Report: Obama promises Europeans no changes to visa waiver program without their approval
Just a few days ago, the US House of Representatives passed HR 158, which would remove from the US's visa waiver program non-US citizens who visit or hold dual citizenship with countries known for terrorism or connections to ISIS (Syria, Iran, Iraq and Sudan were named). Now, Iran's FARS News is reporting that it won't happen without European approval (Hat Tip: Steve B).
"The Commission is currently examining the
measures announced by the Obama Administration as well as proposals
presented in the Congress to enhance the Visa Waiver Program," the
source told FNA.
Noting that the meetings are taking place at all
appropriate levels in Brussels and Washington DC on the issue, the
source said, "The Commission will continue these discussions with the US
authorities in the days to come and will also contact the EU Member
States."
"We are confident that the US, as a strategic
partner, will decide in consultation with the EU on the way forward,"
the source underlined.
As it currently stands, the Visa Waiver Program
(VWP) allows citizens of 38 countries — namely European states,
Australia, Japan and South Korea — to travel to the United States
without having to obtain a visa. However, the US House of
Representatives passed a bill (H. R. 158) on Dec. 8 that aims to exclude
from this program all dual nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan,
and anyone else who has traveled to those countries in the past five
years.
...
The EU has a history of opposing such measures, which it perceives as
the "politicization of trade," within the framework of the WTO. Indeed,
in 1997, EU countries threatened formal counteraction in this forum over
the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which later resulted in a decision
by the Clinton administration to waive ILSA sanctions on the first
project determined to be in violation.
The European Union expects that the Obama administration will surrender control of the United States' borders to its whims - and it is highly likely that Obama will try to do that.
Irony alert: House passes bill forcing Europeans who visit Iran, Iraq and Syria to get a visa
It's probably the biggest hole in US security and, ironically enough, during the same week that Donald Trump proposed to bar non-US citizen Muslims from entering the United States until the government figures out how to screen them, the House has taken action to close the hole.
There are 38 countries with which the United States has a visa waiver program that allows those countries' citizens to enter the United States without obtaining a visa. Those countries are overwhelmingly European. The US House this week overwhelmingly (407-19 with only Democrats voting against) passed HR 158, a bill that would require Europeans who have visited Iraq and Syria (ISIS hotspots) to obtain a visa before entering the United States. At the last minute, Iran and Sudan (terror sponsoring states) were added to the list of countries that will cause non-Americans to need a visa to enter the US. The Iran lobby in the US is furious.
"Once again they punish Iranians for crimes committed by terrorists
virtually every one of us despise, oppose and are fighting," Ali Abdi, a
prominent Iranian-American human rights activist told BBC Persian.
"In fact we shouldn't punish anyone based on their place of origin."
Narges
Bajoghli, a filmmaker in New York, took to Facebook to encourage her
friends to contact their representative in Congress in opposition to
what she called "singling out a group of people based on their ethnic
background".
Twitter accounts and other Facebook pages dedicated
to organising to protest against the bill have also been created,
including @StopHR158, which references the official number of the bill.
The National Iranian American Council in Washington is lobbying to stop this bill from passing in the United States Senate. "These provisions impacting Iranian Americans were
added in backroom negotiations at the last minute without hearings or
accountability," the group said in a statement.
And the ACLU, one
of the leading civil rights organisations in the country, cautioned
Congress "to avoid passing legislation that would broadly scapegoat
groups based on nationality, and would fan the flames of discriminatory
exclusion, both here and abroad".
On social media many Iranian
Americans expressed shock that such limitations would be imposed on
people who travel to Iran but not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Is this any different from Donald Trump's proposal earlier this week? Not by much.
Others called it a continuation of presidential candidate Donald Trump's
anti-Muslim rhetoric. 'It's so "Trumpesque"' tweeted Shayan, a German
of Iranian background who said he was worried that his trip to US may be
affected.
The Europeans are also said to be 'alarmed.' Apparently Congress was even more 'alarmed' after the Paris massacre was carried out mostly by European citizens who were born in, or children of people who were born in, Muslim countries.
But the truth is that this is probably the largest hole in US security north of the Mexican border. It allows citizens of other countries to enter without screening. That will change if the Senate passes the bill and both houses override what has to be an almost inevitable Obama veto.
Meanwhile, here in Israel, we don't need to worry about visa waivers. We aren't part of the visa waiver program, because our government has denied entry to trouble making Americans for years. And God willing it will stay that way.
“American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support
from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and
independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran,” the release from
Quinnipiac states. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the deal by an 86%
to 3% margin, and only a slim majority of Democrats support it. The
poll of 1,644 registered voters has a margin of error of 2.4%.
Opposition to the Iran deal has widened as Congress has probed the
details of the agreement in televised hearings on Capitol Hill. One
major issue is the existence of secret side deals between the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran governing nuclear
inspections, which the administration has not read or provided to
Congress, in violation of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act (the
Corker bill).
At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a
resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which
would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while
enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear
research.
The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.
Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come
out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit
Iran’s nuclear program.
Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will
ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on
the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.
...
At least three members of the House leadership, as well as 18 of 22
House committee chairmen and 23 of the 25 GOP members of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, have already signed on to back the
resolution, according to figures provided by congressional sources.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Republican Study
Committee Chair Bill Flores (R., Texas) also back the measure.
I'm not so impressed by this. Aren't the Republicans the majority party in Congress? Don't they chair all the committees? Who are the four chairmen who have not come out against the deal? Who are the two GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have not come out against the deal? These people need to be named and shamed.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the effort said the administration is failing to convince lawmakers to back the deal.
“It appears the administration’s sales pitch for this deal is falling
on deaf ears. Closed-door briefings and public hearings have apparently
left Members with more questions than answers, and the administration’s
decision to circumvent Congress by first bringing the deal to the UN
infuriated key Democrats who are otherwise loyal to the president,” the
source said.
“This level of opposition so early in the review period indicates
that Congress really has a chance of killing the agreement. What
Congressman Roskam has done—securing 218 commitments from Members vote
against the deal in just two weeks—is a rather remarkable feat. He still
has more work to do, but this is an impressive start,” the source
added.
Remarkable? Look, I love Roskam - he's one of Israel's strongest supporters. But he shouldn't have to work this hard to defeat a deal that is so obviously and blatantly a disaster.
I also don't get why Congress has not claimed the Senate's power to advise and consent to treaties - if not by classifying this agreement as a treaty (which is what it really is) then at least by classifying it as an amendment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would require a two thirds affirmative vote in the Senate which will never happen.
French diplomat pressured to retract statement on Iran, but Representatives back original story
The US Embassy to France and the French Embassy to the United States have been running a full-court press claiming that French diplomat Jacques Audibert never said it would be helpful if Congress rejected the Iran nuclear sellout. But Representatives who were present at the meeting insist that Audibert said what was originally reported.
Reps. Paul Cook (R., Calif.) and Tom Marino (R., Pa.) released a
joint statement on Friday confirming Audibert’s comments as described by
Sanchez.
“We participated in the meeting and can confirm that Congresswoman
Sanchez’s account of the meeting is accurate. We disagree with recent
claims that seek to refute her account,” the lawmakers said in a
statement provided to the Free Beacon.
The French Embassy continues to deny the report and worked furiously
in conjunction with White House officials Thursday to downplay
Audibert’s comments, sources said.
...
The French Embassy’s Twitter account issued a statement by Audibert, who also distanced himself from the report.
“During the meeting with the members of the US Congress on the 17th
of July, I never said or suggested that a no vote from the Congress on
the JCPOA might be helpful or lead to a better deal,” Audibert said in
the statement. “I insisted repeatedly on the fact that the deal itself
was the best possible.”
...
However, Audibert walked back his initial rejection of the report on Friday in an interview with French-language press.
When asked by European officials what would happen if Congress were
to reject the deal, Audibert “told them that in my opinion, no European
company would take the risk of going to do business in Iran, since it
risks being subjected to US sanctions, as was recently the case of a
large French bank. It’s obvious,” French press reported.
Audibert’s apparent support for a congressional no vote on the deal
is said to have swayed some lawmakers to oppose the agreement.
You don't think the White House and the State Department would lie and pressure another country's diplomat to get the deal passed, do you?
French National Security official: 'Congressional 'no' vote might be helpful'
A French national security official has contradicted the Obama-Kerry line that rejection of the Iranian nuclear sellout would bring about an apocalypse. Josh Rogin reports that the official, Jacques Audibert, says that a Congressional 'no' vote might be helpful.
The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic
adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director
general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014,
he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the
P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and
Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services
Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane
Hartley, was also in the room.
According to both lawmakers,
Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly
disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal
would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and
Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.
“He basically said,
if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some
chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran
will come back to the table to negotiate again that would be to our
advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress
voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”
Audibert is also not anxious to see US sanctions on Iran lifted.
Audibert disagrees with that analysis, too, according to the two
lawmakers. He told them that if U.S. sanctions were kept in place, it
would effectively prevent the West from doing extensive business in
Iran. “I asked him specifically what the Europeans would do, and his
comment was that the way the U.S. sanctions are set in, he didn’t see an
entity or a country going against them, that the risk was too high,”
Sanchez said.
And Audibert has some objections to the deal.
Audibert also wasn’t happy with some of the terms of the deal itself,
according to Sanchez and Turner. He said he though it should have been
negotiated to last forever, not start to expire in as few as 10 years.
He also said he didn’t understand why Iran needed more than 5,000
centrifuges for a peaceful nuclear program. He also expressed concerns
about the robustness of the inspections and verification regime under
the deal, according to the lawmakers.
Ya think?
Kerry was asked about Audibert in a classified House briefing with more than 300 members on July 22. He apparently didn't have any answers.
After more than six years in office, President Obama has finally succeeded in bringing about a bipartisan move in Congress. Unfortunately, it's not quite the move he had in mind.
A bipartisan letter on Iran signed by 360 members of
Congress will be sent to President Obama on Thursday, one of its House
signers said.
The letter, like one 47 Senate
Republicans sent to Tehran's leaders, reminds the administration that
permanent sanctions relief on Iran as part of a deal to rollback its
nuclear program would require new legislation from Congress.
It comes as international negotiators approach a March 24 deadline to reach a framework agreement.
"Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief
from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation,"
the letter says.
"In reviewing such an agreement, Congress
must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and
only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief,"
it adds.
The letter stops short of supporting
legislation pursued by the Senate that would allow Congress 60 days to
weigh in on any final deal before its implementation.
However,
it adds, "We are prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine its
long-term impact on the United States and our allies."
(The number of signers is actually said to be 363).
I couldn't find any White House reaction to this letter. But Obama will henceforth be known as the Great Unifier. What could go wrong?
The US House of Representatives has warned President Hussein Obama that if it doesn't like whatever deal Obama reaches with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, it will not lift the sanctions against the Islamist state.
The leading Democrat and Republican of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and ranking member Eliot Engel
(D-NY), wrote the letter intended to remind the White House of Congress'
role in any future nuclear pact forged with Iran: specifically, the
legislature's role in easing, lifting or repealing sanctions levied
against the Islamic Republic.
Attained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, the letter
outlines what Engel has referred to in the past as the "minimum
requirements for a good deal," noting that any deal "demands
congressional approval."
"The concept of an exclusively defined
'nuclear-related' sanction on Iran does not exist in US law," the letter
reads. "Almost all sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program are also
related to Tehran’s advancing ballistic missile program, intensifying
support for international terrorism, and other unconventional weapons
programs."
An interim deal reached in November with Iran,
temporarily freezing the international impasse, requires the Congress to
refrain from passing any new "nuclear-related sanctions" as world
powers attempt to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the crisis.
"Iran's permanent and verifiable termination of all of these activities—
not just some— is a prerequisite for permanently lifting most
congressionally-mandated sanctions," the letter continues.
...
The letter notes that, in recent testimony before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, US Secretary of State John Kerry has acknowledged any
deal with sanctions relief would require Congress' consent "by law."
The lawmakers "urge greater consultation with Congress on a potential sanctions relief package," it reads.
Responding
to the Post, administration officials contend that sanctions are,
indeed, adequately demarcated based on human rights abuses, sponsorship
of terrorism, drug trafficking and proliferation of unconventional
weapons by the Treasury Department.
I'm all in favor of seeing Congress hold Obama's feet to the fire, but this threat is kind of empty. Enforcement is entirely a power of the executive branch. Congress can pass all the sanctions they want, but if Obama doesn't enforce them, the only sanction they have is impeachment. It's now June of 2014. When will that bad deal be reached? How long will it take for Congress to say 'keep enforcing the sanctions'? How long will it take for the House to draft and pass articles of impeachment for Obama's failure to enforce the sanctions? How much time will a Senate trial take?
See what I mean - the threat is empty. Obama isn't going to accomplish anything in his last two years in office anyway - particularly if the Republicans win control of both Houses of Congress in November.
Congress backs down from fight over Iran sanctions
With midterm elections nearly a year away, Congress has apparently concluded that the voters have a short memory. Congress (particularly the Senate) is backing down on passing new sanctions against Iran, at least until after the first of the year
As Kerry readied to give testimony on Tuesday to the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on the administration's controversial interim nuclear
deal with Iran, core senators said there is little chance Congress would
approve new sanctions this year.
“I'm
inclined to support [Secretary of State] John Kerry” and hold off for
now, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) told The
Hill. “We'll see. Not this year.”
Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an Iran hawk and member of the Armed Services
panel, said he was working on a new bipartisan bill but acknowledged it
might not be ready until next year, though.
“I'm looking for a sanctions bill to pass either next week or the early part of next year,” he said.
The
administration has warned that new sanctions could undermine the deal
with Iran, which has been criticized for allowing that country to
continue to enrich uranium.
It has urged Congress to hold off on mandating new sanctions, and it appears it will get its way.
More
hawkish senators had all but given up on passing legislation through
Johnson's committee and were instead hoping to do it as an amendment to
the pending Defense bill.
Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees poured water on that plan on Monday when they unveiled a joint, bipartisan bill with no sanctions attached and called for a quick vote before the House leaves town on Friday.
Their bill was an initial signal this week that the chances of new sanctions were slim.
US cutting deal with Iran because... its troops aren't battle ready?
A deeply disturbing report from the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo.
Senior House lawmakers sounded the alarm over what they say is the
U.S. military’s lack of preparedness for battle following a classified
briefing Thursday on how deepening budget cuts are impacting troop
readiness.
Continuing cuts to the nation’s defense budget have left U.S. troops
underprepared for battle, according to House Armed Services Committee
Chair Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) and Readiness Subcommittee
Chairman Rob Wittman (R., Va.), who briefed reporters following a
classified briefing with top military brass.
The briefing—one in a series that will be held over the next
weeks—was aimed at convincing members of Congress to fight against
further defense cuts as next year’s federal budgeting process gets
underway.
...
As billions of dollars are slashed from the defense budget under an
agreement known as sequestration, the military is finding itself unable to train troops and retain key personnel.
“One of the things that really concerns me, all of these cuts we’re
having, the first thing that gets hit is readiness,” said McKeon. “So
the troops that are preparing for Afghanistan, remember we are still at
war, are not getting the training they got a year ago.”
“And I’ve been to a lot of the bases and the training they really
focus on is IEDs,” or improvised explosive devises, McKeon added.
“That’s where we lose most of our lives, limbs over there. If they are
cut short on some of that training it puts them more at risk.
Lawmakers have a duty to ensure that the troops are ready to deploy at a moment’s notice.
Over the weekend, we got word that the Senate is going to postpone consideration of new sanctions against Iran to let the Obama-Kerry 'diplomacy' have a chance to work. (The sanctions could still be introduced via the defense authorization bill). Am I the only one out there who suspects that the Senate's lack of appetite for something that the Obama administration claims could bring a war with Iran closer might have something to do with the fact that US troops are so unprepared for battle?
Bipartisan group of US Reps slam Erdogan's anti-Semitism
A bipartisan group of 46 US Representatives has sent a letter to Turkish President Abdullah Gul slamming Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's anti-Semitism.
The letter requested Gül to publically condemn “the anti-semitic rhetoric” of government officials.
The
signatories noted that another letter had been written a few months ago
asking Erdoğan to retract his statements that compared Zionism to a
“crime against humanity,” without success.
They also argued that
Erdoğan’s accusations of an “interest rate lobby” engineering the Gezi
protests were implicitly targeting Jews, recalling that Deputy Prime
Minister Beşir Atalay had openly stated that a “Jewish diaspora” was
behind the recent unrest in Turkey.
The letter was prepared on
the initiative of Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Illinois), Rep. Randy Weber
(R-Texas), Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Florida) and Mark Meadows (R-North
Carolina) and signed by congressmen from both the Democrat and
Republican parties, the report said.
I wonder why they didn't also mention the little Nazi while they were at it.
At the end of the day, Erdogan and Davutoglu are both anti-Semites and they're not going to apologize for it. I'm happy to see the US Congress beginning to recognize and deal with that reality.
Two US congressmen are passing a letter around Congress asking the Qatari Ambassador to the United States, Mohammed bin-Abdullah al-Rumaihi, to explain his country's relationship with Hamas.
U.S. Reps. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and John Barrow (D-GA) are recruiting
their fellow members of Congress to sign a letter asking Qatar’s
ambassador to the U.S., Mohammed Bin Abdullah Al-Rumaihi, to address
“serious allegations” regarding the oil-rich Middle East country’s
relationship with Hamas.
Qatar reportedly pledged more than $400 million to the Palestinian
terrorist organization in October 2012 during a visit to Gaza by Qatar’s
ruling emir at the time, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.
“As you know, longstanding, strategic bilateral relations between the
United States and Qatar, including a strong defense pact, are of
critical importance to both countries. However, we believe that Qatar’s
relationship with Hamas empowers, legitimizes, and bolsters an
organization committed to violence and hatred,” a draft of the letter to
Al-Rumaihi states, according to a copy obtained by JNS.org.
It's a nice thought. But unlike other Arab states that can be prodded to toe the US line with foreign aid money, Qatar is wealthy enough that it can tell the US to take a hike - and it is likely to do so. With what can the US threaten them?
I'm all in favor of 'convincing' Qatar not to have a relationship with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm just not sure they need any more convincing.
US House wants to shut PLO Washington office, Senate refuses
The Republican-dominated US House of Representatives passed a motion calling for the closing of the PLO's Washington office in response to the 'Palestinian Authority's unilateral action at the United Nations last month. Unfortunately, the Senate did not go along.
An attempt to force the issue through legislation is not likely to
succeed, given a failed attempt in the Senate earlier this month to
downgrade the status of the PLO’s delegation in Washington.
The House campaign followed a letter sent to President Barack Obama
by four senior Republicans and Democrats, who asked him to order the PLO
offices to be closed.
The letter was a response to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ violation of
the Oslo Accords by circumventing talks with Israel and going to the
United Nations for de facto recognition.
The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly granted the PA non-member
observer status and passed a non-binding resolution recognizing a future
PA country on the basis of the Temporary Armistice Lines drawn by the
UN in 1949.
After the vote, three senators, Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer of New
York and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John
Barraso of Wyoming, failed to win approval for an amendment to a defense
spending bill that would have closed the PLO offices as well as cut aid
to the Palestinian Authority.
The liberal Forward newspaper quoted Philip Wilcox, a former
U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and president of the Foundation for
Middle East Peace, as saying, “This is no more than posturing. It shows
how congressmen are willing to bow to the wishes of (the Israel lobby)
knowing the legislation will not go anywhere.”
Once upon a time, the United States barred all contact with the PLO. When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993 that changed. Blame our foolish leaders for it.
Congress voted 411-2 to reaffirm US cooperation with Israel on Thursday. But one of the two people who voted against has received PAC money from J Street, the wolf in sheep's clothing that masquerades as a 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' organization. And ten more representatives who have been beneficiaries of J Street donations took a page out of President Obama's book and voted 'present.'
The bi-partisan bill, which was sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself in the face of terror attacks and redoubles Congress’ support for the “unique and special relationship” between America and the Jewish state. The bill also expresses support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Rep. John Dingell (D.,Mich.), a J Street 2012 endorsee, voted against the bill.
Those who voted present include: Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D., Calif.), Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Pete Stark (D., Calif.), Andre Carson (D., Ind.), Donna Edwards (D., Md.), BettyMcCollum (D., Minn.), Keith Ellison (D., Minn.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Earl Blumenauer (D- Ore.). All have either been endorsed by J Street or have publicly been affiliated with the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group.
Two other J Street supporters, Reps. Bob Filner (D., Calif.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D., Calif.), initially did not vote in favor of the pro-Israel bill but later amended their votes to express support.
J Street itself was “neutral” on the enhanced security cooperation bill, though the organization regularly touts its self-described backing of a strong U.S.-Israel alliance. A J Street spokesperson did not respond to a request seeking clarification of its position.
Elliott Abrams, a former National Security Council adviser to President George W. Bush, slammed J Street for not taking a principled stand in favor of the legislation.
“There is a genuine bipartisan consensus in Congress supporting increased military aid to Israel, but J Street appears to be outside it. When you move left in both the American Jewish community and on the Hill, you find that support for Israeli security becomes a matter of slogans rather than of actions,” Abrams said.
“J Street ought to issue a tough statement criticizing the members who opposed the US-Israel Security Cooperation Act, but I would not hold my breath.”
I would suggest that the Jewish community refuse to support any federation that supports J Street or allows it to become a member.
What do King & Spaulding and the Obama Justice Department have in common?
Forgive me for a post that seems way off topic, but I can envision this happening to Israel - certainly in Europe if not in the US.
The answer to the question asked in this post's title is that King & Spaulding and the Obama administration's Justice Department both believe that terrorists deserve to be represented by counsel, but the US House of Representatives does not.
US House on record opposing unilateral declaration of 'Palestinian state'
Around the time that I landed in Boston on Wedensday, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of a 'Palestinian state.'
The resolution, introduced by Democrat Howard Berman, reaffirms the "strong support" in the lower chamber of the US Congress "for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state."
The text also "reaffirms its strong opposition to any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians."
It urges Palestinian leaders to "cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process" and calls on foreign governments "not to extend such recognition."
One of the co-sponsors of the House measure was Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, who earlier condemned moves by the South American countries to recognize an independent Palestinian state.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that such recognition by the South Americans was "counter-productive" to achieving Middle East peace.
The European Union on Monday stopped short of outright recognition of a Palestinian state despite mounting pressure to break the Middle East impasse, but did reaffirm its readiness to recognize such a state at an "appropriate" time.
Mounting pressure from whom? And for those of you in Israel, keep in mind that this is the lame duck Congress and that the new one in January may be even more favorably disposed to Israel.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
