TomPaine: On Israel, Democrats are no different from Republicans

[BurtWorm]

From:

The Democrats' Lebanon Failure
by Stephen Zunes

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/15/the_democrats_lebanon_failure.php

...


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.

[bryant69]

1. Well i guess it sort of depends on how far left you stand

I mean in 2000 a lot of people looked at Gore and Bush and couldn't tell the difference; it seems the author of this article still can't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[acmejack]

3. It is indisputable that on some issues you certainly cannot!

Duck & weave all you would like, it won't change the facts. Check that out!

[BurtWorm]

4. The Democrats don't have to support Hezbollah, but they do have to offer

an alternative to the Bushists' toadying to the Likud party. They don't have to defer to the Republicans on the ME, that's for damn sure. But that's exactly what their MO has been lately.

[Rex]

5. They certainly toady up to Bush during times of crisis.

Like frightened little rabbits. Even Bill and Hillary. :puke:

[jsamuel]

10. I don't think it is an issue of left vs right

It's not like there is a "liberal" strategy and a "conservative" strategy re: Lebanon and terror

The problem I see is that the "accepted" policy has failed repeatedly and politicians hate to admit they made a mistake and they are constantly defending that failed policy.

[bryant69]

12. What do you see as the "accepted" policy?

And can you really not see a difference bewteen how Clinton handled the middle east vs. how bush has handled it?

[jsamuel]

13. Well, Clinton vs Bush are very different, obviously.

The "accepted" policy is that if terrorists hit your country, you have the right/duty to take over, bomb, and overthrow the government of the country where said terrorists came from, even if that government had nothing to do with the terrorists.

[bryant69]

14. Ah. So your advocating that the Democratic position should be

If we get hit, we'll do nothing? I don't think that's a winning argument.

[jsamuel]

15. No, that is offensive and not what I said.

Why can't we just argue about policy and not poke each other in the eye?

The policy I have outlined above has been a massive failure everywhere it has been implemented. You know this is true and cannot argue against it, so you try to set me up as a straw man. I have outlined alternatives in previous posts, if you want to search mine.

[bryant69]

16. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you.

You are presumably referring to our decision to invade Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 bombing, a decision which most conservatives and liberals and indeed world opinion believed to be the right one. Not that we handled the invasion well. We got hit on 9/11, we asked Afghanistan to turn the perpetrators over to us, they were unwilling to or unable to - at this point we invaded. Your argument would seem to be that we should not have? Am I understanding you correctly?

[jsamuel]

17. Yes, I am including Afghanistan in my analysis and I do not think that my

viewpoint is "liberal", "conservative", "pacifist", or "warmongering".

One thing everyone likes to leave out of Afghanistan is this:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006800.html
Report: Taliban Offered to Give Osama bin Laden to U.S.

Once I bring that point up, everyone stops talking about it. I understand that my opinion on this matter may be different than most peoples, but it is not because I am "anti-war", because I do not consider myself to be anti-war. I simply do not agree with a policy that the US has been implementing since 9/11. This policy was NOT implemented when Clinton was in office. We did not invade Pakistan after the WTC bombings in 1993. Those were not nearly as damaging as 9/11, but we still did not invade and overthrow a country and really didn't even consider it.

I know my thoughts on this may not be popular, but I am so convinced that I am correct on this that I feel it is very important for me to speak out. That is why I got so upset when someone says "if we get hit, we do nothing". I think we should have gotten OBL after 9/11, I just don't think the policy of how we did it (or failed to do it) was correct.

PS - It's ok, thank you for having this argument with me.

[OneBlueSky]

2. "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."

(snip) . . .

"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."

- and therein lies the problem with the "opposition" party . . . (one of them, anyhow) . . .

[tocqueville]

6. "will make any real difference on the foreign policy front at all"

ask any European analyst and the answer will be "No". That was the general attitude during the Kerry-Bush duel.

with the difference that a Democrat President (Clinton-type) would be much more reticent to engage in adventures like Iraq and wouldn't treat his Allies like dirt.

[BurtWorm]

7. Well put.

:toast:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The "good cops" lined up with the "bad cops" as usual.

The only thing more noticable than their lack of courage is their lack of ethics.

“America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress." - Mark Twain

[theanarch]

18. or: "you can teach a congressman almost everything...

...you can teach a flea." Mark Twain. The point about "is there a difference" is more about tactics than strategy: Republicans prefer the violent, sledge-hammer type of tactics to achieve strategic goals; Democrats are more partial to less overt forms of coersion to achieve the same goals. Both are parties of capitalism, imperialism and militarism--and both are committed to maintaining US hegemony over the resources of the world. Democrats like to do it with allies and without wars; Republicans like to do it with wars and without allies...that's all.

[eccles12]

9. Aaahhh, there's the rub. n/t

[Hoping4Change]

11. thanks for posting.

[warrens]

19. Bullshit

Criticizing Israel is like cutting social security. That is quite different from ENCOURAGING them. Another whiny faux analysis.