s***@zunes.not
2009-01-14 17:54:37 UTC
Virtually the Entire Dem-Controlled Congress Supports Israel's War
Crimes in Gaza
By Professor Stephen Zunes
Congressional leaders are advancing a radical view of international
law that would allow powerful countries to get away with war crimes.
In a direct challenge to the credibility of Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross and other reputable
humanitarian organizations, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in
both houses of Congress has gone on record supporting President George
W. Bush's position that the Israeli armed forces bear no
responsibility for the large and growing numbers of civilian
casualties from their assault on the Gaza Strip.
As of this writing, at least 400 civilians have been killed by Israeli
forces, primarily using U.S.-supplied weaponry.
Shattering hopes that an expanded Democratic congressional majority
and a new Democratic administration might lead to a more moderate
foreign policy, the resolutions put forward an extreme
reinterpretation of international humanitarian law, apparently
designed to exonerate nations with superior firepower from any
liability for inflicting large-scale civilian casualties.
The Senate resolution, primarily written and sponsored by Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., passed the Senate by unanimous
consent on a voice vote. Among the 33 co-sponsors were such otherwise
liberal Democratic senators as Barbara Boxer, Calif,; Richard Durbin,
Ill,; Carl Levin, Mich.; Sherrod Brown, Ohio; Barbara Mikulski, Md.;
and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, Mass.
An even stronger House resolution, sponsored by House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., passed the House by a lopsided 390-5 roll call vote
(with 22 members voting "present"). Both resolutions placed the blame
for the death and destruction exclusively on the Palestinian side and
are being widely interpreted as a rebuke to the international human
rights community and the United Nations, which have cited both Hamas
and the Israeli government for war crimes.
The resolutions favorably quote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
extensively, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, regarding
responsibility for civilian deaths and for the causes of the conflict.
No one else is cited in the resolutions, indicating who Pelosi, Reid
and the resolutions' other sponsors see as the authoritative sources
of information on international humanitarian law in the region.
Although some analysts are already referring to the Gaza war as "a
final and eloquent testimony to the complete failure of the
neoconservative movement in United States foreign policy," Pelosi,
Reid and virtually the entire Democratic membership of Congress have
decided to ally themselves with this failed ideology of the outgoing
Bush administration rather than blaze a new trail of moderation and
common sense in anticipation of new leadership in the White House.
Indeed, Pelosi's and Reid's strategy in pushing through these
resolutions may have been part of an attempt to box in Obama -- to
force him to continue Bush's hard-right foreign policy. That is, a
policy in which, in the name of the "war on terror," fundamental
principles of international law are deemed to be expendable.
To the Right of Bush
Some of the language in the resolution put forward by Pelosi, Reid and
their colleagues even place the Democratic Party to the right of the
Bush administration. For example, while the Jan. 8 U.N. Security
Council resolution -- which received the endorsement of Rice and other
administration officials -- condemns "all acts of violence and terror
directed against civilians," the congressional resolution only
condemns the violence and terror of Hamas.
Indeed, just as the Security Council unanimously passed its resolution
stressing "the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and
fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli
forces from Gaza," Congress immediately weighed in with language
apparently designed to prevent one. The Senate and House resolutions
called for a cease-fire only on the condition that it "prevents Hamas
from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and
mortars against Israel." Given that most of these rockets and mortars
are of a rather crude design that can be made in local machine shops
from scrap metal and other easily obtainable materials, and is
therefore the kind of capability that can not really be completely
eliminated, it appears that this clause would make a cease-fire
impossible.
Emboldened by this strong bipartisan support from the legislative
branch of its most important ally, Israel rejected the U.N.'s terms
for a cease-fire.
Also on Jan. 8, Israeli forces killed two U.N. humanitarian aid
workers as they were attempting to provide relief supplies, and the
International Red Cross released a strongly worded statement noting
that the Israeli military had "failed to meet its obligation under
international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded."
The Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders
noted that "Palestinian humanitarian aid and health workers have been
killed, and hospitals and ambulances have been bombed."
Congress, however, went on record in the resolutions praising Israel
for having "facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza."
Both resolutions "hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire,"
despite the fact that there had been scores of minor violations during
the months of the cease-fire by both sides and that Israel had
launched a major incursion into the Gaza Strip on Nov. 4, 2008,
assassinating several Hamas leaders, an action the Israeli press
speculated was designed to provoke Hamas into not renewing the
cease-fire when it expired the following month. Israel then tightened
its siege on Nov. 5, banning even humanitarian aid from coming
through. Hamas appeared willing to renew the cease-fire in return for
Israel renouncing further such incursions and lifting the siege, but
Israel refused.
While these Israeli provocations do not justify Hamas' failure to
renew the cease-fire and certainly not Hamas' decision to once again
begin firing rockets into civilian-populated areas of Israel -- which
is a war crime -- the language of the resolutions gives a very
misleading understanding of the events leading up to the war.
Ironically, despite blaming Hamas exclusively for not renewing the
cease-fire, the resolutions also claim that returning to the terms of
that cease-fire agreement "is unacceptable."
Yet these were by no means the most egregious misrepresentations in
these Democratic-led congressional initiatives.
Redefining International Humanitarian Law
In perhaps the most dangerous clause of the resolution, the House
called "on all nations to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding
its fighters, leaders and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques,
hospitals and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields."
According to international humanitarian law, however, "human shields"
require the deliberate use of civilians as a deterrent to avoid attack
on one's troops or military objects. Despite repeated calls to the
offices of the resolutions' principal Democratic sponsors, not one of
them could provide a single example of this actually occurring during
the current wave of fighting. Similar accusations in a 2006 resolution
supported by Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders during the five
weeks of devastating Israeli attacks on Lebanon that summer were later
systematically rebuked in a detailed and meticulously researched
249-page report by Human Rights Watch. (See my article "The Democrats
and the "Human Shields" Myth").
In this resolution, the Democrats appear to be attempting to redefine
just what constitutes human shields. Despite this desperate effort to
rationalize the large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians by
Israeli forces, the fact that a Hamas leader lives in his own private
home, attends a neighborhood mosque and seeks admittance in a local
hospital does not constitute the use of human shields. Indeed, the
vast majority of leaders of most governments and political parties
live in private homes in civilian neighborhoods, go to local houses of
worship and check in to hospitals when sick or injured, along with
ordinary civilians. Furthermore, given that the armed wing of Hamas is
a militia rather than a standing army, virtually all of their fighters
live in private homes and go to neighborhood mosques and local
hospitals, as well.
In short, Pelosi and other congressional leaders appear to be
advancing a radical and dangerous reinterpretation of international
humanitarian law that would allow virtually any country with superior
air power or long-range artillery to get away with war crimes.
Hamas is certainly guilty of less-severe violations of international
humanitarian law, such as not taking all necessary steps it should to
prevent civilian casualties when it positions fighters and armaments
too close to concentrations of civilians. However, this is not the
same thing as deliberately using civilians as shields. And, as Human
Rights Watch noted, even the presence of armed personnel and weapons
near civilian areas "does not release Israel from its obligations to
take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and
civilian property during military operations." Furthermore, the nature
of urban warfare, particularly in a territory as densely populated as
the Gaza Strip, makes the proximity of retreating fighters and their
equipment to civilians unavoidable in many cases.
It is also important to note that, even if Hamas were using human
shields in the legal definition of the term, it still does not absolve
Israel from its obligation to avoid civilian casualties. Amnesty
International has noted that the Geneva Conventions make it clear that
even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a
violation "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their
legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and
civilians." Despite claims by some members of Congress to the
contrary, Israel's Jan. 6 attack on the U.N. school in Gaza, which
killed more than 40 civilians, was still a war crime, even if Israeli
forces were being fired upon from the vicinity. (The argument by those
defending this atrocity is comparable to claiming that it would be
legitimate for a SWAT team, in order to kill some bank robbers
shooting at them, to also kill the bank employees and customers being
held hostage since the bad guys were using "human shields.")
Rewriting the U.N. Charter and the Magna Carta
Pelosi's resolution not only undermines international humanitarian
law, it seeks to resurrect a fallacy that has been rejected by Western
legal thought since the Magna Carta. In an effort to absolve Israel
for the hundreds of civilian casualties it has inflicted with
U.S.-supplied weaponry, the House resolution "calls on all nations
to lay blame both for the breaking of the calm and for subsequent
civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on
Hamas."
In reality, however wrong -- morally, legally and politically --
Hamas' decision to not renew the cease-fire, it simply does not
absolve Israel of its responsibility under international humanitarian
law for the far greater civilian deaths its armed forces have
inflicted upon the Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed, it has long been a
principle of Western jurisprudence that someone who is the proximate
cause of a crime cannot claim innocence simply because of the
influence of another party. By refuting this nearly 800-year old legal
principle, this becomes, literally, a reactionary piece of
legislation.
In support of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, the House also
goes on record citing the Israeli invasion as part of Israel's "right
to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas'
unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter." In
reality, the U.N. Charter explicitly prohibits nations going to war
unless they "first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their
own choice." Israel -- with strong bipartisan U.S. support -- has
refused to even meet with Hamas. Furthermore, while Article 51 does
allow countries the right to resist an armed attack, it does not grant
any nation the right to engage in such massive and disproportionate
warfare against densely packed cities and refugee camps.
Not a Product of AIPAC
It appears that these two resolutions, unlike some similar measures in
recent years, were not drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee AIPAC, the influential "pro-Israel" lobby. Nor were they
primarily the initiative of right-wing Republican House leaders like
Ohio Rep. John Boehner, or his predecessor Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, as
were previous resolutions related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The lack of Democratic input on such resolutions has been used on a
number of occasions in the past by Democratic staff members on Capitol
Hill in an effort to excuse congressional Democrats for voting in
favor of such initiatives, arguing that they ended up voting for a
particular resolution in order to "show support for Israel," but did
not necessarily approve of the specific wording of the resolution.
They have no such excuses this time, however, since these resolutions
came primarily out of the offices of Pelosi, Reid, and House Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif.
There appears to be little popular support for such an unqualified
endorsement of Israeli war-making, however, with public opinion --
particularly among Democrats -- largely opposed to the assault on
Gaza. And the American Jewish community has never seen so much dissent
over Washington's support for Israel's militaristic and self-defeating
policies toward the Palestinians. Despite the myth that it is somehow
"political suicide" to oppose such resolutions, every Democrat who
failed to vote for a similar 2006 House resolution supporting Israel's
attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip was re-elected that November by
a bigger margin than they were two years earlier. Furthermore,
virtually all of the principal authors and sponsors of this year's
resolutions come from safe districts.
One of major reasons these Democrats support such right-wing
legislation is not because AIPAC is all-powerful, but because there is
so little pressure in the other direction to counter it. For example,
MoveOn, Democracy for America, Council for a Livable World, and other
"progressive" political organizations that endorse candidates for
national office continue to back Democrats who support dangerous
militaristic policies in the Middle East. (Ironically, if Democrats
Nita Lowey, N.Y.; Robert Wexler, Fla;, John Hall, N.Y.; Henry Waxman,
D-Calif.; Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas; Carolyn Maloney, N.Y.; Edward
Markey, Mass.; and other co-sponsors of the House bill were running
for the Israeli Knesset instead of the U.S. House of Representatives,
their positions on human rights and international law in regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would put them on that legislature's
right wing.)
Since the next congressional election is nearly two years away, it is
too early to tell whether the growing opposition within the
progressive community to U.S. support for the large-scale Israeli
attacks against Palestinian civilians will be sufficient to deny those
who defend Israeli war crimes the endorsements of progressive groups
in the 2010 campaign. Given that like-minded organizations in previous
decades denied their support for Democratic hawks who defended human
rights abuses by U.S.-backed governments in Central America, Southeast
Asia, Southern Africa and other conflict regions, it should be
possible.
The problem is that there is still a fair amount of anti-Arab racism,
which seems to take the perspective that the human rights of
Palestinians somehow don't count. It's telling, for example, that
Pelosi, the chief sponsor of the House resolution, has been praised by
progressive publications for her "consistent support for human
rights." Similarly, the late Foreign Relations Committee chairman,
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., also an outspoken defender of Israeli human
rights abuses, was repeatedly re-elected to chair the ironically named
congressional Human Rights Caucus and was eulogized in a number of
progressive periodicals following his death last year as Congress'
"leading defender of human rights." (See my article Lantos' Tarnished
Legacy.)
Israel would not be able to get away with its ongoing attacks against
Palestinian civilians were it not for the support of the Bush
administration. The Bush administration would not be able to get away
with supporting these atrocities were it not being backed by the
Democratic-controlled Congress, including many of its otherwise more
liberal members. And the overwhelming support by congressional
Democrats of Bush's stance would not be possible were it not for the
continued acquiescence of the progressive community to these
Democrats' embrace of his right-wing militaristic agenda in the
Mideast.
Peace between Israel and Palestine may not be possible until
progressive activists stop seeing members of Congress who support such
resolutions as powerless victims of some mythical cabal of wealthy
Jews and instead hold them just as accountable for their actions as
those who took comparable right-wing positions regarding Central
America or East Timor in previous years, or those who embrace such
policies regarding Iraq and Iran today. Instead of protesting in front
of Israeli consulates, demonstrators will need to focus their protests
more on congressional offices, as well as engage in more disruptive
tactics, such as sit-ins and other forms of nonviolent direct action.
It may require withholding campaign contributions, supporting
progressive challengers in primary races and threatening to back Green
or other third-party challengers in the general election.
There are signs this may be possible. The past couple of weeks have
witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of concern on the plight of the
Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. In addition, while the corporate media
is as biased in support of U.S. client states as ever, much of the
widely read independent news/opinion Web sites -- which are
increasingly important in shaping public opinion -- have had a fair
amount of critical coverage. This could be significant in that the
more the conflict is addressed in terms of human rights and
international law, and the less it is addressed in terms of Israel
versus Palestine, the less likely the debate will be dominated by
those with rigid ideological agendas.
This should also help make it easier to recognize how U.S. policy is
not just bad for the Palestinians, but ultimately bad for Israel as
well, as Israeli militarism goaded on by U.S. politicians from Bush to
Pelosi has left the Jewish state increasingly isolated in the world
and has greatly contributed to the growing ranks of Islamic
extremists, such as those drawn to Hamas.
And, should Barack Obama -- who has refused to join the chorus of
other Democratic leaders in backing the Israeli invasion -- decide as
president to finally apply some "tough love" towards Israel in the
face of a hostile Congress, he is going to need the American people to
back him up.
Crimes in Gaza
By Professor Stephen Zunes
Congressional leaders are advancing a radical view of international
law that would allow powerful countries to get away with war crimes.
In a direct challenge to the credibility of Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross and other reputable
humanitarian organizations, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in
both houses of Congress has gone on record supporting President George
W. Bush's position that the Israeli armed forces bear no
responsibility for the large and growing numbers of civilian
casualties from their assault on the Gaza Strip.
As of this writing, at least 400 civilians have been killed by Israeli
forces, primarily using U.S.-supplied weaponry.
Shattering hopes that an expanded Democratic congressional majority
and a new Democratic administration might lead to a more moderate
foreign policy, the resolutions put forward an extreme
reinterpretation of international humanitarian law, apparently
designed to exonerate nations with superior firepower from any
liability for inflicting large-scale civilian casualties.
The Senate resolution, primarily written and sponsored by Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., passed the Senate by unanimous
consent on a voice vote. Among the 33 co-sponsors were such otherwise
liberal Democratic senators as Barbara Boxer, Calif,; Richard Durbin,
Ill,; Carl Levin, Mich.; Sherrod Brown, Ohio; Barbara Mikulski, Md.;
and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, Mass.
An even stronger House resolution, sponsored by House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., passed the House by a lopsided 390-5 roll call vote
(with 22 members voting "present"). Both resolutions placed the blame
for the death and destruction exclusively on the Palestinian side and
are being widely interpreted as a rebuke to the international human
rights community and the United Nations, which have cited both Hamas
and the Israeli government for war crimes.
The resolutions favorably quote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
extensively, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, regarding
responsibility for civilian deaths and for the causes of the conflict.
No one else is cited in the resolutions, indicating who Pelosi, Reid
and the resolutions' other sponsors see as the authoritative sources
of information on international humanitarian law in the region.
Although some analysts are already referring to the Gaza war as "a
final and eloquent testimony to the complete failure of the
neoconservative movement in United States foreign policy," Pelosi,
Reid and virtually the entire Democratic membership of Congress have
decided to ally themselves with this failed ideology of the outgoing
Bush administration rather than blaze a new trail of moderation and
common sense in anticipation of new leadership in the White House.
Indeed, Pelosi's and Reid's strategy in pushing through these
resolutions may have been part of an attempt to box in Obama -- to
force him to continue Bush's hard-right foreign policy. That is, a
policy in which, in the name of the "war on terror," fundamental
principles of international law are deemed to be expendable.
To the Right of Bush
Some of the language in the resolution put forward by Pelosi, Reid and
their colleagues even place the Democratic Party to the right of the
Bush administration. For example, while the Jan. 8 U.N. Security
Council resolution -- which received the endorsement of Rice and other
administration officials -- condemns "all acts of violence and terror
directed against civilians," the congressional resolution only
condemns the violence and terror of Hamas.
Indeed, just as the Security Council unanimously passed its resolution
stressing "the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and
fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli
forces from Gaza," Congress immediately weighed in with language
apparently designed to prevent one. The Senate and House resolutions
called for a cease-fire only on the condition that it "prevents Hamas
from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and
mortars against Israel." Given that most of these rockets and mortars
are of a rather crude design that can be made in local machine shops
from scrap metal and other easily obtainable materials, and is
therefore the kind of capability that can not really be completely
eliminated, it appears that this clause would make a cease-fire
impossible.
Emboldened by this strong bipartisan support from the legislative
branch of its most important ally, Israel rejected the U.N.'s terms
for a cease-fire.
Also on Jan. 8, Israeli forces killed two U.N. humanitarian aid
workers as they were attempting to provide relief supplies, and the
International Red Cross released a strongly worded statement noting
that the Israeli military had "failed to meet its obligation under
international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded."
The Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders
noted that "Palestinian humanitarian aid and health workers have been
killed, and hospitals and ambulances have been bombed."
Congress, however, went on record in the resolutions praising Israel
for having "facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza."
Both resolutions "hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire,"
despite the fact that there had been scores of minor violations during
the months of the cease-fire by both sides and that Israel had
launched a major incursion into the Gaza Strip on Nov. 4, 2008,
assassinating several Hamas leaders, an action the Israeli press
speculated was designed to provoke Hamas into not renewing the
cease-fire when it expired the following month. Israel then tightened
its siege on Nov. 5, banning even humanitarian aid from coming
through. Hamas appeared willing to renew the cease-fire in return for
Israel renouncing further such incursions and lifting the siege, but
Israel refused.
While these Israeli provocations do not justify Hamas' failure to
renew the cease-fire and certainly not Hamas' decision to once again
begin firing rockets into civilian-populated areas of Israel -- which
is a war crime -- the language of the resolutions gives a very
misleading understanding of the events leading up to the war.
Ironically, despite blaming Hamas exclusively for not renewing the
cease-fire, the resolutions also claim that returning to the terms of
that cease-fire agreement "is unacceptable."
Yet these were by no means the most egregious misrepresentations in
these Democratic-led congressional initiatives.
Redefining International Humanitarian Law
In perhaps the most dangerous clause of the resolution, the House
called "on all nations to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding
its fighters, leaders and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques,
hospitals and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields."
According to international humanitarian law, however, "human shields"
require the deliberate use of civilians as a deterrent to avoid attack
on one's troops or military objects. Despite repeated calls to the
offices of the resolutions' principal Democratic sponsors, not one of
them could provide a single example of this actually occurring during
the current wave of fighting. Similar accusations in a 2006 resolution
supported by Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders during the five
weeks of devastating Israeli attacks on Lebanon that summer were later
systematically rebuked in a detailed and meticulously researched
249-page report by Human Rights Watch. (See my article "The Democrats
and the "Human Shields" Myth").
In this resolution, the Democrats appear to be attempting to redefine
just what constitutes human shields. Despite this desperate effort to
rationalize the large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians by
Israeli forces, the fact that a Hamas leader lives in his own private
home, attends a neighborhood mosque and seeks admittance in a local
hospital does not constitute the use of human shields. Indeed, the
vast majority of leaders of most governments and political parties
live in private homes in civilian neighborhoods, go to local houses of
worship and check in to hospitals when sick or injured, along with
ordinary civilians. Furthermore, given that the armed wing of Hamas is
a militia rather than a standing army, virtually all of their fighters
live in private homes and go to neighborhood mosques and local
hospitals, as well.
In short, Pelosi and other congressional leaders appear to be
advancing a radical and dangerous reinterpretation of international
humanitarian law that would allow virtually any country with superior
air power or long-range artillery to get away with war crimes.
Hamas is certainly guilty of less-severe violations of international
humanitarian law, such as not taking all necessary steps it should to
prevent civilian casualties when it positions fighters and armaments
too close to concentrations of civilians. However, this is not the
same thing as deliberately using civilians as shields. And, as Human
Rights Watch noted, even the presence of armed personnel and weapons
near civilian areas "does not release Israel from its obligations to
take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and
civilian property during military operations." Furthermore, the nature
of urban warfare, particularly in a territory as densely populated as
the Gaza Strip, makes the proximity of retreating fighters and their
equipment to civilians unavoidable in many cases.
It is also important to note that, even if Hamas were using human
shields in the legal definition of the term, it still does not absolve
Israel from its obligation to avoid civilian casualties. Amnesty
International has noted that the Geneva Conventions make it clear that
even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a
violation "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their
legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and
civilians." Despite claims by some members of Congress to the
contrary, Israel's Jan. 6 attack on the U.N. school in Gaza, which
killed more than 40 civilians, was still a war crime, even if Israeli
forces were being fired upon from the vicinity. (The argument by those
defending this atrocity is comparable to claiming that it would be
legitimate for a SWAT team, in order to kill some bank robbers
shooting at them, to also kill the bank employees and customers being
held hostage since the bad guys were using "human shields.")
Rewriting the U.N. Charter and the Magna Carta
Pelosi's resolution not only undermines international humanitarian
law, it seeks to resurrect a fallacy that has been rejected by Western
legal thought since the Magna Carta. In an effort to absolve Israel
for the hundreds of civilian casualties it has inflicted with
U.S.-supplied weaponry, the House resolution "calls on all nations
to lay blame both for the breaking of the calm and for subsequent
civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on
Hamas."
In reality, however wrong -- morally, legally and politically --
Hamas' decision to not renew the cease-fire, it simply does not
absolve Israel of its responsibility under international humanitarian
law for the far greater civilian deaths its armed forces have
inflicted upon the Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed, it has long been a
principle of Western jurisprudence that someone who is the proximate
cause of a crime cannot claim innocence simply because of the
influence of another party. By refuting this nearly 800-year old legal
principle, this becomes, literally, a reactionary piece of
legislation.
In support of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, the House also
goes on record citing the Israeli invasion as part of Israel's "right
to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas'
unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter." In
reality, the U.N. Charter explicitly prohibits nations going to war
unless they "first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their
own choice." Israel -- with strong bipartisan U.S. support -- has
refused to even meet with Hamas. Furthermore, while Article 51 does
allow countries the right to resist an armed attack, it does not grant
any nation the right to engage in such massive and disproportionate
warfare against densely packed cities and refugee camps.
Not a Product of AIPAC
It appears that these two resolutions, unlike some similar measures in
recent years, were not drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee AIPAC, the influential "pro-Israel" lobby. Nor were they
primarily the initiative of right-wing Republican House leaders like
Ohio Rep. John Boehner, or his predecessor Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, as
were previous resolutions related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The lack of Democratic input on such resolutions has been used on a
number of occasions in the past by Democratic staff members on Capitol
Hill in an effort to excuse congressional Democrats for voting in
favor of such initiatives, arguing that they ended up voting for a
particular resolution in order to "show support for Israel," but did
not necessarily approve of the specific wording of the resolution.
They have no such excuses this time, however, since these resolutions
came primarily out of the offices of Pelosi, Reid, and House Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif.
There appears to be little popular support for such an unqualified
endorsement of Israeli war-making, however, with public opinion --
particularly among Democrats -- largely opposed to the assault on
Gaza. And the American Jewish community has never seen so much dissent
over Washington's support for Israel's militaristic and self-defeating
policies toward the Palestinians. Despite the myth that it is somehow
"political suicide" to oppose such resolutions, every Democrat who
failed to vote for a similar 2006 House resolution supporting Israel's
attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip was re-elected that November by
a bigger margin than they were two years earlier. Furthermore,
virtually all of the principal authors and sponsors of this year's
resolutions come from safe districts.
One of major reasons these Democrats support such right-wing
legislation is not because AIPAC is all-powerful, but because there is
so little pressure in the other direction to counter it. For example,
MoveOn, Democracy for America, Council for a Livable World, and other
"progressive" political organizations that endorse candidates for
national office continue to back Democrats who support dangerous
militaristic policies in the Middle East. (Ironically, if Democrats
Nita Lowey, N.Y.; Robert Wexler, Fla;, John Hall, N.Y.; Henry Waxman,
D-Calif.; Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas; Carolyn Maloney, N.Y.; Edward
Markey, Mass.; and other co-sponsors of the House bill were running
for the Israeli Knesset instead of the U.S. House of Representatives,
their positions on human rights and international law in regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would put them on that legislature's
right wing.)
Since the next congressional election is nearly two years away, it is
too early to tell whether the growing opposition within the
progressive community to U.S. support for the large-scale Israeli
attacks against Palestinian civilians will be sufficient to deny those
who defend Israeli war crimes the endorsements of progressive groups
in the 2010 campaign. Given that like-minded organizations in previous
decades denied their support for Democratic hawks who defended human
rights abuses by U.S.-backed governments in Central America, Southeast
Asia, Southern Africa and other conflict regions, it should be
possible.
The problem is that there is still a fair amount of anti-Arab racism,
which seems to take the perspective that the human rights of
Palestinians somehow don't count. It's telling, for example, that
Pelosi, the chief sponsor of the House resolution, has been praised by
progressive publications for her "consistent support for human
rights." Similarly, the late Foreign Relations Committee chairman,
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., also an outspoken defender of Israeli human
rights abuses, was repeatedly re-elected to chair the ironically named
congressional Human Rights Caucus and was eulogized in a number of
progressive periodicals following his death last year as Congress'
"leading defender of human rights." (See my article Lantos' Tarnished
Legacy.)
Israel would not be able to get away with its ongoing attacks against
Palestinian civilians were it not for the support of the Bush
administration. The Bush administration would not be able to get away
with supporting these atrocities were it not being backed by the
Democratic-controlled Congress, including many of its otherwise more
liberal members. And the overwhelming support by congressional
Democrats of Bush's stance would not be possible were it not for the
continued acquiescence of the progressive community to these
Democrats' embrace of his right-wing militaristic agenda in the
Mideast.
Peace between Israel and Palestine may not be possible until
progressive activists stop seeing members of Congress who support such
resolutions as powerless victims of some mythical cabal of wealthy
Jews and instead hold them just as accountable for their actions as
those who took comparable right-wing positions regarding Central
America or East Timor in previous years, or those who embrace such
policies regarding Iraq and Iran today. Instead of protesting in front
of Israeli consulates, demonstrators will need to focus their protests
more on congressional offices, as well as engage in more disruptive
tactics, such as sit-ins and other forms of nonviolent direct action.
It may require withholding campaign contributions, supporting
progressive challengers in primary races and threatening to back Green
or other third-party challengers in the general election.
There are signs this may be possible. The past couple of weeks have
witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of concern on the plight of the
Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. In addition, while the corporate media
is as biased in support of U.S. client states as ever, much of the
widely read independent news/opinion Web sites -- which are
increasingly important in shaping public opinion -- have had a fair
amount of critical coverage. This could be significant in that the
more the conflict is addressed in terms of human rights and
international law, and the less it is addressed in terms of Israel
versus Palestine, the less likely the debate will be dominated by
those with rigid ideological agendas.
This should also help make it easier to recognize how U.S. policy is
not just bad for the Palestinians, but ultimately bad for Israel as
well, as Israeli militarism goaded on by U.S. politicians from Bush to
Pelosi has left the Jewish state increasingly isolated in the world
and has greatly contributed to the growing ranks of Islamic
extremists, such as those drawn to Hamas.
And, should Barack Obama -- who has refused to join the chorus of
other Democratic leaders in backing the Israeli invasion -- decide as
president to finally apply some "tough love" towards Israel in the
face of a hostile Congress, he is going to need the American people to
back him up.