Category: Democratic Party Foreign Policy

Democratic Party Foreign Policy

Democratic Party Platform Shows Shift to the Right on Foreign Policy

Posted on

Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted its 2004 platform on July 28 at its convention in Boston. The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had in recent years. It represented an opportunity to challenge the Republican administration’s unprecedented and dangerous departure from the post-World War II international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars as well as a means with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine.

Even the Republican Party under Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 did not openly challenge such basic international principles as the illegitimacy of invading a sovereign nation because of unsubstantiated claims they might some day be a potential security threat.

Yet not only have Senators John Kerry and John Edwards continued to defend their support of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the 2004 Democratic platform complains that the administration “did not send sufficient forces to accomplish the mission.” The most direct challenge to Bush administration policies in Iraq contained in the platform is its alleged failures to adequately equip American forces.

The only thing the 2004 Democratic Party platform could offer opponents of the war is a sentence which acknowledges “People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq.” As the Los Angeles Times editorialized, “Indeed they do. That is why we have elections, and it would have been nice if the opposition party had the guts to actually oppose it.”

A Platform in Defense of Unilateralism

While the foreign policy segments of this year’s Democratic Party platform had some positive elements, there are serious problems not only in what it did not say, but also in much of what it did say.

For example, the platform justifies the ongoing U.S. military occupation of Iraq by claiming “having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.” This ignores the fact that Iraq’s instability and the influx of foreign terrorists is a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion and occupation authorized and supported by the Democratic Party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees.

To those who are disturbed at Senator Kerry’s support for invading foreign countries in defiance of the United Nations Charter, the platform asserts “With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.” However, there is nothing in the UN Charter which limits the right of the United States or any government to genuine self-defense. Such language may be preparing the way for a President Kerry, like President Bush, to launch invasions or other military actions against foreign countries in defiance of international law by simply claiming that “our safety is at stake,” just as Kerry did from the Senate floor in justifying his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention by stating that “a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.” No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran’s neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America’s regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot.

Furthermore, like the neo-cons in the Bush administration, the Democrats appear to have rejected the longstanding doctrine of nuclear deterrence in favor of policy based upon risky, destabilizing, and illegal unilateral pre-emptive military strikes.

Democracy and Double Standards

The Democrats appear to be similarly selective regarding democracy. For example, the platform calls for strategies to “end the Castro regime as soon as possible and enable the Cuban people to take their rightful place in the democratic community of the Americas.” Significantly, there are no similar calls anywhere in the platform to end any of the scores of non-socialist dictatorships currently in power throughout the world or of enabling the people oppressed by these regimes—many of which receive significant U.S. military and economic support—to join the democratic community of nations. Similarly, the platform promises to “work with the international community to increase political and economic pressure on the Castro regime to release all political prisoners, support civil society, promote the important work of Cuban dissidents, and begin a process of genuine political reform,” yet there are no calls for such pressure on any right-wing dictatorships.

The Israel Exception

Strategic parity has long been considered the most stabilizing relationship between traditional antagonists if the goal is peace and security. When it comes to American allies like Israel, however, the Democrats instead appear to be committed to maintaining that country’s military dominance of the region, with the platform pledging “we will insure that, under all circumstances, Israel retains its qualitative edge.”

Regarding the city of Jerusalem, the Arab-populated eastern half of which was seized by Israeli forces in 1967 and subsequently annexed, the platform insists that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain undivided.” This has been widely acknowledged as yet another Democratic attack on the UN Charter, which forbids any nation from expanding its boundaries through military force, as well as a rejoinder to a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling on nations to not recognize Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. It can also be reasonably viewed as an effort to undermine last year’s Geneva Initiative and other Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts which call for Israeli control of Jewish neighborhoods and Palestinian control of Arab neighborhoods in a city which would serve as the co-capital of Israel and Palestine with full access to holy places by people of all faiths.

In yet another attack on international legal principles, the platform also dismisses as “unrealistic” any obligation for Israel to completely withdraw from lands seized in its 1967 conquests and denies Palestinian refugees’ right to return, insisting that they instead only be permitted to relocate to a truncated Palestinian state which Israel might allow to be created some time in the future.

Skewed Priorities

Despite pressing domestic needs, the Pentagon budget now constitutes over half of all federal discretionary spending. The United States spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. Never in history has one power been so dominant on a global scale. Yet this is not enough for the Democrats. The Democratic Platform insists that the U.S. military “must be stronger, faster, and better armed.”

Ironically, the first reason mentioned in the platform as to why, despite pressing needs at home, “we must strengthen our military” is the “asymmetrical threats we now face in Iraq”—threats that were non-existent until the U.S invaded that country, a decision authorized and supported by Kerry, Edwards and the Democratic leadership of both houses in Congress.

Opposition from the rank-and-file

This does not mean that a majority of Democrats support such right-wing foreign policies. For example, a poll just prior to the convention showed that 95% of the delegates oppose the decision to invade Iraq, something that both their presidential and their vice presidential nominees have steadfastly refused to do.

That the delegates were prevented from even challenging the platform or voting to include an anti-war plank is a demonstration of how undemocratic the “Democratic” Party has become. Even in the 1968 Democratic convention, when the target of anti-war activists was the incumbent Democratic administration and when most state delegations were dominated by the party establishment, the delegates were allowed to propose, debate and vote upon an anti-war plank, which—despite its defeat on the convention floor—did give opponents of the Vietnam War an opportunity to express their views before the convention and the national media.

It is also a sign as to just how far to the right the Democratic Party leadership has become as compared to the rank-and-file, which could severely weaken the enthusiasm of the party base the Kerry campaign needs to counter the Republicans’ advantage in funding during the fall campaign.

Finally, it is a reminder that should Kerry and Edwards be elected, those who support international law, human rights, and adequate funding for domestic needs will have to continue their struggle as much as ever.

http://www.fpif.info/fpiftxt/559

More ‘Right’ on Israel Than Bush

Posted on

The moment images of Saddam Hussein’s capture flashed across TV screens around the world, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman jumped on the opportunity to lash out at Howard Dean for not supporting the war on Iraq, even as they congratulated the Bush White House for a job well done.

It was not, however, the first time that the two Democratic candidates have attacked the former Vermont governor for being too “liberal” on foreign policy. Nor is Iraq the only issue where the Democratic leadership — and its anointed heirs — have revealed an unmistakably rightwing agenda.

It is a less-known fact that when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian issue, the Democratic establishment is virtually indistinguishable from the Bush administration.

The less-than-moderate position was on blatant display back in September when Dean was attacked by two of his principal rivals as well as the House Democratic leadership for calling on the United States to take a more “even-handed role” as the chief mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Sept. 3, Dean declared that the United States should work to “bring the sides together” and “not point fingers” at who is to blame.

He was immediately attacked during a televised debate on Sept. 9 by Joe Lieberman, who described his comments as a move to “compromise our support for Israel,” arguing that a more balanced position in the peace process was tantamount to “breaking commitments to longtime allies.”

When Dean pointed out that Israel would have to remove an enormous number of settlements in the Occupied Territories to achieve peace, Senator Lieberman strongly objected, insisting that the number of settlements evacuated by Israel should be up to the parties in negotiations. In reality, despite eight years of peace talks in the ’90s, throughout which Palestinians demanded that Israel withdraw from its settlements in the Occupied Territories or even just suspend construction of new ones, the number of settlements has nearly doubled. Sharon’s insistence on incorporating most of these settlements into Israel is, in fact, one of the most important obstacles preventing the negotiation of a final peace agreement.

Senator Kerry, however, claimed just the opposite in his response to Dean’s policy statement, declaring that if Dean called for a more even-handed approach as president, “it would throw this volatile region into even more turmoil.”

Such desperate attacks by two presidential hopefuls who now see the upstart Dean surging ahead of them in public opinion polls should not be surprising. What is far more significant, however, is the decision of leading Democratic members of the House of Representatives to join the fray.

In an open letter dated Sept. 10, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Assistant Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez led dozens of other top Congressional Democrats criticized Dean for his statements. Other signatories included such Democratic stalwarts as Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Robert Matsui, Tom Lantos, Nita Lowey, Barney Frank, Patrick Kennedy, Edward Markey, Ellen Tauscher, Linda Sanchez, Jose Serrano, Harold Ford, and Shelley Berkley.

The letter characterized Dean’s call for a more balanced approached by the U.S. government in the peace process as questioning Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. In their letter, the House Democratic leadership also declared that U.S. policy must be “based on unequivocal support for Israel’s right to exist and to be free from terror,” even though Dean has never given even a hint of believing anything to the contrary.

Ignoring Governor Dean’s repeated and categorical denunciation of Palestinian terrorism, the House Democratic leaders also declared that Americans must “raise our voices against all forms of terrorism” and that “this is not the time to be sending mixed messages.”

To have virtually the entire Democratic House leadership openly criticize a policy statement made by their own front-runner is unprecedented. It is also indicative of Pelosi’s determination to make clear that such voices of moderation have no place in the Democratic Party.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are essentially pushing the age-old fallacy: support for Ariel Sharon equals support for the state of Israel.

In March, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders signed a letter to President Bush opposing the White House-endorsed Middle East “road map,” which they perceived as being too lenient on the Palestinians. The authors insisted that the peace process must be based “above all” on the end of Palestinian violence and the establishment of a new Palestinian leadership. There was no mention of any reciprocal actions by the Israeli government. The letter also came out in opposition of any other government or other entity monitoring progress on the ground.

In response to widespread reports issued by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups charging Israeli occupation forces of committing human rights abuses during its military offensive in the West Bank last year, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders went on record declaring that the Israeli attacks were completely justifiable and were aimed “only at the terrorist infrastructure.” Pelosi also praised President Bush’s “leadership” in supporting Sharon, whom the president declared to be “a man of peace,” In fact, in a speech before the AIPAC convention in April, Pelosi denounced President Bush for suggesting that Israel needed to freeze construction of new settlements in the Occupied Territories, claiming that it gave comfort to Israel’s enemies.

The irony is that moderate Israelis have repeatedly called upon the Bush administration to take a more even-handed approach in the peace process, and to press Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to compromise on the settlements and other issues. Kerry, Lieberman, and the House Democratic leadership, however, demand that Dean should instead follow lock step in support of President Bush’s strident backing of Israel’s rightist government.

The Democratic establishment appear to have adopted the same logic of the Republicans, who insist that only by supporting Bush administration policies can one support America, or in this case, Israel.

Dean’s background makes the charges of anti-Israeli sentiment even more far-fetched. His wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, is Jewish and has close connections with mainstream Zionist circles. Their children have been raised Jewish. His campaign co-chair, Steve Grossman, is the former president of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). His only trip to Israel, which took place last fall, was organized and paid for by AIPAC and he did not meet with any prominent Palestinians or Israeli peace activists. Dean has described his attachment to Israel as “visceral.”

In fact, Dean is widely seen as a hawk on Israel and Palestine. He has stated that his position is closer to the right-wing AIPAC, which allies itself with Israel’s ruling Likud Bloc, than it is to Americans for Peace Now, which identifies with the Israeli peace movement and the more liberal Israeli parties.

Much to the chagrin of peace and human rights advocates, Dean supported the Bush Administration’s recent $9 billion loan guarantee to Sharon without adding conditions, such as freezing new settlement activity in the Occupied Territories. Dean has repeatedly stated his belief that the major issue in the conflict is Palestinian terrorism, not the Israeli occupation that has spawned it. He has told the Washington Post that Israel has every right to assassinate Hamas “terrorists” as “enemies in a war.”

Such positions have led many Democrats concerned about peace and human rights in the Middle East to abandon Dean and back the campaign of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who supports the position of the Israeli peace movement, and the Zionist Left.

Dean’s perspective is essentially that of former President Clinton and his chief Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross, which corresponded closely to that of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the hawkish wing of the Labor Party. While such a position proved inadequate in securing the peace and is well to the right of the Israeli peace movement, the Clinton/Ross/Barak position did at least accept in principle the idea that substantial Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories was necessary and desirable in order to end the violence and make Israel secure.

What is disconcerting about the Democratic leadership is not only that it has rejected the position of the Israeli left, but also that of Israeli centrists as articulated by Dean and other supporters of the Clinton administration.

It is unclear what political advantage the Democratic leadership can gain by attacking Dean’s position on Israel. According to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland this May, a clear majority of Americans recognize that the Bush administration is biased towards Israel. Moreover, when asked about what position the United States should have, a full 73 percent stated that the United States should not take either side in the conflict.

In other words, Senators Kerry and Lieberman and the House Democratic leadership have gone on record supporting the policies of the Bush administration against the will of an overwhelming majority of the American people.

In many respects, Howard Dean is a quintessential centrist Democrat. However, he has been able to attract a following that, on average, is considerably to his left in large part because he had the common sense to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq and to forcefully articulate the frustration and anger among rank-and-file Democrats against the Bush administration.

Perhaps that is why Kerry, Lieberman, and the Democratic Congressional leaders hope to use Israel to undermine Dean’s extraordinary popularity, since his anti-war stance exposes their own shameless pandering to the Bush agenda.

It is unclear whether Israel as an issue will affect Dean’s chances for the party’s presidential nomination. But the attacks from his own party seem to have blunted his candor. In his first major foreign policy address on Dec. 15, Dean said little about Middle East peace, and took pains to straddle the fence: “Our alliance with Israel is and must remain unshakeable, and so will be my commitment every day of our administration to work with the parties for a solution that ends decades of blood and tears.”

The flap over Israel does, however, make one simple fact painfully evident: when it comes to the Middle East, there is truly no difference between Democratic leadership and the White House.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17438/more_%27right%27_on_israel_than_bush/?page=entire

Pelosi and Sharon

Posted on

On Jan. 29, Israeli voters will face perhaps the most crucial vote in their nation’s history, between the right-wing incumbent prime minister Ariel Sharon of the Likud Bloc and the more moderate Amram Mitzna from the Labor Alignment.

The reelection of Sharon – who has refused to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership, pledged never to withdraw from the bulk of the occupied Palestinian territories, and whose Likud Bloc is on record opposing Palestinian statehood – would set back any prospects for peace in the near future. By contrast, Mitzna, a former general and mayor of Haifa, has pledged to support a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the bulk of the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees.

In short, an election victory by Labor would likely mean that the long-sought peace between Israelis and Palestinians might be at hand. A victory by the Likud, on the other hand, would mean continued bloodshed on both sides.

And San Francisco’s congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, now the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, is effectively supporting Sharon. Consider:

* Pelosi has not only supported sending $3 billion a year in direct aid to the Israeli government – money that many experts say is crucial to Israel’s ability to sustain the expensive occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights – but she’s also refusing to demand human rights conditions for a new loan guarantee that has significant political implications for the future of Sharon’s government.

A lot of Israeli political observers say that former president George Bush’s decision to withhold a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel prior to its 1992 election was a key factor in the defeat of the incumbent Likud government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and the election of the late Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin. (Rabin went on to negotiate the Oslo Accords and win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts before being gunned down by an Israeli rightist.)

Although Pelosi – like the administration and most members of Congress – has not formally stated her position on the proposed loan guarantee, she has refused to support calls from the peace and human rights community, including church groups and liberal Jewish organizations, to condition the loan guarantees on a freeze of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories or other actions by Sharon that would move the peace process forward.

* Pelosi has actively helped cover up the Sharon government’s widespread and systematic human rights abuses.

In October 2002, Amnesty International released a thoroughly documented 80-page report detailing war crimes by Israeli occupation forces during its offensive in the West Bank last March. This followed up on a preliminary report issued during the incursions that noted how “the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] acted as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians. Actions were taken by the IDF which had no clear or obvious military necessity.” The report went on to document unlawful killings, destruction of civilian property, arbitrary detention, torture, and assaults on medical personnel and journalists, as well as random shooting at people in the streets and in houses.

These observations were confirmed by Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups, including Israeli peace and human rights organizations such as B’Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, and Yesh G’vul.

In response, then-assistant House majority leader Tom DeLay introduced H.R. 392, “A Resolution Expressing Solidarity with Israel’s Fight Against Terrorism,” which claimed that “Israel’s military operations are an effort to defend itself … and are aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.”

Who would the Democrat from San Francisco believe – the right-wing fundamentalist Republican congressperson from Texas or the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights organization? She sided with DeLay, voting in favor of his resolution, a vote widely interpreted as an attack on the credibility of Amnesty International and the human rights community as a whole.

Pelosi was by no means the only Democrat who supported H.R. 392 – but three of her colleagues in the Bay Area delegation, people with whom she is often allied, refused to do so. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward) voted against the resolution. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) voted “present,” essentially abstaining, as did Rep. Sam Farr (D-Monterey).

With her vote, Pelosi put herself on record as validating President George W. Bush’s contention that increased arms transfers – not arms control – is the key to security in the Middle East.

* Pelosi has long insisted that the Palestinians’ 1993 decision to recognize Israeli control over 78 percent of historic Palestine was not enough, and has consistently blamed the Palestinians exclusively for the violence and for the breakdown in the peace process. On Oct. 25, 2000, Pelosi voted for House Concurrent Resolution 426, by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-New York), which put the entire blame for the violence on the Palestinian leadership. Pelosi has never, to my knowledge, condemned violence on the Israeli side.

(Repeated calls to Pelosi’s office seeking comment were not returned.)

On April 23, 2002, in the thick of Sharon’s attacks against the West Bank’s civilian infrastructure, Pelosi spoke at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to Sharon’s government, praising Sharon’s policies and condemning the Palestinians. Pelosi insisted that “for Arafat to become a viable partner for peace, he must renounce violence” – but again, she said not a word about the need for an end to violence or the military occupation on the Israeli side.

Many Democratic members of Congress – in fact, many prominent Democrats all over the country – have supported the Bush administration’s positions on Israel, just as most Democrats have so far backed the president’s sabre rattling and preparations for war in Iraq.

But Pelosi represents one of the most liberal districts in the country – and many of her constituents don’t support Bush’s and Sharon’s policies.

I have no doubt that, had Pelosi taken similar positions on Central America or even East Timor, there would have been noisy protests at her public appearances and sit-ins in her downtown office until she changed her position.

Perhaps that needs to happen now.

It’s Iraq, Stupid!

Posted on

This should have been the Democrats’ year.

The country is still mired in recession. Polls consistently have shown that the Republicans’ positions on such basic policy issues as the environment and the economy are decidedly unpopular. The connection of top administration officials with scandal-plagued corporations provided ample opportunities for a populist message against corruption and in support of economic justice.

Despite this, the Democrats became the first party out of office to lose one of the houses of Congress in an off-year election. It was the first time in a century that a Republican president saw his party gain seats in an off-year election and only the second time since 1934 that a sitting president’s party did not lose seats in Congress.

Instead of emulating the hugely successful 1994 Republican strategy of aggressively challenging the incumbent president and his party’s Congressional leadership, the Democrats instead decided to work on a consensus-building approach with the Republican administration. They even went as far as supporting President George W. Bush’s demand that he be granted the authority to invade Iraq without the legally-required mandate from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the majority of Democrats went on record praising his support for last spring’s attacks by Israel’s right-wing government against civilian areas of the occupied West Bank. The Democrats went as far as supporting Republican calls authorizing the use of military force to free any citizen of the United States or an allied nation detained for war crimes by the United Nations’ International Criminal Court in The Hague.

As a result, many thousands of rank-and-file Democrats, longtime supporters of peace and human rights issues, voted for the Green Party or simply did not vote. Thousands more voted reluctantly for the Democratic nominee but did not put in the volunteer time or campaign contributions they would have otherwise, angered that the Democrats had shifted so far to the right.

It is noteworthy that both incumbent Democratic senators and five out of the six Democratic House incumbents who were defeated supported the Iraq war resolution. By contrast, no incumbent who opposed the Democratic Congressional leadership’s support of President Bush’s war plans lost, with the exception of Rep. James Maloney of Connecticut, who was pitted against a popular moderate female Republican incumbent in a redrawn district.

It is difficult to shift public attention to domestic issues in times of international tension. Making a strong case against the Bush administration’ s war plans, its support for repressive governments and its assaults on well-respected international institutions would have almost certainly resulted in a galvanizing of the Democratic Party faithful as well as large numbers of independents, insuring a Democratic victory.

The Democratic leadership should have recognized that calls for prescription drug benefits for seniors while the nation is concerned about an illegal, unnecessary and possibly devastating war simply did not catch the imagination of the voting public.

This was particularly problematic in that the Democrats were unable to explain how they intended to pay for such benefits while refusing to reverse recently-enacted tax cuts and in authorizing a military campaign that will cost up to $200 billion.

Hopefully, the Democrats will learn the lesson for Tuesday’s devastating defeat and decide to replace their discredited leadership with those who have the integrity and political smarts to return them to majority status.

http://www.alternet.org/story/14491/it%27s_iraq%2C_stupid%21/

Don’t Blame the Jews for Cynthia McKinney’s Defeat

Posted on

With the defeat of five-term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in the August 22 Democratic primary in Georgia, the U.S. House of Representatives will soon be losing one of its most outspoken progressive voices. This is very bad news for those of us who support peace, human rights, and social justice. It would be even worse news, however, if the blame for her defeat is placed primarily upon the Jewish community.

As has been pointed out by both the mainstream and progressive media, political action committees with close ties to the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon — funded primarily by conservative American Jews — poured in thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions to her opponent, former state judge Denise Majette. Unlike most liberal Democrats, McKinney did not make an exception for Israel in her outspoken support for human rights and international law. As a result, she became a target of the so-called “Jewish lobby,” which vigorously challenges elected officials who dare question U.S. military, financial and diplomatic support for Israel’s occupation and repression of the Palestinians.

Despite this, it would be a big mistake to blame Jewish money for the defeat of this progressive African-American Congresswoman.

To begin with, there were more significant factors that led to Cynthia McKinney’s defeat:

The first is Georgia’s system of crossover voting, where voters can cast their primary ballots within any political party they choose regardless of their own party affiliation. In a district where barely half of all registered voters were Democrats, 14 out of 15 primary ballots cast were in the Democratic Party. In short, thousands of conservative Republicans — without a similarly significant primary race in their own party — voted in the Democratic primary for the sole purpose of defeating one of Congress’ most outspoken defenders of civil rights, labor and the environment and one of its most vocal critics of President George W. Bush.

These Republicans were particularly incensed at McKinney’s criticism of President Bush’s “war on terrorism,” including a couple of remarks that even progressives believed went too far, such as her claim that the Bush Administration may have known about the September 11 terrorist attacks beforehand. The media added to the fury by blowing these comments way out of proportion.

By some estimates, as many as two-thirds of Majette’s votes came from registered Republicans. Without these Republican votes, McKinney would have easily won.

Furthermore, her opponent’s campaign coffers were enriched by contributions from individuals and PACs affiliated with big business and other special interests that surpassed that of the “pro-Israel” groups. Majette had the backing of such wealthy corporate donors as Home Depot founders Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus, Georgia-Pacific’s Pete Correll, Fidelity Bank’s James Miller, Cousins Properties’ Tom Cousins, Mirant Corporations’s Bill Dahlberg, and Alston & Bird’s Ben Johnson. Other leading business figures in the Majette camp included Marce Fuller, Virgil Williams, J.B. Fuqua and Inman Allen. Money to oust McKinney also came from donors associated with Wachovia Corporation, Equifax, SunTrust Banks, and other corporations. None of these donors are known to have any affiliation with groups supporting the Israeli government. A look at the records currently available show that Majette’s top contributors include a sizable number of major Republican donors and very few names commonly associated with a Jewish ethnicity.

In short, Cynthia McKinney would have almost certainly lost anyway, even without the infusion of “Jewish money” into the campaign.

McKinney was a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration. Unlike most Democrats in Congress, she was unwilling to play the role of a consensus-builder. She asked the hard questions. She challenged the bipartisan consensus of post-9/11 foreign policy. She spoke up for those, both at home and abroad, who so often have been denied a voice in the halls of Congress.

It is no surprise, then, that the Republicans wanted her out. In such an overwhelmingly Democratic district, however, they knew they could not defeat her in November with one of their own. As a result, they had to find a Democratic surrogate to defeat her in the primary.

For progressives to instead overstate the role of Jewish campaign contributions serves to re-enforce ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes and exacerbates the divisions between Jews and African-Americans. Once close allies in historic struggles for civil rights, labor and social justice, there has been a growing division between these two communities in recent decades as the increasingly affluent Jewish community has drifted to the right and African-Americans have asserted their support for Third World causes, including the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

Such divisions between these two historically-oppressed minorities can only help the wealthy white Gentiles who control virtually all the reins of political and economic power in this country. Indeed, pitting Jews and African-Americans against each other is a classic case of divide and rule. Exacerbating these divisions, in fact, may have been part of the Republican strategy all along. Blaming the loss of Cynthia McKinney on Jews or Zionists only benefits those who seek to continue to dominate and oppress.

To challenge this, we must focus upon building coalitions rather than tearing them apart. For example, we need to recognize the large numbers of progressive Jews who supported McKinney’s re-election as well as the many other cases of ongoing Black/Jewish solidarity and cooperation.

In particular, we must rededicate ourselves to electing more candidates to office who are genuinely committed to peace and justice — for the Palestinians, and for everyone else.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0825-01.htm

Challenging the Myths about the Failure of the 2000 Camp David Talks

Posted on

1. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations, along with leading members of Congress of both parties, have deliberately misrepresented what happened in the peace process before, during, and after Camp David, as well as what has transpired since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000. This has served to justify a policy of supporting an increasingly repressive occupation army, something that would otherwise be unpalatable to the American public.

2. The Palestinians bear some major responsibility for the tragic turn of events following the unsuccessful end of the talks hosted by President Clinton. However, a careful examination of the events appears to indicate that the primary fault for the failure of the peace process and the subsequent violence lies squarely with the occupying power–Israel–and its patron–the United States.

3. Throughout the peace process, the Clinton administration seemed to coordinate the pace and agenda of the talks closely with Israel, ignoring Palestinian concerns.

4. The U.S. insistence to jump to final-status negotiations without prior confidence building measures–such as a freeze on new settlements or the fulfillment of previous Israeli pledges to withdraw–led the Palestinians to question the sincerity of both Israel and the United States.

5. Claims that Barak offered 95% of the West Bank to the Palestinians at the Camp David summit are misleading. This figure does not include greater East Jerusalem, which includes Palestinian villages and rural areas to the north and east of the city unilaterally annexed by Israel. Nor does this figure include much of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea coast and parts of the Judean Desert, which would have remained under exclusive Israeli military control for an indefinite period. Taking these additional areas into account, this offer totaled only slightly more than 80% of the West Bank, forcing the Palestinians to relinquish land needed for their development and absorption of refugees.

6. Also under Barak’s U.S.-backed plan, the West Bank would have been split up by a series of settlement blocs, bypass roads and Israeli roadblocks, by some interpretations dividing the new Palestinian “state” into four non-contiguous cantons. In addition, Israel would have supervision of border crossing between the new Palestinian state and neighboring Arab states. Israel would also control Palestinian airspace, seacoast and aquifers.

7. Although Barak’s offers did go further than any previous Israeli government, they fell well short of what Israel was required to do under basic international legal standards–such as the Fourth Geneva Convention–and a series of UN Security Council resolutions. These include the departure from the Jewish settlements, rescinding the annexation of greater East Jerusalem and withdrawal from territories seized in the 1967 war in return for security guarantees.

8. Clinton naively thought that he could pressure Arafat to accept Israeli terms, even though negotiations up to that time indicated that the two sides were still far apart on some key issues. Even if Clinton had been successful in forcing Arafat to agree to Israeli terms, there simply would not have been enough support among the Palestinian population to make it a viable agreement.

9. The Palestinian uprising in late September was a spontaneous eruption exacerbated by excessive use of force by Israeli occupation troops. There is no evidence that Arafat or anyone else the Palestinian Authority planned it.

10. Clinton’s peace plan in December improved Israel’s July proposal only slightly and was initially rejected by the Palestinians. However, Israeli-Palestinian talks in Taba the following month, without active U.S. participation, led to major concessions by both sides and came within striking distance of a peace agreement. The Israelis balked at the last minute, however, soon followed by Barak’s electoral defeat.

11. The bipartisan consensus in the U.S. is that the fate of the Palestinians is up to their Israeli occupiers. Statements by both the Clinton and Bush administrations and congressional resolutions passed by huge bipartisan majorities have made it clear that Washington conditions Palestinian independence to Israeli terms.

http://www.fpif.info/fpiftxt/423

Death Squad Democrats

Posted on

Last Tuesday, Israeli forces murdered Isaac Saada outside of his home in Bethlehem. He was the father of ten and a beloved teacher at Terra Sancta, a RomanCatholic school in that West Bank city. Saada was actively involved with the peace education program of the Israeli-Palestinian Center for Research and Information. The day he was buried, he had been scheduled to take part in a joint seminar with Israeli teachers on improving understanding and cooperation between the two peoples.

The Israeli government claimed Saada was a Hamas terrorist. Everyone who knew this gentle teacher knows that is false, yet the U.S. media repeated the lie that he was among four Hamas terrorists killed by rocket fire from an Israeli helicopter. The helicopter and missile were supplied to Israel by the United States at U.S. taxpayer expense. The Bush administration, with support of leading congressional Democrats, supports increasing military aid to the Israeli occupation forces responsible for the death of Saada and hundreds of other civilians in the past year. Some victims of these Israeli death squads were indeed terrorists. Many, like Isaac Saada, were supporters of peace.

There have also been Israeli civilians killed since the outbreak of fighting last September, through terrorist bombings in Israeli cities and ambushes against settlers illegally squatting on Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, these have been through radical Islamic groups over which the Palestinian Authority has little if any control. By contrast, most of the Palestinian civilians have been killed by the occupation forces of the government of Israel, armed and financed by the U.S. government.

Immediately after Saada’s murder, I called over two dozen Congressional offices, all of them liberal Democrats who belong to the Progressive Caucus and the Human Rights Caucus. None of them were willing to condemn Israel’s death squads, and none were willing to support suspending military aid to Ariel Sharon’s government–or even to send international monitors to enforce a cease fire and protect the civilian population. Nor were they willing to criticize Israel’s ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions or other international human rights treaties as documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations, including the Israeli group B’tselem. These same House members are all on record, however, condemning the Palestinian Authority for violence against Israeli occupation forces.

During the 1980s, erstwhile liberals who provided the necessary votes to advance the Reagan administration’s policies in support of the murderous junta in El Salvador became known as “death squad Democrats.” That same label can now be applied to the Democrats who support President George W. Bush’s policy of support for Ariel Sharon.

Isaac Saada was well-respected for his efforts to teach young people to love and work for peace. He was often heard saying that the worst thing that could happen to the Palestinian people would be if they filled their hearts with hatred.

This man of peace has now been silenced. President Bush and his Democratic supporters have blood on their hands.

The Bush administration, to its credit, has condemned the Israeli government’s use of extra-judicial killings. However, in a recent interview, Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended Israel’s use of these assassination squads. That the Democrats would choose as their chief foreign policy spokesman someone who not only rationalizes such severe human rights violations, but also places himself to the right of even the Bush administration is indicative of how limited the foreign policy debate has become in Washington.

http://www.fpif.info/fpiftxt/362

http://www.fpif.org/articles/death_squad_democrats