Van Hollen Responds to Concerned Constituents

Columnist Robert Novak didn't exactly do Rep. Chris Van Hollen a favor when he characterized him as a "critic" of Israel based on a letter that Rep. Van Hollen sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. As I explained in an earlier post, I thought Van Hollen's letter was a lot friendlier to Israel and far more nuanced than Novak's quick characterization of it even if I disagree with him on some points. Most critically, I think the letter came from the perspective of a concerned friend rather than an unblinking critic.

Rep. Van Hollen has sent letters explaining his position further to constituents who wrote to him expressing their concern about his letter to Secretary Rice. Due to the controversy, it seems worthwhile to repeat that letter to constituents here even if it is a bit long for a blog entry so that Rep. Van Hollen gets a chance to speak for himself:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with my July 30, 2006 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Like you, I take this matter extremely seriously and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on issues that have been raised regarding the letter.

First and foremost, I hope you will read the letter in the context of my deep-rooted support for the State of Israel. I have always stood proudly in solidarity with Israel, and supported every pro-Israel resolution in the Congress. I understand that Israel faces determined enemies that seek its total destruction, and I have been and remain totally committed to fighting to ensure the security of Israel. That commitment is based on my personal conviction regarding the strong historical, moral, and strategic ties that bind us together. Supporting a strong Israel is in the best interests of America. I have repeatedly made the point that on 9/11 Americans experienced the kind of terror that Israelis must confront on an ongoing basis. The United States and Israel have common values and share a joint determination to prevail in the war on terror. I have said that many times before and it is in that spirit that I wrote the letter to Secretary Rice.

Israel is under siege. As I stated in my letter to Secretary Rice, Hezbollah rocket attacks “have fallen indiscriminately in Haifa and other population centers.” They are fired with one purpose – to kill innocent people and terrorize the community. Israel is once again fighting a foe, armed by Iran, both of whom would like to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is fighting for its life and I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that America continues to stand with it in this struggle. I recognize the absolute gravity of the situation and certainly did not intend for my letter to the Secretary to cause any anxiety to those most affected by the crisis. Indeed, it was intended to address issues vital to the security of Israel and the United States.

The overarching theme of my three-page letter to Secretary Rice was a critique of what I believe to be the consequences of the Bush Administration’s failed policies in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, especially the war in Iraq. I believe those policies have severely diminished our influence in the region at a critical moment. The war in Iraq has inflamed anti-Western sentiment and boosted the most radical Islamic forces in the region. The biggest beneficiary has been Iran, which has successfully exploited the chaos and instability in neighboring (and, like Iran, predominantly Shia) Iraq to expand its influence in the region, including through its support of Hezbollah. My letter to Secretary Rice also addresses the internal tensions in the way in which the Administration has pursued its democracy promotion efforts (i.e., pushing for elections at the same time that our policies – like the war in Iraq – are bound to produce governments hostile to Israel and America). It also addresses the false claims the Administration made regarding the positive impact the war in Iraq would have in advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. (I raised this issue not in the context of the current crisis with Hezbollah, but as another example of claims made by the Administration regarding the benefits of going to war in Iraq that have not been borne out by subsequent developments.)

That is the overall framework and purpose of my letter to Secretary Rice. I believe many Bush Administration policies have failed to advance the shared interests of the United States and Israel. I am sorry if my strong criticism of the Bush Administration’s failures has been interpreted as a criticism of Israel’s conduct in the current crisis. That was certainly not my intention.

A key issue addressed in my letter to Secretary Rice is how to best isolate, disarm and defeat Hezbollah. I have long held that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that needs to be defeated, including most recently in a July 28, 2006 letter that I sent to the European Parliament along with some of my congressional colleagues. I believe the Bush Administration and the international community should have been much more proactive prior to the current crisis in working to effectively implement Security Council Resolution 1559. It was absolutely clear that the Lebanese government and army did not have the military capability to confront Hezbollah (even if they had the will). Yet we did little to strengthen those capabilities or assist them in interdicting arms shipments to Hezbollah from Iran via Syria. That failure helped precipitate the current crisis.

I also believe that in the current crisis the Bush Administration missed an opportunity to exercise effective leadership. You may disagree with that conclusion, but let me explain the basis for this belief as I address misinterpretations made by some regarding two points in my letter to Secretary Rice – one relating to the scope of military force used by Israel and the other relating to the issue of a cease-fire.

Scope of Military Force: My letter to Secretary Rice makes four things absolutely clear. First, that “Hezbollah precipitated the current crisis in the region.” Second, that “Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself.” Third, that “Israel is entirely justified in using the maximum force necessary to hit Hezbollah military targets.” And fourth, that “Hezbollah is undeniably the culprit” for the killings of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure, not only in Israel, but in Lebanon. My letter is absolutely clear that Hezbollah bears responsibility for all those losses. Moreover, I endorsed and supported that view when, on July 20, 2006, I voted for H. Res. 921 that “condemns Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including homes and mosques.” Obviously, when we are fighting a war of this nature there will be civilian deaths despite Israel’s best efforts to avoid them. Therefore, and I want to make this crystal clear, I have never suggested that Israel’s military actions are not justified. Nor have I suggested that anyone, except Hezbollah, was culpable in the loss of civilian lives and infrastructure in both Israel and Lebanon. For that reason, I have rejected the charge made by many that Israel has used disproportionate force in Lebanon. I intentionally did not use that phraseology in my letter because I believe the extent and level of force used have been justified.

The point I made in my letter is more narrow and practical. It does not have to do with whether the level and extent of force used by Israel is justifiable. It is. The issue I raised was whether the Bush Administration had an opportunity to help resolve the crisis at a moment when most of the world had turned against Hezbollah by, among other things, asking Israel to temporarily slow down parts of its justifiable military offensive. By all accounts there was a point in time when the majority of people in Lebanon, including Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, blamed Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into the conflict. At that juncture, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, as well as the Arab League, issued unprecedented denunciations of Hezbollah. I believe that was a moment when effective American diplomacy -- combined with the ongoing threat of Israeli military action -- could have politically isolated Hezbollah and made it easier to neutralize them and focus united international pressure on Syria and Iran.

I may be wrong about that. We will never know. What we do know is that at some point in time many Lebanese people opposed to Hezbollah concluded that they were becoming the victims of the war. The tide of public opinion has now turned. Hasan Nasrallah, the man who was seen as putting Lebanon at risk, has now been hailed in the Arab, and much of the Muslim world, as the protector of Lebanon. We must now work tirelessly to ensure that the end result of the current course of action is not a Hezbollah that wields even greater influence in the region.

The Cease Fire Issue: On this issue, I believe some ambiguity in my letter has created understandable confusion. I want to make it clear that I deliberately declined to co-sponsor the legislation (H. Con. Res. 450) introduced in the Congress calling upon the President to push for an immediate cease fire and commit U.S. diplomats to multi-party negotiations “with no preconditions.” As I stated in my letter, any such cease-fire must be accompanied by “the rapid deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon.” Moreover, the cease-fire I envisioned in the letter would allow Israeli forces to stay in place in southern Lebanon until the deployment of the international forces, a matter that is now a subject of debate at the United Nations. Obviously, it makes no sense for Israeli forces to withdraw only to have Hezbollah fill the void.

As I stated later in my letter, the international forces deployed in Lebanon must have a “strong mandate” and the “starting point should be the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for the dismantling of all independent militias in Lebanon.” I intentionally did not call for the deployment of United Nations forces. History, as well as the current crisis, has demonstrated their inability to prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel. In addition, I expressly raised reservations about the ability, and, increasingly, the willingness of the Lebanese army to confront Hezbollah and implement Resolution 1559. A viable and effective international force will be required to ensure that Hezbollah can no longer attack Israel.

I also believe that international forces should be deployed along the Lebanese-Syrian border to block the re-supply of rockets and other armaments from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. That must be a priority. As I stated in my letter, “The United States must do more to rally international efforts to pressure Syria and Iran to end their support for Hezbollah and Syria.” It was for that reason that I was an original co-sponsor of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. That legislation gave the Bush Administration a full array of tools to use to apply greater pressure on Syria. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has failed to exercise many of its authorities under that legislation. For that reason, on August 1, 2006 I joined with some of my colleagues in Congress in sending a letter to the President urging him to take tougher action.

Conclusion

As I stated at the outset, I remain resolute in my support for Israel. My letter to Secretary Rice was sent in the firm belief that policies of the Bush Administration in the Middle East and Southwest Asia have unfortunately failed to adequately address serious security challenges faced by the both the United States and Israel. I am sorry that my letter to the Secretary has caused misunderstandings. I hope this letter has addressed your concerns or, at the very least, distilled the points of disagreement. You may dispute certain policy conclusions that I reach, but I hope you won’t question my motivation. While we may disagree on certain points, we share the common goal of ensuring that the United States and Israel will prevail in the war on terror and in guaranteeing the long-term survival and vitality of the State of Israel.

Sincerely,

Chris Van Hollen
Member of Congress

I should also probably mention that Rep. Van Hollen made a trip to Israel in the wake of the recent war with Hezbollah. You can find out more about his thoughts about U.S.-Israel relations on his campaign website.