House Adopts Know-Nothing Approach to Middle-East

The Congress of the United States went out of its way this week to embarrass itself.

At issue was a House resolution "calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora."

The point of the resolution was to tell the Obama administration in general, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in particular, to do everything in its power to prevent serious consideration of the Goldstone Report, a study of alleged violations of international human rights laws and humanitarian standards by the Israeli Defense Forces operating in Palestinian territory on the Gaza Strip.

The fact-finding mission, led by former South African Constitutional Court judge Richard Goldstone, was authorized by the United Nations Human Rights Council in response to the outcry over the IDF's invasion and occupation of Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009. That conflict left as many as 1,400 Palestinians dead, along with 13 Israelis. An estimated 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, and tens of thousands were left homeless during the course of the invasion.

Goldstone's report accused both Palestinian militants who had fired missiles at Israeli communities and Israeli military forces that entered Gaza of committing crimes against humanity and recommended that bad players be brought to justice.

Reasonable people can and have disagreed about components of the report and the UN's at times bumbling actions relating to it.

But the know-nothing response of the U.S. House was unsettling. As Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, noted before the vote on the resolution condemning the Goldstone Report: "Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read."

"This is a mistake," argued Ellison, who has spent a good deal of time in Israel and Gaza. "The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress's and President Barack Obama's reputation as honest brokers."

In particular, Ellison objected to the smearing of Judge Goldstone as an enemy of Israel. "Why the fear?" asked the congressman. "Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that ‘bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.'"

Ellison's reasoned arguments, which also noted Goldstone's determined efforts to assure that the inquiry and the response to it would focus on abuses by bothHamas and Israel, should have carried the day. Jewish groups that believe Israel's long-term security requires a sincere pursuit of peace with the Palestinians, such as J Street and Americans for Peace Now, urged Congress to adopt a more nuanced stance.

But the House voted 344-36 to reject any consideration of the report or response to it. The 36 "no" votes came from progressive Democrats who have long been active on Middle East peace issues, such as Ellison, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, Arizona's Raul Grijalva, Californians Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee and Massachusetts' Jim McGovern, as well as Republicans Ron Paul of Texas, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Charles Boustany of Louisiana.

Twenty-two members voted "present" in a more muted protest. They included Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisconsin.

Kucinich was especially, and appropriately, troubled by the actions of the House.

"How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to the human security of jobs, education and health care?" the Ohioan asked. "We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim."

Kucinich warned the House that "if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution."

A few moments later, the vast majority of his colleagues did just that.

Many of the House members who voted for the resolution probably thought they were acting as friends of Israel. In fact, as Ellison, who has been hailed for his robust condemnations of antisemitism and of knee-jerk anti-Israeli sentiments, notes: "critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations -- however uncomfortable -- their people and politics have emerged stronger."

Comments (21)

1. the fact that likely almost nobody probably even perused the document and autonomically panned it should provide plenty of fodder to anti-semites, as well it should...

   honestly, the actions of aipac and its amazing and irrational control over so many of our elected reps is probably the number one recruiting tool for radical antisemitism because, well, it looks like...

   a tiny minority of the people of this country (jews) controlling a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth and therefore power, control the vast majority of politicians and get their way regardless of fact or the will of the vast majority of the american people...

   protocols of zion anybody?

   is the rise of ugly anti-semitism the ONLY way to break the suicidally self protective death grip of AIPAC over all too many of the politicians of this country???

   thats sucky...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:53pm

2. but honestly, the anti-semitic fringe must be drooling at this.

   and considering the economic climate of the country, i'd not be surprised at all to see a massive resurgence in anti-semitism with aipac arrogantly fueling such all the way.

   even i'm getting sick of it and beginning to wonder just what flag these AIPAC'ers are loyal to, that of their patria or that of isreal.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:58pm

3. but honestly, the anti-semitic fringe must be drooling at this.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2009 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Even Israelis think we are a horse's ass.

   Check out Haaretz this week.

   They state unequivocally that the tail that wags the dog has destroyed US credibility in foreign affairs. Look at Clinton's trip abroad recently for starters.

   You are dead on about this fueling anti-semitism. And J Street equivocating isn't helping.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2009 @ 2:16pm

4. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2009 @ 2:25pm

5. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2009 @ 2:25pm

   It's a shame that muslims don't believe that Jews are entitled to any of those things

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:32pm

6. it's a shame you don't understand.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2009 @ 3:05pm

7. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2009 @ 3:05pm

   Larry, thinks Muslims are entitled to that...as long as they move "back to Jordan where they belong and get out of Historic Israel".

   BTW, suddenly going to see a lot of FANS of the US House of Reps from our right-wing friends...aren't we?

   Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:10pm

8. "frosty zoom",

   Your reply to " antisocialist" was: "it's a shame you don't understand."

   Sadly, too many of our fellow citizens have similar misconceptions.

   Best regards,

   Charles

   Posted by Charles_E at 11/05/2009 @ 3:15pm

9. The HAPPY, or sad, truth is, anything sponsored/reported by the U.N., is pretty much discounted by at least half of the pay-attention crowd.....another Inconvenient Truth. It may have an Approval Rating lower than our Congress...it is, in my personal ranking!

   Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 3:25pm

10. The HAPPY, or sad, truth is, anything sponsored/reported by the U.N., is pretty much discounted by at least half of the pay-attention crowd...

    Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 3:25pm

    Yup.

    Another good reason not to use the violation of U.N. "resolutions" as a justification for going to war, eh, Happ?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/05/2009 @ 3:32pm

11. There will never be peace so long as Israelis and Palestinians use violence. But I don't think either side wants peace. The Palestians would be better served using non-violent tactics.

    Posted by jfair at 11/05/2009 @ 3:44pm

12. Yup.

    Another good reason not to use the violation of U.N. "resolutions" as a justification for going to war, eh, Happ?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/05/2009 @ 3:32pm

    Most conservatives like myself do not use the UN resolutions as part of the justification. There is no need to.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:49pm

13. Love thy Neighbor?

    Posted by jfair at 11/05/2009 @ 3:51pm

14. Most conservatives like myself do not use the UN resolutions as part of the justification. There is no need to.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:49pm

    So, either George W. Bush LIED (as I've been saying for years), or he's not a conservative.

    Which is it Larry?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:14pm

15. ...., or he's not a conservative.

    Which is it Larry?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:14pm

    He's NOT a conservative, Repub, yes! He grossly expanded the Fed's role in Education + saddle the country w/prescription medicine for seniors. No veto of any spending bills until his last year, an Election year.

    Most of the country was mislead by the Legacy Media....but you should've known.

    Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:44pm

16. Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:44pm

    But Happy, he was YOUR darling for eight years (or are you saying you didn't vote for him...twice)!! He was the far right's (and Rush's) compassionate Conservative (I guess because the world needed to know there actually WAS such a mythical creature) who would return the world (and America) back to the traditional conservative values of small government and a tight knit family unit, such as the one Sarah Palin puts on display at every opportunity.

    When did you turn on him? Was it when you found out he laughed at the Christians behind their backs? Was it when he gave away billions to his buddies on Wall Street right before he left office (just like some South American junta leader)? We know it wasn't the illegal war or his fumbling the Katrina disaster.

    When did you turn on poor W?

    As for the topic on hand, until America begins to treat the Israelis and the Palestinians the same, there will never be peace in the region.

    Every President since Reagan has known that, and the last time a President treated the Arabs and the Israelis the same, we had the Camp David Accords. Oh, and that "failure" of a President was Jimmy Carter. He did something not even the anointed Reagan could do.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/05/2009 @ 6:01pm

17. Santi- I oppose you for this basic reason. You are supposedly a minister ,but someone who endorses war and death. If that is what you stand for than you give religion a bad name. You are like your cohort,Pat "the religious businessman" Robertson who called for Chavez's assassination because he is a lefty. He probably supported Stroessner who was a good old Nazi hider. We need about ten more "Gods" for you and all the evangelical haters to rally around. The next thing you'll say is how right Michelle"Dingbat" Bachmann is.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 6:04pm

18. Stephen- You are right we have to treat both parties the same. The bigger problem is the countries of that region who have turned the Palestinians into a virtual whipping boy.Why give them any more assistance than they need. Great humanitarians are the Egyptians,Jordanians,and Libyans to name three. They haven't exactly given a hand up to the people of Gaza.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 6:15pm

19. Bush did fine w/tax cuts and recovery from the Clinton dot-com/Enron/WorldCom busts, and 9/11!

    The economy is my main deal....and seems, rather important today, as well.

    I never turned on Bush....he wasn't perfect, neither was Reagan. Overall, he was a near-great POTUS!

    As I said before, I hope Magic doesn't change a thing! As he runs fast, the wrong way!

    Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 6:25pm

20. Droop ,I am about ready to start calling you Me Me. Net incomes are down as is employment. Who was really helped by tax cuts? The middle class? Who set up the borrowing spree we have been on for last 9 years. I hope you don't start calling yourself an economist because you are sounding like another mystic with your fawning. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground with your analysis of Bush. You had better stick to sweeping the halls of your high rent apartment buildings. You never know when that talent will be needed on a bigger stage.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 7:03pm

21. "Most conservatives like myself do not use the UN resolutions as part of the justification. There is no need to.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 3:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    No, he can just rely on a complete distortion of the truth regarding the cease-fire agreements of 1991.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/05/2009 @ 9:21pm