1.  Bills & Resolutions

(Gaza Flotilla/Solidarity with Israel) S. Res. 548: Introduced 6/9/10 by Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) and no cosponsors, "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."  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

(Gaza Flotilla/US Response) HR 5501:  Introduced 6/10/10 by Rep. King (R-NY) and 38 cosponsors, "To prohibit United States participation on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and prohibit contributions to the United Nations for the purpose of paying for any United Nations investigation into the flotilla incident."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This legislation is strongly supported by the Republican Jewish Coalition.

(Iran) H. Res. 1431: Introduced 6/10/10 by Rep. Filner (D-CA) and 2 cosponsors, "Calling for an end to the violence, unlawful arrests, torture, and ill treatment perpetrated against Iranian citizens, as well as the unconditional release of all political prisoners in Iran."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(Iran/Israel) H. Res. Xxx:  On 6/10/10 Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) indicated in a rambling speech on the House floor that he would be introducing a resolution next week dealing with Iran and Israel. He stated "...this resolution goes through, points out quotes from Ahmadinejad, quotes from our great President in saying that as he said that bond is much more than a strategic alliance between us and Israel.  We have got to act, and I hope people will sign on this resolution when we come back next week because we've got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area."

(Iran) HR 2194:  Statements made this week by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) indicated that despite this week's passage of strong new multilateral UN sanctions, the conference report on HR 2194, the unilateral "crippling" sanctions bill (which APN strongly opposes) would likely be brought to the floor for a vote the week of June 21.  See section 4, below, for details.

2.  Congress and the Gaza Flotilla Debacle

Though Congress was out of session for its Memorial Day recess when the Gaza Flotilla debacle occurred, this did not stop a lot of members from coming out almost immediately in support of Israel.  While there is no doubt that some of these expressions of solidarity were spontaneous, during the recess week many Congressional staffers reported intense pressure from outside groups demanding that members speak out on the record.  AIPAC got talking points out on the incident on 6/1/10 in the form of 3 documents, "Flotilla Sought Provocation, Not to Provide Assistance," "Who was behind the Gaza Flotilla," and another "Timeline: Gaza Flotilla."  Since then AIPAC has posted a regularly updated document listing members who have spoken on the record in support of Israel, as well as text of their statements (as of this writing, the list included 16 senators and 80 House members (including statements on the record, op-eds, etc, and not including at least another 8 House statements placed in the record 6/10/10 that will be added when the document is updated today).  That AIPAC "statements" document also highlights comments made by Vice President Biden 6/2/10, but notably leaves out comments made by President Obama on 6/3/10 or those made by Secretary Clinton on 6/1/10 or on 6/3/10 (comments that did not line up neatly with the AIPAC talking points).   

In addition to the legislation already introduced (S. Res. 548 and HR 5501, discussed in Section 1, above) other Congressional actions thus far include:

- on 6/10/10, in a characteristically rambling and at times incoherent floor speech, Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) announced that he will be circulating a Dear Colleague letter seeking cosigners (he claimed to have 40 already) on letters to House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV), calling for Prime Minister Netanyahu to be invited to address a joint session of Congress (he specifically linked this invitation to the flotilla and the need to demonstrate US support for Israel).  He ended his statement saying, "You want to talk about peace? Like Patrick Henry said, People talk peace, but there is no peace. And I can tell you there will not be peace in the Middle East of any nature until people know that this Nation, America, will go to war against anyone that breaches the peace or attempts to breach the peace as this flotilla did."  This speech, which also included the announcement of a resolution regarding Iran (it was not clear if this was also tied to the flotilla), came on the heels of his similarly rambling and at times incoherent floor speech 6/8/10.  It is reminiscent of speeches made by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) in the past where the Senator would lay out the top 7 reasons why all the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, the #7 being: "because God said so."  Gohmert's 6/8/10 speech is included below (Section 7) for readers to read (if they like) and judge for themselves.

- on 6/10/10, in an exchange between House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), reference was made to a rumored leadership-supported House resolution regarding the flotilla.  The exchange was as follows:

Cantor:  "...I would also ask the gentleman if any of the reports that I have heard about a possible resolution having to do with the flotilla, in terms of the actions that occurred, that Israel undertook to defend itself in interdicting the ship on the alleged mission of aid that it was claiming to be on, and whether we can expect any resolution along those lines in support of our ally Israel.
Hoyer: "I thank the gentleman for his question... [reiteration of Hoyer speech made 6/10/10 defending Israel's actions]...So that the answer to your question is that I have talked to Mr. Berman and I want to talk to you, as well, so that we can determine what is the best course of action for us to take.
Cantor:  "Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued commitment and share with him the commitment to strengthen the alliance between ourselves in the United States and Israel in the continuing struggle that all of us have in terms of pushing back against the terrorist threat, state sponsors of terror and their proxies in the Middle East, and as they pose the existential threats to our ally Israel as well as U.S. interests in the region. So I look forward to working with him on that."

- on 6/4/10 Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) [who is famous for making statements on the record virtually every day, glibly summing up some issue and ending with the words "and that's just the way it is"] circulated a Dear Colleague seeking cosigners on a letter to President Obama expressing Congress' full support of Israel and urging him to unequivocally state that the United States stands behind its longtime friend and ally.  According to the Dear Colleague, the letter closed at close of business on 6/8/10.  It is not known at this time how many signers it attracted.

- on 6/4/10 Reps. Ellison (D-MN) and Lee (D-CA) sent a letter to President Obama urging the President to "first, do everything in your power to support a thorough investigation into the incidents on the flotilla; second, call for a lifting of the blockade on Gaza."

- on 6/3/10 Rep. Denis Kucinich (D-OH) began seeking cosigners on a letter to President Obama critical of Israel's actions regarding the Gaza flotilla.  It is not known at this time how many signers it attracted.

3.  APN on the Gaza Flotilla Debacle

- On 5/31/10 APN issued a press statement on the Gaza flotilla debacle: APN Deeply Dismayed by Israeli Raid on Gaza Flotilla.  
- APN circulated a 5/31/10 op-ed from the Israeli press on the issue by the Israel Peace Now movement's head, Yariv Oppenheimer.
- On 6/3/10 APN published a policy document, "Top 10 Reasons for Reassessing the Gaza Blockade Strategy"

4.  Congress and the new UN Sanctions on Iran

Congress greeted news that the UN Security Council had passed a resolution imposing far-reaching and harsh new sanctions on Iran was greeted with a combination of "that's good," "finally" and "that's nowhere near enough - now it's time for the real sanctioning to start."

Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, exemplified this reaction, with a statement warmly welcoming the UN action but then going directly to the demand for more sanctions.  Berman stated that "We now look to the European Union and other key nations that share our deep concern about Iran's nuclear intentions to build on the Security Council resolution by imposing tougher national measures that will deepen Iran's isolation and, hopefully, bring the Iranian leadership to its senses. The U.S. Congress will do its part by passing sanctions legislation [HR 2194] later this month."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), speaking on the House floor 6/10/10 during an exchange with minority whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), stated, "the gentleman [Cantor] and I have been working very hard on Iran sanctions. I was at the White House today. I congratulated the President on the administration's success in having passed through the Security Council the Iran sanctions legislation. It is good legislation. Hopefully, all nations will abide by it, have its impact.  On the other hand, I think the gentleman and I both agree there need to be additional efforts made. We urge the Europeans, who will be meeting shortly, to do the same and hopefully have an even stronger resolution. And then it's my expectation--I have talked to Mr. Berman, and I know you have talked to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--my hope is that we will have--and my request, more than a hope, my request is that the conference report [for HR 2194] be brought to the floor the week of the 21st. And I have indicated that that is my expectation."

Republican Whip Eric Cantor (D-VA) and Rep. Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R-IL) issued a joint statement welcoming the new UN sanctions but declaring them insufficient and demanding swift action to move ahead with unilateral US sanctions.

One of the lone voices taking a more pragmatic approach was that of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affair's Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.  The statement he released states:

"I am very pleased by the action taken by the U.N. Security Council to address the single greatest threat to peace and security in the world, Iran's fanatical, hegemonistic, terror-supporting leadership and its out-of-control nuclear ambitions. The sanctions adopted are far, far stronger than they have ever been, though I personally would have preferred they be even tougher still.
 
"But the question in the Security Council is never what would we like in the ideal, but rather, what can we get in the real world. And in the real world we got major new sanctions on Iranian banking, finance, shipping, and arms transactions, and vital designations of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps and key Iranian firms and figures associated with proliferation that make them targets for additional sanctions.
 
"These globally binding U.N. Security Council sanctions, which will impose severe costs on the mullah's regime in Tehran, send a critically important signal to the ayatollahs that they are isolated, they are outlaws and their nuclear ambitions will not succeed. The weight of the entire world is coming to bear on Iran.
 
"An Iranian nuclear weapons capability is unacceptable, and that is the real message the United Nations sent today. I would have liked that message to be even tougher and more stringent, but it's an absolutely essential step forward in the effort to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons capability.
 
"Today's vote is a huge win for the United States and for American leadership in the international community. After eight years of feckless bombast, while the Iranian nuclear program raced ahead, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown what smart, active American diplomatic engagement can produce. These sanctions have teeth, and this vote is a big win."

Another more pragmatic response was articulated 6/9/10 on the record by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who actually argued for diplomacy to be once again added to the mix.  He stated: "...Despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions, including today's passage of tighter finance curbs and an expanded arms embargo, Iran has not been deterred in its quest to develop nuclear weapons. While this latest round of sanctions is a welcomed step, there is deep skepticism that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the hard-line clerics who rule Iran can be dissuaded from their present course. An Iran armed with the bomb would be a catastrophe, destabilizing the Middle East and triggering an arms race in the region.   President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have done a great service to Israel, to the greater Middle East, and to the cause of international peace and security through their efforts to forge a consensus in the Security Council, and I offer them my personal thanks. Yet, even as we applaud today's sanctions vote, we must redouble our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I look forward to further diplomatic and unilateral initiatives to convince Tehran that the costs of continuing on this reckless path are greater than any perceived benefit."

Finally, according to press reports, in the wake of the UN vote - which saw Russia and China voting in favor of the new sanctions - it is now rumored that the final version of the pending unilateral US "crippling sanctions" bill will include exemptions for cooperating countries (something the Obama Administration had sought from the start).

5.  APN on new Iran Sanctions

On 6/9/10 APN issued the following statement regarding the passage of new UN sanctions on Iran:

APN Welcomes UN Sanctions, Calls for Parallel Diplomatic Engagement

Americans for Peace Now today welcomed the UN Security Council's passage of a new round of sanctions on Iran.

APN President and CEO Debra DeLee commented: "Today's Security Council passage of a new round of sanctions against Iran sends a strong signal of international determination to deal with the very real challenges and threats posed by Iran's nuclear program. This is good news, but what happens next is more important.  The Obama Administration and the international community must accompany this move with renewed diplomatic outreach to Iran, recognizing that sanctions alone will not suffice to address the security and political challenges posed by Iran and its nuclear program.
 
"With the passage of these new sanctions, the UN Security Council has done what APN has called for all along - it has targeted Iran's leaders and its nuclear program, rather than the Iranian people.  This is the right approach.  We urge the US Congress to give this approach a chance and suspend efforts to pass legislation that would force President Obama to impose sanctions targeting the Iranian people.

"Clearly, some view these new sanctions as little more than a necessary step on the way to even more sanctions and eventual, inevitable military action.  Others, like us, view military action as neither desirable nor inevitable.  Sanctions, combined with robust diplomatic engagement, are the only realistic way forward.
 
"Finally, we note with regret that Turkey and Brazil both voted 'no' on the new Iran sanctions.  'Yes' votes from Turkey and Brazil would have sent a resounding message to Iran - from two emerging international powers - that it is on a path to real isolation. Unfortunately, given recent events, including the cold shoulder with which the US greeted the Brazil-Turkey-Iran fuel swap initiative, and developments on the Israeli-Palestinian front, these 'no' votes should surprise no one.  These votes are tangible reminders that efforts to deal with Iran do not exist in a vacuum: there are very real costs to allowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue to hemorrhage, just as there are very real costs to spurning serious diplomatic efforts by other players."
 
6. Senate Hearing on Hezbollah

On 6/8/10 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs held a hearing entitled "Assessing the Strength of Hezbollah."  Panel 1 featured Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs; and Daniel Benjamin, the Department of State's Counterterrorism Coordinator (testimony).  Panel 2 consisted of Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and most recently Iraq (testimony); Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (and former staffer for Senator Jesse Helms) (testimony), and Augustus Richard Norton, Professor of International Relations and Anthropology at Boston University (testimony).  A press release including the opening statement of Chairman Casey (D-PA) can be read here.   

The most notable point that came up during the hearing was the suggestion by Ambassador Crocker that the US should start talking to Hamas.  Crocker stated that "One thing I learned in my time in Iraq is that engagement can be extremely valuable in ending an insurgency.  'Sometimes persuasion and negotiation change minds. But in any case we would learn far more about the organization [by talking to them] than we know now -- personalities, differences, points of weakness."   For more, an AP Article summing up the key points of the hearing can be read here.

7.  With Friends Like This... Gohmert (R-TX) on Israel, Iran, Bill Cosby and the Bible

On 6/8/10 Congressman Gohmert (R-TX) delivered a rambling and somewhat incoherent speech on the House floor regarding the flotilla, Israel, Iran, Bill Cosby, and lessons of the Bible.

"...we had something last week. It was called by some a 'peace flotilla,' but it was quite clear that there was a lot more to it than that, that this was a contrived plan. This was an effort to embarrass Israel, because the proponents knew that Israel would have to defend itself, there was no question about that. They have been hit with so many thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip, they had to eventually defend themselves.

And lest we forget, the Gaza Strip was controlled as part of Israel until Israel's leaders thought, You know what? It's not part of any treaty. It's not part of any demand, but what if we gave the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians? What if we just gave that unilaterally, not asking anything in return? I mean, what an incredible show of good faith that would be. That would surely provoke our adversaries into realizing we do want peace, so let's give away the Gaza Strip.

Now, they hadn't learned a whole lot from the fact that you could give away a part of what was part of Israel at the time, controlled by Israel, give that to southern Lebanon and they will know that we are really interested in peace and things should really go well, continuing not to get the message that every time it seems that Israel gives away land, even going back to its early inception centuries and centuries and centuries before there was Muhammad, there was Islam, Israel, if they gave away land, it was normally used as a staging area later to attack them because they had given away something that was under their control.

And I wondered about the mentality--do you guys not get it? You give away land. You get attacked from it every time you seem to give it away--until I made a couple of trips over and you begin to realize the mentality: after years and years of suicide bombs, family members just having coffee at this restaurant, alive one minute, laughing with kids, with their children, dead the next minute; a suicide bomber walking down into an area of school children so he can blow himself up and kill children; when you see and you understand there have been so many rockets flying into Israel and you find out the mentality apparently for so many Israelis has been, Look, we just want to be left alone. We just want to be left alone. We will give you land, unilaterally give it away, not demand, just please leave us alone.

I was reminded of the routine Bill Cosby talked about where--and I think out of the first six albums I ever had, three of them were Bill Cosby. He had a way of taking life and helping you to look at yourself and laugh. But he talked about as a parent, the youngest one screaming and hollering, and he said, Hey, stop. And the little girl screams, Well, I want this. And the other kids saying, It's ours. It's ours. And he says, I don't care. Let her have it. You've got to stop the screaming. She's got a lot of my stuff, too. Just let her have it so she will quit screaming.

And I thought about Bill Cosby's comment because I get that impression, you know, the Israelis were so tired of the death and the suicide bombs and rockets and grenades, they said, Look, we'll just give you land if you will leave us alone. Let us live in peace.

So I understand better the mentality that says, Here, we will unilaterally give away land that actually makes it harder for us to protect ourselves, because they're thinking that that will bring about acts of kindness on the other side, not realizing when you're dealing with people who, because of religious zealotry, have made clear that they want to see your nation wiped completely off the map, they're not really going to get all touchy-feely over some gift that you make. That's what has happened with Gaza. They acted out of such wonderful intentions, Let's give this land to the Palestinians.

And after you've seen what was there--there were greenhouses. There were ways that people could make a living there, and there were ways that people could produce their own food there. Instead, once they gave the land away, the greenhouses were destroyed. So many were plundered, just acts of violence. Well, it was the Israelis, so destroy it. These were ways they could have lived and eaten and made a good living, and they destroyed it.

So, hopefully, people in Israel are beginning to understand you've got to defend yourself and that acts of peacefulness are not going to be met with acts of peace in response. They are going to be met with flotillas, with Kazan rockets, and with death in your own country.

Because the idea is not to get a strip of land here at Gaza; it is not to get a strip of land here in the northern part of Israel; it is not to get the Golan Heights. You know, it is not to get the West Bank and to enlarge that. No, not at all. It is to wipe Israel off the map.

It's interesting how and it grieves me much, actually, to know that there are well-educated people who have gone through life thinking that the Israelis, the Jewish people, had no history prior to the Palestinians in that area, that their history was more in Germany and in Poland and in America. America didn't even have any idea that Israel existed, other than the Native Americans.

A tragic thing happened here just recently. For the first time in United States history, the United States decided to ignore thousands of years of lessons and to demand, with Israel's enemies, that they let the world know exactly what weaponry they have, what nuclear weaponry they have. Let everybody know exactly what you've got. It was well-intentioned, I'm sure, on the part of this administration, but what a disastrous mistake.

I thought about Ezaki, King of Israel, long before the days of Mohammad, when Israel was a nation in the land where they now are. King Ezaki was the son of Ahaz.

For a little history, Ahaz, as King of Israel, had seen the northern kingdom make an alliance with Assyria, and it made a very powerful alliance in military. They were marching toward Jerusalem, and it appeared there was no way they could be stopped. And that's when, according to scripture, God told Isaiah to go find Ahaz at the cistern and tell him, I'm not going to let that alliance take Jerusalem. Isaiah did that, and they did not take Jerusalem. Ahaz changed his ways, and Israel was blessed centuries before there was Mohammad. They were greatly blessed.

Then his son Hezekiah came along, and things went well for much of his reign. You know, there were ups and down, as any nation has. There were ups and downs in Hezekiah's private life.

Following the tradition for most of this nation's history was a reading and a quoting from the Bible, as the most quoted book here on the House floor, of the Second Kings, chapter 20, versus 14--and I'm skipping a lot:

Then Isaiah, the prophet, came to King Ezaki and said to him, What did these men say, and from where have they come to you? Ezaki, who was king, said, They have come from a far country, from Babylon.  Isaiah said, What have they seen in your house?   Ezaki answered, They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing among my treasuries that I have not shown them.

You know, Isaiah knew that was absolutely stupid to bring in people who would like to see his country destroyed and gone, who would like to have his treasure that he had built and created and to show them everything he had. I mean, it's like saying for people who play poker, ``I am such a benevolent poker player. Let me show you my cards. I'll take two cards, and I'll show you what they are, and now here is my five. Okay. Who wants to bet?'' You don't do that.

It would be like playing chess and saying, ``Now, I want to be benevolent, and so I'm going to tell you you're tempted to move here. If do you that, I'm going to move here, here, and here, and it will be checkmate.'' You can't do that. That lesson should have been learned repeatedly, and it was not.

Isaiah foretold to Ezaki, continuing on in verse 16: Hear the word of the Lord: Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house and that all that your fathers have laid up in store to this day shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord.

I don't care whose history it is. If you fail to learn from history, you're asking for disaster. To borrow a line from Proverbs, which was later the title of a movie: You're going to inherit the wind.   You can't do that. This great country of ours can't now turn on Israel and demand of Israel to make the disastrous, disastrous mistake that Ezaki did. Sure, we'll bring you in. We'll show you everything we've got. We're demanding that now, with Israel's enemies, that they've got to show everything they've got to those who want to see them gone. And to people like Ahmadinejad who has pledged that Israel will be wiped off the map? You're going to let them know every defense--everything that Israel has?

What kind of naivete is running the place? I know it's well-intentioned. Just like the health care bill, it's well-intentioned; but as a result, people are going to be put on lists like they have been in England, like they have been in Canada, and they're going to die, waiting for their treatments, for their tests. Here we are, well-intentioned, refusing to learn the clear lessons of history.

So what did we see last week? Well, actually, we can go back to May 25, 2010. Israel became aware that there was a Free Gaza flotilla, so they advised Turkey and other governments, whose nationals Israel knew were going to participate, that Israel could not allow the self-styled humanitarian mission to breach its defensive and able blockade of Gaza.

Now, it would be like, after 9/11, people who would like to see this country wiped off the map, the United States. Ahmadinejad has made that clear, that Israel is the little Satan and that the U.S. is the big Satan. He wants to see us gone. It would be like a group of peace-loving people saying, ``We're coming onto an airplane, and we're not going to let you check us. We're not going to go through your metal detectors. We're coming, and there are lots of us. By the way, we also have metal poles and knives, and we will shoot you, too, when you try to stop us. We're going to get on those planes, whether you want it or not, because we're going to style ourselves the Free America flotilla--airtilla. We're going to be `Airtilla the Hun.' We're going to bring people into the airports. We're going to overwhelm the security, and we're going to get on those airplanes without being checked.''

This is what is being done to Israel after thousands and thousands and thousands of rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel, killing Israelis, maiming children. I mean, Israel couldn't let that go on.

So, sure, we'll let the humanitarian aid through. They made that clear. But they made clear back as early as May 25 that they were not going to allow anybody to breach the naval blockade.

So, apparently, the nations that Israel warned did not take it to heart. In fact, one flotilla participant said on May 28 that this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies; it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians, and that's the truth.

By the way, en route, the Arab news channel Al Jazeera exalted jihadist martyrdom and sang Palestinian intifada songs. On May 29, Hamas consents to broadcast on its state-controlled television in Gaza an interview with a leading Gaza professor, calling on flotilla passengers to engage in martyrdom with the people of Gaza.

On May 30, despite repeated warnings from Israel defense forces, the six vessels continued their voyage toward the security zone. Aboard one of the ships, one person told Turkish television, ``We will definitely resist, and we will not allow the Israelis to enter here.'' Another said, ``If Israel wants to board this ship, it will meet strong resistance.'' Israel's mistake was not taking those quotes to heart, not taking them literally.

On May 31, 2010, Israeli Navy personnel warned all six flotilla ships that they are about to enter restricted waters. Again, Israel offers to collect humanitarian aid and have it delivered to the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, but the ships again refuse to comply. Aboard one of the ships, it is announced, ``We are going to resist, and resistance will win.'' Militants on the ship begin yelling, ``Intifada, intifada.''

Well, we know what happened from there. Some don't. Some haven't watched. I mean, they've watched mainstream America and they haven't seen the Israelis being beaten with metal pipes, they haven't seen the Israelis being stabbed, they haven't seen Israeli soldiers shot and thrown overboard.

How would we react in America if people decided to peacefully overwhelm security at our airports, to get on airplanes for benevolent causes, who then stabbed or beat security agents at our airports? We wouldn't put up with that. Well, I don't know. Maybe this administration would; hard to say. But we know from history that's a big mistake.

What really breaks my heart is some of us have been seeing this stuff coming, and I wanted this to be a very bipartisan effort. So, for some months, I've been trying to get a pro-Israel group on board, I've been trying to get friends across the aisle on board with a resolution that would make very clear that we support Israel's defending itself, whatever needs to be done, and if nothing else has worked, that the military means are supported by this Nation.

Instead, this administration has been snubbing Israel. He snubbed their Prime Minister previously when he came to Washington. He walked off. ``I'm going to go have dinner with my family. Why don't you just stay here in the White House for the night so you can come around and do what I've demanded, and you can let me know when you get ready to do what I've demanded.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu appropriately didn't stay. He went to the Embassy. He didn't need to be blackmailed into anything.

I realize, you know, we're all victims of the environment in which we grew up, and if you grew up in an environment, say, for example, Chicago, where you're used to snubbing folks--you do that in France, and it's no big deal. So it's understandable that would be brought to the White House.
 
But the trouble is, when you're the most powerful executive in the world, and you snub a friend, there are international implications. Things like that have been known to start wars and cost thousands and thousands of lives. Activity like that has consequences, and the world has been watching while we snubbed our ally, who has more of the same rights in their nation that we have in this one than any nation in the Middle East. And we're snubbing them? And we're trying to force them to do what they did in giving away land to southern Lebanon, giving away the Gaza Strip, not defending itself, now demanding that they show all of their weaponry? That has consequences. It can start wars.

And the reason that I've been working behind the scenes for so long trying to get people on both sides of the aisle, and I've got plenty of this side of the aisle support, and I have a few Jewish friends on the other side of the aisle that are supportive, but it wasn't enough. But now I agree with some other friends that said, you can't keep this private; you've got to put the pressure on publicly. And hopefully, Mr. Speaker, people would contact their Members of Congress and let them know that they need to get on board with the resolution that says Israel can defend itself.

Sanctions, what a lovely thing to talk about. And when you have years and years and years to work with, whether it's South Africa or somewhere, that's one thing. But when you've got centrifuges spinning, and the IAEA already tells us that Iran has probably enough enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons, and the centrifuges are still spinning, and we're still trying to talk to other nations in the world about getting on board with our sanctions, Israel is more at risk every day.

And not only have we not gotten other nations to get on board with sanctions; Russia has cut a deal. They're going to provide them their best anti-aircraft weaponry as 300 is coming to Iran. And the days are growing and building. And we're putting all the wrong pressure on our dear ally.

And some know in this body that I've been pushing, all three terms I've been here, what I title the U.N. Voting Accountability Act. One of these days I'm going to get it to the floor for a vote. I got it as an amendment. We had over 100 votes on it. That was back in 2005. I'm hoping to get it the floor as a bill at some point to bring about sanity to our foreign assistance policy.

But it basically says this: Hey, these nations around the world, you're sovereign nations. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt us, because we'll protect ourselves. But any nation that votes against the United States position more than half the time in the U.N. won't get any financial assistance from us in the subsequent year. March 31 every year a report comes out about who voted which way on all the contested votes. You look at those, you see who voted against our position more than half the time and you just say, fine; that's your position.
We are not going to keep paying people to hate us. We have found we can get people to hate us for free. And we don't have to get taxpayers to keep paying taxes to pay people to hate us when they'll do it for free.

We're paying Israel's enemies about as much as we're supporting Israel with. It's a big mistake.

One thought I had that would be a clear image to the world, and I appreciate the few friends across the aisle that have said they have supported the idea, and that is, we need an image, a visual image going to the rest of the world so they know, there may be a little bickering with our friend, our close ally Israel. But when people saw both sides of this aisle standing and applauding Prime Minister Netanyahu in a joint session, then they would get the picture; hey, we may fuss among ourselves, but we will defend them.

There are still some historians that believe that it was Secretary of State Acheson saying basically that Korea was beyond our sphere of influence, which led, and apparently Korea was already massing forces. But you can't help but wonder if once they heard that that's beyond our sphere of influence, we won't come to South Korea's aid, that's when the Korean War started. You start wars, oftentimes, when the strongest friend snubs their ally, then enemies of that ally think they can act against that ally without the strong supporter stepping forward.

And we need to let the world know that Israel is still our friend. They still vote with us more than way over 90 percent of the rest of the people in the U.N., and a friend like that is a friend we ought to support. And you won't get peace until you show you're willing to stand up against the bad guys. And then the bad guys understand that and you have peace for a while.

8.  Ackerman Calls for International Jewish Legislators Conference in Jerusalem

On 6/9/10, Rep. Ackerman (D-NY), who is also the President of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians (ICJP), called for the next meeting of the group to be held in Jerusalem and to focus on "fighting the growing international delegitimization effort directed against Israel."