Stephen Zunes has an article on a resolution (H. Res. 125) recently passed by Congress that condemns the use of human shields--or more specifically, that condemns Hezbollah for using human shields during Israel's brutal 2006 assault on Lebanon and claims that "the majority of civilian casualties of that conflict might have been avoided and civilian lives saved had Hezbollah not employed this tactic." Zunes does a good albeit typically wordy job of demolishing this claim, citing actual studies by actual human rights groups rather than quotes from Condoleezza Rice (as the resolution does).
The only place where I feel Zunes falls down is in his analysis of why the Democrats went along so enthusiastically with this ridiculously Orwellian and one-sided piece of legislation (which was passed by a near-unanimous voice vote):
Perhaps the ultimate reason is that the Democrats’ agenda is essentially the same as the Republican administration and their Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill: to cover up for abuses of international humanitarian law by the United States and its allies and discredit human rights organizations that challenge these practices as a means of enhancing the hegemonic role of the United States in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I don't think so. I think this legislation was correctly seen by the vast majority of Democrats as just another of many loyalty litmus tests by the Israeli lobby--meaning mainly AIPAC, of course--with no political downside for a "yea" vote and no possible gain from a "nay" vote. So why vote any other way?
In fact this resolution is little more than a continuation of a similar resolution (H. Res. 921) passed by Congress last year "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense" (note that the concept of "self-defense" here includes the killing of over 1000 civilians, the decimation of civilian infrastructure, and the poisoning of south Lebanon with 100,000 unexploded cluster bomblets). The Senate passed its version of this odious resolution unanimously and the House passed it by a vote of 410 to 8. And where did that resolution originate ?
AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."
I'm not aware of any direct quotes attributing H. Res. 125 to AIPAC as well, but it strikes me as very likely--and even if it wasn't written by AIPAC it may as well have been. There's no doubt in my mind that it would have been understood that way by members of Congress, and so they voted accordingly based on the political calculus that I already mentioned.
Setting that aside, though, the level of fealty to the Israeli propaganda line that this demonstrates is truly breathtaking. An Israeli security guard at Ben Gurion Airport once told me--with a defiant look and considerable pride--"we own your Parliament." I can't think of a more apt demonstration that she was right.
ALSO: The roll call vote for H. Res. 921 (again, 410-8) is worth a look. Among the 8 courageous naysayers were John Conyers (D) and Ron Paul (R). The Democrats did at least have 7 of the 8 nays--though of course my own representative, Nancy "the United States will stand with Israel now and forever" Pelosi, was foursquare in the "yea" column. And four Democrats at least didn't vote for this vile resolution but lacked the courage to risk the Israel lobby's wrath by openly rejecting it, voting "present" instead--among them Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Dennis Kucinich. It's political maneuvering of just this sort that makes me wary of Kucinich, even though I agree with him on many issues.
Comments