THE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE · PDF fileHafez and his son and current ruler, ... strength vis-à-vis Iran has diminished with ... Lebanon to facilitate support to Hezbollah

NEAR EAST REPORTT H E A M E R I C A N I S R A E L P U B L I C A F F A I R S C O M M I T T E E

DECEMBER 2017 • WWW.AIPAC.ORG/NER

E-ISSN 1947-4458 Published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Funded in part by The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), the charitable organization affiliated with AIPAC.

I.L. Kenen, Founder, 1905–1988

Editorial—Jerusalem: The Capital of Israel .........................................................................2

Iran’s Military Proxies Approach the Israeli-Syrian Border ................................................4

50 Years after UNSCR 242: Eduring Relevance, Abiding Controversy ..............................6

In Memoriam: Naomi Lauter ...............................................................................................9

Washington Brief: A Recap of News from the Hill and Beyond ...................................... 11

In This Edition

A giant U.S. flag screened alongside Israel’s national flag on the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem, following President Trump’s announcement on Dec. 6, 2017. (Ahmad Gharabli/AFP)

PHOTO: AP PHOTO

T H E A M E R I C A N I S R A E L P U B L I C A F F A I R S C O M M I T T E E

D E C . 2 0 1 7 N E A R E A S T R E P O R T2

EDITORIAL

Jerusalem: The Capital of Israel

On Dec. 6, the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As part of this historic

announcement, President Trump initiated the process of relocating the U.S. embassy there. For more than two decades, bipartisan majorities of Congress have repeatedly called for such action.

As the president noted in his remarks, these actions in no way preclude future negotiations over the city’s final status, borders, or the goal of two states for two peoples.

But in response, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared on Dec. 13 that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) would no longer seek to negotiate peace with Israel—an unfortunate move that all but ensures Palestinian aspirations for statehood will remain unrealized. Moving forward, Palestinian leadership should do what is in its people’s best interest by returning to direct negotiations with Israel to achieve a durable peace agreement.

RECOGNIZING JERUSALEM AS ISRAEL’S CAPITAL CONVEYS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE.

Recognition that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, along with initiating a process to move the U.S. embassy there, sends a strong message: America will not allow the Palestinians to hold U.S. policy hostage to their unwillingness to resume negotiations with Israel. It is also an

important rejection of those in the international community, like UNESCO, who promote the anti-Semitic canard that denies the 3,000-year, continuous Jewish connection to its holiest city.

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocating America’s embassy there does not undermine the agreement between Israelis and Palestinians in the Oslo Accords that Jerusalem will be a final status issue. America’s actions do not prejudice future negotiations over the city’s final status and borders.

For its part, Israel has consistently honored the city’s connection to the world’s Muslim population. Israel takes Muslim sentiments into account at all times with respect to the holy places. Today, Jerusalem is a vibrant, multicultural city where Christians, Muslims and Jews from all over the world can visit their holy sites.

CONGRESS HAS LONG RECOGNIZED JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

For decades, on a bipartisan basis, Congress has strongly expressed its belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that the U.S. embassy should be relocated there. In 1990, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate overwhelmingly adopted bipartisan resolutions (H.Con.Res. 290 and S.Con.Res. 106) that acknowledge Jerusalem “is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel.” In 1995, it overwhelmingly enacted the bipartisan Jerusalem Embassy Act, which proclaimed as a statement of U.S. policy that Jerusalem should be recognized as Israel’s capital and that our embassy should be located there. The law permitted the president to waive this requirement only if deemed necessary for U.S. national security. For the past 18 years, successive administrations have exercised this



waiver.

In 2002, Congress overwhelmingly adopted the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act that requires all government-funded documents that list countries and their capital cities to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Most recently, the Senate in June 2017 overwhelmingly adopted S.Res. 176 which “reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995…and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions.”

Following the Dec. 6 announcement, senior members from both chambers and both parties expressed their support for the decision. Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, “As someone who strongly believes that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, I am calling for the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be relocated to Jerusalem.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the decision “long overdue” and said “the announcement is a recognition of reality that in no way inhibits efforts to reach a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP IS MAKING ERRONEOUS CLAIMS AND DANGEROUS DECISIONS.

On Dec. 13, President Abbas delivered a blistering speech to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in response to America’s Jerusalem recognition. In his address he 1) outrageously demanded countries to “review their recognition of the State of Israel;” 2) declared that Palestinians would no longer be bound by previous agreements with Israel; 3) denied any historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem, stating, “It is a Palestinian Arab Muslim

Christian city, the eternal capital of the state of Palestine;” 4) falsely accused Israel of violating the status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque; and, 5) rejected direct, bilateral talks with Israel while announcing his intent to use the international community to gain recognition and impose decisions on Israel. He called for support of Palestinian efforts to “join all international organizations and treaties as a natural right for them in order to affirm the existence of the State of Palestine in the international system.”

And on Dec. 9, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki told reporters in Cairo that Abbas would not meet with Vice President Pence during his upcoming trip to Israel, adding that the Palestinian leadership is breaking “formal communications” with U.S. officials.

PRESIDENT ABBAS SHOULD RETURN TO PEACE TALKS.

Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital simply makes official something obvious to any impartial observer, and it in no way obstructs future negotiations surrounding the city’s final status. It provides no justification for the dangerous path Abbas has embarked upon. Continuing to inflame tensions and instigate further Palestinian violence will only harm the prospects for peace. Instead, President Abbas should immediately return to direct, bilateral negotiations with Israel—which is the only realistic way to achieve a durable peace agreement—and reverse course on boycotting American leaders.



Iran’s Military Proxies Approach the Israeli-Syrian Border

On Nov. 8, the United States, Russia and Jordan reached a limited ceasefire agreement over southern Syria,

resulting in a Memorandum of Principles (MOP) which optimistically calls for all foreign forces to eventually quit Syria. It also updated the limited ceasefire in the southwest, one of three Syrian “de-escalation zones” that the three powers adopted in July. However, in the near term, the agreement dangerously does not prohibit military forces controlled by Iran, to include its Lebanon-based proxy Hezbollah, to deploy near Israel’s border with Syria in the Golan Heights. As Iran capitalizes on this latest cease-fire to firmly entrench its proxies in Syria, Israel may be forced to take action to defend against this growing threat.

JERUSALEM AND AMMAN ARE WORRIED ABOUT IRANIAN ENCROACHMENT.

Israeli security officials immediately objected to the November MOP, which they aver would allow Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Shia militias and Hezbollah to entrench themselves near the Golan Heights for the foreseeable future. According to a U.S. State Department official, Washington and Moscow agreed to “work with the Syrian regime to remove the Iranian-backed forces a defined distance from the Golan Heights.” While the public memorandum contained few details, Israel has declared—and neither Washington nor Moscow has denied—that the “defined distance from the Golan Heights” could put

Iranian-backed forces as close as five kilometers from the Israeli border in some areas.

Jerusalem rejects the prospect of Iran becoming, in effect, a “front-line state” that, via its domination of Syria, possesses a land border with Israel. The Jewish state is particularly concerned that Iran’s and Hezbollah’s growing presence in the Syrian Golan Heights, combined with permanent Iranian military bases in Syria and an emerging “land bridge” linking Tehran with Beirut and the Mediterranean Sea, could allow the IRGC to coordinate attacks on Israeli population centers. This new front would exacerbate the existing danger already posed by Hezbollah from Lebanon.

Jordan—despite the shared assurances contained in the November agreement—is also concerned about a permanent Iranian presence in southern Syria. In September, Jordan’s King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein said “defending our northern border against the terror organizations and foreign militias is a top priority for us.” And in response to the MOP, former Jordanian Minister Samih al-Ma’aita described Iran as a direct threat to Jordan’s freedom, saying that “Jordan understands Iran’s moves and mentality very well, and [realizes] that Iran yearns to repeat what it has [already] done in Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and Iraq.”

IRAN IS LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR A LONG-TERM PRESENCE IN SYRIA.

Since its founding in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought to export its revolutionary presence throughout the Middle East in a bid to propagate radical Shia Islamism, restore ancient Persia’s historical domination of the region, and supplant American influence in the Middle East. Damascus soon became Tehran’s principal and most loyal Arab ally. The two nations initially



forged an alliance to confront their shared adversaries: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Israel.

Tehran and Damascus also created and nurtured the Shia terrorist movement Hezbollah in Lebanon, initially under the guise of fighting Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon (which ended in 2000, with no diminution of hostility from Hezbollah). This cooperation made Syria and Iran, along with Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, key players in a “resistance axis” against Israel, which enabled Damascus to acquire a regional role disproportionate to its actual size and resources.

Both the nature of Syria’s position in this alliance and the threat it posed to Israel changed dramatically following the outbreak of civil war in 2011. Before the conflict, Syria and Iran cooperated as allies, with Damascus controlling its own sovereign territory. The Assads—both Hafez and his son and current ruler, Bashar—were content letting Hezbollah and Iran take the lead in confronting Israel, while maintaining quiet on the Israel-Syria border from 1974 to 2011.

During the past five years, however, Syria’s strength vis-à-vis Iran has diminished with Iranian-led Shia fighters now shouldering most of the burden in the fight against ISIS and other anti-Assad opposition groups. White House National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has stated that only 20 percent of the fighters under Damascus’s titular command are actually Syrian—the remaining 80 percent being Iranian/Shia. Damascus has, in effect, lost control of most of Syria to Tehran, which is anxious to use Syrian territory as a base from which to directly attack the Jewish state.

Iran appears confident that its military presence

in Syria will endure long after the civil war there ends. According to Israeli military sources, Tehran is building underground missile factories in Syria and in neighboring Lebanon to facilitate support to Hezbollah. Iran currently operates 13 military bases in Syria, which comprise a strong command-and-control network covering the entire country, save for a few rebel strongholds. According to the BBC, a Western intelligence agency has identified a “permanent” military base Iran is building south of Damascus—a development that blatantly contradicts the MOP’s stated goal of removing all foreign forces from Syria.

ISRAEL WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ENFORCE ITS RED LINES.

In November, Israeli jets reportedly struck the would-be permanent Iranian military base and destroyed a research facility that was developing missiles and other advanced weapons for Hezbollah. And on Dec. 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left no room for doubt when he stated that Israel “will not allow a regime hell-bent on the annihilation

The Syrian area of Quneitra is seen in the background as an out-of-commission Israeli tank parks on a hill, near the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria, in the Golan Heights.

PHOTO: BAZ RATNER/REUTERS



of the Jewish state to…entrench itself militarily in Syria, as it seeks to do, for the express purpose of eradicating our state.”

Israel has indicated its intention to enforce its three “red lines” in Syria. Specifically, Israel opposes:

• The presence of Iranian and Hezbollah-led Shia militias near Israel’s northern border.

• A permanent Iranian military presence anywhere in Syria.

• Hezbollah’s acquisition of advanced weapons.

LOOKING AHEAD.

In September, National Security Advisor McMaster stated that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East is to “weaken Iranian influence in the region.” Preventing Iran from establishing a permanent foothold in Syria is crucial to this objective. Washington has taken an important step by announcing that U.S. troops will not abandon eastern Syria. In that arena, the United States has already helped Syria’s Kurdish minority defeat ISIS by creating a military—the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF has the potential to counterbalance Iran in eastern Syria in the future.

As the Syrian civil war winds down, Washington must establish a clear, comprehensive approach to oppose Iran’s regional aggression. To this end, the Trump administration will have to coordinate ever more closely with our allies in the Levant and throughout the Middle East, all of which are threatened by Iran’s and its proxies’ subversive and destabilizing activities.

50 Years after UNSCR 242: Enduring Relevance, Abiding Controversy

Three major anniversaries occurred in November—but only two received robust attention. First, on Nov. 2, many

observed the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which pledged British support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. And second, the 70th anniversary of the U.N. Partition Resolution, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state in the country, was observed on Nov. 29.

In between these two dates, the 50th anniversary of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 242 went virtually unnoticed. Yet the resolution, which was unanimously adopted on Nov. 22, 1967, is worthy of remembrance as well. Officially accepted by Israel and its Arab neighbors, UNSCR 242 became the cornerstone of all subsequent diplomatic efforts to make peace between the parties. Further, the deliberate misinterpretation of the resolution by some detractors—in order to undermine Israel’s international standing—calls for setting the record straight.

THE PROVISIONS WERE INTENDED TO ESTABLISH “A JUST AND LASTING PEACE.”

UNSCR 242 was adopted five months after the astonishing Six-Day War, during which the Jewish state overcame an existential threat from encircling Arab armies to capture significant territory and reunify Israel’s historic capital, Jerusalem.



Accordingly, the resolution asserts that to establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” two principles are necessary: “(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

Also, the resolution “affirms further the necessity (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.”

UNSCR 242 REMAINS RELEVANT.

In the fifty years since its adoption, UNSCR

242 has been cited in all subsequent Arab-Israeli agreements: the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty; the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty; and, the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords of 1993-1999. There is little doubt that future agreements will cite the resolution as well.

Moreover, all subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions relevant to Arab-Israeli relations have cited the resolution. Even the widely criticized UNSCR 2334 of Dec. 23, 2016, which harshly criticized Israel and called on it to make unilateral concessions, found it necessary to cite the resolution.

Most recently, UNSCR 242 was relevant in President Trump’s Dec. 6 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In a New York Times letter to the editor on March 12, 1980, Arthur J. Goldberg—the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time of the resolution’s adoption and one of its chief authors—wrote:

“Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank. In a number of speeches at the U.N. in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.”

THE RESOLUTION REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL.

The text of UNSCR 242 has been zealously studied, to include the absence or presence of words. Specifically, the resolution’s call for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” has

Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban (seated left, at table), British Ambassador to the U.N. Lord Caradon (seated center) and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Arthur J. Goldberg (seated right), attending the UN Security Council meeting on June 7, 1967, during the Six-Day War.

PHOTO: U.N. PHOTO BY TEDDY CHEN



been twisted by Israel’s detractors to require withdrawal from the territories—i.e., from all the territories Israel captured in the defensive Six-Day War. Had that been true, Israel would have been in permanent, major non-compliance with the resolution for the past half-century.

To buttress this claim, these detractors cite the resolution’s French text, which calls for withdrawal from the territories (“des territoires”). But there are several flaws to this claim:

• All the discussions leading to the resolution were held in English;

• It was the English text that was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative;

• Most important, both of the resolution’s chief drafters stated on several occasions that the omission of the word “the” was deliberate.

Five years later, Amb. Goldberg clarified:

Does Resolution 242…require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words ‘the’ and ‘all’ are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.”

And according to British U.N. Ambassador Lord Caradon, the other chief author of the resolution:

“Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say ‘the’ territories or ‘all the’ territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the ‘the’ or ‘all the’ that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.”

Israel’s detractors have also made much of a phrase in the resolution’s preamble “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” claiming that the resolution therefore requires an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories. Lord Caradon debunked this claim as well.

In an interview published in 1976, he was asked, “Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories?” He answered:

“I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: ‘well, you go back to the 1967 line.’ But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line…Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong…So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to…‘secure and



recognized boundaries.’

“They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security.”

When President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on Dec. 6, he echoed this sentiment:

“We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved. The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement.”

CONCLUSION

Israel has already fulfilled UNSCR 242’s key requirement—withdrawal from territories (again, not the territories) it seized during the Six-Day War of 1967. In 1979-1982 it withdrew from the entire Sinai Peninsula as part of its peace treaty with Egypt; in 1994 it resolved land disputes with Jordan to forge a peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom; and in 2005 it withdrew fully and unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. Israel has thus withdrawn from more than 90 percent of the territories it captured during the war. The fact that it still maintains partial control of the West Bank while offering to negotiate its future is no violation of UNSCR 242.

And Israel has been willing to withdraw from

territory in the West Bank. All four Israeli prime ministers since the turn of the century—Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu—have declared their support for the two-state solution, which would require an Israeli withdrawal to make room for a Palestinian state.

Yet no Israeli government will agree to a West Bank withdrawal unless the Palestinians accept UNSCR 242’s main provision: “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area [i.e., Israel] and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

Were Palestinian leadership to fully accept this provision, President Trump—or one of his successors—could finally succeed in helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

In Memoriam: Naomi Lauter

There is a reason why Naomi Lauter was known as “the mother” and “grande dame” of the pro-Israel movement: For

more than 50 years, Lauter worked tirelessly to educate the nation on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

On Dec. 4, Lauter passed away at the age of 87 in San Francisco from congestive heart failure. She



had retired from AIPAC only eight years earlier.

Born in San Francisco, Naomi Ets-Hokin was raised a proud Zionist. Her father served on countless Jewish communal boards, and her Hungarian-born mother volunteered with Hadassah.

Lauter’s relationship with AIPAC began in the 1950s when AIPAC founder I.L. (Si) Kenen recruited her to cultivate the organization’s volunteer base. Naomi was a dedicated AIPAC leader long before she considered joining AIPAC’s staff. In 1983, she opened AIPAC’s first regional office in the San Francisco Bay area, becoming AIPAC’s first employee outside of its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Lauter traveled extensively throughout the Pacific Northwest region to educate activists and elected officials about the issues affecting the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In a press release, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote: “Naomi Lauter was my cherished, close friend and an inspiring force in our community for civil rights, justice and meeting the needs of all people…Naomi’s lifetime of energetic, tireless activism in support of Israel is an important

legacy. As a pillar of the San Francisco Jewish community, she worked tirelessly to uphold and enhance the strong U.S.-Israel relationship not just in California but around the country.”

After 16 years as a regional director, Lauter became AIPAC’s national community consultant. As part of her work, she traveled to more than 100 cities throughout the United States building local councils and providing training to the regional AIPAC staff. In addition, her work on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship brought her to Israel more than 35 times.

“When AIPAC made the strategic decision to move beyond the walls of Washington D.C., to expand into the regions, Naomi was the person to whom we turned,” said AIPAC’s Managing Director for National Affairs Elliot Brandt. “In an organization comprised of passionate Zionists, she was the most passionate among us. She was one of the few long-serving professionals who remembered the dark world before there was an Israel, and the joy when there was, and both of those worlds drove her determination and her perseverance.”

“She had this very sweet, angelic face,” said former AIPAC President Amy Friedkin. “She looked like your favorite bubbe, but she was tough. We use the term ‘mentor’ a lot, but it was really true in her case. She really taught us so much.”

In 2010, Lauter retired from AIPAC, but she remained fully engaged with politics and the pro-Israel community.

“Few people are more passionate, committed or dedicated to U.S.-Israel relations than Naomi Lauter,” said Rep. Pelosi in 2010, when Lauter announced her retirement from AIPAC. “She is one of the most effective advocates in the country, and someone who fights for the values, ideals and issues she holds most dear.”

Naomi Lauter opened AIPAC’s Bay Area office in 1983, and after 16 years there she became the organization’s community consultant.

PHOTO: J. THE JEWISH NEWS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA



“But she was more than the mother of our movement. She was a mentor to us all, one of the roles she cherished most,” said Brandt. “There was not one single person at AIPAC, activist or staff, who didn’t learn from Naomi. She helped launch many of our careers and all of us are better professionals as a result. And we are better people as well.”

She was predeceased by her husband of 61 years, Robert (Bob) Lauter and is survived by four children, David, Jonathan, Sarah and Sam Lauter; daughters-in-law Liz, Deborah and Stephanie Lauter; 10 grandchildren and four great-granddaughters.

May her memory be a blessing.

Washington Brief: A Recap of News From the Hill and BeyondMEMBERS OF CONGRESS SUPPORT JERUSALEM RECOGNITION

There was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress following the president’s Dec. 6 announcement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Below is a select list of statements by members of Congress:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Senate Democratic Leader: “As someone who strongly believes that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, I am calling for the US Embassy in Israel to be relocated to Jerusalem.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), President pro

tempore of the U.S. Senate: “I am thrilled with the President’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his plan to move the US Embassy there. When I spoke to General McMaster yesterday, I was able to ask him a number of logistical details about the move. During my conversation with the National Security Advisor, I expressed my full support for the President’s decision, which takes into careful consideration the needs of America’s allies—both in the region and around the world. I have long supported the recognition of Jerusalem as the official Israeli capital, most notably as a co-sponsor of the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, which my colleagues introduced to the Senate in January. The President’s action, which reaffirms US legislation that has been on the books since 1995, sends a clear signal that we are prepared to defend the interests of the United States and its allies.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Today’s announcement recognizes what has been true for almost 70 years, namely that Jerusalem is Israel’s seat of government. On a bipartisan basis, Congress has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and I applaud the president’s initiative in making this a reality. Maintaining a close working relationship with our regional partners and ensuring the security of our embassy personnel and facilities will be critical as the administration takes steps to operationalize this decision, and I look forward to working with them toward that end.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “The President’s announcement today implements what Congress affirmed in 1995 with the



passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act: Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and the location of the U.S. Embassy should reflect this fact. Going forward, it is critical that all religious and ethnic groups continue to have access to Jerusalem.

“I expect that in advance of the President’s announcement appropriate planning and precautions were taken to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel and facilities, and also that careful consideration and consultations focused on not exacerbating conflicts in a region already suffering from unprecedented levels of violence.

“I look forward to learning more about the Administration’s plans for restarting direct negotiations for a just, sustainable two-state solution.”

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House: “This is a day that is long overdue. Jerusalem has been, and always will be, the eternal, undivided capital of the State of Israel. The city’s status as the religious epicenter of Judaism is an historical fact—not a matter of debate. Today’s announcement is a recognition of reality that in no way inhibits efforts to reach a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I commend President Trump for taking this important action, and for exploring next steps to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), House Majority Leader: “Today the President recognized a reality: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The House and Senate have on three separate occasions supported recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, including by enacting the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995 to move the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. If acknowledging truth inspires

violence, it is those who commit the violence, not the truth, that are at fault.”

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Majority Whip: “By Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, @POTUS has shown we’re willing to back up our allies”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Democratic Whip: “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, something that the United States Congress has reaffirmed and a fact of history that cannot be denied. Our country must play a constructive role in supporting Israel as it seeks the peace and security its people deserve by continuing to promote a two-state solution through direct, bilateral negotiations that will end any question of Jerusalem’s status.”

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee: “I welcome the administration’s decision to recognize Israel’s self-identified capital. Sovereign nations have a right to determine their seat of government, and our close ally Israel should not be treated differently. Relocating the U.S. Embassy should be done carefully, and in a way that advances our national security interests in a dangerous and unstable region. The president wants peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And so do I. But no solution can be imposed. Actors in the region must want to put conflict and bloodshed in the past. That’s why the House passed the Taylor Force Act yesterday, telling the PA that their abhorrent pay to slay policy must stop. The administration’s recent engagement with key players is encouraging, and I hope it grows in the coming weeks. A lot of difficult work lies ahead.”

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee: “I support the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the



eternal capital of Israel and to move the U.S. embassy there. This decision is long overdue and helps correct a decades-long indignity. It recognizes where Israel’s government—the parliament and the prime minister—is based, as well as the ancient and unbreakable connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. I look forward to a plan to ensure the safety and security of our embassy personnel.

“I urge parties in the region to be calm and work toward a sustainable two-state solution that can bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians.”

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Ted Deutch (D-FL), Chairman and Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa: “The President’s decision today is a recognition of existing U.S. law that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that the U.S. embassy should ultimately be located in the capital. There is no debate that the Jewish people have a deep-rooted religious, cultural and historic tie to Jerusalem, and today’s decision reaffirms that connection. The fact is that Jerusalem – an ancient and holy city to all three monotheistic faiths – will remain the capital of the Jewish state in any iteration of a negotiated two-state solution. Today’s decision does not preclude our shared goal of two states for two peoples to be negotiated between the parties themselves. Now is the time for urgent progress towards the President’s stated objective of achieving a real and lasting peace.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee: “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I was proud to vote for the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which demonstrated Congress’ unified position that Jerusalem

should be recognized as the capital of Israel, and today’s announcement is consistent with existing U.S. law. We must remain focused on the goal of two states for two peoples – the Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state – living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition. The Administration must focus its efforts on bringing both sides to the table, as only the parties themselves can agree to end this conflict.”

(For a full list of statements, visit www.aipac.org)

HOUSE PASSES BIPARTISAN BILL TO COUNTER IRAN’S MALIGN BEHAVIOR

On Dec. 13, the U.S. House of Representative passed with broad bipartisan support the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act (H.R. 1638).

The measure seeks to counter corruption amongst Iran’s senior leadership by publicly divulging the financial assets of the officials. Under the law, the Treasury Department would be required to publicly report on the assets of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Members of the Council of Guardians, Members of the Expediency Council and senior Iranian military officials. The bipartisan bill was sponsored by Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME) and includes amendments from Reps. Grace Meng (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL).

“Iran’s top regime leaders—the Supreme Leader and the country’s top political and military brass—have amassed huge wealth through their tyrannical rule and corrupt and covert structure,” said Rep. Poliquin.

“Reports have indicated these funds are being used to support and sponsor terrorism around



the region and to undermine our own national security interests. Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, cannot be trusted and it’s important for the security of the region and for the United States for these secret funds to be exposed publicly to the world. I’m extremely pleased my colleagues in the House—Democrats and Republicans—passed this important legislation.”

HOUSE SEEKS INFORMATION ON IRAN AIRPLANE SALES

On Dec. 14, the U.S House of Representatives passed the Strengthening Oversight of Iran’s Access to Finance Act (H.R. 4324). The measure was authored by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) and includes an amendment by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). The bill would require the Treasury Department to report to Congress on financial transactions authorized in connection with Iran’s purchase of commercial aircraft. Additionally, the bill also requires a certification that authorized transactions do not benefit sanctioned entities or individuals engaged in the transport of proliferation sensitive items.

CONGRESS SUPPORTS FUNDING FOR U.S.-ISRAEL MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION

On Nov. 16, the U.S. Congress authorized a total of $705 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate and the House of Representatives have now adopted the NDAA bill, which contains funding that represents a $558 million increase over the president’s budget request and $105 million over last year’s adopted funding level.

Adopted on a bipartisan basis, this funding would support both R&D for and procurement

of the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 cooperative missile defense systems—key programs that help Israel defend its citizens against rockets and missiles and also advance America’s own missile defense capabilities.

In addition to the support of missile defense cooperation, this legislation also extends the authorization of funding for critical U.S.-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation.

HOUSE ADOPTS LEGISLATION PENALIZING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM

On Dec. 5, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted the bipartisan Taylor Force Act (H.R. 1164), which would eliminate funding that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority (PA) if it continues its abhorrent practice of paying stipends to terrorists or their families. This PA practice that incentivizes terrorism and sets back the pursuit of peace.

Lawmakers previously acted to reduce assistance to the PA by the total amount of payments it makes to terrorists and their families. However, that important step has not yet put an end to the payments, necessitating the increased pressure provided by the Taylor Force Act.

The bill was named in honor of U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force, who was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in Tel Aviv last year. Versions of the bill have been adopted in the Senate by the Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees.

U.S. TREASURY SANCTIONS MAJOR IRANIAN COUNTERFEITING RING

On Nov. 20, the U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed new sanctions against a



network of individuals and entities involved in counterfeiting Yemeni bank notes for use by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force.

“This scheme exposes the deep levels of deception the IRGC-Qods Force is willing to employ against companies in Europe, governments in the Gulf, and the rest of the world to support its destabilizing activities. Counterfeiting strikes at the heart of the international financial system, and the fact that elements of the government of Iran are involved in this behavior is completely unacceptable,” Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said.

The counterfeiting ring discovered new ways to bypass European export control restrictions and acquired advanced equipment and materials to the print bank notes, potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

“This counterfeiting scheme exposes the serious risks faced by anyone doing business with Iran, as the IRGC continues to obscure its involvement in Iran’s economy and hide behind the façade of legitimate businesses to perpetrate its nefarious objectives,” Mnuchin added.

The sanctions are pursuant to the global terrorism Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 and are consistent with the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

U.S., ISRAEL INCREASE ENERGY COOPERATION IN AFRICA

On Dec. 4, the United States and Israel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to increase access to energy in sub-Saharan Africa.

The MOU will enable the Jewish state to join

the Power Africa initiative, which is led by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Spearheaded by the United States, the initiative seeks to connect 60 million households in Africa to the electricity grid by 2030.

“Israel is becoming a partner in one of the biggest aid programs available today,” said Eli Groner, the director general at Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office. He added that joining the Power Africa initiative “is the manifestation of our unparalleled relationship with the U.S., assisting in the deepening of our ties with African nations.”

The new partnership will specifically allow both country to contribute to the shared goals of (1) increasing outreach and collaboration among U.S. and Israeli companies to improve access to finance and explore investment opportunities; (2) deepening collaboration to expand electricity access; (3) expanding on-grid renewable, and off-grid efforts to extend energy across sub-Saharan Africa; and (4) encouraging new projects involving Israeli and U.S. companies throughout the African continent.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman added, “Through Power Africa, the Israeli government and Israeli firms will literally be able to light up the nations of Africa, bettering their lives and their livelihoods.”

Documents

THE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE · PDF fileHafez and his son and current ruler, ... strength vis-à-vis Iran has diminished with ... Lebanon to facilitate support to Hezbollah