ZERO HOUR

bags? Is it logical that Syria
will attack us?

For writers, the urge,
under the circumstances, to
write Analyses (such as this
one) is as unstoppable as the
rapid backsliding into Panic.
By the time these lines see
print, war will likely have
broken out, and we may well
be huddled in our "sealed
room" glued to the radio, my
wife and I (and all our fellow
Israelis) in gas masks, and
my rambunctious son inside
a little plastic pup tent, with
air filters and a sleeve so we
can give him his bottle. For
this we came to live here? I
silently scream.

Fortunately, a seventh
path is available:
7. Believe. In God, the Jew-
ish people, the multi-
national forces —and believe
that whatever you believe in
is powerful enough to see us
through. Believe that Israel
in 1991 is not a reprise of
Germany in 1939, but its
polar opposite. This is our
country. And this time the
Jews have an army —a
strong one — of our own.
Believe that it's important
to be here. Believe that we
haven't won our national in-
dependence for the first time
in two millennia only to lose
it in less than 50 years.
Believe that a million Soviet

Jews will help us turn the
Middle East into a safer,
more prosperous neighbor-
hood, ridiculous as this may
seem.
My wife's father calls from
California to say they have
been interviewed on local
TV in their role as worried
parents and grandparents.
My son's photo on a million
TV screens: His unlikely
showbiz debut. Maybe he
will get offers to do commer-
cials.

I have to believe we will be
all right. I put another layer
of tape around the bedroom
window, and stash away an-
other can of corn. ❑

A Wrenching Vote
For Jewish Lawmakers

In Congress, the war powers vote posed agonizing
decisions, and resulted in many surprises.

JAMES D. BESSER

Washington Correspondent

A

s Washington counted
down towards a possi
ble explosion in the
Persian Gulf, Capitol Hill was
the scene of some extraor-
dinary soul searching last
week.
And for Jewish legislators,
with the fate of Israel hang-
ing in the balance and the
specter of an anti-Semitic
backlash hovering just over
the horizon, the process of
judging whether or not to
give President Bush the
power to use force against
Iraq was particularly wren-
ching.
At issue were a series of
bills defining the respective
roles Congress and the pres-
ident would play in deciding
to attack Iraq after the
January 15 United Nations
deadline.
After days of speechmak-
ing and surprisingly earnest
debate, both houses voted to
give President Bush what he
wanted — the authority to
pursue a military solution to
the Gulf crisis.
Technically, the resolu-
tions did not represent a
declaration of war. But that
is the way many Americans
perceived the congressional
action — a fact that was
prominent in the minds of
many Jews on Capitol Hill.
"This was the most
difficult decision I've had to

26

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 1991

make in my 25 years in
public life," said Baltimore
Democrat Rep. Ben Cardin.
Mr. Cardin, who has a
reputation as a strong
defender of Israel, voted
against the bill offered by
Rep. Robert H. Michael (R-
ill.) and Rep. Stephen Solarz
(D-N.Y.), which provided the
warmaking authority Presi-
dent Bush sought.
"I think we see risks,
either way we go," he said.
"I'm concerned that if we
start shooting, Israel will be
drawn in, and I don't know
how this [international] co-
alition will hold together
then. I'm worried that if we
start shooting, it may have
an effect on concessions we
might make to hold the co-
alition together. I'm con-
cerned about the concessions
we may have already made
to countries like Syria."
Mr.Cardin, in voting
against the Solarz-Michael
proposal, insisted that the
policy of economic sanctions
should be given a chance to
work — and that this policy
best satisfied both American
and Israeli interests.
"I think this policy has
worked well," he said. "It
kept the coalition together,
and it's isolated Iraq; we've
been able to protect the
Saudis, stabilize the flow of
oil and get our hostages
home. The only goal we
haven't attained is the lib-
eration of Kuwait."

Rep. Larry Smith, a
Florida Democrat who is one
of the most aggressive pro-
Israel voices in Congress,
agreed that the decision was
one of the most agonizing in
his public career.
Mr. Smith also voted
against the Solarz-Michael
proposal, angering and sur-
prising a number of pro-
Israel activists.
A Gulf war, he said, would
likely result in a campaign
of terrorism that could reach
into this country.
"Do people really think

"This fateful shift
was undertaken
without
Congressional
consultation or
approval and many
of us feared the
consequences."

Rep. Sander Levin

the war will remain 10,000
miles away?" he asked.
"People need to think very
long and hard before they
engage in a war that's not
necessary at this moment."
And a U.S.-led war against
Iraq, Mr. Smith argued,
could have some disastrous
consequences for Israel.
"Israel may suffer some
real downsides," he said. "In
my estimation, if we go to
war, the intifada will

become a full-scale civil war.
They'll have to throw a steel
net over the occupied ter-
ritories — which is some-
thing Israel can't afford. So
if this can be solved
peacefully, it's better for
Israel."
On the other side of the
debate was Rep. Howard
Berman (D-Calif.) For years,
Mr.Berman led the fight in
Congress for economic sanc-
tions against Iraq — a losing
battle, until Saddam Hus-
sein rolled over Kuwait in
August.
He heatedly rejected the
idea that strong Jewish sup-
port for the Solarz-Michael
measure represented a risk
for the community.
But his "aye" vote, Mr.
Berman said, did not con-
stitute a ringing endorse-
ment of the president's
broader Middle East poli-
cies.
"Part of the agony for me,"
he said, " was a fundamental
lack of confidence in the
Bush administration's abil-
ity to understand the impor-
tant objectives of our Gulf
policy. We spent eight years
looking the other way —
when Saddam gassed
civilians, when he attacked
Iran, when he threatened his
neighbors. It was business as
usual; we're in this terrible
state now because of the way
the United States dealt with
Saddam Hussein."
The administration, he in-
dicated, needs to develop a
new set of Middle East poli-
cies for the post-Kuwait
world.
And Mr. Berman agreed
that the crisis has dramati-
cally altered U.S.-Israeli re-
lations.
"My expectation is that a
psychological linkage bet-
ween the Gulf Crisis and the
Arab-Israeli situation has
developed," he said. "It's
impossible to know how that
will impact U.S.-Israeli rela-
tions. It's not far-fetched to
believe there will be an
enhanced level of pressure
on Israel to deal with its con-
flicts when this is over."
Despite strong support for
the Solarz-Michel proposal
by the leadership of major
Jewish organizations, the
Jewish delegation on Capitol
Hill was split; a handful of
Jewish Democrats supported
the president's position, but
many others did not.

A Few Big Surprises

In the Senate, three of
eight Jewish members voted
with the president — but
only one Democrat, Sen. Joe
Lieberman (D-Conn.).
Sen. Paul Wellstone, the
Minnesota Democrat who

replaced conservative Rudy
Boschwitz this month, gave
one of the most Jewish
speeches; the newcomer re-
ferred to his own Jewish
roots, and urged the body to
ponder the Hebrew word
tikkun, or repair of the
world, in making its deci-
sion.
One of the big surprises for
pro-Israel activists was the
no-vote of Sen. Daniel In-
ouye (D-Hawaii), one of the
most reliable pro-Israel
voices in the Senate.
In the House, there were
few surprises. A number of
Jewish Democrats voted
against the Solarz proposal,
including Rep. Sander Levin
(D-Mi.), Rep. Dan Glickman
(D-Kans.), Rep. Elliot Engel
(D-N.Y.), and several key
members of the powerful
California Jewish delegation
— Rep. Howard Berman,

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.

Rep. Mel Levine and Rep.
Tom Lantos.
But another Jewish
Democrat from Los Angeles,
Rep. Henry Waxman, voted
against the proposal.
Rep. Barney Frank, who
referred to the coalition ar-
rayed in Saudi Arabia as
"American troops and inter-
national cheerleaders,"
spoke out strongly against
the warmaking proposals.
Rep. Howard Wolpe and
Rep. Levin, both Jewish
legislators from Michigan,
voted against the proposal.
So did Levin's brother in the
upper house, Sen. Carl
Levin, a key supporter of an
unsuccessful measure in the
Senate that would have
stressed the continuation of
economic sanctions.
"In early November, the
President made a fateful
shift in direction —from
reliance on sanctions backed
by the threat of force to a
massive offensive capability
within a timetable so tight
that there was no chance
that economic sanctions
could work," said Rep.
Levin.