The provisions are included in both the House and Senate versions of the annual defense policy bill. The two chambers have not yet gone to conference to negotiate the final bill, a stage where the amendments could potentially be stripped out, the report stated.
The letter was signed by nine other Democrats and one Independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to the report. Congressional leadership has not publicly responded to the letter, and the final outcome will depend on conference negotiations.
Section 219 of the House bill and Section 1217 of the Senate bill would create a "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" to expand technology sharing, co-production of weapons systems, and bilateral research and development, according to the text of the letter cited by Antiwar.com. Earlier reporting by NaturalNews.com described Section 219 as directing the Pentagon to expand and accelerate the integration of U.S. and Israeli military technology, supply chains, and defense industrial capacity [1].
Section 618 of the Senate's Intelligence Authorization Act would mandate increased intelligence sharing with Israel. The letter states that this provision would "tie the President's hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect U.S. national security," according to the report.
The senators wrote that the provisions "would constrain the Administration's ability to independently determine how best to protect U.S. national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region," the report stated. A related provision in the House version, originally designated Section 224 before being renumbered, was the subject of a failed amendment by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) in the House Armed Services Committee, according to prior reporting [2].
The senators argued that the provisions "would further entrench concerning aspects of the U.S.-Israel defense and intelligence relationship at a time when the Israeli government's actions are increasingly undermining U.S. interests and values," according to the letter cited by Antiwar.com. They also said the provisions "threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology."
On intelligence sharing, the letter states that Section 618 would "tie the President's hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect U.S. national security." The senators cited public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level, the report stated.
The letter's arguments echo long-standing concerns about the influence of the U.S.-Israel relationship on American foreign policy. Scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt have documented how the traditional approach of the State Department was to adopt the position of the Israeli Prime Minister, citing an Israeli negotiator who said the American government "seemed sometimes to be working for the Israeli Prime Minister" during the Netanyahu government [3]. Author Ilan Pappe has likewise detailed how congressional pressure on Israel-related issues has historically been intense, noting the grilling of former Sen. Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearing over his remarks about the "Jewish lobby" [4].
The House and Senate have yet to go to conference to negotiate the final NDAA, where the amendments could potentially be stripped out, according to the report. The letter was signed by nine other Democrats and one Independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Congressional leadership has not publicly responded to the letter, and the final outcome will depend on conference negotiations.
The path to conference has already been contentious, and the debate over the three provisions has become one of the more closely watched disputes in the annual defense policy bill. The senators' letter represents the latest effort to remove the provisions before the final bill is approved. The move does not end existing military cooperation, but it seeks to prevent the new mandates from being enshrined in law, according to the report. Whether the provisions survive will depend on the conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators will reconcile the two versions of the bill.