Will the Flotilla Attack Be Our “Kent State” Moment?

The offensive by the Congressional Democratic leadership against the Gaza humanitarian aid flotilla has now moved beyond just rhetorical support for the Israeli attack on the unarmed convoy. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, has called upon U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute U.S. citizens who were involved or on board the flotilla.

Because the Gaza Strip is currently ruled by Hamas, according the Sherman, any humanitarian aid to the people of that territory is “clearly an effort to give items of value to a terrorist organization,” which is prosecutable under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Despite the active support of the humanitarian aid effort by a number of pacifist organizations in the United States and Europe, Sherman insists that the organizers of the flotilla have “clear terrorist ties,” dismissing critical analysis of such charges as part of the ideological agenda of “the liberal media.”

Sherman also announced he would be working with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the more than 700 non-U.S. citizens who took part in the flotilla would be permanently barred from ever entering the United States. This would include European parliamentarians, Nobel laureates, as well as leading writers, artists, intellectuals, pacifists, and human rights activists, virtually none of whom are in the least bit sympathetic with Hamas or with terrorism.

Given the very real threat of terrorism from Al-Qaeda and other groups against the United States, it is very odd that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic Party leaders would choose — out of 255 Democrats in the House of Representatives — a paranoid right-winger like Sherman to chair the critically important terrorism subcommittee. Rather than focus on the real threats from Al-Qaeda and other dangerous organizations, it appears that Sherman is putting his energy into going after the motley group of Quaker pacifists, left-wing Jews, and other like-minded activists who boarded the ships attempted to bring medicines, school supplies, toys and other humanitarian aid to children of the Gaza Strip.

Indeed, it raises serious questions about whether the Democratic Party Congressional leadership is really concerned about international terrorism or, like the Bush administration, is attempting to use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to suppress nonviolent dissent against the policies of the U.S. government and its rightist allies.

Organizers and endorsers of the flotilla include such reputable American peace groups as Code Pink, Jewish Voice for Peace, Pax Christi, the American Friends Service Committee, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Resource Center for Nonviolence, War Resisters League, Women in Black and others. Supporters of this nonviolent effort to bring humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip also include such Israeli groups such as Yesh G’vul, Coalition of Women for Peace, New Profile, and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, among others.

Despite this, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), insists that these groups are “pro-Hamas people.” Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY) claims that the organizers of the flotilla have “links to Hamas and reportedly played a role in the attempted Millennium bombing in Los Angeles.” Rep. Ron Klein D-FL) insists that the real agenda of these peace and human rights organizations is “to bolster the terrorist Hamas government in Gaza.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) argues that Israel’s attack on the unarmed flotilla laden with humanitarian supplies part of an effort to “defend herself against terrorism.”

When prominent Democrats — including the head of an influential House subcommittee concerned with national security — begin implying that leading America and Israeli peace groups are linked to terrorism, it is no longer simply an issue of over-heated rhetoric in support of an allied right-wing government, but a McCarthyistic attack on nonviolent dissent. Indeed, it could only be a matter of time before we see Medea Benjamin, Mitchell Plitnick, and other leading nonviolent activists who have supported the flotilla hauled before Sherman’s subcommittee regarding these alleged ties to terrorism.

In many respects, however, Israel’s attack on the unarmed flotilla last weekend could be a “Kent State moment.” At the time of the 1970 shootings, National Guardsmen and police had been killing African-Americans and Hispanics with some regularity for years. When white middle class students were gunned down on a college campus, however, it woke up a whole new segment of American society, goading them into active resistance. Similarly, while the Israeli military has been killing Arab civilians for years, now that they have attacked European and American peace activists — with the support of Congressional leaders — it has created a whole new dynamic, one I witnessed personally this past Friday evening, at the annual dinner of the Resource Center for Nonviolence in Santa Cruz, California.

Roughly 150 people gathered in the fellowship hall of a local Congregational Church this past Friday evening, including prominent liberal members of the city council and county board of supervisors, area clergy (including a local rabbi), professors, small businesspeople and other community leaders. The main speaker was Nomika Zion, founder of kibbutz Migvan in Sderot, Israel, a community which had suffered from relentless bombardment for many months from Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. Zion — a leader of the Sderot-based peace group Other Voice, which opposed Israel’s war on Gaza — argued that it was the ongoing siege of Gaza which was the biggest threat to the security and called for an end of the Israeli blockade RCNV staffperson and former Santa Cruz mayor Scott Kennedy then called on the city to come together to organize a boat to send relief supplies to Gaza Strip in an effort to end the siege, adding that he would write Rep. Sherman and Attorney General Holder and dare them to investigate and prosecute the hundreds of people in this coastal community who would support such an effort.

Israel’s rightist government and their allies in the U.S. Congress have clearly miscalculated. By claiming that the hundreds of dedicated peace and human rights activists on board those ships — most of whom in no way support Hamas or any terrorist group — as supporters of terrorism, they are mobilizing what could become a major backlash. It is a particularly bad calculation for the Democratic Party, which is going to need the support of the peace and human rights community — a key constituency of the party’s base — going into the mid-term election this fall. There are already plans for additional ships to try to run the blockade, most of which will have active participation from nonviolent activists here in the United States. We’ll see if Rep. Sherman and other Congressional leaders can stop them.

Pelosi the Hawk

Reports by international human rights groups and from within Israel in recent weeks have revealed the massive scale of war-crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law, committed by Israeli forces during their three-week offensive against the Gaza Strip earlier this year. Despite this, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has steadfastly stood by her insistence that the U.S.-backed Israeli government has no legal or moral responsibility for the tragic consequence of the war.

This is just one episode in a long history of efforts by Pelosi to undermine international humanitarian law, in regards to actions by a country she has repeatedly referred to as America’s most important ally in the Middle East. It’s also part of her overall right-wing agenda in the Middle East. As the powerful Speaker of the House, Pelosi could very well undermine efforts by President Barack Obama in the coming years to moderate U.S. policy toward that volatile region.

Support for the Gaza War

During the height of Israel’s devastating offensive on the Gaza Strip in January, Pelosi pushed through a resolution putting the House of Representatives on record calling “on all nations…to lay blame both for the breaking of the calm and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas.”[emphasis added]

Not only did the resolution ignore Israel’s attacks in Gaza in November and other violations of the ceasefire that served to “break the calm,” it put forward an extreme reinterpretation of international humanitarian law apparently designed to absolve any nation that kills large numbers of civilians, as long as the other side allegedly initiated the conflict.

The resolution favorably quoted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, regarding responsibility for civilian deaths and for the causes of the conflict, but cites no one else. Though the Gaza War should be considered “a final and eloquent testimony to the complete failure of the neoconservative movement in United States foreign policy,” as Juan Cole has written, Pelosi instead aligned herself and the Democratic congressional majority with the failed ideology of the outgoing Bush administration. Indeed, some of the language of Pelosi’s resolution was even to the right of Bush: For example, while the January 8 UN Security Council resolution — which received the endorsement of Rice and other administration officials — condemned “all acts of violence and terror directed against civilians,” Pelosi’s resolution only condemned the violence and terror of Hamas. Similarly, her resolution placed conditions for a ceasefire on the Palestinian side that was even more stringent than those advocated by the Bush administration and endorsed eventually by the Israelis.

And, despite International Red Cross reports of Israeli forces illegally preventing emergency workers from reaching wounded civilians, killing aid and health workers, and attacking hospitals and ambulances, Pelosi’s resolution went on record praising Israel for having “facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

Pelosi’s resolution also cited the Israeli invasion as part of Israel’s “right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas’s unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.” In reality, the UN Charter explicitly prohibits nations going to war unless they “first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” Yet Israel — with strong bipartisan U.S. support — has refused to even meet with Hamas. Furthermore, while Article 51 does allow countries the right to resist an armed attack, it doesn’t grant any nation the right to engage in such massive and disproportionate warfare against densely packed cities and refugee camps.

Pelosi also claimed that Hamas bore responsibility for the more than 700 deaths of Palestinian civilians because of the alleged use of “human shields.” Hamas was certainly guilty of less-severe humanitarian violations, such as not taking all necessary steps to prevent civilian casualties while positioning fighters and armaments, but this isn’t the same as using civilians as shields. And, as Human Rights Watch noted, even the presence of armed personnel and weapons near civilian areas “does not release Israel from its obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian property during military operations.” Furthermore, the nature of urban warfare, particularly in a territory as densely populated as the Gaza Strip, makes the proximity of retreating fighters and their equipment to civilians unavoidable in many cases. In any case, there have been scores of well-documented cases of civilian casualties in areas where there were no Hamas fighters.

The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the influential “pro-Israel” lobby, did not draft Pelosi’s resolution, unlike some similar resolutions in recent years. The wording of the resolution came primarily out of the offices of Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman. This was a completely Democratic initiative led by Pelosi herself.

Pelosi’s siding with the Bush administration in its defense of violations of international humanitarian law by U.S. allies was nothing new. When Bush defended Israel’s assaults on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure in 2006 and defied the international community by blocking UN efforts to impose a ceasefire, Pelosi voted in favor of a resolution commending him for “fully supporting Israel.” This Pelosi-backed resolution claimed that Israel’s actions were legitimate self-defense under the UN Charter and, despite evidence to the contrary, praised “Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcom[ed] Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties.” Directly contradicting empirical studies by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the U.S. Army War College, all of which noted the absence of any credible evidence of even a single civilian fatality resulting from such practices, she went on recording insisting that the nearly 800 civilian deaths were a result of Hezbollah using “human shields.” Pelosi also echoed Bush’s defense of Israel’s 2002 West Bank offensive, which also was directed primarily at civilian targets. Once again contradicting findings by reputable human rights groups, she voted in favor of a resolution sponsored by right-wing Republican leader Tom DeLay claiming the massive assault was “aimed solely at the terrorist infrastructure.”

Pelosi attacked the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 ruling calling for the enforcement of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Israeli-occupied territories. She also voted in favor of a resolution condemning the World Court for its near-unanimous advisory opinion that Israel’s separation barrier shouldn’t be built beyond Israel’s internationally recognized border into the occupied West Bank in order to incorporate illegal settlements into Israel, warning that members of the international community would “risk a strongly negative impact on their relationship” with the United States if they dared push for the implementation of the ruling. (See my article “Attacks Against World Court by Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law.”) And Pelosi has even gone as far as defending Israel’s use of death squads in the extra-judicial killings of suspected militants.

Pelosi’s Middle East Record

Pelosi’s right-wing agenda in the Middle East goes beyond efforts to undermine international humanitarian law. During the Bush years, she tried to push congressional Democrats to support the administration’s broader Middle East agenda. “There is no division on policy between us and President Bush, be it on Israel, Palestine or Syria,” she declared.

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of the many rights and wrongs of both parties. For her, it’s all the fault of the Palestinians, and the responsibility for the violence and the failure of the peace process rests on them alone.

Pelosi has long insisted that the Palestinians’ 1993 decision to recognize Israeli control over 78% of Palestine was not enough. She has even portrayed former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s 2000 proposal to create a Palestinian Bantustan on approximately 18% of Palestine — which would have effectively divided the territory into four non-contiguous units with Israel controlling the borders, airspace, and water resources — as “a generous and historic proposal.” She further insisted that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s rejection of that proposal was indicative of the Palestinians’ lack of commitment to peace, ignoring his subsequent acceptance of President Bill Clinton’s peace plan put forward five months later. Echoing the Israeli right’s claim that the Palestinians’ various peace proposals are all just a ruse and that they simply want to destroy Israel, Pelosi insists that the conflict is about “the fundamental right of Israel to exist” and that it is “absolute nonsense” to claim it has anything do to with the Israeli occupation.

Subsequently, Pelosi has sought to undermine the road-map for Israeli-Palestinian peace. In May 2003, she signed a letter to Bush insisting that the peace process must be based not on an end to Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war, but “above all” on the end of Palestinian violence and the establishment of a new Palestinian leadership. Though the road-map called for both Palestinians and their Israeli occupiers to simultaneously work to fulfill their obligations, she insisted that the Palestinians alone were responsible for implementing the first stage of the Road Map and failed to even mention any of Israel’s reciprocal responsibilities, such as ending the sieges and military assaults on Palestinian population centers and halting construction of additional illegal settlements.

Speaking about a visit to one of the illegal Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2004, Pelosi referred to an infiltration by local Palestinians that had taken place that morning as part of “the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence.” By implying that the Gaza Strip, seized by force by the Israeli army in 1967, was part of Israel, Pelosi apparently hoped to reinforce efforts by the Israeli right to resist compliance with a series of UN Security Council resolutions, and a ruling by the International Court of Justice to withdraw these settlements in accordance with international law.

When Israel finally withdrew its illegal settlements from the occupied Gaza Strip the following year, keeping the territory under a strict siege and blockade, she praised it as a “courageous,” “gut-wrenching” decision for Israel, as if the Gaza Strip wasn’t actually occupied territory but instead a part of Israel itself, generously given up by the Israeli government in the interest of peace..

Double Standards

Pelosi has supported strict economic sanctions and even threats of military force against Middle Eastern governments targeted by the Bush administration — such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, or Syria — that were slow in complying with UN Security Council resolutions. Yet she has never publicly called on Israel to abide by any of the dozens of Security Council resolutions on international humanitarian law, illegal annexation of militarily-occupied territory, or nuclear proliferation with which that government remains in material breech. In Pelosi’s worldview, a country’s obligations to comply with the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolutions depend not on objective international legal standards but on their relations with the United States.

After supporting false assertions that Saddam Hussein had somehow reconstituted his “weapons of mass destruction” in 2002, Pelosi now claims it’s actually Iran — another oil-rich Middle Eastern nation — that “represents a clear threat to Israel and to America.” She has refused to support calls for a nuclear weapons-free zone for all of Southwest Asia, which would include nuclear states Israel, Pakistan, and India, and would link up with already existing nuclear weapons-free zones in Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the South Pacific. Instead, while believing that these U.S. allies need not be pressured to give up their nukes, she argues that Iran “must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation.” Indeed, she threatened Iran for its nuclear program while defending Israel for its development of a sizable nuclear arsenal.

Pelosi voted in favor of sanctions against Syria based on its refusal to unilaterally give up its missiles — even though Israel (along with such other U.S. allies as Turkey, Israel and Egypt) have even more advanced missile programs — and its refusal to unilaterally give up their chemical weapons stockpiles, even though Israel and Egypt have much larger chemical weapons arsenals.

In short, Pelosi supports the position advocated by the Bush administration rejecting law-based universal standards to challenge the threat of weapons proliferation in the volatile Middle East, insisting the United States can unilaterally decide which countries can and cannot have certain weaponry.

Prior to the division of power between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip in 2007, Pelosi supported Bush’s policy of refusing to resume normal relations with the Fatah-led Palestine Authority, unless the cabinet excluded members of Hamas or any party that doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, refuses to renounce violence, or fails to endorse previous agreements in the peace process. By contrast, Pelosi has raised no concerns about the new Israeli government, led by officials who refuse to recognize Palestinians’ right to statehood, refuse to renounce violence, and fail to endorse previous agreements. Indeed, despite Israel’s new foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman calling for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel and much of the West Bank, Pelosi has not uttered a word of concern.

Moreover, Pelosi has also repeatedly pushed to increase U.S. military aid to Israel, rejecting calls by Amnesty International and other human rights groups to condition the arms transfers on an improvement in Israel’s human rights record in the occupied territories and an end to attacks on civilian population centers.

Undermining International Law

Such double standards are part of Pelosi’s larger effort to undermine international law and UN authority. She has from the beginning sought to exclude the United Nations from any role in monitoring or implementing the roadmap for Middle East peace. According to Pelosi’s aforementioned letter to Bush, allowing the United Nations or the European nations that cosponsored the roadmap to share responsibility in overseeing implementation as originally planned “might only lessen the chances of moving forward” toward peace since “the United States has developed a level of credibility and trust with all parties in the region which no other country shares.”

In short, Pelosi was arguing that the Bush administration — despite its contempt for the UN Charter and basic premises of international law and its support of Israeli occupation forces — was more reliable than the United Nations or the European Union in monitoring the peace process.

Pelosi has also supported legislation that attacks the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). For example, Pelosi faults UNRWA for making “no effort to permanently resettle Palestinian refugees,” even though this would go well beyond its mandate and be against the wishes of the majority of refugees, who insist upon returning to their homeland in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She joined far-right UN critics in raising dubious allegations that “UNRWA facilities have been used for terrorist training and bases for terrorist operations,” and that the UNRWA educational system of using textbooks and educational materials “promote anti-Semitism, denial of the existence and the right to exist of the state of Israel, and exacerbate stereotypes and tensions between the Palestinians and Israelis.”

Right-Wing not Pro-Israel

Nancy Pelosi isn’t, as some of her critics would have it, too “pro-Israel;” rather, she is simply too right-wing. Her positions on U.S. policy toward Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and a number of other nations in that region put her closer to the right-wing Christian Coalition than the moderate National Council of Churches, closer to the neoconservative Project for a New American Century than to the liberal Peace Action, and closer to right-wing Zionist groups like AIPAC than liberal Zionist groups like Americans for Peace Now or Brit Tzedek v’Shalom.

The 2006 Lebanon War, which Israel launched after months of pressure by the Bush administration to attack its northern neighbor, ended up as a disaster for Israel, as outlined by the Israeli government’s 2007 Winograd Report. During the fighting, as thousands of Israeli peace activists took the streets of Tel Aviv chanting “We will not kill or die for Bush,” Pelosi was back in Washington essentially saying, “Oh, yes you should!”

Where Pelosi’s allegiance lies in the Israeli political spectrum is not only illustrated by her opposition to the Israeli peace movement, but in her outspoken support of former prime minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon. She repeatedly praised the right-wing Israeli leader for his “remarkable leadership,” endorsing Sharon’s construction of a separation barrier deep inside the West Bank as well as his “disengagement plan,” which would eventually annex most of Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territory into Israel.

And she has been quite intolerant of Democrats who dissent from her hawkish views, heavily pressuring House Democrats to support various resolutions supporting Bush’s Middle East policy and seeking to damage the campaigns of insurgent Democrats who challenge her right-wing views. For example, Pelosi attacked Howard Dean, early in his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, for suggesting the United States should be more “even-handed” towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She has even condemned former President Jimmy Carter for opposing Israeli occupation policies in the West Bank. No Democratic leader has ever criticized either a former president or the front-running presidential candidate of his or her own party on any issue as harshly as Pelosi criticized Dean and Carter on Israel and Palestine.

Pelosi’s views don’t reflect her role as a major Democratic fundraiser. Her antipathy toward Palestinians goes back long before she came into leadership. As a junior congresswoman in 1988, without links to wealthy national contributors, she was an outspoken opponent of Palestine’s right to exist, helping lead an effort to defeat a ballot proposition in San Francisco supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

Pelosi’s right-wing Israel policy is less a matter of AIPAC’s power and more about the inability of the progressive community in San Francisco and Democrats elsewhere to force her to do otherwise. She changed her position in support of the U.S. occupation and counterinsurgency war in Iraq only because her constituents and Democrats nationwide demanded it, fearing the political consequences of doing otherwise. She isn’t likely to change her position on these other important Middle East policy issues unless we do the same.

Unfortunately, few Democrats are even aware of how far to the right Pelosi is when it comes to the Middle East. Not only has the mainstream media failed to call attention to her Middle East agenda, but progressive publications have failed do so as well. In These Times praised Pelosi for her “solid record” on human rights issues, while Ms. Magazine lauded her for having a “voting record strong on…human rights,” failing to even mention her defense of Israeli war crimes against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.

Obama was initially able to withstand attacks by right-wing Republicans over the Chas Freeman appointment and tentative plans to participate in the UN Anti-Racism Conference, but he capitulated once prominent Democrats began pressuring him as well. Unless, then, rank-and-file Democrats are willing to challenge Pelosi on the Middle East, there is little hope that Congressional Democrats will allow the Obama administration to take human rights or international law seriously — not just in terms of Israel and its neighbors — but anywhere else.


Pelosi and Sharon

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.

Pelosi Win Not A Progressive Victory

Many liberals are celebrating the apparent victory of San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. With foreign policy concerns now front and center in the political debate, some liberals concerned with peace and human rights issues hope that her election to the post of House Minority Leader is evidence that the Democrats may finally be ready to play the role of an opposition party. As evidence of this shift, so goes the argument, is Pelosi’s outspoken role as a defender of human rights in Tibet, East Timor and elsewhere.

A closer look at her record, however, reveals a far different picture. When the human rights abuser happens to be a key strategic ally and a recipient of large amounts of U.S. armaments, Pelosi has defended the Bush Administration’s policies.

The clearest example is her strident support for the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, the former general widely considered by the international community to be a war criminal. While Israel represents only one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population and Israeli Jews enjoy the world’s sixteenth highest per capita income, Pelosi has supported sending a full one-third of all U.S. foreign aid to prop up Sharon’s fragile coalition government and to support his occupation forces in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.

While insisting that Iraq and other countries the Bush administration does not like abide by UN Security Council resolutions, she considers UN Security Council resolutions directed at Israel as subject to negotiation with the Palestinians. Not only does Pelosi’s position ignore Israel’s legal obligations but it also ignores the clear asymmetry in power between the weak and corrupt Palestinian leadership and their Israeli occupiers.

Late last month, Amnesty International released a thoroughly-documented 80-page report detailing war crimes by Israeli occupation forces during its offensive in the West Bank this past March. This follows up upon a preliminary report issued during the offensive which 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, 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 groups like B’Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, and Yesh G’vul.

In response, Assistant House Majority Leader Tom DeLay introduced a resolution 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.”

Most House members, who rarely get around to reading human rights reports, look to their leadership as to how they should vote on such resolutions. As assistant minority leader and a member of the so-called Human Rights Caucus, scores of Democrats looked to Pelosi to determine whom to believe: the right-wing fundamentalist Republican Congressman from Texas or the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights organization?

Pelosi chose to believe Tom DeLay, leading her fellow Democrats in 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.

During this same period, as peace and human rights activists spoke out in condemnation of the Bush Administration’s support for Sharon’s offensive (including a declaration by President George W. Bush that the rightist prime minister was a “man of peace”) Pelosi rushed to the administration’s defense, supporting a Republican-sponsored resolution praising President Bush’s “leadership” in the crisis. In throwing her support to Bush, she openly defied the growing discontent within the Democratic Party rank-and-file over the party leadership’s insistence on kowtowing to the Republican administration’s militaristic foreign policy agenda.

In response to demands by peace and human rights activists for a suspension of U.S. military aid to the Sharon government’s violations of the U.S. Arms Control Export Act, Pelosi supported a Republican-sponsored resolution calling for increasing military aid to Israel. In essentially rewarding Ariel Sharon for his rampage, she put herself on record as validating President Bush’s contention that increased arms transfers (not arms control) is the key to security in the Middle East.

In yet another example of where her priorities lie, Pelosi spoke at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to the Sharon government, during the height of the offensive, praising the Israeli government and condemning the Palestinians. At the same time, she refused a longstanding invitation to appear before a human rights forum in her own district.

Pelosi has long insisted that the Palestinians’ 1993 decision to recognize Israeli control over 78% of Palestine was not enough and that the Palestinians must learn to “compromise.” She has consistently blamed the Palestinians exclusively for the violence and for the breakdown in the peace process.

In addition, to rationalize for her support of Israel’s repressive occupation, she has chosen to re-write history. Pelosi now claims that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak’s proposal to create a Palestinian Bantustan on approximately 18% of Palestine that would have effectively divided the territory into four non-contiguous units with Israel controlling the borders, air space and water resources as “a generous and historic proposal.”

There are those who insist that Pelosi is actually a liberal at heart but she is forced to take these right-wing positions for political reasons.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pelosi represents one of the most liberal districts in the country. It is also one of the safest districts in the country; she routinely wins re-election by close to 80% of the vote.

Furthermore, public opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans believed that both sides are to blame for the ongoing violence. For example, a May 2002 poll indicated that a majority of Americans opposed Sharon’s invasion and his refusal to withdraw from the re-occupied Palestinian towns. It also showed that two-thirds of those polled believed the United States should be strictly even-handed in its approach to the conflict. According to Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Initiatives at the University of Maryland, “What this poll makes clear is that recent actions by Congress are out of step with the American public and their views on the crisis in the Middle East. Americans clearly hold both sides equally responsible for the current situation and are willing to increase pressure on a both sides to achieve a peace deal.”

Furthermore, a Time/CNN poll in April indicated that, in response to Israel’s offensive, 60% of Americans believed some or all U.S. aid to Israel should be suspended, while only 1% believed it should be increased. Pelosi aligned herself with that tiny right-wing minority.

If Nancy Pelosi is the best the Democrats can do for leadership, there is little hope of stopping George W. Bush.