A Congressional resolution condemning terror committed against Israelis enraged members of Congress in its bad timing and left them feeling as if they were being coerced into a vote, according to Rep. Lynn Woolsey.
“You might think it was a popular resolution, but you’re wrong,” said the Petaluma Democrat of House Resolution 294, which passed with 399-5 on June 30. Woolsey was the only Bay Area representative to cast a “no” vote, though some others abstained or merely voted “present.”
“People were furious they had to vote on it. Furious. The timing — it was holding them hostage. They felt like they had no choice,” Woolsey said.
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), the resolution’s author, saw things differently.
“I would think it’s an insult to the integrity of members of Congress to assume that they were ‘held hostage’ on the vote on this resolution,” he said. “Clearly, the ones who voted ‘no’ had as much right to vote no as the ones who voted yes…It was the first-ever action by the Congress of the United States explicitly endorsing a two-state solution. The resolution was historic even in this respect.”
The resolution condemned the terrorist killings of 22 Israelis since Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas pledged an end to violence at the June 4 Aqaba summit.
It expressed “solidarity with the Israeli people as they respond to ongoing terror attacks,” called for states to end ties with “Palestinian and other terrorist groups” and urged aid to the Palestinian Authority in quelling terrorism and assistance to the Palestinians in establishing a peaceful democracy.
The resolution expressed sympathy for “innocent Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives,” and referred to Palestinians as “victims of terrorists, who undermine prospects for a lasting peace.”
It also rejected the term “cycle of violence” as placing Israelis killed in terror attacks and innocent deaths incurred during Israeli retaliation on an equal footing.
With a tentative cease-fire taking hold earlier this month, however, Woolsey felt the vote on the resolution was ill-timed and “too one-sided.”
“I’m concerned that HR 294 won’t advance the peace process that we all want. If we want to advance the process, we can’t get caught up in assigning blame. We can’t do that. The United States has to be an honest broker in this,” she said.
“I absolutely condemn what terrorists are doing to Israel, but I also know there are Palestinians who are heartbroken over [the loss of] their children. I want to look at that. I don’t think we should be appearing to take sides.”
Yitzhak Santis, the Jewish Community Relations Council’s director of Middle Eastern affairs, said he was disappointed by Woolsey’s vote, and shocked by her rhetoric.
“The main point of the resolution was to call for the end of terrorism. There cannot be peace or even a serious peace process until terrorism comes to an end. The ‘road map’ clearly states that. The very first thing in the road map says the Palestinian Authority is supposed to dismantle and disarm the terrorist infrastructure,” he said.
Regarding Woolsey’s “hostage” comment, he asked “What, was somebody held by force? What’s that supposed to mean? Nobody was holding a gun to her head. That’s pretty surprising and disappointing language to come from a member of Congress.”
Woolsey said she’s gotten more positive feedback than negative regarding her vote, but she “feels badly” about raising ire among the pro-Israel community.
“I’ve been such a supporter of Israel ever since I was elected, and it has been really difficult for me to take the stand I’ve been taking throughout this whole thing. We didn’t need to hold a vote on a resolution that’s meaningless. It’s meaningful because it’s a big message, but we didn’t need to do it at that moment.”