As the Bush Administration prepared to try to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine, Congress was eager to make a statement in support of the former over the latter. The non-binding statement backed Israel's efforts against terrorism and condemned Yasser Arafat for his apparent support of terrorist attacks. Progressives opposed this statement because they felt it only complicated peace efforts by undermining the "neutral broker" role of the United States, and because they felt Israel should also answer for killing Palestinian civilians and refusing to withdraw settlements. In the House, most bills come with a set of rules for debate that must be voted on before the bill itself can be considered. This process can be evaded by proposing to suspend the rules, which limits debate, forbids amendments, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass the bill itself. Supporters of the pro-Israel statement decided to suspend the rules for its passage, but this suspension and passage motion itself needed to be debated. Toward that end, the Republican leadership proposed a secondary rule that would dictate the conduct of this secondary debate about the motion to suspend the rules. This secondary rule also required its own debate. In the midst of this debate on the secondary rule, Diaz-Balart (R-FL) moved to order the previous question, a way of cutting off the debate and calling a vote on the rule being discussed. Progressives opposed the statement of support, so they opposed suspending the rules to pass it, opposed passing the rule that would allow the process to begin, and opposed the motion to bring this rule to a vote. They voted "no" on the motion to order the previous question, but they were greatly outnumbered in this position. The motion passed 328-82.