AIPAC differs with Cantor on Israel aid?

Labels: »

Eric Cantor's suggestion that aid to Israel be removed from the foreign aid budget, driven by broader Republican opposition to much foreign operations spending, is drawing a rare, if gentle, rebuke from the high-powered pro-Israel group AIPAC.
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
“For decades, annual U.S. foreign assistance to Israel has been one of the most tangible expressions of American support for Israel and our country’s national security interests. A robust foreign aid budget is a strong signal of U.S. leadership around the globe," said AIPAC spokesman Darren Mackoff. “Congressman Cantor has always been, and continues to be a strong leader on the vital issues surrounding the United States and Israel, as well as an ardent supporter of U.S. foreign aid."
AIPAC has traditionally been a major force in lobbying for aid to Israel, Egypt, and for foreign aid in general.
Lowey disparaged the idea Monday as "reckless" and "outrageous."
“Minority Whip Cantor’s proposal is as transparent as it is reckless," Lowey said in a statement. "Manipulating aid to Israel in this way would dangerously threaten continued bipartisan agreement on national security policy and programs other than direct assistance to Israel that aid in its security."
What's more, Lowey said, the foreign ops bill Cantor said the GOP may vote against "funds U.S. diplomatic efforts at the State Department, including diplomacy related to peace in the Middle East. It aids other countries in the region to help defeat al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and includes non-proliferation initiatives," she said. "Because it is inextricably linked with broader U.S. national security goals, separating assistance for Israel in order to make it easier for Republican members to vote against the foreign aid bill would be counterproductive.
“Too much is at stake to give Republicans in Congress a license to vote against the foreign aid budget, and it is clear that Eric Cantor’s outrageous proposal is based purely on political motives, not what is best for U.S. or global security," she concluded.

The idea of cutting the State Department's budget or cutting aid to the 'Palestinians' or Lebanon or Egypt by forcing them to be voted upon separately from aid to Israel is actually appealing. My concern is what happens when there is a different Congress, a different President and maybe even a different Foreign Appropriations Committee chair. My concern is the JW Fulbright scenario.
But I'm still reserving judgment.

Then later Carl changes his mind:
AIPAC is an interested party here. If what Cantor is proposing goes through, it would likely have much less to say about aid to recipients other than Israel.  But what this proposal reminds me of more than anything else is the line-item veto - what every President wants regarding the budget generally and what no Congress is likely to give him. (A line item veto would allow the President to veto individual spending items in the budget).  The 112th Congress would be most unlikely to give this President a line-item veto in general. Why give him one with respect to Israel?
I like and think very highly of Eric Cantor, but I think I'm coming out against this.

Not sure I agree Carl.  It is important that America clarifies it's relationship to Israel.  For too long it has been shrouded as being normal.   It is not normal.  It is an intimate special relationship that has complexities that other foreign aid does not have.   Israel does not have to worry about standing out.  Israel already does stand out and people are paying attention.  If a leader really wants to screw over Israel he can find ways.  It's amazing how an obsessive bigot can subvert any system.  It is best that the system is as clear as possible as to intent.  Otherwise Israel's enemies will use opaque government as something they can blame on the Jews.

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers