Everybody who supports a ceasefire in Gaza, everybody who supports a “humanitarian pause,” everybody who supports “deescalation” or “opposes escalation” agrees with the following simple proposition which is easy to prove: the U.S.-Israeli ground war in Gaza that the Israeli Right is pushing very hard on the Biden Administration for right now would be a total catastrophe. In terms of humanitarian crisis. In terms of regional escalation. In terms of the reputation of the United States around the world, but especially in the Greater Middle East. In terms of the reputation of the Democratic Party and Washington more generally with Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans and every American who loves peace and hates war. The current public position of the Biden Administration today is “delay.” This “delay” position is backed by Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed. So we have some time to organize to stop this. Let me be perfectly clear: I am for #CeasefireNOW. But as President Obama used to say: “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.” We can organize for #CeasefireNOW and organize to stop the “biblically catastrophic” ground war at the same time.
In terms of humanitarian impact, the threatened ground war would be very much like the Saudi attack on the crucial Yemeni port of Hodeida during the Trump phase of the “Saudi” war in Yemen. Everybody following knew that the attack would push Yemen from “catastrophe” to “biblical catastrophe,” to “full-blown famine,” as the UN and the aid and humanitarian groups warned at the time. Members of Congress who have been briefed by the Department of Defense know that this is true about the threatened ground invasion of Gaza now.
As with the “Saudi” war in Yemen, it is beyond reasonable dispute that this is a U.S. war. The U.S. is supplying the weapons. The U.S. is protecting Netanyahu at the UN Security Council, standing alone to veto Brazil’s resolution for a “humanitarian pause.” The U.S. is refueling the warplanes and providing intelligence targeting for airstrikes. As soon as the House is back in session, the Administration plans to push for more funding for the war. If there were any remaining doubt that this is a U.S. war, Biden’s trip to Israel sealed the deal.
In terms of enforcing Congress’ Article I War Powers, this juncture is like August 2013, when President Obama threatened to bomb Syria without Congressional authorization. The House was out of session, because it was the August recess (not a coincidence.) Despite the fact that it was August recess, House members managed to circulate two war powers letters to President Obama demanding that he get authorization from Congress before bombing Syria, which between them were signed by around 200 Members. These two letters were key in getting Obama to back down from his threat to bomb Syria without Congressional authorization. Note that the Obama Administration’s plan to attack Syria was backed by AIPAC, which Obama Administration officials believed at the time would seal the deal in Congress. It did not. We beat AIPAC on this, because as Rep. Alan Grayson noted at the time on Democracy Now, AIPAC’s power depends on the American people not being involved. Once the American people get involved, AIPAC is a paper tiger. Depending on how involved the American people get. In August-September 2013, the phone calls to Congress were running 99 to 1 against the war.
I told this story at the time at Daily Kos as it unfolded here:
192 Reps., Including 73 Democrats, Call for Debate & Vote Before War With Syria
When Rigell left Congress, that broke the link I had in the DK article to the final version of the Rigell letter - which closed and reopened several times as people realized the tide was turning. So the link in the DK article doesn't work. The last version I have been able to find online of the Rigell letter is at Roll Call.
116 House Members Sign Syria Letter to Obama (Updated)
The link I have in the August 2013 DK article still works for the Barbara Lee letter (“the Rigell letter for Democrats,” as Kate Gould of FCNL called it at the time.) But for symmetry, here is that link.
Here’s another useful reference: the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Here’s the key paragraph:
SEC. 8.
[…]
(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
It was this paragraph in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that we successfully invoked in the Yemen War Powers Resolution to say that Pentagon refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen clearly constituted “participation in hostilities” as defined by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
I do not claim to know how many Members of the House we could get now to sign “Gaza war powers” letter(s) broadly modeled on the 2013 Rigell and/or Barbara Lee letters, aimed at stopping the ground war from happening with U.S. participation without a prior Congressional vote specifically authorizing it, as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. I’m certain that nobody else knows either. This question should be tested. Hence this memo, which I hope will bounce to where Congressional staffers will see it.