As a former assistant producer for BBC News' Middle East bureau in Jerusalem, I brought an intimate awareness of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the office of Rep. Howard Berman (CA-28), where I've been working as an APSA Congressional Journalism Fellow. I chose to work for Rep. Berman because of his outstanding reputation as a thoughtful and vigorous legislator in foreign affairs. As a senior member of the International Relations Committee and ranking member of the Middle East and Africa Subcommittee, Berman is directly involved in setting policy on the issues I've covered as a journalist for years.

During my fellowship, I was on the other side of the issues. Instead of responding to events as a journalist, I was involved in shaping the agenda of U.S. policy in the Middle East. A good example is H.Con.Res.460, the Delay-Hoyer Resolution regarding the security of Israel and the principles of peace in the Middle East that passed the House in June 2004. To witness the evolution of this bill from the time of conception to its adoption by the House of Representatives was thrilling. Essentially, this resolution expresses the support of Congress for the principles laid down by President George W. Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his April 2004 letter, most notably that Palestinian refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, rather than returning to the State of Israel. From the moment President Bush endorsed this position, my boss, along with others in Washington, fully supported the measure. Berman recognized that some important clarity on the thorny issue of the refugees was needed. President Bush's position is, according to Berman, quite the obvious solution to the problem. In fact, an important raison d'etre of a Palestinian state is to absorb and integrate Palestinians wishing to return from their diaspora.

However, there was some strong opposition to this position, particularly from the Palestinian side. It was argued, notably by Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat in a Washington Post piece, that Bush's letter undermined what was supposed to be negotiated by the parties themselves in a final status agreement. But Berman rejected this logic, especially since Erekat and the world welcomed the president's June 24, 2002 speech outlining his vision for an independent Palestinian state. Berman noted that it too adopted a position that was theoretically supposed to be negotiated by the parties. So, just as the 2002 speech was simply a recognition of reality, so too was Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon. Because Berman believes that clinging to unrealistic expectations on both sides only delays progress toward peace, he welcomed the Administration's clarity on the refugee issue and sought a way to make it the policy not just of the White House, but of the U.S. Congress. Thus, after many political maneuvers, the Delay/Hoyer bipartisan resolution was born and passed by unanimous consent.

One unusual aspect of the fellowship for journalists is our direct involvement with issues on the Hill. As a journalist, I've always tried to remain detached from stories in order to ensure my objectivity. As a Congressional fellow, though, I was a member of Berman's staff and accordingly acted to carry out his agenda. For example, Berman strongly rejected the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) jurisdiction for an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel's West Bank separation barrier. Whereas in the past, I would likely have been covering this story, I instead became an advocate for one side of the issue. I participated in strategy sessions with groups opposed to the ICJ's jurisdiction and I helped craft a letter from Berman and other Members of Congress to the president, urging him to oppose the ICJ. Fortunately, I happen to agree with Berman's position that this is a political matter “outside the jurisdiction of the ICJ, which is not supposed to address contentious issues without the consent of all parties involved.”

Do I understand U.S. Middle East policy more now that I've been working from the “inside?” This is a question I've asked myself since the fellowship began; I think that I do. I understand more of why mixed signals often come from Washington. One particularly frustrating aspect of U.S. foreign policy is the inability to grasp exactly what it is. Working on the Hill showed me that the American government is not a monolithic entity that speaks with one voice. Rather, ours is a government of people. The State Department, the White House, and Congress all contain people with different interests and different points of view. While consensus is surely a worthy goal, it is not always possible.

Finally, I want to offer a strong endorsement of APSA's Congressional Fellowship Program with the following anecdote: It's not every day that you get to have a conversation with the vice president! One of the highlights of my fellowship was accompanying Rep. Berman to the annual Congressional Barbecue on the South White House lawn. After President Bush's opening remarks, the commander-in-chief was swamped by a crowd of youngsters seeking autographs and pictures. While trying to steer clear of the crowd, I bumped up against Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Elizabeth. I shook Mr. Cheney's hand and told him I worked on the “other” side of the aisle, but shared some of his foreign policy goals. Our short conversation included many topics—from Hizbullah to my baby daughter. It was a surreal experience and something that was only made possible by APSA's wonderful Congressional Fellowship Program!