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: Introduced7/30/10 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 theGaza 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 onLebanon
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 ensureUS 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: "TheUnited 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 toLebanon (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 thatIsrael 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
On8/3/10 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 fromGaza 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 ofUS 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 madeMiddle 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, anyUS 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 onIran Sanctions
On8/3/10 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 onIran 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 thatU.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 isolateIran 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 ofIran sanctions
implementation.
The Foreign Affairs Committee will also hold a hearing this fall onIran 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 ofIsrael , 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 theUS 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 inIsrael '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 whatIsrael 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 atCamp 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 ofJerusalem 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 fromWashington -- 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 toIsrael , the Middle East , and the Hill.
========================================
(Israel-Flotilla) H. Res. 1599: Introduced
Comment: Almost two months after the
2. Pressure on
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
-- 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
-- JINSA circulated a memo that implicitly bashing the Obama Administration for providing military aid to
- The Israeli press is reporting that
For more see:
-
-
-
3.
On
APN to Obama: Help Prevent Escalation between Israel and Lebanon, Gaza
Americans for Peace Now (
"This morning's violent clashes on the Israel-Lebanon border come close on the heels a recent uptick in rocket fire from
"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
"
"Since taking office, the Obama Administration has made
"Finally, another stark similarity today to 2006 is the absence of sufficient, or in some cases, any
4. New House Working Group on
On
Berman, Ros-Lehtinen Announce Launch of Bipartisan Working Group on
"Today we are initiating a working group that will help ensure that
"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
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
The Foreign Affairs Committee will also hold a hearing this fall on
5.
Obama, Abbas, and calling the 'direct talks' bluff
Lara Friedman |
(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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
========================================