(Apologies for the skipped Round-Up last week - the author was traveling)

1. Bills, Resolutions and Letters

(Aid to Israel - Military Programs) FY12 Defense Appropriations Bill: On 6/15/11 the House Appropriations Committee passed by a vote of 26-20 the as-yet not officially introduced FY12 Department of Defense Appropriations bill (no bill number yet). The bill text can be viewed here. The report can be viewed here. Section 8070 of the bill earmarks $235,700,000 in funding for Israel. This is in addition to the $3.1 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) provided to Israel as part of the annual foreign operations appropriations bill. Of the $235.7 million, $110.5 million is earmarked for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense research and development under the SRBMD program, of which $15 million is sub-earmarked for production activities of David Sling Weapon System missiles in the United States and in Israel, $66.2 million for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense architecture, and $59 million for the Arrow System Improvement Program including development of a long range, ground and airborne, detection suite. In addition, the provision stipulates (as it always days) that funds made available under this provision for production of missiles and missile components may be transferred to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and equipment - in effect meaning that Israel can use some of these funds as FMF, if it wants. For further reading, see: JPost 6/2/11: Congressional c'tee backs increase in Arrow funding; YNet 6/2/11: Congress pledges record-breaking funds for David's Sling, Arrow, and system to counter Iranian threat

(Palestinian Sanctions) HR XXXX: This week Tea Party caucus member Rep. Walsh (R-IL) circulated a Dear Colleague seeking cosponsors on a piece of draft legislation entitled the "Palestinian Accountability Act." The bill, which has not been introduced as of this writing, stipulates that unless specific conditions are met by the Palestinians, then (1) no U.S. government document may refer to any area under Palestinian Authority control as Palestine; (2) no U.S. funds may be provided to the Palestinian Authority; and (3) no U.S. funds may go to the UN or any UN entity that "declares or recognizes statehood for the Palestinian territories." In addition, the bill would bar U.S. funding of UNRWA unless UNRWA meets the same conditions imposed on the Palestinians, and unless (another) audit of UNRWA's budget is carried out and its results submitted to Congress. Text of the Dear Colleague is available here. Text of the draft bill (as of June 14) is available here.

(Israel/borders) S. Con. Res. 23: Introduced 6/9/11 by Sen. Hatch (R-UT) and 31 cosponsors, "A concurrent resolution declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. All of the current sponsors of the bill are Republicans except for Lieberman (I-CT), Nelson (D-NE) and Wyden (D-OR) - a reality which contradicts Hatch's assertion that "this resolution has strong bipartisan support." (For Hatch's full grandstanding remarks introducing the bill, see Section 2, below).

(Israel/Borders) H. Con. Res. 59: Introduced 6/3/11 by Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Bishop (D-UT) and 17 cosponsors, "Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. All the cosponsors of the resolution are Republicans (Charlie Rangel, D-NY, cosponsored originally and then withdrew his name). All of the current cosponsors are affiliated with the Tea Party.

(Palestinians at the UN) H. Res. 297: Introduced 6/3/11 by Rep. Chabot (R-OH) and having no cosponsors, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State should withhold United States contributions to the regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations for purposes of the General Assembly of the United Nations if the General Assembly adopts a resolution in favor of recognizing a state of Palestine outside of or prior to a final status agreement negotiated between, and acceptable to, the State of Israel and the Palestinians." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Bashing Obama and Palestinians) H. Res. 314: Introduced by Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Pearce (R-NM) and 7 cosponsors, "Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support its ally Israel in seeking peace with its neighbors, particularly toward a two-state solution that results in a free, nonmilitarized Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with the Jewish State of Israel, the home of the Jewish people." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This latest Tea Party grandstanding (all of the cosponsors are associated with the Tea Party) on Israel is particularly egregious in that it starts with an outright (and easily checked) lie about what the President said -- "Whereas, on May 19, 2011, Barack Obama, President of the United States, inexplicably stated that Israel must withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries" - and from there makes clear that in choosing sides, these members of Congress choose Prime Minister Netanyahu over the elected president of the United States.

(Jerusalem) H Res. 291: Introduced 6/1/11 by Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) and no cosponsors, "Urging the expedient relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Cut PA Aid) Duncan letter: On 6/15/11 Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Duncan (R-TN) circulated a Dear Colleague seeking co-signers on a letter to Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), urging the committee to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the Fatah-Hamas agreement (despite the fact that no new government has yet been formed, so it is as-yet unknown if a new government will actually in any way include Hamas). Notably, the letter essentially condemns, categorically, the record of the PA as led over the past years by President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. It states that, "To date, American support of the PA has not led the PA to be a partner for peace with Israel or to meet its international commitments." Rather, the letter asserts that "American financial assistance has enabled the PA to fund and praise terrorist activities, promote anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks and in PA- controlled media, and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state." It goes on to slam UNRWA (which is not funded by U.S. funding to the PA, so it doesn't actually fit into this letter)

(Lebanon) HR 2215: Introduced 6/16/11 by Rep. Berman (D-CA) and 3 cosponsors, "To ensure that United States taxpayer dollars are not used to fund terrorist entities in Lebanon, and for other purposes." The bill is also known as the "Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA). Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Financial Services. The official press release and summary of the bill is available here. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) 6/13/11 statement calling for a cut off in assistance to the government of Lebanon can be read here.

(Iran/Syria sanctions) HR 2105: Introduced 6/3/11 by Reps. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Sherman (D-CA), the "Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011." Referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Government Reform, the Judiciary, Ways and Means, Science, Space, and Technology, Financial Services, and Transportation and Infrastructure. Ros-Lehtinen statement introducing the bill can be read here.

(Syria) HR 2106: Introduced 6/3/11 by Reps. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Engel (D-NY), "To strengthen sanctions against the Government of Syria, to enhance multilateral commitment to address the Government of Syria's threatening policies, to establish a program to support a transition to a democratically-elected government in Syria, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Ways and Means, Financial Services, and Oversight and Government Reform. Ros-Lehtinen statement introducing the bill can be read here.
Ros-Lehtinen statement slamming UN efforts on Syria can be read here.

(Syria) H. Res. 296: Introduced 6/3/11 by Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) and having 30 cosponsors, "Expressing support for peaceful demonstrations and universal freedoms in Syria and condemning the human rights violations by the Assad Regime." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sponsorship of this resolution is a very odd mix - the majority are Tea Partiers or associated with the Tea party, alongside 7 Democrats, including very progressive Democrats like Keith Ellison (D-MN).

(Egypt/Tunisia) HR 2237: Introduced 6/16/11 by Rep. Schiff (D-CA) and no cosponsors, "To promote the strengthening of the private sector in Egypt and Tunisia." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Turkey) H. Res. 306: Introduced 6/15/11 by Rep. Royce (R-CA) and 32 cosponsors, "Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church properties." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Statement on the resolution from Rep. Royce here, and from Rep. Berman (D-CA) can be read here.

2. More Grandstanding on Israel, Borders, and Obama

The most prominent example of stunningly dishonest partisan grandstanding on this issue on the Hill in recent days comes from Orrin Hatch (R-UT), speaking 6/9/11 on the introduction of S. Con. Res. 23. In contrast to the Tea Partiers in the House, Hatch is honest enough to correctly state what the president actually said - that the 1967 lines should be the "starting point of negotiations", but he then goes on to dishonestly treat this statement as a demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines.

"Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise and offer, with my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, a concurrent resolution which reaffirms our Nation's steadfast and unshakable commitment to the security of Israel, specifically through the establishment of secure, recognized, and defensible borders.

"It is unfortunate that I am compelled to offer such a resolution. For years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that Israel's boundaries of June 4, 1967 are indefensible and if reestablished will create a strategic military vulnerability for our staunch ally.

"That is why President Obama's recent comments were so dumbfounding. The President's prepared and thoroughly considered remarks called for the starting point of negotiations to be what we all know are the militarily indefensible 1967 lines. Remember, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines its territory will, in some locations, be only 9 miles wide.

"As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu correctly stated in a friendly and appropriate correction to the President's remarks, the 1967 lines are not boundaries of peace. They are boundaries of repeated war. Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights, the strategic elevated location which dominates northern Israel. Does the President not remember during the 1973 War the Syrians launched a massive armored attack on the Golan Heights which almost succeeded?

"This raises the question of who President Obama was attempting to appease with his ill-advised statements, which unnecessarily drove a wedge between the United States and Israel? The fact is the national security interests of the United States and Israel are linked. The threats Israel faces are the threats the United States faces. Whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip or these groups' benefactor, Iran, we share a common foe.

"Unfortunately, that foe, Iran, appears to be growing stronger and more capable. Iran has repeatedly stated it wishes to wipe the United States and Israel off the map. Iran's obvious aim is to establish strategic dominance over the entire region. Their relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology is of grave concern.

"Much has been said about Iran's nuclear program, but much less has been articulated about its ballistic missile program. In order to achieve its strategic objectives, Iran has embarked on a significant ballistic missile program. Iranian officials have boasted they have the ability to produce a ballistic missile with a 1,250 mile range. In 2009, the Iranians were able to launch a multistage space launch vehicle that the Air Force concluded 'can serve as a test-bed for long-range ballistic missile technologies.'

"Even more troubling the Iranians appear to be developing a new long-range multistage solid rocket motor missile. Why is that important? If the Iranians successfully field this type of technology, they will be able to launch, almost instantaneously, missiles which carry warheads over great distances.

"With these ominous developments emanating from Israel's and the United States common foe, do we really want to be seen as distancing ourselves from one of our staunchest allies--especially on such a pivotal issue as Israel's borders. This issue of these borders is only underscored by the constant attacks on Israel's borders by Iran's surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas.

"That is why I believe this Concurrent Resolution is so important. It reaffirms the long-held, bipartisan policy of the United States, that we will 'support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.'

"The United States has no greater friend than Israel and Israel has no greater friend than the United States. Israel too often finds herself alone in the world, unjustly singled out by the left as a nation uniquely without the moral authority to defend itself. From my perspective, Israel does not need to apologize to anyone for defending itself against those who would do her harm, and I will always stand by Israel as she seeks to protect her citizens against terrorists and their state sponsors.

"Having said that, I also believe many Iranians, especially the young people, know Iran is causing problems in the Middle East. We must support those people who are searchers for freedom.

"The security of both our nations is irrevocably linked. This bipartisan concurrent resolution removes any harmful ambiguity the President's remarks last week might have caused. The United States must stand by Israel. With his remarks last week, President Obama undermined her.

"Israel faces consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters of terrorism. But Israel is not a victim. All she asks is the ability to defend herself and for free people to support her right to self-defense. This is no time for the United States to distance itself from Israel, and I will do everything I can to affirm Israel's territorial integrity and ability to protect her citizens against the unprovoked attacks of terrorist and state actors.

"Because Israel is a true friend, I am not surprised that this resolution has strong bipartisan support. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I will be joined by members of both parties who want to remind the world the United States is steadfastly committed to the security of Israel and especially our ally's ability to maintain secure, recognized and defensible borders."

3. Former Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) Defends Obama on Israel

Sun-Sentinal 6/5/11: Obama a key ally of Jewish state
By Robert Wexler, former Democratic member of Congress, is president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington, D.C.

Much of the coverage following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States last month focused on supposed divergences between him and President Barack Obama. But an in-depth look at the substance of statements issued by both leaders reveals that their views are actually consistent with and complement one another, and that President Obama's vision for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ensures that Israel can remain a Jewish and democratic state, that it can include within internationally recognized borders the vast majority of Israelis currently living beyond the 1967 lines, and that it can keep its citizens safe.

The majority of the attention has focused on the claim that President Obama demanded Israel's return to its boundaries before it took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 Six Day War. A return to the 1967 lines would, in fact, be an unacceptable proposition for Israel. But President Obama never said Israel should return to the 1967 lines. He said that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

As the president reiterated at this year's American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, "The parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." In effect, President Obama met the Israeli demand that a future border reflect Israeli demographic and security concerns.

Prime Minister Netanyahu went out of his way during his recent speech to Congress to clarify that he and President Obama are on the same page about this: "As President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967."

The concept of land swaps that President Obama referenced in his speech has served as the basis for every serious attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the past decade. For every piece of land beyond the 1967 lines that Israel wants to annex, it would give a piece of land to the Palestinians from within Israel proper. President George W. Bush's 2004 letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which Prime Minister Netanyahu is now insisting that President Obama reaffirm, is based on this premise. As Dov Weisglass, Sharon's chief of staff, said in a radio interview after President Obama's speech, anyone who believes that "the drawing of the new map will be based on any reference point other than the 1967 boundaries is simply disconnected from reality."

President Obama's speech formalizes into official U.S. policy the working assumption of every U.S. president and secretary of state since the 2000 Camp David negotiations, as well as former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated soldier.

As Olmert wrote in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth after President Obama's speech, "A two-state solution is vital for Israel's security and existence. The 1967 borders [with swaps] as a basis are the key to this, and we have nothing to fear in this respect."

Since a large proportion of the Israeli settlers live in areas adjacent to and contiguous with the 1967 lines, there are multiple border scenarios that would allow Israel to annex the vast majority of the 500,000 Israelis living beyond the 1967 lines. Thus, land swaps along the 1967 lines "allow the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides," President Obama reiterated at AIPAC.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu also agreed that, in the words of the prime minister, "the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend, so peace must be anchored in security." By insisting that the 1967 lines be modified, President Obama showed his paramount concern for Israel's security.

"Every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat," President Obama said.

Furthermore, he went beyond Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon by demanding a non-militarized Palestinian state (which Prime Minister Netanyahu described to Congress as "absolutely vital"), and conditioning Israeli withdrawal from any post-1967 territory on the demonstrated effectiveness of security arrangements. This made clear that Israel should be able to maintain troop presence in the West Bank until its security needs are met, which is consistent with Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence that Israel maintain "a long-term military presence along the Jordan River."

Prime Minister Netanyahu praised President Obama for his hard-nosed efforts to prevent Iranian nuclearization and for defending Israel's right to protect itself against Iranian proxies.

"President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the UN to adopt sanctions against Iran," Prime Minister Netanyahu said in his speech to Congress. He also thanked President Obama for being "very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own ... [and] for your steadfast commitment to Israel's security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this."

President Obama also shared Israel's fears about Hamas' participation in the Palestinian government, legitimizing Israel's reluctance to "negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize [Israel's] right to exist." He declared the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement "an enormous obstacle to peace," and reaffirmed his demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, adhere to all existing agreements and immediately release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. And by insisting that Israel be recognized as "a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people" -- meeting another Prime Minister Netanyahu demand -- President Obama effectively renounced any return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both declared that, in the words of President Obama, "efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure [and] symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state." As he repeated at the AIPAC conference, "The United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum, because Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate." In Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress, he expressed appreciation for "the president's clear position on this issue."

President Obama deliberately chose to deliver his speech days before his trip to Europe, where he lobbied world leaders to reject the Palestinian strategy of seeking a declaration of statehood by the General Assembly of the United Nations in September -- a campaign that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently described as "a diplomatic tsunami" that would push Israel "into a corner from which the old South Africa's deterioration began." Key to President Obama's efforts to prevent this declaration is his ability to make the argument that Israel is serious about resolving this conflict through negotiations.

To aid America in these efforts, Israel should clearly announce its willingness to enter into negotiations based on President Obama's vision, contingent on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolving his unity deal with Hamas or convincingly restricting Hamas' role in the interim Palestinian government.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Abbas during his speech to Congress, "Tear up your pact with Hamas, sit down and negotiate, make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as the new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so." President Abbas would now be wise to test Prime Minister Netanyahu on this offer to negotiate.

An honest reading of President Obama's two speeches last month should erase any doubts about the president's commitment to Israel, and reassure Israel's supporters that President Obama is a reliable and steadfast partner in the quest for a viable and secure peace that is in the interests of both America and Israel.

4. New Latino-Jewish Caucus Launched in the House

On 6/14/11 a new congressional caucus was launched: the Latino-Jewish Congressional Caucus. While the group is ostensibly focused on domestic Jewish-Latino issues, the event was attended by Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, who commented on his Facebook page: "I was pleased to join the American Jewish Committee in its launching of the Latino-Jewish Congressional Caucus, chaired by Reps. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (D-FL). I look forward to even greater solidarity and cooperation between us all."

In her comments at the event, Ros-Lehtinen noted that "We are very concerned that the Iranian regime and its proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are increasing their influence and activities in countries in the Western Hemisphere. These developments are negative for the U.S., negative for Israel, and negative for the freedom-loving people who live in Latin American countries..."

Further reading:
JTA 6/15/11: Lawmakers launch Latino-Jewish Congressional Caucus
New York Jewish Week 6/13/11: Latino-Jewish Congressional Caucus set to launch
American Jewish Committee Press release 6/14/11: AJC Joins in Launching Latino-Jewish Congressional Caucus

5. AIPAC Event for Hill Staff on Palestinian UN Effort

On 6/24/11 AIPAC (in the form of the American Israel Education Foundation - AIEF "the charitable organization affiliated with AIPAC") is hosting a briefing on Capitol Hill for Hill staff entitled "Peace or Provocation? The Palestinian Statehood Gambit." The event will feature Jonathan Schanzer, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank. While the title of the event is in the form of a question, the text of the invitation to this AIPAC-sponsored event makes clear what the answer is:

"Rather than responding to Israel's efforts to negotiate peace, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is now attempting to win recognition for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly in September. At the same time, the PA is working to create a unity government with long-time rival Hamas, while simultaneously campaigning worldwide to isolate the Jewish state. How do the Palestinian efforts at the United Nations undermine U.S. peace efforts? How are the Palestinians using the U.N. campaign to isolate Israel? And how should the United States respond to this campaign?..."


6. Odds and Ends

Senator Kirk (R-IL): Kirk Report: The Future of Israel's Security and the
U.S.-Israel Relationship
Politico 6/14/11: Kirk goes to Israel, comes back with new policy approach
Washington Times 6/2/11: Deceit on the Nile - Congress needs to act to prevent Cairo's switch from friend to foe (...Rep. Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey Democrat, who sits on the House foreign aid panel, supports Egyptian aid, but stresses that it must be contingent on 'our national interests [being] addressed properly.'"
JTA 6/15/11: U.S. official: Cutting U.N. funds harms Israel, U.S. interests
San Francisco JWeekly 6/9/11: Netanyahu snubs Woolsey, four other House members
The Hill 6/12/11: Sen. Graham: Military intervention in Syria should be 'on the table'
World Tribune 6/16/11: Congressional leader calls for Obama to halt U.S. aid to Lebanon
UPI 6/15/11: Saudis seek U.S. weapons

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