Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), in a half-hour speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, delivered a comprehensive case against proposed new Iran sanctions.

She left the Israel component for last, concluding (and thanks to Lobe Log for transcribing the entire speech):

And let me acknowledge Israel’s real, well-founded concerns that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its very existence.

While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the U.S. goes to war.

By stating that the U.S. should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.

The interim agreement with Iran is strong, tough and realistic. It represents the first significant opportunity to change a three decade course in Iran and an opening to improve one of our most poisonous bilateral relationships.

It opens the door to a new future which not only considers Israel’s national security—but protects our own.

What she’s referring to is this part of the bill:

If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

The Republican Jewish Coalition called on Feinstein to apologize, saying she mischaracterized the relevant portion of the bill:

The ‘provision’ of S. 1881 that Feinstein points to is carefully crafted and subject to a special additional provision making it clear that it does not provide an authorization for war in any contingency.

“Moreover, the language of the provision Senator Feinstein cited is identical to language contained in S. Res. 65, which passed the Senate unanimously – and which Senator Feinstein cosponsored!

What the RJC appears to be referring to as “carefully crafted” are changes to the earlier resolution, which, as the RJC notes, Feinstein backed. I outlined them here in April, a month before the Senate unanimously approved the resolution. I noted that the language in the original resolution, introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had spoken only of “self-defense,” not “legitimate self-defense,” and did not mention the requirement of Congress’ authority to authorize the use of force.

The “special additional provision” the RJC refers to is at the end of the sanctions bill now under consideration:

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran.

So is Feinstein’s characterization of the bill “reckless and false” and “incendiary and inaccurate” as the RJC says in its release?

Notably, in its release, which does not include links, the RJC only quotes Feinstein as saying the bill could “let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war.” Omitted is the part immediately thereafter, where she correctly characterizes the language as a “stating” that this is something the United States “should” do:

By stating that the U.S. should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.

The broader question is whether the bill’s language commits the United States to military support of Israel should it strike Iran.

There is an amorphous, never really settled hierarchy in congressional legislation: On top, naturally, is the action portion of bills, and this itself has its own hierarchy of verbs (“will,” “shall”, “may”) etc.). Below that are the “whereases” which set up the action language; there is along with that, “sense of Congress” portions of bills, which is where the language Feinstein refers to appears. Anything that is a “sense of Congress” is by definition not binding (the earlier resolution is also non-binding), which means that it does not commit the United States to an action. On the other hand, “sense of Congress” language exists for a reason – otherwise why include it?

So perhaps Feinstein’s “fear” that the inclusion of the language would have the U.S. “go to war” is overblown, but she is not mischaracterizing the language, and she legitimately might wonder what it is exactly the language intends.

That said, the RJC poses an excellent question: Why does language that she cosponsored in May so rankle her in January?

Ron Kampeas is JTA’s Washington bureau chief, responsible for coordinating coverage in the U.S. capital and analyzing political developments that affect the Jewish world. He comes to JTA from The Associated Press, where he worked for more than a decade in its bureaus in Jerusalem, New York, London and, most recently, Washington. He has reported from Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Bosnia and West Africa. While living in Israel, he also worked for the Jerusalem Post and several Jewish organizations.