1. BILLS AND RESOLUTION

(IRAN) S. Con. Res. 40: Introduced 9/22/09 by Sen. Specter (D-PA) and having 6 cosponsors, "A concurrent resolution encouraging the Government of Iran to grant consular access by the Government of Switzerland to Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer, and Sarah Shourd, and to allow the 3 young people to reunite with their families in the United States as soon as possible." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

(IRAN) H. Con. Res. 189: Introduced 9/22/09 by Reps. Schwartz (D-PA) and Hinchey (D-NY), ":Encouraging the Government of Iran to grant consular access by the Government of Switzerland to Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer, and Sarah Shourd, and to allow the 3 young people to reunite with their families in the United States at the soonest possible opportunity." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(IRAN, SYRIA, ET AL) HR 3611: Introduced 9/22/09 by Rep Broun (R-GA) and having 37 cosponsors, "To restrict the diplomatic travel of officials and representatives of state sponsors of terrorism, and for other purposes." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(US-ISRAEL DEFENSE COOPERATION) HR 3326: Introduced 7/24/09 by Rep. Murtha (D-PA), "Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes." On 9/10/09 the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to substitute the House text of HR 3326 with its own version of the bill and reported the bill out of committee. The bill was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent on 9/24/09.

Both the House and Senate versions of the bill earmark $202,434,000 under the heading "Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide" for "Israeli Cooperative Programs." Of this, both earmark the same funding for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture ($50.036 million) and for the Arrow Missile Defense Program ($72.4 million). The bills differ on the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program, with the House earmarking $45.792 million for the program (and leaving the remaining $34.206 million un-earmarked), while the Senate earmarks the full remaining funds - $80.092 million - for the SRBMD program (leaving none of the funding un-earmarked). With respect to the Arrow funding, both the House and Senate stipulate that "$25,000,000 shall be for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, regulations and procedures: Provided further, 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, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority contained in this Act."

2. MORE CRITICISM OF THE GOLDSTONE REPORT (AND UN IN GENERAL)

The Goldstone report continues to reverberate in Congress. In the Senate, Senators Gillibrand (D-NY) and Isakson (R-GA) are circulating a letter to Secretary of State Clinton. The original version of the letter that was circulated (which in an apparent oversight left AIPAC as the letter's "author" in the properties section of the document), included detailed bullet points denouncing the report and its contents, coupled with a central message: "it is critical that the U.S. continue to work very hard to block any punitive actions against Israel, whether at the Security Council or other U.N. bodies." As of 9/24/09 that letter had reportedly gotten only a handful of signatures. A pared-down version of the letter, omitting the bullet points, was circulated the morning of 9/25/09. The letter, which was originally scheduled to close at COB on 9/24/09, is now being held open until COB today.

In addition, Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS), inserted a statement into the Record on 9/23/09 blasting the entire UN, saying (among other things), "The Goldstone Report is the epitome of what is wrong with the United Nations in general and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in particular. Dominated by anti-democratic, anti-Semitic nations opposed to any semblance of human rights, the UNHRC has proven itself to be lacking objectivity and interest in truth or advancing the real cause of human rights."

Similarly, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a veteran critic of the UN, made a floor statement 9/22/09 blasting the entire UN system, including not only the Human Rights Commission but also UNRWA (a favorite target of Ros-Lehtinen. She also used the opportunity to mock the Obama Administration's engagement with the UN, noting "Administration officials have said, 'The U.N. is essential to our efforts to galvanize concerted actions that make Americans safer and more secure.' Libya, Sudan, Iran? Are you feeling secure now?" She concluded her anti-UN speech, stating, "Madam Speaker, enough is enough. Let's put U.S. taxpayer dollars to work for the American people, and not for the U.N., where the inmates run the asylum."

In addition, Rep. Peters (D-MI) delivered a floor statement on 9/23/09 entitled "United States-Israeli Bond" which noted among other things that "...Israel is wrongly assailed for defending its own borders and citizens, as we saw last week in the flawed Goldstone Report, which unfairly criticizes Israel despite its strong efforts to protect all civilians. Israel faces criticism from even attempting to deter the growing Iranian threat. Israel is a lonely democracy in a sea of tyranny; a shining example in a dangerous corner of the world of how freedom and democracy, pluralism, and economic ingenuity can lead to a high standard of living for all. Despite its hardships, Israelis are reliant and, because of this, their country prospers..."

3. On the Record: Republican Reps Suggest that Obama Missile Defense Decision Will Leave Israel No Choice but to Attack Iran

On 9/23/09, Rep. King (R-IA) led a colloquy on the House floor, joined by Rep. Franks (R-AZ) and Akin (R-MO) regarding the Administration's recent decision regarding missile defense in Europe. King denounced the decision, stating that "...I believe the President fundamentally disgraced this Nation by breaking his word to our loyal and courageous allies in the Czech Republic and in Poland." King went on to link the decision to his conclusion that it would increase the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, stating (among other things), "If the Obama administration continues down this road of appeasement and denial, the nation of Iran will gain a nuclear capability, and they will pass that technology and those weapons on to the most dangerous terrorists in the world. And this generation and so many to come, Mr. Speaker, will face the horrifying reality of nuclear jihad."

In an apparently orchestrated exchange with Rep. Franks (R-AZ), Reps. King and Franks went on to take his analysis even further, arguing in effect that the President's decision could force Israel to take military action against Iran, and that the President's decision justified Israel taking such action:

KING: " In the gentleman's opinion, does this capitulation on the part of President Obama make it more or less likely that the Israelis will be compelled to strike at the capabilities of Iran?

FRANKS: "Well, let me just say this first with the gentleman's permission: I believe, if the free world places Israel in the untenable position of having to defend itself, which it will have to do if no one else has the courage to stand up to Iran, Israel will have no choice. It has no room for error. Ahmadinejad has said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. One warhead could virtually destroy Israel. We can put eight Israels in the size of my State of Arizona. They're only a one-bomb nation. They cannot abide an Iranian lunatic like Ahmadinejad, who has his finger on the nuclear button with a Shahab-3 that can reach Israel in about 12 to 14 minutes. They cannot possibly abide that. We in the free world know that. If we stand by and force Israel to respond like we've done in times past, whether it be with Syria or with the nuclear power plant in Iraq sometime ago, the Orissa plant, if we put them in that position, then we really fail the whole world because that will enflame the passions of the entire Arab world; and it will, I think, set us on a path of great contention.

KING: "Reclaiming my time, as I look at this and at the strategic location of Israel and at the 12 to 14 minutes that it takes for a missile to get from Iran to Israel and at the 12 to 14 months for Iran to have the capabilities to do so, the odds of being able to slow Iran's development down of nuclear weapons because of any diplomatic maneuverings that might come with regard to sanctions--economic sanctions, negotiations, blockades, threats of anything--have diminished dramatically because the club has been laid down by President Obama; the shield has been laid down by President Obama, and it sends the message to Iran: 'Accelerate your efforts on the 17 to 200 centrifuges that you have.' So, from my view, it puts Israel in a position where they may have no choice. If they wait 12 to 14 months to make their decision, the decision may be coming too late at that period of time.

FRANKS: "Tragically, Mr. King, the Israelis will have almost no choice. This will be a defensive action on their part because they've already been told by the Iranian leaders that they intend to wipe Israel off the map. This would give them the capacity to do just that."

4. On the Record - Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) argues that if the US gets Utah (etc), Israel gets West Bank

9/24/09, Rep. Gohmert (R-TX), made two bizarre floor statements appearing to take issue with the idea of the two-state solution and suggesting that US support for the idea was hypocritical. In a one-minute speech, Gohmert stated, "President Obama has indicated before that, basically, Israel needs to not be occupying land that was acquired during war. Yesterday, to the U.N. he said that a big part of the goal is this: a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. Well, he has also indicated this Nation, the United States, will not be hypocritical any longer around the world. Terrible news this is for California--all of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, most of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, because it means you're about to be given back to Mexico, territory that we acquired in 1848 as a result of a war."

In a separate 5-minute speech, he stated, " Whether you believe in the propriety of the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, that's one thing, but to unilaterally go against the word that was provided that we will not do that, that we keep our agreements, and unilaterally announce we're going back on our word on the missile defense shield shatters credibility even to those who didn't care about the missile defense shield but who are thinking about reaching agreements with us...There were pledges made to Israel during the campaign by the people inhabiting this administration, and now we're telling them you're going to have to go back to the lines the way they existed before 1967 because you cannot occupy land that you achieved during warfare. My goodness, we're going to have to give back California. We're going to have to give back Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming. This is ridiculous. We are hurting our credibility nationally. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the prior administration, please do no more damage to this Nation's credibility."

====================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
====================================

For more information, contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.