"Going To Meet The Man" (On The Day Of The Flour Massacre)

A Sit-In at Congressman Huffman's Office Resulted in a Zoom Meeting between Huffman and Marin DSA's Palestine Solidarity Committee

If you were watching the Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting last Tuesday, you might have noticed a foreshadowing of what was to come the following day. On Tuesday, a mild-mannered, middle-aged white man with a slight stammer earnestly addressed the Board's responsibility to agendize and pass an Israel/Palestine ceasefire resolution. At that particular moment, the Palestinian civilian death toll from Israel's bombardment of Gaza already exceeded 30,000, and the Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme had just informed the UN Security Council that more than 500,000 people were at risk of imminent famine in Gaza.

This man's appearance was nothing new: the effort to urge the Board to pass a ceasefire resolution has been ongoing since late 2023, and he was only one of many who spoke in support of ceasefire last Tuesday. But despite the man's soft stammer, he spoke so eloquently that I missed the hint. He'd opened his comments by stating that he and his cohort were at the Board of Supervisors because they had been repeatedly rebuffed by their U.S. Congressional Representative, Jared Huffman. What happened the next day was a sit-in of Congressman Huffman's San Rafael office, in which the same mild-mannered fellow took part as part of DSA-Marin's Palestine Solidarity Committee (DSA-PSC).

The Sit-In

The Committee reported that the sit-in occurred after the group had repeatedly reached out to Huffman with no reply, other than being given various alternate email addresses to try. The alternate email addresses also resulted in no response from Huffman, who represents California's powerful 2nd District. So there in his office they gathered. To be fully accurate, the sit-in appears to have been located in Congressman Huffman's hallway, as the group was not permitted into the office. But after some back and forth (and after the small group had been improperly removed from the hallway by building management after they taped to the hallway walls paper memorials to Palestinians killed by Israel), Huffman's office agreed to a zoom meeting scheduled for the following morning, February 29.

Meticulously careful notes from the meeting were produced by the committee, and generously shared. It was such a wealth of information, and such an impressive feat they’d pulled off, that I admit to being uncertain about how best to present it. In the end, I thought a synopsis of the conversation hewing to the notes would be the approach most useful to readers at this time.

A Committee of Marin Residents

The Marin DSA-PSC includes at least one Palestinian American, and the group's questions were valuably informed by that inclusion. But it was also a group effort. Because of the ongoing violence against Palestinian Americans, I have decided not to name the Palestinian committee member, nor, by extension, any members of the group at this time. The individual chosen by the group to be the interlocutor for the meeting did a brilliant job of calmly, diplomatically questioning Huffman. And while Huffman's replies seemed canned in a manner that suggests careful vetting by AIPAC and/or the Biden administration (see Huffman’s “over the top” comment near the end), the young interlocutor displayed great skill in pushing back on Huffman's responses.

First things

The meeting began with the group introducing itself as the “Marin DSA Palestine Solidarity Committee”. They stated that they are constituents of Huffman's Congressional District, and that they represent thousands of constitutents supporting a ceasefire in the region. As a committee, they said they were focused on a set of issues, all of which seem vital and necessary given the current situation. The issues were listed as: a permanent ceasefire, stopping military aid to Israel, ending the occupation, defending the rights of Palestinian children, freeing all political prisoners and hostages, and recognizing the Israeli government's crime of apartheid. They then indicated they had questions about Huffman's policies.

Huffman replied that he was happy to answer questions and hoped for more of a dialogue, rather than a one-sided conversation. DSA-PSC's point person agreed.

First Question: Humanitarian Aid

DSA-PSC stated their concerns about the lack of humanitarian aid, and correctly identified Huffman's proposed ceasefire being conditioned on release of only Israeli hostages, along with dismantling of Hamas. DSA-PSC pointed out that besieged Palestinian civilians were in no condition to release hostages or dismantle Hamas. They cited the Flour Massacre, which had just occurred hours earlier (in which it was later determined that 118 had been killed and 760 wounded.) They said that it appeared Israel was trying to maintain the famine as a "bargaining chip" in negotiations, and that this was unreasonable with children dying every day of malnutrition.

Huffman's dissembling seemed to begin here, in his first reply. He stated that he never linked humanitarian aid to the release of hostages. But this appeared to be a distraction from DSA-PSC's original question, and a deflection from the reality on the ground.

DSA-PSC respectfully pushed back on Huffman's reply, explaining that a ceasefire was required in order to move humanitarian aid in. Huffman parried, trying to lose his questioner by talking about rebuilding Gaza, and possibly even a Palestinian state.

Huffman Focuses on Hamas, Not Ceasefire

Huffman then pivoted to the importance of a ceasefire being required of Hamas so that the ceasefire wasn't "one-sided".

DSA-PSC again asked where that left Palestinian children, who can't offer up Hamas to the Israeli government.

Huffman claimed there were multiple pieces of this. He said he had called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to target only Hamas. (Clearly, this has not been effective.) He offered that he saw culpability for Hamas in the civilian casualties as well, but: "I'm not saying Israel has done everything right. I've criticized them."

DSA-PSC stated that they weren't arguing for Hamas, but that Israel had created the humanitarian catastrophe by "sieging the gates", thereby forfeiting their ability to pursue solely Hamas.

In response, Huffman stated that "Hamas has primary culpability for this whole conflict." This is a popular opinion within the halls of Congress, but it is not how the situation is viewed by the majority of countries in the rest of the world, or even the majority of the world's population.

Huffman's "Sideboards"

To soften this statement, Huffman added that he'd proposed his own "sideboards" that he thought Israel should respect. Perhaps, he suggested, he might pursue what Van Hollen tried by codifying some restrictions and some end-use policy limitations on our military aid to Israel and other allies. (This is an interesting claim by Huffman, given that Israel's intransigence is so severe that we are now having to airdrop small parcels of food into Gaza because Israel is not permitting humanitarian aid to enter.)

Huffman then offered that he had been "super critical of Netanyahu and some of the more provocative members of his war cabinet and his government." That does not appear to have been "super" effective.

DSA-PSC asked Huffman about the possibility of calling for an absolute ceasefire, no matter what.

Huffman replied that he had called for that from "day one".

DSA-PSC then reasonably asked why Huffman could not also apply the same thing to Israel.

Huffman appeared to have shuffled, claiming that he "kind of" thought that's what he had been saying.

Why Huffman Doesn't Support Rep. Cori Bush's Ceasefire Resolution

In light of that claim, DSA-PSC asked if Huffman had signed on to House Resolution 786, the ceasefire resolution put forward by Congresswoman Cori Bush as early as October 16, 2023.

Huffman countered that House Resolution 786 doesn't mention the hostages or Hamas, and thus it wasn't the right "vehicle". But the point of House Resolution 786 is merely "ceasefire" for everyone, which would also have benefited all of the Israeli hostages who have been killed under the ongoing Israeli assault, as well as the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians killed since the resolution was introduced.

When asked about the children who have died, Huffman's reply was that they are "unfortunate victims of an inadequately restrained military response and Hamas." This seems a remarkable assertion given the magnitude of Israel's willful bombing of Gaza, and its point-blank executions of Palestinians of all ages, including children.

Huffman Thanked for Attempted Restoration of UNRWA Funding

DSA-PSC then asked Huffman about UNRWA funding being cut based on false claims that UNRWA workers were involved in the Hamas attack.

Huffman stated that he had signed on to a letter by Pramila Jayapal calling for a restoration of that funding, but that restoration would be difficult because the Senate supplemental bill prohibits funding to UNRWA. And he claimed that sereral UNRWA staffers in Gaza took part in the October 7 massacre.

DSA-PSC stated that they disagreed on the claims about the UNRWA staffers, but that they cared mainly about the end result, and so they thanked Huffman for signing onto Jayapal's letter.

The Founding of Hamas, and How Much Netanyahu Does or Does Not Represent Israel

A discussion ensued regarding the founding of Hamas, as DSA-PSC had attempted to at least provide context for how such a group had formed by providing background on its origins. Huffman stated that there was no "rosy origin story" for Hamas (although this did not appear to be the DSA-PSC's point.) Huffman stated that Hamas is a terrorist group and what they had done on October 7 and many other times is "really deplorable." (Huffman did not, however, identify the IDF as a "terrorist group", despite the nightmarish civilian death toll it has accrued in Gaza, and the voluminous video evidence showing terroristic acts by IDF soldiers, often while they are laughing or otherwise mugging for the camera.) Huffman stated that it would be hard to solve the conflict if Hamas were legitimated. As an aside, he added that he was also horrifed by violence by Israeli settlers, by terrible policies, and by Netanyahu.

DSA-PSC pointed out that the Netanyahu government appeared to be in line with the Israeli population. Huffman demurred, pointing to Israeli protest of Netanyahu. But DSA-PSC correctly pointed out that the mass Israeli protests were not over the bombardment of Gaza. (In fact, repeated polling has demonstrated that Netanyahu's genocidal policies are favored by the majority of the Israeli population, and for several weeks now Israelis have gathered to block humanitarian aid to Gaza with considerable "fanfare" as the famine on the other side continues. It is a surreal scene.)

Huffman countered by pointing to Netanyahu's current 80% disapproval rating in Israel. DSA- PSC pointed out that this was about corruption, and not Netanyahu's genocidal policies against Palestinians. DSA-PSC noted that the Knesset had just voted in a supermajority to not unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.

Huffman stated that he "completely deplored" Netanyahu's position on that.

DSA-PSC stressed that it wasn't just Netanyahu – close to a hundred Knesset members had voted with Netanyahu not to recognize a Palestinian state.

Huffman's Two-State "Two-Step"

Huffman then tried to justify that by saying that a two-state solution is less popular today in both Israel and the West Bank. But he stated thay he still sees it as the only path forward, one that is possible with "American leadership" and "a different government in Israel". Using a line you might hear from a used car salesman whose negotiation is faltering, Huffman then stated, "We can get it back on track and make it happen."

DSA-PSC responded, "What are you willing to do to provide that leverage?" This, they pointed out, was important since the path forward was going to involve a larger societal decision.

Huffman's answer appears rote. "That's what leadership is all about. You gotta get ahead of some of that, and you gotta lead." Huffman conceded that Palestinians have also lost faith in a two-state solution. Despite that, Huffman maintained, he continued to think it's the only way forward.

Thus, to Huffman, it appears that the path few Israelis or Palestinians want is "the only way forward."

DSA-PSC suggested a different path: a one-state solution with full democratic rights for all. In other words, they proposed a non-apartheid, non-ethnostate. To be fair, this is the model for the United States, no matter how routinely we fail to live up to it.

Huffman ignored the fact that this is in fact the American model, and replied that he just didn't think that works. He said a one-state solution would be a euphemism for ending the State of Israel.

DSA-PSC asked, how is that a euphemism for ending the State of Israel?

Huffman replied that with a one-state solution there would not be a Jewish homeland of any kind. It would require an entire "re-do" of the formation of Israel. He said he didn't know "how that could even be done institutionally, legally."

DSA-PSC asked Huffman if he could see how "it seems like everything is centered around creating a Jewish ethno-state when there's not that existing demographic?"

"Feelings"

Huffman replied he felt that there should be a Jewish and democratic State of Israel. He said that Israel was founded in 1947 "in a way that I feel is legitimate and should continue to be honored." He continued that it doesn't mean that they get to annex territory in the West Bank or Gaza, or that they get to ignore humanitarian standards or "the aspirations" of Palestinians. (But that does appear to be what it means.) Huffman offered that "Palestinians have rights and needs, too" and "I want them to have a state."

Demilitarize, But Only the Palestinian Side. What Could Go Wrong?

Huffman expanded on this point, saying that he is willing to pre-recognize a demilitarized Palestinian state right now. This strikes me as worth noting, given that Israel is a nuclear power, but in Huffman's view, a (finally) recognized Palestinian state, even after a genocidal assault by Israel, must necessarily be a "demilitarized" state.

DSA-PSC countered that the current situation is already a one-state solution with an apartheid rule. They pointed out the obvious vulnerability of a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Huffman's reply was contradictory. He said that he would be opposed to further annexation. He said, "You're gonna see me on letters and resoutions and all kinds of things condemning that." He stated that he was ready to crank up even more pressure to "better address" the occupation in the West Bank, the annexation, settler violence, and all the different home demolitions in East Jerusalem. "I've been there, I've seen it." And then, without a note of irony, he concluded, "I am for a two-state solution."

Huffman Will Not Recognize ICJ Decision?

DSA-PSC then asked Huffman how they felt about the ICJ ruling that Israel had plausibly commited genocide.

Huffman replied that he didn't think genocide was the right word. He offered that he was "heartbroken" but that "we've gotta be careful when we use a term like genocide because we don't want to, you know, diminish its impact when something that truly is a genocide happens."

Huffman then claimed that he'd heard from "scholars of genocide that are no fans of Israel" who agree with him that it's not a "precise fit" for the term "in this terrible situation."

DSA-PSC asked Huffman if he was aware of a much larger number of Holocaust scholars who believe the term is accurate.

Huffman answered that he didn't want to "throw the term around."

DSA-PSC asked if Huffman would respect whatever decision the ICJ makes. This seemed like such an easy question to answer "yes" to. But Huffman did not answer yes. Asked again, he parried, he deflected, he shuffled. But still no yes.

The US-Israel Relationship

Subsequent notes indicate Huffman stated that President Biden and this administration are concerned about the lack of humanitarian aid. He stated that it was "rather unprecedented that an American administration is trying to pressure an Israeli government the way that they are, trying to tell them to fundamentally change their plans in Rafah."

As DSA-PSC pointed out, this was true and not true, depending on how far back you start the clock. In prior decades, the US had threatened sanctions to move Israel out of Egypt. They stated that the US had also threatened military aid to get Israel to stop bombing and sieging Beirut.

Huffman conceded that James Baker was the last Secretary of State to confront Israel on settlements with any degree of seriousness.

This leaves the question of what caused that shift, particularly given that Israel is no longer of that much strategic importance to the US at this time, and in fact represents much more of a strategic liability to US interests.

"Over the Top"

DSA-PSC asked Huffman what motivated his support for Israel's military strategy, despite the fact that the families of the Israeli hostages want a "one-for-one" exchange that could have ended the conflict and subsequent humanitarian crisis months ago.

Huffman responded that the military approach was not what he himself would have drawn up, but that he is not the State of Israel. So the best he could do was to urge for more restraint and, he added: "I've criticized it (Israel's approach) as over the top." That "over the top" is the same odd expression used by President Biden (to much ridicule) to describe Israel's brutal assault on Palestinians.

Huffman said that he'd been willing to put restrictions into supplemental funding, and more "sideboards". He said that was the best he could do.

DSA-PSC countered that the US makes up approximately 85% of Israel's arsenal, and thus everything Israel does is essentially done with our sign-off.

Huffman sidestepped by saying we don't pre-approve every actions they take. He mentioned "sideboards" again. He said that we cannot end all military aid to Israel because of its vulnerability in the region.

DSA-PSC asked whether Israel had not been the aggressors in every "security threat" they'd ever gotten into.

Huffman insisted that he "didn't see it that way" and that Israel had been "on the receiving end of attacks more often than not."

Huffman was asked whether he acknowledged that Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. He responded that Israel was "pre-emptively defending against an impending attack by, I believe, every single one of its Arab country neighbors."

DSA-PSC asked whether we couldn't all say we were pre-emptively defending against imminent attacks. "For example, how do you feel about Hamas taking hostages?" implying that such could also be considered a pre-emptive defense by Huffman's definition.

Huffman replied, "It's terrible." Huffman then stated that he didn't consider every Palestinian in an Israeli prison to be a hostage.

DSA-PSC asked, "Would some be?"

Huffman said he didn't know, but offered "at least Israel has an independent judiciary."

Huffman’s Vaunted Environmental Reputation Is A Casualty of Israel's Actions

The last question for Huffman was about environmental preservation and the US military's role in environmental pollution. DSA-PSC pointed out that the equivalent of 3-4 nuclear bombs had been dropped in Gaza, an area about the size of Chicago. Was Huffman concerned about the environmental damage and related emissions?

Huffman's reply sounds on paper like a balloon that has lost the last of its air. He had no good answer for that. Even Huffman couldn't dissemble on the environmental devastation.

Conclusion

According to the notes, the meeting had been civil, substantive, and it had ended diplomatically. This raised some obvious questions:

Why was it necessary for pro-Palestinian activists to occupy Huffman's hallway just to get a zoom meeting, given that Huffman had so graciously granted multiple meetings to pro-Israel groups who promoted Israel's genocidal bombardment of Gaza, and restriction of humanitarian aid, over the last nearly five months?

What does it say about our local media landscape that you're reading about this meeting in subsantial detail on a substack account, and not in even the smallest detail in any of the local papers that have repeatedly granted so much space to pro-Israel and pro-genocide positions? Yes, I'm talking about The Marin Independent-Journal, and the once proudly anti-war Pacific Sun.

I don't have answers for that. But I'd like to make a suggestion. Huffman started and ended the conversation with a plea for dialogue rather than fractiousness. The notes indicate that the dialogue with DSA-PSC fulfilled that, and could serve as a model for 2nd Congressional District constituents. If you believe in dialogue and debate as a vital part of our representative democracy, perhaps you should contact Congressman Huffman and ask him to engage more regularly with all of his constituents, not just those who won't challenge his policies – and ask that he do so in a format that can be recorded and shared with the public.

©️2024 Eva Chrysanthe