The great challenge in bringing Iraq home to Americans is to show that we have supported a unity government in Baghdad that includes factions that once supported suicide terrorism. President Obama has this wisdom when it comes to the Palestinians. Alas, the Congress is not so enlightened. Rob Browne at Dailykos writes of the danger faced in Congress by the U.S. aid package to the Palestinians:
This aid package is vital to the [Obama] Administration's comprehensive Middle East peace effort, but there is skepticism in Congress. Some House members view supporting the Palestinian people as a waste of money or equate it with a handout to Hamas. Some of these Representatives are seeking to limit the Administration's ability to provide aid to a Palestinian Unity Government, should one emerge this year.
The Request continues to bar aid to Hamas, but it would allow aid to go to a Unity Government that meets three longstanding internationally agreed-upon conditions: recognition of Israel, renouncing of violence, and compliance with past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. These conditions are the same as those mandated in 2006 by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bush.
I asked Browne why, given these restrictions, there would be any opposition in Congress to the aid. He wrote back an explanation then offered Congressional statements, including the "Nazis" analogy to Hamas:
I agree with you, there should be no objections. However, looking at some of the transcript from the House Subcommittee Hearing last week, Rep. Nita Lowey seems to want each and every minister in a Unity Government to accept these requirements, not just the body as a whole.
Rep. Adam Schiff seems to feel that it is not acceptable that an individual Hamas minister (if appointed to the Unity Government) accept the requirements while the organization as a whole does not.
Rep. Mark Kirk seems to be against any Government including Hamas ministers due the nature of their actions, charter, etc. (I'm guessing this is an idea that would be supported by Rep. Shelley Berkley)
(From Americans for Peace Now Legislative Roundup):
Lowey: "…we are all in agreement on a policy that prohibits any funding for Hamas or any Hamas-controlled entity until Hamas is willing to agree to the Quartet principles. In my opinion, I must say, that day will never come. However, Madame Secretary, you've asked for the ability to engage with a power-sharing government if that government meets these principles. I'd like you to elaborate on why you need this language. What type of government would you support? And when you say that the power-sharing government would have to meet the three principles, I believe, it's not enough for Abu Mazen or Salam Fayyad to accept the principles. It must be all the ministers, including any minister appointed by Hamas, that comply with these principles. And I'd like to know if you agree with that.
Lowey: "I just wanted to clarify one point. When you talked about the government that you intend for us to support, if, in fact, there's a government — in my judgment, all the ministers should comply with the Quartet principles and the principles — (inaudible). Would you agree with that?"
Schiff: "To follow up on our subcommittee chair's question on the Palestinian Authority, I'm concerned — and I think your testimony leaves this open — that you could have a situation where Hamas is permitted to appoint ministers to a unity government provided those ministers agree to Quartet principles, even though Hamas does not. And it seems to me unworkable to have Hamas organizing terrorist attacks against Israel at the same time it has the power to appoint ministers to a coalition government. And I wonder if your testimony is leaving open that possibility, and how that could be — how that could be workable. Because I don't see how that could be workable."
Kirk: "One question I have for you is, this committee has now approved $5.2 billion for Palestinian programs since 1992. That's more money than we provided to treat and cure cancer last year for the United States . It looks like much of that money was wasted. And now we've got a request for $815 million more, just in one year, much of this money obviously borrowed from China , to give to the Palestinians. And I worry about the wisdom of that. There is a lot of authorization language that was attached. And I don't know how we'll work this out, whether the appropriators will write the authorization language or whether Chairman Berman will.
"But one key provision: It does appear that it would provide taxpayer subsidies to a coalition Hamas government. And you know that we have at least 26 American citizens that have been murdered by Hamas, including Tehilla Nathanson of New York, 3 years old, Malka Roth of New York, Mordechai Reinitz of New York, Yitzhak Reinitz of New York, Leah Stern of New York, Goldie Taubenfeld of New York, Shmuel Taubenfeld of New York, also 3 years old, murdered by Hamas. The list of people killed directly on Hamas orders is clear.
"Now, the language; I've got it here for you to make it easy. This is the language provided that the chairman wrote. And I think this is very good language that prohibits assistance until Hamas accepts it and comply with the principles. Your staff has said that they want to change this, as provided. This is actually an authorization of assistance provided, that assistance be provided to a power-sharing government, if — (inaudible) — government has accepted, meaning that if we have one Fatah president and 20 Hamas ministers, you would have the right to authorize taxpayer subsidies of this government.
"I'm worried that I met with King Abdullah yesterday, who said that Hamas ministers all directly follow the orders of Tehran . And so it's a worry that we would provide taxpayer subsidies to a government with Hamas ministers. That's sort of like saying, well, we would provide taxpayer subsidies to a coalition government; it only has a few Nazis in it but it's okay. And I worry that the law that this committee drafted, by the chairman, is exactly correct. And I don't think that this language should prevail. I would offer an amendment restoring the chairman's language, if it comes up this way, because I frankly think that this dog will not hunt. And it jeopardizes the entire bill. But I leave it up to you to comment."
