They Dare to Speak Out

80 They Dare to Speak Out
AIPAC and sponsored by ardently pro-I sraeli Congressmen Clarence
Long of Mar yland and Jack Kemp of New York that permitted $250
million of the military grant aid to be spent in Israel on the development
of a new Israeli fighter aircraft, the Lavi . The new fighter would compete
for international sales with the Northrop F-20 and the General
Dynamics F-16-both specifically designed for export. The amendment
authorized privileged treatment Uncle Sam had never before extended
to a foreign competitor. It was extraordinary for another
reason: it set aside a U.S. law that requires that all foreign aid procurement
funds be spent in the United States.
During debate of the bill, Democrat Nick 1. Rahall of West Virginia
was the only Congressman who objected. He saw the provision as
threatening U.S. jobs at a time of high unemployment:
Approximately 6,000 jobs would be lost as a direct result of taking the $250
million out of the U.S. economy and allowing Israel to spend it on defense
articles and services which can just as easily be purchased here in the United
States.
Americans are being stripped of their tax dollars to build up foreign industry.
They should not have to sacrifice their jobs as well.
That day, Rahall was unable to offer an amendment to strike or change
this provision because of restrictions the House had established before
it began debate. All that he, or any other member, could do was to vote
for or against the entire Long-Kemp amendment which included controversial
provisions for El Salvador and international banks, as well as
aid to Israel. The amendment was approved 262 to 150. Unlike
Rahall's, most of the 150 negative votes reflected opposition to other
features of the amendment, not to the $250 million subsidy to Israel's
aircraft industry.
The following May, during the cons ideration of the bill appropriating
funds for foreign aid, Rahall offered an amendment to eliminate the
$250 million, but it was defeated 379 to 40. Despite the amendment's
obvious appeal to constituents connected with the U.S. aircraft industry,
fewer than 10 percent of House members voted for it. It was the
first roll call vote on an amendment dealing exclu sively with aid to
Israel in more than four years, and the margin of defeat provided a
measure of AIPAC power.
After the vote, AIPAC organized protests against the 40 legislators
who had supported the amendment. Rahall recalls that AIPAC carried
out a campaign "berating those brave 40 Congressmen." He adds,
"Almost all of those who voted with me have told me they are still
catching hell from their Jewish constituency. They are still moaning
about the beating they are taking."
Stilling the Still, Small Voices 81
The "brave" Congressmen got little thanks. TWo ethnic groups,
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National
Association of Arab Americans, congratulated Rahall on his initiative
and urged their members to send letters of congratulation to each of the
39 who supported his amendment. The results were meager. As the
author, Rahall could expect to receive more supportive mail than the
rest. He received "less than 10 letters" and speculates that the other 39
got still fewer.
"Don't Look to Congress to Act"
The reluctance of Congressmen to speak of Israel in critical vein
was apparent in 1983 when the House gave Pre sident Reagan permission
under the War Powers Act to keep U.S. Marines in Lebanon for 18
months. The vote took place a few days before the tragic truckbombing
killed over 240 Marines in Beirut. At the time the House
acted, several Marines had already died. A number of Congressmen
warned of more trouble ahead, opposing Reagan's request and strongly
urging withdrawal of the U.S. military force. Five others took the other
side, mentioning the importance of the Marine presence to the security
of Israel's northern border.
In all, 91 Congressmen spoke, but they were silent on the military
actions Israel had carried out in Lebanon during the previous year-its
unrestricted bombing of Beirut, forcing the evacuation of the PLO
fighters and then failing to provide security in the Palestine camps
where the massacre occurred. These events had altered the Lebanese
scene so radically that President Reagan felt impelled to return the
Marines to Beirut. In other words, it was Israel's actions which made
necessary the Marines' presence, yet none of these critical events was
mentioned among the thousands of words expressed during the lengthy
discussion.
A veteran Congressman, with the advantage of hindsight, explained
it directly. Just after the terrorist attack which killed U.S.
Marines who were asleep in their Beirut compound, Congressman Lee
Hamilton was asked if Congress might soon initiate action on its own to
get the Marines out of Lebanon. The query was posed by William
Quandt, a Middle East specialist who had served in the Carter White
House, at the close of a private discussion on Capitol Hill involving a
small group of senior Congressmen. Hamilton, a close student of both
the Congress and the Middle East, responded, "Don't look to Congress
to act. AIl we know is how to increase aid to Israel."
The next year, discussions leading to the decisions on Israeli aid
by Hamilton's subcommittee were less a public spectacle and Hamil-