T

Interpretation—topical affs must permanently reduce sales from the current number.
Reductions are different from suspensions. Suspensions are temporary, reductions are
not.
Montesani v Levitt 59 [MATTER OF MONTESANI v. Levitt, 9 A.D.2d 51, 189 N.Y.S.2d 695 (App. Div.
1959), 8-13-1959, Accessible Online at
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1402552157078234696&q=Montesani+v.+Levitt&hl=en
&as_sdt=2006] DL 6-26-2019

Under his retirement contract deceased agreed that in return for a plan that would insure payment of
the remainder of his initial fund to his beneficiary after his death he would accept a lower rate of
lifetime compensation. Implicit in this agreement were various statutory provisions governing the rights
of both parties. One of these provisions was section 83 which provided that if deceased were able to
return to a gainful occupation or actually did so his pension would accordingly be reduced. This
reduction would be governed by the amount he actually earned or was capable of earning. We now
reach one of the major issues in the case, to wit: Is section 83 to be considered as a binding factor in his
contract and if so does "reduce" mean "forfeit" or "temporarily suspended"?

It seems obvious that section 83 was in the law to protect the System against disability retirees who
might, in truth, be capable of providing for themselves without being on dole (albeit a "contractural"
dole). See Matter of Stewart v. O'Dwyer (271 App. Div. 485, 490 [1st Dept., 1946]), where such a
purpose is ascribed to section 83's counterpart in the New York City retirement statute. Deceased quit
his work here because of his physical defect and elected the plan of retirement he fancied most suitable.
He impliedly agreed to all the terms of the contract which included section 83. When he became
employed in California at a considerable salary section 83 came into play and cut off his monthly
pension payments although his annuity payments were not affected (thus he was not being deprived of
anything he had contributed). There is no persuasive 56*56 argument that this was not proper. When
the California employment ceased, assuming deceased to be still living, should he then be entitled to the
withheld payments?

Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only
if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type
of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension
benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in
the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost
no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree
the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a
living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83
were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the
provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the
other employment since it must later pay it anyway. The section says "reduced", does not say that
monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The
plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems
adequately to indicate permanency.

Aside from the practical aspect indicating permanency other indicia point to the same conclusion.

From 1924 (L. 1924, ch. 619) to 1947 (L. 1947, ch. 841) a provision appeared in the Civil Service Law
which read substantially as follows: "If the pension of a beneficiary is reduced for any reason, the
amount of such reduction shall be transferred from the pension reserve fund to the pension
accumulation fund during that period that such reduction is in effect." (See L. 1924, ch. 619, § 2 [Civil
Service Law, § 58, subd. 4]; L. 1947, ch. 841 [Civil Service Law, § 66, subd. e].) This provision reappears in
the 1955 Retirement and Social Security Law as subdivision f of section 24. This provision is useful for
interpretative purposes. Since it prescribes that moneys not paid because of reduction should be
transferred back to the accumulation fund the conclusion is inescapable that such reductions were
meant to be permanent. If temporary suspensions were intended this bookkeeping device would result
in a false picture of the funds, i.e., the reserve fund would be depleted when it would contain adequate
funds to meet eventual payments 57*57 to present pensioners. Likewise, the accumulation fund would
be improperly inflated with respect to the present pensioners.

Section 64 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (§ 85 under the 1947 act) provides that any
disability pension must be reduced by the amount payable pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation
Law if applicable. In Matter of Dalton v. City of Yonkers (262 App. Div. 321, 323 [1941]) this court
interpreted "reduce" to mean "offset" in holding that under then section 67 (relating to Workmen's
Compensation benefits as do its successors sections 85 and 64), pensions were to be offset by
compensation benefits. This is merely another indication that "reduce" means a diminishing of the
pension pursuant to a given formula rather than a mere recoverable, temporary suspension during the
time other benefits or salaries are being received by the pensioner. (Also, cf., Retirement and Social
Security Law, § 101 [§ 84 under the 1947 act].)

Violation—they temporarily suspend aid until a condition is met

Ground – the aff gets to spike out of topic disads that link to US loss of leverage over
target countries. Conditions CPs are also core negative ground supported by topic
literature. Vote neg to preserve core topic controversy.
 Alliance DA
U.S. -Israeli alliance is strong – but decreasing arms sales could destroy it
Beauchamp 5-14-18 Zack Beauchamp “Why are the US and Israel so friendly?”
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080080/israel-palestine-us-alliance
That’s a hugely controversial question. Though American support for Israel really is massive, including billions of dollars in aid and
reliable diplomatic backing, experts disagree sharply on why. Some possibilities include deep support for Israel among the American public, the
influence of the pro-Israel lobby, and American ideological affinity with the Middle East’s most stable democracy. The countries were not nearly
so close in Israel’s first decades. President Eisenhower was particularly hostile to Israel during the 1956 Suez War, which Israel, the UK, and
France fought against Egypt. As the Cold War dragged on, the US came to view Israel as a key buffer against Soviet influence in the Middle East
and supported it accordingly. The
American-Israeli alliance didn’t really cement until around 1973, when American aid
helped save Israel from a surprise Arab invasion. Since the Cold War, the foundation of the still-strong (and arguably stronger)
relationship between the countries has obviously shifted. Some suggest that a common interest in fighting jihadism ties America to Israel, while
others point to American leaders’ ideological attachment to an embattled democracy. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the American
public has, for a long time, sympathized far more with Israel than with Palestine: One very controversial theory, advanced by Professors John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, credits the relationship to the power of the pro-Israel lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC). Critics of this theory argue that AIPAC isn’t as strong as Walt and Mearsheimer think. AIPAC’s failure to torpedo the Iran
nuclear deal during the Obama administration underscored the critics’ point. Regardless of the reasons for the “special
relationship,” American support for Israel really is quite extensive. The US has given Israel $118 billion in
aid over the years (about $3 billion per year nowadays). Half of all American UN Security Council vetoes blocked
resolutions critical of Israel. Despite this fundamentally close relationship, there are occasionally tensions between Israeli and
American officials. This was particularly true under US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; the two leaders
clashed regularly over issues like settlements and Iran. The relationship reached a particularly nasty point when Netanyahu planned, with
congressional Republicans, a March 2015 speech to a joint session of Congress that was highly critical of Obama’s approach to Iran. The Obama
administration was furious over what it saw as Netanyahu conspiring with Obama’s domestic political opposition to undermine his policies. The
Trump administration has led to renewed warmth in the Israeli-American relationship, culminating in Trump’s
December decision to formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The stark difference between Obama and Trump
approaches to Netanyahu reflects a growing partisan gap inside the United States, with Republicans taking an
increasingly hard-line “pro-Israel” position. If Democrats end up concomitantly becoming more willing to criticize the Israeli
government, Israel may well end up a partisan issue in America — which actually would threaten the
foundations of the US-Israel alliance.
Arms sales key to the alliance
Mandell ’17 (Ariane, “US approves possible $440 million arms sale to Israel,” April 29,
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-approves-possible-440-
million-arms-sale-to-Israel-489299, ME)
The State Department approved a “Possible Foreign Military Sale” to Israel, according to a Defense Security Cooperation Agency press release
published on Friday. The agency said that the Israeli government requested to purchase 13 76-mm. naval guns, as well as a variety of naval
maintenance materials and tools, technical, logistics and support services, operations and maintenance training and other related supplies and
services. The estimated cost of such a deal is $440 million. “The United States is committed to the security of Israel,” said the
press release. “And it is vital to US national interests to assist Israel to
develop and maintain a strong and ready self-
defense capability... This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping
to improve the security of a strategic regional partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic
progress in the Middle East.” In terms of specifics, the agency said the equipment “will improve Israel’s capability to meet
current and future threats in the defense of its borders and territorial waters. The naval guns will be installed on Israeli
Navy Sa’ar-4.5 and Sa’ar-6 missile patrol boats. One gun will be located at an Israeli naval training center to be used for training maintenance
personnel.” In September, Israel and the US signed a defense agreement worth $38 billion over 10 years, the largest such pledge in American
history, which was hailed by both countries as a cornerstone of their alliance. The deal incorporates several budget lines
that have previously been negotiated and approved by Congress each year, and requires Israel to abide by these terms over the course of the
next decade, through 2029, without further lobbying of the US legislature for additional funds. Israel will receive $3.1b. in foreign military
financing this fiscal year, followed by $3.3b. in subsequent years, plus $500 million designated to missile defense. Israel will return any money
Congress may allocate in its 2017-2018 budget for Israel beyond the $3.1b., acting National Security Adviser Ya’acov Nagel, who negotiated the
deal on Israel’s behalf, said. At the time of the signing, then-US president Barack Obama praised the agreement as an example of
his “unshakable” commitment to the Jewish state. “For as long as the State of Israel has existed, the United States has been
Israel’s greatest friend and partner, a fact underscored again today,” he said.

U.S.-Israeli arms cooperation key to contain Iran – the plan causes Israel-Iran war and
draws the U.S. in
Shufutinsky Master’s in International Peace and Conflict Resolution 4-30-19 (Dmitri,
“US and Israel Should Help Craft Regional Policy to Contain Turkey’s Erdogan,”
https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/30/us-and-israel-should-help-craft-regional-
policy-to-contain-turkeys-erdogan/, ME)
Turkey poses a long-term threat to the security of the Middle East. Containing neo-Ottomanism requires
a defensive policy that integrates Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and the Kurds into a regional alliance. A new era has dawned in the
northern Levant. The Republic of Turkey has left behind its Kemalist, secular foundations in pursuit of Islamist, authoritarian governance. The
Justice and Development Party (AKP), headed by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has alienated the US, Israel, and the EU, and abandoned the
country’s pro-Western and NATO credentials. The AKP has adopted a neo-Ottoman policy of imperialism, seeking to usurp the position of
“leader of the Muslim World” from Saudi Arabia. In colonial language reminiscent of Mussolini’s fascist Italy, Erdogan has threatened
to conquer the Greek Isles, Cyprus, and the Levant. And he has taken concrete steps towards advancing
this vision, despite alienating European and Arab allies. Some analysts have called for maintaining ties with Turkey in the hope that the AKP
government will fall and relations with a more moderate leader can resume. But this is wishful thinking. Despite poor showings in local
elections and a recent poor economic performance, ultra-nationalist and neo-fascist organizations like the Grey Wolves have been emboldened
since the AKP’s rise. The AKP has also sought to Islamize the still-secular North Cyprus, turning the conflict from an ethno-national one into a
religious one. Ankara has hopes of changing the peace process in Cyprus from one of reunion with equal rights, to a two-state solution. This
would be the pretext for an eventual annexation of the island (or at least its northern portion). Given Ankara’s increasing
interference in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, it is necessary to build and strengthen a multilateral
mechanism among the region’s most affected states and “statelets” to contain it. The US is already providing major support to both the
Kurds in Syria and the burgeoning “Axis of Antiquity” of Greece, Israel, and the Republic of Cyprus. The Kurds and the eastern
Mediterranean coalition have a common interest in challenging Erdogan’s hegemonic ambitions and
protecting their sovereignty. These actors — perhaps with guidance from Washington — must iron out a
cohesive plan to make it happen. Turkey’s decision to buy the S-400 missile defense system from Russia at the expense of
Washington’s F-35s has angered the US, to the point of threatening sanctions. Last summer, the US damaged Ankara’s economy with tariffs and
threatened sanctions if it attacked the Kurds in Syria. The Syrian Kurds are floating the idea of diplomacy with Turkey if it stops occupying the
enclave of Afrin — but without it, they say, there will be war. Meanwhile, Athens has expressed interest in acquiring F-35 fighter jets.
Greece’s military is inferior to that of Turkey, and F-35s would provide a valuable deterrent to prevent further violations of airspace. With that
said, Greece would have to make the purchase at a relatively low price, given its economic situation. Washington should consider a Greek F-35
sale at a discount, on condition that they also be used to protect Cypriot airspace in the event of Turkish military provocation on the island.
Greece already has Patriot missiles. To further deter Turkey, the US should consider stationing THAAD missiles in Crete,
where the US maintains a military base. It should also seriously consider pressing Britain to allow Patriot and THAAD missile defense systems to
be placed at its Akrotiri and Dhekelia military bases in Cyprus. Greece is building a
joint radar system on Crete with the
Israelis, that is possibly aimed at monitoring Turkish aggression. Israel should consider placing Arrow, Iron Dome, and David’s
Sling systems near the Crete radar installation to ensure its protection, and consider selling the systems to Nicosia as well to prevent a Turkish
attack. These systems would be extremely valuable in view of Turkish aggression aimed at gas exploration in Cyprus. The
Cyprus gas project is critical to Israel’s economic and diplomatic interests in the coming decades, and must be protected at all costs. The
defensive nature of these
weapons systems should nullify any possible Turkish diplomatic criticism of
“militarization” of the northern Levant. Meanwhile, as the Kurds increasingly consolidate their power in northern Syria, the US
and Israel should look to mediate a possible peace agreement or cooperation mechanism between Iraqi
Kurdistan and Rojava (Kurdish Syria). While the primary goal of the Kurdish fighters is aimed at counterinsurgency against the
remnants of jihadists, these forces will also need the capability to deter Turkey and Iran’s “axis of resistance” should diplomacy fail. The US
and Israel should consider deploying Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, THAAD, and Patriot missile
systems in the broader Kurdish region, under the full control of Washington and Jerusalem. These
systems would protect the Kurds from missile attacks, such as those previously launched by Iran. They would
also protect Israel, regional Arab allies, and US military bases in the region, which may be more
vulnerable to attack after the US’ designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror
group. More can be done to integrate the Kurds and Israelis into the greater energy scheme in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel has oil in the
Negev, the Meged oil field, and the Golan. Jerusalem could easily replace Tehran when it comes to supplying oil to Greece and Italy, both of
which secured waivers from Washington when sanctions on Iran were resumed last year. This would further tighten Israel’s
alliance with Athens and the new right-wing government in Rome. Kurds in the northern portions of Syria and Iraq also control vast oil
sources and are selling it to stimulate the local economy. Adding Kurdish and Israeli oil — even if only temporarily — to the energy pipelines
being built from the Mediterranean to southern Europe would enrich Israel, stabilize Kurdistan, and give the Kurds and Israelis more regional
clout. Doing so would also undermine European excuses that they must continue buying oil from Iran or Arab dictatorships in the Gulf. A
coalition of this kind in the eastern Mediterranean and northern Levant would allow for greater US involvement in the
region, which would help to ensure a successful outcome while shoring up the regional economy. This
would contribute toward regional stability, wean Europe off “autocratic oil,” and contain Ankara’s neo-
Ottoman aspirations in the region through purely defensive means. It would also foster “local multilateralism” without resorting
to the bloated and ineffective approach of the EU, UN, and Arab League.

Israel-Iran war It goes nuclear

Afrasiabi & Entessar 6/4 (Afrasiabi taught political science at the University of Tehran, Boston
University, and Bentley University and was a visiting scholar at Harvard University. Entessar, professor
and chair of the department of political science and criminal justice at the University of South Alabama,
June 4, 2019. “What a War With Iran Would Look Like.” https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/a-nuclear-war-
in-the-persian-gulf/, Saatvik)

Tensions between the United States and Iran are spiraling toward a military confrontation that carries a
real possibility that the United States will use nuclear weapons. Iran’s assortment of asymmetrical capabilities—all
constructed to be effective against the United States—nearly assures such a confrontation. The current US nuclear posture leaves
the Trump administration at least open to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional theaters.
Some in the current administration may well think it to be in the best interest of the United States to
seek a quick and decisive victory in the oil hub of the Persian Gulf—and to do so by using its nuclear arsenal. We
believe there is a heightened possibility of a US-Iran war triggering a US nuclear strike for the following
reasons: The sanction regime set against the Iranian economy is so brutal that it is likely to force Iran to
take an action that will require a US military response. Unless the United States backs down from its present self-declared
“economic warfare” against Iran, this will likely escalate to an open warfare between the two countries. In response to a White House request
to draw up an Iran war plan, the Pentagon proposed sending 120,000 soldiers to the Persian Gulf. This force would augment the several
thousands of troops already stationed in Iran’s vicinity. President Trump has also hinted that if need be, he will be sending “a lot more” troops.
Defeating Iran through conventional military means would likely require a half million US forces and US preparedness for many casualties. The
US nuclear posture review is worded in such a way that the use of tactical nuclear weapons in
conventional theaters is envisaged, foreshadowing the concern that in a showdown with a menacing foe
like Iran, the nuclear option is on the table. The United States could once again justify using nuclear
force for the sake of a decisive victory and casualty-prevention, the logic used in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward nuclear weapons, trigger-happy penchant, and utter disdain
for Iran, show that he would likely have no moral qualm about issuing an order to launch a limited
nuclear strike, especially in a US-Iran showdown, one in which the oil transit from the Gulf would be imperiled, impacting the global
economy and necessitating a speedy end to such a war. If the United States were to commit a limited nuclear strike against Iran, it would
minimize risks to its forces in the region, defang the Iranian military, divest the latter of preeminence in the Strait of Hormuz, and thus reassert
US power in the oil hub of the Persian Gulf. Oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz is critical to a rising China. US control over this merchant
waterway would grant the United States significant leverage in negotiations. A limited US nuclear strike could cause a ‘regime change’ among
Iranian leadership, representing a strategic setback for Russia, in light of their recent foray in the Middle East with Iranian backing.
Undoubtedly, there are several significant negative consequences to a US use of nuclear weapons, opening the way for other nuclear-armed
states to emulate US behavior, and for many other non-nuclear weapons states to seek their own nuclear deterrent shields. There would also
be a huge outcry in the international community causing the US global image to suffer. Will such anticipated consequences represent sufficient
obstacles to prevent a limited U.S. nuclear strike on Iran? With
President Trump, who counts on “bomb Iran” billionaire
Sheldon Adelson as one of his main campaign contributors, the threshold for using nukes certainly
seems to have been lowered.

Alt Cause—Saudi arms sales contributes to alliance fracturing

Lewis ’17 (Ori, Correspondent at Reuters, “Israeli minister expresses concern over U.S.-Saudi arms
deal,” Reuters, 5/21/17, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-israel/israeli-minister-expresses-
concern-over-u-s-saudi-arms-deal-idUSKBN18H0JW, JL)

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -Israel expressed muted concern on Sunday to a major arms deal between the United
States and Saudi Arabia announced a day earlier during the visit to the region by U.S. President Donald
Trump. Israel's Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz poses for a photograph during an interview with Reuters, in Jerusalem November 16, 2016.
REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun The central achievement of Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia was nearly $110 billion in deals sealed on Saturday in which
Riyadh will buy U.S. arms to help it counter Iran, with options running as high as $350 billion over 10 years. Although
Israel also sees
Iran as a threat to its security, it has a military advantage over the Arab states and has always been
concerned about arms sales to them that could possibly narrow the margin separating them. “This is a matter
that really should trouble us,” said Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz prior to the weekly cabinet meeting, although Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made no mention of the deal in his customary public remarks. A senior U.S. official traveling with
Trump said Washington understands what he described as Israel’s “completely legitimate” concerns and
pledged to help the Jewish state maintain its military advantage. “We’re taking a whole bunch of measures, some
apparent some not so apparent, to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge. That will in no way be compromised,” the official told Reuters.
“You’ll hear a really strong statement from the president on his commitment to Israel and to Israel’s defense,” the official added. Netanyahu
has expressed the wish to improve ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states as part of an initiative that would draw the Palestinians into an
eventual peace deal and function as a broad front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Steinitz said he hoped to hear details of the deal. Trump and
his entourage touch down in Israel on Monday. “We have also to make sure that those hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi
Arabia will not, by any means, erode Israel’s qualitative edge, because Saudi Arabia is still a hostile country without any diplomatic relations and
nobody knows what the future will be,” Steinitz said. In
the 1980s, Israel expressed its concern at a U.S. sale to Saudi
Arabia of then-advanced F-15 fighter jets that were stationed at a Red Sea airfield. But the desert kingdom has
never threatened to use them against Israel.
 Lashout DA
U.S. arms sales provides leverage to demand Israeli cease fire
William D. Hartung is Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, which serves as a resource for
journalists, policymakers, and organizations focused on issues of weapons proliferation, military spending, and alternative approaches to national
security strategy. John Feffer is director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. He is the author of several books and
numerous articles. He has been an Open Society Foundation Fellow and a PanTech fellow in Korean Studies at Stanford University. He is a former
associate editor of World Policy Journal. He has worked as an international affairs representative in Eastern Europe and East Asia for the American
Friends Service Committee. Frida Berrigan serves on the Board of the War Resisters League and is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.
Everyone’s talking about the arms suppliers behind Hezbollah. But who’s supplying Israel? July 26 2006. https://fpif.org/whos_arming_israel/, Pranav
th

Over the past decade, the United States has transferred more than $17 billion in military
aid to this country of just under 7 million people. Israel is one of the United States’
largest arms importers. Between 1996 and 2005 (the last year for which full data is
available), Israel took delivery of $10.19 billion in U.S. weaponry and military
equipment, including more than $8.58 billion through the Foreign Military Sales
program, and another $1.61 billion in Direct Commercial Sales During the Bush
administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military
Financing—the Pentagon’s biggest military aid program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms
deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes
financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully
delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed
Martin F-16s to Israel. Given the billions of dollars of aid it provides to Israel every year
and the central role of U.S.-supplied weaponry in the Israeli arsenal, the United States
has considerable leverage that it could use to promote a cease fire in the current
conflict between Israel and Hezbollah before more Israeli and Lebanese civilians are
killed and displaced. President Bush needs to go beyond vague calls for “restraint” to
demands for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, bringing in other key actors in
the region, including Iran and Syria.

Hamas is waiting to attack Israel- US withdrawal of arm will make Israel

vulnerable, and Hamas sees that
Lawrence ’18 ( BY LAWRENCE J. HAAS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/11/18 03:45 PM EDT 845 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE
VIEW OF THE HILL , “HAMAS ATTACKS ISRAEL—AND THE WORLD CONDEMS ISRAEL” HTTPS://THEHILL.COM/OPINION/INTERNATIONAL/382681-HAMAS-ATTACKS-ISRAEL-AND-THE-WORLD-
CONDEMNS-ISRAEL Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as a former senior White House official and as senior communications director for Vice
President Al Gore and is the author of, most recently, Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World.)

The world “should wait for our great move,” said a top Hamas leader, speaking to Palestinian
protestors during violent clashes with Israeli forces along the Gaza border, “when we breach the borders
and pray at al Aqsa.”With hundreds around him chanting, “We are going to Jerusalem, millions of
martyrs,” and with 20,000 Palestinians protesting along the border — some burning tires, others throwing
Molotov cocktails and rocks — Yahya Sinwar declared during April protests that Hamas was “following in
the path of martyr Yasser Arafat in resisting the enemy” and “if we explode we will explode in [Israel’s]
face.” That Sinwar and other Hamas leaders made clear that their “March of Return” is only the latest
tactic in their efforts to destroy Israel, however, hasn’t convinced much of the global community, the West,
or the media to abandon its comfortable narrative – of a peace-loving Palestinian people in Gaza, driven
to violence by an iron-fisted Israel. Such is life as the world’s only Jewish state — with Hamas and other
terrorist groups across its border in Gaza; with the more dangerous Hezbollah across its northern border
in Lebanon; with terrorists roaming the Sinai; and with Hezbollah and Shi’a militias implanted amid the
chaos of Syria. However carefully it responds to violent efforts to breach its borders and attack its people,
Israel finds itself falsely portrayed, second-guessed, and ultimately condemned. Thus, the current turmoil
along Israel’s border with Gaza is playing out along predictable lines in the court of public opinion.
Hamas, which seeks Israel’s destruction and has run Gaza since ousting the Palestinian Authority in a
violent coup in 2007, launched the “March of Return” on March 30 to remove the “transient border”
between Israel and Gaza and fulfill the “right of return” of all seven million descendants of the Palestinians
who fled their homes when Arab nations launched the 1948 war against the new Jewish state. (With such
a full “right of return,” Palestinians would outnumber Jews in Israel, upending a state that emerged from
the Holocaust and marked a people’s return to their historic homeland.) The second such “march” came
on Friday, April 6, and Hamas vows to mount one each Friday until “Nakba Day,” the annual day when
Palestinians mark the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation in May of 1948. For that day, the group promises
a “march” that will include at least a million participants. But these weekly “marches” aren’t marches at all.
Like the rockets that Hamas launches into southern Israel or the tunnels it uses to infiltrate underground,
these marches are violent efforts to breach Israel’s border — and they’ve left about 30 dead at the hands
of Israeli forces that say all 30 were engaged in violent activity. “Palestine and Jerusalem belong to us,”
top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh declared this week. In an Orwellian twist, he termed the “March of
Return” a “peaceful, civilized, and popular march.” But Hamas is not only orchestrating the violence on
Israel’s border; it’s incentivizing it. The group is paying $3,000 for the family of a “martyr” who dies in a
confrontation with Israeli forces, $500 to protestors who are seriously wounded, and $200 to those who
are moderately wounded. It’s also reportedly jailing bus drivers who refuse to take Gazans to the border
to protest. With Hamas laying bare its strategy, much of the world has nevertheless found it easier to
blame Israel for the chaos. The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, warned both
Israel and Hamas that each could be committing crimes — as if a terror group using violence to breach a
border and a nation defending itself are equivalent. The European Union’s High Representative Federica
Mogherini called for an investigation of Israel’s use of “live ammunition,” said its force should be
“proportionate,” and urged a “full opening of the crossing points.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who exerts
enormous influence over the Democratic Party’s activist wing, laid the blame squarely on Israel, tweeting,
“The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to
protest for a better future without a violent response.” Maybe Israel’s critics don’t realize that with their
one-sided condemnations, they’re emboldening Hamas. Or maybe they do.

Hamas has the capability to launch a catastrophic strike against Israel in the near
future
Issacharoff, 5-4-2019, Avi Issacharoff, The Times of Israel's Middle East analyst, fills the same role for
Walla, the leading portal in Israel. He is also a guest commentator on many different radio shows and
current affairs programs on television."In ‘cash for calm’ bid, Hamas shows it’s ready to fight," The Times
Of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-cash-for-calm-bid-hamas-shows-its-ready-to-fight/

Even afterfiring over 450 rockets at Israel since Saturday, Hamas continues to demonstrate it maintains
disciplined control over its arsenal, and has escalated the conflict with Israel in a measured and
deliberate way. The terror group’s long-range rockets have not yet been deployed — a message to Israel that
there is still room for talks, and that the current crisis can be ended quickly. The group’s chief demand for doing so: allowing donated cash to
enter the Gaza Strip with the start of Ramadan, which begins Sunday or Monday in different parts of the Muslim world. In another sign of
Hamas’s remarkable control over the situation, in the first day and a half after the group started firing at Israel, not one of its operatives or
fighters were hurt. Indeed, despite over 200 strikes by the Israeli Air Force on targets tied to the group in the Gaza Strip, its military wing
did not suffer a single casualty. Free Sign Up That’s not because Israel’s aim is getting worse, but because Hamas is working
hard to demonstrate a high level of military discipline and a dramatic improvement in its ability to
operate under fire. The entire organization has gone underground — literally, into the endless tunnels that crisscross the Gaza Strip.
Hamas has been preparing those tunnels for years in expectation of war, all the while showing it has the capacity
to rain rockets continuously on Israel despite a massive air campaign against it. At the moment, there’s no
obvious way for either side to back away from the dangerous precipice on which they are perched. Despite the fact that
Hamas’s top officials, including Gaza chief Yahya Sinwar, are in Cairo at the moment, alongside Islamic Jihad head Ziad Nakhla’a — ostensibly
for talks on returning to the ceasefire — the terror groups don’t appear eager to end the fighting. They seem thoroughly
unimpressed by demands for quiet from Egyptian intelligence officials. The Qatari envoy Muhammad al-Amadi, who was able in the past to
resolve such impasses, is in the US for medical treatment, and the lack of a mediator and envoy who can restore calm — for example, by
facilitating the transfer of $15 million in cash in a suitcase — is felt on the ground. It is no longer possible to continue ignoring
the woeful decision taken by the government over six months ago that created the current predicament: when Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu agreed to allow suitcases into Gaza carrying $15 million in cash each month that were destined for Hamas’s coffers. It was that
decision that created the current equation of cash for calm, and which is now exacting a high cost from Israel to ensure the cash continues to
flow. As soon as the cash was delayed, the deterioration was only a matter of time. Hamas understands it can extort Israel and threaten it
during this week of Memorial Day and Independence Day, and with next week’s Eurovision contest. The calendar, and the government’s keen
desire to see the Eurovision contest go off without a hitch, limit Israel’s ability to respond to Hamas’s rocket-based taunting. That
realization has put wind in the terror group’s sails, convinced as it is that it has a window of opportunity to
raise the cost for Israel of its blockade and obtain more concessions in exchange for quiet.

Lack of US commitment causes Israeli preemption – terrorism magnifies the risk

Farley 18 [Robert, author of Battleship Book and senior lecturer in the Patterson School of Diplomacy
and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky, “3 Reasons Israel Would Start a Nuclear
War”; published 5/12/18, accessed 7/6/19; https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/3-reasons-israel-
would-start-nuclear-war-25794]
Israel’s nuclear arsenal is the worst-kept secret in international relations. Since the 1970s, Israel has maintained a nuclear deterrent in order to
maintain a favorable balance of power with its neighbors. Apart from some worrying moments during the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli
government has never seriously considered using those weapons. The
most obvious scenario for Israel to use nuclear
weapons would be in response to a foreign nuclear attack. Israel’s missile defenses, air defenses, and delivery systems are
far too sophisticated to imagine a scenario in which any country other than one of the major nuclear powers could manage a disarming first
strike. Consequently, any attacker is certain to endure massive retaliation, in short order. Israel’s
goals would be to destroy the
military capacity of the enemy (let’s say Iran, for sake of discussion) and also send a message that any
nuclear attack against Israel would be met with catastrophic, unimaginable retaliation. But under what
conditions might Israel start a nuclear war? Nuclear Pre-emption If a hostile power (let’s say Iran, for sake of discussion)
appeared to be on the verge of mating nuclear devices with the systems needed to deliver them, Israel might well consider a preventive nuclear
attack. In the case of Iran, we can imagine scenarios in which Israeli
planners would no longer deem a conventional
attack sufficiently lethal to destroy or delay the Iranian program. In such a scenario, and absent direct intervention from
the United States, Israel might well decide to undertake a limited nuclear attack against Iranian facilities. Given that Iran lacks significant
ballistic missile defenses, Israel would most likely deliver the nuclear weapons with its Jericho III intermediate
range ballistic missiles. Israel would likely limit its attacks to targets specifically linked with the Iranian nuclear program, and sufficiently
away from civilian areas. Conceivably, since it would be breaking the nuclear taboo anyway, Israel might target other military facilities and
bases for attack, but it is likely that the Israeli government would want to limit the precedent for using nuclear weapons as much as possible.
Would it work?
Nuclear weapons would deal more damage than most imaginable conventional attacks, and
would also convey a level of seriousness that might take even the Iranians aback. On the other hand, the active use of
nuclear weapons by Israel would probably heighten the interest of everyone in the region (and
potentially across the world) to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Nuclear Transfer One of Israel’s
biggest concerns is the idea that a nuclear power (Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea, presumably) might give
or sell a nuclear weapon to a non-governmental organization (NGO). Hamas, Hezbollah, or some other
terrorist group would be harder to deter than a traditional nation-state. Even if a terrorist organization
did not immediately use the weapon against an Israeli target, it could potentially extract concessions
that Israel would be unwilling to make. In such a scenario, Israel might well consider using nuclear weapons in
order to forestall a transfer, or destroy the enemy nuclear device after delivery. This would depend on access to
excellent intelligence about the transfer of the device, but it is hardly impossible that the highly professional and operationally competent
Israeli intelligence services could provide such data. Why go nuclear? The biggest reason would be toensure the success of the
strike; both the device itself and the people handling the device would be important targets, and a nuclear attack would ensure their
destruction more effectively than even a massive conventional strike (which might well accompany the nuclear attack). Moreover, committing
to the most extreme use forms of the use of force might well deter both the NGO and the originating state (not to mention any states that
facilitated transfer through their borders; hello, Syria!) from attempting another transfer. However, the active use of nuclear weapons against a
non-state actor might look to the world like overkill, and could reaffirm the interest of the source of the nuclear device in causing more
problems for Israel. Conventional Defeat The idea that Israel might lose a conventional war seems ridiculous now,
but the origins of the Israeli nuclear program lay in the fear that the Arab states would develop a decisive military advantage that they could
use to inflict battlefield defeats. This came close to happening during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, as the Egyptian Army
seized the Suez Canal and the Syrian Arab Army advanced into the Golan Heights. Accounts on how seriously Israel debated using nukes during
that war remain murky, but there
is no question that Israel could consider using its most powerful weapons if
the conventional balance tipped decisively out of its favor. How might that happen? We can imagine a few scenarios,
most of which involve an increase in hostility between Israel and its more tolerant neighbors. Another revolution in Egypt could easily rewrite
the security equation on Israel’s southern border; while the friendship of Saudi Arabia seems secure, political instability could change that; even
Turkish policy might shift in a negative direction. Israel currently has overwhelming conventional military advantages, but these advantages
depend to some extent on a favorable regional strategic environment. Political
shifts could leave Israel diplomatically
isolated, and vulnerable once again to conventional attack. In such a situation, nuclear weapons would
remain part of the toolkit for ensuring the survival of the nation.

Terrorists have the capabilities and evade detection --- independently causes
retaliation
Bunn 15 (Matthew Bunn is an American nuclear and energy policy analyst, currently a professor of
practice at the Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University. “Nuclear Terrorism: How Big is the Risk to
Japan.” 2015. https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/nuclear-terrorism-how-big-is-the-
risk-to-japan/) BWhttps://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/nuclear-terrorism-how-big-is-
the-risk-to-japan/_
THE RISK OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM: A QUALITATIVE APPROACH Nuclear theft and terrorism are not just hypothetical
worries. There have been approximately 20 cases of seizure of stolen nuclear bomb material that are well
documented in the public record, and multiple cases of actual or planned nuclear sabotage.[4] Do terrorists want nuclear
weapons? For most terrorists, focused on the limited violence appropriate for accomplishing local political objectives, the answer is no. But for
a limited set of terrorists with extreme global objectives or apocalyptic visions, the answer is decidedly
yes. Al Qaeda and the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo both made repeated attempts to get nuclear weapons or the material and expertise
needed to make them, and there is evidence that Chechen terrorists may have sought nuclear weapons as well. Al Qaeda had a focused
program reporting directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri, now the group’s leader, which progressed as far as carrying out crude conventional explosive
tests for the bomb program in the Afghan desert.[5] Most of the participants in al Qaeda’s program – including the man who led it – have
neither been killed nor captured. There is no hard evidence in the public domain that the Islamic State (IS) is yet seeking nuclear weapons. But
the Paris attacks make clear that they are planning mass casualty attacks far beyond their territory, and they have an apocalyptic ideology that
envisions a final war between the “Crusader” forces and their Islamic forces, for which extremely powerful weapons would presumably be
needed. If IS were to seek nuclear weapons, it has
more money, more control of territory, more people, and more ability
to recruit experts globally than al Qaeda at its best ever had – all of which could increase its chances of
success. Could terrorists make a crude nuclear bomb if they got the necessary nuclear material? Here,
unfortunately, multiple studies by the U.S. government and other governments have concluded that the
answer is “yes” – a sophisticated terrorist group with enough plutonium or HEU might well be able to fashion a crude but workable
 As one U.S. government report summarized the issue in the 1970s, long before the
nuclear bomb. [6]
voluminous information now available on the internet existed:[7] A small group of people, none of
whom have ever had access to the classified literature, could possibly design and build a crude nuclear
explosive device… Only modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing
suspicion would be required. This conclusion applied to both gun-type and implosion-type bombs. While an implosion bomb would
be significantly more difficult for terrorists to build, it is not out of the question – particularly if they got knowledgeable help, as al Qaeda
repeatedly attempted to do. A crude implosion device does not need to be as complex as the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. Nuclear
material does not have to be “weapon-grade” to pose a serious danger that terrorists could use it to
make a nuclear bomb. HEU at well below 90 percent U-235 could be used, at the price of using
somewhat more material. The U.S. government has declassified the fact that any state or group that
could make a bomb from weapons-grade plutonium could also make a bomb from reactor-grade
plutonium. The “fizzle yield” – the explosive yield that would result if the extra neutrons from reactor-grade plutonium set off the chain
reaction at the worst possible time – for a design similar to the Nagasaki bomb is in the range of a kiloton, and the probable yield is higher than
that.[8] The heat from reactor-grade plutonium can also be managed by a variety of means: it should be remembered, for example, that early
U.S. nuclear weapons were designed to have the plutonium core put into the bomb at the last moment, just before use. Although the process
of designing and building a crude nuclear bomb would probably be long and difficult, this may not always be the case. Indeed, for facilities with
some types of material, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) internal security regulations require that security plans be based on keeping terrorists
out entirely, rather than catching them as they leave the site, to avoid “an unauthorized opportunity … to use available nuclear materials for
onsite assembly of an improvised nuclear device” — that is, to prevent terrorists from being able to set off a nuclear explosion while they were
still in the building.[9] What would the consequences of a nuclear terrorist attack be? In the city attacked, a huge area might be entirely
destroyed, with tens or hundreds of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands more injured. Fires would likely rage out of control, far behind
any plausible capability to fight them. With everything from roads to hospitals destroyed, organizing to provide food, water, shelter, and
medical care to the survivors would be an immense challenge.[10] The direct economic damage – measured in lives lost and property destroyed
– might reach $1 trillion.[11]Terrorists – either those who committed the attack or others – would probably claim they had more
bombs already hidden in other cities (whether they did nor not), and the fear that this might be true could lead to panicked evacuations,
creating widespread havoc and economic disruption. In what would inevitably be a desperate effort to prevent further
attacks, traditional standards of civil liberties would likely be jettisoned, and the country attacked might well lash out
militarily at whatever countries it thought might bear a portion of responsibility.[12] Far more than after the 9/11
attacks, international politics would be likely to become more brutish and violent, with powerful states taking unilateral action,
by force if necessary, in an effort to ensure their security.
 Human Rights Conditions CP
PLAN TEXT:
The United States federal government should indefinitely suspend foreign military sales and direct
commercial sales of arms to the country referenced in 19 U.S. Code § 4452 until the country complies
with all applicable U.S. laws and policies, including those in the U.S Foreign Assistance Act and U.S.
Export Control Act.

Failure to hold Israel accountable sustains the status quo and Israel’s military
occupation of the Palestinian territories
AFSC and A GROUP, 10-5-2012, "Condition U.S. military aid to Israel on respect for human rights,"
American Friends Service Committee, https://www.afsc.org/resource/condition-us-military-aid-israel-
respect-human-rights (JC)

Through this direct experience we have witnessed the pain and suffering of Israelis as a result of Palestinian actions and of Palestinians as a
result of Israeli actions. In addition to the horror and loss of life from rocket attacks from Gaza and past suicide bombings, we have witnessed
the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Israeli society. We have also witnessed widespread Israeli human rights
violations committed against Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on
Palestinian movement, among others. We recognize that each party—Israeli and Palestinian—bears responsibilities for its actions and we
therefore continue to stand against all violence regardless of its source. Our stand against violence is complemented by our commitment to the
rights of all Israelis, as well as all Palestinians, to live in peace and security. It is this experience and these commitments that lead us to write to
you today to express our grave concern about the deteriorating conditions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories which threaten to
lead the region further away from the realization of a just peace. Unfortunately, unconditional
U.S. military assistance to Israel
has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security
interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is made clear in the most recent 2011 State Department Country Report on
Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories (1), which details widespread Israeli human rights
violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied
weapons. Accordingly, we urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S.
Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to
any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S.
weapons (2) to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.” (3) More broadly, we urge Congress to
undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel
that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance,
and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.
Examples of specific, systematic human rights violations related to U.S. military support are included as an annex to this letter. In addition to
specific rights violations, we see a troubling and consistent pattern of disregard by the government of Israel for U.S. policies that support a just
and lasting peace. Specifically, repeated demands by the U.S. government that Israel halt all settlement activity have been ignored. Since 1967,
every U.S. administration has decried Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as obstacles to peace. Despite this stance, Israel
continues to expand its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, claiming territory that under international law and U.S. policy should
belong to a future Palestinian state. The Oslo peace process, which began in 1993, was publicly promoted as leading Israelis and Palestinians to
a just peace based on a two-state solution. Instead, since 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has
more than doubled. Rights violations resulting from Israeli settlement activity include separate and unequal legal systems for Palestinians and
settlers, confiscation of Palestinian land and natural resources for the benefit of settlers, and violence by settlers against Palestinians. According
to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there has been a dramatic rise in
settler attacks against Palestinians this year (4). They report that these attacks are often intended to drive Palestinians from areas the settlers
wish to take over, and that Israeli authorities have failed to take significant action to stop the violence or hold the perpetrators accountable.
We believe that these actions directly undermine peace efforts and threaten, rather than support, Israel’s long-term security interests. We
want to be clear that we recognize that Israel faces real security threats and that it has both a right and a duty to protect both the state and its
citizens. However, the measures that it uses to protect itself and its citizens, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international
humanitarian and human rights law. As Christian leaders in the United States, it is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of
unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this
accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel -- offered without conditions or
accountability -- will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the
Palestinian territories. We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards
by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s
compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies. As Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War
II, it is especially critical for Israel to comply with the specific U.S. laws that regulate the use of U.S.-supplied weapons. We also
encourage Congress to support inclusive, comprehensive, and robust regional diplomacy to secure a just
and lasting peace that will benefit Israelis, Palestinians, and all the peoples of the region, and the world.