On Thursday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted down a bill submitted by Congress member Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) that would have forced the President to end support for Israel’s ongoing invasion of Lebanon.
Ninety-one Democrats supported the bill, a surprising number, and as did one Republican (outgoing Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie), reflecting the changing tides of Middle East politics on Capitol Hill. Still, the 177 Democrats who voted against it show there is still a long way to go.
But Tlaib wasn’t done. Knowing this bill would go down to defeat, on Wednesday, she introduced a second war powers resolution. This updated version, which was written in consultation with Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee Gregory Meeks (D-NY), allows for the U.S. to maintain its presence in Lebanon as long as it refrains from joining in the fighting and the Lebanese government continues to request it. That bill has considerably more Democratic support, though it will need to be fully supported by the entire Democratic caucus and secure a few Republican votes to pass.
Getting even those few Republicans will be difficult, but there is real support among Republican voters, as well as overwhelming support from Democratic voters to pressure Israel to end its invasion of Lebanon. While Congress won’t be able to override a presidential veto on such a resolution, the political pressure of a bipartisan measure, combined with the fact that Trump has no stake in Israel’s occupation and it only complicates his efforts to find a resolution to the war of choice he started with Iran would be a big step toward reining Israel in.
Aggravating and pushing the Democrats
Tlaib’s decision to push for a vote on both bills ruffled some Democratic feathers. They were unhappy that Tlaib had put them in a position where they would be forced to vote against a bill opposing the war on Lebanon.
Whether they support that war is not the issue, at least not for all of them. Democrats understand the war in Lebanon is unpopular and is seen, correctly, by many of their constituents as an extension of Donald Trump’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war of choice on Iran.
But the bill Tlaib put forth, Democrats argued, risked calling for the full withdrawal of all American involvement in Lebanon, including support to the Lebanese military.
Although that seems to be a stretch of the text of Tlaib’s first war powers bill, H. Con. Res. 84, it is possible to interpret the bill in that way. That reading gave most Democrats a legitimate excuse to back away from the bill.
According to reports in Axios, “House Democrats (were) caught between their wariness about being seen as condoning Israel’s actions and the fact that there is no indication the U.S. is planning imminent, large-scale ground operations in Lebanon.”
Tlaib argued that the bill would have applied to the material assistance in weapons, intelligence, and political support that the Trump administration gives to the Israeli war effort.
“Poll after poll shows that the American people do not support our government sending a blank check and unlimited military assistance to the Israeli government as it massacres thousands of innocent civilians and demolishes entire cities and communities,” Tlaib told Axios.
Democrats were reluctant to come out publicly against the bill, with major Democratic figures like Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Meeks, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes, and Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith all claiming to be “undecided” on Tlaib’s resolution.
That was a green light for other Democrats to vote “no.”
But Tlaib rewrote the bill with Meeks, to address the excuse many of the Democrats used. The revised bill was submitted on Wednesday and called for “…the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from any hostilities in Lebanon by not later than the date that is 7 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.”
A strategy for future votes
While many mainstream Democrats continue to support Israeli aggression, they now must contend with the reality that their constituents don’t. Tlaib’s decision to submit a second war powers resolution, which addressed the technical objections pro-Israel Democrats voiced, pressed the Democratic leadership to issue a statement in advance of their collective “no” votes on Tlaib’s first resolution when the roll was called on Thursday.
In a joint statement, Jeffries, democratic Whip Katherine Clark, and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar wrote,
“We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah, a violent terrorist organization that is a sworn enemy of the United States…Currently, there are no U.S. servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon. In our view, the best legislative vehicle to keep U.S. troops out of Lebanon is the War Powers Resolution introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib yesterday, with full support and input from Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks. Accordingly, we will vote No on H.Con.Res.84 and look forward to working with Congressmember Tlaib to support and build consensus for H.Con.Res.108.”
In other words, by pressing the vote on Thursday, Tlaib forced House Democratic leadership to publicly commit to supporting the new bill she had submitted the day before.
In a statement released after her bill was defeated, Tlaib said, “I look forward to House Democratic leadership swiftly delivering on their promise to support H. Con. Res. 108, a new Lebanon War Powers resolution, and reassert Congressional authority to put an end to U.S. participation in this unjust invasion. Lebanon can’t wait.”
Democrats might have been angry with her, but Tlaib worked this very cleverly. By submitting the new bill the day before pressing the vote on the old one, she gave Democrats an opportunity to state their opposition to Hezbollah for their donors, but also, at least potentially, to vote to end all American support for the war on Lebanon, a war that, if it were to end would also make the path to getting out of the disastrous quagmire in Iran much easier.
Of course, it remains to be seen if Democrats will keep to their word on this. The public commitment to do so helps, but significant work would need to be done in the House to get this bill to the floor. And, even if Democrats do keep their promise, at least a few Republicans would need to be swayed too. Beyond that, Israel would do all it could to undermine any effort to rein in its assault on Lebanon. It’s far from certain that President Donald Trump would not veto such a war powers resolution, as he likely will regarding Iran if it comes to his desk.
Whether intentional or not, Tlaib’s initial war powers bill allowed her the opportunity to frame what her party would sign on to. The complaints about it from Democrats could not focus on supporting Israel’s actions, which are overwhelmingly opposed by Democratic voters. In essence, Tlaib got mainstream Democrats to frame the bill they would have to support, then got a powerful Democrat to help her in writing it. It’s a tactic progressives might consider using more often in the future.
Still, the prospect of Congress voting to rein in Israeli aggression is groundbreaking. It remains an uphill battle, but Tlaib, who might be justifiably criticized for initially putting forth a bill that was too easy for her fellow Democrats to oppose, has now maneuvered the War Powers resolution into a position where its passage is not unrealistic. That would not have been possible a few years ago.
Republican bigotry vs Democratic delusions
During debate on Tlaib’s bill, Ohio Republican Max Miller, a fanatical pro-Israel hawk, said of Hezbollah, “its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent” and then, directly to Tlaib: “Yes, you advocate for terrorists on a daily basis. You advocate for a terrorist regime every single day.”
Miller, who led the successful fight to have Rep. Ilhan Omar removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2023, has a long history of attacks on Tlaib as well.
When Tlaib immediately objected to the “direct attack on my character,” she initiated a process by which Miller’s words were stricken from the record, and he was ordered, by Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte, to be silenced in the House chamber for the remainder of the debate.
Before Obernolte silenced Miller, he said to Tlaib, “I’m sorry. Are we getting a little emotional?” a sneering reference both to Tlaib’s gender and her reputation for refusing to hide her emotions when speaking in the House.
Even after he was silenced, Miller worked with the notoriously racist Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) to double down on his statement, having Mast read out Miller’s statement saying, “Yes, I said it. I own it. I stand by it.”
Republican hate stands in contrast to the myopia of the Democratic leadership statement, but both are problematic in their own way.
It’s worth noting that the Democratic statement, while expressing support for Tlaib’s new resolution, starts off by completely mischaracterizing the situation in Lebanon, by framing their purported “solidarity” with the Lebanese people as standing with them “against Hezbollah.”
As much as Republican bigotry, this attitude interferes with any ambition to help Lebanon finally rebuild its shattered state.
There is no way to deal with Lebanon and to excise Hezbollah. Yes, many Lebanese oppose and even dislike Hezbollah. But it also represents a significant number of Lebanese and is a major component of Lebanon’s government.
What the Democrats are implicitly calling for is yet more Lebanese civil war, although Tlaib’s resolution, as currently written, would not contribute to that.
Tlaib is rightly trying to find a way to remove American support for Israel’s invasion, not to reframe the American view of Lebanon to one that would be more constructive. That is a longer battle, one which this resolution could possibly help with.
The Lebanese government, when it was finally constituted last year, intended to try to work with Hezbollah to incorporate its fighters into the Lebanese military. That was always going to be a difficult task, but it is not possible if Israel is occupying southern Lebanon.
Both the Trump administration and Democratic leadership are opposed to that approach and want to see Hezbollah destroyed and, if possible, expunged from the Lebanese government.
Until that approach changes, Tlaib’s effort to limit American interference is the best we can hope for.
Mitchell Plitnick
Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and maintains the Cutting Through newsletter on Substack.
