Politicians inject themselves into Middle East conflict legislation

Congress and the Bush administration may be unusually united in supporting Israel in the face of Hizbullah and Hamas attacks, but that doesn’t mean politicians aren’t using the issue to score political points.

This week the Democrats seized the advantage with letters targeting the anti-Israel positions of the new Iraqi government. In their crosshairs: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who was in town on Tuesday for meetings with administration and congressional officials. Maliki recently criticized Israel’s “destruction of the infrastructure” of Lebanon and its “aggression” in that country.

This week Illinois Democratic Reps. Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky circulated a letter urging House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to cancel Maliki’s scheduled address to a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday.

Because Maliki’s criticisms of Israel are not consistent with U.S. policy in the current conflict, “Prime Minister Maliki’s address is inappropriate,” the lawmakers said in their letter.

On Tuesday, Hastert rejected that request as a partisan gambit; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, said in response that Maliki’s “criticism of Israel’s right to defend itself is unacceptable. At the White House this morning, Mr. Maliki did not retreat from his comments on Israel and once again failed to criticize Hamas and Hizbullah’s terrorist activities.”

Schakowsky also organized a letter by House members in response to overtly anti-Semitic comments by Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, who blamed the ongoing sectarian killings in his country on the Jews.

According to The Associated Press, Mashhadani said that “these acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”

Schakowsky’s letter, which urged President Bush to “immediately demand that Speaker al-Mashhadani and the Iraqi government leadership denounce these hateful and dangerous comments,” was signed by 49 House members and a lone senator — Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

Several Republicans joined Schakowsky, including Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.).

The Democratic gambit on Maliki put congressional Republicans — who are not only unexcited to criticize Bush for hosting the Iraqi leader but also not willing to be seen as condoning the Iraqi leader’s criticisms of Israel — in the hot seat.

The Republicans tried to do the same thing to the Democrats during last week’s wrangling over nonbinding resolutions expressing support for the embattled Jewish state and casting blame for the current crisis on Hamas and Hizbullah.

Some Democrats were infuriated that the Republican leaders gave them no say in the resolutions. That’s the reason Pelosi pulled her name as lead cosponsor of a bill she wasn’t allowed to help write, congressional sources said this week.

Jewish Republicans claimed Pelosi’s position was anti-Israel because she wanted to insert language — already approved by the Senate, with no objection from the pro-Israel lobby — urging both sides to work to limit civilian casualties.

In a meeting with leaders of two major Jewish groups last week, Pelosi said the addition was intended to expand support from the Democratic caucus.

But Republicans insisted that in rejecting the clause, they were just trying to get the strongest possible pro-Israel language.

The resolution that passed the House condemns Hamas and Hizbullah for “engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles.”

It also criticizes the groups for using civilians as “shields” and hits Iran and Syria for “their continued support for Hizbullah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities.”

Despite the bickering, the resolution passed the House 410-8.

The Senate version, with its call for efforts to limit civilian casualties, passed by unanimous consent. That came despite a stall by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, who feared the pro-Israel resolution would prevent this country from serving as an honest broker in the conflict.

Less enthusiastically received was a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the former Democratic presidential contender, urging Bush to “appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit the United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions.”

The lawmaker warned, “The continuing violence in the Middle East is spiraling out of control and is on the verge of being [a] full-out regional war in which there will be no winners.”

Despite the backing of Arab-American groups, the legislation had garnered only 20 or so cosponsors, and is unlikely to make it to the House floor.

Laffey vs. Chafee

The renewed Middle East conflict is proving irresistible to politicians, both those running in this year’s midterm congressional contests and those looking to future elections.

Last week Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the failed 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, announced that the Israel-Lebanon conflict wouldn’t have flared up if he was living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” he said, according to press reports.

President Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq, he said, has allowed terrorist groups that represent a much more direct threat to regional allies and to this country to flourish — including Hizbullah.

“This is about American security and Bush has failed,” he said, according to The Detroit News, which covered the event. “He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.”

The issue has also surfaced in a hotly contested Senate primary race in Rhode Island, where Sen. Lincoln Chafee faces a stiff primary challenge from Steve Laffey, the mayor of Cranston.

Chafee, a Republican moderate, has locked horns with the pro-Israel lobby before. Laffey, a conservative, argues that the incumbent is outside the GOP’s current mainstream.

Last week a Laffey campaign press release announced that Chafee wants to “cozy up with” Syria.

That came in response to Chafee’s answer to a question about the Syrian role in the current crisis.

“We have opportunities and to continually flail at Syria as the root cause of this problem I think is wrong,” Chafee said.

Laffey’s response: “Not only does Senator Chafee blame America for Hizbullah’s terrorist attacks on Israel, he is so out of touch as to believe that Syria, who is pouring money into Hizbullah’s coffers, is on the brink of reconciling with the West. Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

In Lieberman’s corner

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), fighting for his political life against newcomer Ned Lamont in a primary battle, got a boost this week from a Democratic icon: Bill Clinton.

The former president campaigned with Lieberman in Waterbury, saying, “I want to tell you I’m for Joe Lieberman for reasons that have to do with yesterday and more important, reasons that have to do with tomorrow. Joe Lieberman’s past is good evidence of his future.”

But Clinton barely mentioned the issue that is giving Lieberman political heartburn: the war in Iraq, and anger among Democratic core voters over his continued support for President Bush’s war policies.

Nor did Clinton refer to one incident from their mutual past he’d probably like to forget: Lieberman’s critical words on the Senate floor in 1998 in the midst of the controversy over Clinton’s conduct with a White House intern.

Lieberman needs all the help he can get; recent polls show the two Democrats in a statistical dead heat with Lamont on the rise.

But the same polls show that now, at least, Lieberman is likely to beat both Lamont and a Republican candidate if he follows through on his promise to run as an independent if he loses the Aug. 8 primary.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said it is too early to tell if Clinton’s intervention will help the embattled Lieberman in the primary next month.

“Clinton’s visit is either the high point of a dying candidacy or a turning point that will result in Lieberman’s renomination,” he said. “Endorsements rarely matter all that much, but Clinton could be an exception in a Democratic party in a state where he’s always been popular.”

Sabato expressed the conflict that is riling many Democrats.

“I’m amazed at Lieberman’s decision to try to have it both ways,” he said. “Either you run as a Democrat, or you run as an independent, but you don’t say, in essence, to the Democrats, ‘If you renominate me, fine, but if you don’t, I am going to spite you and run as an independent.’”

He said that echoes Lieberman’s 2000 decision to run for reelection to the Senate while campaigning as the Democratic vice presidential nominee, something Democratic leaders feared could jeopardize a safe Democratic seat.

Lieberman’s decision to pursue an independent candidacy as a backup is “an understandable call, but it’s hard to admire,” Sabato said. “Politics is all about taking chances, not creating sure things.”