1.  Bills & Resolutions
 
(Gilad Shalit) H. Res. 1359: Introduced 5/13/10 by Rep. Ackerman (D-NY) and having 72 cosponsors, "Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is held captive by Hamas, and for other purposes."  Brought to the floor 6/24/10 under suspension of the rules as passed by a voice vote.  Notably, Rep. Ackerman's floor statement in support of the resolution closed with these inspiring, pro-peace words:  "Against their enterprise of darkness and hatred and bloodshed we need to stand up for a different vision and a different future: one where Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in peace; where the city of Jerusalem is a symbol of coexistence and tolerance; where the lost and missing--all of them--are returned to their families and their people. It is this vision that motivates us, that mobilizes us to work so hard to achieve peace for others. And it is within this vision of a better future that we keep faith with our allies in the State of Israel and with the Shalit family as they wait for the return of their lost son."


(Iran) H. Res. 1457: Introduced 6/22/10 by Rep. Costa (D-CA) and having 20 cosponsors, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the one-year anniversary of the Government of Iran's fraudulent manipulation of Iranian elections, the Government of Iran's continued denial of human rights and democracy to the people of Iran, and the Government of Iran's continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability."  Brought to the floor 6/24/10 under suspension of the rules as passed by a voice vote.   Again, in his statement of support for the resolution, Chairman Ackerman included an important thought: "...as we think about how we can aid the Green Movement, I believe we need to be especially careful and thoughtful. There is, unfortunately, a painful history of American intervention in Iranian affairs, and we should, at the very least, have some humility about our ability to competently shape highly politicized and dynamic events in other nations.  Iran is a sovereign state whose people are struggling bravely for their own freedom. It is natural and right for us to want to support their struggle. The question is how? It seems to me that our first obligation is 'to do no harm.' And our second obligation is to recognize that we are not a doctor, and Iran is not a patient."

(Iran) HR 2194:  Introduced 4/30/09 by Rep. Berman (D-CA) and now known as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 [in the bill this has now been changed to read "2010"].  Conference report filed 6/23/10 and adopted by both the House and Senate 6/24/10.  For details, see section 2, below.
 
(the Flotilla debacle) S. Res. 548: Introduced 6/9/10 by Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) and having 14 cosponsors, "A resolution to express the sense of the Senate that Israel has an undeniable right to self-defense, and to condemn the recent destabilizing actions by extremists aboard the ship Mavi Marmara."  Brought to the Senate floor 6/24/10 and passed by a voice vote.  For details, see section 3, below.
 
(Iran) H. Res. XXX: A resolution to be introduced by Rep. Gohmert (R-TX), threatening Iran.  See section 6, below, for text.
 
2.  CONGRESS PASSES IRAN SANCTIONS
 
On 6/21/10 House-Senate conferees on HR 2194 (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009) reached agreement on a conference version of the bill.  The text of the report was posted almost immediately on the NIAC website and the AIPAC website.  The 124-page conference report includes many important changes, including new provisions that were not in either the House or Senate versions of the bill.  The most important of these changes are summarized below in the APN statement on the conference report.
 
On 6/23/10, the conference report was officially filed by Conferees, paving the way for the House and Senate to vote on it anytime.  And so they did.  On 6/24/10, the Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 99-0.  Shortly thereafter the House passed the bill by a vote of 408-8, with 1 voting present.  "No" votes were cast by: Baird (D-WA), Baldwin (D-WI), Blumenauer (D-OR), Conyers (D-MI), Flake (R-AZ), Kucinich (D-OH), Paul (R-TX), and Stark (D-CA). 
Waters (D-CA) voted "present." 
 
On 6/24/10, prior to the votes in both the House and Senate on the Iran sanctions conference report, Americans for Peace Now issued the following statement:
 
Americans for Peace Now welcomes changes to Iran sanctions legislation;
expresses continued reservations about the bill
 
Americans for Peace Now (APN) today welcomed changes made to the Iran Sanctions bill (HR 2194) by the House-Senate conference. APN also expressed continued concerns about both the timing of Congress' passage of the bill and the bill's underlying strategy. It is expected that both the House and Senate will pass the conference report and send it to President Obama imminently.
 
Positive changes to the bill, which APN had called for, include the addition of significant waiver authorities for the President throughout the bill, even if in many cases that authority is highly circumscribed.  These waivers are critical to giving the President at least the minimally necessary flexibility in his conduct of US foreign policy, in particular vis-à-vis the critical challenge posed by Iran.  They also include the merging of sanctions available to the President related to the refined petroleum sector and the financial sector into a single menu, as well as the re-setting of the "trigger" amount for refined petroleum sanctions to a more realistic and implementable level.

In addition, conferees added a number of new and constructive provisions to the bill, many of which APN had called for as well.   These include:
 

• Non-binding language supporting the work of American non-governmental organizations engaged in humanitarian and people-to-people programs in Iran;
• A binding provision explicitly permitting the export to Iran of a wide range of goods, including goods related to humanitarian needs, internet and online communications, safe operation of commercial aircraft, and other goods whose export is in the national interest of the United States.
• A provision imposing sanctions on human rights violators.
• A provision imposing sanctions on people who help Iran censor communications and the internet.

APN President and CEO Debra DeLee issued the following statement about the amended bill:

"APN has long been one of the lone voices opposing this legislation and expressing concerns about specific things the bill did - and did not - include.  The amendments made to the bill in conference vindicate our position.  Chairman Berman (D-CA) and Chairman Dodd (D-CT) deserve credit for paving the way for many important changes by their serious and responsible stewardship of this complicated, controversial and, ultimately, politicized legislation.  Given the intense and ceaseless lobbying that accompanied this bill from the outset, their leadership in achieving these changes is all the more admirable.

"Nonetheless, APN's core concern about this bill remains unchanged: imposing sanctions the goal of which is to 'cripple' the civilian economy and inflict misery on the population - in the hopes that this population will rise up against its government - is a flawed and in all likelihood counterproductive approach.  It is an approach that has failed for decades in Iran.  It failed in Iraq and Haiti.  It has failed in Cuba and North Korea.  And it is an approach that only last week Israel abandoned in Gaza, recognizing that squeezing the population of Gaza with a blockade on civilian goods had not only failed to force Hamas out of power, but had enabled Hamas (and the world) to blame Israel for all the misery the people of Gaza were facing.  It took Israel three years to recognize the error of this approach.  It is regrettable that Congress did not draw the obvious lesson from these experiences.

"Moreover, we note with deep regret that the conference report - which runs 124 pages - does not include a single positive reference to diplomacy or engagement.  Anyone reading the report would be hard-pressed not to draw the conclusion that Congress believes sanctions alone will be sufficient to change the behavior of Iran's government, and that if these sanctions fail, the answer is even more and harsher sanctions.  APN recognizes that sanctions can be a potentially powerful tool in foreign policy, but they are a tool, not a policy.  The fact that Congress did not see fit to include even non-binding language in this bill endorsing diplomatic efforts, US or multilateral, in parallel with sanctions, sends a resounding and very troubling message - one that is inconsistent with both US national security interests and with the approach of the Obama Administration.

"Finally, the timing of the passage of the bill is unfortunate.  Less than a month ago the United Nations Security Council adopted the most far-reaching multilateral sanctions on Iran in history.  It is regrettable that Congress chose neither to recognize the importance of this step - and the Obama Administration's historic victory in achieving it - nor to allow these new multilateral sanctions time to take effect and potentially yield positive results on the diplomatic track.  Passing new unilateral sanctions immediately on the heels of these new UN sanctions risks sending the message that the United States is not interested in multilateral action or engagement to deal with Iran."
 
For further recommended reading, see:
 
Ron Kampeas (JTA) 6/24/10: Obama, sanctions, should, shall and--why?
Jamal Abdi (ForeignPolicy.com 6/24/10: Congress moves forward with 'crippling sanctions' (and misses opportunity to support Iranians)
Washington Post 6/24/10: Iran is ready for planned U.S. sanctions targeting fuel imports, analysts say
AIPAC: Summary of the Conference Report
NIAC 6/24/10: Congress Passes Sweeping Sanctions Against Iran
NIAC 6/22/10: NIAC Deeply Concerned by Congressional Sanctions Agreement
 
3.  Selected House Statements on passage of Iran sanctions (HR 2194)
 
In both the House and Senate, the predictable (and by now redundant to the point of absurdity) statements were made or inserted into the record by large numbers of Members of Congress who have gotten the message from outside groups that being on the record in support of this bill is extremely important.
 
Only a few members expressed any concern about the bill (one being Rep. Garrett, R-NJ, who slammed the bill for not being tough enough, since it now gives the President minimal flexibility.  Interesting, Garrett uses this to argue that Democrats are not serious about sanctions, ignoring the fact that for 8 years of the Bush Administration it was a Republican president that failed to impose sanctions on Iran, and for most of that time it was a Republican-controlled Congress that acquiesced to that Bush Administration's wish that those sanctions not be strengthened).
 
Lee (D-CA) (voted YES):  "...Mr. Speaker, although I support this Conference agreement, I must reiterate my deeply held belief that sanctions should never be viewed as a checkmark on the path to war.  I remain deeply concerned by counterproductive rhetoric with regard to Iran that echoes the drumbeat to war we heard in Iraq.  The prospect of a military strike in Iran carries devastating and unacceptable consequences for United States foreign policy and security interests in the region that cannot be ignored.
 
"Further, I believe our words and resources are better served in support of the Iranian people, their resilient civil society and determination to seek the protection of basic human rights and meaningful democratic reform despite the intransigence of the ruling regime.  We must closely scrutinize the implementation of these sanctions, which I believe could be better targeted, in order to avoid punishing the Iranian people at the expense of moderate voices and to the benefit of hardliner elements within Iran.
 
"With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to invest as much energy in support of a coordinated and cooperative diplomatic process in Iran as they have in finalizing these punitive measures aimed at bringing them to the table.   It is this course of action that will be necessary to erase once and for all our fears of a nuclear-armed Iran and the destabilizing impact this might have in an already volatile region..."
 
Blumenauer (D-OR) (Voted NO):  "I rise in reluctant opposition, but I want to acknowledge the hard work of my friend and colleague, Chairman Berman, in piloting this legislation through difficult times. He made some important improvements, and I appreciate his willingness to delay final action while the administration negotiated far-reaching multinational sanctions against the Iranian regime.
 
"I'm also reluctant because I understand what animates this legislation. We are all appalled at the repressive behavior of the regime towards its own people, the destabilizing effort it has in the international arena, and we all recoil at the prospect of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of this regime.
 
"The problem is the legislation is not likely to accomplish these ends and poses problems for this--indeed, any--administration to be able to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. I would also oppose restrictions of this nature on the Clinton administration or the Bush administration.  The irony is that Congress seeks to impose its will at exactly the time the Obama administration has secured significant diplomatic success. I am concerned that enacting the legislation undercuts our credibility going forward.
 
"As long as the global economy runs on oil, Iran's massive reserves continue to make them a player. The world will buy their oil and the world will sell them refined oil products. Even with additional sanctions, the question is not `will it work?' but `who is profiting and how?' It stands likely that the Revolutionary Guard and countries like China will benefit, and not one member of the Iranian elite will lack for gasoline, while ordinary Iranians will go without. This is particularly counterproductive when one notes, by all accounts, that everyday Iranians still like Americans. Yet this legislation allows the regime to rally support by blaming the United States for hardships.
 
"They will use this as an opportunity to end their current unsustainable subsidies for petroleum products, which they would have been forced to do anyway, only now they get to blame America. This approach has been a failure in the past, notably with Cuba, where our unyielding aggressive sanctions policy, if anything, has propped up a regime that would have fallen into the dustbin of history years ago. They didn't stop North Korea from nuclear weapons. The sanctions policy against Iraq produced suffering for the people but made no difference to Saddam Hussein. Most recently, years of harsh sanctions in Gaza, much easier to enforce than against Iran, did not topple Hamas but strengthened it, while it created a very difficult humanitarian situation.
 
"This legislation will undoubtedly pass. While it makes some people feel better to seem like they are doing something, I strongly suspect it will have little constructive result on Iranian behavior--perhaps undercut support of the Iranian people for the United States and our principles--and is setting a precedent for Congress seeking to direct the conduct of American foreign policy. This goes beyond Republicans and Democrats, beyond the Obama administration. It's a path that I think we should all be reluctant to take, and it's why I am voting 'no.'''
 
Garrett (R-NJ) (VOTED YES):  "Today we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect Americans and our allies. Yet if that was our goal, I believe we only have partial success.  As a conferee representing the Financial Services Committee, I do admit that the sanctions themselves have been improved. I was pleased to see that the legislation includes financial sanctions that would cut off the connections between the U.S. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran.
 
"Yes, the conference report does add additional types of sanctions, and it extends the range of current sanctions. But I remind my colleagues that these punishments are hardly crippling, they're hardly tough, they're hardly sweeping or even expanded if they are never enforced.
 
"Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this time they'll work. But let me remind them of a little bit of history. In 1996, Congress passed the original Iran sanctions legislation; but in the last 14 years, no President has imposed sanctions, even though he has had the authority from Congress to do so. In fact, only one investigation was ever initiated. I say that this conference report is really only a half measure, a half bill, because 50 percent of it depends on who? On President Obama's willingness to implement the sanctions and to do it quickly.
 
"This legislation does in fact have seven separate waivers which the President may invoke. In addition, there are three different waiver thresholds. The end result is that the President has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the report.

 "Now, of course multiple Democrats have attempted to reassure me. They say that they will now pressure the President to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation. But we've been hearing that for 16 months. We've been told that the President's attempts to engage the U.N. about Iran would produce diplomatic gains. Yet the recently passed U.N. security resolution was hardly that significant of a success. Furthermore, President Obama himself recognized 2 weeks ago that, A, Iran concealed a nuclear enrichment facility; B, Iran further violated its own obligations; C, Iran is enriching uranium up to 20 percent..."
 
Kucinich (D-OH) (VOTED NO):  "Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Despite the inclusion of provisions in this legislation that would improve internet access and target violators of human rights, the bill will inflict severe economic hardship on the Iranian people and have no impact on the Iranian government. I oppose nuclear proliferation for military purposes for all countries and believe that sanctions have proven to be a failed policy.
 
"The stated purpose of this legislation is to persuade the Iranian government to halt their nuclear program. Broad sanctions can only serve to further isolate Iran from the international community and cause them to be increasingly secretive. The sanctions play directly into the hands of the Iranian government and directly undermine the efforts of the Iranian people who have courageously challenged their government--often at the cost of their lives.
 
"The United States was unable to come to a resolution with Iran over its nuclear program, partly due to the fact that during negotiations, Iran was threatened with sanctions regardless of negotiations. At the core of the failure of negotiations was mistrust. Turkey and Brazil accomplished something the United States was unable to do in their diplomatic negotiations with Iran over a nuclear fuel swap--broker a deal based on trust. Unfortunately, the Administration missed the opportunity to capitalize on this significant breakthrough in negotiations.
 
"It is my hope that it will not take the impending suffering of the Iranian people at the hands of U.S.-imposed sanctions to wake us up to the need to significantly change our diplomatic engagement with Iran."
 
4.  More Aftermath of the Gaza Flotilla
 
The Gaza flotilla has turned into the gift that keeps on giving for those members who want to demonstrate emphatically that they support Israel as much as and hopefully more than the next guy.  And they haven't let the fact that last week Israel changed its policy on the Gaza blockade stand in their way.  On 6/23/10, Senate Republicans, - and apparently not content with the bipartisan Reid-McConnell letter, discussed in last week's edition of the Round-Up and which ultimately got 87 signers - "hotlined" S. Res. 548 (this means they sent out a notification to all Senators of the intention to bring the resolution to the floor and pass it by unanimous consent - something that can be blocked by a single member from either party placing a hold on the resolution.  It should be noted the identity of the member putting the hold on a resolution is secret unless the member himself/herself makes the information public). 
 
This resolution, introduced by Sen. Cornyn (R-TX), with 14 cosponsors (all Republican), expresses "the sense of the Senate that Israel has an undeniable right to self-defense, and to condemn the recent destabilizing actions by extremists aboard the ship Mavi Marmara." 
 
Apparently Republicans couldn't get unanimous consent to pass the resolution, so instead they made do with bringing it to the floor 6/24/10 (something that required the cooperation of Democratic leadership) and passing it by a voice vote.  A lone brave senator, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), spoke up, very intelligently, in opposition to S. Res. 548.  Bingaman told the Senate:
 
"Mr. President, before the Senate votes on Senate Resolution 548, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to it.
 
"This resolution speaks to this so-called 'flotilla incident' that occurred a few weeks ago near Gaza. I am concerned that this resolution does not help either the United States or Israel. I support Israel. I have done so during all my years here in the Senate. But I also believe that the only way to ensure Israel's long-term security is to have a genuine peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. This resolution does not bring us closer to that peace.
 
"No one questions Israel's right to defend itself. I know that questions have been raised about the relationship between the Humanitarian Relief Foundation and Hamas, and I am concerned about those questions and they need to be answered.
 
"But I am also concerned that Israel's response to the flotilla and the deaths onboard the Mavi Marmara once again shows to Israel's enemies that they can provoke Israel into taking actions that undermine international support for Israel.
 
"Israel was able to board five of the ships with no loss of life, as my colleague from Texas indicated, and that needs to be acknowledged. But this incident has distracted the attention of the international community away from the peace process. It has overshadowed the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, which occurred nearly 4 years ago today--in fact, on June 25, 2006. Hamas should immediately release Gilad Shalit. Unfortunately, I do not believe this resolution will help to make that happen.
 
"Nor does this resolution talk about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Israel has allowed humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but it is evident from the conditions in Gaza that those supplies have not been sufficient. One U.S. charity estimates that 400 trucks of basic food supplies are needed in Gaza every day, but on average only 171 trucks of basic nutritional aid enter Gaza each week.
 
"Israel has a right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, but I do not see a reason for the Senate to pass a resolution supporting a policy that has the effect of restricting humanitarian supplies. Moreover, Israel itself has decided to change that policy. I am encouraged by Israel's decision last week to ease the restrictions on the flow of goods into Gaza. I agree with the White House that this new policy, once implemented, will significantly improve the conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza. As Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Knesset:
 
"This new policy is the best one for Israel because it eliminates Hamas' main propaganda claim and allows us and our international allies to face our real concerns in the realm of security.
 
"The resolution the Senate is considering at this point would put the Senate on record in support of a policy that Israel itself has determined to change.  
 
"One more obvious point is the Senate has not fully debated this resolution. There have been no hearings on the flotilla incident or any version of this resolution in either the Senate or in the House. To my knowledge, the administration has not expressed its views on this resolution either. I believe with regard to foreign policy matters, the administration should always be consulted.
 
"Let me close by saying no one should question the U.S. support for Israel. I do not believe anyone seriously questions that. I say again that I do not believe this resolution furthers the effort to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which is the only way to ensure Israel's long-term security.
 
"For those reasons I would like to be recorded in opposition to enactment of the resolution."
 
5.  Senate Republicans Attack Elena Kagan for Praising Israeli Supreme Court Judge
 
On 6/21/10, in an extraordinary attack on Israel's Supreme Court from with the US Senate, Sens. Sessions (R-AL) and Hatch (R-UT) both lambasted the former chief justice of Israel's Supreme Court, Judge Aharon Barak, as a means of attacking US Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  The attack (which has drawn attention in Israel) was notable not only because reverence for Israel's Supreme Court has long been the norm in Congress (which repeatedly - and correctly - has applauded Israel's judicial system), but because these two senators appear to have a complete lack of appreciation for the fact that the role of the Supreme Court in Israel is much different than that of the Supreme Court in the US, for the simple reason that Israel does not have a written constitution or bill of rights. 
 
Sessions: "...clues to Ms. Kagan's judicial philosophy can be found perhaps by looking at people she admires, her mentors, judges she thinks represent the best way of conducting their office.  The three judges Ms. Kagan most often mentions are Judge Abner Mikva, Justice Thurgood Marshall, and former Israeli Judge Aharon Barak. Together I think it is fair to say these three judges represent the vanguard of a judicial activist movement that has certain intellectual roots and is quite afoot in our law schools and some of our legal commentators.
 
"...interestingly, the judge Ms. Kagan praises the most happens to be perhaps the most activist judge on Earth: Aharon Barak, the former president--or chief justice--of the Israel Supreme Court. The respected Federal judge Richard Posner flatly described Barak as a 'judicial activist.' Elena Kagan described him as her 'judicial hero.'   To judicial activists around the world, Aharon Barak is an icon. After inviting him to Harvard, Ms. Kagan called him 'a great, great judge' who 'presided over the development of one of the most principled legal systems in the world.' Her comments are troubling to anyone who believes in limited government and democracy and a limited role for judges.
 
"Under Barak, the Israeli court assumed extraordinary governmental power over the people of Israel. The basic democratic rights we take for granted in our country were ignored in his actions. The unelected court in Israel assumed the authority to set aside legislation and executive actions when there were disagreements about policy--not violations of the constitution, but disagreements about policy. It would alter the meaning of enacted laws and override even national defense measures.
 
"Judge Posner wrote that Barak inhabits 'a completely different--and, to an American, a weirdly different--juristic universe.' He goes on to say: 'What Barak created ... was a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.' Judge Posner compared Barak's actions to 'Napoleon's taking [of] the imperial crown out of the Pope's hands and crowning himself.'
 
"...What is Judge Barak's judicial philosophy, as he expresses it? He has written that a judge's role 'is not restricted to adjudicating disputes' between parties, as is required by the cases and controversies clause of our Constitution [note: Israel does not have a constitutions, making the role of the Supreme Court different, by definition, than that of the US Supreme Court]. Rather, he says:  The judge may give a statute new meaning...
 
"'The judge may give a statute new meaning' -- a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between law and life's changing reality without changing the statute itself. The statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs.
 
"Well, I would say that Justice Barak let the cat out of the bag. In America, activist judges firmly deny this is what they are doing, but in reality, often that is exactly what they are doing--just taking plain statutes and giving the words new meaning and making them say what they would like for them to have said had they written them in that given period of time..."
 
Hatch:  "...In 2006, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan praised as her judicial hero Aharon Barak, who served on the Supreme Court of Israel for nearly 30 years. She called him 'the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law, and of justice.' That is not simply high praise, but the highest praise possible, for she said that Justice Barak was literally the very best judge anywhere during her entire lifetime in representing and advancing the rule of law.  
 
"Who is this judge who, for Ms. Kagan at least, is literally the best representation of the rule of law? Judge Richard Posner has described Justice Barak as 'one of the most prominent of the aggressively interventionist foreign judges' who 'without a secure constitutional basis.....created a degree of judicial power undreamt of by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.' Judge Posner concluded that to Justice Barak, 'the judiciary is a law unto itself.'..."
 
6. Gohmert (R-TX), at it again (and as before, with friends like these...)
 
Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) seems determined to include Israel in what are turning into weekly (or even twice weekly) incomprehensible, rambling statements.  This week Gohmert spoke on 6/22/10 to complain about the US failing to protect Israel from bullies.  On 6/24/10 Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) delivered an hour-long speech on the House floor in which, among other things, he discussed a resolution he intends to introduce threatening Iran (and read the text into the record, replete with editorial comments).  Given the political season we are in, it seems plausible that this resolution (which among other things appears to make the case that the Holocaust was one of the reasons behind the creation of Israel - something that Obama was attacked for suggesting - despite the fact that he didn't actually suggest it - see here, here, and here).  Gohmert also discussed a letter he hopes will be sent to President Obama protesting the "snubbery" he sees in the Administration's treatment of Israel.
 
Gohmert on Israel, Iran, and other random thoughts - 6/24/10
 
"...Another thing we've done here is we, today, passed a bill making tougher sanctions regarding Iran. They are tougher sanctions, and that's a good thing. The trouble is it has taken so long to get sanctions in place and the centrifuges in Iran have been spinning for so long that, according to the IAEA, they have enough nuclear material to make two bombs now.  Well, let's think about that.
 
"I have a resolution here, and I'm hoping, Madam Speaker, that we will have people who will get on board. I think I've got around 50 cosponsors, but there is no reason that most of the Congress should not be sponsoring this bill, so I would submit the following, and this is from the bill that has been crafted and that I am proposing.
 
"The whereases are as follows:
 
Whereas, with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people some 150 years ago, the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;
 
Whereas, in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of Israel and that legal mandate has never been superceded [sic];
 
Whereas, in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators murdered 6 million Jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognized that the Jewish State, built by Jewish pioneers, must gain its independence from Great Britain;
 
Whereas, the United States was the first Nation to recognize Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United States in the Middle East;
 
Whereas, the United States and Israel have a special friendship based on shared values, and together share the common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
 
Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance'';
 
Whereas, the national security of the United States, Israel, and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them;
 
Whereas, Israel would face an existential threat from a nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
 
Whereas, President Barack Obama had been firm and clear in declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable.'' (If I might interject here, this bill was drafted to be extremely bipartisan to show that people on both sides of the aisle have the same concerns. We've just got to get people signed on as cosponsors so that we can get this to the floor for a vote.  But going back to the resolution.)
 
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran called ``World Without Zionism,'' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism'';
 
Whereas, The New York Times reported that during his October 26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this occupying regime--Israel--to be wiped off the map'';
 
Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime, Israel, is heading toward annihilation'';
 
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime--Israel--with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal, is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene'';
 
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started'';
 
Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface long-range missile with an approximate range of 1,200 miles (which, by the way, if it were on a ship off the Texas coast could get it up to the middle of the country, 300 miles up, and which if exploded, as well-known among those who have looked at the issue, would create an electromagnetic pulse, an EMP, which some experts have told us will fry every computer chip in the country, and indications are even Wal-Mart would not be able to sell a product. Electricity would not be generated. It just is important to note what 1,200 miles means);
 
Whereas, Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
 
Whereas, Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear facilities since 2002;
 
Whereas, Iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hezbollah to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future;
 
Whereas, Iran has refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program;
 
Whereas, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 states that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and heavy water-related projects as set out in Resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747 (2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1696 from 2006, 1737 from 2006, and 1747 from 2007 ..... '';
 
Whereas, at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs, and Iran offered a 5-page document lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations,'' and included various subjects but left out any mention of Iran's own nuclear program, which was the true issue in question;
 
Whereas, the United States has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
 
And, whereas, the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons:
 
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives:
 
Condemns the government--number one, condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people;
 
Two, supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;
 
Three, reaffirms the United States' bond with Israel and pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities needed to address the threat of Iran; and
 
Four, expresses support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.
   
"Now, that's what we should have passed today instead of sanctions because the sanctions have not been productive, the centrifuges continue to turn, and Ahmadinejad continues to make threats.
 
"Another thing that's been going on is the snubbery of Israel by this administration and the incredibly hurtful vote with Israel's enemies to force them to open up and reveal their most powerful defenses, similar to what Hezekiah did back 2,000 years before there was a Mohammed--back, unfortunately, as Helen Thomas never had anybody kind enough to teach her the truth, the historic truth. Thousands of years before Mohammed, Hezekiah was in Israel--well, I guess not quite 2,000 years. But after he showed the Babylonians his treasure and all his defenses, Isaiah came and said, Because of this, everything they have seen will be taken away.  You don't show your enemies all of your defenses, your strongest defenses because they'll figure out a way to defeat them.
 
"And because this administration has been rather rude to Prime Minister Netanyahu--there's a letter that I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that Members will join in signing, bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid.
 
"The letter simply, bipartisan in nature, says:
 
"'This letter is to simply state the obvious need for the Prime Minister of our dear friend Israel to address a joint session of Congress. He has been here in Washington on numerous occasions but has not addressed a joint session of Congress since 1996.  In our Nation's history, we have invited over 100 leaders from 50 different countries to speak before joint sessions of Congress.
"'At this time, with the enemies of America and Israel looking for weaknesses in our close relationship, we can show them that Israel is our friend and will be our friend, and we want to hear from its leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
 
"`With the magnitude of international events and tensions swirling in recent years and the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it is desperately important that we show the world the importance of our relationship with Israel by inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to come address this body. The sooner we extend such an invitation, the more stabilizing it will be. We, the undersigned, urge you to extend the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress as soon as possible.'
 
"When the enemies of Israel were to see both sides of the aisle standing and applauding the Prime Minister of Israel, the message could not be more clear, but we need to send that message. It needs to be clear. It needs to be unequivocal. People need to know that we support our friend, and there is not a great deal of distance between our two countries. We're close friends..."
 
Gohmert on Israel, bloody noses, football players, the Bible, George Soros, and whatever else popped into his head - 6/22/10
 
"...And then we have the problem with Israel being accosted by its enemies, and we are siding with the wrong people. I had a teacher in elementary school. She always took up for the bullies when they beat up the little guys. I know because I was a little guy in elementary school, and she always sided with the big bullies that had flunked a couple of grades and were bigger than the rest of us.
   
"I will never forget those guys took my brand-new football I got for Christmas, and I went to get it back and my nose was bloodied, my face was pulverized, but then, as now, I don't run from a fight. And when the teacher was told by other students I was trying to get my nose to stop bleeding, she came into the boy's restroom, grabbed me, took me down to the classroom, marched me in front of the class and said, See, now, class, this is what happens when the little boys try to play with the big boys,
 
"Well, that's kind of what's going on here. We've got bullies trying to bully Israel. We're siding with the wrong guys. There will be a price to pay if this continues. Israel's our friend. They have great value for human life, like we do in this country. If they were not in the Middle East, we would spend trillions of dollars trying to protect ourselves in that area from the things that are growing right now. We owe them more than a thank you, and yet the U.S. voted to force them to disclose their nuclear weaponry, if any. You don't do that to friends. It's what Hezekiah did. He showed Babylonians all his armaments, his treasury and Isaiah told him, as a result, it is all going to be taken away. You don't show your enemies all of your defenses because they will figure out a way to overcome them.
 
"I was just downstairs, in fact, in a little supper with Shaun Alexander, played football for Alabama, and was MVP with Seattle in the Super Bowl, just a great guy. But he mentioned four verses of scripture that really meant so much to him, and one of those was, he said, Deuteronomy 30:19, and I'm quoting from the most quoted book in this history of the Congress. In fact, our first 150 years, oftentimes our legislators were afraid to file a bill without having some scriptural basis to back it up. But Shaun quoted from Deuteronomy 30:19, I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today that I've set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.
"Verse 20 goes on: By loving the Lord, your God, by obeying His voice and by holding fast to Him, for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land that your Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give to them.   He also quoted from Matthew 5:24, No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other or he will hold to one and despise the other.
 
"You cannot serve God and man. You know, these days, some want to serve a constituent and they get pulled away because they're torn. They'd like to serve a tremendous power in this country, torn between constituent service and power. And then in some cases, as we see here, apparently George Soros has made more money probably than anybody in this country because of British Petroleum and the moratorium and what all has happened there. Of course, this country apparently is standing for $2 billion to help Brazil do deep exploration, and that will make hundreds of millions for Mr. Soros. I'm happy for anybody who make lots of money, but sometimes people in this body are torn between their constituent service or being a part of a powerful team.
 
"It's why people in here are often gotten to move their vote one way or the other. I was told that before I got here. One of the hardest things is not when people come to you and say, yes, you're going to do this, you're going to vote this way, because most in this body are stubborn enough to say, no, I'm not going to do that. But where they get you is they say, come on, we thought you were a team player, we want you on our team, we want you one of the good guys on our team. And they hit you up on the team player thing.
 
"And so good people in this body, in the Senate, even in the judiciary apparently when they allowed the auto task force, taking without due process in violation of the Constitution, turned bankruptcy upside down. They even convinced the judiciary to even look the other way and let the Constitution and the bankruptcy laws be turned upside down. So there are people who want to be part of the team, you know, and they forget the Constitution; and when that happens we break down what so many have fought and died for to give us this gift.
 
"I heard my colleagues in the prior hour talking about how well the stimulus is going. I keep coming back, and Mark Levin quoted this in his book, 'Liberty and Tyranny,' and it ought to be a textbook, it's so good. But he quotes from Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1939 Secretary Morgenthau was testifying--well, actually he wrote this. He said, We have tried spending money. We have spent more money than we have ever spent before, and now after 8 years, we have an unemployment rate that is just as high today as it was when we started, and we have an enormous debt to boot.
 
"Human nature has not changed much since the 1930s. When the government starts spending money, then ultimately you're going to have a choice. You're going to have to keep borrowing or printing, and then ultimately you get in a position the Soviet Union was in. You can't print it fast enough to pay your debts, you can't borrow it fast enough, nobody will loan it to you anymore. So you have to go up and announce you're bankrupt as a nation and out of business..."
 
========================================
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.