Wednesday, July 15th | 1 Av 5786

Subscribe

Hakeem Jeffries Announces He Will Not House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has come out against a bid to cut off US military aid to Israel, while calling for a “major reset” of Washington’s relationship with the Jewish state. In a “Dear Colleague” letter to fellow Democrats on Tuesday, Jeffries said he would vote against an amendment led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and co-sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), that would strip roughly $3.3 billion in annual military financing for Israel — while preserving $500 million for missile-defense programs such as Iron Dome — from the fiscal 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. The House could vote on the measure as early as this week. Aligning himself with the ranking Democrats on the Appropriations and Foreign Affairs committees, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), as well as the advocacy group J Street, Jeffries called the proposal too sweeping. “As written, it is overly broad in that it prohibits or would limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and US Embassy operations,” he wrote, adding that the “so-called Massie amendment” would restrict US efforts to confront Hamas, Hezbollah “and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel.” Citing deep divisions within the party over Israel, Jeffries said leadership would not pressure members to follow his lead. “There are good faith reasons that will result in Members voting in a variety of different ways with respect to the amendment,” he wrote, noting that the caucus was not whipping the vote. At the same time, Jeffries argued that US policy toward the region “must change,” tying his call for a “major reset” to criticism of what he termed the “far-right Netanyahu government.” He wrote that America’s commitment to “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and homeland for the Jewish people must remain ironclad,” while urging strong US support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Israeli governments have long rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state along Israel’s borders, warning that it would pose an existential security threat and leave major population centers exposed to attack. Jeffries also said Gaza must undergo “complete reconstruction and modernization” and that “Hamas must be disarmed and removed from power.” Jeffries further signaled that the next US-Israel aid agreement should require Israel to cover more of its own defense costs. The current 10-year memorandum of understanding, signed under President Barack Obama in 2016, provides Israel about $3.8 billion annually — $3.3 billion in military financing and $500 million for missile defense — and expires in 2028. “Israel has an advanced economy and is capable of paying for its own sophisticated weapons, as the Prime Minister recently acknowledged,” Jeffries wrote, adding that any future arrangement should mirror US defense agreements with other Western allies and “strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values.” His stance placed him between the two poles of a party increasingly split over Israel. Hours after his letter circulated, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), sent a competing letter urging Democrats to back the Massie amendment, and progressives including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said they would vote to cut the aid. Support for Israel among Democratic voters has fallen sharply during the war in Gaza. An Associated Press-NORC poll conducted in June found that 52 percent of Democrats say Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians, while a Pew Research Center survey found that roughly 80 percent of Democrats hold a negative view of Israel. In April, a majority of Senate Democrats — 40 of the caucus’s 47 members — voted for at least one of two resolutions to block certain arms sales to Israel, though the measures failed. Supporters of continued assistance say it preserves Israel’s qualitative military edge and bolsters a key US partner against Iran-backed groups, while critics want aid conditioned on Israeli policy changes, particularly over the conduct of the war in Gaza. The upcoming vote is expected to underscore the widening gap between the party’s pro-Israel wing and its growing bloc of aid critics. for Amendment to Strip Israel Aid

July 22, 2015 11:41 am

Report: Iran Could Stall IAEA Inspectors More Than 78 Days Under Nuclear Deal

×

Error: Contact form not found.

avatar by Algemeiner Staff

IAEA Vienna Headquarters.  Photo: Wiki Commons.

IAEA Vienna Headquarters. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Tehran could use the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal — to stall inspectors at key nuclear sites for months, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

“A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more,” said the report.

The issue pertains to provisions in the plan of action meant to settle International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors’ concerns over “undeclared nuclear material or activities.” Essentially, IAEA inspectors provide Iran with their concerns and request clarification, which Iran must address. If Iran does not adequately address the concerns, then nuclear monitors can request access.

This process does not have a set time limit, allowing Iran to drag its feet, for example questioning the source of inspectors’ intelligence that led to their concerns.

Then the 24-day period in which Iran and nuclear inspectors must resolve concerns or face action by the Joint Commission — comprising the United Kingdom, Untied States, Russia, China, France, Germany and the EU — will commence.

If this fails, then perhaps a country can bring a dispute to the Joint Commission, which will have 15 days to resolve the issue, at which point parties can request 15 days for their foreign ministers to act, or 15 days to request a nonbinding opinion from an advisory board. So this stage could take 30-45 days.

Therefore, Iran could have up to 78 days to stall on providing access to its sites, which many say is clearly more than enough time for Iran to scrub down any possible violations. This is in addition to “three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of ‘explanations’ before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and ‘resolve concerns,’ and one for advisory-board selection near the end,” according to the WSJ report.

This is a far cry from the “anytime, anywhere” access first promised by the White House, though Secretary of State John Kerry denied that option was ever on the table.

 

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Email a copy of to a friend
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.