[Peace-discuss] US Senate Supports Israel's Gaza Incursion

[Robert Naiman]

True enough. Not much of a fight. But some fight is a lot better than
no fight. The vote tally, outrageous as it is, doesn't tell the whole
story. Still, an outrageous outcome.

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Not much of a fight.  The House has just voted overwhelmingly for the
> resolution that the Senate approved.  The vote was about 390-5, with the
> rest voting present or not voting.
>
> The five are four Democrats (up four from March) and Ron Paul.
>
> The Romanian government didn't have that sort of control in the 1950s...
>
> And Israel has casually rejected the UN resolution and continued its attacks
> on Gaza -- which it obviously couldn't do without US permission.  It's the
> most contemptuous (and contemptible) US dismissal of the UN since Bill
> Clinton's.
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054201.html
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for forwarding this - very interesting.
>>
>> The thing that the article notes but doesn't emphasize - what's new
>> about this situation is not that AIPAC is so far getting its way - as
>> the article notes, that is par for the course. What's new is that
>> there is actually a fight. Like Rocky Balboa, the dovish groups are in
>> the ring, on what by all accounts is the hardest terrain.
>>
>> Another thing that the article notes, and that is noteworthy - J
>> Street is pushing the boundary of the "rules" for what groups "inside
>> the Jewish community" are allowed to do.
>>
>> The main drama of the article is the inside game. But of course, the
>> outcome of the inside game reflects the outside game - including how
>> much friction the Congress members expect to get from each position.
>>
>> Pressure on the U.S. is finally having some effect. The US dropped its
>> opposition to "immediate ceasefire" in the Security Council. Much of
>> this is due to international pressure, but domestic pressure is also
>> having some effect.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       Peace Groups Lose First Major Gaza Challenge On Capitol Hill
>>>       Attempts by Activists To Shape Resolution Come Up Short
>>>       By Nathan Guttman
>>>       Thu. Jan 08, 2009
>>>
>>> Washington — As Israel's military campaign in Gaza entered its second
>>> week,
>>> Capitol Hill became the latest battleground where Jewish hawks and doves
>>> are
>>> trying to shape the American response to the ongoing violence.
>>>
>>> Dovish groups bombarded lawmakers with calls and e-mails in an attempt to
>>> influence the wording of pro-Israel resolutions being shaped in the House
>>> and Senate. The groups' line in the sand on those resolutions was
>>> straightforward: Unless the House and Senate included a call for an
>>> immediate cease-fire, the dovish groups would call on their supporters to
>>> actively oppose them.
>>>
>>> For the Jewish peace camp, the first Middle East crisis of the new
>>> Congress
>>> and administration was an opportunity to flex its muscles and show
>>> presence
>>> on the national scene.
>>>
>>> But in the end, they lost.
>>>
>>> On January 7, Senate leaders introduced a resolution that only called for
>>> President Bush to "work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and
>>> sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as possible." The resolution
>>> issued
>>> no call for a lifting of the commercial blockade Israel has imposed on
>>> Gaza,
>>> which has contributed to widespread poverty, as part of a cease-fire.
>>>
>>> The crisis demonstrated the difficulties facing the Jewish community's
>>> dissenting voices: refusal, even in the moderate sectors of the Jewish
>>> community, to criticize Israel at a time of war; large pockets of support
>>> for Israel's actions; and limited efficacy when faced with the powerful
>>> political clout of establishment Jewish groups.
>>>
>>> Activists for the four major dovish Jewish groups — J Street, Americans
>>> for
>>> Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Israel Policy Forum — had put
>>> whatever power they had to sway members of Congress into adopting what
>>> they
>>> call a "more nuanced approach" toward the conflict, one that would
>>> express
>>> support for Israel, but at the same time call for an international effort
>>> to
>>> end military operations.
>>>
>>> In a January 5 memo to congressional offices, APN even directly took on
>>> the
>>> American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's legendary
>>> pro-Israel
>>> lobby. "Unfortunately," the APN memo stated, Aipac's position "fails to
>>> mention any need to work to end the crisis."
>>>
>>> "This approach is regrettable," APN added.
>>>
>>> The IPF held meetings with Hill staffers, stressing the need to think
>>> beyond
>>> the issue of Israel's right of self-defense. "I try to put things in
>>> context, to show that it is not black and white," said M.J. Rosenberg,
>>> director of the group's Washington Policy Center. "It is very dangerous
>>> when
>>> members of Congress see the Jewish community speaking in one voice. They
>>> are
>>> offended by it."
>>>
>>> Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which focuses more on grass-roots operations, put
>>> out
>>> an action alert urging supporters to phone their representatives and ask
>>> for
>>> their support in an immediate cease-fire. "The U.S. must support conflict
>>> resolution, not escalation," the alert read. Diane Balser, executive
>>> director of Brit Tzedek, said the calls also served as a reminder to
>>> lawmakers "that there is a new administration that has pledged itself to
>>> diplomacy."
>>>
>>> In Los Angeles, a group of liberal Jewish activists wrote a letter to the
>>> local Jewish paper, arguing that Israel is practicing its right of
>>> self-defense in a manner that is "ill-advised and morally questionable,
>>> causing considerable loss of life and grave damage."
>>>
>>> And J Street, which became a lightning rod for criticism from other
>>> pro-Israel activists, alerted its nearly 100,000 online supporters to
>>> sign a
>>> memo sent to Capitol Hill and to make phone calls to their
>>> representatives.
>>> The J Street memo states that "military action that is seen to be
>>> disproportionate to the threat and escalatory in nature will prove to be
>>> counterproductive."
>>>
>>> The group lists seven members of Congress who issued statements
>>> supportive
>>> of a quick halt to hostilities — though not necessarily an immediate
>>> cease-fire, as J Street is pressing for. Most were among 41 members and
>>> candidates who had received funds from J Street's political action
>>> committee
>>> during this election cycle.
>>>
>>> Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak told the Forward he agreed with J
>>> Street's broad position that the United States must take a more active
>>> role
>>> in brokering a halt to hostilities in the region.
>>>
>>> "The military will stop a problem, but it's not going to fix it," said
>>> Sestak, a retired admiral. The "comprehensive diplomatic approach that's
>>> needed there is J Street's overarching point — that at the end of the
>>> day,
>>> war is not going to give Israel greater security."
>>>
>>> Still, as the Forward went to press, it was not clear that J Street's
>>> financial support was always influential. Many of the other members of
>>> the
>>> endorsed group remained silent, and at least one, Democratic Florida Rep.
>>> Robert Wexler, issued a statement more in line with Aipac's appeal than
>>> with
>>> J Street's.
>>>
>>> Aipac has listed on its Web site more than 100 members of Congress and
>>> elected officials who came out with statements expressing unconditional
>>> support for Israel's actions.
>>>
>>> The difficulty in getting the dovish message through on Capitol Hill
>>> became
>>> apparent as the House and Senate moved forward on formulating their
>>> pro-Israel resolutions. These resolutions have long been a congressional
>>> tradition and are passed, with the support of the pro-Israel lobby,
>>> whenever
>>> Israel reaches a military or diplomatic crossroad.
>>>
>>> Attempts to include a direct call for an immediate cease-fire in the
>>> House
>>> resolution also seemed to be falling short as preparations reached their
>>> final stage. California Democrat Howard Berman, chair of the House
>>> Foreign
>>> Affairs Committee, told the Forward on January 6 that the resolution
>>> "supports Israel and the peace process."
>>>
>>> Berman, whose aides were in charge of writing the resolution, said the
>>> important message is that any agreement will ensure that the cease-fire
>>> is
>>> durable and sustainable. "We don't want to see what happened in Lebanon
>>> happening here," Berman said, referring to the 2006 cease-fire that was
>>> sponsored by the United Nations and halted combat between Israel and the
>>> Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah. It did not succeed in preventing
>>> Hezbollah
>>> from regrouping and rearming.
>>>
>>> For dovish Jewish groups, Congress was only one front of the battle. The
>>> other, and not less challenging, was the front within the Jewish
>>> community
>>> itself. Activists with J Street were surprised by the negative reactions
>>> to
>>> their call for cease-fire, especially that of the Reform movement's
>>> leader,
>>> Rabbi Eric Yoffie, who argued in a Forward opinion column January 9 that
>>> "J
>>> Street got it very wrong." Since Yoffie comes from the heart of the
>>> liberal-dovish stream in which J Street swims, his criticism seemed more
>>> hurtful than that of others.
>>>
>>> Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director, issued a lengthy response
>>> to
>>> Yoffie's critique and later said he was "always happy to have a
>>> disagreement
>>> with my best friends."
>>>
>>> But anger over J Street's statement did not stop with Yoffie. Though they
>>> were unwilling to go on the record, officials from some of the other
>>> dovish
>>> groups voiced fury with Ben-Ami. "He should have his head handed to him,"
>>> one said, fuming.
>>>
>>> In an hour-long conference call January 5, leaders of the Jewish dovish
>>> groups tried to coordinate their message and iron out any differences.
>>> Attempting to create a broader coalition, the groups were joined by
>>> representatives of two non-Jewish organizations that support a two-state
>>> solution: the Arab American Institute and Churches for Middle East Peace.
>>> These organizations, while critical of Israel's military operation,
>>> oppose
>>> Hamas rule in Gaza.
>>>
>>> In contrast to such organizations as StandWithUs, one tactic the dovish
>>> groups are not pursuing is street demonstrations. That has been left to
>>> anti-war and anti-Zionist groups much further to their left. The Answer
>>> Coalition, an organization that was behind many of the demonstrations
>>> against the Iraq War and that has campaigned against American
>>> intervention
>>> in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, leads most of those groups.
>>>
>>> http://www.forward.com/articles/14908/
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> US Senate Supports Israel's Gaza Incursion
>>>> http://uk.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUKN08534236
>>>>
>>>> Next: consideration by the House, where there is likely to be more
>>>> friction.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Call Congress: Immediate Cease-fire, Lift the Blockade on Gaza
http://justforeignpolicy.org/involved/callgazaceasefire.html

Write Bush, Obama, Congress to Support an Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza
and Lift the Blockade
http://justforeignpolicy.org/involved/gazaceasefireobama.html
http://justforeignpolicy.org/involved/gazaceasefirebushcongress.html