To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the Week Ending August 6, 2010

1. Bills and Resolutions
2. Pressure on Lebanon
3. APN on Israel-Lebanon and Gaza Tensions
4. New House Working Group on Iran Sanctions
5. APN on Direct Talks (Obama, Abbas, and Calling the 'Direct Talks" Bluff)

1.  Bills & Resolutions
 
(Israel-Flotilla) H. Res. 1599: Introduced 7/30/10 by Reps. McCarthy (D-NY) and Myrick (R-NC), "Reaffirming support for Israel as a longtime friend, ally, and strategic partner of the United States and Israel's right to defend itself." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
 
Comment:  Almost two months after the Gaza flotilla debacle, the issue continues to be viewed by some members as the gift that keeps on giving.  This latest (and much belated) resolution is the fourth flotilla-related piece of legislation introduced in the House (the others are: HR 5501, HR 1532, and H. Res. 1440) - all of which are redundant, given the AIPAC-backed sign-on letter regarding the flotilla that has, as of now, been signed by 338 House members (AIPAC has thoughtfully posted the list of signers here).  This letter is in addition to the many, many, many statements made for the record by House members regarding the flotilla (which AIPAC has again thoughtfully collected here).  None of these pieces of legislation are mentioned or endorsed on the AIPAC website.
 
2.  Pressure on Lebanon
 
In the wake of the extremely serious incident this week on the Israel-Lebanon border - in which it is now generally accepted that the Israeli military, operating inside Israeli territory, was fired on first by the Lebanese - pressure appears to be mounting on Congress to punish Lebanon. It also appears that groundwork is being laid in advance to ensure US support for Israel in the case of another Lebanon war. 
 
-- AIPAC has circulated a memo arguing that the Lebanese Army is cooperating with Hizballah, and stating that unless this stops, "Washington must reevaluate its relationship with the Beirut government and the Lebanese Armed Forces--the recipient of significant American military aid."   The memo also states: "The United States should also continue to stand with Israel and prevent unbalanced and unfair criticism of the Jewish state if Israel is forced to take military action to defend itself." (note that this language is forward-looking - not referring to prevent such criticism in the context of this latest incident, but in the context of future potential Israeli actions).
 
-- JINSA circulated a memo that implicitly bashing the Obama Administration for providing military aid to Lebanon (something that the Bush Administration did as well).  The memo also appears to explicitly call for Israel to launch a new war in Lebanon and takes a shot at the Obama Administration in advance for being insufficiently supportive of such an action.  The memo notes:  "Israel is faced with aggressive enemies who are ratcheting up their attacks, and at some point Israel will have to respond with offense. Today's firefight with the LAF and the precision bombing of a Hamas bomb maker's house in Gaza are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient measures to restore equilibrium. And equilibrium is only tentative.  The real measure of American support for the security of Israel will be its attitude toward hard decisions the Government of Israel may have to take to protect its people from enemies outside its borders. Today's response by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley - 'The last thing that we want to see is this incident expand into something more significant' - was weak and disappointing under the circumstances."
 
- The Israeli press is reporting that Israel will launch "a diplomatic campaign" to convince the US (and France) to end military assistance to Lebanon.
 
For more see:
 
- Jerusalem Post:  Congress May Pull Lebanon Aid.   The article quotes Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) stating, ""To start shooting as they did - one person killed, one seriously injured - is a very serious move by the Lebanese army...It certainly is going to come up in our conversations in the Congress about the continued support of the Lebanese Army...If in fact it's factually shown that this was a Lebanese government authorized action, I think a lot of members would be very concerned about continuing to provide military support to Lebanon...I certainly would be.'" Klein is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has the authority to authorize (and restrict) foreign aid.  However, the HCFA very rarely actually passes the legislation necessary to exercise this authority (in the form of a foreign relations authorization bill), leaving jurisdiction over foreign assistance in the hands of the Appropriations Committee (of which Klein is not a member). 
 
- Jerusalem Post:  Oren Decries Ties between LAF, Hizballah.  The article notes that: "Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) called the Lebanese Army's actions 'troubling and problematic.' ...Towns, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the committee's oversight authority can be used 'to ensure that United States assistance does not go to states and entities that are hostile to Israel.'"  It should be noted that the Committee on Oversight and Reform has no jurisdiction over foreign aid and no authority to restrict funding to Lebanon (or any country).  The only thing Towns' committee could do would be to investigate the issue and then come to the HCFA or the Appropriations committee with recommendations (and of course, as an individual member Towns could offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill when it comes to the House floor).
 
- Jerusalem Post:  Column One: Israel's American-made foes. The article, by right-wing ideologue Caroline Glick, argues that the US, bears direct responsibility for this week's border shooting, since the US is providing military aid to Lebanon.  The article extends criticism of US assistance to Lebanon to apply as well to US assistance to the Palestinians.  Glick accuses the US of "abetting and aiding the war against Israel by supporting the LAF and the Palestinian military" and of "building armies for its enemies."
 
3.  APN on Israel-Lebanon and Gaza Tensions
 
On 8/3/10 APN circulated the following statement:
 
APN to Obama: Help Prevent Escalation between Israel and Lebanon, Gaza
 
Americans for Peace Now (APN) today called on the Obama Administration to act quickly and resolutely to prevent an escalation of tensions and military action on the Israel-Lebanon border and between Israel and Gaza.
 
APN President and CEO Debra DeLee commented: 
 
"This morning's violent clashes on the Israel-Lebanon border come close on the heels a recent uptick in rocket fire from Gaza and retaliatory air strikes by Israel.  With both of these fronts heating up, the situation is painfully reminiscent of the period that led to Israel's military engagements in both Lebanon and Gaza in 2006.  At that time, the Bush Administration chose to sit on the sidelines, viewing the dual crises as a "moment of opportunity" to change the Middle East landscape.  In doing so, it deliberately allowed fighting to careen out of control into full-scale war, to the detriment of the thousands of Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis killed and injured in the conflict.
 
"The Obama Administration must not repeat this fateful mistake.  Now is the time for urgent, resolute engagement to prevent an escalation of hostilities on both fronts, bringing to bear the full force of US influence on all parties involved, and pressing US allies in the region and around the world to do the same.  
 
"Israel has a right to defend its territory and citizens.  While it is not yet clear what precisely happened on the Israel-Lebanon border this morning, and debate is ongoing over who in Gaza is responsible for the firing of rockets into Israel in recent days, it is absolutely clear that the potential for a tragic and devastating escalation on both fronts is very real.  It is equally clear that if this escalation occurs, it will be civilians on all sides who will once again pay the price, and that the stability of the entire region will be at risk. 
 
"Since taking office, the Obama Administration has made Middle East peace one of its top foreign policy priorities.  Now it must recognize that Middle East peace is not only a matter of pushing Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table.  The Obama Administration must recognize the potential for fighting on both of these fronts to escalate into something much bigger and more dangerous - with the very real possibility of clashes spreading to involve Syria and the of Iran using its influence to escalate things further.  Such a situation would have devastating effects not only on efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, but on the full range of US interests in the region and beyond.
 
"Finally, another stark similarity today to 2006 is the absence of sufficient, or in some cases, any US communication channels to key players in the region.  It is critical today of all days that the US be able to engage intensively with Syria and Lebanon.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's nominees for US Ambassador to Damascus and Beirut have yet to be confirmed by the Senate.  In addition, the Obama Administration has continued the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to communicate, directly or indirectly, with Hamas and Hezbollah.  As we suggested in 2006, the US may need to reconsider this policy, or at a minimum, work to set up channels using Arab and European allies as intermediaries - not as a reward for terror but as responsible policy to protect vital U.S. national security interests."
 
4.  New House Working Group on Iran Sanctions
 
On 8/3/10 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs announced the formation of bipartisan working group devoted to ensuring full implementation of Iran sanctions.  This goal is consistent with the http://www.aipac.org/694.asp#37956 (link has expired) top advocacy item of AIPAC right now - pushing Members of Congress to ensure "accountability" in Iran sanction.
 
Berman, Ros-Lehtinen Announce Launch of Bipartisan Working Group on Iran Sanctions Implementation
 
Washington, DC - Congressman Howard L. Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Ranking Republican Member of the Committee, today released the following statement regarding their initiation of a bipartisan Working Group on Iran Sanction Implementation:
 
"Today we are initiating a working group that will help ensure that U.S. and international sanctions on Iran are fully implemented, effectively enforced and, ultimately, have the intended effect of bringing about Iran's termination of all activities contributing to its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability."
 
"The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, which was signed into law by President Obama on July 1, has already had a significant impact on Iran's access to international markets and its ability to acquire refined petroleum."
 
"We will continue to pressure and isolate Iran until it terminates its illicit nuclear weapons activities.  A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable."
 
The bipartisan Working Group on Iran Sanctions Implementation will meet on a regular basis with Administration officials, foreign ambassadors, and outside experts to oversee and verify enforcement of Iran sanctions implementation.
 
The Foreign Affairs Committee will also hold a hearing this fall on Iran sanctions implementation.
 
5.  APN on Direct Talks (Obama, Abbas, and Calling the 'Direct Talks" Bluff)
 
Obama, Abbas, and calling the 'direct talks' bluff
Lara Friedman | July 30, 2010
(Published on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel)
 
Yesterday's decision by the Arab League to endorse direct Israeli-Palestinian talks -- an endorsement that apparently is not, as some have reported, conditioned on additional concrete assurances from the Obama administration -- increases the chances that President Abbas will at last test the resolve of his counterpart regarding direct Israeli-Palestinian talks.
 
No, the counterpart I am referring to is not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, but President Barack Obama. 
 
The Obama administration is pressuring Abbas to take a huge leap of faith and enter direct talks despite pervasive doubts about Netanyahu's commitment to negotiating peace. And the Obama administration has pressured the Arab League to puts its kosher stamp on such talks to make it harder for Abbas to say keep saying "no".
 
When Abbas and his Arab allies have asked President Obama for reassurances that the talks won't end badly, President Obama is reportedly telling them, including in a recent letter: trust me, I'll deliver Bibi.
 
Given these conditions, if Abbas agrees to talks -- as I believe he must -- he should in the same breath throw down the gauntlet to Obama, making clear that direct talks will be as much a test of US intentions and resolve as they are of Israel's and the Palestinians'. He should make the case, publicly, that he is trusting the US to live up to its assurances. He should make explicit his expectation that the US will not just sit by, impotently, if Israel engages in behavior that is inimical to serious, productive, good-faith negotiations -- not unless the US wants to be responsible for wasting what may be the last, best opportunity for peace.
 
Abbas has good reasons to be worried about direct talks.
 
There is every reason to believe that Netanyahu is less interested in an agreement and more interested in protracted negotiations that serve his political interests, both domestically and internationally. One need only look at the recently-surfaced video of Netanyahu talking to a group of West Bank settlers in 2001 -- in which Netanyahu brags that he knows how to manipulate the US and that he personally derailed Oslo -- to understand this concern. Moreover, there is the fact that Netanyahu has assembled the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history -- including people like Benny Begin and Eli Yishai, both of whom are dead-set against the kinds of steps Israel would have to take to get a peace agreement.
 
Netanyahu's handling of proximity talks only strengthens concern that direct negotiations won't be serious. By all accounts the Palestinians came to proximity talks with a serious, professional negotiating team, with position papers, and with concrete proposals regarding final status issues. Netanyahu, on the other hand, has yet to name a negotiating team. His representatives to the talks, rather than talking final-status issues, have reportedly wasted everyone's time focusing on what Israel can't do, instead of exploring what it can.
 
Abbas also has good reason to worry that once talks start his limits will be tested with developments that will seriously embarrass him and further erode his credibility. Abbas surely remembers Netanyahu's decision, immediately after signing the Hebron Agreement, to approve construction of the new Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa. And Abbas surely remembers that despite the slap-in-the-face this decision represented to the US-backed peace process, Washington turned out to be powerless to stop it.
 
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, Abbas would be a fool not to fear that if direct talks fall apart, he will be blamed, regardless of the circumstances. He cannot help but recall the experience at Camp David, where the Palestinians did not want to go into direct talks and were quietly assured by the White House that whatever happened, they would not be blamed. And when Camp David collapsed, of course, they were. And Abbas cannot fail to notice that some of the same players who blamed the Palestinians after Camp David's collapse, in a failed effort to help then-Prime Minister Barak stave off an electoral defeat, are once again involved in formulating White House policy.
 
Many are suggesting today that Abbas should agree to direct talks to call Netanyahu's bluff, but if the day arrives when Netanyahu's game-playing and provocations are turning direct talks into a farce, it will be the actions and statements of the United States, not Abbas, that will determine whether Netanyahu gets away with it. Given past experience, Abbas has good reason to worry that on that day, rather than getting tough with Netanyahu, the Obama administration will pressure him to remain in talks, even at the loss of the last shred of Abbas' personal credibility. Abbas has good reason to fear that, should there be some act so egregious -- like approval of Jerusalem mayor Barkat's plan to "re-develop" Silwan into a settlers' paradise at the expense of the Palestinian residents -- that he is compelled to suspend the talks, it will be Abbas, not Netanyahu, who will end up being blamed for killing the peace process.
 
So let's be clear: Abbas' reluctance to say "yes" to direct talks is understandable.
 
Yet despite all these reservations, the time has come for Abbas to stop saying "no" and say "yes". The Arab League's decision to support direct talks -- despite not getting additional concrete assurances from Washington -- will make this a little easier for him to do.
 
But when he says "yes", it should be a smart "yes" -- one accompanied by an unequivocal and unapologetic message that Washington must bear its fair share of responsibility for the success or failure of the entire endeavor; a message that if the Obama administration wants direct talks it will get them, but their success or failure will depend in large part on the President's readiness to live up to his assurances and not permit Prime Minister Netanyahu to transform the talks into a diplomatic charade and a political exercise in futility.
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================