The Gaza Five

A resolution supporting Israel in the recent battle with Hamas, entitled HR 34, was passed by the US House of Representatives by a vote of 390 to 5, with 22 abstentions. I believe that this resolution would also have passed the Israeli Knesset, but with a narrower margin, which would imply that the US is more pro-Israel than Israel.



But who are the five members of Congress who dared to defy the Israel Lobby? They are a diverse group, but not typical of the Congress as a whole: four are Democrats, two are black women, two are failed presidential candidates, and the remaining one is Arab-American. These are their stories:



Ron Paul represents the Fourteenth District of Texas, which stretches along the Gulf Coast from Houston to Corpus Christi. (1) He is best known as only candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 to repudiate President George W Bush, both on the Iraq War and the intrusive USA Patriot Act. Whereas Bush claimed that the terrorists who attacked this country on September 11, 2001, hated our freedom, Paul correctly noted that the real motive was that Arabs hated seeing American military power used in the Middle East.
Ron Paul is the lone remnant of the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, which lost the 1952 nomination to Dwight Eisenhower and never recovered. Paul is against all foreign aid, including aid to Israel, but also opposes American meddling in the Israel-Palestinian dispute. In his view, he is not anti-Israel, but just wants Israel to fend for itself without either aid or advice from the United States. He also opposes US membership in the UN and NATO, the personal income tax, the Federal Reserve System, abortion and federal gun control. He (along with Dennis Kucinich) voted against a 2007 resolution to accuse Iranian President Ahmadinejad of violating the Genocide Convention by calling for the destruction of Israel.
Political Prognosis: Ron Paul is a great fund-raiser and has shown remarkable political resilience. He ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988 and garnered over 400,000 votes, but not one electoral vote. In 2008, he lost every primary and caucus, and finished a poor fourth. He was the only Republican presidential candidate to refuse to support the McCain-Palin ticket, even though the nominees were also "mavericks." He can probably linger in the House for a few more terms, but he isn't going anywhere else.



Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District in Ohio, which includes part of Cleveland and its suburbs. His life reads like a Hollywood screenplay that cannot be produced because no audience would believe the story. (1)
Elected Mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 in 1977, he led the city into default on its municipal bonds. When he refused to sell a municipal electric utility, the Mafia hired a hitman to kill him. That effort failed, but he was defeated for re-election in 1979 and moved to Los Angeles, where he stayed at the home of actress Shirley McClain, who supported him financially for a few years. Then he moved back to Cleveland, got back into politics, and defeated a Republican Congressman in 1996! He has been re-elected ever since, despite some hotly contested Democratic primaries along the way.
As a member of Congress Kucinich is known for his hard-left positions, including his bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He sought the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2004 and again in 2008, but never even broke into the top tier of candidates. Although he "supports the survival of Israel" ( according to a speech given in New Hampshire in November, 2007) Kucinich also said that " Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable" in late December, 2008. As noted above, he cast one of only two votes in the entire House against charging Ahmadinejad of fomenting genocide.
Political Prognosis: Although he appears to have his congressional district sewn-up for now, he will face continual challenges due to his general "kookiness." He may have several campaigns for higher office in his future, but he will lose them all.



Nick Rahall represents southern West Virginia. The son of wealthy Lebanese Christian immigrants, Rahall was elected to the House in 1976 at the tender age of 27, and has been re-elected since. Perhaps motivated by his Arab ancestry, Rahall has been a determined critic of Israel since he entered the House, and Jewish money has flowed to his opponents in several elections.
Yet Lebanese Christians are often more sympathetic to Israel than Muslim Arabs. For example, during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War Rahall said "As a Christian, I believe we must fully support the State of Israel and defend it...." .
Political Prognosis: Unlike Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall is not a political gadfly or maverick. He is a moderate Democrat with substantial seniority, in the party mainstream on non-Middle East issues. When West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, 90, leaves office, Rahall is an even bet to succeed him, even if the Israel Lobby backs another candidate.



Maxine Waters has represented the Watts area of Los Angeles in Congress since 1990. She is the consummate racial politician: a female Al Sharpton that actually wins elections. When many of her constituents rioted in 1992 after white policemen were acquitted of beating Rodney King, Rep. Waters commented, " I am as angry as they are....it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable....everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood. " (1)
In Congress, she once advocated nationalizing America's petroleum industry if gasoline prices were not reduced. LikeKucinich, her other positions are also hard-left.
Political Prognosis: Maxine Waters does not merely represent Watts, she is Watts! She has been re-elected with at least 70% of the vote ever since she entered the House of Representatives. Now 70 years old, she may keep her seat for life. On the other hand, she has so antagonized white voters that I see no chance of her moving up to the Senate or statewide office.

Gwen Moore represents Wisconsin's Fourth District, which includes the City of Milwaukee and three southern suburbs. The District is about 38% black, with substantial Jewish and Muslim populations. She was elected to represent this District in Congress in 2004, after serving in the state legislature since 1989.
Moore is a black woman, but she is no Maxine Waters. She successfully appeals to white voters, and never plays the "race card."
Gwen Moore has Jewish relatives (2), and received considerable Jewish support in her campaign for Congress. She maintains a close relationship with the Milwaukee Jewish community, and has supported foreign aid to Israel in Congress.
Rep. Moore noted in a letter to her constituents that she wants the US be an "honest broker" between Israel and the Palestinians, and therefore Congress should not adopt a resolution like HR-34 which supports only Israel, especially in light of the suffering of Gaza Palestinians. Given the demographics of her district, she could not have pleased all her constituents no matter how she voted on HR-34.
Poitical Prognosis: Gwen Moore can keep her seat the rest of her life, if she so chooses. Since both Wisconsin senators are Democrats, she will not have a shot at moving up to that august body any time soon. Even if one of the senate seats were to open up in her lifetime, she would be a long-shot for the Democratic nomination. (3)

Of the Gaza Five, only Kucinich and Moore have a substantial Jewish constituency. Neither the Cleveland nor Milwaukee Jewish community seems to have much clout with their representative in Congress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia biographies.

(2) Gwen Moore's brother, Atty. Gerald McKinney, was married to a Jewish woman (Harriet Schachter McKinney), so she has Jewish nieces and nephews.

(3) Reps. Steve Kagen and David Obey would be favored over Moore for the nomination, as would statewide elected officials Jim Doyle, Barbara Lawton and Douglas LaFollette.

Impeach Bush?

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio)...has brought repeated impeachment resolutions on the House floor against (President George W) Bush and Vice President Dick Chaney.....Kucinich and others regard as impeachable offenses: manipulating intelligence about Iraq,; misusing authority with regard to torture, detention and rendition;...."
Associated Press, July 26, 2008

"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Section 4, Article II, Constitution of the United States

On July 25 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Kucinich impeachment resolutions, but everyone involved knew that the Democratic leadership of the House had decided not to pursue impeachment. If we had a parliamentary system (such as that of Britain or Israel), Bush would have been removed from his leadership position shortly after the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in 2006. But our Constitution clearly separates the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and establishes fixed four-year terms for the President and Vice President. Only through the impeachment process cited above can the Congress remove a President before the end of his term.

When the Constitution was adopted, the removal of the President would lead to drastic political change, since the Vice President at that time would be the candidate who finished second in the Electoral College in the last election. The incentive for the "out-party" to impeach the President was much greater then than now, when the Vice President is a close ally of the President. Significantly, the first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, who had inherited the presidency upon the death of Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no Vice President then, had Johnson been removed, the Speaker of the House ( a bitter political enemy of Johnson) would have become President. The 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967, provides for the President to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President, subject to confirmation by Congress, so it is virtually impossible that this situation could recur in our time or in the future.

But Kucinich wants to impeach both Bush and Chaney, so that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become President for the balance of the current term (till January 20, 2009).
Even so, Rep. Pelosi is opposed to impeachment, which she (and the rest of the Democratic House leadership) considers politically unwise for the Democratic Party. She no doubt remembers that the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 became a liability for the Republicans. Had Clinton left office early, the new President Al Gore would have probably been elected easily to a full term in 2000, so the GOP should be thankful the Senate rejected the charges.

But, aside from the political consequences, is Kucinich right? Have Bush and Chaney committed "high crimes or misdemeanors?"

Since the Senate makes the final decision on all impeachment cases, an impeachable offense is essentially what two-thirds of the Senate say it is. There is no judicial review or appeal. Yet is fitting that every Senator consider both historical precedent and the precedent that would be established by an impeachment conviction. The House Judiciary Committee has approved articles of impeachment against only three Presidents : Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Of these, only Nixon resigned; the Senate failed to convict the other two.

Although the Bush administration has committed many acts in connection with the Iraq War that have been ruled illegal, all of them could be arguably justified by the necessity to win the war or protect America from terrorism. I do not agree with Rep. Kucinich that George W Bush deliberately lied to the Congress or the American people about Sadam Hussein's effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Both Israeli and British intelligence concluded that Sadam was determined to go nuclear, and (although some CIA analysts were unconvinced by the evidence) Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the President the case was strong ( a "slam dunk!") If Bush told Congress only what he reasonably believed to be true, his effort to obtain congressional authorization to attack Iraq was not criminal, even if the intelligence later turned out to be wrong. This is a case where intentions do count.

Before the Iraq invasion, the Sadam regime had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened two others (Israel and Saudi Arabia). In addition, Sadam financially supported terrorism against Israel, though not against the United States. His government had used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. The case for the US to forcibly depose Sadam was quite strong, even without the nuclear threat. Although the Iraq War was much longer and much more costly and painful than anyone had anticipated in 2003, the prospects for peace in the Middle East are better now because Sadam is dead and the new government does not pose a threat to any other country. (The threat from Iran is greater today, partially as a consequence of the US-led overthrow of the Sadam regime in Iraq, but that makes the Iraq gambit strategically questionable, not criminal.)

The only President ever removed from office for misconduct was Richard Nixon, who had used the CIA to obstruct the investigation of the Watergate burglary. Although Nixon and his staff repeatedly invoked "national security" as a cover for his actions, when the truth was ultimately revealed (with the aid of tape recordings he had ordered) the obstruction was found to be motivated by nothing beyond political advantage. When a group of important Republican senators told him that conviction and removal from office were certain, Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the impeachment articles.

The historical comparison is important because it illustrates proper use of the impeachment process. In sharp contrast, the disputes today over the Iraq War, wiretapping, and treatment of (alleged) enemy combatants are best left to the political process, especially since the presidential and congressional elections are only months away. By the end of January, Bush and Chaney will both be gone; if the American people conclude they were misled, the Republican Party will pay the price at the polls.

If the Words Don't Fit.....

"The US House of Representatives voted 411-2 on June 20, 2007, to call on the UN Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel."
AIPAC's Near East Report for July 14-20, 2007

The President of Iran has called for the elimination of the State of Israel several times, using somewhat different phrases. Since all his speeches are in Farsi, we (as well as members of Congress) must rely on translations to determine if he really broke the Genocide Convention. Since the Farsi speeches often included idiomatic or otherwise ambiguous expressions, genuine disagreements have sprung up between translators over the real meaning. For example, a famous call for "wiping Israel off the map" has also been translated as "the Zionist regime....will vanish from the pages of time." (He was quoting Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeini, a bitter enemy of Israel) Since I don't know Farsi, I don't know who is right on this.

A thorough Internet search of Ahmadinejad's public statements turned up plenty of calls for elimination of the State of Israel, but none at all for the elimination of the people of Israel; but only destroying the latter would constitute genocide. Over 25,000 Jews live in Iran, and there is no evidence that Ahmadinejad has done anything to threaten them. Only a handful have emigrated since he took office in 2005, despite big incentives to move to Israel.

Calls by national leaders for the elimination of another government are not especially rare, and have not historically been labeled attempted genocide. For example, in 1961 Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev predicted that "We will bury you (the West)." He later said that he meant this economically, not militarily. Still scary.

In August, 1984, President Ronald Reagan quipped into a microphone he thought was off " My fellow Americans,...I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes." Reagan characterized this comment as a joke, though I doubt that Russians who heard about it found it the least bit funny, especially since Reagan was then placing nuclear weapons on the periphery of the Soviet Union.

So far President Bush, whose emissaries are meeting with those of Iran to discuss stabilization of Iraq, has not (yet) instructed the US Ambassador to the UN to offer a resolution charging Ahmadinejad as Congress proposed. In the unlikely event that the Security Council approves the charge, it is even more improbable that the Guardian Council of Iran would allow Ahmadinejad to be extradited to The Hague for trial, even after his term as President expires in 2009. In September of 2001, a council of Muslim legal experts advised the Taliban government of Afghanistan that it would be forbidden by Sharia (Islamic law) to hand over a Muslim (Osama bin Laden) to an infidel court; I would expect the ayatollahs of Iran to follow the same ruling with respect to Ahmadinejad.

But even if he could be put on trial before the International Tribunal at The Hague, convicting him might be harder than pinning a double-murder rap on O J Simpson in South LA. That is because in a criminal case the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguous statements and translations must be given to the defendant, and Ahmadinejad's orations could plausibly be interpreted as calls for "regime change" in Israel, rather than genocide.

For example, if sometime in the future Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel, the Knesset may change the name of the country to Palestine, establish Islam as the state religion, and relegate Jews to the status of "dhimmi" (inferior persons), as they are in Iran. Such a course of events, as obnoxious as it would be to us, would in effect remove Israel from the the map without any violence, let alone genocide.

A genocide trial ending in acquittal, which is fairly likely, would be a tremendous victory for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic forces worldwide. Ahmadinejad, now increasingly unpopular in Iran and unlikely to win re-election, would be a global hero. He would be the toast of the college lecture circuit and talk shows.

And who are the lonely two members of the House of Representatives who would spare Ahmadinejad and the world this genocide trial? They are Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) and Ron Paul (R, Texas), both of whom are seeking their party's 2008 presidential nomination. Kucinich, a left-wing liberal, and Paul, a libertarian conservative, don't agree on much, but they do agree that US policy is tilted too much in support of Israel.

Ron Paul, who previously ran for President as a Libertarian, consistently opposes all foreign aid, and so has voted against aid to Israel. His district doesn't seem to mind, and he polled a respectable 9% in the Iowa straw vote on August 11. Despite his war chest of over $2 million, pundits give him no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Dennis Kucinich, a former mayor Cleveland (who led his city into bankruptcy), is described by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (July 12, 2007) as more popular with the Arabs in his district than with the Jews. He is contesting last place among Democrats with ex-Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. Although his visceral opposition to the War in Iraq has become a mainstream view among his fellow Democrats, his vindictive and self-righteous attitude dooms his presidential prospects in this lifetime.

Kucinich and Paul lost the House vote big-time, and are sure to lose their presidential campaigns as well. But they will probably prevail in their efforts to derail a genocide trial for Ahmadinejad, because his words simply don't fit the definition of genocide. And if the words don't fit, you must acquit.