1.  Bills & Resolutions

(Iran) HR 5136: Introduced 4/26/10 by Rep. Skelton (D-MO), "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011."  Reported out of Committee 5/21/10 and brought to the House floor 5/24/10.  For details of Iran portion of the bill, see section 2, below.   

(Hamas) H. Res. 1359:  Introduced 5/13/10 by Rep. Ackerman (D-NY) and currently having 24 cosponsors, "Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held captive by Hamas, and for other purposes."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Israel assistance) HR 5327:  Introduced 5/18/10 by Rep. Nye (D-VA) and having 54 cosponsors, "To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system."  Brought to the House floor 5/20/10 under suspension of the rules and passed by a vote of 410-4.

(Israel assistance) S. 2451:  Introduced 5/27/10 by Sen. Boxer (D-CA), "to authorize assistance to Israel for Iron Dome anti-missile defense system."  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

(Israel in the OECD) H. Res. 1391: Introduced 5/25/10 by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and having 49 cosponsors, "Congratulating Israel for its accession to membership in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development."  Brought to the floor under suspension of the rules 5/26/10; passed 5/28/10 by a vote of 418-0.

(Emergency Supplemental - Jordan Assistance) HR 4899:  Introduced 3/21/10 by Rep. Obey (D-WI), making emergency supplemental appropriations for FY10 and passed by the House on 3/24/10.  On 5/27/10 the Senate amended the House version by replacing the text of the entire bill with its own text and passed the amended bill by a vote of 67-28.   The amended version includes $100 million in ESF and $50 million in FMF for Jordan.  The Senate Committee report notes that "The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for assistance for Jordan to help meet the needs of Iraqi refugees and address other pressing economic issues."  The report also notes that the $50 million in FMF is "to address urgent security needs in Jordan." The bill now goes to conference.

2.  Iran and Israel in the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (HOUSE)

On 5/21/10 the House Committee on Armed Services finished its work on HR  5136, the House version of the FY11 Defense Authorization bill, and reported the bill out of committee.  The text, as reported out of committee, includes authorization of funding for the Iron Dome rocket defense system for Israel, as well as numerous Iran-related provisions.  On 5/27/10 HR 5136 was brought to the House floor for debate, including on a number of Iran-related amendments.  As of this writing the bill remains unfinished business in the House.  Israel- and Iran-related bill text, report language, and amendments are:

=====
Israel
=====

Bill text: Sec 1507 - Iron Dome Short Range Rocket Defense Program
"Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section 1506 for the procurement account for Defense-wide activities, the Secretary of Defense may provide up to $205,000,000 to the government of Israel for the procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats."

Report language:  Israeli cooperative programs

"The budget request contained $121.7 million in PE 63913C for Israeli cooperative programs. This represents a decrease of $79.6 million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. The fiscal year 2011 budget request contained $46.7 million for continued development of David's Sling Weapon System (DSWS), $12.2 million for improvements to the Arrow Weapon System (AWS), and $50.8 million for Arrow-3.

"Since 1986, the United States and the State of Israel have cooperated on missile defense. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has three significant initiatives with Israel to develop and improve its indigenous capability to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles: DSWS for defense against short-range systems; AWS for defense against medium-range systems; and the Arrow-3 Interceptor, an upper-tier follow-on to the AWS. MDA is also developing, testing, and exercising interoperability between the U.S. ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) and the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture to ensure Israeli systems can be integrated into the global BMDS.

"However, the budget request does not support acceleration of full scale development of the DSWS, completion of the development and testing of AWS improvements, and beginning coproduction of the Arrow-3 interceptor. The committee is aware that progress has been achieved over the past year in meeting the agreed Arrow-3 knowledge points.
The committee recommends $209.7 million for Israeli cooperative programs, an increase of $88.0 million in PE 63913C, including $84.7 million for DSWS, $54.2 million for AWS improvements, and $58.8 million for Arrow-3."

=====
Iran
=====

Sec 224 - Homeland Defense Hedging Policy

Report language:  "This section contains five findings concerning missile defense threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Administration's phased, adaptive approach to missile defense, and hedges against unforeseen circumstances.

"Further, this section would make it the policy of the United States government to:
(1) Field missile defense systems in Europe that provide protection against medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile threats consistent with NATO policy and the phased, adapted approach, and have been confirmed to perform the assigned mission after successful, operationally-realistic testing;
(2) Field missile defenses to protect the territory of the United States pursuant to the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) and to test those systems in an operationally realistic manner;
(3) Ensure that the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor planned for Phase 3 of the phased, adaptive approach for missile defense is capable of addressing intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East, and that the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB interceptor planned for Phase 4 of such approach is capable of addressing intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East; and
(4) Continue the development and testing of the two-stage ground-based interceptor to maintain it (1) as a means of protection in the event that: the intermediate-range ballistic missile threat to North American Treaty Organization allies in Europe materializes before the availability of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor; the intercontinental ballistic missile threat to the United States that cannot be countered with the existing ground-based missile defense system materializes before the availability of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB interceptor; or technical challenges or schedule delays affect the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor or the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB interceptor; and (2) as a complement to the missile defense capabilities deployed in Alaska and California for the defense of the United States.

Sec 805 - Prohibition on Contracts with Entities Engaging in Commercial Activity in the Energy Sector of Iran.  

Report language: "This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into any contract with an entity that engages in commercial activity in the energy sector of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Bill language:  (a) Prohibition on Contracts-
(1) PROHIBITION- The Secretary of Defense may not enter into any contract with--
(A) an entity that engages in commercial activity in the energy sector of Iran; or
(B) a successor entity to the entity described in subparagraph (A).
(2) DEFINITION- For purposes of this subsection, an entity engages in commercial activity in the energy sector of Iran if the entity, with actual knowledge, engages in an activity for which sanctions have been imposed under section 5(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
(b) Duration of Prohibition- The prohibition under subsection (a) shall apply with respect to an entity (or successor entity)--
(1) for a period of not less than 2 years beginning on the date on which the prohibition is imposed; or
(2) until such time as the Secretary of Defense determines and certifies to the congressional defense committees that--
(A) the entity whose activities were the basis for imposing the prohibition is no longer engaging in such activities; and
(B) the Secretary has received reliable assurances that such entity (or successor entity) will not knowingly engage in such activities in the future, except that such prohibition shall remain in effect for a period of at least 1 year.
(c) Waiver-
(1) AUTHORITY- The Secretary of Defense may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) with respect to a contract if the Secretary determines that the contract is in the interest of national security.
(2) NOTIFICATION- Upon issuing a waiver under paragraph (1) with respect to a contract, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a notification that identifies the entity involved, the nature of the contract, and the rationale for issuing the waiver.

SEC 1060 - Strategic Assessment of Strategic Challenges Posed by Potential Competitors.  

Bill language:  "The Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the regional combatant commands, submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 15, 2011, a comprehensive strategic assessment of the current and future strategic challenges posed to the United States by potential competitors out through 2021, with particular attention paid to those challenges posed by the military modernization of the People's Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia."

SEC 1232 - National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.  

Report language:  "This section would require that the Secretary of Defense develop a National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran. This section would further require that the Secretary of Defense develop a plan to address any gaps in capabilities identified as part of the planning and review process. Finally, this section would require a report to Congress identifying and justifying any resources, capabilities, legislative authorities, or changes to current law the Secretary believes are necessary to address the gaps in capabilities."

Bill language:  (a) National Military Strategic Plan Required- The Secretary of Defense shall develop a strategic plan, to be known as the `National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran'. The strategic plan shall--
(1) outline the Department of Defense's strategic planning and provide strategic guidance for military activities and operations that support the United States policy objective of countering threats posed by Iran;
(2) identify the direct and indirect military contribution to this policy objective, and constitute the comprehensive military plan to counter threats posed by Iran;
(3) undertake a review of the intelligence in the possession of the Department of Defense to develop a list of gaps in intelligence that limit the ability of the Department of Defense to counter threats emanating from Iran that the Secretary considers to be critical;
(4) shall develop a plan to address those gaps identified in the review under paragraph (3); and
(5) undertake a review of the plans of the Department of Defense to counter threats to the United States, its forces, allies, and interests from Iran, including--
(A) plans for both conflict and peace;
(B) contributions of the Department of Defense to the efforts of other agencies of the United States Government to counter or address the threat emanating from Iran; and
(C) any gaps in the plans, capabilities and authorities of the Department.
(b) Plan- In addition to the plan required under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan to address those gaps identified in the review required in subsection (a)(5). The plan shall guide the planning and actions of the relevant combatant commands, the military departments, and combat support agencies that the Secretary of Defense determines have a role in countering threats posed by Iran.
(c) Report to Congress-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than the date on which the President submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report identifying and justifying any resources, capabilities, legislative authorities, or changes to current law the Secretary believes are necessary to carry out the plan required under subsection (b) to address the gaps identified in the strategic plan required in subsection (a).
(2) FORM- The report required in paragraph (1) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC 1234 - Report on the United States Efforts to Defend Against Threats Posed by the Advanced Anti-Access Capability of Potentially Hostile Foreign Countries.  

Report language: "This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later than April 1, 2011, to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a report on the United States' efforts to defend against threats posed by the anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile foreign countries. The report should include a description of any efforts by the Department of Defense to address findings in the Department's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review regarding advanced anti-access capabilities of foreign countries, including any efforts to:  (1) Develop a joint air-sea battle concept;  (2) Expand future long-range strike capabilities;  (3) Exploit advantages in subsurface operations;  (4) Increase the resiliency of United States forward posture and base infrastructure;  (5) Ensure access to space and the use of space assets;  (6) Enhance the robustness of key Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities;  (7) Ensure access within the cyber domain;  (8) Develop regional missile defense architecture;  (9) Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems; and  (10) Enhance the presence and responsiveness of United States military forces abroad.  For the purposes of this section, to the extent possible, the committee encourages the Department to utilize information provided to Congress in the Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, required by section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84;) and the Annual Report on the Military Power of Iran as required by Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)."

Bill language:  (a) Congressional Finding- Congress finds that the report of the 2010 Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review finds that `Anti-access strategies seek to deny outside countries the ability to project power into a region, thereby allowing aggression or other destabilizing actions to be conducted by the anti-access power. Without dominant capabilities to project power, the integrity of U.S. alliances and security partnerships could be called into question, reducing U.S. security and influence and increasing the possibility of conflict.'.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that, in light of the finding in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the United States has the appropriate authorities, capabilities, and force structure to defend against any threats posed by the advanced anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile foreign countries.
(c) Report- Not later than April 1, 2011, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on United States efforts to defend against any threats posed by the advanced anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile foreign countries.
(d) Matters to Be Included- The report required under subsection (c) shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of any threats posed by the advanced anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile foreign countries, including an identification of the foreign countries with such capabilities, the nature of such capabilities, and the possible advances in such capabilities over the next 10 years.
(2) A description of any efforts by the Department of Defense since the release of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review to address the finding in subsection (a).
(3) A description of the authorities, capabilities, and force structure that the United States may require over the next 10 years to address the finding in subsection (a).
(e) Form- The report required under subsection (c) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.
(f) Modification of Other Reports-
(1) CONCERNING THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA- Section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 781; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), as most recently amended by section 1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2544), is further amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as paragraphs (11) through (13), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following: `(10) Developments in China's anti-access and area denial capabilities.'.
(2) CONCERNING IRAN- Section 1245(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2542) is amended by adding at the end the following: `(5) A description and assessment of Iran's anti-access and area denial strategy and capabilities.'.

Further report language

On Nuclear Posture:  "...this bill could have taken prudent steps to ensure we defend America from a position of strength, rather than a position of weakness. With respect to Iran, we continue to see Tehran flout its international obligation not to pursue nuclear weapons, while the Administration continues to rely on possible U.N. sanctions and an engagement strategy that has not yielded results. Requiring the Department of Defense to engage in robust strategic planning will only serve to strengthen our Iran policy."

On Missile Defense:  "..our missile defense policies must support the design and deployment of a comprehensive missile defense system capable of protecting the U.S. homeland, our deployed military forces, and our allies...We are prepared to support the administration's new phased adaptive approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. However, we must have confidence that the plans are credible. We remain concerned about the lack of information and analysis on the PAA, and were pleased the committee supported our demand for a detailed report on the PAA. Furthermore, we remain concerned that the Administration's hedging strategy may not go far enough to provide protection of the U.S. homeland. The PAA is not planned to cover the United States until 2020, yet the ICBM threat from Iran could materialize as early as 2015 according to the latest intelligence assessments. We need to ensure continued investments in and enhancements to our homeland defense capabilities, and were therefore disappointed that the committee rejected our amendment to maintain and refurbish a ground-based missile defense field in Alaska to increase near-term protection of the United States."

=================
Floor amendments
=================

Amendment #36: Offered by Reps. Conyers (D-MI) and Davis (R-KY), an amendment to require a report on the "strategic implications of the successful negotiation of an incidents at sea agreement between the United States and the Government of Iran."  Agreed to by a voice vote 5/27/10 as part of an en bloc amendment (H. Amdt. 658) offered by Rep. Skelton (D-MO).

Amendment #60 (revised): Offered by Rep. Klein (D-FL), to require companies that are applying for Department of Defense contracts to certify that they do not conduct business in Iran, as defined by Section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act and to prohibit any entity that cannot complete this certification from receiving Department of Defense contracts.  Agreed to by a voice vote 5/27/10 as part of an en bloc amendment (H. Amdt. 671) offered by Rep. Skelton (D-MO).

Amendment #88: Offered by Reps. Fortenberry (R-NE) and Edward (D-MA), stating that no civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Russia, pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), shall enter into force or be implemented until the President determines and reports to the Committees that: (1) Iran has verifiably ceased its efforts to design, develop or acquire a nuclear explosive devise or related materials or technology, and is in full compliance with all relevant international obligations; or (2) Russia has suspended, and agreed to maintain the suspension of, its assistance to Iran's nuclear program and transfers of advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missiles to Iran." Not considered as of 9:30am EST, 5/28/10.

Amendment #116: Offered by Rep. Bachmann (D-FL), to prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into contracts with any entity that provides Iran with censorship or surveillance technology or crime control equipment. Not considered as of 9:30am EST, 5/28/10.

Amendment #165 (revised): Offered by Rep. Burton (D-IN), to prevent any agreement for nuclear cooperation between the and any country that is assisting the nuclear program of from entering into force and would prevent any license from being issued for export to such country of any nuclear goods or services until the President determines that has verifiably dismantled its nuclear program. Not considered as of 9:30am EST, 5/28/10.

3.  Iran and Israel in the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (SENATE)

On 5/27/10 the Senate Armed Services Committee held a closed meeting to mark up its version of the FY11 Defense Authorization bill.  As of this writing the bill text has not been reported out of committee.  However, some details of the bill are known:

=====
Israel
=====

Iron Dome: The bill authorizes funding for the Iron Dome rocket defense system for Israel.

=====
Iran
=====

DOD procurements: The bill includes language that prohibits DOD from entering into any contract of more than $1 million for the procurement of any goods or services from entities engaging in commercial activity in the energy sector of the Islamic Republic of Iran unless certain certifications are made to the Secretary of Defense about the entities activities vis-à-vis Iran's energy sector.  This language reportedly includes a national security waiver for the Secretary.  This provision was introduced in an amendment submitted in committee by Sens. Collins (R-ME), Lieberman (I-CT), McCaskill (D-MO), and Levin (D-MI).  The amendment was reportedly backed strongly by AIPAC.

Reports on Engagement with Iran:  The bill directs the President to submit to Congress a report on US engagement with Iran, similar to the report included in the FY10 Defense Authorization bill (Section 1241 of HR 2647).  To refresh memories, that section read:

(1) DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT- With respect to diplomatic engagement, the following:
(A) A description of areas of mutual interest to the Government of the United States and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in which cooperation and discussion could be of mutual interest.
(B) A discussion and assessment of the commitment of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to engage in good-faith discussions with the United States to resolve matters of concern through negotiation.
(C) An assessment of direct contacts between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including any direct discussions, exchange of letters, or other activities.
(2) SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM- An assessment of the types and amount of support provided by Iran to groups designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations and regional militant groups, including organizations and groups present in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(3) NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES- With respect to nuclear activities, an assessment of the extent to which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008), and with any other applicable resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council as of the date of the report.
(4) MISSILE ACTIVITIES- With respect to missile activities, an assessment of the extent to which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued development of its ballistic missile program, including participation in any imports or exports of any items, materials, goods, and technologies related to that program and has complied with applicable United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
(5) SUPPORT TO NARCOTICS NETWORK IN AFGHANISTAN- With respect to support to the narcotics network in Afghanistan, an assessment of the extent to which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or agencies under that government, has or have supported or facilitated the narcotics trade in Afghanistan.
(6) SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN- With regard to sanctions against Iran--
(A) a list of all current United States bilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran;
(B) a description and discussion of United States diplomatic efforts to enforce bilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran and to strengthen international efforts to enforce such sanctions;
(C) an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of existing bilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran in achieving United States goals;
(D) a list of all United States and foreign registered entities that the Secretary of State has determined to be engaged in activities in violation of existing United States bilateral or multilateral sanctions against Iran; and
(E) a summary of United States efforts to enforce sanctions against Iran, including--
(i) a list of all investigations initiated in the 18-month period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act that have resulted in a determination that activities subject to sanctions have occurred; and
(ii) a description of the actions taken by the United States Government pursuant to each such determination.

Expanded Report on Certain Commercial activity with Iran:  The bill directs the Comptroller General to expand the scope of the already-required semi-annual report to Congress report on commercial activity in Iran's oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors to also cover entities that have aided the Iranian government's efforts to filter the use of the internet, disrupt cell phone communications, monitor online activities, and jam the signals of U.S. and other international broadcasts into Iran. With respect to the expanded scope, the report should include entities that have a financial interest in the development of such activities and should also look at whether any such entities have contracts with the US government.

4.  Further Action on Iran Sanctions Legislation Deferred (for now)

On 5/25/10 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chair Howard Berman (D-CA) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd (D-CT), co-chairs of the conference working to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of HR 2194 (the "crippling Iran sanctions bill) announced that further action would be postponed to permit the President time to pursue UN sanctions against Iran.  The Berman-Dodd statement read:

"The draft United Nations Security Council resolution offered last week by the five permanent members of that body proposes useful additional mandatory sanctions on Iran. Even more importantly, the resolution provides a basis for the European Union and other nations to impose much stronger national sanctions on Tehran in the energy, financial and other critical sectors.

"We have always said that tough multilateral sanctions are the most effective means to persuade Iran to cease its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability - a demand repeated time and again by the international community -- and we applaud the efforts of President Obama and his national security team to unite the other permanent members of the Security Council behind this urgent goal.

"Until the five permanent members of the Council reached agreement on the draft resolution, we were skeptical about the prospects for near-term action on Iran sanctions at the United Nations, and our intent had been to pass the final version of our Iran sanctions legislation, H.R. 2194, by the end of May.

"However, with the progress in negotiations at the Security Council, we believe that our overriding goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is best served by providing a limited amount of time for those efforts - and expected follow-on action by the EU at its mid-June summit - to reach a successful conclusion before we send our bill to the President.

"We will use the coming weeks to ensure that our legislation is crafted to complement and augment those other actions as effectively as possible. We remain fully committed to passing a package of tough U.S. sanctions in the latter half of June, and after consultations with Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Majority Leader Hoyer, we expect that our legislation will be taken up and passed by both bodies in that time frame."

Also on 5/25/10, AIPAC issued a statement implicitly endorsing the delay, but focusing on the fact that the Chairmen, in announcing the delay, committed to a firm deadline of finishing the legislation in June.

For further reporting on this story, see Laura Rozen's report in Politico.

5.  Feinstein Circulates Letter Supporting Peace Talks

On 5/26/10 Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) began circulating a letter, to be sent to President Obama, supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.  APN is strongly urging Senators to sign this timely and important message to the President.  APN's action alert, issued 5/26/10, can be viewed here.  The full text of the letter can be read here.  J Street and Churches for Middle East Peace are also supporting the letter.

6.  APN on Palestinian Boycott of Settlement Products

Palestinian Boycott of Settlement Goods

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained Monday that a Palestinian boycott of goods produced in West Bank settlements shows a lack of interest in peace. It's a spurious argument, especially considering that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly spoken out against boycotting Israel.

Peace Now's Yariv Oppenheimer responded to Netanyahu's overreach with an article published in the Israeli daily Ma'ariv.  Click here to read an English translation of Yariv's article.

We know where we stand. Boycotts that target the entire Israeli public are misguided and counterproductive. But it is not illegitimate for the Palestinians to launch a campaign focused on settlements.

The questions raised in this debate are broader than the new Palestinian campaign. Across our country student groups and political activists are hotly debating the proper place for boycotts, sanctions, and divestment efforts vis-a-vis Israeli policies.

Some issues are too complex for a one-size-fits-all answer. That's why APN has developed some guidance for which tactics can help to bring peace to Israel.   Click here to read APN's policy statement.