Produced by the Foundation for Middle East Peace in cooperation with Americans for Peace Now, where the Legislative Round-Up was conceived

Note: There will be no Round-Up this Friday. This special mid-week edition is devoted to a detailed analysis of the Senate version of the FY18 ForOps bill, passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on 9/7. Next week’s Round-Up will cover Hill developments 9/8-9/22.

Shameless plug: On 9/28, FMEP will be hosting an event in Washington: “JAILING ISSA AMRO: Israel (and the PA’s) Problem with Non-Violent Activism.” The event will feature Palestinian human rights defender Issa Amro and FMEP non-resident fellow Peter Beinart. For event information or to RSVP, visit our event page.

Rosh Hashana is a time to reflect. If your reflection brings sadness - and rage - at the ongoing assault on the values and principles you hold dear, both at home and in Israel, we share this with you.

This year, the Israeli Knesset legislated that those of us in APN - who work against boycotts divestment and sanctions (BDS) directed at Israel but who advocate boycotting the occupation and products made in the settlements - are not welcome in the Jewish homeland. Israeli law now states that a visa will not be granted to us because we, as non-Israelis, and APN, the organization on whose behalf we work, knowingly published a public call to boycott the settlements.

This year, Israeli lawmakers put on the Knesset’s docket bills to bar foreign donations to Israeli human and civil rights organizations. Likud MK Miki Zohar, in proposing the bill, said: “The time has come to dry up [the resources used by] leftist organizations that undermine the government, slander Israel and try to infringe on its right to defend itself. We must block their funding sources and thus prevent them from harming the state.” Not surprisingly, this bill targets progressive donors and does not affect the enormous financial contributions made to Israeli organizations by the likes of Sheldon Adelson.

Listen here for APN's briefing call with Amb. Daniel Shapiro.

Like APN, Ambassador Daniel Shapiro has supported the two-state solution since the late 1980s, long before it became a tenet of America’s Middle East policy. As President Obama’s ambassador to Israel, Shapiro was a key member of the past administration’s team working to advance the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Now, with the Trump administration refusing to commit itself to this basic US policy position and with the situation on the ground turning increasingly less hospitable to this solution, Shapiro is examining other scenarios and trying to assess their likelihood and their potential implications. Read Shapiro’s recent Tablet article on this topic.

Yossi Alpher is an independent security analyst. He is the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, a former senior official with the Mossad, and a former IDF intelligence officer. Views and positions expressed here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily represent APN's views and policy positions.

This week, Alpher discusses the Israeli Air Force's alleged attack on a Syrian missile plant deep in Syrian territory; whether this is Israel's only new security front; Israel's internal security; why the Border Patrol's theatre of action is a new security front; what Hamas is doing in Lebanon; the "front" of expanding global strategic reach; and what happened to the conventional Arab military challenge to Israel.

Produced by the Foundation for Middle East Peace in cooperation with Americans for Peace Now, where the Legislative Round-Up was conceived

1. Bills, Resolutions & Letters
2. Hearings

Shameless self-promotion: Please check out these two op-ed by FMEP’s Lara Friedman, published during the congressional recess. The first challenges the arguments behind the Taylor Force Act and suggests that a broader policy agenda is in play (to which many supporters of the bill are probably oblivious). The second looks at the pending “Israel Anti-Boycott Act,” using Lara Friedman as a case study to examine whether, indeed, the legislation would undermine constitutionally-protected free speech.