Hamdan Azhar Update #1 (Sun May 28, 11pm EST): According to a post on his Facebook page this evening, Congressman Justin Amash his reconsidered his support for HR 4133. While continuing to insist that the bill does not constitute additional funding for Israel, he suggests that he would not vote for the bill again if given the chance. "I have reconsidered my support for any bill like H.R. 4133, as it pertains to ANY country, in the future...I believe that the U.S. should not extend credit (or aid) to another country on an ongoing basis through legislation. It's time for the U.S. to stop acting as a bank to the rest of the world." https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/399961023376643
Hamdan Azhar Rep. Amash also says that this is a "relatively inconsequential bill." Again, I respectfully disagree. Congressman Ron Paul spoke on the House floor about how this bill would likely lead to war. Many of those who voted for the bill did so while expressing grave reservations. There has been literally no media coverage of HR 4133 in the mainstream press, a fact that should by itself raise serious questions about how consequential this bill really is.
Hamdan Azhar Last night, Congressman Justin Amash responded to my article on his Facebook page. He wrote, "This article completely misconstrues the bill. It does not provide unlimited military aid to Israel." HR 4133 makes it a "statement of policy" that the U.S. shall provide Israel whatever military aid is necessary for Israel to defend itself "against any threats." Rep. Amash may be correct that this bill is not per se an appropriation of unlimited military aid, but it sets the stage for such appropriations in the future. A vote of Yes on HR 4133 is a vote in favor of the idea of providing Israel with unlimited military aid. I don't see how the plain text of the bill can be understood in any other way.