To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the Week Ending March 26, 2010

1.  Bills and Resolutions 
2.  AIPAC on the Hill this week 
3.  Members of Congress Express Solidarity with Israel 
4.  APN Message to Congress in Advance of AIPAC Lobby Day 
5.  APN: Top 6 Bogus Excuses for East Jerusalem Settlement Expansion 
6.  Looking Ahead:  Anticipated Congressional Condemnation of UN Human Rights Council 
 
1. Bills and Resolutions
 
(IRAN) HR 4896: Introduced 3/20/10 by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and 21 cosponsors, "To authorize the President to utilize the Proliferation Security Initiative and all other measures for the purpose of interdicting the import into or export from Iran by the Government of Iran or any other country, entity, or person of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology useful for any nuclear, biological, chemical, missile, or conventional arms program."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
 
(IRAN) H. Con. Res. 256: Introduced 3/22/10 by Rep. Himes (D-CA) and one cosponsor, "Expressing the sense of Congress that any official within the Government of Iran at the level of deputy minister or higher or officer within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is presumptively ineligible for a travel visa to the United States." Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
 
(IRAN) Appropriations bills:  On 3/25/10 Rep. Rothman (D-CA), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, issued the following statement:  "During the House Appropriations Committee's consideration of the Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations bills, I will offer an amendment to each of the twelve appropriations bills to ensure that no federal funds go to companies doing business with Iran."  Some additional reporting on this can be read in the Cable.
 
(Jerusalem)  S. Amdt. 3690 to HR 4872:  Introduced 3/24/10 by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), this amendment to the healthcare reform bill sought to completely strip the president of his authority to waive the Jerusalem Embassy Act (something Republicans in Congress have tried to do repeatedly since President Obama took office, as discussed in the 11/6/09 edition of the Round-Up), and sought to impose financial sanctions on the Department of State (withholding budget funding) if the embassy US embassy in Israel is not moved to Jerusalem.  The amendment was introduced but never considered.  It appears likely that we will see similar amendments in the future including, as in this case, where they are not in any way germane (i.e., they have nothing to do with the topic of the bill they seek to amend).
 
2.  AIPAC on the Hill this week
 
AIPAC supporters were on the Hill this week pressing Members of Congress on two issues: Iran and US-Israel relations. 
 
Iran:  With respect to Iran, members were asked to add their names to sign-on letters urging the President to implement "crippling sanctions" that AIPAC (and virtually every other mainstream Jewish group except APN) has been pressing Congress to pass for more than a year.  This is a somewhat odd "ask," since the legislation (as supported by AIPAC and as passed independently in the House and Senate) would actually make such sanctions mandatory, meaning such "urging" would be unnecessary .  (It is still unknown if the House-Senate conference version of the bill that is eventually sent to the President will be amended to give the President the room to maneuver that he wants - current indications are that it will not.)  The letters also urge the President to implement his "existing authority" on Iran - an implied criticism that he is not fully implementing the sanctions already imposed under US law. 
 
The House version of the letter, being circulated by Reps. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) and Pence (R-IN) is available here.  The Senate version, being circulated by Sens. Schumer (D-NY) and Graham (R-SC), is available here.  Based on the signature lists posted on the AIPAC website (as of 3/26/10, 12:30pm EST), a total of 174 members have signed the Jackson-Pence letter, and a total of 28 senators have signed the Schumer-Graham letter.
 
In addition, AIPAC has posted and is circulating a new memo dated March 2010 entitled "Crippling Sanctions Needed to Prevent Nuclear Iran", whose talking points closely parallel the text of both letters.
 
US-Israel Relations:   With respect to Israel, members are being urged to add their names to sign-on letters addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The letters are similar but not identical. Based on the signature lists posted on the AIPAC website (as of 3/26/10, 12:30pm EST), the House letter currently has 295 signers, and the Senate letter currently has 39 signers.
 
The Senate version of that letter, being circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), can be read here; the Dear Colleague circulating with it can be read here.    The letter:
 
·        implies that the problem with the recent announcement of new Jerusalem settlement plans was a problem of timing, not substance, and that the construction itself is not a serious issue since it will take place sometime in the future ("We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations.")
·        asserts that the failure to re-start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is entirely due to Palestinian intransigence and in no way due to Israeli actions ("Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen over the past year.  Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel.  Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions.  By contrast, Israel's prime minister has stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians."
·        implies that the Obama Administration should not publicly criticize Israel, even when Israel does things to publicly embarrass it ("We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process.  But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies."
 
The House letter, being circulated by Hoyer (D-MD), Cantor (R-VA), Berman (D-CA), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ackerman (D-NY), and Burton (R-IN) is similar to the Senate version, but different in two key ways.  First, it omits the paragraph blaming the Palestinians for the failure to re-start peace talks.  Second, the House letter makes explicit the call for US-Israel disagreements to be handled "quietly" (something that is implied, but not explicitly stated, in the Senate version).
 
The letters dovetail closely with AIPAC's new talking points memo on the topic, entitled "Close U.S.-Israel Ties Key to Forging Middle East Peace -- the memo goes beyond the Senate letter by asserting explicitly that "the United States and Israel should work out differences privately."  The memo goes on to criticize the Obama Administration's reaction to the Biden Incident, and argue that such criticism against Israel is not only inappropriate but counterproductive:

"As in any relationship, there will be times of tension and disagreements. The best way for the United States and Israel to work through their differences is to communicate directly, privately  and with an eye to the overall value of the relationship that they share.  While the announcement regarding housing construction in Jerusalem made during Biden's recent trip to Israel was a deeply regrettable incident for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly apologized, the public nature and harsh wording of the criticism and demands placed on Israel by the administration are unlikely to serve to advance the peace process or efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. In fact, such public pressure could have the opposite effect. It further solidifies the Palestinian and Arab refusal to enter into direct talks with Israel, while they wait instead for the United States to press Israel to make concessions."

AIPAC has also posted their talking points memo regarding making the case for final passage of "crippling" Iran sanctions and pressing for better enforcement of existing sanctions - Crippling Sanctions Needed to Prevent Nuclear Iran .
 
A number of members spoke at the AIPAC conference.  Their speeches are available (video and transcripts) on the AIPAC website.  They are:  Risch (R-ID), Schumer (D-NY), Graham (R-SC), Hoyer (D-MD), Cantor (R-VA), and Langevin (D-RI).
 
3.  Members of Congress Express Solidarity with Israel
 
In the wake of the Biden Incident in Jerusalem, and now in the wake of the tensions surrounding the Netanyahu visit to the White House, Members of Congress continue to make statements on the record (or submit statements for the record) in support of Israel.  Many, but not all, also echo the key AIPAC talking point that criticism of Israel should be kept private - an implicit (or even explicit) criticism of the Obama Administration's actions. 
 
Rather than listing all of these statements here, AIPAC is doing a great job of collecting these on its website, a periodically updated document entitled "Congressional Statements and Letters Reaffirming the U.S. -Israel Relationship."  Based on the list posted on the AIPAC website (as of 3/26/10, 12:30pm EST), 8 Senators and 49 House members have said something worth noting on the issue (the document includes both the names and the statements).  It is interesting to note that AIPAC is including on this list members who have said things that are in fact not reflective of AIPAC's talking points (statements that are supportive of the US-Israel relationship but not critical of the Obama Administration's handling of it).
 
4.  APN Message to Congress in Advance of AIPAC Lobby Day
 
On 3/22/10 APN sent the following message to every Hill office to help prepare them for tomorrow's AIPAC lobby day. 

Dear XXXXXX:

Tomorrow, thousands of "pro-Israel" activists will be on the Hill claiming to speak for all Americans, and especially American Jews, who care about Israel.  We want you to know: they do not speak for the entire Jewish community. 

Most American Jews want Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to succeed and understand that robust, sustained US leadership is needed.  We know that sometimes this must include pressure on Israel's government.  We also know that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel and US national security interests, and that addressing this threat requires a sober, rational approach, not a knee-jerk reaction that is more reflective of frustration than strategic thinking.
 
Obama, Israel, and Jerusalem/Settlements

Putting pressure on Israel to do what is necessary for peace does not threaten or contradict the US-Israel alliance.
 
  • Friends don't let friends drive drunk.  Israel's future depends on peace.  The fact that there is a special relationship between the US and Israel does not mean that the US should not make reasonable and public demands of its ally; indeed, being a true friend of Israel means speaking hard truths.  The US does Israel no favors by holding back honest criticism or trying to shield the Israel government from pressure when it acts in ways that are inconsistent with its own best interests and security, including with efforts to achieve peace.
 
  • Peace for Israel is more important than settlements.  Those of us who truly care about Israel know that President Barack Obama is right to confront Israel over new settlement construction plans in East Jerusalem - as a matter of policy and substance, not just poor timing - just as he was right to confront Israel earlier over settlement construction in the West Bank.   Such activities hurt the chances for getting back to peace negotiations.  They undermine the prospects of reaching an agreement that will resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and overlapping claims in Jerusalem, establishing two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and with security.
 
  • There is no credibility without accountability.  All sides - Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab States - must know that there will be a price for frustrating peace efforts.  Because these efforts are a reflection not just of America's generosity of spirit, but of America's vital national interests in the foreign policy arena - including addressing IranIsrael cannot act in ways that directly undermine peace efforts and expect to still be taken seriously as a partner in peace - or expect to be able to disclaim all responsibility for the failure to re-start peace negotiations.  The US cannot tolerate actions by any party that directly undermine peace efforts and still be expected to be taken seriously as a global leader in the Middle East and South Asia.
 
  • US leadership is critical.  America's interests are directly tied to Middle East peace and to Israel.  Peace talks cannot get started, and will not succeed, without genuine, credible, sustained American leadership.  President Obama enjoys strong support from the Jewish community when he demonstrates such leadership.
 
  • US national security is at stake.  The US is fighting two wars in the greater Middle East, and is trying to mobilize an international effort to address the threat posed by Iran.  The Obama Administration is right to ask the government of Israel to behave like a true ally, recognizing that the fate of Middle East peace efforts has a clear impact on America's ability to succeed. 
 
Iran Sanctions

What the US needs now is a rational policy to address this challenge of Iran, not a knee-jerk reaction that is more reflective of frustration than strategic thinking. 
 
  • The current bill should be amended, consistent with the President's requests. The sanctions bill should be amended to ensure that it does not tie the President's hands, undermine relationships with key allies and threaten multilateral efforts, or close off important avenues of policy in the future.
 
  • "Crippling" sanctions are a bad idea.  Smart, targeted, and ideally multilateral sanctions can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran in the context of a broader strategy that uses both engagement and pressure.  The "crippling sanctions" legislation currently under consideration by Congress, however, will undermine the President's efforts to mobilize coordinated international action on Iran.  Moreover, inflicting misery on the Iranian people in an effort to compel them to put pressure on their government is morally and ethically perilous, and the efficacy of such an approach is dubious.  It is far-fetched to imagine that a taxi driver who runs out of gas in the middle of Teheran will pound the steering wheel and curse the Iranian regime for his plight (and be moved to take action against it) - rather than curse the US and the international community.
 
  • "Crippling" sanctions like this don't work and could backfire.  Examples of cases where similar sanctions have caused tremendous suffering but failed to force a change in government policy include Iraq, Cuba, Gaza, Haiti and, in fact, Iran itself, where decades of US and international sanctions did little to weaken the Iranian regime.  The present leadership's loss of legitimacy stems not from frustration over international sanctions but from popular outrage over the regime's efforts to subvert the domestic political process.  Indeed, under current circumstances there is a real risk that the proposed "crippling" sanctions could spark a broad nationalist backlash, furnishing the government with a populist point around which to mobilize support, at the expense of the opposition.
 
  • Iran is not South Africa.  In South Africa, sanctions were about supporting the self-identified interests of a large portion of that country's population.  In every other case, sanctions have been about promoting US interests, not the interests of the people bearing their brunt.  And in every case except South Africa, the populations that were expected to rise up and act as tools of US foreign policy obstinately refused to cooperate.  
 
  • Multilateral/smart action is a better approach.  The US needs strong international cooperation in order to effectively address Iran - something that will be directly undermined by the imposition of the proposed "crippling" sanctions. Instead of focusing on sanctions designed to hurt the Iranian people, Congress should support the Obama Administration's multilateral effort.  It should also consider sanctions targeting those who are providing the Iranian regime with technology to censor and block internet access and other forms of electronic communications among Iranians and between Iranians and the outside world.  Such sanctions would signal real support for the Iranian people.

If you have any questions about either of these issues, or any other issue related to the quest for peace and security in the Middle East, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Lara Friedman
Director of Policy and Government Relations
Americans for Peace Now
 
5.  APN: Top 6 Bogus Excuses for East Jerusalem Settlement Expansion
 
On 3/25/10, in response to the widespread interest in the Jerusalem settlement issue (and widespread misinformation and disinformation about the issue), APN' published the following:
 
Settlements in Focus Volume 6, Issue 3
Top 6 Bogus Excuses for East Jerusalem Settlement Expansion
by Lara Friedman, Americans for Peace Now and Daniel Seidemann, Terrestrial Jerusalem
 
You've heard them from Netanyahu, from Barak, from pundits, and from friends and family.  Here we take on directly the bogus excuses offered to justify East Jerusalem settlement expansion.
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #1 - "Everybody knows these areas will always remain part of Israel."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:  There is nothing objective or neutral, or even constant, about what "everybody knows" in East Jerusalem.
 
In 1993, when the peace process was taking off, the settlement of Ramat Shlomo -- which recently caused such a headache for Vice President Biden -- didn't exist. If in 1993 you had asked what areas "everybody knows" would stay part of Israel under any future agreement, the area that is today Ramat Shlomo -- territorially distinct from any other settlement and contiguous with the Palestinian neighborhood of Shuafat -- would not have been mentioned.  
 
The same can be said of the massive settlement of Har Homa. Here, again, the argument is that "everybody knows" this area will forever be part of Israel. But again, this is an area that at the outset of the peace process was empty land -- devoid of Israelis, belonging mainly to Palestinians, and contiguous entirely with Palestinian areas -- that anybody drawing a logical border would have placed on the Palestinian side.  
 
The real question, then, is what do people mean when they say that "everybody knows?"  If they mean that everybody understands what will be Israeli and what will be Palestinian in Jerusalem, this could be good news: it could mean that an agreement is possible, at least on Jerusalem, tomorrow.   
 
But that's not what they mean - because for people using this argument, there is no place in Jerusalem that "everybody knows" will be Palestinian.  What they mean is that East Jerusalem can be divided into two categories: areas that "everybody knows" Israel will keep and where it can therefore act with impunity, and areas that Israel hopes it can keep, by dint of changing enough facts on the ground that such areas move into the first category. It is an approach that can be summed up as: "what's mine is mine, and everything else will hopefully be mine, too."
 
Those who embrace such an approach are acting under the premise that the status of Jerusalem and its borders will be determined by Israeli deeds rather than by negotiations.  It is an approach that appears to be being implemented on the ground today in the area surrounding the Old City in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods like Ras al Amud and Jabel Mukabbir.  It is also appears to be targeting, for the first time, areas like Shuafat and Beit Hanina.  In all these area, Israeli policies - construction, demolitions, displacement, changes in the public domain - appear aimed at transforming them into places that Israel can also claim that "everyone knows," will always be Israel.
 
Continuing such an approach sends a dangerous message that Israel is not serious about negotiations.  Tolerating such an approach will destroy US credibility as a steward of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #2 - "Arabs can build and live anywhere in Jerusalem, so Jews must
be allowed to build and live anywhere, too."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:  Most of West Jerusalem is off-limits to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem in terms of their ability to purchase property.  This is because most of West Jerusalem, like most of Israel, is "State Land" (in all, 93% of land in Israel is "state land").  Under Israeli law, to qualify to purchase property that is "state land" the purchaser must either be a citizen of Israel (Palestinian Jerusalemites are legal residents of the city, not citizens of Israel) or legally entitled to citizenship under the law of return (i.e. Jewish).  
 
This means an Israeli or a Jew from anywhere in the world can purchase such property in West Jerusalem, but not a Palestinian resident of the city.  (Technically, by the way, these are actually not purchases but long-term leases.)
 
With respect to private land in West Jerusalem, there are no legal limitations on purchases by Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem.  Similarly, there are no legal limitations on Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem renting in West Jerusalem. However, so few Palestinians actually reside in West Jerusalem, either through purchase or rental of property, that experts on the issue could not come up with a single example.  The reasons for this are social, cultural, and economic - that is, Palestinians do not have lives that are focused in West Jerusalem.  There is also discrimination - that is, there is anecdotal evidence that Israelis prefer not to rent or sell to Palestinians.  (This is distinct from Arab citizens of Israel, who by virtue of their citizenship have the right to buy property that is "State Land" and a small number of whom do live in West Jerusalem).
 
In addition, it should be emphasized that the ban on purchase of property on "State Land" by Palestinian residents of Jerusalem extends to East Jerusalem.  Not only are Palestinian Jerusalemites barred from purchasing property in most of West Jerusalem, but they are also barred from purchasing property in the 35% of East Jerusalem that Israel has expropriated as "State Land" since 1967, and on which Israel's East Jerusalem settlements have been built.  This means that in more than 1/3 of East Jerusalem, Israelis and Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to buy property, but not Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, including the very residents whose land was expropriated to build these settlements.
 
A small number of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have rented apartments in some East Jerusalem settlements (principally French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, and Neve Yaacov - all settlements that are so far "east" that they are increasingly less attractive to Israelis).  This does not appear to reflect any political agenda to move to these areas, but rather is a byproduct of the severe housing shortage that exists in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.  And it should be noted that these are short-term rentals from their Israeli owners (as opposed to formal leases by the titular land owner, the government of Israel, to Palestinians).
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #3 - "The planning and approval process is so convoluted that there is no way the government of Israel could keep track of, let alone stop, East Jerusalem settlement plans - even if it wanted to do so."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:   The planning and approval process for East Jerusalem settlements is indeed long and convoluted, but that does not mean it is impenetrable or impossible to oversee.
 
Indeed, notwithstanding the flow charts that Netanyahu has gleefully shown to officials in Washington, the fact is that  outside parties with no access to internal government information have still been able to track and predict - in advance - virtually every plan that has come up, not only since Netanyahu came to office but in the years before that.
 
The planning/approval process has clear and well-known "bottlenecks" - hurdles through which plans must pass and at which they can be stopped.  By monitoring activity in 5 of these "bottlenecks" (the Local Committee and its Licensing Subcommittee; the Jerusalem Municipality and Ministry of Interior websites; and the Regional Committee and its Objections Subcommittee) there should be zero surprises.
 
While Netanyahu may be justified in arguing that the process is so complex that it calls for legislative reform, it is patently false to use this argument in an effort to absolve himself of responsibility for knowing about planning and construction activities in East Jerusalem.  If motivated outside groups can track these by simply monitoring what is on the public record, the government of Israel can certainly be expected to do no less, and indeed should be expected to do far more.
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #4 - "The land was not being used by anyone until Israel built on it."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:  This argument rests on the idea that it is permissible to confiscate someone else's property - not for public domain but for commercial development - based solely on the argument that the owner doesn't really need it or isn't using it.  Given that Netanyahu is fond of asserting that it would be inconceivable that in Washington, DC or New York there would be areas that Jews are not permitted to build, simply because they are Jews, it is worth pointing out that it is likewise inconceivable that in Washington, DC or New York land developers would be permitted to seize someone else's property based on such bizarre logic.
 
Moreover, this argument rests on the false assumption that Palestinian non-use of property is voluntary.  It should be recalled that shortly after the 1967 war, Israel expanded Jerusalem municipal boundaries to include not only Jordanian East Jerusalem but much of its West Bank hinterland.  Shortly thereafter, Israel expropriated almost all the open land in East Jerusalem - including the area that is today Ramat Shlomo - placing it off-limits for Palestinian development.  
 
It is thus misleading to imply that East Jerusalem's Palestinians - whose population since 1967 has grown at a much higher rate than Israel's Jewish population - didn't need or weren't interested in developing their land, when the fact is that Israel barred them from ever doing so.
 
Moreover, it is a fact that there is massive overcrowding in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Yet, while the government of Israel has planned and built more than 50,000 units for Israelis in East Jerusalem settlements since 1967, fewer than 600 residential units have been built for Palestinians in East Jerusalem with any kind of government support, the last of which was more than 35 years ago.  
 
Similarly, while the government of Israel has been generous is approving planning and permits for private Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, including in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods, it is well-documented that since 1967 East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents have had a difficult and sometimes impossible time getting permits to build on their own, privately-owned land, and the government of Israel has refused to approve new neighborhood plans that would allow for any systematic expansion.
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #5 -"East Jerusalem settlements have never bothered Palestinians and don't impact their lives negatively in any way."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:  East Jerusalem settlements are a bone in the throat of Palestinian East Jerusalem.  They are built on land that under normal circumstances would have been the natural sites for Palestinian neighborhoods.  They cut off access to the West Bank and between Palestinian neighborhoods.  The infrastructure to serve them is built at the further expense of Palestinian land and generally designed to suit the needs of the settlers, while infrastructure for East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhoods resembles that of third-world villages.
 
===================================================================
Bogus Excuse #6 - "Jerusalem settlements are not an obstacle to peace."
===================================================================
 
The Truth:  Jerusalem is the epicenter of the bitter national conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is the place where the conflict is at its peak and also the place where the conflict will come to an end.  There can be no Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and no two-state solution without an agreement - agreeable to both sides - on the future status of Jerusalem.  Furthermore, any notion that Palestinian aspirations regarding Jerusalem can be satisfied by permitting them to call some outlying area in the West Bank "Jerusalem" and making that the Palestinian capital must be recognized as pure fantasy.  
 
Should current settlement trends in East Jerusalem continue, with the rhetoric being backed up by deeds, the day will come sooner rather than later when the two-state solution will be irrevocably lost.  This will be because the demography and geography of Jerusalem have become so Balkanized that no reasonable, viable solution in Jerusalem will be possible.  And if there is no solution in Jerusalem, there is no two-state, conflict-ending resolution.  In short, we are hanging on by our fingernails to the two-state solution itself.  And contrary to those who would argue otherwise, there is no other solution. The loss of the two-state solution does not create alternative solutions.
 
But that's not all.  We are also hanging on with our fingernails to the nature of the conflict.  For now it is still a bitter, nasty national-political conflict that is at times fueled by religious extremism.  As such, it is manageable and ultimately resolvable by statesmanship and diplomacy.  However, what is transpiring in and around the Old City - both in terms of settlements and government-backed plans that are turning the public domain over to extremist, exclusionary settlers and colluding with them in turning the area into an evangelical theme park - threatens to transform this resolvable national-political conflict into an intractable religious conflict.  That is what is at stake.
 
6.  Looking Ahead:  Anticipated Congressional Condemnation of UN Human Rights Council
 
The recent passage by the UN Human Rights Council of a number of resolutions critical of Israel is already drawing fire (predictably) from Congress.  On 3/25/10 Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), ranking minority member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, issued a statement blasting the Council and calling for the US to withdraw from it. 
 
========================================
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.