Various news outlets reported last November that Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee, had lifted her hold on all U.S. aid going to the Palestinians. Ros-Lehtinen said she was blocking the funds until she received assurances from the Obama administration that they were in America’s national security interest. But last month the Florida congresswoman sent a letter Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying she would continue to hold $147 million because the Palestinian economy grew.

But the National Journal reports today that Clinton is bypassing Ros-Lehtinen’s hold and authorizing the aid anyway:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is allowing U.S. funds to flow to the West Bank and Gaza despite a hold by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., a rare display of executive-branch authority sure to anger the key lawmaker concerned about protecting her congressional oversight role.

A State Department official said that the letter was delivered on Tuesday to key members of Congress informing them of Clinton’s decision to move forward with the $147 million package of the fiscal year 2011 economic support funds for the Palestinian people, despite Ros-Lehtinen’s hold. Administrations generally do not disburse funding over the objections of lawmakers on relevant committees.

The State Department official told the National Journal that said that withholding the funding could “undermine the progress that has been made in recent years in building Palestinian institutions and improving stability, security, and economic prospects, which benefits Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

As French police laid siege yesterday to the house of suspected Toulouse killer Mohammed Merah, eventually driving him to jump to his own death this morning, the Palestinian prime minister spoke out against the crimes and the reported justification Merah gave for killing 7 people — including a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school.

Merah reportedly claimed to police that he was affiliated with Al Qaeda, and he was seeking revenge for Palestinian children killed in the Gaza Strip. But Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad denounced the “cowardly” attack yesterday. “This terrorist crime is condemned in the strongest terms by the Palestinian people and our children,” he said. “No Palestinian child can accept crimes against innocent people.” Fayyad went on:

It is time for these criminals to stop exploiting the name of Palestine through their terrorist actions, and to stop pretending to stand up for Palestinian children, who only seek a decent life for themselves and for all children of the world.

The missions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO to France also issued a joint statement condemning the attack, noting that “the murderer is driven by a multi-faceted racist hatred.” The move was welcome despite some standing criticisms that Palestinians don’t do enough to discourage violence.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) today appealed to House members to unfreeze Palestinian aid and continue funding for Palestinian Sesame Street. Ellison, in remarks delivered on the House floor, spoke of the benefits of funding Palestinian Sesame Street and the dangerous television shows competing for children’s attention in the West Bank and Gaza.

Holding an Elmo doll, Ellison argued for continuing U.S. funding of the popular children’s show:

This guy taught us our 123’s, but he also taught us tolerance and understanding.

For the past several years, he’s been doing the same for children in the Palestinian Territories. Because of Sesame Street in Palestine, Palestinian kids grow up with the same positive role models that we did.

But with the freeze on Palestinian aid funds, Sesame Street went off the air and Hamas children’s programming faces less competition. Ellison warned:

Now, Palestinian kids are left watching Farfour – this mouse – who is the main character on a Hamas TV show for children. Instead of tolerance and understanding, Farfour promotes violence and anti-Semitism.

Watch it:

Since October, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has held up $190 million in Palestinian aid. The decision to freeze aid came after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sought U.N. recognition for an independent Palestinian state. “By providing the Palestinians with $2.5 billion over the last 5 years, the U.S. has only rewarded and reinforced their bad behavior,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

J Street, the “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” organization, supports unfreezing Palestinian aid, issued a statement last week calling on Ros-Lehtinen to “Lift the remaining holds on Palestinian aid — don’t punish Palestinian children with political posturing.”

By Ken Gude and Faiz Shakir

An article published today by Politico’s Ben Smith charges that Center for American Progress bloggers are at the heart of an “Israel rift” in the “Democratic ranks.” While we welcome the discussion, the article misrepresents our views by cherrypicking a few posts from over 300 we’ve written this year on Iran and the Middle East. In the process, Smith makes a number of mistakes. We take this as an opportunity to clarify our positions on Iran and call attention to the article’s errors.

Our view in favor of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the consensus view of administrations of both parties dating back to President Clinton. Our position is based on our strong belief that it is in the national security interests of the United States to achieve a resolution to this conflict. Politico relies on sources who claim our work is “anti-Israel” and “borderline anti-Semitic.” We categorically reject and are offended by the idea that any of our work is anti-Semitic, unless one believes the Middle East peace plan itself and ensuring Israel’s long term security by securing its neighborhood is anti-Semitic.

Iran’s nuclear program is a strong point of concern for us, the U.S., and its allies. CAP’s view is that the multilateral sanctions framework engineered by the Obama administration is an important tool in pressuring Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements. While we take nothing off the table, we do not believe there is any evidence that a military strike would achieve those goals, a view shared by America’s top military officials. Furthermore, we will continue to push back against the overheated rhetoric that regularly throws around calls for full scale war with Iran because such activity has an impact in the real world. Indeed, it is our belief that conservative sabre rattling not only undermines American diplomacy but also emboldens hardliners in Iran and strengthens their push for nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the best policy to weaken Iran’s push for nuclear weapons rests on diplomacy — not a military strategy. So we believe it is critically important for assertions made on policy towards Iran and elsewhere in the region be subject to careful scrutiny with the goal of ensuring that U.S. policy will be as effective as possible in limiting threats posed by Iran.

Politico also misrepresents a number of our writings on Iran. The article states:

ThinkProgress National Security reporter Eli Clifton took issue with a Quinnipiac University poll that made reference to Iran’s “nuclear program.” The belief that such a program exists undergirds the Obama administration’s drive for sanctions, and was recently bolstered by a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which wrote of “increasing” concerns, though not definitive evidence.

It is a widely accepted fact that Iran has a nuclear program but Eli’s post on the Quinnipiac poll took issue with the pollsters’ reference to the existence of “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” in polling questions. The pollsters’ assumption that a nuclear weapons program exists, a determination that neither the IAEA nor the White House has made, may have impacted the poll’s outcome. Politico, by conflating the Iranian “nuclear program” and alleged “nuclear weapons program,” is making the same mistake we were trying to highlight.

The article also asserts:

ThinkProgress also scrambled to call into question an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi diplomats in the United States.

This we find very odd. Practically the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment reacted with skepticism to the bizarre and amateurish details of this plot. Eli’s post pointed to the leap to judgment made by a number of hawkish think tanks using the allegations to justify military action against Iran. Urging policymakers to wait for the conclusion of the investigation is not “call[ing] into question” the details of the plot. It is an observation that the rule of law should be respected and that all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And in the very next paragraph after quoting Eli’s post on the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, Politico gave the false impression that we were blaming the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for the rush to judgment:

The villain: AIPAC. “It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq,” Clifton wrote in August.

AIPAC is not mentioned in Eli’s post about the assassination plot nor have we suggested that AIPAC bears any responsibility for rush to judgment on the plot, nor the right-wing calls to attack Iran because of it.

Politico’s article inaccurately portrays our positions as: anti-Israel; denying the seriousness of the charges in the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador; and denying the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. None of these positions are reflected in any posts by CAP bloggers.

In a sharp exchange yesterday at the press room in Foggy Bottom, a reporter stumped State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on the negative consequences of Palestinian membership in UNESCO, the U.N.’s cultural body, which caused the U.S. to cut off its funding to the organization.

The questioning built off Nuland’s introductory remarks that the vote to give Palestine a seat at UNESCO was “regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East.” The vote was a landslide, with only 13 other countries out of 172 UNESCO members voting against the Palestinians, leading AP reporter Matt Lee to wonder why such an overwhelming number didn’t vote with the U.S. when, as the U.S. posited, the outcome ran contra a “shared goal.”

Lee asked Nuland about what exactly was so “detrimental” about Palestinian UNESCO membership — other than Israeli discontent and triggering the U.S. law to cut off funds — and she responded that it “could exacerbate the environment” in which the U.S. is trying to bring parties together for talks. Lee then dug for more specific consequences:

LEE: How exactly does it exacerbate the environment if it changes nothing on the ground, unlike say, construction of settlements? It changes nothing on the ground. It gives Palestine membership in UNESCO, which is a body that the U.S. didn’t — was so unconcerned about for many years that it just wasn’t even a member.

NULAND: Well, I think you know that this Administration is committed to UNESCO, rejoined UNESCO, wants to see UNESCO’s work go forward –

LEE: Well, actually, it was the last Administration that rejoined UNESCO, not this one. But the – I need to have some kind of clarity on how this undermines the peace process other than the fact that it upsets Israel.

NULAND: Again, we are trying to get both of these parties back to the table. That’s what we’ve been doing all along… So, in that context, we have been trying to improve the relationship between these parties, improve the environment between them, and we are concerned that we exacerbate tensions with this, and it makes it harder to get the parties back to the table.

Watch the video:

Lee then went on, noting that the parties have not been in talks, to ask rhetorically: “So how can things get worse than they already are?” (HT: SM Palestine)

As part of a push for United Nations recognition, the Palestinians are exploring ways to join various U.N. agencies. But two laws passed by Congress in the early 1990s would kill U.S. funding for any U.N. agency that recognizes Palestine among its member ranks. The issue is coming to a head this week as the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) board will vote on admitting Palestine.

But with the Palestinians primed to work their way into other U.N. agencies, the issue could become a much larger one, potentially affecting organizations crucial to international development and, perhaps, even nuclear non-proliferation. Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch addressed the topic in a piece today where he raised the potential defunding of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He quoted neoconservative American Enterprise Institute vice president for foreign and defense policy studies Danielle Pletka expressing support for the law prohibiting funding while acknowledging that holding back IAEA resources is a huge price to pay for attempting to block a relatively minor Palestinian gain:

[I]t would be very unfortunate if we were required by law to do to deny money to the International Atomic Energy Agency. [T]here are consequences to playing fast and loose, even in the international community. This is, at best, a supremely political quest by the Palestinians.

Opponents of the Palestinian U.N. bid seem to always dismiss it as a merely “political” exercise, all the while bemoaning the far reaching consequences of the power that the Palestinians stand to gain from recognition by the General Assembly or individual U.N. agencies — something that indicates they are more opposed to a Palestinian state than simply its out-of-turn recognition. That seems to be the case here, where Pletka is prepared to forsake one of the most effective U.N. agencies — one which works on the crucial global security issue of non-proliferation.

Indeed, when it comes to understand and halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions — something that Pletka’s ostensibly been working toward for a long time — the IAEA has proved an indispensable resource.

At a recent Atlantic Council panel, former top CIA analyst and Georgetown professor Paul Pillar noted just how important the IAEA was for gaining access to good information about Iran’s nuclear program:

[T]he single best source of information about programs of this sort – this was true of Iraq, it’s true of Iran – is an international inspections regime.

And in the case of Iraq, the flow of information was very good when we had it. It was suddenly a lot worse when we didn’t, whether it was because Iraq kicked out the inspectors, or as it happened closer to the war, when the U.S. kicked out the inspectors.

So my concluding observation would be, if we want to try to increase our collective confidence about what we can say about this particular program in Iran, the best way to do that would be to strive for a more inclusive and more extensive intentional inspections regime.

But perhaps less reliable information about Iran’s nuclear program would be a boon to Pletka because she has things on her mind other than collecting good intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program.

Jon Huntsman laid out his foreign policy views on Monday, but, while showing a strong grasp of U.S.-Asia policy and calling for a scaling back of U.S. military deployments, his vision of the U.S. role in brokering an end to the Israeli-Palestinian bordered on incoherent.

Early in his remarks, Huntsman commented that “we saw the Palestinians make an end-run around the American led peace process because they lost confidence in it and in our ability to lead.” Indeed the Palestinian attempt to seek statehood through the U.N. was widely interpreted as a vote of no confidence in both the U.S.’ led peace process and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sincerity as a negotiating partner.

But 25 minutes later, in a response to a question about Israeli settlement expansion, Huntsman offered a very different vision of the U.S. role in the region, saying:

I think we must recognize that in a region of change, now might not be the time for negotiations. We have to listen, I think, very carefully to what leadership in Israel has to say about the timing issue.

And, if now is not the time, I don’t think we can force the process, but what we can do during this time of uncertainty is to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States. This we have not done in a very long time and, so long as there is not any blue sky between United States and Israel, it doesn’t matter what plays out in the region.

Watch it:

How, exactly, Huntsman envisions regaining Palestinian confidence while declaring that “now might not be the time for negotiations” is an important question and one with no obvious answer. Huntsman’s expertise, both professionally and as a diplomat, have focused on East Asia but his lack of urgency in resolving the Middle East conflict flies in the face of positions taken by senior military leadership and the State Department. While establishing credentials as a “pro-Israel” politician has become more important than ever, Huntsman’s deference to “what leadership in Israel has to say about the timing issue” could come at the expense of U.S. national security interests and further tarnish the respect for U.S. leadership which Huntsman aims to restore.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta sharply criticized members of Congress who put holds on funds slated for development projects in the West Bank and Gaza and security assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Panetta added his voice to the list of politicians and policy experts expressing frustration with congressional efforts to penalize the PA. Speaking at a Tel Aviv press conference, he emphasized that the White House opposes withholding the funds.

This is a critical time. This is no time to withhold those funds, at a point in time where we are urging the Palestinians and Israelis to sit down and negotiate a peace agreement.

Americans for Peace Now (APN) breaks down the blocked funding and concludes that while $200 million in 2011 funding has already been spent, the blockage will hold up $192 million in funds for humanitarian programs for Palestinian residents in the West Bank and Gaza. These programs include USAID projects and other development assistance programs which have long been kept completely separate from aid to the PA. In addition to the humanitarian aid, $150 million in funding for security assistance to the PA will be withheld.

CAP’s Peter Juul reported last week that Israeli and American officials expressed “deep concern” about defunding the PA:

Both Israelis and Americans stated that a cut off of U.S. aid or Israeli tax transfers could lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority itself. For their part, Israelis viewed an aid cutoff as a threat to Israeli security given the near-certain likelihood that such a move would lead to the breakdown of security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority’s security forces. 

The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Anthony H. Cordesman warned that cutting military aid to the PA could badly damage Palestinian and Israeli security interests. And even neoconservative pro-Israel hawks have voiced opposition to holding up the funding. Responding to the aid blockage, former Bush administration Middle East adviser Elliot Abrams told a Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Hudson Institute conference yesterday that cutting off aid to the PA could result in a collapse of the government in the West Bank.

The blockage in aid has already resulted in the elimination of 50 jobs, according to Palestinian economics minister Hassan Abu Libdeh. The PA has twice failed to pay employees on time in recent months, raising tensions in the West Bank as spending on public works and civil servant salaries become increasingly unpredictable. Concerns about the cutoff in funding go beyond the West Bank and Gaza as American and Israeli officials are growing increasingly vocal with their warnings that a cutoff of assistance could lead to a breakdown in security cooperation with the PA and undermine attempts to build up the West Bank economy.