[Peace-discussion] [Fwd: The Democrats' Lebanon Failure]

[Michael Canney]

--------------050109070003080607000804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The Democrats' Lebanon Failure

By Stephen Zunes
Foreign Policy In Focus | August 15, 2006
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3423

As open warfare grinds to a slow and bloody halt in Lebanon, the Bush
administration's unconditional support for Israeli attacks on Lebanon is
emblematic of the profound tragedy of U.S. policy in the region over the
past five years.

The administration has relied largely on force rather than diplomacy. It
has shown a willingness to violate international legal norms, a
callousness regarding massive civilian casualties, a dismissive attitude
toward our closest allies whose security interests we share, and blatant
double standards on U.N. Security Council resolutions, nonproliferation
issues and human rights.

A broad consensus of moderate Arabs, Middle East scholars, independent
security analysts, European leaders, and others have recognized
that-even putting important moral and legal issues aside-such policies
have been a disaster for the national security interests of the United
States and other Western nations. These policies have only further
radicalized the region and increased support for Hezbollah and other
extremists and supporters of terrorism.

The Democratic Party could have seized upon these tragic miscalculations
by the Bush administration to enhance its political standing and help
steer America's foreign policy in a more rational and ethical direction.
Sadly, the Democrats instead once again overwhelmingly threw their
support behind President George W. Bush.

Soon after Israel began its offensive on July 12, House Republican
leader John Boehner, along with House International Relations Committee
Chairman Henry Hyde, introduced a resolution unconditionally supporting
Israel's military actions and commending President Bush for fully
supporting the Israeli assault. Despite reports by Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and the U.N. High Commissioner from
Human Rights that Israel was committing war crimes in attacking
civilians, the resolution praised Israel for its "longstanding
commitment to minimize civilian loss" and even welcomed "Israel's
continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties." The resolution also
claimed that Israel's actions were "in accordance with international
law," though they flew in the face of longstanding, universally
recognized legal standards regarding the use of force and the treatment
of noncombatants in wartime.

Despite such a brazen attack against the credibility of reputable human
rights groups and the U.N. Charter that limits military action to
legitimate self defense, Rep. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the
International Relations Committee and likely next committee chairman
should the Democrats win back the majority in November, signed on as a
full cosponsor.

Even more alarmingly, all but 15 of the 201 Democrats in the House of
Representatives voted in favor of the resolution.

The Senate endorsed by a voice vote a similar resolution unconditionally
supporting Israel's military offensive. Drafted by Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist, it was cosponsored by a majority of Democratic
senators.

The decision by Democratic members of Congress to take such hard-line
positions against international law and human rights stems not from the
fear that it would jeopardize their reelection. Public opinion polls
show a sizable majority of Americans believe U.S. foreign policy should
support these principles and only a minority of Americans, according to
a recent New York Times
poll,
agree that the United States should give unconditional support for
Israel in its war on Lebanon and support President Bush's handling of
the situation.

Nor is it a matter of Democratic lawmakers somehow being forced against
their will to back Bush's policy by Jewish voters and campaign
contributors. Jewish public opinion is divided over the wisdom and
morality of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. More significantly, the vast
majority of Democrats who supported the resolution came from very safe
districts where a possible reduction in campaign contributions would not
have had a negative impact on their reelection.

One reason for such broad Democratic support for the resolution may stem
from the fact that the Arms Control Export Act forbids arms transfers to
countries that use American weapons for non-defensive purposes, such as
attacking civilians. Thus, in order to protect the profits of
politically influential American arms merchants, the Democrats joined
with Republicans in supporting language in the resolution claiming that
Israel's actions were "legitimate self-defense."

Perhaps more significant in the Democrats' decision to support the Bush
administration's backing of the Israeli attacks has been the absence of
pressure from such liberal groups as MoveOn.org, which failed to
mobilize their email list to contact their representatives and senators
to protest. Nor did MoveOn.org call on its supporters to back proposed
House resolutions calling for an immediate cease-fire weeks ago,
initiatives which attracted little support among Democratic
representatives.

This reticence contrasts with other foreign policy issues related to
international law and human rights, from U.S. intervention in Central
America during the 1980s to Iraq today. In these other cases, liberal
groups made it a priority to hold their elected representatives in
Washington accountable for backing administration policy. However, it
appears that if the victims of such policies are Lebanese or Palestinian
civilians, there are-with some notable exceptions-few organized protests
heard on Capitol Hill. With so little pressure from progressive groups,
elected representatives have little inclination to withdraw support for
administration policy toward Israel and its neighbors.

In reality, the Democrats' support for Israeli attacks against Lebanon
is quite consistent with their support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In
both cases, they rushed to the defense of right-wing governments that
have run roughshod over international legal norms, that have taken
military actions which have gone well beyond their legitimate right to
self-defense, and that have taken an incredible toll in innocent
civilian lives.

In other words, the Democratic Party's support for Israel's attacks on
Lebanon is consistent with its disdain for international law and human
rights elsewhere and its defiance of public opinion on other foreign
policy issues. It is not, therefore, something that can simply be blamed
on "the Zionist lobby." Rather, it indicates that the Democrats'
worldview is essentially the same as that of the Republicans.

This ideological congruence calls into the question whether the
increasingly likely prospect of the Democrats regaining a majority in
Congress in November will make any real difference on the foreign policy
front at all.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. He is a
professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author
of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common
Courage Press, 2003.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

--------------050109070003080607000804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
 
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>      
<div><font face="Verdana"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><font
 size="5">The  Democrats' Lebanon Failure<br>
</font></strong><br>
By Stephen Zunes<br>
Foreign Policy In Focus | August  15, 2006<br>
</font></font><small><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3423">http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3423</a></small><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font face="Times New Roman"><br>
As open warfare grinds to a slow and bloody halt in Lebanon,  the Bush<br>
administration's unconditional support for Israeli attacks on  Lebanon is<br>
emblematic of the profound tragedy of U.S. policy in the region  over the<br>
past five years.<br>
<br>
The administration has relied largely on  force rather than diplomacy. It<br>
has shown a willingness to violate  international legal norms, a<br>
callousness regarding massive civilian  casualties, a dismissive attitude<br>
toward our closest allies whose security  interests we share, and blatant<br>
double standards on U.N. Security Council  resolutions, nonproliferation<br>
issues and human rights.<br>
<br>
A broad  consensus of moderate Arabs, Middle East scholars, independent<br>
security  analysts, European leaders, and others have recognized<br>
that-even putting  important moral and legal issues aside-such policies<br>
have been a disaster for  the national security interests of the United<br>
States and other Western  nations. These policies have only further<br>
radicalized the region and  increased support for Hezbollah and other<br>
extremists and supporters of  terrorism.<br>
<br>
The Democratic Party could have seized upon these tragic  miscalculations<br>
by the Bush administration to enhance its political standing  and help<br>
steer America's foreign policy in a more rational and ethical  direction.<br>
Sadly, the Democrats instead once again overwhelmingly threw  their<br>
support behind President George W. Bush.<br>
<br>
Soon after Israel began  its offensive on July 12, House Republican<br>
leader John Boehner, along with  House International Relations Committee<br>
Chairman Henry Hyde, introduced a  resolution unconditionally supporting<br>
Israel's military actions and  commending President Bush for fully<br>
supporting the Israeli assault. Despite  reports by Amnesty<br>
International, Human Rights Watch and the U.N. High  Commissioner from<br>
Human Rights that Israel was committing war crimes in  attacking<br>
civilians, the resolution praised Israel for its  "longstanding<br>
commitment to minimize civilian loss" and even welcomed  "Israel's<br>
continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties." The resolution  also<br>
claimed that Israel's actions were "in accordance with  international<br>
law," though they flew in the face of longstanding,  universally<br>
recognized legal standards regarding the use of force and the  treatment<br>
of noncombatants in wartime.<br>
<br>
Despite such a brazen attack  against the credibility of reputable human<br>
rights groups and the U.N. Charter  that limits military action to<br>
legitimate self defense, Rep. Tom Lantos, the  ranking Democrat on the<br>
International Relations Committee and likely next  committee chairman<br>
should the Democrats win back the majority in November,  signed on as a<br>
full cosponsor.<br>
<br>
Even more alarmingly, all but 15 of the  201 Democrats in the House of<br>
Representatives voted in favor of the  resolution.<br>
<br>
The Senate endorsed by a voice vote a similar resolution  unconditionally<br>
supporting Israel's military offensive. Drafted by Senate  Majority<br>
Leader Bill Frist, it was cosponsored by a majority of  Democratic<br>
senators.<br>
<br>
The decision by Democratic members of Congress to  take such hard-line<br>
positions against international law and human rights  stems not from the<br>
fear that it would jeopardize their reelection. Public  opinion polls<br>
show a sizable majority of Americans believe U.S. foreign  policy should<br>
support these principles and only a minority of Americans,  according to<br>
a recent New York Times<br>
<HTTP: www.nytimes.com="" packages="" pdf="" politics=""
 20060726_poll.pdf="">poll,<br>
agree that the United States should give  unconditional support for<br>
Israel in its war on Lebanon and support President  Bush's handling of<br>
the situation.<br>
<br>
Nor is it a matter of Democratic  lawmakers somehow being forced against<br>
their will to back Bush's policy by  Jewish voters and campaign<br>
contributors. Jewish public opinion is divided  over the wisdom and<br>
morality of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. More  significantly, the vast<br>
majority of Democrats who supported the resolution  came from very safe<br>
districts where a possible reduction in campaign  contributions would not<br>
have had a negative impact on their  reelection.<br>
<br>
One reason for such broad Democratic support for the  resolution may stem<br>
from the fact that the Arms Control Export Act forbids  arms transfers to<br>
countries that use American weapons for non-defensive  purposes, such as<br>
attacking civilians. Thus, in order to protect the profits  of<br>
politically influential American arms merchants, the Democrats  joined<br>
with Republicans in supporting language in the resolution claiming  that<br>
Israel's actions were "legitimate self-defense."<br>
<br>
Perhaps more  significant in the Democrats' decision to support the Bush<br>
administration's  backing of the Israeli attacks has been the absence of<br>
pressure from such  liberal groups as MoveOn.org, which failed to<br>
mobilize their email list to  contact their representatives and senators<br>
to protest. Nor did MoveOn.org  call on its supporters to back proposed<br>
House resolutions calling for an  immediate cease-fire weeks ago,<br>
initiatives which attracted little support  among Democratic<br>
representatives.<br>
<br>
This reticence contrasts with other  foreign policy issues related to<br>
international law and human rights, from  U.S. intervention in Central<br>
America during the 1980s to Iraq today. In these  other cases, liberal<br>
groups made it a priority to hold their elected  representatives in<br>
Washington accountable for backing administration policy.  However, it<br>
appears that if the victims of such policies are Lebanese or  Palestinian<br>
civilians, there are-with some notable exceptions-few organized  protests<br>
heard on Capitol Hill. With so little pressure from progressive  groups,<br>
elected representatives have little inclination to withdraw support  for<br>
administration policy toward Israel and its neighbors.<br>
<br>
In reality,  the Democrats' support for Israeli attacks against Lebanon<br>
is quite  consistent with their support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In<br>
both cases,  they rushed to the defense of right-wing governments that<br>
have run roughshod  over international legal norms, that have taken<br>
military actions which have  gone well beyond their legitimate right to<br>
self-defense, and that have taken  an incredible toll in innocent<br>
civilian lives.<br>
<br>
In other words, the  Democratic Party's support for Israel's attacks on<br>
Lebanon is consistent with  its disdain for international law and human<br>
rights elsewhere and its defiance  of public opinion on other foreign<br>
policy issues. It is not, therefore,  something that can simply be blamed<br>
on "the Zionist lobby." Rather, it  indicates that the Democrats'<br>
worldview is essentially the same as that of  the Republicans.<br>
<br>
This ideological congruence calls into the question  whether the<br>
increasingly likely prospect of the Democrats regaining a  majority in<br>
Congress in November will make any real difference on the foreign  policy<br>
front at all.</HTTP:></font><br>
<br>
<em><font face="Times New Roman">Stephen  Zunes is Middle East editor for
Foreign Policy in Focus. He is a<br>
professor of  Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author<br>
of Tinderbox: U.S.  Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common<br>
Courage Press,  2003.)</font><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------</em></font>&nbsp;</div>
 
<div><font face="Verdana"></font>&nbsp;</div>
</body>
</html>

--------------050109070003080607000804--