August recess. What is 15% of our congresspersons going to do with all that time? They are going to Israel.
Over the next two weeks, some 60 US congressmen, nearly 15 percent of the 435-member House of Representatives, will be gracing our shores, most of them freshman representatives, all of them on trips sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, a nonprofit charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
JPOST
The republican delegation arrives monday, led by Eric Cantor, the minority whip. Are they going to present a united front on the administration's Peace Policy? What will they learn?
The America Israel Education Foundation offers trips and tours to Israel to every freshman legislator, and some members have taken the trips multiple times. I have been on a few and they are very well planned and executed.
Founded in 1989, The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) is an organization established to maintain and further the understanding of the issues affecting relations between the United States and Israel through information and education provided to public and private parties interested in such relations. Programs include educational programs such as policy conferences, internships, campus newsletters and other materials; educational travel programs to Israel; and funding publications of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Near East Research, Inc.
AIEF has spent about $20M a year on these congressional delegations, and they had revenues of just over $33M in 2007. They have a donor privacy policy
AIEF
These trips are exempt from House ethics restrictions of accepting gifts of foreign travel from lobbyists and foreign nations, as they are educational in nature.USA Today
In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Eric Cantor lays out what he expects to learn:
You were quoted in November as saying that a strong US-Israel relationship was a top priority for you, and that you would be outspoken if US President Barack Obama "did anything to harm those ties." Has he?
I'm very concerned about some of the reports indicating some disagreement and pressure being put on Israel regarding construction in the settlement areas, as well as Jerusalem in particular. I feel that any kind of emphasis on the issue of natural growth in the settlements is a distraction from the real urgent crisis in the region, which is the nuclearization of Iran.
The Obama adminsitration policy on Settlement expansion is a distraction. What about Iran?
Where is the Minority Whip on supporting Obama's policy on construction in East Jerusalem?
How about Jerusalem? Is there support on the Hill for Israel's construction in east Jerusalem?
Yes, I would say so. I certainly am a strong advocate for a united Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state and we should continue to pursue the policy of a united Jerusalem.
Did the administration err in taking Israel to the carpet over its plans to build 20 apartments at the Shepherd's Hotel site in east Jerusalem?
I think to most Americans, and to most members of Congress, it is anathema that we would suggest that Israel does not have the right, and Israelis do not have the right, to live in east Jerusalem. I mean we would never suggest that Jews don't have the right to live wherever they desire in the world, and that's why I think it is very, very concerning when there is discussion about Jews not being able to live in east Jerusalem.
I am not feeling the support
What about the secret Bush oralletter of agreement that ISrael could continue to expand certain settlements? BTW, anybody got a copy of that letter? It seems it was misplaced, although Eliot Abrams seems to remember seeing it around somewhere.
Let's turn to the Bush letter, and whether there were agreements on settlement construction with the Bush administration. Is this letter still applicable, even though there is a new administration?
I would think yes; this is a country of laws, a country that abides by its commitments. I think the Bush letter clearly demonstrated realities on the ground and the importance that American foreign policy places on Israel's right to secure its population. And the realities on the ground are such that the settlements are now, and should be, part of Israel,
That doesn't sound like pre-judging the outcome of negotiations, does it?
What about J Street?
Much has been made here about the J Street phenomenon, and how Obama has seemed to enlist that organization and say, "Look these are also voices in the Jewish community; it is not a monolithic community; they present an opinion, and that is one that I reflect."
J Street is clearly outside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. Absolutely. Equally, there is not a monolithic position in any community, much less the American Jewish community, but I would definitely say that J Street is outside the mainstream of the America Jewish community in terms of its positions.
Oustside the mainstream, them J Streeters
You are coming here, you will be speaking to all the Israeli leaders. What do you think Israel should do now to move the diplomatic process forward?
The congressional delegations that will be going over the next couple of weeks are not there to dictate to Israel what to do. Israel has a democratically elected government, it understands more than any how to protect its citizens, and that should be the first goal: that we should be there in support of our democratic ally in securing its population.
We, as members of Congress, and as those of us who believe very strongly in the US-Israel relationship, those of us who believe that Israel is a vital pillar in our national security strategy, are there to try and see how we can further and enhance that relationship.
Has the assessment that Israel is a "vital pillar" in the US national security strategy been eroded over the last few months?
I think there are certainly some signs to indicate that there could be a shift in the policy, which is why we are going to Israel. Those of us in the Republican delegation, and I believe we have many counterparts on the other side of the aisle, feel very strongly that there should not be a shift in the US-Israel relationship, and that is why we are going to demonstrate our commitment to continuing to strengthen the relationship.
Diplomacy: 'Settlement issue distracts from Iran' an Interview with Eric Cantor
Wait, sin't this supposd to be an educational trip? If it were a diplomatic mission we would be paying for it.
So, what do we think Eric Cantor will learn from this trip?
Will he see a Palestinian? Talk to one?
As the Obama moves towards rolling out his peace initiative, he needs united congressional support. Historically, Congress has played a less than constructive role in furthering the peaces process. In Cantors interview he hits the main talking points.
- Obama is wrongly focused on the settlelements when he ought to be focused on Iran first.
- Obama is unfairly pressuring Israel, but not equally pressuring the Palestinians or the Arab League (not sure what else he'd have them do)
- American Jewry is divided, but they will coalesce if they perceive Israel is Threatened (by peace, go figger), and the republicans are the folks who will protect the settlements and pressure Iran, not the Dems.
In other news:
Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal says the Islamic militant group is ready to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, according to an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on Friday.
"We along with other Palestinian factions in consensus agreed upon accepting a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines," Meshal told the Wall Street Journal, adding "this is the national program. This is our program. This is a position we stand by and respect."
Hamas leader: We will accept a Palestinian state within 1967 lines