Conflict over Israel: The Role of Religion, Race, Party and Ideology in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1997–2002

From Bipartisanship to Dysergia: Trends in Congressional Actions Toward Israel

“…38 Analyzing votes, sponsorships, and cosponsorships of bills and resolutions, from the 103rd through 107th Congress for the Senate and the 105th through 107th Congress for the House, they demonstrate that as the violence escalated between Israel and the Palestinians, the House increasingly considered resolutions that directly engaged the conflict and forced legislators to take a side.39 They then examine the factors that explain individual support for Israel and demonstrate that after controlling for different competing explanations, party identification has a strong effect. 38 Analyzing votes, sponsorships, and cosponsorships of bills and resolutions, from the 103rd through 107th Congress for the Senate and the 105th through 107th Congress for the House, they demonstrate that as the violence escalated between Israel and the Palestinians, the House increasingly considered resolutions that directly engaged the conflict and forced legislators to take a side.39 They then examine the factors that explain individual support for Israel and demonstrate that after controlling for different competing explanations, party identification has a strong effect.…”

U.S. Senators’ Support for Israel Examined Through Sponsorship/Cosponsorship Decisions, 1993-2002: The Influence of Elite and Constituent Factors

“…The existing research on legislative behavior relating to Israel is sparse, with less than a handful of empirical studies (Trice 1977; Feuerweger 1979; Wald, Guth, Fraser, Green, Smidt, and Kellstedt 1997; Oldmixon, Rosenson, and Wald 2005). This limited scholarly research and also the popular media have focused on several factors that may influence Congress’s posture toward Israel, particularly in recent years: partisanship, religion, ideology, and constituent concerns.…”

Evangelizing Congress: The Emergence of Evangelical Republicans and Party Polarization in Congress

“…However, the study of religion in Congress has been hampered because the only readily available data on religion affiliations of members of Congress are too imprecise to make those distinctions (Oldmixon ). This is despite the fact that morality‐based policy conflicts on issues such as abortion, school prayer, and same‐sex marriage have been increasingly thrust onto the national agenda (Oldmixon )…”

“…Where scholars have investigated the influence of religion in Congress, they have mainly focused on social issues such as abortion (Chressanthis, Gilbert, and Grimes ; D'Antonio, Tuch, and Baker ; Daynes and Tatalovich ; Fastnow, Grant, and Rudolph ; Gohmann and Ohsfeldt ; Highton and Rocca ; Mariott ; Oldmixon , ; Regens and Lockerbie ), gay rights (Haider‐Markel ; Lublin ; Oldmixon ; Oldmixon and Calfano ), cloning (Burden ), animal welfare (Oldmixon ), school prayer (Oldmixon ), religious freedom (Burden ), charitable choice (Burden ), and Religious Right issues (Edwards Smith, Olson, and Fine ). Some scholars have also looked beyond traditional “social issues” into the effect of religion on immigration policy (Fetzer ; Oldmixon and Hudson ), support for Israel (Oldmixon, Rosenson, and Wald ; Rosenson, Oldmixon, and Wald ), and economic issues (D'Antonio, Tuch, and Baker ), as well as general ideology, as measured by ADA scores (Duke and Johnson 1996; Fastnow, Grant, and Rudolph ; Green and Guth ), and DW‐NOMINATE (Tuch and Mark ).…”