1. Bills & Resolutions
(Palestinian-bashing) S. Res. 185: Introduced 5/16/11 by Sens.
Cardin (D-MD) and Collins (R-ME) and three other senators, "A resolution
reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, reaffirming opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity
government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce
violence, and declaring that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a
state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith
commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued
United States aid." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
NOTE: This resolution is expected to be one of the main focal points of
AIPAC lobbying on the Hill next week. APN strongly opposes this
resolution and will be sending a message to every member of Congress next
week explaining why we believe they should refuse to cosponsor or vote for
it.
(Palestinian-bashing) H. Res. 268: Introduced 5/13/11 by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), "Reaffirming the United States' commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. NOTE: This resolution is expected to be one of the main focal points of AIPAC lobbying on the Hill next week. APN strongly opposes this resolution and will be sending a message to every member of Congress next week explaining why we believe they should refuse to cosponsor or vote for it. For more on the resolution, see last week's (updated) edition of the Round-Up.
(IRAN Sanctions) HR 1905: Introduced 5/13/11 and currently having 7 cosponsors, "To strengthen Iran sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening activities, and for other purposes." Referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Oversight and Government Reform, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means. NOTE: This resolution is expected to be one of the main focal points of AIPAC lobbying on the Hill next week. For more on this bill, see:
Ros-Lehtinen Press Release: Ros-Lehtinen Introduces New Iran Sanctions Legislation to Close Loopholes, Mandate Enforcement
NIAC 5/19/11: House Unveils Bill to Expand Sanctions, Impose Oil Embargo on Iran
Arms Control Now 5/19/11: Controversial Waiver Provisions in the New Iran Sanctions Bill
(EGYPT/TUNISIA SUPPORT) S. 618: Introduced 3/17/11 by Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and having 4 cosponsors, "A bill to promote the strengthening of the private sector in Egypt and Tunisia." On 5/17/11, ordered to be reported out of committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
(CONFIRMATIONS) On 5/17/11, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably reported out of committee a number of measures, including the nominations of Dan Shapiro as Ambassador to Israel; Stu Jones as Ambassador to Jordan, Henry Ensher as Ambassador to Algeria; and Mara Rudman as Assistant Administrator of USAID.)
2. Members of Congress React To (and Re-Write) Obama Speech
The reaction to President Obama's 5/19/11 Middle East speech has been predictable, in terms of Republicans in Congress suggesting that the speech proves Obama is weak on Israel. More interesting, but perhaps no less predictable, particularly given the timing of the speech, has been the reaction of top Democrats, some of whom, in their embrace of the President's words, have engaged in some revisionism - in effect saying they agree with the President in taking positions he didn't take, or appearing to "clarify" on the president's behalf the meaning behind the speech.
Most notable of such statements were those of Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Committee on Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA), both of whom clearly wanted very much to come out supporting the president, but in order to do so felt they needed to get on the record tweaking/correcting the President's words.
"...The United States is committed to seeing the peace process move forward, and we will work with parties who want peace. That does not include Hamas, since they are unwilling to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, or accept prior agreements [not in the President's speech]. I also agree with the President that unilateral actions are not helpful in advancing the peace process [Obama did not say this]. A unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians would be extremely damaging to that process [Obama did not refer to this at all]. The President discussed a number of other issues, including a return to the borders of 1967 [the President said "1967 lines," not "borders"] with agreed-upon land swaps. We must keep in mind that the situation on the ground has clearly changed over the last 44 years. Whatever peace agreement is reached must recognize the reality on the ground [this last part is Hoyer in effect taking the position of the 2004 Bush letter, which Obama did not do]."
"The peace process dimension of the speech puts the ball squarely in the Palestinian court [Obama stated "Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action."]. The Palestinians must resolve their Hamas problem once and for all: either jettison Hamas or do the seemingly impossible and change them into a respectable, anti-violence organization that recognizes Israel and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as the basis for going forward [not stated in the Obama speech]. The Palestinians must show they're serious about peace-making. That means no games at the UN, no partnership with terrorists, no threats to take Israel to the International Criminal Court, and no boycott of negotiations. When the current phase of Palestinian posturing ends, we can begin to address some of the serious issues the President and others have raised. That is my major take away from the President's speech [despite the fact that Obama did not actually say any of this]..."
3. Berkley-Engel Letter
As noted in last week's Round-Up, late on 5/6/11 the office of Rep. Berkley (D-NV) circulated the following Dear Colleague letter seeking co-signers on a letter to President Obama, urging the president to "suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority unless and until the PA and its ministers can be certified to recognize Israel's right to exist, accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, and renounce terrorism."
According to Hill sources, as of mid-day on 5/19/11 the letter had a total of only 16 signers (it is not known how widely it was circulated) -- Ackerman (D-NY), Berkley (D-NV), Burton (R-IN), Connolly (D-VA), Engel (D-NY), Green (D-TX), Israel (D-NY), King (R-NY), Maloney (D-NY), Myrick (R-NC), Nadler (D-NY), Peters (D-MI), Poe (R-TX), Rothman (D-NJ), Schwartz (D-PA), and Sires (D-NJ). The letter was reportedly due to close at noon on 5/20/11.
4. APN Applauds Israel-Palestinian Vision in Obama's Middle East Speech
On 5/19/11 APN posted the following response to Obama's speech:
Responding to President Obama's Middle East speech, APN President and CEO Debra DeLee said:
"Today, President Obama signaled to the world that he is still serious about Israeli-Palestinian peace and that he is a true friend of Israel. We welcome his clear statement that the U.S. position is that a permanent status peace agreement will be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed on land swaps, and that the outcome must be secure and recognized borders, with a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state and robust security arrangements for Israel. We also welcome his statement that such an agreement must find a way to resolve the issues of Jerusalem and refugees that is just and fair and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
"What derives from these positions is clear. Palestinian leaders must
come to terms with the fact that a future agreement will involve adjustments
to the 1967 lines to accommodate some settlements - and educate their people
to understand why this is so. They must also accept the fact that a future
state will be demilitarized and that arrangements ensuring Israeli security
will be paramount.
"At the same time, the Netanyahu government must accept that Israel's
appetite for settlements must be balanced, inch for inch, against its
readiness to give up territory that is inside what is now sovereign Israel.
This applies not only in the West Bank but also in East Jerusalem, where
Netanyahu's defiant determination to continue to expand settlements
continues to send a message that he cares more about settlements than peace.
Moreover, President Obama's clear statement that a Palestinian state must be
contiguous and have recognized borders with Jordan underscores the
impossibility of Israel maintaining permanent control over the Jordan
Valley.
"We also welcome President Obama's pragmatic articulation of his
approach to Palestinian efforts to establish a unity government. It is
indeed incumbent on the Palestinians to provide a credible answer to those
who suggest that Israel cannot negotiate peace with a unity government. As
we have long argued, any Palestinian government should be judged by its
actions and positions, not it composition.
"By articulating these positions, President Obama demonstrated that
he is a real friend to Israel - one who recognizes that Israel's security
and viability as a Jewish state and a democracy depends on peace. He has
also made clear his understanding that Israel's future cannot be divorced
from the fate of the Palestinians or from its relations with the rest of the
region. We welcome President Obama's message of support for freedom, rights,
security, and democracy in the Middle East - a Middle East that include both
Israelis and Palestinians.
"We now call on President Obama to follow these words with concrete
actions to make his vision of peace a reality. We also call on the Israeli
and Palestinian leaderships to rise to the challenge in the President's
words and demonstrate to each other and the world that they are ready to
rise above pettiness, set aside grievances, and work to finally end the
conflict. We know that most American Jews support President Obama in this
effort. We call on leaders of AIPAC, who are hosting their major conference
in Washington in a few days, to convey this support."
5. Additional Observations on the Very Positive Elements (& Omissions) in the Obama Speech
On 5/20/11 APN posted this additional analysis of President Obama's speech:
Many people are still busily parsing the text of yesterday's Obama speech to determine what they like - or don't like - about what he said. APN has already put out analysis of the things in the speech that we believe are important and constructive. Having had more time now to parse the speech, it is worth adding two more points to this analysis.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still a priority for Obama:
Given that the focus of this speech was billed as the changes in the Middle
East and North Africa, many predicted that the President would say little
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They were proven wrong. Fully 20% of
the speech was devoted to the issue, making clear that President Obama
recognizes the importance of the issue.
Linkage is U.S. policy: With this speech President Obama
has made clear that he sees a direct connection between the absence of
Israeli-Palestinian peace and what goes on in the region. In rejecting the
"there is no linkage" orthodoxy, Obama is agreeing with many of his top
advisors (see
here,
here, and here).
President Obama's decision to devote 20% of a speech to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict clearly reflected a recognition of the fact
that for peoples in the Middle East and North Africa, what he has to say on
this issue is at least as important to them as what he has to say about all
the other issues. Moreover, the "around-the-region-tour" in Obama's speech
ended up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - reflecting the clear logic
that the regional developments and the conflict cannot be de-linked.
President Obama made this explicit, noting that "For decades, the conflict
between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region." He went on to
note that "this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as
it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and
empowerment to ordinary people."
In addition to the important - and positive - things the president said,
the speech contained some significant - and very positive - omissions.
Borders/Settlements: President Obama did not adopt the Bush
formula (as expressed in Bush's
2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) on borders and
settlements - much to the dismay of many pundits on the right (like the
RJC).
Why do they care, given that both Bush and Obama talked about an
agreement based on 1967 lines with land swaps? Because in the Bush
formulation, the starting point was the implicit adoption of a hard-line
Israeli position - that Israel will retain control of "already existing
major Israeli populations," more commonly known as "settlement
blocs." Bush's formula suggested that the results of negotiations - with
respect to how much and what land Israel would keep - were a foregone
conclusion; the only thing left to negotiate were the land swaps that the
Palestinians would be forced to accept in return.
In contrast, Obama's formulation did not present the outcome of
negotiations, for either side, as a foregone conclusion. He simply laid out
a principle. From this principle it follows that Israel and the Palestinians
will have to negotiate changes in the 1967 lines (which include East
Jerusalem), on the basis of mutually agreed on land swaps. The outcome of
such negotiations remains unknown, and both sides - not just the
Palestinians - will have to make hard choices.
Some observers (like Haaretz's Aluf
Benn) noted another settlement-related omission in the speech: Obama
didn't explicitly re-articulate the view that settlements are illegitimate.
But Obama likewise said nothing to imply any change in the U.S. policy
opposing settlements, and his one reference to settlements was telling: he
juxtaposed "Israeli settlement activity continues" with the observation that
"Palestinians have walked away from talks," in a clear criticism of both
(and implying a causal relationship between the two). Taken together with
the president's clear articulation of U.S. policy on borders and land swaps,
and non-embrace of the Bush formula, the result is a much stronger, not
weaker, U.S. position opposing settlements construction.
Unity Government: Getting the Obama Administration to make
it unequivocal U.S. policy to boycott, sanction, and refuse to in any way
deal with any Palestinian power-sharing government that includes Hamas,
unless and until Hamas meets the Quartet Conditions, is a top priority of
some on the American Jewish right. Likewise, they want Obama to suspend all
aid to the Palestinians immediately (ostensibly until we see what will come
out of this unity government effort, but more likely to punish the
Palestinians for engaging in this unity effort in the first place).*
President Obama pointedly didn't adopt any of these positions in his
speech. What he said was: "How can one negotiate with a party that has shown
itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and
months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer
to that question..." This statement, like the actual law (which states that
the unity government and its ministers - not the Hamas party - have to meet
the Quartet conditions), represents a far more measured, pragmatic approach.
Palestinian Recognition: Getting the Obama Administration
to state unequivocally that it is U.S. policy to oppose Palestinian efforts
to gain recognition from countries around the world and at the United
Nations in September 2011 - and to declare that the U.S. will impose harsh
consequences on the Palestinians if they continue down this road - is
another top priority of some on the American Jewish right. Likewise, they
want President Obama to commit to twisting the arms of other members of the
international community to get them to toe this American line and they want
him to publicly commit, in advance, to vetoing any UN action in September on
this matter.
Here, again, all of their wishes went unfulfilled. President Obama did
touch on the issue of action at the UN, observing simply that "symbolic
actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an
independent state" (a statement that will anger both those who consider UN
action a potential positive game-changer and those who consider it a huge
threat to Israel). This is a far cry from threatening the Palestinians with
consequences for their current efforts, demonizing them for this effort,
calling on the international community to toe a specific U.S. line, or
promising a U.S. veto.
-------------------
*We know this because we have seen these things demanded in
Congressional letters (supported by groups like AIPAC), in congressional
resolutions (here
and here,
that will be heavily lobbied by AIPAC), and in
policy statements (issued by groups like AIPAC).
6. APN Slams Netanyahu for Using Settlements - Again - to Undermine Peace
On 5/19/11 APN issued the following statement:
Responding to news that an Israeli Ministry of Interior committee - acting with the authorization of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - will today consider approving the construction of more than 1500 new settlement units in East Jerusalem, APN President and CEO Debra DeLee issued the following statement:
"By proceeding with settlement approvals in East Jerusalem today - precisely when Prime Minister Netanyahu is headed to Washington to meet with President Obama and address Congress, and when President Obama is about to make a major Middle East speech - Netanyahu is sending an unmistakable message: he values settlements more than peace.
"He is also telling the world, including Israelis, that he is content
with a future in which Israel is an ever-more isolated garrison state, whose
democracy and whose character as a Jewish state is eroded and eventually
destroyed, by its preference for settlements over peace.
"Israelis and Americans alike who care about Israel's future should
be outraged. "They should also be embarrassed to see an Israeli leader
acting so cavalierly and disrespectfully toward any U.S. president. Despite
the Netanyahu government's repeated actions to foil his efforts to promote
Israeli-Palestinian peace, President Obama has been exceptionally supportive
of Israel by every measure.
"Inexplicably, it seems that Netanyahu can't miss an opportunity to
embarrass the president of the country that is Israel's best friend and
closest ally. If this had only happened once, one could give Netanyahu the
benefit of the doubt that it was not deliberate. But this has happened in
the context of virtually every high-level U.S.-Israel meeting since
Netanyahu took office.
"President Obama is about to deliver a major speech about the Middle
East. Speculation is running high over what he will say about the
Israel-Palestinian conflict. Now, as he puts the finishing touches on that
speech, President Obama must bear in mind this latest provocation.
"Israel needs an American president who can be a true friend to
Israel, not only defending its security but also leading, credibly and
resolutely, for peace. With his action today, Netanyahu is directly
challenging President Obama to show such leadership."
7. Odds & Ends
Politico 5/18/11: AIPAC: Don't boo Obama
========================================
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.