[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 5/12/02 ]

Few question Congress' blind support for Sharon

One of the rituals in Washington for neophyte candidates is to stop by the office of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee on First Street and recite a litany of loyalties to Israel. A million-dollar-a-year lobbying group with a board of influential Jewish leaders, AIPAC then unlocks the door to thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to candidates.

Faithful votes thereafter for the $3 billion annual aid package to Israel can result in generous campaign donations, though non-discrimination and other issues are important to the organization, too. Over the past decade, pro-Israel interests have given $41 million to candidates, two-thirds of which have gone to Democrats. (Muslim and Arab interests have mustered not quite $300,000 to give away during the same period). Now, though, comes Ariel Sharon, an extreme-right Likud leader with whom the right wing of the GOP -- led by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas -- wants to identify.

Ignoring the president's ongoing struggle to enlist moderate Arabs and Muslims to help eliminate the al-Qaida threat, Republican leaders in the House and Democratic leaders in the Senate entered into a schoolyard-like contest to see who could be the best pro-Israel cheerleader, approving resolutions that made Sharon appear as blameless for the loss of any innocent lives as Mother Teresa.

Liberal House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi of California voted with DeLay and 351 other House members. Even Georgia's John Lewis let the partisan game playing overcome his humanitarian instincts. In the spirit of the "gotcha" game, Lewis said after the vote that he wasn't going to stand by and let DeLay "drive a wedge" between the Democrats and their Jewish friends. So he spoke on the floor for the Republican resolution in words that might have been from an AIPAC script: "One of the reasons I have always been so supportive of Israel is that even when it acts to defend itself, it also continues to reach out its hand in peace to its neighbors."

In the Senate, the only two "no" votes came from Democrats who are hardly bleeding-heart liberals: Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina. Both decried the action as simplistic and ill-timed.

Hollings' floor remarks the week before Sharon's visit to the United States were refreshingly blunt. Declaring that he has a 35-year pro-Israel voting record, Hollings said Sharon's retaliation for the suicide bombings has gone beyond self-defense. He said the Israeli leader "is making more terrorists than he is getting rid of " -- a prediction that came true with yet another suicide bombing last Wednesday.

"In my judgment, it was wrong for Ariel Sharon to go to the Temple Mount with in-your-face kind of politics and leadership, to bulldoze camps, and to extend settlements, all condemned by the United States. Then, along comes this one-sided amendment like there is no awareness of the complexity of this situation," Hollings said.

Hollings condemned Yasser Arafat's continued fostering of terrorism against Israel, but he had already raised hackles previously by calling Sharon "the Bull Conner of Israel." Though he's not up for re-election this year, Hollings surely knew his opponents would be poised to label his remarks anti-Semitic.

Sure enough, South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson responded with an op-ed piece in The Washington Times calling for Hollings' apology. In the bumper-sticker style that subs for foreign policy debate today, Wilson accused Hollings of comparing Sharon with Saddam Hussein. (Hollings had pointed out accurately that the United States condemned Hussein for not allowing U.N. inspectors in, but refused to condemn Sharon for not allowing a U.N. team to inspect the Jenin refugee camp, turned to rubble by Israeli tanks.)

Former U.S. Sen. Wyche Fowler from Georgia, who served four years as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, offered this insight last week, one that money-conscious members of Congress can't seem to get: "You can criticize the Sharon government as not being in the best interests of Israel without being critical of Israel." But that's way too complicated, of course, for 30-second TV spots in an election year.