The Politics Of Appeasement - The 'National Security' Excuse
By Stephen M. Flatow/JNS.org June 01, 2016 Share this article:
Ever wonder why it is that Congress passes so many strongly pro-Israel bills, yet they never seem to be implemented?
For example, a bill was passed to move the Embassy of the
United States in Israel to Jerusalem but the embassy was never moved.
Legislation was passed to restrict U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority
(PA) but it was never restricted.
Now a bill
has been passed to permit families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi
Arabia but in fact, it will actually block such lawsuits.
What all three of these laws have in common is a deceptive little tactic called a national security waiver.
The
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act was passed by Congress way back in
1995. Its author was Sen. Bob Dole. The bill required the president to
move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yet here
we are, 21 years later, and it s still in Tel Aviv.
The
reason is because the Bill Clinton administration strongly opposed the
bill. The White House demanded that a clause be added to permit the
president to waive the embassy relocation requirement if he determined
that moving the embassy would endanger America s national security.
How
would it harm national security? Well, it might anger the Arab world,
so apparently that constitutes a danger to our security.
Major
pro-Israel organizations were afraid of clashing with Clinton, so they
urged Dole to add the national security waiver. He did so. And every six
months since 1995, the president has issued a statement invoking the
waiver.
Maybe Clinton would have vetoed the
Embassy Relocation Act if it had no such waiver. And maybe Congressional
supporters of the legislation would not have had enough votes to
override the veto.
But it would have been
better to have no such bill, than to have this fraud, in which the
pro-Israel community pretends that it achieved some kind of victory,
when in fact it suffered a total defeat.
Something
very similar happened with the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act
(MEPFA), which was first enacted following the 1993 Oslo Accords, in
order to authorize U.S. government funding to the PA.
Some
Zionist organizations lobbied to include a clause making the aid
conditional on the PA s compliance with the provisions of the Oslo
agreement. Sen. Arlen Specter added that clause. But then the Clinton
administration demanded the addition of language to neuter Specter s
amendment.
Once again, pro-Israel organizations went along with the
administration s demand. And so Specter consented to adding a
stipulation that if the president certifies that the PA is compliance,
the aid goes through.
So every six months, the
president lies: He claims the PA is in compliance, even though it has
consistently violated every major provision of the accords (such as
incitement, sheltering terrorists, and refusing to extradite fugitive
terrorists to cite just three of the most glaring examples).
Claiming
that MEPFA increased restrictions on the aid or held [Yasser]
Arafat s feet to the fire might sound good in a fund-raising appeal.
But such bragging masks the sad reality that aid to the PA continues to
flow, and American Jewish organizations have not stopped it.
Maybe
Clinton would have vetoed MEPFA without the certification clause. And
maybe Congress would not have been able to override it. But having no
bill would have been better than pretending that something was actually
done to restrict U.S. aid to the PA.
And now
here we go again. The Senate recently passed legislation that would
enable families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia if
it is found that the Saudis helped sponsor the attack. The Obama
administration, trying to shield the Saudis from lawsuits, opposes the
bill.
So this week, Sen. Charles Schumer
(D-N.Y.) quietly inserted an amendment that allows the secretary of
state to block any lawsuit arising from the bill if the administration
deems the suit harmful to national security. You can be sure that the
secretary of state will invoke that clause at every opportunity.
The
national security excuse was used to block the moving of the U.S.
embassy in Israel, because it would anger the Arabs. It was used to
block restrictions on aid to the PA, because it would anger the Arabs.
And now it will be used to block lawsuits that might anger the Arabs.
How long will justice be held captive to such policies of timidity and appeasement?
Originally published at JNS.org - reposted with permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment