New Leadership & Committees
A change in leadership means a change in committee composition. With Republicans at the helm of the House, several key players emerge as shapers of policy while the committees that had previously been controlled by Democrats will now shift to Republican control. It should be noted that, given the strong pro-Israel leaning of Congress, there is not significant variance between the parties, but some difference may be worth looking into.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who had previously been House Minority Whip, will now likely take over the role of Majority Whip for the Republicans. Cantor often points out that he is the only Jewish Republican Representative and stands very firmly with Israel on every issue. As Majority Whip, he will have greater influence over legislation.
The House Committees that were previously controlled by Democrats will now be run by Republicans. This means that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was previously Chaired by leading pro-Israel supporter Howard Berman(D-CA), will now be led by (if possible) a more fervent pro-Israel supporter Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Not surprisingly, Berman, Cantor and Ros-Lehtinen are among the top recipients of pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions.
So will there be a change in the House Foreign Affairs Committee's approach to Israel/Palestine? Yes, I think so, and it will be for the worse. There are a few issue areas that pro-Israel Republicans like to push which may differentiate them from some pro-Israel Democrats. One of them, for example, is targeting the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) as a supporter of terrorism. With a Republican majority on the committee, we are likely to see this issue come up again.
Ros-Lehtinen also brought us H.R. 4681, or the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act". This legislation, which began circulating as soon as Hamas won Palestinian Legislative Council Elections in 2006 (literally the same day), would limit any U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority if any member of the PA was a Hamas party member and makes assistance contingent upon the PA recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Sound familiar? Prepare to hear a lot more about the need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state coming from this Congress and this Committee. Also, this Congress will clearly raise the domestic political costs for any attempt by the Obama administration to encourage reconciliation between Hamas and Fateh, a necessary component of any negotiated solution. I'm not suggesting this was likely to happen anyway, but if there was any possibility before, it has become more remote now.
What happens with the appropriations committee will be interesting. It's likely that Jerry Lewis (R-CA) will take over the chairmanship, but who leads doesn't really matter; annual aid for Israel is approved as regularly as the sun comes up regardless of who is running Congress.
How Did Pro-Israel Investments Fair?
Pro-Israel PACs spent a lot of money on this election (somewhere around $8.8 million), so how did their investments fair? Well, on the Senate side, of the top 10 Pro-Israel PAC 2010 contribution recipients (all receiving $100k or more), only Russ Fiengold lost. Arlen Specter's seat was taken by Pat Toomey, who defeated Joe Sestak (more on that below).
The Illinois Senate race was also a big win for the pro-Israel PAC community. The top recipient of pro-Israel PAC money in 2010 was none other than Mark Kirk who pulled in a whopping $477K. Kirk, who will take over the Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama, boasts on his website about his pro-Israel credibility and how he has taken aim at UNRWA as well. His slim 2% victory is particularly ironic, however, because many Palestinians in the Chicago area who voted for the Green candidate (which garnered 3% of the vote) may have handed the top Pro-Israel PAC money recipient a Senate seat.
On the House side, all of the top 10 Pro-Israel PAC contribution recipients seeking re-election in the House won. Joe Sestak, who rounds off the top 10, lost a Senate bid. It should be noted that most of Sestak's pro-Israel money was coming from JStreet in an effort to stave off harsh criticism from the pro-Israel right because Sestak was part of the "Gaza 54", a group of Representatives who signed a letter to Obama asking him to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza after the war. Sestak lost to Pat Toomey by a slim margin.
JStreet had a mixed performance throughout the night losing all three Senate races they backed while doing well in the House by backing candidates in fairly safe seats. While JStreet backed the "Gaza 54," the Emergency Committee for Israel targeted them. You can watch their attack ads against Rush Holt (D-NJ), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Glenn Nye (D-VA) and Jim Himes (D-CT), which smack of Islamophobia here. Nye, Kilroy and Sestak all lost. Himes almost lost, and may still lose since the margin is so slim. Holt barely held onto his seat as well. This is important because it sets a precedent for other members of Congress who will look back at the way these now former members voted to recognize that there are human beings in Gaza and have since lost their seats. The intimidation factor is great, and while many of the "Gaza 54" are back in office, most of them were from extremely safe districts for progressive democrats. Those members of Congress who are in toss-up or near toss-up districts will likely not give a second thought to deviating from the pro-Israel line.
Speaking of Islamophobes
Renee Elmers, who beat incumbent Bob Etheridge (D-NC), broke onto the scene with an ad that made many take notice. It wasn't about government spending, health care, corruption or anything else effecting the people of North Carolina. Rather, it was about the Park 51 project.
Still, Elmers wasn't the only moozlems-are-coming-to-get-us candidate who won last night. Allan West, didn't hide his Islamophobia during his campaign either. Listen to his answer about Islam here.
So What Does It All Mean?
In short, it means that if you had any hope the the Obama administration would be able to broker a just peace (and I can't imagine why you would) it should be completely gone now. The election results will have several effects on the dynamics of the negotiations. First and foremost, they will embolden an already incorrigible Binyamin Netanyahu who has waited out the President month after month anticipating the blow he would receive this November. Obama's attempt to press Israel on settlements early on came during periods of high approval ratings and majorities in both houses. Now that the pro-Israel camp has demonstrated just how salient the Israel issue can be in domestic politics, and while Obama and his party are at their weakest point since inauguration, its very unlikely that Obama will take the necessary steps to press Israel while gearing up for re-election.
Rather, what is more likely is that Obama will acquiesce to some of the pro-Israel community's desires. I can see him getting rid of Senator Mitchell, who the pro-Israel community never trusted in the first place, and who Dennis Ross, the AIPAC poster-boy, has spent time maneuvering against on the inside. Mitchell is the architect of the demand for a settlement freeze which most analysts and politicians are saying was a bad idea (I don't necessarily agree).
Rumors are that Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador and AIPAC staffer, would fill the void along with Ross which would mean the U.S. approach to Israel/Palestine would be heavily influenced by not one, but two AIPAC-bred diplomats.
A weak Obama, a strong Netanyahu, a stalled peace process, all in the lead-up to a Presidential election means Obama is likely to back off Israel/Palestine. With the peace process on perpetual hold again, Obama may be inclined to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress on an issue that both parties seem to agree on: increased confrontation with Iran.
The Democrats got trounced last night. The Tea Party did well. The Republicans took over the House. But the real winner in this election is clear: it's Binyamin Netanyahu.
0 comments: on "The Election and the Middle East"
Post a Comment