Democrites: Are Congressional Democrats Siding With Netanyahu Against President Obama?

Congressional Democrats and President Obama ran on the platform of significantly changing the direction of this country, from domestic policy to national security. But lately, Democrats have been taking a number of actions on national security that are alarming at best and hypocritical at worst. This post is part of Sam Sedaei's new blog series "Democrites," coming from the perspective of a member of loyal opposition, to call Democrats out on their questionable actions when they occur.

Last December, Israel engaged in one of the most horrific military acts in recent history against Gaza. It did so in the name of national security, claiming that this action was a response to HAMAS rockets, refusing to acknowledge that the rockets were a response to Israel's two-year-long water-land-air blockade on Gaza that, BBC once reported, was "sucking the life" out of its citizens. Israel caused an outcry by the entire world (with the exception of the United States) for its indiscriminate and disproportionate use of violence against the people of Gaza, strike on a U.N. school that killed forty people, and for its use of white phosphorus--a weapon that militaries use widely to obscure the battlefield but that is also limited under an international convention that bans targeting civilians with it -- against Gazans.

During a five hour interview on May 5, HAMAS leader Khaled Meshaal (knowing full well the U.S.'s unequivocal recognition of Israel as a state) told The New York Times, "I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," and according to The Times, "he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad," saying it was 20 years old and adding, "We are shaped by our experiences."

If Israel's claims of self defense are accurate, then one would expect Israel to have a kinder attitude toward the peaceful Palestinians in the West Bank, which aren't sending any rockets into Israel. So what has Israel done for the West Bank lately? After the implicit willingness by Hamas to recognize Israel, should we not at the very least expect Israel to abide by its own previous commitment to a two-state solution? Apparently, not.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the U.S. late last month, each side had a goal: Israel wanted the U.S. to have a timetable for dealing with Iran, and in return, President Obama expected Israel to work with the Palestinians on a peace plan and freeze the building of settlements in the West Bank (which are completely illegal anyway according to international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention). President Obama did his part, saying, "we are not going to have talks [with Iran] forever." But Prime Minster Netanyahu refused to promise a freeze on illegal settlements in the West Bank, and shockingly, he even refused to restate Israel's previous commitment to abide by the two-state roadmap, which the vast majority of the countries involved in the process and regional experts believe is the only way to have peace in the Middle East.

So there is a new dynamic in the Middle East where Hamas is stopping the launching of rockets and opening the door to recognizing Israel, and Jewish hospitals in Iran get boost in their funding under Ahmadinejad while Israel uses white phosphorous on Gaza, expands illegal settlements deeper into the West Bank and refuses to accept a two-state solution.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration have wisely changed the U.S.'s tone, taking an appropriately tougher stance on Israel. During a recent interview on Al Jazeera, Hillary Clinton unequivocally expressed the position of the administration against any expansion of settlements in the West Bank, whether within or outside of the borders of current settlements.

However, while President Obama understands the importance of taking a tougher stance on Israel to fit the new circumstances, some Democrats in Congress do not. When it comes to the split between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, these Democrats are siding with Israel against President Obama. In response to the administration's position, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) said, "My concern is that we are applying the pressure to the wrong party ... I think it would serve America's interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements." This may come as a surprise to Rep. Berkley, but Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. The other one is Turkey, which is coincidentally predominantly Muslim. And according to Rep. Berkley, when threats come from places like Iran, we must preemptively stop them, but if they are from Israel in the form of illegal settlements on occupied land, it's "natural growth."

Meanwhile, Rep Anthony Weiner (D-NY) also attacked President Obama's position, saying, "There's a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line." Memo to Rep. Weiner: Settlements are not a legal part of Israel, and therefore, Israel's settlement policy is not Israel's "domestic" policy. And Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) made a similar comment, saying "I don't think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests." So if one of our allies pursues a policy that is completely contradictory to what we stand for as a country, we have to accept its behavior over our own principles and interests? If we are to accept any behavior by our ally, then why are we being so selective in picking allies to begin with? Why not just call Iran our ally too and overlook everything they do because they will be our ally? What is the point of having allies if having them will require us sacrificing our nation's own self-interest?

There are occasional debates within political circles on what is the real third rail in American politics. Is it social security? Military spending? If there is such a list, policy toward Israel certainly belongs to it. But despite that context, here we have a courageous administration and president who is willing to put America's interest first and pursue a Middle East policy that seems more fair-minded than that of any other administration in recent history. This policy is America's best shot at forging peace in the Middle East; Congressional Democrats need to get on board.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[gbrooks]

Well done Sam, very good article.

[LizM]

The democratic members of Congress you speak of should realize that they are doing nothing to ensure the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. On the contrary, with friends like these members of Congress, the state of Israel doesn't need any enemies.

Thankfully, we can look to Vice President Biden, as the President's preeminent foreign policy advisor, to persuade those congressional democrats to get on board by understanding that siding with PM Netanyahu on these issues is the surest way toward the demise of the state of Israel as we know it and doesn't do any favors for the national security interests of the United States, either.

[gbrooks]

Biden has stated that he is a Zionist. I don't know that I'd count on him to save the day when it comes to Israel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE

[SparkyDash]

a video over two years old doesn't do much for me.

[SparkyDash]

The VP is an expert in the region and highly respected for his foreign policy acumen; Biden's speech at the AIPAC was pretty straight forward; times have changed. He will certainly help progress Obama's vision in this situation...the VP's not only loyal to the president, he's persuasive and fearless when communicating a message.

[gbrooks]

I hope you're right, but in regards to your comment that he's "loyal" to the president, I don't think that you have looked into his heart and mind and can say that with real authority at this point.

[LizM]

Sparky,

Have you heard any details about the Vice President's meeting with the UN Secretary General? I'm hoping Iraq was the main subject of conversation!

[ruth606]

Perfect!

[RaWash]

only three democrats? wow, AIPAC must be running out of money!

[LemonMeringue]

Israel never had a right to throw people out of their homes and off their land.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Ohioan730]

Both sides are right (Israel and Palestine) and both sides are wrong. Both sides incite violence and promote negative propaganda against the other. If Palestine or Israel wants anybody on their side, they would cease the violence immediately but the USA fans the flames by taking one side over the other confirming that old bible verse quote "Money is the root of all evil". As long as the USA can be bought, this conflict will continue. People can clearly see what's happening and for once, it looks like the USA is taking a step toward getting out of the business of taking sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict. That might worry a lot of people who are financially benefiting from the conflict.

[fulanita]

yep

[Paula Ann]

Until Special Interest Groups are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, the Congress will represent these groups and organizations and not the American people.

[SocialistDistortion]

HuffPost's Pick

Does it surprise anyone? It's unbelievable that the dems dominate congress and are still deathly afraid of the GOP. Not to mention they all get nice fat "donations" from groups like AIPAC. They want to treat Israel much like a parent treats a spoiled child - try to tell them no, but then eventually give them whatever they want when the kid throws a fit. I've said this before on HP and I'll say it again - Israel reminds me a lot of the smart alec punk kid on the block with the slingshot that nobody dares to mess with because he has the big, hulking, captain-of­-the-footb­all-team older brother that he'll run crying to every time anyone tries to discipline him.

I'm sorry, but telling Israel "no, you shouldn't do that, it's wrong" is not the same thing as being anti-semitic. Yes, the holocaust was a terrible thing purpotrated by soulless criminals with no conscience. But that doesn't make it some kind of license to kill, steal, and pillage anyone they please, whenever they please. And it seems like every time Israel is taken to task, all they have to do is shout "NEVER AGAIN!" and that's it...end of discussion.

Actually, Obama is being a far better friend to Israel by being stern with them when he needs to be. If anything, every other President since 1948 has done Israel a disservice by patting them on the back and giving them free reign.

[gbrooks]

Well said.

[jhNY]

Pandering--it's called pandering. Weiner and Ackerman and Schumer, all of whom come from my state, New York, are only trying to show themselves as loyal, possibly even hyper-loyal, to the interests of what they consider a most important local constituency. When Hillary Clinton was our senator, she talked a much more pro-Israel all-the-time line of patter than her present job necessitates. And it should be noted that out of this local constituency comes a goodly portion of the population of Israel's settlement areas.

But like the Cuban policy Cuban-Americans in Florida have demanded of their representatives and the nation at large, the narrow interests of this constituency have far-reaching, and possibly disasterous results. The sight of so many of my local representatives (and my eternal mayor) rushing up to the microphones to congratulate the Israelis for their slaughter in Gaza, and before that, their invasion and destruction of Lebanon, was for me at least, stomach-turning and frightening. Why would these locals appear so eager to align themselves with such violence? How could their triumphalist stance be anything but provocative to the most extreme elements among the Islamicists? If, G-d forbid, there is ever another attack on my city, to some degree I will consider it as something my representatives invited on us all by their blind and arrogant allegiance to Israel and its local and extremely vocal supporters hereabouts.

[mommadona]

So, who's got AIPAC on their donor list?
So, who's got family ties/business ties/DLC ties/tie ties?

So, who's all DLC?

Yep - passive-aggressive DOES work with a big dose of "who? ME?" thrown in.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

[gbrooks]

Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the DLC, but they are remarkably like the PNAC, which is a neocon think-tank that was chomping at the bit for the US to go to war with Iraq. The DLC was completely in favor of war with Iraq as well.

It looks like they've already sunk their teeth in, the Democratic party may well end up in shambles just like the GOP if we don't work to stop it. If anyone doesn't think that neocon types don't play both sides, you're sorely mistaken. After all, the neoconservative philosophy came from former "leftys" who were unsatisfied because there isn't enough war.

I know it sounds bizarre to those who aren't familiar with the history, but I assure you that it is quite true. Be alert.

[gageeandbaba]

that's b/c they don't know which government to be loyal to, the Jewish state of Israel or their HOME the United States of America

[fulanita]

I have an ultra conservative friend (she's a single issue Republican because she's super pro-Israel) who said that she viewed Rahm Emmanuel as a "threat" because he wasn't looking for Israel's best interest. I think that attitude exemplifies what you're saying. Emmanuel needs to be loyal to THIS country, not Israel. The fact that she fails to see that is what is wrong with some Americans who can't clearly define where their loyalty is.

[Ohsherri]

That sounds like a pretty greedy , selfish attitide from that Repub friend.
The me me me me me me me attitude.