[Peace-discuss] roll call on the House vote

[Robert Naiman]

here is the roll call.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll010.xml

22 Democrats voted "present." In March, according to a CQ article
today, four Democrats voted "present."

On 1/9/09, 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