Congress Jumps to Israel's 'Self-Defense'

In a
letter to President Barack Obama date June 17, 329
out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives referred to
Israel's May 31 attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla in international
waters, which resulted in the deaths of nine passengers and crew and
injuries
to scores of others, as an act of "self-defense" which they
"strongly support." Similarly, a June 21 Senate
letter -- signed
by 87 out of 100 senators -- went on record "fully"
supporting what it called "Israel's right to self-defense,"
claiming that the widely supported effort to relieve critical shortages
of food
and medicine in the besieged Gaza Strip was simply part of a "clever
tactical and diplomatic ploy" by "Israel's opponents"
to "challenge its international standing."

The House letter urged President Obama "to remain steadfast in
defense
of Israel" in the face of the near-universal international condemnation
of this blatant violation of international maritime law and other legal
statutes,
which the signatories referred to as "a rush to unfairly judge and
defend
Israel." The Senate letter condemned the near-unanimous vote of the UN
Human Rights Council for what it called "singling out" Israel, even
though no other country in recent memory has attacked a humanitarian aid
flotilla in international waters. Both letters called upon the United
States to
veto any resolution in the UN Security Council criticizing the Israeli
attack.

What is perhaps most disturbing is that many of the key arguments in
the
letters were misleading and, in some cases, factually inaccurate.

The Israeli government had acknowledged prior to the writing of the
letter
that the extensive blockade of humanitarian goods was not necessary for
their
security, but as a means of pressuring the civilian population to end
their
support for Hamas, which won a majority of legislative seats in the most
recent
Palestinian election. In addition, the Israeli government announced a
significant relaxation of the embargo two days after the letter was
written.
Despite this, the House letter claimed that the purpose of the blockade
was
"to stop terrorists from smuggling weapons to kill innocent
civilians," thereby placing this large bipartisan majority of the House
even further to the right than Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin
Netanyahu's rightist coalition.

There was no mention in the letter than no such weapons were found on
board
any of the six ships hijacked by the Israelis nor on the previous eight
ships
the Free Gaza Campaign had sailed or attempted to sail to the Gaza
Strip. In
addition, even though the ships had been thoroughly inspected by customs
officials prior to their disembarkation, the House letter claimed that
had the
Israelis not hijacked the ships, they would have "sailed unchecked into
Gaza."

Similarly, according to the Senate letter, Israel's naval blockade
was
necessary "to keep dangerous goods from entering Gaza by sea" and
falsely claimed that the intent of the Israeli blockade was "to protect
Israel, while allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza." Particularly
striking
is the fact that, despite that the International
Committee on the Red Cross and a broad consensus of international
legal
experts recognize that the Israeli blockade of humanitarian goods is
illegal,
the Senate letter insisted that the blockade "is legal under
international law."

The House letter insisted, despite the fact that several of those
killed on
the Mavi Marmara were shot
at point blank range in the back or the back of the head and a video
showing a 19-year old U.S. citizen shot execution style on the ground,
that
"Israeli forces used necessary force as an act of self-defense and of
last resort." Similarly, the Senate letter refers to the murders of
passengers and crew resisting the illegal boarding of their vessel in
international waters as a situation where the Israeli raiders were
"forced to respond to that attack" when they "arrived"
on the ship.

The House letter also claimed that the other ships were "commandeered
peacefully and without incident," even though on the other ships,
despite
completely nonviolent resistance, passengers were tasered and brutally
beaten
and were attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets. Similarly, the
Senate
letter insisted that, in spite of these potentially fatal beatings and
other
assaults, "Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six
ships challenging the blockade."

Even though the Israeli government has never entered Gaza to disperse
aid to
the people of that territory since the start of the siege years earlier
and
reputable relief organizations have documented that the Israelis had
routinely
refused to allow humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip, these House
members
claimed that Israel had offered to "disperse the aid . . . directly to
the people of Gaza." And, despite the fact that the five aid ships that
Israel had allowed to dock in Gaza in previous months had distributed
their
humanitarian cargo directly to those in need, the senators claimed that
it
would have otherwise gone "into the hands of corrupt Gaza officials."

Learning what actually transpired in the tragic incident was
apparently of
little interest to the 87 senators who signed the letter defending the
attack.
Despite the apparent whitewash
forthcoming in the internal Israeli investigation, the senate letter
supported
Israel's alleged intention to carry out "a thorough investigation
of the incident," insisting that Israel "has the right to determine
how its investigation is conducted." This comes in spite of a recent public opinion poll shows a clear majority
of
Americans -- including 65 percent of Democrats -- favor an
international inquiry over allowing Israel alone to investigate the
circumstances of the attack.

Ironically, a number of progressive organizations, web sites and list
serves
have called on the peace and human rights community to support the re-
election
of some of the very senators who signed this letter, including Barbara
Boxer,
Ron Wyden, and Russell Feingold. MoveOn, Council for a Livable World,
and other
progressive groups with PAC money have been are calling on their
members, many
of whom are peace and human rights activists, to donate their money to
these
right-wing Democrats who defend attacking peace and human rights
activists and
lie about the circumstances to justify it. They have no problems with
supporting the re-election of those who lie and mislead their
constituents in
order to defend illegal actions by allied right-wing governments, even
when
they kill and injure participants in a humanitarian flotilla on the high
seas.

There may be an underlying current of racism at work here. It is
unlikely
MoveOn, Council for a Livable World and other groups would defend such
actions
if, for example, the activists were helping those under siege in
Sarajevo in
the 1990s or West Berlin in the late 1940s, who happened to be white
Europeans.

It is important to
remember that the
majority of Democrats joined in with Republicans in supporting the
Salvadoran
junta in the early 1980s and the Suharto regime in the 1990s until
voters made
clear they would withdraw their support from them if they did not change
their
policy. AIPAC and other right-wing "pro-Israel" groups are only as
powerful as the absence of counter-pressure from the peace and human
rights
community. Letters like these will continue to be supported by most
Democrats
only as long they know they can get away with it.