prefer that Abbas move more quickly toward dismantling the terror organizations, and he should. Nevertheless, the Sharon government is allowing Abbas time and the cease-fire is holding.

Bush is so confident about the direction events are moving that he asked Congress to provide $200 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority to help the Palestinians get to a point where they can effectively repulse terrorism and establish a working democracy, which would help Israel. For Bush, that aid would constitute an American down payment toward implementation of his vision of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security." He said it was a top priority.

And how did our member representatives in the House respond?

Many acted as though Arafat were still alive. In the Appropriations Committee, one member after another got up and talked about--Arafat. The late Palestinian chief would be so pleased. Most people do not continue to be major players on the Washington stage after they are dead, but Arafat is.

For these members of Congress, Arafat remains the permanent leader of the Palestinians even if the Palestinians themselves (and the Israelis) have moved on to a new era.

The House Appropriations Committee attached a host of conditions on the aid, which, amazingly, are more far-reaching and more onerous than those placed on Palestinian aid when Arafat was in charge. Congress rightfully demanded an end to terrorism and incitement, which, is, of course, the Bush policy. And it also wants "schools, mosques and other institutions ... to promote peace and co-existence with Israel." It demands investigations into Arafat's finances. It wants the Internet monitored for hate speech. The list goes on and on.

The most damaging part of this legislation is that it eliminates the discretion presidents traditionally have to provide aid when national security requires it. This "national security waiver" is standard operating procedure. A president, after all, cannot have his hands tied on matters vital to our security.

Except in this case. Following intensive lobbying by opponents of aid to the Palestinians--but not by the Israeli government, which supports it--the waiver was simply left out of the bill.

And then, as if that weren't enough, a few members of the House, proclaiming their support for Israel, sought to eliminate the aid altogether--the same aid the Israeli government supports. Fortunately for Israel and for the U.S., the amendment was voted down. Unfortunately, the House voted to keep all the new conditions in and the waiver out.

Now this issue goes to the Senate. Will senators join their colleagues in the House in taking stands that Sharon and the majority of Israelis reject as both simplistic and bad for Israel? Will senators also essentially tell the president of the United States that he had better ignore the changes he has helped produce in the Middle East?

They would if they somehow believe that hurting the Palestinians helps Israel. But they would be wrong. At this moment, this fleeting moment perhaps, helping the Palestinians equals helping Israel and vice versa. The security of one is dependent on the security of the other. If senators also vote to keep the new onerous conditions in and the security waiver out of the bill, they will be harming Israel--and America's interests. Israel wants a strong Palestinian Authority that can and will liquidate the terrorists and build a democracy that will live in peace with Israel.

That is what Bush wants. It's what Sharon wants. Shouldn't Congress want it too?

M.J. Rosenberg is the director of policy analysis for Israel Policy Forum.