Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - 2:05 PM

As the Obama administration struggles to find common ground with the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership grapples with internal squabbles, one U.S. senator is proposing a host of ways to deepen cooperation between the United States and Israel.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) spent last week on what he calls "an intense fact-finding mission to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan," where he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Jordan's King Abdullah II, and many others. In a soon-to-be-released report, obtained in advance by The Cable, he proposes a path forward for increased U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation and lays out his views on how Congress should deal with the thorniest issues of the U.S. approach to the Middle East.
Kirk is proposing an increased role for the Israeli Navy in global anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean in cooperation with India. He wants to vastly expand U.S.-Israeli cooperation on cyber security, beyond the suspected cooperation on the Stuxnet worm that has delayed Iran's uranium enrichment program. Kirk is also calling on the Joint Chiefs to review the possibility of adapting Israel's "Iron Dome" short-range missile defense system for use by the United States and NATO.
"We are stretched quite thin in the Indian Ocean and to have Israeli support will be critical in managing and reducing the pirate threat," Kirk said in a Tuesday interview with The Cable.
Regarding the stalled Middle East peace process, Kirk maintains that the United States should reaffirm President George W. Bush's 2004 letter on borders, which somewhat contradicts Obama's May 17 statement that borders should be based on 1967 lines with agreed swaps. Obama's new language for the first time made it official U.S. policy what had long been the Palestinian goal of using the 1967 lines as a basis for new borders.
Kirk's report also states that U.S. funding should not go to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, nor should the United States give aid to the Palestinian Authority if it seeks a unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations in September or fails to curb anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schools.
"It just seems extraordinarily difficult in the middle of deficits and debt that we should borrow money from China to fund a Hamas-supported government," Kirk said. "We would still support Palestinian schools and hospitals, but the approximately $200 million in direct support to the PA would be in jeopardy."
Kirk also wants the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to start transferring its management of Palestinian health and education services over to the Palestinian government, and for the State Department to designate the Turkish aid organization IHH, which organized the flotilla of ships that tried to breach Israel's Gaza blockade in May 2010, as a terrorist organization.
On his trip, Kirk also met with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Benjamin Gantz, Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, senior advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister Ron Dermer, Israeli Navy commander in chief Vice Admiral Eliezer Marum, Israeli Ministry of Defense Political-Military Bureau Director Amos Gilead, Deputy Israeli Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli Prime Minister's Office spokesman Mark Regev, Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky and Jerusalem Post Palestinian Affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh.
Human rights in Iran were also a big focus for Kirk on the trip. The senator made a video with Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, in which Sharansky recited a list of dissidents who are currently imprisoned by the Iranian regime.
You can watch that video here:
Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 1:10 PM
As protests rage in Bahrain and Libya, the U.S. government's stance toward democracy in the Arab world is evolving, even in Congress. On Wednesday, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said that the United States must abandon its decades-old habit of supporting autocrats.
"The old days of ‘as long as we can make a positive relationship with the autocrat who's running the place, then we are friends with the country' are dead and gone," Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) told a group of reporters over breakfast on Wednesday.
"We have to be much more interested in trying to get the actual populations in those countries to be supportive of us," Smith said. "What we have to start thinking about in the foreign policy establishment is what shifts in our foreign policy do we need to make to target the populations."
Smith said that over the last decades, the U.S. policy of supporting regimes that abused power turned many Arabs against the United States and bolstered often violent opposition movements, some of which could now be poised to take power.
"It was a long term bad strategy... We were winning the battle but losing the war," Smith said. "There's a reason we opted in the past for the ‘Let's just make friends with the autocrat' approach. It's much easier."
But Smith, who represents the district where the U.S. Army base of Fort Lewis is located, defended military aid to countries including Jordan, Pakistan, and Israel as useful tools of American influence.
Smith also said that military aid to Cairo must continue while the Egyptian military undertakes the process of reform. "Where Egypt is concerned, it's going to depend on what their government ultimately looks like," Smith said. "Right now, today? Yes."
Smith admitted the difficulty of supporting popular Arab movements while also defending U.S. interests, laying out several concerns he had about the largest and most organized Egyptian opposition group -- the Muslim Brotherhood.
"One of the things to understand about [the Muslim Brotherhood's approach in Egypt... their ultimate goals haven't changed," Smith said. "I don't think the people of Egypt want to trade one totalitarian group for another... we have a definite interest in making sure that doesn't happen."
Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 4:23 PM
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), have not been shy about their desire to end all U.S. foreign aid. This week, the elder member of the Paul family is seeking a full House vote on an amendment that would cut $6 billion of U.S. aid to a host of Middle East countries.
Rep. Paul is trying to build support for an amendment to the fiscal 2011 funding bill that would end all foreign assistance to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan. The funding bill currently being debated by the House, called the continuing resolution (CR), is needed to keep the government running after March 4.
"Stop buying friends overseas, save $6 billion!" reads the headline of a Dear Colleague letter Paul sent to all House offices on Tuesday. In past years, amendments like Paul's, which is not supported by leadership, would not have received a vote because congressional leaders had limited or even prohibited amendments during spending debates. But this year, House Republican leadership decided to use an "open rule" for the CR, giving every member of Congress the right to bring an amendment and have it debated.
There are currently over 400 amendments pending to the bill, and yet somehow the House leadership wants to finish debate this week. Whether they can really do that remains unclear, but even if they succeed, the bill would go to the Senate and then perhaps back to the House once more with new changes from the Senate. House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said that another short-term temporary funding measure might be necessary to keep the government running while the legislative process continues.
Regardless, if Paul's amendment gets a vote, it would be the first time the entire House would vote on whether or not to give $6 billion to these foreign governments. The vote would come in the midst of the largest American fiscal crisis in a generation, which could increase the chance that it would attract significant support.
"Borrowing money from China -- or printing it out of thin air -- to hand out overseas in [an] attempt to purchase friends has been a failing foreign policy, as we see most recently in Egypt where there is not even a government in place!" Paul wrote in his Dear Colleague letter. "We should seek friendly relations and trade overseas, but we cannot justify lavish gifts to foreign leaders when American taxpayers are increasingly feeling the pain of our economic crisis."
Paul, along with his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), represent the libertarian wing of the Tea Party movement, which has been throwing its weight around Congress since the new session started in January. Like-minded members have also been pushing the House GOP leadership to make deeper cuts to the foreign assistance budget. For example, on Jan. 20, the 165-member Republican Study Committee put out a plan that would drastically defund the U.S. Agency for International Development.
While there is probably enough bipartisan support for aid to Israel to defeat Paul's amendment, the debate over continued funding for other Arab countries is more complex. Some GOP heavyweights, like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), have suggested scuttling all foreign aid that is not designated for staunch U.S. allies such as Israel. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has argued for restricting aid to the Egyptian government unless it excludes the Muslim Brotherhood from any representation in the new parliament.
Other leading Republicans, especially in the Senate, have voiced support for continuing U.S. assistance to Egypt and Jordan. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is working behind the scenes to craft an aid package to the CR that would fully fund the president's request for foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel. Aid to Pakistan, which totals over $1.5 billion each year, has strong support from Senate Foreign Relations Committee heads John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN).
Regardless, Paul's amendment represents the rising tide of opposition to foreign aid and the increased difficulty of defending such aid in Congress.
"We cannot afford to have ‘business as usual' when we are bankrupt," he wrote.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010 - 2:48 PM
President Obama, in a private conference call Wednesday, told an audience of Jewish leaders to discount non-constructive statements made by Israeli and Palestinian leaders as Middle East peace talks move forward, saying that such remarks are all part of the negotiating game.
The groups represented on the call were from across the Jewish religious spectrum: They included the orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, the conservative Rabbinical Assembly, the reform Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
Obama implored the rabbis on the call to publicly support the talks, and to try to rally their own people to support the negotiations. The call was timed in advance of the start of the Jewish high holy days, when the Rabbis see the largest turnout of the year among their congregants. Along those lines, he asked them to discount statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas when they say things in public that make the talks seem doomed. That's mainly for the local television cameras, Obama said.
"I guarantee you over the next four months, six months, a year, in any given week there's going to be something said by someone in the Palestinian Authority that makes your blood boil and makes you think we can't do this," Obama said, according to a recording of the call provided to The Cable. "We're going to have to work through those things."
He emphasized that he would give the same message to Arab groups, regarding statements by the Israeli government they might find objectionable.
"What you're going to see over the next several months is that at any given moment, either President Abbas or Prime Minister Netanyahu may end up saying certain things for domestic consumption, for their constituencies and so forth, that may not be as reflective of that spirit of compromise we would like to see. Well, that's the nature of these talks," Obama said.
Obama referred directly to statements made by both leaders this week that seemed to show an unbridgeable gap over whether Israel must extend its 10-month partial settlement construction freeze, which expires on Sept. 26. The next round of the talks, to be held in Sharm el Sheikh and Jerusalem next week, will be the last official round before the deadline.
"There is going to be an immediate set of difficulties surrounding the existing moratorium on settlements," Obama admitted, pointing out the public positions of the two leaders.
"On one hand, you have Prime Minister Netanyahu saying ‘there's no way I can extend it.' There's President Abbas saying ‘this has to be extended for these talks to be effective," Obama said. He maintained that there was a compromise to be struck.
"I am absolutely convinced that both sides want to make this work and both sides are going to be willing to make some difficult concessions," Obama said. He did not specify what a potential compromise would look like.
Overall, Obama told the rabbis that he believed both Netanyahu and Abbas were serious about peace and said the first round of talks last week in Washington exceeded his expectations.
"I am stunned at how cordial and constructive the talks were," he said.
But Obama's main message on the call was a plea to the rabbis to actively support the talks, or at least not to actively undermine them.
He asked the religious leaders to help him promote the talks among Jewish communities both in American and Israel, and "to give these talks a chance and not look for a reason why they won't succeed."
Regarding interfaith relations in the United States and the treatment of Muslim Americans in particular, Obama again asked the rabbis for help. "It is very important for leaders in the Jewish [community] to speak from a deep moral authority in making sure that those Muslim-Americans trying to practice their faith in this country can do so without fear or intimidation," he said.
He did not mention the Park 51 Community Center project by name.
On Iran, Obama argued that the sanctions announced by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and others were having an effect on the regime in Tehran.
"Every assessment that we've seen so far is that the degree of international coordination that's being implied in enforcing these sanctions is unprecedented and the Iranian regime has been shocked by our success," Obama said. He said the Israeli assessment matched his own.
While the peace talks and the Iran threat are not necessarily linked, Obama told the rabbis that resolving Israel's disputes with its neighboring Arab states would increase Iran's isolation.
Obama also delivered a message of urgency regarding the peace talks. "If that window closes, it's going to be hard to reopen for years to come," he said. "We're not going to get that many more opportunities."Obama wished all the rabbis "L'shana Tovah," which means Happy New Year in Hebrew, and "Todah Rabah," which means thank you.
"With you I hope and pray this year will be a year of health and happiness, joy and justice, and ultimately perhaps a year of peace," he said.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 5:02 PM
It's extremely unusual for the State Department to change a travel warning to American citizens based on a complaint from the destination country, but that's exactly what happened this week after the Israeli government protested, State Department officials admitted Wednesday.
On August 5, State issued a travel warning to all American citizens in a response to rocket attacks that hit both Israel and Jordan. The warning included the line, "rockets have been fired recently into the Eilat and Aqaba areas. U.S. citizens in Eilat and southern Israel are advised to ascertain the location of the nearest bomb shelter." No similar warning was issued for Jordan.
The Israeli tourism ministry protested privately and publicly, saying, "This advisory gives a prize to terror and undermines regional stability and the sense of security that Israel gives to everyone who enters the country.... Differentiating Israel from its neighbor that actually suffered loss of life is improper and lacks balance."
On August 10, State issued the new travel warning, which replaces the August 5 notice and doesn't mention Eilat at all, only saying, "U.S. citizens in the area should be aware of the risks and should follow the advice of the Government of Israel's office of Homefront Command."
After spokesman P.J. Crowley defended the change Tuesday, one sarcastic State Department reporter asked Crowley on Wednesday, "Can any country complain about the travel advice that you give and have it changed? Or is that just a privilege that's accorded to Israel?"
Crowley responded that the change was made in part because there was a disparity between the Israeli travel warning and the lack of a similar warning for Jordan. He also argued that disseminating the information through what's called a "warden message," which only goes out to U.S. government personnel, was sufficient.
"We decided, upon further review ... that the warden message was the appropriate way, because we were talking about one specific incident, to communicate this threat information. And that's why we withdrew the language from the Israeli travel warning," he said.
The State Department press corps was not satisfied. They pressed Crowley on whether their assessment had changed, and if not, why they chose not to inform American citizens of the ongoing risk? Here's the exchange:
Q: But I was under the impression that the -- that the responsibility of the State Department was for the safety and security of American people and to let them know when there are -- when there are threats.
MR. CROWLEY: True. All true.
Q: And now you -- now you've -- now you've removed the -- the word "Eilat" does not even appear in the new travel warning.
MR. CROWLEY: That's true.
Q: And it's still dangerous for Americans to go there, you believe.
MR. CROWLEY: That's true.
Q: So why would you take it out?
MR. CROWLEY: We took it out because we felt that a warden message was the more appropriate way to communicate a particular risk factor for Eilat.
"I'm not denying it's unusual to change a travel warning two times in two weeks," said a State Department official, speaking on background. The official said State took the blame for the error.
"We listened to what Israel had to tell us but it was a process failure here at the Department," the official said.
The rocket attacks were an isolated incident, not a trend, so the State Department now believes a travel to Eilat is OK, Crowley said. "I think Americans should feel free to travel to Israel and should take appropriate precautions knowing that there are still risks involved in visiting that country."
Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 5:54 PM
President Obama called on the Arab states this week to immediately play a more constructive role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But when Jordan's foreign minister visited Foggy Bottom Thursday, the space between how Washington and Arab states view the conflict was vividly on display.
Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judah agreed that the Israelis and Palestinians should move to direct talks quickly. They didn't agree on much else. For example, Judah flatly rejected Obama's call for help in nudging the Palestinians to the table.
"Jordan and other Arab states are crucial to this effort, to foster conditions for further progress," Clinton said during a mini press conference at the State Department.
"I think once direct negotiations are resumed, you'll see an engagement by the overall Arab context, and the tangible support that you refer to. But let's not put the cart before the horse," Judah responded.
That wasn't the only gap between the two foreign ministers.
For example, Clinton foresaw a two-state solution that "reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent, viable and contiguous state based on the 1967 lines -- with agreed swaps -- and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements"
In Judah's vision, the Palestinian state "emerges on the 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital."
Judah also backstopped the Palestinian position on moving to direct talks, emphasizing that face-to-face negotiations must address "all final-status issues -- including borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees," and must be "time- bound, benchmarked, and conducted in good faith."
Clinton agreed that "we believe that all the issues that need to be resolved between the parties must be discussed in direct negotiations." But she didn't touch on the issues of Jerusalem or refugees specifically, two sensitive topics Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said are not on the table.
Judah reaffirmed his commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative, which also contains items that are nonstarters for Israel, such as a strict commitment to the 1967 borders and Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
"Let's try to get the process going -- not another open-ended process, not another timeless kind of engagement," he said. "We need to see benchmarks and we need to see traction on the ground."
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Read More