Look who's the better party on Israel now...

In January 2002, a short while after he settled into the Oval Office, President George W. Bush announced the revival of the "Mexico City policy." This conservative policy that annoys many people was established by Ronald Reagan in 1984, canceled by Bill Clinton in 1993, and returned with Bush. Under this policy, not a single cent of foreign aid can be given to an organization or institution that works for abortions. Not in Africa, not in Asia, and not in the Middle East. The American taxpayer does not fund things like that.

Last week this policy was brought up, surprisingly, in the discussion of aid to Israel, even though there is no connection between it and Israel.

Just as every political choice inevitably reflects an order of priorities, it is possible to argue today - with a certain amount of justice - that the Republican Party prefers to prevent the distribution of condoms in third-world countries over supporting defense aid to Israel. All the rest is excuses.

Israel is the biggest beneficiary of American foreign aid, $2.4 billion a year. This is what the administration has requested, and this is what the House of Representatives intends to approve. But the Republicans have decided to object to this aid. That is to say, not only to aid to Israel, but to all foreign aid. And not, perish the thought, because of Israel, but because of a small provision introduced by Representative Nita Lowey, Democrat of New York, chair of the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, that makes the Mexico City Policy a bit more flexible, and allows for the purchase of contraceptives even for organizations that support abortion. The Republicans did not agree to vote for this provision, even if it means voting against all of the rest of the provisions for foreign aid, including aid to Israel.

One can complain about the Republicans, who have revealed a flawed set of priorities. One can complain about Lowey, a definite supporter of Israel, who laid a trap for the Republicans but also for bipartisan support for Israel. Nevertheless, Lowey has preferred the snare, and the Republicans, even though they were warned by pro-Israel elements, have jumped right into it.

The Democrats are now rejoicing, and they will also publish paid announcements accordingly. For two years the Republicans have been trying to besmirch their name as a party whose support for Israel is not as staunch as the right's; now it turns out that the Republicans also have issues that are more important, like withholding contraceptives. The legislation that the Democrats have put forward is in fact good for Israel - both aid and support for the next aid agreement.

No far-reaching conclusions are called for here, as aid to Israel will in the end be forthcoming. Republican offices hastened this week to explain: had they thought that because of them aid to Israel would be revoked, they would have voted otherwise. The Republican leadership also sent a letter to the Jewish lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), explaining the unusual vote: It's not because of Israel, it is because of "Mexico City."

Nevertheless, it seems that after 10 years of relative quiet during which the Republicans controlled Congress, there is a growing tendency to use Israel as a pawn on the political playing field. And there seems to be no chance of stopping this process. As the Bush era draws to a close, all means are kosher in Washington's power struggles.

That is how officials in Jerusalem explained the surprising visit to Damascus by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and how some of them view the thorn that Lowey stuck in the sides of legislators from the minority party. And there will probably be additional snags of this nature. Or, as one Israeli source put it, the naked truth has been revealed: It must be hoped that no African wombs ever stand between us and American aid in the future.