Administration objects to Israeli-linked provision in trade bill

POLITICO

A day after President Barack Obama signed a key trade bill, his administration publicly stated its objection to a provision of the measure that critics say appears to legitimize Israeli settlements in Palestinian-claimed territories.

The amendment to the trade law instructs U.S. trade negotiators to make it a priority to discourage foreign partners, in particular in Europe, from signing on to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which aims to pressure Israel via economic means to change its dealings with the Palestinians. The amendment was supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Some of the amendment’s critics support the so-called “BDS” movement. But even those who don’t said they still found the provision troubling because it refers to commercial activity linked not just to Israel but also to “Israeli-controlled territories.” The latter phrase, detractors say, is a clear reference to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and putting the language into U.S. law suggests the American government agrees those lands — which Palestinians claim for a future state — should be under Israeli control.

In a statement Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby first noted that the U.S. opposes BDS campaigns against the state of Israel.

“However, by conflating Israel and ‘Israeli-controlled territories,’ a provision of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation runs counter to longstanding U.S. policy towards the occupied territories, including with regard to settlement activity,” Kirby said. “Every U.S. administration since 1967 – Democrat and Republican alike – has opposed Israeli settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines. This administration is no different. The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them.”

Lara Friedman, director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now, applauded the administration’s statement. She said it was especially critical for the administration to clarify its position on how it would interpret that section because there will likely be more such efforts by conservative pro-Israel groups to use U.S. legislation to try to legitimize the settlements.

“It’s a very good thing that they have essentially underscored that decades of U.S. policy here has not changed,” she said. “It’s a very good thing that they’ve highlighted this line in the sand.”

AIPAC officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) spearheaded the disputed provision through Congress.

In a statement Tuesday, Portman defended the measure, saying: “The language in our amendment, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, does nothing to prejudge the final borders of a negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Boycotts against Israel, in any form, are wrong and antithetical to U.S. efforts toward peace.”

An aide to Cardin echoed that sentiment: “The provision was never intended to make a judgment on settlements.”

The Trade Promotion Authority makes it easier for a U.S. president to negotiate international trade deals. Obama lobbied hard for the measure, finding most of his support among Republicans instead of his fellow Democrats.