It is, as Joe Biden would say, a "BFD." In an interview Saturday with Jonathan Capehart on MSNBC, President Biden said that Netanyahu's threat to attack the Palestinian city of Rafah constituted a "red line" that Netanyahu had better not cross.
The United Nations and aid groups have warned that Netanyahu's threatened assault on Rafah would push the imminent famine in Gaza from "catastrophe" to "biblical catastrophe," given that more than half of the pre-war population of Gaza is sheltering there as war refugees, scrambling for food and water already. "The Israelis are deliberately trying to create a famine inside Gaza in order to essentially starve the Palestinians to the negotiating table," to plagiarize from Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, speaking about the Saudi war in Yemen in 2017.
A caveat which should temper our celebrations of the BFD is: Biden has "warned" Netanyahu not to do terrible things in the past, and Netanyahu has done the terrible things anyway and gotten away with it, because there were no meaningful consequences imposed by the Biden Administration for Netanyahu's defiance. And indeed, Netanyahu has already vowed to defy Biden's "red line" against attacking Rafah. So the question now is: what meaningful consequences will be credibly threatened for Netanyahu - and by whom - to enforce Biden's "red line" against attacking Rafah?
A caveat to the caveat is this: Congress and the American people have yuuuge say over whether there are meaningful consequences for Netanyahu's defiance of the Biden Administration which arms him and protects him with vetoes from ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council, and there is far more anger in Congress now about Netanyahu's defiance of the Biden Administration than we are seeing so far on TV. The Senate is controlled by Democrats, and even Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who is very close to Biden, is a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was on Biden's public short list to be Secretary of State, and is very close to AIPAC, recently called on Biden to restrict U.S. weapons from being used by Netanyahu in Rafah. Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch, and Jeff Merkley voted against the Senate version of the Genocide Supplemental, in opposition to sending more U.S. tax dollars for starving children to death. That strongly suggests that there are a bunch of potential House Democratic votes against it.
The House is currently “controlled” by Republicans. But Republicans have a very narrow majority, and not all House Republicans support sending more U.S. weapons to Netanyahu for use against civilians in Gaza. 17 House Republicans voted against Speaker Johnson's version of the Gaza Genocide Supplemental.
Biden has the power by himself to block U.S. weapons from being used in Rafah. Equally important: Congress has the power by itself to block U.S. weapons from being used in Rafah. And the more Congressional Democrats do to enforce President Biden's "red line," the more President Biden will do to enforce his own "red line."
The very good news is this: if one brave and stalwart Democrat in the House or Senate shows the Red Badge of Courage to force a vote, we can have a vote focused on protecting Rafah. That would make it easier for some Democrats to vote to spare Rafah. There are some Democrats who are reluctant to vote against the Genocide Supplemental because it has other things in it besides weapons for Netanyahu to use against civilians in Gaza. I do not personally consider this to be a good excuse for voting for the Genocide Supplemental. But some Democrats who so far don't care very much what I think about this disagree with me and think that it is indeed a good excuse. If we could get a clean vote on sparing Rafah, we could take those other issues off the table and focus on sparing Rafah. Also, nobody knows when the vote on the Genocide Supplemental will be, if it ever happens. The threat to attack Rafah is now. The vote on the Genocide Supplemental - if any - may be too late to spare Rafah. Finally: we are likely to get many more Democrats to vote against the Genocide Supplemental in the House if we have a "practice run" on something else where our position is stronger because the vote is more narrowly focused on stopping the “deliberate famine” in Gaza.
When we're lobbying Congressional Democrats to vote against a war, if we can say: "All we're asking you to do is support the position of Dem POTUS," we can get a LOT more votes. That's an important part of how we almost won in the House in June 2016 on prohibiting the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. That's an important part of how we almost won in the Senate in June 2017 on prohibiting the transfer of "precision guided munitions" to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. By the time the votes took place, our position was the Obama position. [Trump was POTUS in June 2017, but Obama had stopped the PGM transfer at the end of his Administration and Trump had restarted it.] So we said to Congressional Democrats: "All we're asking you to do is to support the Obama position." And we got most Democrats to vote with us. In the present case, we'd say to Congressional Democrats: "All we're asking you to do is help us defend President Biden's red line." Is it so much to ask? Is it such a high goal? Enforcing publicly stated Biden Administration policy: “it’s not a radical idea,” as Uncle Bernie would say.
There are (at least) three germane ways to force a vote in the Senate: the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, and Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act. The House is more restrictive. In the House, there is just one germane way to force a vote: the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Joint resolutions pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act aren't “privileged” in the House, they don’t force a vote. Someday we'll fix this. But for now, we go to end unconstitutional wars with the laws we have, not the laws we’d like to have in the future, as Donald Rumsfeld will never say.
So, if I were talking to a Senator, I would say: have the vote however you want. Do the thing you think will get the most votes. Winning or getting close is more important than the precise text of the bill.
But if I were talking to a Member of the House, I would say: introduce the Rafah War Powers Resolution in the House and force a vote. Because right now that's the only way we have to force a vote in the House, a War Powers Resolution.
There's a saying inside the DC Beltway of the Beast: "The most precious commodity in Washington is floor time for your issue." If we force a vote on sparing Rafah, we put the most precious commodity in Washington in the service of protecting kids in Gaza from starving to death. Isn't that at least as important as naming a Post Office?
Moreover, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress, not the President, is supposed to decide when the United States goes to war. They "swore an oath to follow the Constitution," as Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy would say. It's time for Congressional Democrats to "stand and deliver" on the oath they swore to defend Article I of the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to rescue kids in Gaza from starving to death.