There is a reason why pro-Israel Democrats aren’t signing on to the Peter King Resolution. AIPAC wants the Poe-Peters letter, which doesn’t set forth a bill of particulars against Iran and doesn’t seek to block funds to the UN Human Rights Council or spur U.S. withdrawal from it:
We are writing in support of an important effort to bolster the U.S.-Israel relationship led by Representatives Poe, Peters, Hoyer, Boehner, Cantor, Berman and Ros-Lehtinen. We urge you to sign a letter they are sending to President Obama backing Israel’s right to self-defense and reaffirming the strategic importance of our partnership with Israel.
In light of the unwarranted barrage of international criticism aimed at Israel for upholding its security blockade of Gaza, the letter urges the President to continue U.S. support for Israel in international fora and, if necessary, use of America’s veto at the UN Security Council to ensure fair treatment of Israel.
The letter spotlights the effort instigated by groups operating out of Turkey, specifically the IHH. It has become increasingly clear that the IHH was less interested in the delivery of aid to Gazans than in provoking a confrontation with Israel. In the meantime, Israel has established an independent inquiry to investigate the events surrounding the flotilla episode and is working ardently to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
We commend Representatives Poe, Peters, Hoyer, Boehner, Cantor, Berman and Ros-Lehtinen in their effort and strongly urge you to sign the letter. If you have already added you signature to the letter, thank you.
The Poe-Peters letter, as I acknowledged, was an improvement over the Reid-McConnell letter. But why not raise the bar and get behind the King resolution? Too confrontational? Democrats want us to stay in the Human Rights Council?