To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-up for the Week Ending December 17, 2010

1. Bills and Resolutions
2. House Resolution on Palestinian Unilateral Statehood Efforts (H. Res. 1765)
3. Senate Takes on House over FY11 Approps (including ForOps). Then Gives Up.
4. Special for Ros-Lehtinen: Review of Conditions/Restrictions/Oversight on Palestinian Aid
5. APN on H. Res. 1765
6. Selected Congressional Statements on H. Res. 1765
7. Palestinian response to H. Res. 1765

1.  Bills & Resolutions
 
(Saudi Arms Sales) HJ Res 104: Introduced 12/15/10 by Anthony "Nobody's-tougher-on-Saudi-Arabia-than-ME" Weiner (D-NY) and no cosponsors, "Disapproving the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  This comes on the heels of HJ Res 99, also introduced by Rep. Weiner (on 11/18/10), for the same purposes.  For background on the issue of Congressional concern/disapproval of the planned sale and what would actually be required for Congress to block it, see the 11/19/10 and 9/17/10 editions of the Round-Up.
 
(Palestinian Statehood) H. Res. 1765: Introduced 12/15/10 by Rep. Berman (D-CA) and 53 cosponsors, "Supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state, and for other purposes."  Brought to the floor and passed under suspension of the rules 12/15/10 by a voice vote.  For discussion of this resolution, see section 3, below.

(Palestinian Statehood) H. Res. 1734: Introduced 11/29/10 (and mistakenly omitted from the relevant Round-Up) by Rep. Poe (R-TX) and having 33 cosponsors, "Reaffirming Congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and for other purposes."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
 
2.  House Resolution on Palestinian Unilateral Statehood Efforts (H. Res. 1765)
 
On 12/15/10 the House voted to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 1765, opposing ongoing Palestinian efforts to get nations around the world to recognize the state of Palestine.  The resolution, introduced by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), follows the recent introduction of a similar (but somewhat nastier) resolution by Rep. Poe (R-TX), H. Res. 1734
 
Unusually for this kind of resolution, while the passage of the resolution was applauded by AIPAC in a press release there was little evidence of efforts (by AIPAC or others) to get members to co-sponsor.  Even more unusually, the resolution was allowed to pass by a voice vote.  Generally on this kind of resolution (on which members are usually "scored", formally or informally, by outside groups) someone demands a roll call vote.  In this case, one would have expected Republicans to demand a roll call vote in order to force Democrats to pay a political price (since it is almost certain that no Republicans would have voted "no," and it is equally likely that some tens of Democrats would have done so).  The fact that there was little effort to rally support for the resolution, coupled with the fact that no roll call vote was demanded, would seem to indicate a decision by Republicans (supported by AIPAC and others) that they didn't really care about this resolution, perhaps because they'd prefer the real point-scoring to wait until Republicans are in control and can take full credit. 
 
Further evidence of the general indifference shown to this resolution was the absence of any rush to the House floor by members (from either side of the aisle) to seize an opportunity to score points by bashing the Palestinians.  The floor discussion (and there was no debate, as nobody claimed time in opposition) was thus relatively brief, with far less Palestinian-bashing than would normally be expected.  Chairman Berman's statement, included in full in Section 6, below, is an example of this.  (Additional statements are still being inserted into the record). 
 
On the other hand, some members couldn't resist the chance to grandstand at the Palestinians' expense.  Notable examples were Chairman Ackerman (D-NY) - who appears determined to re-cast himself as a super-hardliner on Israel-Palestinian issues - as well as, predictably, Rep. Engel (D-NY) and Berkley (D-NV).  However, winning prizes for the most outrageously anti-Palestinian, anti-peace comments were incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and likely Middle East subcommittee chair Dan Burton (R-IN).  Given the importance of their roles in the next Congress, their remarks are included in Section 6, below, in full.  Ros-Lehtinen's statement (inserted into the record 12/16/10) is particularly interesting, in that not only does she whole-heartedly bash the Palestinians, but she also takes a snarky shot at Democratic leadership - for failing to support Rep. Poe's original version of the resolution.  It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that if the Poe resolution has moved forward, rather than the Berman version, there would have been significantly more enthusiasm from Republicans for the effort and significantly more activity by AIPAC and others to rally cosponsors and demand a vote.  
 
Finally, several members took to the floor to make thoughtful statements that included discussion of the omissions in the resolution.  Some of their comments are also included in Section 6, below. 
 
3.  Senate Takes on House over FY11 Approps (including ForOps).  Then Gives Up.
 
As discussed in last week's Round-Up, on 12/8/10 the House passed HR 3082, a full-year continuing resolution.  While initially arousing little comment, this was an extraordinary step.  It in effect means that rather than scrutinizing needs and resources and allocating funds for FY11 accordingly, the House has decided to just let the FY10 funding levels continue, unchanged and un-scrutinized, for another year.  This approach has sparked unusually direct interventions from top Administration officials (see comments by Defense Secretary Robert Gates here and Secretary of State Clinton here).  It has likewise sparked an unusually strong reaction from Senate appropriators.  In what (coming from the Senate) was a sharp rebuke, Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye (D-HI) stated: "While I appreciate the work that the House has done in producing a full year Continuing Resolution, I do not believe that putting the government on autopilot for a full year is in the best interest of the American people."
 
Instead, the Senate appeared determined to substitute its own text - in the form a full FY11 Omnibus Appropriations bill (a bill combining all outstanding FY11 appropriations legislation, including Defense and Foreign Ops, both of which include significant funding for Israel and other Middle East countries).  However, this effort appears now to have become a casualty of the partisan game-playing afoot in the Senate, with Republicans insisting that they would require the more than 1000 pages of the omnibus to be read aloud before action could proceed, in the process blocking movement on all pending legislation.  Faced with this tactic, late on 12/17/10, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled the omnibus from consideration and reportedly the Senate is now working on language for a short-term continuing resolution, something that would kick this can a little further down the road.
 
The silence of pro-Israel forces on the fate of the Senate Omnibus is interesting, given the significant assistance to Israel that it includes (and given the triumphant reporting over the fact that the House long-term continuing resolution included funding for Iron Dome).  The Senate omnibus, for the record, includes the following funding for Israel (in addition to regular funding for Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, and other Middle East projects).
 
DEFENSE APPROPS:  There is a total of $415,115,000 earmarked for Israel in the Defense Appropriations Act included in the omnibus.  This funding is in addition to funds provided for Israel in the form of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, and the bill includes language allowing part of the Defense appropriations to be merged with FMF.  The funding for Israel is sub-earmarked as follows: $205,000,000 for the Iron Dome defense system$84,722,000 for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program; $58,966,000 for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture; and $66,427,000 for the Arrow System Improvement Program including development of a long range, ground and airborne, detection suite(of which $12,000,000 shall be for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components in Israel...).
 
FOREIGN OPS/FMF: The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act included in the omnibus provides "not less than" $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel (out of a total of $5.44 billion total FMF provided in the bill).   It also includes the usual stipulation under which Israeli FMF is disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of the Act, and permitting a portion of the assistance - $789,000,000 - to be spent in Israel.  These latter two provisions are rarely remarked on but are both important.  Normally FMF (a) is disbursed on an as-used basis, allowing funds to remain in the US Treasury so that the US earns interest on them up until they are actually used to buy something, and (b) permitted to be used only for purchases inside the US.  Israel is fully exempted from the first requirement, allowing it to bank the full amount of its annual FMF immediately and earn interest on it (meaning that the US forfeits that same interest - in effect additional US aid to Israel), and partially exempted from the second.
 
FOREIGN OPS/MRA: Additional funds are earmarked for Israel (a perennial but gradually decreasing earmark) under the category of Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA).  Out of a total of $1,685,000,000 provided in the omnibus to support refugees worldwide through various organizations and programs, this is the only hard earmark ("not less than $25,000,000 " for refugees resettling in Israel) for any specific country or refugee crisis.  The earmark originated back in the 1990s when refugees were flooding into Israel from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. 
 
ENERGY APPROPS:  The explanatory statement for the omnibus notes that the Department of Energy appropriations include $2 million "to continue the United States-Israel energy cooperation agreement."
 
4.  Special for Ros-Lehtinen: Review of Conditions/Restrictions/Oversight on Palestinian Aid
 
Incoming Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (HCFA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has been dropping heavy hints that she plans to go after Palestinian assistance in the 112th Congress.  In an interview with the Jerusalem Post this week, she strongly implied that greater oversight and conditioning on Palestinian aid are required, because until now the US has given the Palestinians "a blank check."  In a statement on H. Res. 1765 inserted into the record on 12/16/10, Ros-Lehtinen stated explicitly that "We should finally hold PA leaders accountable, which is why I will soon introduce legislation to clarify and tighten existing U.S. laws that deny funding to the PA until they meet their commitments..." Presumably Ros-Lehtinen is not referring here to Roadmap commitments, given that Palestinians have long fulfilled their Stage I Roadmap commitments, while Israel has made clear it will not do the same - something that would require, among other things, freezing all settlement activity and removing illegal outposts. Critics of the Obama Administration's peace efforts seem to forget that these requirements - agreed to by Ariel Sharon - were a central part of the Bush Roadmap. 
 
In any case, as a veteran member of the HCFA, Ros-Lehtinen should know better than to suggest that the Palestinian assistance program lacks conditions and oversight.  For decades Congress has been piling more and more conditions, restrictions, and oversight requirements onto Palestinian assistance (Ros-Lehtinen herself has played a not insignificant role in many of these efforts) - rendering the program almost certainly the most restricted, conditioned, overseen and audited US aid program in the world. 
 
In the interests of refreshing people's memories, here is a quick review of current restrictions, conditions, and oversight/vetting/audit requirements with respect to Palestinian aid, as contained in just one piece of legislation (the annual Foreign Operations Appropriations bill).  All these examples are taken from HR 3288, the FY10 Consolidated Appropriations bill - which became Public Law No 111-117.  All relevant bill text is included, in italics.   And finally, please note that this is NOT an exhaustive inventory - other restrictions/conditions exist in other pieces of law on the books. 
 
============================
Palestinian Statehood (Sec. 7036)
============================
This perennial provision was born in the 2003 funding cycle. It bars aid to any Palestinian state that may come into existence if that hypothetical state does not meet far-reaching specific requirements (irrespective of whether the state is the product of a peace agreement that Israel has signed, meaning that Israel might agree to peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state, but the US might not be able, legally, to provide support for that state), as follows:
 
Sec. 7036. (a) Limitation on Assistance- None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that--
 
   (1) the governing entity of a new Palestinian state--
 
       (A) has demonstrated a firm commitment to peaceful co-existence with the State of Israel;
 
       (B) is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of terrorist infrastructures, and is cooperating with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate security organizations; and
 
(2) the Palestinian Authority (or the governing entity of a new Palestinian state) is working with other countries in the region to vigorously pursue efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist within the context of full and normal relationships, which should include--
 
       (A) termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
 
       (B) respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
 
       (C) their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
 
       (D) freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; and
 
       (E) a framework for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.
 
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the governing entity should enact a constitution assuring the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and respect for human rights for its citizens, and should enact other laws and regulations assuring transparent and accountable governance.
 
(c) Waiver- The President may waive subsection (a) if he determines that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to do so.
 
(d) Exemption- The restriction in subsection (a) shall not apply to assistance intended to help reform the Palestinian Authority and affiliated institutions, or the governing entity, in order to help meet the requirements of subsection (a), consistent with the provisions of section 7040 of this Act (`Limitation on Assistance to the Palestinian Authority').
 
==================================================
Restrictions Concerning the Palestinian Authority (Sec. 7037)
==================================================
This is perennial language dating back to the mid-1990s, intended to prevent any US diplomatic steps that would directly or indirectly confer upon the PA any status in Jerusalem.
 
Sec. 7037. None of the funds appropriated under titles II through VI of this Act may be obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a new office of any department or agency of the United States Government for the purpose of conducting official United States Government business with the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles: Provided, That this restriction shall not apply to the acquisition of additional space for the existing Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That meetings between officers and employees of the United States and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting official United States Government business with such authority should continue to take place in locations other than Jerusalem: Provided further, That as has been true in the past, officers and employees of the United States Government may continue to meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians (including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental discussions.
 
=====================================================================
Prohibition on Assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (Sec. 7038)
======================================================================
This is a perennial prohibition (originally finding its home in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill) dating back to the 1990s, when Congress was outraged over PBC activities and wanted to ensure that no US funding would in any way fund them.
 
Sec. 7038. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide equipment, technical support, consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
 
===========================================
Assistance for the West Bank and Gaza (Sec. 7039)
===========================================
This is a perennial provision dating back to 1999 - and strengthened/expanded nearly every year since.  It lays out oversight, audit, vetting and reporting requirements, as well as specific restrictions (added along the way as new issues - like outrage over the naming of schools for "martyrs" - have gotten traction in Congress) on US assistance to the Palestinians.  These restrictions apply to assistance that flows through non-governmental organizations, not the Palestinian Authority (those restrictions/conditions/etc are laid out separately).
 
Sec. 7039. (a) Oversight- For fiscal year 2010, 30 days prior to the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral West Bank and Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall certify to the Committees on Appropriations that procedures have been established to assure the Comptroller General of the United States will have access to appropriate United States financial information in order to review the uses of United States assistance for the Program funded under the heading `Economic Support Fund' for the West Bank and Gaza.
 
                 (b) Vetting- Prior to the obligation of funds appropriated by this Act under the heading `Economic Support Fund' for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that such assistance is not provided to or through any individual, private or government entity, or educational institution that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity nor, with respect to private entities or educational institutions, those that have as a principal officer of the entity's governing board or governing board of trustees any individual that has been determined to be involved in, or advocating terrorist activity or determined to be a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization: Provided, That the Secretary of State shall, as appropriate, establish procedures specifying the steps to be taken in carrying out this subsection and shall terminate assistance to any individual, entity, or educational institution which the Secretary has determined to be involved in or advocating terrorist activity.
 
             (c) Prohibition-
 
                       (1) None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act for assistance under the West Bank and Gaza Program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism.
 
                       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or prior appropriations Acts, including funds made available by transfer, may be made available for obligation for security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza until the Secretary of State reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the benchmarks that have been established for security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza and reports on the extent of Palestinian compliance with such benchmarks.
 
           (d) Audits-
 
                    (1) The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall ensure that Federal or non-Federal audits of all contractors and grantees, and significant subcontractors and sub-grantees, under the West Bank and Gaza Program, are conducted at least on an annual basis to ensure, among other things, compliance with this section.
 
                   (2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act up to $500,000 may be used by the Office of Inspector General of the United States Agency for International Development for audits, inspections, and other activities in furtherance of the requirements of this subsection: Provided, That such funds are in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes.
 
         (e) Subsequent to the certification specified in subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit and an investigation of the treatment, handling, and uses of all funds for the bilateral West Bank and Gaza Program, including all funds provided as cash transfer assistance, in fiscal year 2010 under the heading `Economic Support Fund', and such audit shall address--
 
                 (1) the extent to which such Program complies with the requirements of subsections (b) and (c); and
 
                 (2) an examination of all programs, projects, and activities carried out under such Program, including both obligations and expenditures.
          (f) Funds made available in this Act for West Bank and Gaza shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
 
          (g) Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations updating the report contained in section 2106 of chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 109-13.
 
NOTE:  For the sake of completeness, the requirement referenced above - section 2106 of chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 109-13 - reads as follows:
 
"Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to the Congress detailing: (1) information regarding the Palestinian security services, including their numbers, accountability, and chains of command, and steps taken to purge from their ranks individuals with ties to terrorist entities; (2) specific steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, confiscate unauthorized weapons, arrest and bring terrorists to justice, destroy unauthorized arms factories, thwart and preempt terrorist attacks, and cooperate with Israel's security services; (3) specific actions taken by the Palestinian Authority to stop incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled electronic and print media and in schools, mosques, and other institutions it controls, and to promote peace and coexistence with Israel; (4) specific steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to further democracy, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and transparent and accountable governance; (5) the Palestinian Authority's cooperation with United States officials in investigations into the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's finances; and (6) the amount of assistance pledged and actually provided to the Palestinian Authority by other donors..."
 
=======================================================
Limitation on Assistance for the Palestinian Authority (Sec. 7040)
=======================================================
This perennial provision dates back to the 1997 ForOps bill barring any direct US funding of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority.  The provision reflected Congressional concern in that era over corruption in the PA under Yasser Arafat.  Perversely, the prohibition did not go away when Arafat died, but actually was strengthened, meaning that the US immediately started giving Mahmoud Abbas and Salaam Fayyad a much harder time than it ever gave Yasser Arafat.   The language was further strengthened/expanded following the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, in an effort to preemptively bar/restrict/condition US assistance to a Palestinian national unity government that, should it ever come into being, might include Hamas (regardless of whether Israel might be prepared to do business with said NUG).  The formulation of requirements for a NUG have been repeated tweaked and debated.
 
Sec. 7040. (a) Prohibition of Funds- None of the funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.
 
                 (b) Waiver- The prohibition included in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations that waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.
 
                  (c) Period of Application of Waiver- Any waiver pursuant to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a period of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 months after the enactment of this Act.
 
                  (d) Report- Whenever the waiver authority pursuant to subsection (b) is exercised, the President shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing the justification for the waiver, the purposes for which the funds will be spent, and the accounting procedures in place to ensure that the funds are properly disbursed: Provided, That the report shall also detail the steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to arrest terrorists, confiscate weapons and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.
 
                  (e) Certification- If the President exercises the waiver authority under subsection (b), the Secretary of State must certify and report to the Committees on Appropriations prior to the obligation of funds that the Palestinian Authority has established a single treasury account for all Palestinian Authority financing and all financing mechanisms flow through this account, no parallel financing mechanisms exist outside of the Palestinian Authority treasury account, and there is a single comprehensive civil service roster and payroll.
 
                  (f) Prohibition to Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization-
 
                                   (1) None of the funds appropriated in titles III through VI of this Act may be obligated for salaries of personnel of the Palestinian Authority located in Gaza or may be obligated or expended for assistance to Hamas or any entity effectively controlled by Hamas or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member.
 
                                   (2) Notwithstanding the limitation of subsection (1), assistance may be provided to a power-sharing government only if the President certifies and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that such government, including all of its ministers or such equivalent, has publicly accepted and is complying with the principles contained in section 620K(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
 
                                   (3) The President may exercise the authority in section 620K(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act as added by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-446) with respect to this subsection.
 
                  (4) Whenever the certification pursuant to paragraph (2) is exercised, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of the certification and every quarter thereafter on whether such government, including all of its ministers or such equivalent are continuing to comply with the principles contained in section 620K(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That the report shall also detail the amount, purposes and delivery mechanisms for any assistance provided pursuant to the abovementioned certification and a full accounting of any direct support of such government.
 
                  (5) None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of this Act may be obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation Organization.
 
NOTE:  For the sake of completeness, the requirements referenced above - 620K(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 - are as follows:
 
(b) Certification.--A certification described in subsection (a) is a certification transmitted by the President to Congress that contains a determination of the President that--
   (1) no ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority is effectively controlled by Hamas, unless the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority has--
                    (A) publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist; and
                    (B) committed itself and is adhering to all previous agreements and understandings with the United States Government, with the Government of Israel, and with the international community, including agreements and understandings pursuant to the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (commonly referred to as the `Roadmap').
 
=================
Near East (Sec. 7042)
=================
This section re-imposes additional reporting requirements, present in previous laws, with respect to both aid to the Palestinians and US funding for UNRWA.  It should be noted that the text, as passed into law, included a typo - the reference in 7042(f)(2) should be Public Law 110-252, not Public Law 110-242.  This is expected to be corrected next time around and the congressional intent is clear (and presumably treated as such by the Administration).
 
Sec. 7042 (f) West Bank and Gaza-
 
      (2) The reporting requirements contained in section 1404 of Public Law 110-242 shall apply to funds made available by this Act, including a description of modifications, if any, to the security strategy of the Palestinian Authority.
 
    (3) The reporting requirements regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency contained in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32, House Report 111-151) under the heading `Migration and Refugee Assistance' in title XI shall apply to funds made available by this Act under such heading.
 
NOTE:  For the sake of completeness, the (intended) requirement referenced in 7042(f)(2) - section 1404 of PL 110-252 - reads as follows:
 
Sec. 1404. Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act and 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report on assistance provided by the United States for the training of Palestinian security forces, including detailed descriptions of the training, curriculum, and equipment provided; an assessment of the training and the performance of forces after training has been completed; and a description of the assistance that has been pledged and provided to Palestinian security forces by other donors: Provided, That not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to the Committees on Appropriations, in classified form if necessary, on the security strategy of the Palestinian Authority.
 
NOTE:  For the sake of completeness, the (intended) requirement referenced in 7042(f)(3) - Public Law 111-32 - reads as follows:
 
"The Secretary of State is to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment of this Act, on whether UNRWA is: (1) utilizing Operations Support Officers in the West Bank and Gaza to inspect UNRWA installations and report any inappropriate use; (2) acting promptly to deal with any staff or beneficiary violations of its own policies (including the policies on neutrality and impartiality of employees) and the legal requirements under section 301(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; (3) taking necessary and appropriate measures to ensure it is operating in compliance with the conditions of section 301(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; (4) continuing regular reporting to the Department of State on actions it has taken to ensure conformance with the conditions of section 301(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; (5) taking steps to improve the transparency of all educational materials currently in use in UNRWA-administered schools; (6) using curriculum materials in UNRWA-supported schools and summer camps designed to promote tolerance, non-violent conflict resolution and human rights; (7) not engaging in operations with financial institutions or related entities in violation of relevant United States law and is enhancing its transparency and financial due diligence and working to diversify its banking operations in the region; and (8) in compliance with the United Nations Board of Auditors' biennial audit requirements and is implementing in a timely fashion the Board's recommendations."
 
5.  APN on H. Res. 1765
 
On 12/15/10, APN sent the following message to all House offices regarding H. Res. 1765:
 
Dear [staffer name],

Later today (or sometime tomorrow) the House will vote on a resolution, introduced by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, opposing Palestinian efforts to promote unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

The Berman resolution includes elements with which Americans for Peace Now agrees - like support for negotiations, support for a two-state solution, and opposition to Palestinian unilateral actions that contradict peace efforts.  However, it omits one element so important that its absence renders the resolution problematic:  it omits any mention of Israel's obligation to refrain from unilateral actions that contradict peace efforts - like the ongoing settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. (The resolution does quote Secretary of State Clinton's rejection of "unilateral steps by either party" in its preambular section, but it says nothing about this in the resolved clauses.)

If the goal of the Berman resolution is truly to oppose unilateral actions, support negotiations, and promote a peace agreement that delivers a two-state solution, it unfortunately falls short of the mark.  By singling out only Palestinian actions, it risks sending the message that Congress does not object to unilateral Israeli acts, no matter how corrosive they may be to peace efforts.
As a result, Americans for Peace Now is not taking a position for or against this resolution.  We urge members, regardless of how they vote on the Berman resolution, to speak out on the House floor and put statements into the record articulating support for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and making clear that real peace efforts require both sides to refrain from unilateral actions that undermine confidence or seek to prejudice the outcome of negotiations.

It is undeniable that, as a result of frustration with the lack of progress in peace efforts, there is a growing sense among Palestinians and in the international community, including in parts of the American Jewish community, that the time has come for the Palestinians to take their fate into their own hands, to the extent that they can.  Support for international recognition of a state of Palestine, as a means of putting pressure on Israel to finally end the occupation - something negotiations have, thus far, failed to do - reflects this trend.

While we share this frustration, we continue to believe that negotiations are the way to achieve a peace agreement that will deliver a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.   We believe that both Israel and the Palestinians must refrain from unilateral actions that undermine the achievement of this goal. And we believe that the Obama administration, if it is to be a credible leader of Middle East peace efforts, must hold the parties accountable when they do otherwise - for the sake of both Israel and the Palestinians, and for the sake of US national security interests that are so clearly vested in and affected by this conflict.

In her December 10th speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that "To demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed."   To demonstrate its own commitment to peace, Congress would do well to heed this advice - refraining from seeking to blame one side alone for the next failure and instead focusing on supporting US policies that can help peace efforts succeed.

If you have any questions about on this issue or anything else related to Israel and the quest for peace and security in the Middle East, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lara Friedman
Director of Policy and Government Relations
Americans for Peace Now
 
 
6.  Selected Congressional Statements on H. Res. 1765, 12/15/10
 
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) (extension of remarks inserted into the record 12/16/10)
 
"Mr. Speaker, 17 years have passed since the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, but a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to be achieved.  The question is: Why?
 
"Only by first understanding the reasons that the conflict continues, can the United States set and implement a policy that can help to encourage a true and lasting peace. So let us consider the conduct of both sides.
 
"One Israeli government after another has been willing and able to make painful sacrifices, including territorial withdrawals, to achieve peace.  As Secretary of State Clinton has noted, the current Israeli government has made unprecedented concessions in pursuit of peace, including a ten-month moratorium on housing construction in the West Bank in order to encourage the Palestinians to negotiate directly with Israel. In short, Israel has proven its commitment to peace.
 
"However, Mr. Speaker, Israel does not seem to have a partner in this endeavor. Palestinian leaders still never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and continue to default on their international obligations. They continue to refuse to negotiate directly with Israel, without preconditions.  Instead of encouraging the Palestinian people to accept Israel as a permanent neighbor with whom they should live in peace, the leaders in Ramallah continue to tolerate, encourage, and even participate in anti-Israel incitement.
 
"They continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state.  Even as the Palestinian leadership seeks a state for the Palestinian people, it would deny the right of the Jewish people to a state in their own homeland.
 
"We are not talking about isolated, fringe elements.  Palestinian rejectionism and non-compliance flows from the very top.  Earlier this year, the leader of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, Abu Mazen, praised the recently-deceased mastermind of the PLO's massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Abu Mazen also expressed what he called his 'firm rejection of the so-called Jewishness of the state [of Israel],' saying that 'This issue is over for us; we have not and will not recognize it.' 
 
"Last year, Abu Mazen said that 'Presently, we are against armed struggle, because we cannot cope with it. But things could be different at some future phase.' And a former PA foreign minister and senior associate of Abu Mazen has announced that the PA would be intensifying its diplomatic and economic offensive against Israel, with the aims of isolating Israel, preventing it from building its ties with the European Union, and expelling Israel from the U.N.  Already, the PA tried--unsuccessfully--to block Israel's candidacy for membership in the OECD.
 
"And now, instead of sitting down with the Israeli government to negotiate directly, the Palestinian leadership is conducting an extensive campaign to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by foreign governments and within the U.N. and other international organizations.
 
"Unfortunately, in response to a request from Abu Mazen, the Brazilian government recently agreed to recognize a Palestinian state, instead of urging the Palestinians to fulfill their commitments.  The governments of Argentina and Uruguay have also indicated that they intend to recognize a Palestinian state.  The Palestinian leadership is aggressively lobbying other nations to do the same.
 
"Mr. Speaker, this is not a partner for peace.
 
"But as we've seen over and over, Palestinian leaders are not going to make the tough decisions and change their ways unless they have to.  By providing over $2 billion in assistance in the last five years alone--with hundreds of millions more planned--the U.S. is only rewarding and reinforcing bad behavior by Ramallah.  Enough is enough.
 
"We should finally hold PA leaders accountable, which is why I will soon introduce legislation to clarify and tighten existing U.S. laws that deny funding to the PA until they meet their commitments.  The Administration should also reverse its decision to allow the PLO office in DC to call itself a `General Delegation' and to fly the Palestinian flag.  That decision sent the wrong signal to other governments, who concluded they should also upgrade the PLO's status in their countries.  Furthermore, the U.S. should stop pressuring the Israeli government to make more and more concessions, and must not attempt to impose the terms of a solution.  
 
"Mr. Speaker, I will support the resolution before us because it reinforces Congressional opposition to unilateral efforts by Palestinian leaders to gain recognition from other governments or within the U.N.  I would draw particular attention to the fact that the resolution calls on the Administration to publicly affirm that it will: deny recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state; and veto any U.N. Security Council resolution to establish or recognize a Palestinian state.  The Administration must also oppose efforts by the Palestinians to seek recognition from, or membership in, any international organizations.
 
"I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Texas, Congressman Poe, for introducing the resolution that served as the basis for the measure before us today.  Judge Poe went out of his way to ensure that his resolution was fully bipartisan, securing the support of many Democrat cosponsors, including my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Ms. Berkley.  We had requested that the Poe-Berkley resolution be considered on the floor.  Regrettably, the Majority decided to introduce a new resolution on this issue instead.  
 
"Supporting the pursuit of Middle East peace, and supporting our ally Israel, is one area that has strong bipartisan support in Congress, and by and large, the text of this resolution reflects that bipartisanship.  But this matter could have and should have been handled better.  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us."
 
Berman (D-CA)
 
"I brought this resolution to the floor because I believe negotiations are the only path to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For this reason, the United States Congress has every reason to be concerned about efforts of some in the Palestinian Authority leadership to attain recognition of statehood while bypassing the accepted negotiation process.
   
"These efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally witnessed commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 Oslo Agreement and the 2003 Roadmap. Most important, the Palestinians will only get a state by negotiating with the Israelis.
 
"That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the recently announced decisions of Brazil and other Latin American countries to recognize an independent Palestinian state, actions prompted by a direct request from Palestinian President Abbas.
 
"Ultimately, such recognition of nonexistent statehood gives the Palestinians nothing. In 1988, Yasser Arafat declared a state and garnered recognition from more than 100 states; now, 22 years later, there is still no state. The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of declarations of statehood. They want a state. And they should have one, through the only means possible for attaining one, negotiations with Israel.
 
"The Obama administration has been unwavering on this point. Unless an independent Palestinian state is formed via a negotiated settlement, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved. Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached on the core issues of borders, water, refugees, Jerusalem, and security. Unilateral declarations of statehood will not eliminate the sources of the conflict; they will exacerbate them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not have been more correct when she said just this past Friday that 'it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable.'
 
"I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel, so I hope they will take Secretary Clinton's message to heart. This body has been very generous in its support of their worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy on the West Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the world in that regard. So I think our friends should understand: If they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S.-Palestinian relations..."
 
Burton (R-IN)
 
"You know, Mr. Speaker, I think Israel continues to do everything they can to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue, but they don't have a partner, and the Palestinians continue to do an end run around the negotiation process.
 
"Number one, it isn't going to work. Number two, it shows the insincerity of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority when it talks about peace. In the past 5 years, we have given over $2 billion in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and we have been reinforcing and rewarding bad behavior on the part of the Palestinian Authority when it has proven to us, by doing the things it is doing right now, that it is really not worthy of the support we are giving it. We should finally hold the Palestinian Authority leaders accountable.
 
"A couple of things really bother me. One is when I hear the leader of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, Abu Mazen, praise the recently deceased mastermind of the PLO's massacre of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is the leader, and he is praising the massacre that the whole world abhorred. He also expressed what he called his 'firm rejection of the so-called Jewishness of the State of Israel,' saying, 'This issue is over for us. We have not and will not recognize it.'
 
"That's a heck of an attitude for people to have who say they want a Palestinian state and who say they want to negotiate while, at the same time, they're making these statements and are doing an end run around the entire process.
 
"Last year, Abu Mazen said, 'Presently, we are against armed struggle because we cannot cope with it, but things could be different at some future phase.'  That indicates again and again and again their insincerity of negotiating in good faith. They are talking about at some point in the future having another armed struggle. Israel has gone beyond the pale time and again. Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has taken that extra step time and again.
 
"Until we see real concern and real sincerity in the negotiating process, we ought to take a very hard attitude toward the Palestinian Authority. In my opinion, that means cutting off any funding for it until it is willing to seriously sit down and negotiate a peaceful settlement to the problem."
 
Miller (D-CA)
 
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for a negotiated solution to the decades-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I will be voting in favor of the resolution introduced by my friend from my home state of California, Congressman Berman, as I believe that only a negotiated solution to which all parties agree will achieve lasting peace.
 
"However, I would like to note that I believe that this resolution unwisely addresses only one issue standing in the way of Israeli-Palestinian peace, even while numerous other issues continue to plague the peace process. I believe that the resolution is fully correct that the Palestinian Authority should not seek statehood unilaterally. Yet, I do not believe that unilateral actions by either side that undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated solution are helpful in achieving our shared goal of peace in the region. In fact, I believe that they are extremely counterproductive.
 
"Moreover, I believe that it is critical that this Congress support the Obama Administration's continued efforts to negotiate with each of the parties over substantive issues to make progress toward a settlement so that an eventual return to direct negotiations can be successful. Indeed, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell is in the region now working to make substantive progress.
 
"Once again, I support this resolution, but I believe that it unfairly only addresses one of a number of complex issues standing in the way of achieving a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East."
 
Capps (D-CA)
 
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant support of this resolution. Unfortunately, we have before us today yet another one-sided resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will vote in favor of it because I do oppose unilateral declarations of Palestinian statehood, and I do believe that a negotiated solution is the only way forward for Palestinian statehood to actually happen. However, this resolution ignores other facts on the ground that have led to the current breakdown in negotiations, most notably Israel's expansion of settlements.
 
"Mr. Speaker, it is truly absurd to argue that serious negotiations can occur when both actors are engaged in activities that threaten the credibility of the peace process. It is likewise unwise to ignore that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for engaging in these activities.
 
"Resolutions, like the one we are considering today, are clearly done for domestic political consumption much more than for having any positive impact on the conflict. We should not be ignorant of the fact that this Chamber's pattern of passing resolutions that are one-sided can, indeed, undermine our credibility to be serious brokers for peace.
 
"No one is doubting the important relationship between the United States and Israel. Israel is our strongest ally and the only true democracy in the region, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak the truth in identifying Israeli policies that are harmful to promoting peace in the region and that advance the United States' national interests.
 
"If I could rewrite this resolution, it would highlight the responsibilities of each partner to take actions demonstrative of its commitment to peace. Israelis and Palestinians alike share this responsibility, and so does the United States as an honest broker."
 
Moore (D-WI)
 
"Mr. Speaker, I am as disappointed as anyone that the Middle East Peace talks have stalled despite considerable efforts by the Administration and the international community to help both sides make the tough decisions needed to help advance those talks. I understand that some of my colleagues are frustrated with repeated roadblocks that appear only intent on derailing the peace process. I share that frustration. I believe that all who have a clear stake in the peace process are also frustrated.
 
"I have long advocated and reaffirmed my strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. Both parties bear responsibility for the success or failure of the Middle East Peace efforts.
 
"No one pretends that the issues involved here are easy. I think everyone also recognizes the devastating consequences for the region, for our ally Israel, and for U.S. security interests if the right solution is not found.
 
"There are a myriad of issues that have arisen that have complicated talks. Palestinian unilateral declaration of a state is only one, but if you read this resolution you would reach the conclusion that it is the only unilateral action or proposed action that would imperil this process. The House should urge the Administration to take a strong stand with both parties on all unilateral actions that are hindering the peace talks, especially those that were agreed to only a few years ago by the parties in the Roadmap.
 
"Middle East peace requires the active engagement of both parties. The Administration, as well as the House of Representatives, should make the expectations for both parties clear: each party must engage seriously on even the hardest issues--making proposals and counter-proposals--and achieve concrete results.
 
"As I stated in a letter to President Obama earlier this year in support of strong U.S. engagement as an honest broker in renewed Middle East Peace talks, allowing actions by either party that undermine the process to go unchallenged serves to fan animosity and mistrust, which feeds this needless cycle of conflict and violence. This does not serve the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, or the Palestinians.
 
"This resolution reaches half that goal since it targets only one action by one party. It correctly notes the Administration's opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the potential harm that would do to a comprehensive Middle East Peace Agreement. The same resolution also conveniently skips around other unilateral actions by the parties that may also harm the atmosphere for peace in the region.
 
"The resolution notes one quote from Secretary Clinton's speech a few days ago on December 10. Let's look a little deeper into some of the Secretary's other comments in that lengthy speech. Secretary Clinton made clear that the U.S. remains committed to reaching a comprehensive peace deal between the parties with the U.S. playing a key role. She also stated that a peace agreement between the two parties is the 'only path to achieve the Palestinians' dreams of independence.'
 
"She specifically also noted that 'in the days ahead, our discussion with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months ..... The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their position on the core issues without delay and with real specificity ..... We enter this phase with clear expectations of both parties.'
 
"In her speech Secretary Clinton noted that 'the position of the U.S. on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and a two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself.' The resolution before us today notes support for a negotiated solution but is silent on this issue as if it does not impact achieving that negotiated solution.
 
"Secretary Clinton went on to say that both parties, ``to demonstrate their commitment to peace ..... should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.''
 
"Unfortunately, the resolution before us today gets half of the message and only a small fraction of the demands on both parties to help move this process forward, laid out by the Secretary of State last Friday.
 
"As noted by Secretary Clinton, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed. I believe the House resolution before us today would have been wise to also heed that advice.
 
"The intent of this resolution is to express concern with an action that will put more obstacles in the way of achieving Middle East Peace. I could not agree with that goal more. But let's make sure that we recognize that both parties have an equal responsibility to refrain from such actions."
 
Price (D-NC)
 
"...while I do not intend to call for a recorded vote on this resolution, I would like to express my serious reservations about both the content of the measure before us and the circumstances under which it is being considered. Once again, we are being asked to consider a resolution about one of our Nation's most important foreign policy challenges that was rushed to the floor without any real chance for debate, without any consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, and without any opportunity for constructive input from the many Members of this body--Democrats and Republicans--who care deeply about peace in the Middle East.
 
"This resolution is significant not for what it says, but for what it leaves unspoken. Of course most of us believe that a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians will only be achieved through a negotiated two-state solution. And of course any unilateral action by either side--or by a third party--that undermines the peace process should be cause for concern for this Congress, and for anybody else who believes that a two-state solution is still possible.
 
"But that is precisely the point: this resolution says absolutely nothing about the long history of unilateral actions taken by Israeli governments that have progressively undermined confidence in the ability of negotiations to deliver peace. It says nothing about the fact that formal negotiations broke down last week due in large part to Israel's refusal to extend its freeze on unilateral settlement construction for a mere three months. It says nothing about the understandable frustration felt by Israelis and Palestinians alike when they see their leaders fail yet again to make good on their promises of peace.
 
"Moreover, we must ask ourselves whether approving this resolution at this highly sensitive moment would in fact be counterproductive to its stated goal of supporting the peace process. With negotiations on life support and the Administration working overtime to determine the best path forward for the United States, should we really be making definitive statements about what the United States might or might not do if such a unilateral declaration were actually made? Or asking the State Department to shift its focus to preventing other countries from granting diplomatic recognition, rather than continuing to focus on the peace process itself?
 
"One would think that we should rather be urging the Obama Administration to stand firm in its efforts to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to the negotiating table. The Administration was wise to abandon its offer to give Israel a generous package of security guarantees to do something that is manifestly in its own self-interest to begin with, but Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell have made clear their commitment to pursuing alternative courses of action.
 
"Instead of stirring the pot at this delicate time with pronouncements and condemnations, we should be offering hope and encouragement to their efforts.
 
"Ultimately, I agree with the basic points made in this resolution. But I strongly urge the leadership of this House, on both sides of the aisle, to allow for a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative process next time we are asked to express the sense of Congress on a matter of such critical importance to our Nation."
 
 
7.  Palestinian response to House Resolution on Palestinian Unilateral Statehood Efforts
 
In another unusual step, the PLO issued a strong statement responding to the passage of H. Res. 1765 (the Palestinians rarely respond so publicly to Congressional actions).  The statement reads as follows:
 
December 16, 2010
 
Palestine Liberation Organization
General Delegation to the United States
 
The General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United States expresses its deep disappointment over the resolution passed yesterday by the House of Representatives condemning any attempt to gain recognition of an independent Palestinian state without the approval of the Israeli government.
 
Regrettably, the members of congress who voted in favor of House Resolution 1765 appear to be misinformed as to the facts.
 
The Palestinian right to freedom and self-determination is not contingent on the approval of the state of Israel, which has been militarily occupying and colonizing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and
East Jerusalem for more than 43 years in violation of international law and the policies of the United States and the international community. Moreover, by definition, a declaration of statehood that is coordinated with organizations like the United Nations and members of the international community would not be a "unilateral" step. This was, in fact, how the state of Israel came into being in 1948.
 
Members of congress who are truly concerned about the safety and security of Israelis should recognize that they will never be safeguarded until Palestinians gain their freedom and legal rights. They should work to support the efforts of President Obama and his administration to bring peace to the region, rather than obstructing them and passing resolutions that hinder that effort.
 
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================
 
Past editions of the Round-Up are archived and available online at:
http://peacenow.org/legislative-round-ups
  
Americans for Peace Now promotes Israeli security through the peace process and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement.   For more information, visit the APN web site at www.peacenow.org or contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.