NewPolicy.org has compiled a Congressional scorecard for the 435 lawmakers currently serving in the House of Representatives. The Representatives are scored based on their support for an American foreign policy in the Middle East that best serves the national interest and brings a swift end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although, there was a range of criteria which the scores may be based upon, NewPolicy.org chose four major initiatives over the past year that have highlighted the efforts of Congressmen to steer American foreign policy toward America’s long term goals in the region. These four initiatives also sought to realign American foreign policy in the Middle East with American values of liberty and justice for all mankind. Finally, and significantly, these four initiatives will go a long way toward assuaging the tension between the Muslim world and the United States, rectifying the tarnished image of the United States as a blind supporter of Israel’s governments no matter how destructive their policies are to the Palestinians, to Israel, and, indeed, to the United States.

Congressional Scorecard (by highest score, by represented state).

The first criterion, which Congressmen were scored on, is their respective votes on House Resolution 34, which passed on January 9, 2009. The resolution passed during Israel’s invasion of the Gaza strip and at the height of international criticism as well as domestic public outcry decrying Israel’s human rights abuses during the invasion that resulted in the death of more than 1400 Palestinians in the span of three weeks. House Resolution 34, essentially, assured Israel of its right to defend itself and lay the blame for the death of civilians squarely on Hamas, absolving Israel of any responsibility during the bombardment (See H. Res. 34 text here). There was no mention of Israel’s illegal use of cluster bombs and white phosphorus in the highly dense Gaza strip. The voting for House Resolution 34 was given double the weight of House Resolution 867, another vote used to score Congressmen on this issue, due to the large amount of pressure that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies put on Congress, as well as, the small number of dissenting lawmakers. The five Nay votes were given four points, the 38 Congressmen who abstained or voted present were given two points, the 390 Yay votes were given zero points.

The second criterion, used to evaluate Representatives’ seriousness about peace in the Middle East, is House Resolution 867, which passed on November 3, 2009.  The resolution was a classic example of one-sided AIPAC-sponsored resolutions in Congress that run afoul of honest assessments of international consensus, actual events in the region, America’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and America’s national interest and security. House Resolution 867 demanded that President Obama’s administration “to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.” The text of the resolution was so full of factual errors and misrepresentations of the Goldstone report that both Congressmen Keith Ellison and Brian Baird felt compelled to write critiques of the resolution (See H. Res. 867 text here). Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who authored the report, took the unusual step of issuing a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the report, addressing its inaccuracies and willful omissions (See Judge Goldstone’s Retort here). The 36 who voted Nay were given two points, the 52 who voted present or did not vote were scored 1 point, while the 344 Yay votes were given zero points.

The third measure of Congressional determination to redirect American foreign policy in the Middle East toward an equitable solution in the region is Congressional visits to Gaza. While largely a symbolic action, a few Congressmen visited the Gaza strip since the invasion by Israeli in January of 2009. These visits show an interest in the plight of the Palestinians living in dismal conditions in Gaza for more than a year now, where little is allowed to enter the strip, including basic necessities such as medical supplies and building material. Due to the meaningful significance of this gesture, the Congressmen who went to Gaza in the name of human rights, equality, freedom, and justice are recognized in this report. Although as many as 8 members of the House might have made the trip to Gaza in the past year, NewPolicy.org was only able to confirm 4 members due to the reluctance of others to announce their plans to visit the strip. Congressmen Keith Ellison, Brian Baird, Stephen Lynch and Bob Inglis were all given four points for making the trip to Gaza.

Finally, the last initiative used as an indication of a Congressman’s pro-peace credentials was an open letter to end the siege on Gaza. The Congressional letter was signed by 54 members of the House and was addressed to President Obama, stating that "the unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East Peace." The letter was a clear indication by a still small but determined minority in the House of Representatives to push for real reform in America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and to finally implement our longstanding positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 54 Congressmen who signed the letter were each given two points for their brave stance, while the leaders of the initiative, Congressmen Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott, received 4 points.

This Congressional Scorecard is by no means exhaustive but it is an important preliminary look at the actions taken by the House of Representatives in the cause of peace and American security within the past year. Please take the time to look how Congressmen fared in this analysis (by represented state, by highest score) and let them know that you appreciate their efforts in the cause of peace and American security or, otherwise, demand an explanation for their serious engagement in this conflict that has caused our country much blood, time, treasure and ill-will around the globe. NewPolicy.org will make use of this analysis when it chooses the candidates that it intends to support in the 2010 Congressional elections.