1. Bills, Resolutions and Letters

(Pressure on Abbas) On 7/11/11 Reps. Granger (R-TX) and Lowey (D-NY), the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee's Foreign Operations Subcommittee, sent a letter to Palestinian President Mahoud Abbas expressing opposition to the Palestinians' planned UN initiative in September. As reported in the 5/6/11 Round-Up, Granger and Lower previously sent a letter to Abbas on the same topic (and on national unity efforts) on 4/28/11. The new letter cites the recently passed House and Senate resolutions (H. Res. 268 and S. Res. 185) to suggest that there is "near unanimity" in Congress that "current and future aid will be jeopardized if you abandon direct negotiations and continue your current efforts." NOTE: Those who argue that resolutions like H. Res. 268 and S. Res. 185 are not important because they are non-binding would do well to take note of the fact that support for these resolutions is now being treated as a formal commitment to support cutting aid to the Palestinians - a commitment that members will no doubt be expected to live up to in the future if the Palestinians do not bow to Congressional demands.

(Cut aid to PA) For the fourth week running, Tea Party Caucus Rep. Duncan (R-SC) is circulating a Dear Colleague seeking cosigners on a letter (first reported in the Round-Up for 6/11 and 6/17) calling for stopping aid to the Palestinian Authority. After whipping the letter for a month, according to the latest Dear Colleague the letter has 34 signers.

(BASEBALL!) HR 2527: Introduced 7/14/11 by Rep. Hanna (R-NY), "To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the National Baseball Hall of Fame." Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and the Committee on the Budget.

2. State Department Authorization Bill - House (more details)

On 7/13/11 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) announced that on 7/20/11 the committee would mark-up the FY12 State Department Authorization bill (it was previously on the schedule for 7/14/11). The markup will be held in RHOB 2172 at 10am.

As noted in last week's Round-Up, text of the draft bill is still being worked on. The text, as it stands today, includes far-reaching Middle East provisions (indeed, while the bill in theory deals with all programs under the Department of State worldwide, out of 148 pages, fully 43 are devoted to Israel- and Middle East-related issues). These include a provision relating to Jerusalem (seeking to force the President to move the embassy); a provision legislating the 2004 letter from President Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; provisions effectively barring aid to the government of Lebanon and intending (it seems) to bar aid to Egypt; and provisions effectively barring assistance to any Palestinian unity government and making assistance even to a PA that does not include Hamas conditional on, among other things, the PA declaring its acceptance of "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" (in effect, making a Netanyahu government pre-condition for negotiations a U.S. precondition for aid).

Specifically. the Middle East-related details of the draft text (as of 7/14/11, 6pm EDT) are as follows (and ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME):

TITLE I-AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

- Sec. 105: authorizing $25 million in funding for refugee resettlement in Israel.

TITLE II-DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES

- Sec. 206: effectively legislating the 4/14/04 Bush letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon ("It is [sic] shall be the policy of the United States to uphold and act in accordance with all of the reassurances provided by the President in an April 14, 2004, letter to the Prime Minister of Israel").

- Sec. 207: opposing any division of Jerusalem and eliminating the President's ability to waive the Jerusalem Embassy Act (for the sake of U.S. national security) as of 1/1/14, in order to compel the U.S. to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, even if doing so directly conflicts with U.S. national security. As has been documented previously in the Round-Up, House Republicans have been trying to revoke the Presidential waiver since Obama took office (during the 8 years of the Bush Administration they largely left it alone). This section would also fence off $500,000 in State Department FY 12 funds to be used only for "costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem."

TITLE IV-INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

REMOVED - Sec. 403: In last week's Round-Up it was noted that the text (at that time) included Sec. 403, barring any U.S. funding to UNRWA. Since that time, this provision (as well accompanying provisions barring US funding of any UN body in which Iran holds a leadership position and barring any U.S. funding of the UN Human Rights Council) has been removed from the bill. All these provisions are expected to reappear in Ros-Lehtinen's anticipated UN reform bill.

TITLE VI-REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

- Sec. 602: Making it the policy of the United States "to assist Israel in its efforts to establish and enhance its diplomatic relations with other responsible countries" and requiring an annual report to Congress on U.S. efforts in this regard.

TITLE VII-PROLIFERATION SECURITY INITIATIVE

- Sec. 701: Giving the President the authority "to interdict certain imports to and exports from Iran."

TITLE VIII-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

- Sec. 805: Expressing the Sense of Congress opposing the Arab League Boycott of Israel and requiring a report from the President to Congress on steps being taken by the U.S. "to encourage Arab League states to normalize their relations with Israel and bring about a termination of the Arab League boycott of Israel, including those steps being taken to encourage allies and trading partners of the United States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply."

TITLE IX-SECURITY ASSISTANCE

- Sec. 911 (Foreign Military Financing Program
(b): Assistance for Israel: Expressing the Sense of Congress that the U.S. should "continue to support the August 2007 announcement that it would increase United States military assistance to Israel by $6 billion through incremental $150 million annual increases in Foreign Military Financing program assistance to Israel, starting at $2.55 billion in fiscal year 2009 and reaching $3.15 billion in each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2018."

Subtitle B-Security Assistance and Related Matters

PART I-ISRAEL

- Sec. 941: Requiring a lengthy report on the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel.

- Sec. 942: Clarifying that an existing certification requirement relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge must be unclassified.

- Sec. 943: Articulating the U.S support to Israel for missile defense. The section states that it is U.S. policy to:
(1) provide for deployment as soon as is technologically possible of effective missile defense systems capable of defending Israel and all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against ballistic missile attack from Iran, Syria, and other potential threats;
(2) fully resource and expand the ballistic missile defense system of the United States to fully integrate with the defenses of Israel to provide robust, layered protection against ballistic missile, and medium and short range projectile attack;
(3) provide assistance to complete accelerated co-production of Arrow missiles and continued integration with the ballistic missile defense system of the United States;
(4) provide assistance to aid the system development of the Missile Defense Agency and Israel Missile Defense Organization joint program to develop a short-range ballistic missile defense capability, David's Sling weapon system, and integrate the weapon system with the ballistic missile defense system and force protection efforts of the United States; and
(5) provide assistance for research, development, and test and evaluation, and fielding of the Iron Dome Air Defense Missile System.

The section also authorizes funding for "the procurement, maintenance, and sustainment" of the Iron Dome system, and requires an annual report to Congress on any such funding.

PART II-EGYPT

Sec. 951: This section bars any assistance to the Government of Egypt (GOE), unless the President certifies to Congress that (a) the GOE "is not directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign terrorist organization, its affiliates or supporters" [NOTE: It appears the drafters of the bill are laboring under the misapprehension that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is not.]; (b) the GOE is "fully implementing the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty"; and (c) the GOE is "detecting and destroying the smuggling network and tunnels between Egypt and the Gaza Strip."

The President may waive this certification requirement if (1) he deems that failure to do so "would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States"; (2) the U.S. "is fully implementing and enforcing end-use monitoring mechanisms and all United States equipment provided are accounted for"; and (3) the U.S. has established and implemented "comprehensive procedures to vet all recipients of United States security assistance, including collection, storage, and use of biometric data and biometric identification systems, to ensure that no recipients are members of, or affiliated with, a foreign terrorist organization or any affiliates or supporters thereof."

NOTE: In effect this means that in order to waive the ban on assistance to the GOE in circumstances where the President deems that vital U.S. national security interests are at stake, the President must first meet two other potentially arduous conditions. If he cannot meet those conditions, then he cannot waive the ban (U.S. national security interests be damned). Of course, given that the MB is not a U.S. designated FTO, this waiver will likely not be necessary - unless the drafters realize the MB is not an FTO and re-write the provision to include the MB - despite it not being an FTO.

- Sec. 952: Requiring an annual comprehensive report on security assistance to the Government of Egypt, including, among other things, a description of actions the GOE is taking to (A) "fully implement the Egypt-Israel peace treaty," (B) "detect and destroy the smuggling network and tunnels between Egypt and the Gaza strip," (C) "repudiate, combat, and stop incitement to violence against the United States and United States citizens and prohibit the transmission within its domains of satellite television or radio channels that broadcast such incitement" [NOTE: this is an odd provision; traditionally Congress slams Egypt for anti-Israel incitement. This may turn out to be an error by the staff drafting the text...], and (D) "adopt and implement legal reforms that protect the religious and democratic freedoms of all citizens and residents of Egypt." [NOTE: Yes, religious and democratic freedoms are last on the list]. This section also requires a GAO report reviewing and commenting on the required report and providing "recommendations regarding additional actions with respect to the provision of United States security assistance to Egypt, if necessary."

PART III-LEBANON

- Sec. 962: This section bars any assistance to the Government of Lebanon (GOL) unless the President provides a certification that is so far-reaching that it is doubtful that the U.S. could ever again provide any assistance to Lebanon. Indeed, if these requirements had been in place in the past, it is doubtful that the U.S. would have been able to provide any assistance to Lebanon since the end of that country's civil war).

Under the draft text, the President is required to certify that:
(1) "no member of Hezbollah or any other a foreign terrorist organization serves in any position in a ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Lebanon;
(2) there exists within the Government of Lebanon comprehensive anti-terrorism vetting and tracking procedures for all Lebanese security forces personnel benefiting from United States security assistance and security cooperation programs;
(3) all ministries of the Government of Lebanon and operations that directly or indirectly benefit from United States security assistance programs are financially transparent and accountable;
(4) the Government of Lebanon-
(A) is dismantling the infrastructure of all foreign terrorist organizations and related militias and is confiscating unauthorized weapons;
(B) has taken other actions in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1585, 1701, 1757, and other international obligations; and
(C) is fully cooperating with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon;
(5) United States security assistance and security cooperation programs for Lebanon are not utilized against the State of Israel and will not adversely impact Israel's qualitative military edge or military balance in the region; and
(6) the Government of Lebanon has taken effective steps and made demonstrable progress toward assuming full control of its territory.

As with the Egypt language, the President may waive this far-reaching ban but only if he certifies that failure to do so "would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States"; (2) the U.S. "is fully implementing and enforcing end-use monitoring mechanisms and all United States equipment provided are accounted for"; and (3) the U.S. has established and implemented "comprehensive procedures to vet all recipients of United States security assistance, including collection, storage, and use of biometric data and biometric identification systems, to ensure that no recipients are members of, or affiliated with, a foreign terrorist organization."

NOTE: Once again, this means that in order to waive the ban on assistance to the GOL in circumstances where the President deems that vital U.S. national security interests are at stake, the President must first meet two other potentially arduous conditions. If he cannot meet those conditions, then he cannot waive the ban (U.S. national security interests be damned).

-Sec. 963: Requiring an annual comprehensive report on security assistance to the Government of Lebanon.

PART IV-PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

- Sec. 971: This section bars any assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) unless the President provides a certification that far outstrips current law regarding the Palestinians. Not only does the draft language set the bar at zero tolerance for any Hamas member anywhere in the PA (as written, this would imply that even a single janitor affiliated with Hamas would make the PA not kosher, and that the presence of any Hamas members would be unacceptable, even if the PA met the Quartet conditions), it also requires the PA to, among other things, "publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" - in effect making one of Netanyahu's pre-conditions on the Palestinians a new condition for U.S. assistance.

Specifically, the draft text states that in order to provide aid to the PA, the President must certify that:

(1) no member of Hamas or any other foreign terrorist organization serves in any position in a
ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority;
(2) the Palestinian Authority is taking all necessary steps and action to implement the 2005 security reorganization program, and implement an inclusive, standards-based approach to recruitment;
(3) all Palestinian Authority ministries and operations that directly or indirectly benefit from security assistance and security cooperation programs are financially transparent and accountable;
(4) the Palestinian Authority is dismantling all foreign terrorist organizations infrastructure, confiscating unauthorized weapons, thwarting and preempting terrorist attacks, and fully cooperating with Israel's security services;
(5) the Palestinian Authority is fully implementing necessary institutional reforms within the Ministry of Interior and within the judicial sector;
(6) the Palestinian Authority has halted all anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled electronic and print media and in schools, mosques, and other institutions it controls, and is replacing these materials, including textbooks, with materials that promote tolerance, peace, and coexistence with Israel;
(7) there exists within the Palestinian Authority comprehensive anti-terrorism vetting and tracking procedures for all Palestinian Security Forces personnel benefiting from United States security assistance and United States security cooperation programs; and
(8) the Palestinian Authority has and continues to publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a
19 Jewish state.

As with the Egypt and Lebanon sections, the President may waive this far-reaching ban but only if he certifies that failure to do so "would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States"; (2) the U.S. "is fully implementing and enforcing end-use monitoring mechanisms and all United States equipment provided are accounted for"; and (3) the U.S. has established and implemented "comprehensive procedures to vet all recipients of United States security assistance, including collection, storage, and use of biometric data and biometric identification systems, to ensure that no recipients are members of, or affiliated with, a foreign terrorist organization."

Note: Once again, this means that in order to waive the ban on aid to the PA in circumstances where the President deems that vital U.S. national security interests are at stake, the President the President must first meet two other potentially arduous conditions. If he cannot meet those conditions, then he cannot waive the ban (U.S. national security interest be damned).

-Sec. 972: Requiring an annual comprehensive report on security assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

PART VI-YEMEN

- Sec. 991: This section bars assistance to the Government of Yemen (GOY - hee hee) unless the President certifies that:

(1) no ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Yemen is controlled by a foreign terrorist organization or is directly or indirectly affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization;
(2) no member of a foreign terrorist organization serves in any position in a ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Yemen;
(3) there exists within the Government of Yemen comprehensive anti-terrorism vetting and tracking procedures for all Yemeni security forces personnel benefiting from United States security assistance and United States security cooperation programs;
(4) all ministries and operations of the Government of Yemen that directly or indirectly benefit from United States security assistance or United States security cooperation programs are financially transparent and accountable; and
(5) the Government of Yemen is not complicit in human rights abuses.

The section includes the same limited waiver authority (subject to the same conditions) as for Egypt, Lebanon, and the PA).

-Sec. 992: Requiring a comprehensive annual report of security assistance to the GOY.

3. Hearing on Palestinian Aid 7/12/11: A Re-Cap

This recap was prepared by APN intern Jennifer Aaronson.

On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia held a hearing entitled "Promoting Peace? Reexamining U.S. Aid to the Palestinian Authority." Witnesses were the Honorable Jacob Walles, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (prepared testimony); Lieutenant General Mike Moeller, United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (prepared testimony); and the Honorable George A. Laudato, Administrator's Special Assistant for the Middle East. The hearing was chaired by subcommittee chairman Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) (opening statement); ranking member Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) also delivered a statement (here).

In the midst of the economic recovery and pending unilateral action by the Palestinians to go to the United Nations, the witnesses were asked to defend the continuation of U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Questions were raised regarding the effectiveness of U.S. assistance as well as the implications of a power-sharing government between Fatah and Hamas. Focus also fell on supporting the two-state solution through leveraging aid and negotiations in order to prevent the Palestinians turning to the UN.

In defense of the assistance, Lieutenant General Moeller stressed the importance of the security assistance that the U.S. provides. If the U.S. were to cut off aid, he believes there would be negative repercussions across the region, as the U.S. would no longer be viewed as a reliable security partner. He added that Israel is adamant that the U.S. continues its programs to build up an effective Palestinian security force, noting senior Israeli officials understand it is critically important because improved security capabilities help ensure law and order across the West Bank.

Some subcommittee members expressed concern over the lack of cooperation in spite of the assistance. Rep. Chabot asked how the U.S. could justify continued aid. Mr. Walles replied that assistance gives the U.S. leverage. It allows the U.S. to discuss with the Palestinians a range of issues and has produced practical benefits, including security improvements and the development of institutions needed for a two-state solution.

One of the big questions that continued to resurface throughout the hearing regarded how the power-sharing government of Fatah and Hamas would affect U.S. aid. Rep. Ackerman noted there are two parties in Palestine, one is a terrorist organization and the other proclaims there should be peace. One of them will need to give up its identity so they can speak with one voice. Mr. Walles mentioned that currently, however, the agreement between Hamas and Fatah has reached an impasse, demonstrating that the Palestinians remain divided. If Fatah and Hamas were able to settle on an agreement, he said the U.S. would need to look carefully into the new government, particularly focusing on the institutions put into place and the composition of the new government.

Mr. Laudato discussed the role of USAID. He explained that while USAID has a presence in the West Bank, it runs programs through nonprofits and other international NGOs in Gaza--not through the de facto Hamas government. If a power-sharing agreement were reached, aid to Gaza would remain the same so long as Hamas remained a terrorist network. In the West Bank, assistance may be modified as USAID would change any practices in order to be in accordance with U.S. law.

Lieutenant General Moeller stated that he is working exclusively with the West Bank. It is impossible to predict the future, so he suggested the best strategy is to continue with the aid, but also watch as events unfold with an understanding that if there is a change, the U.S. can then reevaluate its support. Ultimately, the presence of Hamas in a power-sharing government with the West Bank jeopardizes U.S. aid because as Mr. Laudato mentioned, Lieutenant General Moeller reemphasized that any assistance will meet the requirements of U.S. law.

The Palestinian effort to gain recognition from the UN created another point of concern. Throughout his testimony, Mr. Walles reassured the sub-committee that the Obama administration does not support this effort by the Palestinians. Rather, the administration has made clear that the correct path is through direct negotiations.

Rep. Higgins (D-NY) and Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) expressed their belief that certain preconditions should predicate U.S. assistance. Representative Higgins said that U.S. support should be dependent on the acceptance of certain preconditions. Representative Rohrabacher followed this up with emphasizing the right of return as the most significant obstacle to achieving a two-state solution. He suggested that the $550 million in assistance that the Palestinians receive be conditioned on the Palestinian acceptance that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

Ultimately, as Rep. Ackerman suggested, the objective is to get both sides back to the bargaining table. He noted that this would not be easy and would need to involve some face-saving deals as part of the negotiations. According to the "Ackerman Plan", he suggested that negotiations start at a middle point between the route of Israel's security barrier - which, as hinted at by the name, reflects what Israel apparently believed was a line that provides it with security - and the1967 lines with mutually agreed upon swaps, as referenced in President Obama's speech.

Further reading:

Politico 7/12/11: W.H. presses Hill on Palestinian aid
Jerusalem Post 7/12/11: US officials urge Arabs to resume Palestinian aid

4. Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission - Hearing on Human Rights in Syria

On 7/12/11 the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (a Congressional commission, not a regular House committee), held a hearing entitled Human Rights in Syria. The prepared testimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Michael Posner, can be read here. Other witnesses were Andrew Tabler, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (testimony); Mona Yacoubian, of the U.S. Institute of Peace (testimony); Radwan Ziadeh, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (no testimony available); and Mara Karlin, Instructor in Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (testimony).

The Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) posted notes from the hearing here. VOA also reported on the hearing.

5. House Broke Its Own Rules to Pass Palestinian-bashing Resolution

(APN commentary/analysis published 7/11/11)

Last week the House voted to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 268, a resolution strongly backed by AIPAC and others right-of-center Jewish organizations (and strongly opposed by APN). H. Res. 268 slams the Palestinians for seeking international recognition, for taking their case to the UN, and for seeking national reconciliation - and threatens them with punishment if they don't desist. I reported in my Round-Up last week that this vote was unusual, given that since taking control of the House in midterm elections, House Republican leaders have "virtually ended the longstanding practice of bringing non-binding, symbolic resolutions to the floor under suspension of the rules" (in contrast to past Congresses where the practice was rampant). The Washington Post even reported on this change.

When I wrote about this in the Round-Up I didn't know for certain exactly how many non-binding resolutions had been brought to the floor on the suspension calendar in the 112th Congress, so I couldn't say exactly how unusual last week's vote on H. Res. 268 was.

Now, I can say (because now I know)*. It was not just unusual - it was an entirely unique exception.

A total of six non-binding resolutions have been brought to the floor and passed under suspension of the rules in the 112th Congress. Five of them dealt with Congressional business:

- authorizing the use of Congressional facilities for an event (S. Con. Res. 16 and S. Con. Res. 2);
- authorizing acceptance of a statue for placement in the U.S. Capitol (H. Con. Res. 27);
- authorizing the award of a Congressional medal of honor (H. Res. 49); and
- reducing the authorized salaries and expenses of Congressional offices for 2011 and 2012 (H. Res. 22).

H. Res. 268 stands alone among them - a throwback to previous Congresses - as a symbolic political gesture, heavy on grandstanding, with the traditional litany of "whereas" clauses and "resolved" conclusions.

So let's be clear: the leaders of the 112th Congress have put in place a rule barring the use of the suspension calendar to pass symbolic, non-binding resolutions. And they have held to that rule, despite pressure from members to move resolutions important to their constituents, and despite pressure from outside groups to move resolutions important to their supporters. They have held firm, except in this one case - the exception that proves the rule that that when it comes to grandstanding on issues related to Israel, normal Congressional rules don't necessarily apply.

This is a sad statement. Israel needs a Congress whose members understand that Israeli-Arab peace is essential to Israel's security, well-being and viability as a Jewish state and a democracy. It needs a Congress whose members focus their energies on achieving this, not on pandering and point-scoring.

UPDATE 7pm, 7/11/11: A perceptive reader pointed me to this May 2011 story in the Hill reporting that the ban in the 112th Congress against symbolic resolutions was so absolute that the House leaders didn't allow a resolution honoring the military mission that assassinated Osama bin Laden.

----------------

*For anyone who wants to double-check my work, please note that the only way to track this is to scrutinize each of the daily Minority Whip's Daily Whip notices for the 112th Congress (the Majority leader's Daily Schedule is unfortunately not archived online). According to the House Library, information about what passes under suspension is not aggregated anywhere by anyone in Congress.

6. APN op-ed: Comparing Israel's New Boycott Law to US Legislation - Like Comparing Apples and Orangutans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lara-friedman/israel-boycott-law_b_898317.html

Israel's New Boycott Law and U.S. Law: Like Apples and Orangutans
Lara Friedman, Posted: 7/14/11

Comparing the boycott law passed Monday by the Israeli Knesset with US anti-boycott law is like comparing apples and orangutans.

Apples and orangutans indeed have things in common. Both occur in nature, both words start with a vowel, and neither one looks anything like a frog. Likewise, US law and the new Israeli law have things in common: both include the word "boycott," both relate to Israel, and neither has anything to do with frogs.

Defenders of Israel's anti-boycott law want to end the story there. This comparison, they argue, proves that the U.S. law and the Israeli law are in essence no different, and ipso facto, that the new Israeli law is nothing out of the ordinary in a democracy.

Anyone with any common sense knows that a pomaceous fruit is not the same as a great ape. Unfortunately, that same common sense seems to be lacking in the comparison of the two laws. This could be because -- let's be honest -- not everyone knows how to go about researching U.S. law. It could also be because even reasonable people assume that nobody would have the chutzpa to blatantly lie about something that can so easily be fact-checked.

Here are the facts:

U.S. law (found in the Export Administration Act -- EAA; the official reference is: 48 C.F.R. 652.225-71) "prohibits compliance by U.S. persons with any boycott fostered by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation," and imposes criminal penalties on those who do comply with such boycotts.

U.S. law (found in the Tax Reform Act -- TRA), penalizes those who participate in such boycotts (as defined under the EAA) by denying them certain tax benefits.

The key words in all of this are "by a foreign country." The objective behind these laws is clearly spelled out on this webpage (which is helpfully being circulated by the defenders of the boycott, but apparently not being read). That objective is: "preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy..." The key words here, again, are: "other nations."

There's nothing ambiguous here. U.S. law doesn't bar U.S. citizens from organizing boycotts of anything or any country, or participating in boycotts of anything or any country, that are organized by domestic or foreign individuals or organizations. What U.S. law bars is participation in unsanctioned boycotts and embargoes imposed by other countries that conflict with U.S. policies -- including but not limited to the (effectively moribund) Arab League boycott of Israel.

So what does this mean in practice? It means that a group of angry Americans can organize a boycott of France and French products to protest France's perceived non-support of the US in the Iraq war, notwithstanding the fact that France is a country that is "friendly to the United States." And Americans are free to organize a boycott against Canada, a close friend of the U.S., to protest seal hunting or to organize a boycott against Mexico, simply because they don't like it. And any American can organize a boycott of Arizona to protest its outrageous racial profiling policy. And a food co-op in Olympia, Oregon can legally boycott Israeli products.

And in practice, even if opponents of a boycott of settlement products could somehow make the case that such a boycott was being fostered by a foreign government, U.S. anti-boycott law would not apply. Israel has never annexed the West Bank, and settlements are not legally part of Israel, even under Israeli law. So such a boycott could not fairly be characterized as targeting "a country which is friendly to the United States." Moreover, U.S. anti-boycott law stipulates that compliance with foreign boycotts is prohibited if they reflect "foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy" -- but U.S. policy has long opposed settlements.

Welcome to democracy, under which citizens can peacefully protest whatever they want, foreign or domestic, including through boycotts.

Except in Israel. In Israel, as of Monday, people are still free to use boycotts to express their views on consumer prices (like the recent cottage cheese boycott), their religious intolerance (like regular boycotts by religious Jews of businesses that open on the Sabbath), and even their unconcealed racism (like boycotts of businesses that employ Arabs and boycotts of anything Arab at all). In Israel, one can still in fact use boycotts to protest anything and everything. Except, that is, to protest Israeli government policy as it relates to settlements and the occupation. Under Israel's new anti-boycott law, participating in or calling for any such boycott opens one up to being sued for practically unlimited "compensation," with the person doing the suing not even obligated to prove that any actual "damage" was done.

The Association of Civil Rights in Israel helpfully has some additional analysis of the differences between the U.S. and Israeli laws here. And for those who read Hebrew, there is this handy Knesset report which states that a Knesset committee charged with finding parallels in other countries to what was then the draft boycott law, "did not find arrangements in these countries [in Europe] that were similar to our proposed legislation..."

As pointed out by Joseph Dana writing in the Israeli +972 blog:

"...the Knesset's own fact finding mission proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the bill has no parallel in other democracies. Arguing that there are similar laws in other democratic countries is simply a device used to ignore the gravity of the present Israeli law. The implications of this bill on freedom of speech and expression in Israel are profound and even the Knesset harbours no illusion that there are similar laws in other democratic countries."

Those of us who care about Israel's future as a democracy must push back against this new law. We can't just nod our heads when they tell us that apples are just like orangutans and that limiting freedom of expression is not a sign that Israeli democracy is on the road to serfdom.

7. Odds and Ends

On 7/8/11 Tea Party Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) delivered another rambling, incomprehensible rant on the House Floor entitled (humorously?), "The Truth." In it (among other things) he appeared to take credit for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's appearance before Congress in May, offered kind words about Mubarak, and directly blamed the 2010 flotilla on the Obama Administration's position at that year's NPT conference (a position that has been widely mis-characterized including here by Gohmert).

Arutz Sheva (the settlers' media outlet), 7/15/11: GOP Lawmakers Pledge Support for Judea and Samaria (Tea Partiers Sessions, R-TX, Grimm, R-NY, Hayworth, R-NY), and West, R-FL). "...The pledge came from lobbying efforts by Shomrom Liaison Office Director David Ha'Ivri (the lobbyist for the settlers in the northern West Bank), who is on a two week tour of the United States and recently met with officials on Capitol Hill...)
The New York Jewish Week 7/13/11: Battle Is On To Succeed Weiner [and how Israel might figure into the election]
Global Security Newswire, 7/13/11: Senators Demand Turkey Radar Data Be Shared With Israel
Daily Caller 7/9/11: Hezbollah and Iran south of the U.S. border, some experts say (discussion of Congressional effort to have Venezuela listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism)
Jerusalem Post 7/8/11: Despite revolution, US set to approve tank sales to Egypt


========================================
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