111th Congress Expresses Its “Vigorous Support” for Israel’s Gaza Massacre

By Shirl McArthur

WHILE THERE may be a new Congress and a new administration promising “change,” the 111th Congress wasted no time, even while faced with pressing domestic economic issues, in showing that congressional blind support for Israeli actions, regardless of how egregious, has not wavered. Within a week of convening, and in the middle of Israel’s onslaught against Palestinians in Gaza, both the Senate and the House managed to find time to pass similar resolutions expressing their “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens…” The Senate version, S.Res. 10, passed Jan. 8 with 34 co-sponsors, concludes that sentence with “…against acts of terrorism.” But the harsher House version, H.Res. 34, passed Jan. 9 with 117 co-sponsors, concludes the sentence with “…against Hamas’s unceasing aggression.”

Both resolutions place exclusive blame for the crisis on Hamas, faithfully following the “talking points” distributed by the legions of Israeli propagandists who fanned out across the U.S. and Europe. Several “whereas” clauses describe Hamas’s transgressions, but make no mention of such Israeli actions as its blockade of Gaza, depriving 1.5 million people of food, fuel, and medicines.

Some U.S. pro-peace groups have cited some positive, constructive elements in the resolutions that may not have been in previous such resolutions. Americans for Peace Now’s Legislative Roundup for Jan. 9, citing Hill sources, points out that, while previous such resolutions likely would have been drafted by “an outside group” (AIPAC, per chance?), these resolutions were drafted by congressional staff. One positive example cited by the groups is the “whereas” clause stating that the humanitarian situation in Gaza “is becoming more acute.” However, that clause is immediately followed by one claiming that “Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip” since the fighting began.

There is also the “resolved” clause (in the Senate version) that “the lives of innocent civilians must be protected and all appropriate measures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties and that all involved should continue to work to address humanitarian needs in Gaza.” But the House version says that “the lives of innocent civilians must be protected to the maximum extent possible, expresses condolences to innocent Palestinian and Israeli victims and their families, and reiterates that humanitarian needs in Gaza should be addressed promptly and responsibly.”

Previous such resolutions likely would have been drafted by “an outside group.”

Another positive feature cited is the support for the “peace process,” beginning with the resolutions’ title, “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the U.S.’s strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” However, while that title was in H.Res. 34 as introduced, the version that passed the House omitted the title. The Senate’s final “resolved” clause succinctly “reiterates its strong support for U.S. government efforts to promote a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a serious and sustained peace process that leads to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure State of Israel.” But the House version of that clause pointedly avoids referring to the peace process, saying instead it “reiterates its strong support for a just and sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict achieved through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in order to ensure the welfare, security, and survival of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel.”

S.Res. 10 passed unanimously by voice vote. H.Res. 34 passed on a roll call vote of 390-5 with 22 voting “present” (abstaining) and 16 not voting. For the complete list of those voting “no” or “present,” see the March 2009 Washington Report, p. 5.

Meanwhile, for good measure, on Jan. 6 Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), with no co-sponsors, introduced S.Res. 6 “expressing solidarity with Israel in Israel’s defense against terrorism in the Gaza strip.” And for sheer gall, on Jan. 9 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), with two co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 37 “condemning Hamas for the recent attacks against Israel.”

But 64 Representatives Urge Immediate Action on Humanitarian Crisis

Not all congressional actions were so discouraging, however. Reps. Lois Capps (D-CA) and John Olver (D-MA) led the sending of letters to then-President George W. Bush and new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging that the U.S. work actively to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The letter to Bush, sent Jan. 9 with 24 signatures, outlined in detail the extent of the humanitarian crisis facing Gaza’s citizens and, “in addition to robust diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis,” “implored” Bush to urge the Israeli government to take several specific measures to address the situation. The letter’s signers, all Democrats, were, in addition to Capps and Olver, Reps. Earl Blumenauer (OR), Michael Capuano (MA), John Dingell (MI), Donna Edwards (MD), Keith Ellison (MN), Sam Farr (CA), Bob Filner (CA), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Betty McCollum (MN), Jim McDermott (WA), Jim McGovern (MA), Jim Moran (VA), David Price (NC), Nick Rahall (WV), Joe Sestak (PA), Jackie Speier (CA), Pete Stark (CA), Mike Thompson (CA), Lynn Woolsey (CA), and John Yarmouth (KY).

The letter to Clinton, sent Jan. 28 with 64 signatures, expressed the signers’ “deep concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip” and requested “immediate action by the U.S. to address this crisis.” As did the Jan. 9 letter, it described in detail the “dire” situation on the ground in Gaza. In releasing the letter, Capps said, “it is imperative that we work with Israel to open the borders so that the wounded can be treated, basic aid can reach those in need, and rebuilding can begin.” According to Olver, “the failure to address this humanitarian emergency has the potential to produce a crisis of even more unspeakable proportions.” The letter’s signers, all Democrats, were, in addition to Capps and Olver, Reps. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Brian Baird (WA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Blumenauer, Bruce Braley (IA), Capuano, Andre Carson (IN), Yvette Clarke (NY), Gerald Connolly (VA), John Conyers (MI), Danny Davis (IL), Peter DeFazio (OR), Bill Delahunt (MA), Rosa DeLauro (CT), Dingell, Lloyd Doggett (TX), Donna Edwards, Ellison, Anna Eshoo (CA), Farr, Filner, Raul Grijalva (AZ), Hinchey, Rush Holt (NJ), Michael Honda (CA), Hank Johnson (GA), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Kucinich, Lee, John Lewis (GA), Stephen Lynch (MA), Daniel Maffei (NY), Eric Massa (NY), McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Michael Michaud (ME), George Miller (CA), Gwen Moore (WI), Moran, Chris Murphy (CT), Glenn Nye (VA), Jim Oberstar (MN), Bill Pascrell (NJ), Donald Payne (NJ), Tom Perriello (VA), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Price, Rahall, Loretta Sanchez (CA), Sestak, Speier, Stark, Mike Thompson, John Tierney (MA), Maxine Waters (CA), Diane Watson (CA), Peter Welch (VT), Woolsey, and Yarmouth.

Also, Kucinich spoke on the floor of the House at least three times describing Israeli violence against Gaza civilians, calling it “a humanitarian crisis of the highest magnitude,” and saying that Israel’s use of “U.S.-provided F-16 jets, Apache helicopters and white phosphorous against the people of Gaza…imposes upon this Congress a moral obligation to speak out.” Kucinich also introduced H.Res. 66 on Jan. 15 “expressing the sense of the House…concerning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” It has 11 co-sponsors, including Kucinich.

In the Senate on Jan. 28, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) described an Israeli atrocity against the family of a Palestinian recent graduate from Vermont’s Middlebury College. He said the case “cries out for an immediate, thorough, credible and transparent investigation by the Israeli government,” and that the U.S. Embassy should “determine whether any Israeli soldiers who were equipped by the U.S. violated U.S. laws or agreements governing the use of U.S. equipment, both in relation to this incident and others involving civilian casualties.”

House Resolution Supports Mitchell Appointment

On Feb. 4 Delahunt, with 31 co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 130, “expressing support for the appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.” The resolution would commit the House to supporting Mitchell, the president and the secretary of state “in their vigorous pursuit of a diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts based on the establishment of two states, the State of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and with recognized borders.”

Lee Again Calls for Congressional Approval of U.S.-Iraq Agreement

As reported in the March 2009 issue of this magazine, H.Res. 1535, introduced by Lee on Dec. 10 expressing disapproval of the November agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, was likely to be reintroduced in the 111th Congress. On Jan. 15 Lee, with six co-sponsors, introduced a more nuanced version, H.Res. 72, expressing the sense of the House “that absent congressional approval the Agreement Between the U.S. and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq is merely advisory and not legally binding on the U.S.”

Using a different approach, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), with no co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 66 on Jan. 6. After recognizing the performance of the armed forces “in achieving the military objectives of the U.S. in Iraq,” it would “terminate the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution” and “require congressional reauthorization to continue deployment of the Armed Forces to Iraq.”

Also on Jan. 15, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), with 20 co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 578 “to address the impending humanitarian crisis and potential security breakdown as a result of the mass influx of Iraqi refugees into neighboring countries, and the growing internally displaced population in Iraq, by increasing directed accountable assistance to these populations and their host countries.”

Weiner Again Tries to Prohibit Aid to Saudi Arabia, Military Aid to Egypt

As in previous Congresses, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has introduced bills that would prohibit aid to Saudi Arabia and military aid to Egypt. H.R. 696, introduced on Jan. 26 with no co-sponsors, while prohibiting U.S. military aid to Egypt, would express “the sense of Congress” that “the amount of military assistance that would have been provided for Egypt for a fiscal year should be provided in the form of economic support fund assistance.” It includes presidential waiver authority.

H.R. 792, introduced on Feb. 2 with five co-sponsors, says that no funds from the State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bills, including ExIm Bank loans, credits, and guarantees, may be spent “to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Saudi Arabia.” (Saudi Arabia currently receives no U.S. aid; however, small amounts have been spent for military and security training, which presumably could still come from the Defense Department appropriations.)

Ros-Lehtinen Reintroduces Draconian Iran/North Korea/Syrian Sanctions Bill

On Jan. 13, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), with no co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 485 “to strengthen existing legislation sanctioning persons aiding and facilitating nonproliferation activities by the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Syria.” This is the same as last June’s H.R. 6178, which would have toughened sanctions without offering any incentives. H.R. 6178 gained little support, and the same fate likely awaits H.R. 485.

Positively, however, Lee on Jan. 8, with no co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 334, which would “provide for the appointment of a high-level U.S. representative or special envoy for Iran for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the U.S. and Iran.”

…And Her Bill “Restricting” Nuclear Cooperation With the UAE

Also as anticipated in the previous issue, on Jan. 9 Ros-Lehtinen reintroduced her bill to “restrict” nuclear cooperation with the United Arab Emirates. As with her previous effort, this bill, H.R. 364, introduced with seven co-sponsors, is so restrictive as to be prohibitive. Then on Jan. 15 she tried a broader approach, introducing, with six co-sponsors, H.R. 547 to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require specific congressional approval for any nuclear cooperation agreement with a foreign country. (Currently, under the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has 90 days to act on such an agreement after it is submitted to Congress.)

Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.