In the past few years, Mosab has become something of a minor celebrity on right-wing and fundamentalist Christian talk shows. His message varies, but his target is often Islam in general.

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Sep 15 2014 (IPS)

The son of one of the founders of the biggest Palestinian militant group decides to work with Israel. He spends a decade working undercover with the Israeli security service, the Shin Bet, thwarting dozens of Palestinian attacks and contributing significantly to the arrest or elimination of dozens of leading Palestinian militants.

This sounds like the makings of a Hollywood big budget spy thriller. In fact, it is the plot of a documentary, “The Green Prince,” based on the autobiography of Mosab Hassan Yousef."As long as Hamas is digging tunnels and promoting extremism, I don’t see how anyone can co-exist with this type of danger.” -- Mosab Hassan Yousef

Yousef and his handler in the Shin Bet, Gonen Ben Yitzhak, narrate the film, which somewhat frenetically throws together surveillance footage and live interviews. Although the film tries to focus on the growing bond between Ben Yitzhak, “The Handler”, and Yousef, “The Asset,” there is an underlying tension in the film that is only partially due to the sense of overwhelming danger that Yousef faced on a daily basis.

The most obvious question that is raised by the film is “how does the son of Hassan Yousef, who helped found Hamas and is one of its most prominent leaders to this day, become a spy for Israel?”

The film itself offers only a very succinct answer to this question. As a youth, Mosab was arrested by Israel and was tortured in his interrogation, which was also when he was identified as a potential mole.

He was then sent to prison, where he witnessed far worse torture by Hamas activists, including murder, against fellow Palestinians they suspected might be Israeli agents. This, he said, convinced him to take up the Shin Bet’s offer to work for them.

Indeed, it seems that Mosab’s disillusionment with the Palestinian leadership runs much deeper than just antipathy toward Hamas. In the film, Hamas is the focus, but in the wake of Israel’s recent devastation of the Gaza Strip, the absence of the difficulties of occupation in the film is even more keenly felt. Yet Mosab very much holds to the Israeli view of recent events.

“Palestinians can continue to export their internal problems and blame Israel, but at the end of the day, they have bigger problems than occupation,” he told IPS. “There is corruption, greed, and mismanagement; those are actual enemies of Palestinian people.

“If they can come to a higher conscience where they can see violence is not the way, but negotiations and co-existence is the higher path to achieve their freedom, then the international community will trust them and build bridges. But as long as Hamas is digging tunnels and promoting extremism, I don’t see how anyone can co-exist with this type of danger.”

In fact, in the past few years, Mosab has become something of a minor celebrity on right-wing and fundamentalist Christian talk shows. His message varies, but his target is often Islam in general.

In 2010, on the Canadian news show, Power and Politics, Mosab told a shocked host that “The problem is much bigger than Hamas, the problem is in the God of Islam…he is a god of torture, he is the deceit god, this is what he talks (sic) about himself.”

More recently, on Sep. 6, in the aftermath of the massive destruction by Israel in Gaza, Mosab told Fox News that “I recommend that we stop saying ISIS, this is the Islamic State, this is the Islamic dream, and this is the manifestation of the Qur’anic verses on the ground.”

This echoes the views he has espoused several times as a guest on the far-right wing Sean Hannity show.

When talking with Pat Robertson on his Christian Broadcasting Network in 2010, which caters to the most extreme of Christians in the United States, Mosab continually spoke of his love of Jesus and how Jesus was the only true path to peace.

This would displease many Jews who have come to adore him, not only for his story but for stances like the one the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported him telling an orthodox Jewish crowd in 2011.

“There is no room for another state in that small country [of Israel],” he said. “The Jewish nation has the historic right to that land [in] the West Bank…The Israeli historic right to this land is obvious and clear to any person who can read.”

All of this raises some real questions about Mosab’s motivations, and indeed how sincere the story we saw in the film was. “The Green Prince“ shows a man who made a difficult choice but believed he was doing it to save lives. The film does note that Mosab converted to Christianity, but gives no hint of his deep antipathy toward Islam.

What we do see in the film, quite clearly, is the growing bond between Mosab and his Shin Bet handler, Gonen Ben-Yitzhak.

Ben-Yitzhak, now a lawyer in Israel after losing his job with the Shin Bet, echoes Yousef’s view that the Palestinians are to blame for the perpetuation of the conflict, although Ben-Yitzhak has a somewhat less idealized view of Israel.

“Look, I’m not pleased with all Israeli policies,” Ben-Yitzhak told IPS. “But now, Palestinians need to find a way to develop. But for many years, they are stuck with bombing and terrorism and violence. Many (people around the world) criticize Israel, but can you compare occupation to blowing up people on a bus? What is the comparison, what are the values that make him blow himself up?

“I’m sure he doesn’t share any values with you… My grandparents, although they suffered and left family in Europe, took responsibility to build a new future, rather than wait for an outside power, a miracle to change their lives. The biggest problem the Palestinians have is that they don’t take responsibility for their own lives, waiting [instead] for the outside world to do something.”

Clearly, Mosab and Gonen built a strong and devoted bond. They both believe that their friendship can be a model for co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

“I don’t see a big difference between Israelis and Palestinians,” Gonen told IPS. “When I worked with Shin Bet, I was working with people. I didn’t see a Palestinian as anything but a human being. If we all look at each other as human beings, not as Israelis, Palestinians, occupier and occupied, we can solve these problems.” Mosab put forth a similar sentiment.

Yet it seems that this coming together only happened because Mosab fully came over to the Israeli worldview, and a somewhat extreme one at that. This accounts for some of the discomfort in the film, where one has the feeling that there is a lot that is being omitted. Mosab’s and Gonen’s relationship seems more like a blueprint for surrender than for co-existence.

Editing by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at plitnickm@gmail.com

National Security Adviser Susan Rice was interrupted by a protester who shouted “End the siege on Gaza." Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Jul 30 2014 (IPS)

Pro-Israel activists assembled a huge crowd and a long list of congressional leaders and diplomats to declare their unconditional support for Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip on Monday, largely downplaying  tensions between Jerusalem and Washington.

Key congressional figures from both the Republican and Democratic Parties echoed similar views: that Israel was exercising its inherent right of self-defence, that the entire blame for the hostilities lies with Hamas, and reminding the audience, in a thinly veiled message to U.S. President Barack Obama, that Hamas is backed by Iran.Many of the speakers brought up Iranian sponsorship of Hamas, despite the fact that the relationship between them splintered after Hamas declared its support for the rebels in Syria.

Obama was represented at the event here, dubbed the National Leadership Assembly for Israel, by his national security adviser, Susan Rice.

Her address was interrupted by a protester, Tighe Berry, who shouted “End the siege on Gaza,” and held up a sign with the same words. Berry was joined by a handful of protesters outside the building from the pro-peace activist group, Code Pink.

After the protester was removed by force, Rice delivered the White House view that a ceasefire was of the utmost urgency in Gaza and Israel.

“The United States supports an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire,” Rice said. “That humanitarian ceasefire should lead to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the agreement of November 2012.”

That statement was distinct from the Israeli stance and that of almost all of the speakers at this event. Although Israel accepted an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire several weeks ago along similar lines, it is now insisting on first eliminating any tunnels in Gaza which lead into Israel and taking steps to disarm Hamas before halting its operations.

Robert Sugarman, the chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which spearheaded this gathering, set the tone with his opening remarks to the overflow crowd.

“We must continue to support the decisions of the government [of Israel], whatever our personal views may be,” Sugarman said. “And we must continue to urge our government to support [the decisions of the Israeli government] as well.”

While most of the speakers did not state any direct opposition to the Obama administration’s policy, virtually all of them stressed the view that Hamas must be disarmed and that the Netanyahu government must have unqualified U.S. support.

John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one of President Obama’s leading political opponents, came closest to squarely criticising the president, by tying the crisis in Gaza to Iran.

“We will continue to push this administration to address root cause of conflict in the Middle East,” Boehner said. “What we’re seeing in Gaza is a direct result of Iran sponsored terrorism in the region. This is part of Iran’s long history of providing weapons to Gaza-based terror organizations, which must come to an end. Israel’s enemies are our enemies. As long as I’m Speaker, this will be our cause.”

Many of the speakers brought up Iranian sponsorship of Hamas, despite the fact that the relationship between them splintered after Hamas declared its support for the rebels in Syria, fighting against Iran’s key ally in the region, Bashar al-Assad.

Nonetheless, for many of the speakers, the connection provided a bridge to connect the fighting in Gaza to Congress’ scepticism about diplomacy with Iran over the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.

But ongoing tensions between the Obama administration and the government of Israel inevitably made their way into the room.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Dermer tried to balance a conciliatory tone with Israel’s determination to continue its operations in Gaza despite calls from the United States and most of the international community for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

“Israel has uncovered dozens of tunnels whose sole purpose is to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians. Israel will continue to destroy these tunnels and I’m sure the Obama administration understands this,” Dermer said.

“Everyone understands that leaving these tunnels is like seizing 10,000 missiles and handing them back to Hamas. That is not going to happen. We will not stop until that job is done. Israel believes that a sustainable solution is one where Gaza is demilitarized, rockets are removed, and the tunnels destroyed so Hamas cannot rearm in another year or two. We appreciate that all U.S. leaders have supported us.”

But Dermer also delivered a message of moderate conciliation in the wake of very harsh criticism in Israel of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry after the alleged text of a ceasefire proposal from Kerry was leaked to the Israeli media.

“I am speaking now for my prime minister,” Dermer said. “The criticism of Secretary Kerry for his good faith efforts to advance a ceasefire is unwarranted. We look forward to working with the United States to advance goal of a ceasefire that is durable.”

Rice also addressed the criticism of Kerry. “We’ve been dismayed by some press reports in Israel mischaracterising [Secretary Kerry’s] efforts. We know these misleading reports have raised concerns here at home as well.

“The reality is that John Kerry, on behalf of the United States, has been working with Israel every step of the way to support our shared interests. Both in public and private, we have strongly supported Israel’s right to defend itself. We will continue to do so and continue to set the record straight when anyone distorts facts.”

Rice’s defence of Kerry did not seem to ruffle many feathers in the audience. But the next day, a new controversy arose in Israel when several Israeli radio stations reported on a leaked transcript of a phone call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama. Israel’s Channel 1 reported that Obama “behaved in a rude, condescending and hostile manner” toward Netanyahu in the call.

Both the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office flatly denied the reports.

“[It is] shocking and disappointing [that] someone would sink to misrepresenting a private conversation between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister in fabrications to the Israeli press,” said an official statement from the Prime Minister’s Twitter account.

Identical language was employed by the United States National Security Council over their own Twitter account. “The…report is totally false,” added White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

Editing by: Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at plitnickm@gmail.com

The announcement this week of a new Palestinian unity government was greeted with cautious optimism by most of the world, outside of Israel. In the United States, however, it set off political rumblings that threaten to swell into a storm.

The decision by the Obama Administration to maintain its relationship with the Palestinian Authority for the time being drew an unusually sharp rebuke from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I’m deeply troubled by the announcement that the United States will work with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas,” Netanyahu told The Associated Press.

But the United States decided that the mere support by Hamas of a technocratic government was not sufficient reason to cut off aid and contact with the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. position is far more sceptical, however, than those of the European Union, United Nations, Russia, China, India, Turkey, France and United Kingdom, all of whom explicitly supported the unity government.“Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government, but we’ll be watching closely to ensure that it upholds the principles that President Abbas reiterated” – U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki

The matter may become even more controversial in the future for the United States. Unlike any of the other countries which are maintaining their support of the Palestinian Authority, the United States has laws which limit support for a Palestinian government that is either controlled or “unduly influenced” by Hamas. That is not currently the case, but it very well could be if Palestinian elections, which were a part of the unity agreement, are held.

Following Netanyahu’s criticism of the U.S. stance, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) urged the United States to reconsider its relationship to the Palestinian Authority.

“(President Abbas) chose to align with Hamas.” AIPAC said in a statement. “U.S. law is clear – no funds can be provided to a Palestinian government in which Hamas participates or has undue influence.  We now urge Congress to conduct a thorough review of continued U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the law is completely followed and implemented.”

Since none of the ministers or current members of the Palestinian cabinet are also members of Hamas, there is no legal obligation to review, much less suspend, aid to the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, if there were a real threat to aid to the Palestinian Authority, it is not clear that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups would support it.

In the past, such groups have been reluctant to see aid to the Palestinian Authority cut, fearing that the likely result would be its collapse, which would greatly magnify the security and administrative burden on Israel, which would have to administer such matters in the West Bank directly.

Nonetheless, members of Congress are not happy that the United States was so quick to approve of the new Palestinian government. Eric Cantor, a Republican and the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, called on President Obama to immediately suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority pending a review.

“The Administration, in consultation with Congress, should initiate an immediate review of this new government,” Cantor’s statement said. “Until such time that it is determined that assistance to this so-called technocratic government is consistent with our own interests, principles, and laws it is incumbent on the Administration to suspend U.S. assistance.”

While Republican baiting on this issue was surely expected, Obama will face an uphill battle even within his own party. Representative Nita Lowey, the Ranking Democrat on the important House Appropriations Committee, offered only tepid support to Obama’s position. “As long as Hamas rejects the Quartet principles and the existence of the State of Israel, United States funding for this unity government is in jeopardy,” Lowey said.

“I still believe that the United States should continue its policy of promoting negotiations to achieve an independent state for the Palestinian people living side by side with Israel in peace and security,” she added.

The 2014 Appropriations Act clearly does limit the aid that the United States can give to the P. Palestinian Authority if Hamas controls or “has undue influence” over it. But the current government does not meet that standard.

“The law as currently drafted at least maintains the pretence of an opening to Palestinian reconciliation,” Lara Friedman, Director of Policy and Government Relations for Americans For Peace Now told IPS. “It in no way threatens or requires punishing the PA for simply seeking such reconciliation; to the extent that negative ramifications for reconciliation are threatened, such ramifications are triggered by the character of the government or entity that comes out of reconciliation efforts, not the fact of the reconciliation itself.”

That is completely consistent with the U.S. stance, as articulated by State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: “Moving forward, we will be judging this government by its actions. Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government, but we’ll be watching closely to ensure that it upholds the principles that President Abbas reiterated today.”

It is unlikely that Congress is going to take immediate action, but the battle lines ahead of a Palestinian election have been drawn. If the technocratic Palestinian Authority continues indefinitely, Congress may not go beyond bombastic statements. But if an election is held and, as is overwhelmingly likely, Hamas wins a significant presence in the new government, Congress will have the tools it needs to press for a major cut in aid to the Palestinians. It is clear that this is not something the Obama Administration desires, and many believe it is not good strategy.

“Serious analysts of the Israel-Palestinian conflict have long understood that a permanent, negotiated settlement would require agreement between a legitimate and popular Israeli government and a legitimate and popular Palestinian Authority,” Professor Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University told IPS.

“Israel’s long-term security would be best guaranteed by the creation of a competent, authoritative, and generally legitimate Palestinian government that could keep order and protect the Palestinians against both Israeli repression and also their own extremists.  Such a government could not happen, however, as long as there were deep divisions between Fatah and Hamas.  Accordingly, the unity agreement is a useful preliminary step.”

For the moment, pragmatism seems to be trumping jingoism. But the harsh rhetoric that Israel and its supporters in the United Stated have employed suggests that if the Palestinians do take the next step and actually elect a new government, the Obama Administration may be unable to maintain its relationship with them.

Kerry’s comments came on the heels of Israel, the Palestinians and the United States all making statements and taking actions that seemed to draw a curtain on the latest peacemaking efforts. Ralph Alswang/cc by 2.0

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Apr 28 2014 (IPS)

In the wake of the collapse of U.S.-led peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the angry rhetoric around this conflict has only escalated.

After days of mutual recriminations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ignited a controversy by telling a gathering of world leaders at the Trilateral Commission in Washington that Israel is now running the risk of becoming “an apartheid state.”“Kerry is four years behind Ehud Barak and seven years behind Ehud Olmert in acknowledging that Israel meets the conditions that define Apartheid." -- Rebeccca Vilkomerson

Kerry was stressing how important a two-state solution is for Israel’s concerns. He was explaining why he believed a one-state outcome of the conflict was not in Israel’s best interests.

He told the gathered leaders that “…a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens – or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.”

After the web site, The Daily Beast, reported Kerry’s statements, some of Israel’s most right-wing supporters were outraged and called for Kerry’s removal from his post.

“It is no longer enough for the White House to clean up after the messes John Kerry has made,” the neoconservative, self-styled Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) said in a statement. “It is time for John Kerry to step down as Secretary of State, or for President Obama to fire him.”

Other leading supporters of Israeli policies were disturbed by Kerry’s use of “apartheid,” while stopping short of ECI’s call.

David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, told the Daily Beast that “the use of the word ‘apartheid’ is not helpful at all. It takes the discussion to an entirely different dimension.”

Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists have claimed for years that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip amounts to an apartheid regime. For many of them, Kerry’s statement is a long-awaited breath of realism, even if it still leaves them wanting more.

“Kerry was stating the obvious,” Professor Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, told IPS. “It would be helpful and entirely healthy if this became a habit for American diplomats.

“They could also say that the unceasing expansion of Israeli settlements is incompatible with a two-state solution, and a clear sign that the Israel government has no intention of allowing a sovereign Palestinian state,” Khalidi continued.

“They could state unambiguously that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to self-determination, sovereignty and independent statehood in their historic homeland, and that they do not need anyone’s permission in order to seek to exercise these rights. I unfortunately do not expect any such statements in the near future.”

But not all supporters of Palestinian rights see Kerry’s statement in the same way.

Nadia Hijab, senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, doesn’t view the apartheid issue as a threat to Israel’s future, as Kerry frames it, but rather as an oppressive reality that Palestinians currently experience.

“I see Kerry’s remarks as wholly protective of Israel and unconcerned about the Palestinians,” Hijab told IPS.

“He seems unaware that Israel is close to being an apartheid state vis-a-vis its Palestinian citizens [within Israel]. What he wants from a two-state solution is to defend ‘Israel’s capacity to be a Jewish state’ – which would enable it to maintain its apartheid-like practices toward its Palestinian citizens.”

After Kerry’s apartheid comment stirred controversy, the U.S. State Department scrambled to contain the outbreak.

“Secretary Kerry, like [Israeli] Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state,” State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Rebeccca Vilkomerson, executive director of the progressive U.S. group, Jewish Voice for Peace, which is deeply critical of both Israeli and U.S. policies, sees some indication of long-delayed progress in Kerry’s comments.

“Kerry is four years behind Ehud Barak and seven years behind Ehud Olmert in acknowledging that Israel meets the conditions that define Apartheid,” Vilkomerson told IPS.

“That such a high-ranking U.S. official would use the term shows that the Obama administration, and the broader foreign policy community, is losing patience with Israel.  This may be an indicator that we are moving into a new phase of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that the message of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is having a significant impact.”

The more centrist, “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group, J Street put Kerry’s words in a similar context to Psaki’s.

“Israel today is not an apartheid state, and that’s not what John Kerry is saying,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami told IPS.

“For over a year now, Kerry has argued that, without a two-state solution, Israel is risking its future and its values as it moves toward permanent rule over millions of Palestinians without equal rights.

“Former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have used the ‘apartheid’ term as well to describe this possible future.  Instead of putting energy into attacking Secretary Kerry, those who are upset with the secretary’s use of the term should put their energy into opposing and changing the policies that are leading Israel down this road.”

Kerry’s comments came on the heels of Israel, the Palestinians and the United States all making statements and taking actions that seemed to draw a curtain on the latest peacemaking efforts.

After Israel refused to follow through with a planned release of prisoners, and announced new construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem instead, the Palestinians applied to some 15 international treaties and organisations, further angering Israel.

When Israel announced renewed sanctions against the Palestinians, the situation flared up again when the Palestinian Authority and Hamas agreed to move forward with past agreements to reunify their government.

U.S. President Barack Obama declared that it was time for a “pause” in Middle East peacemaking shortly thereafter. This was the situation that Kerry was addressing with his words at the Trilateral Commission.

The Palestinian reconciliation agreement was controversial in itself, as the Israeli government immediately declared that any Palestinian leadership that was associated in any way with Hamas was one Israel would not deal with.

But many believe that Palestinian reunification is necessary if there is to be any real progress, now or in the future, in resolving this conflict.

“I think the reconciliation agreement is more of an acknowledgement from Abbas that the U.S. has utterly failed, yet again, in its efforts and he is embarking on creating a positive legacy before exiting the political theatre,” Palestinian-American businessman and activist Sam Bahour told IPS.

“If the reconciliation reaches the point of elections, it can be a game changer… Anyone serious about resolving this conflict must view the Palestinian people as a single unit, from Ramallah to Santiago, passing through the Galilee, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan too. Political agency is of utmost priority today so a sustainable path forward can actually be crafted with some legitimacy.”

Gaza women demonstrate to demand release of their loved ones in prison in Israel. Credit: Mohammed Omer/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Mar 4 2014 (IPS)

The failure of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians could lead to a significant shift in public opinion in the United States regarding Israel’s future, according to a new poll released Monday.

When asked about two options in the event the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict was no longer on the table, 65 percent of U.S. citizens said they preferred a democratic state where Jews and Arabs are equal, against only 24 percent who supported “the continuation of Israel’s Jewish majority even if it means that Palestinians will not have citizenship and full rights.”"We always assume that pro-Israel means people will accept immoral situations if they have to and that’s not true.” -- Shibley Telhami

The Barack Obama administration has repeatedly warned both parties that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution to their conflict is closing.

This is widely understood to be driving the frenetic efforts by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to cobble together a framework for further talks which he hopes would culminate in a permanent status agreement by the end of 2014. But should these efforts fail, the United States has no alternative to the current two-state formula.

The poll, commissioned by pollster Dr. Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, indicates that, as Telhami said, “if the two-state solution fails, the conversation among the American public might shift to that of a one-state solution as the next-best thing.”

In that context, United States citizens hold the value of one person, one vote very strongly. Telhami told IPS that this value was held even among those polled who felt the United States should be favouring Israel over the Palestinians in negotiations.

“We asked if you want the U.S. to lean toward Israel, towards the Palestinians or to stay neutral. As usual, two-thirds want the United States to be neutral and among the rest, most want it to lean toward Israel. So we asked that segment what they would do if the two-state solution was no longer an option. And we still got 52 percent of that segment who would support one state with equal citizenship.

“We always assume that pro-Israel means people will accept immoral situations if they have to and that’s not true,” Telhami continued. “A lot of people try to reconcile their support for the cause with their moral view of the world and that view is antithetical with occupation or inequality for many of these people.

“So for them, two states is a way out, where they can say ‘I’m not paying too much attention to occupation now because it will be going away.’ But if the two-state solution goes away then the status quo looks permanent and I think people, even the segment that primarily cares about Israel, will have an issue with that.”

The possibility of the two-state solution finally collapsing seems stronger with each passing day. Despite some positive statements from Kerry and Obama, the sentiments that have been expressed by both Israeli and Palestinian leadership have, almost from the beginning, been pessimistic and accusatory, with each side seeming to jockey for position to avoid blame for what they have portrayed as the inevitable failure of the U.S.-brokered efforts.

On Monday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the leader of the left-wing Israeli Meretz party that there is strong opposition within the Palestinian Authority to continuing talks beyond the agreed upon deadline of Apr. 29.

Abbas has repeatedly stated that ongoing Israeli settlement construction makes negotiations very difficult for Palestinians and sends the message that while the Palestinian leadership talks with Israel, the Israelis are simply taking the West Bank through settlement expansion.

Bolstering Abbas’ case, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics released a report on Monday which stated that starts on new settlement building in the occupied West Bank increased by 123.7 percent in 2013.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who arrived in Washington on Monday for a meeting with President Obama and the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), accused the Palestinians of not doing enough to advance peace talks and called on them to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu vowed to stand firm against pressures on him to make compromises on what he referred to as “our crucial interests. “

Given these stances, it seems there is little hope for Kerry’s dogged efforts. Obama warned of the consequences of failure in an interview published Sunday with Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg when he said “if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction…If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

Indeed, this poll shows that even within the United States, fallout will be a factor.

“Americans still have a generally favourable view of Israel and think it ought to live in peace and security,” Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, told IPS.

“But much of that support is fairly soft, and most Americans do not support backing Israel no matter what it does. This latest poll confirms that basic view, and suggests that Israel cannot count on deep U.S. support if peace talks fail and its control over the West Bank and/or Gaza becomes permanent.”

But Leon Hadar, lecturer in Israel Studies at the University of Maryland and senior analyst with Wikistrat, disagrees and believes this poll does little but satisfy the “wishful thinking of some.”

“My guess is that most Americans would support the establishment of a democratic and liberal system here, there and everywhere, including in Saudi Arabia, Congo, and certainly China,” Hadar told IPS.

“But the main problem is that there is no constituency in the U.S. or for that matter among the Israelis and the Palestinians advancing such a formula. That’s very different from the South Africa story when you had powerful constituencies in this country, including Congress, pushing for that.”

Telhami disagrees. “It may not have a direct impact on foreign policy. I don’t expect even 80 percent support for a single, democratic state will mean the White House and State Department will suddenly support it. But it results in a lot of civil society pressure.

“U.S. foreign policy is based on a lot of considerations, and domestically it is more responsive to groups that are better organised and today that means groups that are supportive of Israeli government positions. But I think the discourse itself will alter the priorities and put a lot of strain on the relationship.

“This will mean pushing the government to act on this issue. We see it now, with academic boycotts and boycotting of settlement products. Those things can happen at a level that changes the dynamic of policymaking.”

Um Abed plants an olive tree in support of Palestinian farmers. Credit: Eva Bartlett/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Feb 1 2014 (IPS)

Twenty years of the Oslo peace process between Israelis and Palestinians have made a solution more difficult to attain, rather than easier. That was the conclusion of a poll of Israelis and Palestinians released on Friday.

The poll, conducted by Zogby Research Services, showed that barely one-third of Israelis (34 percent) and Palestinians (36 percent) still believe that a two-state solution is feasible. And, while the two-state solution remains the most popular option among both peoples, that support is much stronger among Israelis (74 percent) than among Palestinians (47 percent)."With all the cynicism and scepticism that has built up on both sides, we are seeing this wave of opposition to anything that is seen as ‘normalisation'." -- Lara Friedman

Lead pollster and President of both Zogby Research Services and the Arab American Institute, Jim Zogby, sees these results as very troubling and as boding ill for the potential for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to salvage the two-state solution. For Zogby, it comes back to the basic inequality between Israelis and Palestinians and that the process is not framed to accommodate this reality.

“The way the two-state solution has been framed in the dominant narrative, it is defined by Israeli needs, not Palestinian needs,” Zogby told IPS. “If I had added details to the question of a two-state solution such as the 1967 borders [as the basis for territorial negotiations] and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, Israelis would have been less supportive.

“Israelis always poll in favour of negotiations, but are less favourable regarding specific outcomes,” Zogby continued. “Palestinians support outcomes more but support negotiations less because they don’t trust the process. But when you’re in the dominant position, as Israel is, your attitudes are framed by the fact that you’re in control.”

The poll was released just as rumours swirled around Kerry’s efforts, which are expected to produce a framework proposal that Kerry will present to the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships in the next few weeks. While few observers have expressed much hope about the potential for success, Kerry has pressed both sides to work to agree to use his plan as a framework for ongoing talks, despite the reservations they are sure to have.

Whether either or both sides will agree to that remains unclear, however.

Khaled Elgindy, a fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, believes the Zogby poll supports Kerry’s view, widely shared, that if current efforts fail, the two-state solution is in serious jeopardy.

“The poll is consistent with my sense that a Palestinian consensus in the West Bank and Gaza Strip around a two-state solution is beginning to collapse,” Elgindy said in Washington, at the presentation of the poll. “On the Israeli side, [this is reflected by] the views of young Israelis being much more antipathetic to a negotiated settlement. Both of those trends do not bode well for a negotiated TS agreement.

“The framework agreement that is being discussed is so vague as not be an agreement. If we are this far into the process and the two-state solution really hangs in the balance, it’s not a time to be vague. I think it’s clear that if we cannot say [there will be] a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, if we cannot draw a map instead of talking about percentages of land, if we cannot define these issues, then it’s more of the same because these issues don’t get easier, they get harder.”

The poll showed that, in contrast to Palestinians whose views are generally similar across the generations, younger Israelis have harder line positions than older ones. This is one reason why so many like Elgindy believe that the opportunity for a two-state solution is almost at an end. Zogby believes there are several reasons for this split between younger and older Israelis.

“The disproportionately large number of children born to Orthodox and settler families in part accounts for the shift,” Zogby told IPS. “Israel is the only country where we poll that younger people’s attitudes are less progressive than older. The birth rate among the different groupings in part accounts for that.

“The other thing is that the dominant narrative in Israel is that they might reflect back and say I was hopeful, that’s not the way the press and dominant media tells the story so it may not be the way that it is viewed. Palestinians may look back and see it in a more positive light. Even though events may not have moved in a more positive direction, the narrative may have been that it was more hopeful. Neither side sees it positively, but there is a difference in how they reflect on it. The youth gap in Israel reflects this because they pick up on how the story is told because they haven’t experienced it directly.”

Lara Friedman, the director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now, agrees. “It isn’t surprising that you have on the Israeli side a growing demographic bump in folks who are ideologically opposed to this,” Friedman said in response to the poll.

“The generation of Israelis who came to the Palestinians in the era of the peace process were much better equipped. We’ve lost those connections in the generation since Oslo. The generation that came to Oslo knew Palestinians. Israelis shopped in Ramallah, there was no separation barrier, and people knew each other. It’s very different today. With all the cynicism and scepticism that has built up on both sides, we are seeing this wave of opposition to anything that is seen as ‘normalisation.’”

Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have stated that they would put any agreement to a referendum among their respective peoples. When asked if they held out hope, only 11 percent of Palestinians and 39 percent of Israelis said they did.

But, when asked if they would support an agreement if their respective leaders endorsed it, 55 percent of Israelis and 49 percent of Palestinians said they would do so, while only 19 percent of Israelis and 28 percent of Palestinians said they would not.

Those results seem to imply that Friedman was correct when she said, “I believe that when there is a deal and people are presented with the possibility of ending this…I think opinions shift very quickly.”

But Kerry’s proposed framework would only map out future discussions. Palestinians have been insistent that they have had enough of endless discussions with no change on the ground aside from the ever-expanding Israeli settlements.

That is why Friedman, an ardent supporter of the two-state solution, also says that “…many of us believe that we need to get to a deal and do it. Leaving more time, constructive ambiguity and ‘confidence-building’ was the death of confidence [between the two sides]. Confidence can be built after the divorce — that is the lesson of the last 20 years.”

But it doesn’t seem that getting to a deal quickly is Kerry’s intent in the short term. And it certainly seems like time has just about run out.

When one writes a book about Israel, one must expect that it will be analysed not for its quality but for its ideological bent.

The critique will generally be based on whether or not the work is “balanced,” which usually means whether the reviewer feels their own point of view was given a fair hearing in the book. On this basis, Max Blumenthal’s new book, “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel”, was doomed to failure before it was ever published.

But that expectation, which seems so especially prevalent for any book about Israel, is bound to fail because Blumenthal’s book is not an attempt to ask what Israel is. Rather, it is an effort by a journalist to answer the question of why Israel is what it is today.

The bulk of Blumenthal’s research was done simply by being in Israel and talking to the people there. He offers us a series of snapshots that don’t reveal new and hidden facts about the issues that made headlines in Israel, and often beyond, during his four years of research for this book.

Rather, they sum up and coalesce into a picture of an Israel drifting increasingly to the right, descending into fascism and with an opposition that is increasingly being boxed in and weakened.

Blumenthal’s critics have ruefully admitted that his reportage in “Goliath” is factually accurate. Instead, they have complained that Blumenthal’s editorialising (which he doesn’t do a lot of in the book, but certainly there is enough to make his readers very clear about his own opinions) and selection of stories paints a distorted picture of Israel.

There’s a better critique available of the book, although it’s certainly not one Blumenthal’s many detractors would prefer. If we accept that Blumenthal is making no attempt to paint a full picture of Israel but rather is trying to examine what Israel’s right-wing orientation and drift toward extremism looks like and why the country is moving in such a direction, then a better question to ask is what might be done about it.

This, too, is not the theme of Blumenthal’s book, but it is one that seems more of a natural fit in the work, and one whose absence is much more keenly felt.

It is quite possible that I shared an experience with those attacking Blumenthal, but for a different reason. No doubt, most of Blumenthal’s critics had an unpleasant experience in reading his book, feeling that Israel was being unfairly maligned and that they, as readers, were being beaten over the head with the evils of Israel.

I understand the feeling. Among my own many trips to Israel and the Occupied Territories, I spent an extended amount of time there at the end of 2008, when Israeli elections coincided with the beginning of the onslaught on Gaza that became known as Operation Cast Lead.

Outside of my circle of Israeli Jewish friends and colleagues, I was thoroughly dismayed at the growing popularity of Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right Russian immigrant whose party advocates the transfer of Israel’s Palestinian citizens to the Palestinian Authority’s rule in their vision of a “two-state solution.”

I was even more disheartened, as bombs fell on Gaza, at the apathy or even hostility I encountered toward the civilian victims, even among relatively liberal Israelis, whenever I struck up a conversation in a coffee house or a taxi.

Goliath brings that same feeling back home, and one feels a keen hopelessness in it, a feeling that is hammered home with every chapter describing the grim situation, and the harsh zeitgeist that increasingly permeates Israel.

In a chapter ironically titled “Change From Within,” Blumenthal describes an Israeli soldier, named only Ben in the book. When Ben’s fellow soldier objects to the use of the word “apartheid” to describe the situation in the completely segregated city of Hebron, where the formerly bustling Shuhadah Street has been largely shut down and closed off to Palestinians because nearby settlers threw rocks, eggs and whatever else they could get their hands on down on shoppers and merchants alike, Ben argues against him.

“It is apartheid,” Ben says. “It is also fascism. It is not just here, but across the West Bank—I’ve seen it. One people controlling another.”

Yet, when Blumenthal asks Ben, who claimed to have requested that his army service be fulfilled in a combat unit so he could spread humanistic values among the soldiers who were most commonly in direct contact with Palestinians, if he will do anything about it upon his release from the army, the answer is no.

Ben will not even give testimony to the group “Breaking the Silence,” made up of Israeli reservists who gather and publish testimonies from fellow soldiers to expose the realities of the occupation. No, Ben plans to return to his studies and become a teacher. Like so many of his fellows, Ben sees the wrongs of the occupation, but will not act upon it.

When set against so many other stories where Blumenthal describes a growing racism both on the street and in the Israeli government, what emerges is utter hopelessness. In another passage, Blumenthal relates an exchange in the Knesset, during a televised session.

Knesset Member (MK) Hanin Zoabi is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, representing the Arab party Balad. She has been a frequent lightning rod for controversy for her anti-occupation and anti-Zionist positions. She is an authentic voice of many of Israel’s over one million Palestinian citizens. MK Tzipi Hotovely is a far-right member of Israel’s leading party, the Likud. Blumenthal reports:

“’I am in favour of removing Knesset members like you from their positions,’ [Hotovely] informed …Zoabi…’The Balad Party should be outlawed.’

“’So the right wing should run the state?’ Zoabi asked.

“’I have news for you,’ Hotovely shot back. ‘The majority of Israel is right-wing…We can change the rules of the game. Until now, people like [Zoabi] have been taking advantage of democracy.’”

On every level, from the government to the street market, the army to the coffee shop, Blumenthal paints a vivid picture of a country sinking further into a quagmire of apartheid, where the right wing is becoming more numerous and extreme and the more liberal forces are either staying silent or being effectively marginalised.

That picture is accurate as far as it goes. Anyone who has been to Israel and stepped outside the pleasant bubble of apolitical cosmopolitanism that most visitors comfortably remain in during their time in Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem and Haifa, would be dishonest if they say it is not accurate. But that accurate picture falls short of being groundbreaking.

Most readers of Blumenthal’s book are not likely to be changed by it. Those who already consider Israeli policies to be tantamount to apartheid will appreciate the book. Those who defend Israel’s policies or who generally oppose harsh measures on Israel to end its occupation will revile it.

For a group of people who might be swayed in Blumenthal’s direction, a way forward needs to also be part of it. It is one thing to write a series of articles reporting on Israel’s misdeeds; it is quite another to assemble a 400-page book which describes a problem but offers no solution.

It is worth asking Max Blumenthal, “So, given all that, what are we to do? How are we to activate a protest movement in Israel, or at least move the still fair number of liberal Jews in Tel Aviv and Haifa to break their silence?”

Indeed, Blumenthal himself illustrates this very flaw in his book when he interviews the liberal writer David Grossman, a strong proponent of the two-state solution, but who also supports an ethnically Jewish, Zionist state of Israel.

The interview, which is illuminating and largely mutually respectful, ends in a complete disconnect, with Grossman asking Blumenthal to lose his number.

It is a dead end, but there needs to be an alternative path if activists, whatever their ultimate vision, are to persist in trying to divert Israel away from its fascist course.

Blumenthal illustrates the problem well, but only makes a solution more obscure.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to the negotiating table on Thursday, ready to put claims by the United States that it will engage more forcefully in the negotiating process to the test. The talks, which paused for the meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, have been struggling amidst Palestinian complaints of Israeli foot-dragging and the lack of U.S. participation.

Secretary of State John Kerry announces that Ambassador Martin Indyk will serve as the U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations on Jul. 29, 2013. Credit: U.S. State Department

Yet for all the enthusiasm around the revived peace talks, there remains considerable doubt about the prospects for ultimate success. Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund, a non-profit organisation working to raise funds to aid the Palestinian people, believes it unlikely that a permanent agreement will be possible. “Ideally, all parties would like a comprehensive agreement, except Israel wants one on their terms, the Palestinians want on their terms, and the U.S. wants something that can stick,” he told IPS.

“None of these goals are really in line now. Israeli and Palestinian positions are so far apart that the U.S. may want to save face with an interim agreement. It would be in Israel’s interest at very little cost to them but at a high cost to the Palestinians. And this would be a disaster.”

Yet some see hope as dovish lobbying groups are gaining more prominence in Washington. The moderate group J Street appears to have overcome attempts by more hawkish pro-Israel groups, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to marginalise it.

This week, U.S. President Barack Obama dispatched his vice president, Joe Biden, to speak at J Street’s annual conference and rally its supporters behind the peace-making efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry. Biden’s appearance, along with those of Obama’s special envoy Martin Indyk, Israel’s lead negotiator Tzipi Livni and Israeli opposition leader Shelly Yachimovitch, as well as House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, offered strong evidence that J Street has established itself as a significant force here.

“It’s become an accepted notion that there is not only one mass movement lobbying org in DC, which is AIPAC,” Ori Nir, spokesperson for Americans for Peace Now (APN) told IPS. “What J Street can do now, having been around for five years, it can authentically and credibly claim that its positions [supporting robust negotiations for peace] represent the pro-Israel community much more authentically than the traditional leadership. That puts wind in the sails of the Obama administration.”

Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a top Middle East policymaker under former President Bill Clinton, believes there is a real chance for success in the current talks. “We’ve agreed to intensify the talks, and the U.S. will increase its involvement,” Indyk said at the conference. “All the core issues are on the table and our common objective is a final status agreement, not an interim one.

“The parties have agreed to resolve all the issues in nine months,” he continued. “Both sides have negotiated for years. The outline of an agreement is clear. What is needed is leadership and political decisions.” However, Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Affairs, and former senior policy adviser to Oslo Accords architect Yossi Beilin, expressed strong scepticism about the current talks.

“I don’t see [Netanyahu] as having walked toward a realistic two-state solution,” Levy said. “From what I understand there is a refusal to present a map, not even of the borders of the settlement blocs. He wants to not remove any settlements and maintain an ongoing military presence… “I fear that we may repeat some of the old mistakes: an over-emphasis on bilateral negotiations, lack of a frame of reference, and a fetishisation of process [over results].”

J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben Ami, laid out his vision for a two-state solution, emphasising that both sides would have to make sacrifices. On the Israeli side, this includes sharing Jerusalem and evacuating some settlements.

Secretary of State John Kerry announces that Ambassador Martin Indyk will serve as the U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations on Jul. 29, 2013. Credit: U.S. State Department

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Oct 4 2013 (IPS)

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to the negotiating table on Thursday, ready to put claims by the United States that it will engage more forcefully in the negotiating process to the test.

The talks, which paused for the meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, have been struggling amidst Palestinian complaints of Israeli foot-dragging and the lack of U.S. participation."The publics on both sides have hardened their positions in the last 20 years. So the selling of a deal is harder than it was." -- J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami

Yet for all the enthusiasm around the revived peace talks, there remains considerable doubt about the prospects for ultimate success.

Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund, a non-profit organisation working to raise funds to aid the Palestinian people, believes it unlikely that a permanent agreement will be possible.

“Ideally, all parties would like a comprehensive agreement, except Israel wants one on their terms, the Palestinians want on their terms, and the U.S. wants something that can stick,” he told IPS.

“None of these goals are really in line now. Israeli and Palestinian positions are so far apart that the U.S. may want to save face with an interim agreement. It would be in Israel’s interest at very little cost to them but at a high cost to the Palestinians. And this would be a disaster.”

Yet some see hope as dovish lobbying groups are gaining more prominence in Washington. The moderate group J Street appears to have overcome attempts by more hawkish pro-Israel groups, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to marginalise it.

This week, U.S. President Barack Obama dispatched his vice president, Joe Biden, to speak at J Street’s annual conference and rally its supporters behind the peace-making efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry.

Biden’s appearance, along with those of Obama’s special envoy Martin Indyk, Israel’s lead negotiator Tzipi Livni and Israeli opposition leader Shelly Yachimovitch, as well as House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, offered strong evidence that J Street has established itself as a significant force here.

“It’s become an accepted notion that there is not only one mass movement lobbying org in DC, which is AIPAC,” Ori Nir, spokesperson for Americans for Peace Now (APN) told IPS.

“What J Street can do now, having been around for five years, it can authentically and credibly claim that its positions [supporting robust negotiations for peace] represent the pro-Israel community much more authentically than the traditional leadership. That puts wind in the sails of the Obama administration.”

Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a top Middle East policymaker under former President Bill Clinton, believes there is a real chance for success in the current talks.

“We’ve agreed to intensify the talks, and the U.S. will increase its involvement,” Indyk said at the conference. “All the core issues are on the table and our common objective is a final status agreement, not an interim one.

“The parties have agreed to resolve all the issues in nine months,” he continued. “Both sides have negotiated for years. The outline of an agreement is clear. What is needed is leadership and political decisions.”

However, Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Affairs, and former senior policy adviser to Oslo Accords architect Yossi Beilin, expressed strong scepticism about the current talks.

“I don’t see [Netanyahu] as having walked toward a realistic two-state solution,” Levy said. “From what I understand there is a refusal to present a map, not even of the borders of the settlement blocs. He wants to not remove any settlements and maintain an ongoing military presence…

“I fear that we may repeat some of the old mistakes: an over-emphasis on bilateral negotiations, lack of a frame of reference, and a fetishisation of process [over results].”

J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben Ami, laid out his vision for a two-state solution, emphasising that both sides would have to make sacrifices. On the Israeli side, this includes sharing Jerusalem and evacuating some settlements.

On the Palestinian side, it means accepting a de-militarised state, which many Palestinians see as a denial of their full sovereignty, and acknowledging that virtually no Palestinian refugees would return to Israel, a key Palestinian national aspiration.

“The two-state solution is the only solution for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people and the only way we can secure the future of the region for all their children,” Ben-Ami told his supporters.

Asked by IPS if he was concerned that the proposed solution might not prevail in referendums, which both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority have conditionally set as requirements for any final agreement, Ben-Ami said, “The publics on both sides have hardened their positions in the last 20 years. So the selling of a deal is harder than it was.

“I think the ultimate deal will involve sacrifices and compromises. I don’t know what they will be but they will be hard to sell and all of us will have a tough selling job to do and we have to be ready to do that.”

But Husam Zomlot, the executive deputy commissioner for international affairs of the Palestinian Authority, spoke passionately at the conference about the rights of Palestinian refugees.

“Some of [the refugees] want to stay where they are. Some of them might want to resettle somewhere else in a third country. Some of them might want to come back to the State of Palestine. And some of them might want to return to their original homes. But all of them want one thing: full recognition of the Nakba (catastrophe, referring to the dispersion of Palestinians during Israel’s war of independence from 1947-49) that has befallen our people.”

Zomlot cushioned his point by indicating that his own father would not choose to physically return, suggesting that many Palestinian refugees would feel similarly. Still, this issue seems far from easily resolved.

As far as Palestinians are concerned the right of return is a human right,” Munayyer said. “In my view, human rights are not negotiable.”

Israeli settlements, illegal under international law, in the West Bank. Credit: Libertinus/ CC by 2.0

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Aug 28 2013 (IPS)

Israel and its domestic U.S. lobby are already in the early stages of the next 10-year aid package, which would not go into effect until 2017 and will be the first since Congress passed the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, which requires in part that U.S. military aid to Israel ensure that Israel maintains its “Qualitative Military Edge” (QME) over any combination of states and non-state actors.

QME has long been an understood negotiating principle between the United States and Israel, but now that it has been made law, the president is required to report to Congress every four years on Israel’s QME.

That requirement could be an important tool in the lobbying effort around renewing U.S. military aid to Israel, for while that aid is as certain as anything can be in Washington, increasing it currently faces some new obstacles.

“We’re looking at a holistic Mideastern picture, which includes growth of missile arsenals in Lebanon and Gaza,” Michael Oren, the outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the United States, told Defense News. He also pointed to the situations in the Sinai and Syria.

Israel does not oppose U.S. arms sales to “moderate” Arab states but insists that these sales be offset by higher quality sales to Israel. “If America doesn’t sell these weapons, others will,” Oren said. “We also understand the fact that each of these sales contributes to hundreds or thousands of American jobs. And we have an interest in a strong and vital American economy.”

Yet the fact that the U.S. economy remains depressed and its recovery slow has already affected aid to Israel. The sequester, or mandatory budget cuts effective earlier this year, sparked debate within pro-Israel lobbying groups about whether to push for Israel’s aid package to be exempted from the cuts.

The debate highlighted the concern American pro-Israel groups feel about balancing their mission to advocate for a foreign country while not wishing to appear more concerned for that country than their own.

Contradictory finances

Historically, aid to Israel has continued apace during difficult economic times in the United States. But this time, other factors could raise some eyebrows.

The 2008 law, for instance, makes no mention of Israel’s own responsibility to ensure its QME. Rather, it places the onus on the United States to balance arms sales to meet Israel’s needs and uphold Israel’s QME."Israel wants the extra aid but doesn't really need it."
-- Stephen Walt

Israel cut its defence budget in 2013, and the reduction of over 820 million dollars, which is more than 25 percent of the annual aid it currently receives, might raise the question of how Israel can request increased aid while reducing its own budget.

That question is bolstered by the fact that an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report issued in May projected 3.9 percent growth in Israeli gross domestic product (GDP) for 2013 and 3.4 percent for 2014. The average for OECD countries for those two years is 1.2 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.

As Oren indicated, as the United States moves from one financial crisis to another, these conditions could present political problems for lobbyists pushing for more aid. The fact that Israel’s QME is now mandated by law, however, bolsters those lobbyists’ efforts. They no longer have to argue whether the United States should commit additional resources to assure the QME, because the law now demands it.

Settlements

The cuts in defence while Israel’s GDP rises are not the only contradiction Israel needs to overcome in making its case for increased aid. There is also the spectre of settlements in the West Bank.

For years the United States has largely turned a blind eye to ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank, merely criticising them as “obstacles to peace” but taking little action to press Israel to stop their spread.

Secretary of State John Kerry is currently trying to manage ongoing construction, which had been the sticking point preventing the Palestinian Authority from engaging in renewed peace talks, against Palestinian concerns that the spread of settlements moots the peace process.

But the settlements raise another question in the context of the aid request. If the United States objects to settlements and sees them as hurting peace prospects, should it not expect Israel to prioritise its own defence spending, which, given the circumstances Oren described, would seem to be more imperative, over spending on settlements?

The cost of settlements is unclear. In 2005, the Israeli government commissioned an investigation into government funding of so-called “illegal outposts”, settlements established without government authorisation.

The report produced from that investigation concluded that from 2000-2004, the Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing officially spent around 20 million dollars on these unauthorised outposts.

The report’s author, Talia Sasson, bemoaned the impossibility of obtaining complete information and suggested that “the actual sum considerably exceeds the one mentioned,” given that “the sum also does not include money the Ministry of Construction and Housing paid for infrastructure, public buildings and planning in unauthorised” outposts.

According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2011, official spending on Israeli-authorised settlements increased by 38 percent over the previous year, reaching well over 400 million dollars.

That sort of increase in the face of a request for additional aid gives advocates for peace a potentially useful tool, according to Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

“Israel’s demand for a 10-year guarantee gives Obama and Kerry a useful bit of leverage, if they have the political will to use it,” Walt told IPS. “They should make it clear that Israel will get this guarantee if and only if it ends settlement expansion and agrees to the creation of a viable Palestinian state.”

“This is useful leverage because Israel wants the extra aid but doesn’t really need it,” Walt added. “It would retain its military edge for many years even if the U.S. stopped sending any aid at all.  So Obama and Kerry could use this pressure without actually endangering Israel’s security; indeed, by pushing Israel to end the occupation, they would in fact be enhancing it.”

The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was originally established to promote U.S. aid to Israel, a purpose that remains at the heart of its advocacy.

Congress, where AIPAC’s influence is by far the strongest, must ultimately decide whether the president is fulfilling the commitment in the 2008 law to ensure Israel’s QME. That law is likely to play a crucial role in overcoming what appear to be more barriers to increased aid than AIPAC is accustomed to.

A new neighbourhood under construction in the West Bank's Ariel settlement. Credit: Pierre Klochendler/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 2013 (IPS)

Against the backdrop of two major announcements of Israeli settlement expansion, U.S.-brokered peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians resumed Thursday in Jerusalem.

The talks are the result of an intense effort by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to overcome the impasse that has kept talks frozen for nearly three years.

After preliminary meetings in Washington two weeks ago, the parties commenced what is expected to be a nine-month process of talks. But on Sunday, Israel announced that it was moving forward with plans to build nearly 1,200 new housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Many observers believe the timing was meant to forestall heavy opposition to peace talks from within Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition. Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel, a leading pro-settlement hawk, made the view of his faction very clear.

“We will build thousands of homes in the coming year in Judea and Samaria,” Ariel said on Israeli radio, using the biblical term for the West Bank. “No one dictates where we can build … This is just the first course.”

But the timing was aggravating to the Palestinians, who are taking a major political risk by engaging again in peace talks without an explicit Israeli promise to stop settlement construction. This was the sticking point for the Palestinians when they discontinued talks with the Israeli government three years ago, as Palestinian anger at many years of talks while settlements expanded and multiplied neared a boiling point.

Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, says that the problem is the massive imbalance of power between them and Israel.

“It is the Palestinian leadership’s participation in talks under these conditions that would appear to make the least sense, as evidenced by them now having to digest Israel’s new settlement announcements,” he wrote in an op-ed for Al Jazeera.

“Only if the Palestinians at least start to address the asymmetry could they gain from being in negotiations. Indeed, the only chance that the talks themselves will produce anything positive is if the Israeli-Palestinian power imbalance begins to shift.”

Palestinian embarrassment was magnified even more on Monday when Israel announced another 890 units would be built in the settlement of Gilo in East Jerusalem.

Gilo is a particularly sensitive settlement, as Palestinians contend its ongoing expansion is strangling the adjacent Palestinian city of Beit Jala. Israel considers it an integral part of Israeli Jerusalem, despite the fact that it lies beyond the 1967 border.

“It is clear that the Israeli government is deliberately attempting to sabotage U.S. and international efforts to resume negotiations,” Palestinian negotiator Mohammad Shtayyeh told the Associated Press. “Israel continues to use peace negotiations as a smoke screen for more settlement construction.”

Yet Shtayyeh and the rest of the Palestinian negotiating team reported to the talks on Tuesday as scheduled.

The settlement announcements, as well as rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli attacks on the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip in recent days have complicated Kerry’s work. But he said that he had convinced Palestinians President Mahmoud Abbas to stick with the talks because Abbas “is committed to continuing to come to the negotiation because he believes that negotiation is what will resolve this issue.”

While at a stop in Colombia, Kerry addressed the settlement issue, which he said the United States had been apprised of in advance. “As the world, I hope, knows, the United States of America views all the settlements as illegitimate. We have communicated that policy to all of our friends in Israel.”

Kerry seems determined to keep talks going, and certainly gives the impression of matching that determination with a belief that he can succeed despite difficult conditions and the recent obstacles.

While he primarily endeavored to prevent the settlement expansion from derailing the talks, he also, according to reports, communicated the same message to Netanyahu that he gave publicly in Colombia.

Kerry’s efforts have raised hopes among the backers of a two-state solution to the conflict.

Jessica Rosenblum, spokeswoman for the “pro-Israel, pro-Peace” U.S. lobbying group J Street, told IPS that, “The serious and sustained engagement of the administration in achieving a two-state resolution early enough in President Obama’s second term when they still have the time and influence to get it done is a potential game changer.

“What strikes me most about Secretary Kerry’s response is his zealous desire to safeguard the negotiations themselves and give them the space they need to take root and ultimately bear fruit,” Rosenblum added.

Israel released 26 long-term Palestinian prisoners ahead of the talks on Tuesday. The move was highly controversial in Israel, but the Palestinians needed a dramatic gesture to legitimise their participation in talks and this was seen as easier than a settlement freeze.

That decision, which engendered passionate protests by Israeli citizens, shows just how concerned Netanyahu is about the power of the settlers.

Even J Street acknowledges how formidable this obstacle can be, though even there, Rosenblum sees some hope. “Netanyahu has got a serious problem with the settler movement that will only grow worse as the negotiations progress,” she said.

“It’s clear that in order to make the concessions necessary to reach a two-state solution, the prime minister will have to form a new coalition that does not include his far-right flank. The good news for him is that he has already lined up MKs [members of the Knesset] willing to join a coalition that is actively pursuing a two-state solution, so the possibility of his government falling need not weigh in his considerations. “

The current wave of settlement expansion reflects a “map of national priorities,” which Israel released on Aug. 4. That map included funding for many settlements, including some outside the major settlement blocs.

So, despite the very real hope that Kerry’s efforts have engendered in some quarters, observers like former advisor to Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass, are more cynical.

“Economic benefits to isolated settlements scattered deep within the Palestinian territories undermine the possibility of an agreement and make a mockery of the Israeli government’s peace rhetoric,” Weisglass wrote in an op-ed in a leading Israeli daily.

That view seems to be well in the majority, on all sides.

Six months of United States diplomatic efforts have finally restarted talks between Israelis and Palestinians, yet pessimism about their potential for success persists.

On Monday, negotiators from both sides met in Washington for the first time since talks broke off three years ago, amid Israel’s refusal to concede to the Palestinian demand that construction in Israeli settlements, illegal under international law, be suspended during the talks.

The latest round of resuscitated talks was finalised when Israel agreed to release 104 Palestinian prisoners who have been in Israeli prisons for decades. The first group of those prisoners is expected to be released next week, while further releases will occur periodically, depending on the progress of negotiations.

”The talks will serve as an opportunity to develop a procedural work plan for how the parties can proceed with the negotiations in the coming months,” a State Department statement said.

The negotiations are expected to last some nine months, at the end of which the U.S. hopes to have an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on all “final status” issues, including borders, settlements, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and other contentious points.

To manage the process, the United States has appointed its former ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, as lead negotiator. While early indications are that Indyk is an acceptable choice to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, his appointment has also been controversial on all sides.

Hardline supporters of Israeli policy consider Indyk too soft on the Palestinians. When word first leaked of Indyk’s pending appointment a week ago, Israeli Deputy Minister of Defence Danny Danon, a leading opponent of peace with the Palestinians, wrote a letter to Netanyahu opposing Indyk and asking the Prime Minister to “…ask the American administration for an honest broker for these negotiations.”

He bases his opposition to Indyk’s support of the New Israel Fund, a moderate, liberal international Jewish group which has been the focus of a smear campaign, including unsubstantiated accusations of funding “anti-Zionist” programmes in Israel.

Pro-Palestinian forces have also questioned Indyk’s appointment, claiming that his background with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and his years as the first head of the AIPAC-backed Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), show a strong pro-Israel bias.

Finally, many other observers question the wisdom of appointing a figure who was so central to the failed negotiations of the past, particularly in the 1990s, including the disastrous Camp David II summit of 2000, which preceded the start of the second intifada.

With the framework for the talks shrouded in secrecy by US Secretary of State John Kerry, the appointment of Indyk is one of the few indicators for the direction the talks are being steered in, and therefore the main focal point of analysis. Groups which strongly support the continuation of the Oslo process and a strong and immediate push for a two-state solution have come out strongly in support of Indyk.

Debra DeLee, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, said, “Ambassador Indyk is an experienced diplomat and a brilliant analyst. He has the skills, the depth of knowledge, and the force of personality to serve Secretary Kerry as an excellent envoy.

“He knows the issues, he knows the leaders and the negotiators, and he has a proven record of commitment to peace and to a progressive Israel that lives up to its founding fathers’ vision of a state that is both Jewish and a democracy.”

DeLee’s view was echoed by Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group, J Street.

“The negotiations ahead promise to be tough and will require active, determined and creative US leadership and diplomacy if they are to succeed. Ambassador Indyk can bring all these attributes to the task. Secretary of State John Kerry could not have chosen a more qualified envoy.”

But Stephen Walt, professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, is dubious about Indyk’s role.

“There are obvious reasons to be concerned by Indyk’s appointment,” Walt told IPS. “He is passionately devoted to Israel, and began his career in the United States working for AIPAC, the most prominent organisation in the Israel lobby.

“He was among the team of U.S. diplomats who bungled the Oslo peace process during the Clinton administration (1993-2001). He was also a vocal supporter of the invasion of Iraq, which casts serious doubt on his strategic judgment or knowledge of the region. There is no reason for the Palestinians to see him as a true ‘honest broker’.”

Yet while Indyk’s past association with the U.S. pro-Israel lobby has raised eyebrows, few doubt that he is currently much less connected to it than his predecessor as the leading interlocutor with Israel and the Palestinians, Dennis Ross. Ross, who played a central role in U.S. Middle East diplomacy in the administrations of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, is currently a counselor at WINEP.

Walt acknowledges the possibility that Indyk’s position might be different now than it was when he last engaged directly in Israel-Palestine peacemaking.

“Indyk’s views seem to have evolved over time,” Walt said. “He may understand that this is his last chance to make a genuine contribution to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It is also the last chance for a genuine two-state solution, which remains the best of the various alternatives.

“Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians should all hope that he surprises us, and that the elder Indyk behaves in ways that the younger Indyk would have strenuously opposed.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry steps off a helicopter after flying from Amman, Jordan, to Ramallah, West Bank, to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Jul. 19, 2013. Credit: State Department photo/Public Domain

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Jul 23 2013 (IPS)

There is a real opportunity for peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians, even though the obstacles are more formidable than in the past. That was the assessment of former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, speaking Monday at a public event which posed the question “Can the Two-State Solution Be Saved?”

“This is a propitious time because there has been a five-year absence of the two parties coming together and they’ve been very resistant even to accommodation to come together,” Carter said.

“So that’s an encouraging sign. There is great pressure on both leaders not to come to table if [the negotiations are] based on borders. Palestine will ask the U.S. to state [what is] their official position and international law, which is that terms must be [based on] the 1967 borders, and land swaps can only happen in free and fair negotiations.”

But Phyllis Bennis, the director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, thinks the framework for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is inherently flawed and until that changes, there is no chance for successful talks.

“Whatever [U.S. Secretary of State John] Kerry promised to get the two leaders to agree to negotiations, these talks about talks will never break out of their 22-year-long failure until the whole premise changes,” Bennis told IPS.

“You can’t hold talks between a wealthy, powerful, U.S.-backed nuclear-armed occupying power and a dispossessed, impoverished, occupied, unarmed population and pretend they come to the table as equals,” she said.

“It’s not surprising that all sides want to keep the terms secret – [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s cabinet is already rejecting the talks, and [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas has virtually no support for returning to talks while settlement building continues apace. What’s needed is an entirely new kind of diplomacy – not grounded in Israeli power but in international law and human rights.”

Carter also acknowledged that circumstances are quite different than they were when he brokered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

“There was no demand on me to engage in peace talks,” Carter recalled. “But [Egyptian president] Anwar Sadat and [Israeli prime minister] Menachem Begin were strong, courageous, and wise enough to reach an agreement. I think what Secretary Kerry faces now may be more formidable. But the key issue is whether the people will prevail on their leaders to make peace.”

Kerry announced last week that a formula had been found that would bring Israel and the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table after a nearly five-year long hiatus.

But the Palestinians have said they are not yet committed to the new round of talks, as they expect negotiations to be based on the 1967 borders. Israel, for its part, has announced a release of long-held Palestinian prisoners as a good will gesture, but has also been reported to be pressing Kerry to amend the terms of reference to include Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Despite this lack of commitment from the parties, preparations are going forward. Reports from both Washington and Israel indicate that the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, will be named as the lead negotiator for the U.S. team.

And both the Palestinians and Netanyahu have declared that any agreement reached will be subject to a public referendum.

Carter believes the referendum idea is a good one, not only to confirm the legitimacy of any deal that might be struck, but also as added pressure on the leaders to come to an agreement he believes both sides still very much want.

“I think the referendum is a good idea, because Prime Minister Netanyahu also said he would not formalise an agreement without a referendum. This is exactly the same as Hamas’ position,” Carter said referring to the long-held stance by the Islamist leadership in the Gaza Strip.

In December 2010, Gaza’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said, “Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles.”

Carter continued, “I think [a referendum’s] good, because if leaders accept an agreement I think it almost guarantees people back home will accept the same thing.”

Despite the optimism Carter expressed, scepticism surrounding the renewal of talks is dwarfed by that surrounding the chances of such talks succeeding.

Many observers have noted the ongoing divisions between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the continued unwillingness of the United States and Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, and the anti-peace stance of much of Israel’s ruling coalition, including Netanyahu’s own Likud party. All of these factors generate a great sense of pessimism.

Carter believes that if a deal is worked out that the leaders of both sides agreed upon, there would be overwhelming support for it.

After meeting with the leader of J Street, which calls itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group, he said, “I pray that if progress is made toward a two-state solution, it will have support not only on a worldwide basis, but also in America even from those who might not have thought this is possible.” Yet even he recognises major obstacles.

Asked by IPS about Israel’s determination to maintain a long-term presence in the Jordan Valley, something the Palestinians are never likely to accept, Carter said, “The Jordan Valley was never mentioned as being controlled by Israel after peace in my day. We anticipated that Israel would withdraw from all of Palestine east of the green line. I am not sure the Palestinians will ever accept Israeli control of Jordan Valley.”

Carter also stated that Israel’s occupation was a violation of its commitment to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 but that if the 1967 borders were the basis for resumed talks, that would “honour the basic thrust of 242″.

Carter added that Palestinians would have to resign themselves to only a token return of refugees to Israel and that their right of return would have to be exercised only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Samantha Power, U.S. President Barack Obama’s nominee for the post of ambassador to the United Nations, made a strong case for her confirmation Wednesday with strong pro-Israel and interventionist statements that will appeal to many of the hawks in the U.S. Senate.

Samantha Power. Credit: Angela Radulescu/cc by 2.0

Speaking at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Power called defending Israel at the United Nations her top priority.

Listing those priorities, Power said, “First, the U.N. must be fair… The United States has no greater friend in the world than the State of Israel. Israel is a country with whom we share security interests and, even more fundamentally, with whom we share core values – the values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

“America has a special relationship with Israel. And yet the General Assembly and Human Rights Council continue to pass one-sided resolutions condemning Israel above all others…Israel’s legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt… I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it.”

Power’s nomination was initially questioned by some observers, based on comments made over a decade ago which were deemed offensive to Israel.

In 2002, she suggested that if the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which at that time was at a high point of violence, continued to worsen, the United States should consider a large protection force, which she said may mean “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,” a clear reference to the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

Based on that statement, far right-wing and neoconservative groups blasted Power’s nomination in early June. The Republican Jewish Coalition, still reeling from their failed opposition to Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel’s nomination earlier this year, stepped carefully.

Its executive director, Matt Brooks, said that “Samantha Power has a record of statements that are very troubling to Americans who support Israel… She must respond to the strong doubts about her views raised by (her) record…The U.S. has an important role to play in the United Nations to defend freedom, Western values, and our democratic allies.

“We need an ambassador who will fight for U.S. interests in the international arena. Samantha Power must show the Senate and the American people that she can fill that role.”

The Zionist Organization of America went further, largely misrepresenting even her most controversial views by saying that, “Ms. Power’s record clearly shows that she is viscerally hostile to Israel, regards it as a major human rights abuser, even committing war crimes, and would like to see the weight of American military and financial power go to supporting the Palestinian Authority, not Israel. In contrast, she has spoken of Iran as though it scarcely poses a problem.”

But as early as 2008, with Obama in line for the presidency and recognising her own potential for a key role in his administration, Power disavowed her 2002 statements, and reached out to the heart of the pro-Israel lobby.

As described by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who shares with Mitt Romney the dubious distinction of being a failed 2012 Sheldon Adelson-financed Republican candidate, Power addressed a closed-door meeting of Jewish-American leaders and “…became deeply emotional and struggled to complete her presentation as she expressed how deeply such accusations (of her being anti-Israel) had affected her.”

The outreach worked. Hawks lined up in support of Power’s nomination. They included the neo-conservative writer Max Boot, Republican Senator John McCain and the notorious pro-Israel attack dog, Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz expressed the belief that Power was well-positioned to defend Israel at the United Nations. “She’s a perfect choice. A perfect choice,” he said. “She has real credibility to expose the U.N.’s double standard on human rights. She also understands the principle of ‘the worst first’ – you go after the worst human rights abusers first.”

Power’s long-standing support of military intervention was reinforced by her statements about Syria at the hearings. Speaking about perceived failures of the United Nations, Power was also implicitly critical of Obama’s policy regarding the ongoing atrocities in that country.

“We see the failure of the U.N. Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria,” she said. “(It is) a disgrace that history will judge harshly.”

Obama has pursued a careful policy in Syria, condemning the violence of the regime of embattled President Bashar al-Assad, but consistently displaying reluctance to actively intervene in the conflict.

Power has long been identified as a “liberal interventionist”, denoting her liberal credentials along with her belief that military intervention is a preferable option in cases where there is a threat of atrocities being committed. She is widely credited with being a key force in pressing Obama into his intervention in Libya.

Former Senator Joseph Lieberman, a committed hawk who left the Democratic Party in his last years in the Senate over differences regarding foreign policy, offered strong support to Power, drawing a distinction between her views and those of the president who has nominated her.

“Generally speaking from her writings, Samantha is probably more personally interventionist as a matter of American foreign policy based on human rights than this administration has been,” Lieberman said.

Power also struck a friendly chord with the Senate by vowing to press for financial reform at the U.N., a cause that is embraced by many Democrats while being overwhelmingly popular among Republicans. “The U.N. must become more efficient and effective,” Power told the Committee.

“In these difficult budget times, when the American people are facing tough cuts and scrutinising every expense, the U.N. must do the same. This means eliminating waste and improving accounting and internal management…It means getting other countries to pay their fair share. And it means closing down those missions and programmes that no longer make sense.”

Power is also a well-known advocate for human rights. Much of her testimony was devoted to this cause.

“The U.N. Charter calls for all countries ‘to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person.’ But fewer than half of the countries in the world are fully free. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is universally hailed and yet only selectively heeded.”

Even this statement followed the general tone of her testimony, which was often critical of the U.N. and often characterised its best qualities as an extension of U.S. foreign policy.

This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateralism is waning or if this was simply a charm offensive toward a Congress that has become more and more hostile to the U.N.

Um Abed plants an olive tree in support of Palestinian farmers. Credit: Eva Bartlett/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, May 7 2013 (IPS)

The Oslo peace process has failed and Europe must take stronger leadership in the Middle East, according to a distinguished group of former European leaders that is pushing for a stronger and more independent European stance on the Israeli occupation.

And some United States analysts believe the European Union’s current leadership may heed the call."Israel must make its own case to Europeans now. That will not be easy.” -- Former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman

A recent letter from the European Eminent Persons Group (EEPG) to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, is deeply critical of both the EU’s and the United States’ approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict and calls for specific steps to try to save the two-state solution.

The letter was signed by 19 prominent Europeans – amongst them seven former foreign ministers, four former prime ministers and one former president – from 11 European countries, including the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Latvia.

“We have watched with increasing disappointment over the past five years the failure of the parties to start any kind of productive discussion, and of the international community under American and/or European leadership to promote such discussion,” the letter said.

Specifically critical of the U.S.’s role, the letter also stated that President Barack Obama “…gave no indication [in his recent speech in Jerusalem] of action to break the deep stagnation, nor any sign that he sought something other than the re-start of talks between West Bank and Israeli leaders under the Oslo Process, which lost its momentum long ago.”

The EEPG criticised what they referred to as “the erasing of the 1967 lines as the basis for a two-state (solution).” They called for changes in EU policy and some specific steps to promote peace.

They called, among other points, for an explicit recognition that the Palestinian Territories are under occupation, imposing on Israel the legal obligations of that status; a clear statement that all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 border be recognised as illegal and only that border can be a starting point for negotiations; and that the EU should actively support Palestinian reunification.

The notable leaders also called for “a reconsideration of the funding arrangements for Palestine, in order to avoid the Palestinian Authority’s present dependence on sources of funding which serve to freeze rather than promote the peace process,” an acknowledgment that the often praised “economic improvement” in the West Bank has been built on international donations and is not sustainable.

The timing of the letter, sent just after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s most recent trip to the Middle East, was a clear statement that the EEPG does not believe the current round of U.S. diplomacy is likely to achieve significant progress. The letter has received only moderate publicity, yet EEPG’s co-chair, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, believes that the recommendations of the Group can get the long-dormant peace process back on track.

“We have had an acknowledgement from Ashton’s office to say that a response is being prepared,” Greenstock told IPS. “The letter recommends a strategic change, which is a big ask. The first step must be to start a more realistic debate about the poor results from recent policy.  We then hope that our recommendations will get a good hearing.”

Greenstock also expressed confidence that EU leadership can not only contribute to reviving diplomacy but can also help the United States realign its policies toward a more productive track.

“The EEPG recognises that a U.S. role is indispensable,” he said. “But the current American stance is unproductive.  We believe the Europeans can at least lead on exploring some alternatives, which could in the end be helpful to Washington.”

Hard-line pro-Israel voices have long insisted that only the United States should be mediating between Israel and the Palestinians. Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and leading neo-conservative pundit, sharply criticised the letter in his blog.

“This letter is a useful reminder of European attitudes, at least at the level of the Eminent: Blame Israel, treat the Palestinians as children, wring your hands over the terrible way the Americans conduct diplomacy,” Abrams wrote.

“The Israelis will treat this letter with the derision it deserves, and the Palestinians will understand that because this kind of thing reduces European influence with Israel, the EU just can’t deliver much. Indeed it cannot, and the bias, poor reasoning, and refusal to face facts in this letter all suggest that that won’t be changing any time soon.”

But Paul Pillar, a professor in Georgetown University’s Security Studies Programme who spent 28 years as a CIA analyst, thinks Washington might welcome a European initiative along the lines suggested by the EEPG.

“I don’t think that European activism along this line would cause a great deal of heartburn, political or otherwise, in the White House,” Pillar told IPS. “Of course for the United States to take the sorts of positions mentioned in the letter would be anathema to the Israel lobby, and thus the United States will not take them.

“But it would be hard for the Israeli government or anyone else to argue that merely acquiescing in European initiatives is equivalent to the United States taking the same initiatives itself. If the EU were to get out in front in the way recommended by the EEPG, President Obama would say to Netanyahu and others – consistent with what he has said in the past, ‘I have Israel’s back and always will.

“But as I have warned, without peace we are likely to see other countries doing more and more things that challenge the Israeli position.’”

Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and former president of the Middle East Policy Council, believes the EU has lost patience with U.S. policy in the Middle East and that Israel will soon need to contend with an EU that is more demanding than it has been in the recent past.

“The international community has long since lost confidence in American diplomacy in the Middle East,” Freeman told IPS. “Europe is not an exception, as shown in trends in voting at the United Nations.  The ‘peace process’ was once the emblem of U.S. sincerity and devotion to the rule of law; it is now seen as the evidence of American diplomatic ineptitude, subservience to domestic special interests, and political hypocrisy. Europe no longer follows American dictates.

“The EU has its own divided mind. Israel must make its own case to Europeans now.  That will not be easy.”

Greenstock believes the urgency of the moment can lead to firm European action. Asked why the EEPG members are taking bolder stances now than when they were in office, he said: “When most of the signatories were in office, there was still some hope that Oslo-Madrid could produce a result. Time and a lack of recent effective action has changed that.  Almost every observer now thinks that the prospects for a two-state solution are fading.  Hence the urgency.”

Israeli soldiers and police block Palestinians from one of the entrances to the old city in Jerusalem. Credit: Mel Frykberg/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Apr 30 2013 (IPS)

Despite indications that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is committing a substantial amount of time and effort to revive the long-stalled Israel-Palestinian “peace process”, a growing number of experts believe a two-state solution is no longer viable and the lack of a realistic discussion of the issue in the United States is leaving the country without an alternative policy.

In the two months since confirmation in his post, Kerry has made three trips to the region. On Monday, he hosted an Arab League delegation, including the League’s secretary general, the Qatari prime minister and representatives from the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Lebanon."Obama’s failure makes it clear that the U.S. will never be an honest broker." -- Harvard's Stephen Walt

The meeting was aimed at renewing the long-dormant Arab Peace Initiative (API), which promises full normalisation of relations between Israel and all Arab League member states in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967 and a “just resolution” of the Palestinian refugee issue.

Kerry hopes that the API can serve to get Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track.

But those efforts may yet be for naught, according to analysts, some of whom have long championed the two-state solution but who now believe that a combination of U.S. fecklessness and Israel’s establishment of “facts on the ground” in the predominantly Palestinian West Bank have made such a settlement impossible.

“The U.S. public has bought a narrative that is totally dishonest and misrepresents the obvious facts – and what can be more obvious that there can be no peace process if you simultaneously steal the land in question,” Henry Siegman, former national director of the now-defunct American Jewish Congress and current senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and president of the US/Middle East Project, said at a recent talk hosted by the Middle East Institute in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“But the reason the U.S. public is overwhelmingly supportive of the Israeli position is that it is uninformed on geography and world affairs… So it is not surprising that the public accepts a narrative that is totally unrelated to facts on the ground,” he said.

The effect of that distorted narrative is to cripple the United States’ ability to act as an honest broker in this conflict, Siegman said.

“It was always assumed that the United States’ great friendship and support for Israel meant at some point it would say ‘enough’ because if you cross this line, we can no longer invoke our common values – apartheid is not a common value. But the other reason for our failures is that presidents and Congress have never had the courage to act on that reality.”

Philip Weiss, editor of the anti-Zionist web site, Mondoweiss, clarified the reason for that inactivity, and contended that the key place to try and change things is within the U.S. Jewish community.

“The U.S. has allowed this to happen despite knowing Israeli ambitions (to control all of the West Bank) due to the Israel Lobby,” Weiss said. “The Lobby draws its strength from the U.S. Jewish community’s commitment to Zionism… Zionism was once a valid response to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. But the need for Israel to be a Jewish state leads inevitably to the excesses of occupation.”

Professor Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and co-author of the controversial book, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, identified the United States as a major reason for the current impasse.

“The failure of the two-state solution means we have to start considering alternatives,” Walt said. “For the past 15 years or so, the two-state solution was the consensus of the foreign policy community. The problem is that this goal is further away than ever.

“Many believe it is now impossible, due to settlements, the Israeli drift to right and the split [between Fatah and Hamas] among the Palestinians.

“[President Barack] Obama’s failure makes it clear that the U.S. will never be honest broker…That’s why we need alternatives. People will want to know what the U.S. is in favour of instead.”

The “failures” Walt spoke of are not limited to Obama’s first term. Despite a well-received speech during Obama’s first presidential visit to Jerusalem as well as two trips to Israel by Kerry, the divide between Israel and the Palestinians seems more entrenched than ever.

Reports from Israel after Kerry’s visit earlier this month indicated that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Kerry’s formula for dealing with borders and security first as a way to restart talks with the Palestinians.

This cannot be surprising, as Netanyahu’s own party, Likud, as well as two of his three major coalition partners, the Israel Beiteinu and The Jewish Home parties, are strong supporters of the settlement franchise.

Kerry’s strategy to encourage progress through Palestinian economic growth was deeply undermined by the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad just after that same visit.

While Kerry insisted that his economic initiative was not meant to replace a political peace process, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted on focusing on the political issues such as Israeli settlements and the fates of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Even Kerry’s attempt to build on the progress Obama made in rekindling diplomacy between Israel and Turkey by asking Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan to postpone a planned trip to Gaza was met with refusal and a sharp rebuke of Kerry from Turkey.

All of this suggests that there is no hope on the immediate horizon. Secretary Kerry testified before a Senate subcommittee recently and said there was a window of only one to two years for the two-state solution, and given the lack of opportunity now, this is strong evidence for the position that the path to two states is indeed closed.

In a clear signal of the international community’s frustration with the U.S.’s failure to find any progress in the conflict, a recent letter signed by 19 former European prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers urges European Union Foreign Affairs Representative Catherine Ashton to take immediate action to save the two-state solution.

“European leaders cannot wait forever for action from the United States,” the letter says, while advocating a clear EU statement that all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders are illegal and calling for stronger efforts to unify the divided Palestinian leadership, among other measures.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks before his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Apr. 9, 2013. Credit: U.S. State Department

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Apr 19 2013 (IPS)

Despite repeated pledges of his determination and enthusiasm for resolving the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian impasse, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent trip to the region has provoked more scepticism than hope among observers in Washington.

Speaking in Tel Aviv on Apr. 9, Kerry called his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “very constructive”, but left with little to show for his efforts."Netanyahu is bent on creating a Greater Israel and there is hardly anything the United States can do to stop it." -- John Mearsheimer

Kerry trumpeted commitments from Netanyahu to help bolster the economy in the West Bank, but such efforts appear dimmer in the wake of the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

“Economic growth will help us be able to provide a climate… within which people have greater confidence about moving forward,” Kerry told a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israel.

“But I want to emphasise – I emphasise this very strongly: This is not in lieu of, or an alternative to, the political track. It is not a substitute. The political track remains the primary focus. But this is in addition to, in a way that could help to facilitate that track, and I believe will begin to take hold immediately.”

But this positive view was not shared by many long-time observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It stirred echoes of previous failures with incremental, confidence building measures, and, despite Kerry’s words to the contrary, raised concerns about the efficacy of economic measures without political progress.

Ambassador Philip Wilcox, former U.S. consul general to Jerusalem and current president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, told IPS that economic measures like the ones Kerry devoted much of his time to in the Middle East are not going to lead to renewed negotiations.

“Small steps like removing checkpoints or allowing more liberalised trade and transit would be welcome but won’t alter Palestinian attitudes very much,” Wilcox said. “Not unless there were a parallel halt in settlement building accompanied with Israeli assurances that such was their policy.”

John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the famous book “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, believes both Kerry, who served as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for four years, and President Barack Obama know there is no hope for a negotiated solution with the current Israeli government.

“It’s hard to believe that either Kerry or President Obama believes that there is any chance of getting a two-state solution,” Mearsheimer told IPS. “They surely know that Netanyahu is bent on creating a Greater Israel and there is hardly anything the United States can do to stop it.

“That makes me think that Kerry was simply going through the motions in his recent trip to the Middle East, so he could get rebuffed and then use that as an excuse to put the Israel-Palestine conflict on the back burner and focus instead on Asia.”

Obama endured steady criticism for his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict throughout his first term in office. He was frequently attacked by political opponents for being insufficiently supportive of Israel, and now is being criticised for not paying enough attention to it.

His first visit to Israel as president was intended to allay these criticisms. Kerry also made trips to the region both before and after Obama’s visit.

But Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Palestine Center in Washington, remains convinced that Obama does not plan to spend his energy and political capital on this issue.

“The Obama administration has essentially given up on Israel-Palestinian peace,” he told IPS. “They tried – very gently – in the first term to engage and, like administrations before them, failed to do so in an even-handed way. It’s clear that Obama is resigned on this issue. It takes too much political capital domestically and, with other pressing foreign affairs matters around the globe, Palestine is on the backburner.”

Wilcox believes that all of this activity is meant more to address the political attacks than to truly reinvigorate the peace process. In fact, he says, without genuine political progress, even economic improvements may prove elusive.

“The [Obama] administration feels vulnerable to the attack that it’s surrendered and it has to be seen as active and managing a conflict that is not amenable to a solution right now,” Wilcox said. “But even to achieve effective economic measures there is not easy. In the absence of investor confidence of peace in the future, you’re not going to get a lot of investment in the Palestinian economy.”

Munayyer’s belief that “Netanyahu is very happy” with the ongoing stalemate was bolstered by senior Israeli officials who told the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz that, contrary to Kerry’s requests, “”Israel opposes placing the issues of borders and security at the preliminary stage of negotiations, and we said this to Kerry. On this issue, there is full consent among all the ministers dealing with the Palestinian subject.”

Combined with Fayyad’s resignation mere days after Kerry’s visit and economic talks, statements such as these cast serious doubt on Kerry’s positive description of his trip. Even the apparent breakthrough that President Obama ushered in between Israel and Turkey, ending close to three years of diplomatic freeze between the countries, is drawing scepticism.

Wilcox expressed a lack of confidence that the apparent rapprochement would actually solidify. “[Turkish Prime Minister Recep] Erdogan is going to Gaza, and there is no significant change in the [Israeli] closure regime there,” he said.

Turkey has also refused to attend a proposed meeting of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue Group due to Israel’s participation. And it has issued a stern warning to Israel not to drag out negotiations over compensation to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims.

The Netanyahu government has not responded to these Turkish actions, despite criticism led by Netanyahu’s own political partner and designated foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who said that the apology to Turkey was a mistake.

This indicates that Israel is willing to try to accommodate the U.S. desire to try to restart talks with the Palestinians and mend the relationship between it and Turkey, at least for the moment. But the thawing of relations remains on shaky ground.

The Shuafat refugee camp can be seen across the separation wall from the Israeli settlement Pisgat Ze'ev. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D’Amours/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Mar 19 2013 (IPS)

With Barack Obama set to travel on his first trip to Israel as president, expectations for a major breakthrough on the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” are low to nonexistent.

The visit, which will take him briefly to the occupied West Bank and Jordan as well, is seen here as motivated primarily by domestic reasons, notably reassuring the U.S. Jewish community and the powerful Israel lobby that his administration’s commitment to the Jewish state is “unshakeable”.The real issue that Mr. Netanyahu will focus on will have nothing to do with Ramallah - and everything to do with Tehran.

Obama has stated explicitly that he is not going to the region with a plan for restarting the Israel-Palestine peace process.

“President Obama has already announced that he isn’t going to be presenting any peace plan or initiative,” Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East History at Stanford University, told IPS.

“And it would be foolish of him to do so unless he wants to risk once again being embarrassed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. The most evident objective of the trip is to mollify the Zionist lobby. This is of no direct value to the president personally at this point. But it might have some positive impact on Democratic chances in the 2014 congressional elections.”

Aside from shoring up support at home, independent analysts here believe that U.S. and Israeli policies toward Iran and Syria will also figure high in Obama’s discussions with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has just succeeded in constituting a new right-wing government after weeks of negotiations following January’s parliamentary elections.

“President Obama will issue the standard bow that is now the default position of nearly every American administration: ‘We are unequivocally committed to the security of Israel,’” Mark Perry, author and former co-director of the international think tank Conflict Forum, told IPS.

“What Mr. Obama won’t add is the after-the-comma comment that he dare not say in public: ‘We are unequivocally committed to the security of Israel, but we’re not interested in having a war with Iran to prove it.’ And that, and no other issue, will be the centrepiece of talks between him and Netanyahu.”

Perry also believes that Obama will try to bridge the gaps preventing the Israelis and Palestinians from resuming talks, but that Iran will take centre stage in his discussions with Netanyahu.

“The U.S. and Israelis say they are on the same page when it comes to Iran, though that’s clearly not the case,” Perry said. “So while the public eye will be on how Mr. Obama handles the Israeli and Palestinian publics, the real issue that Mr. Netanyahu will focus on will have nothing to do with Ramallah – and everything to do with Tehran.

“In private, my hunch is that the president will press Mr. Netanyahu to implement a series of measures that will give Abu Mazen the political cover to return to the negotiating table. So, yes, there won’t be a breakthrough or a 72-point headline, but I believe Mr. Obama when he says he’s serious about peace. And my hunch is that he will make that clear to the Israeli prime minister.”

The Guardian reports that Netanyahu, believing that Israel and the U.S. will have different views of red lines on Iran and on prospects for restarting peace talks with the Palestinians, will try to persuade Obama to launch air strikes against Syria in order to prevent conventional missiles from being transferred from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Thus far, no official response to this story has come from either Israel or the United States.

Yet despite the potential significance of this trip for actions on the Iranian or Syrian issues, U.S. officials are working to maintain the low expectations the president has set forth for this trip.

Former U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross, speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that Obama’s well-regarded Cairo speech of 2009 was perceived in Israel as “coming at their expense”.

“The irony is that this administration has contributed in a very intense way to focusing on security cooperation with Israelis. This trip is designed to blend the realities of that cooperation with the public perception in Israel.”

Administration officials echoed this view. “We felt like this was an important opportunity for the president to go to the region,” said Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes.

“In Israel, we felt that with a new Israeli government coming into place and a new U.S. term here, this is an important opportunity for the president to consult with the Israeli government on the broad range of issues where we cooperate.”

Obama will start his trip in Israel, then meet with leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah. He will then return briefly to Israel before wrapping up his trip in Jordan.

Notably, Obama will not be addressing the Knesset while in Israel, opting instead to reach out to the Israeli public by addressing a group of students from major Israeli universities, mirroring his decision in 2009 in Cairo, when he spoke under the auspices of Al-Azhar and Cairo Universities.

Obama will hold meetings and press conferences with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, as well as private meetings with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Ross believes Obama will also have a message for the Palestinian Authority. “I think the president will tell Abu Mazen (Abbas), if you want to focus on the United Nations, that’s not a road that’s going to lead anywhere, so let’s focus on a road that will lead somewhere.”

The Palestinian Authority last year won a victory at the U.N. when its status was upgraded to non-member observer state. The vote affirmed the status of Palestine as a state and potentially opened the door for the Palestinians to make use of the international legal structure, particularly the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. The U.S. and Israel have both warned the Palestinians sternly against any such actions.

But, Ross said, the U.S. and Israel also have a mutual interest in ensuring that the PA does not collapse. “I can envision a discussion about what do you do to make it less likely that the PA will collapse. I think he will ask the prime minister (Netanyahu) … What can you do to make sure the PA doesn’t collapse?”

Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes that the Palestinians should chart a course away from dependence on U.S. diplomacy to resolve the conflict.

“For the Palestinian leadership the Obama visit should be (yet another) occasion for drawing their own conclusions on the need to accumulate leverage independent of U.S. policy,” he said.

Palestinians in Gaza look to tunnels as their only effective outlet to the world. Credit: Eva Bartlett/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Feb 1 2013 (IPS)

The optimism expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama and newly confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry about restarting the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has been met with scepticism from many seasoned Middle East experts.

At his confirmation hearing, Kerry told the assembled Senate, “I pray that maybe this will be a moment that will allow us to renew the effort to bring the parties to the negotiating table and go down a different path than the one they were on in the last few years. I would like to try and do that.”

Since his re-election, there has been considerable debate in the U.S. media about whether Obama would re-engage in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. It is often the case that second-term presidents engage more in foreign policy and have a freer hand, not having to be concerned about re-election at the end of their term.

Speculation that Obama might put significant effort into Israel-Palestine peace was fueled by his nominees for two key Cabinet posts: Kerry for secretary of state and former Senator Chuck Hagel for secretary of defence. Kerry, though widely recognised as strongly pro-Israel, has voiced sharp criticism in the past of Israel’s policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Hagel faced much greater opposition on this score, and his confirmation is less certain than Kerry’s was, though it is expected that he too will be confirmed. Much of the opposition to Hagel stems from a 2006 interview where he said that “…the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people (on Capitol Hill)”, and “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.”

But despite Obama’s choice for the key posts, and a White House statement saying that Obama had pledged “to work closely with Israel on our shared agenda for peace and security in the Middle East,” during his congratulatory call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the latter’s re-election last week, few see a strong possibility that the new administration will put much effort into the vexing conflict.

“I don’t think that Mr. Obama is lying about his intentions, it’s simply that he’s required to say he’ll reengage,” Mark Perry, former co-director of the Washington, D.C., London, and Beirut-based Conflicts Forum, told IPS.

“The only other possible answer would be: ‘I’m sick of the whole damn thing, and we’ll just have to wait for new Israeli leadership’ – which is something he dare not say. Mr. Obama is focused on domestic matters – which will command his every attention. He will need every vote he can get to pass his domestic programme, and irritating conservative Republicans and Democrats by making demands on Israel is something that he just won’t do.”

Yet speaking in Washington in a globally broadcast address on Tuesday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced optimism.

“I actually think that this election opens doors, not nails them shut,” Clinton said. “So I know that President Obama, my successor, soon-to-be Secretary of State John Kerry, will pursue this, will look for every possible opening… somehow, we have to look for ways to give the Palestinian people the pathway to peace, prosperity, and statehood that they deserve and give the Israeli people the security and stability that they seek.

“I think that still is possible, and I can assure you the United States under President Obama will continue to do everything we can to move the parties toward some resolution.”

Speaking at The Palestine Center in Washington, Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of The Jerusalem Fund, noted that Israel’s ongoing occupation and settlement expansion was a very minor issue in the Israeli election.

“The issue of peace is fading because the cost of occupation has become bearable for Israel and there is no motivation (to change) if the costs are low. The question that needs to be asked in Washington is how can we create incentives so an end to occupation becomes a reality. If we continue to support everything Israel does … we cannot expect it will happen.”

PJ Crowley, former spokesman for the U.S. State Department, told the same audience that the Israel-Palestine issue was no longer the same regional focal point it once was.

“In 2009, President Obama came in knowing that the Israel-Palestine issue is the key driver in the region. We believed that to be true in 2009, but it is not true in 2013,” Crowley said.

“There are new players in region, with (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak replaced by (Mohammed) Morsi, who was helpful in ending hostilities with Hamas, but has a much different view of the Palestine issue and has very different dynamics domestically. King Abdullah of Jordan has his hands full with 700,000 Syrian refugees. So Israel-Palestine has been pushed from the top of the list.”

Others have focused on the personal issues between Obama and Netanyahu. Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said that the two leaders have “bad chemistry” between them. This was echoed by former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, who put the blame for the tension squarely on Netanyahu.

“Frankly, I doubt that Obama…is likely to invest much effort in either supporting or opposing Netanyahu’s Israel now,” Freeman told IPS. “Netanyahu has not only beaten the warmth out of his government’s relationship with its American counterpart, he has left Obama with no basis for engagement with him other than posturing for domestic political effect.”

John Mearsheimer, professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago summed up the pessimism, telling IPS, “Obama will surely go through the motions to make it look like he is serious about pushing the peace process forward.

“I would be very surprised, however, if he makes a serious effort to get a two-state solution, simply because the Israelis taught him in his first term that they are in the driver’s seat and they are not interested in allowing the Palestinians to have their own state. Nothing happened with the recent Israeli election to change that dynamic.”

Photo courtesy of Rabbi Brant Rosen.

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Dec 6 2012 (IPS)

Rabbi Brant Rosen leads a congregation in Evanston, Illinois and is author of the new book, Wrestling in the Daylight: A Rabbi’s Path to Palestinian Solidarity.

Speaking with Mitchell Plitnick, Rosen, co-chair of the Rabbinical Council of Jewish Voice for Peace, stressed that the views both in his book and in this interview are his own and do not represent his congregation. Excerpts follow.

Q: How has your personal view of Israel changed in the past four years?

A: I had seen the conflict as two peoples having two legitimate claims to the land of Israel-Palestine and the only way out of the morass is two states for two peoples. I had identified with Israel as a Jew; that was my narrative growing up. I have deep familial relationships there, visited Israel many times, and even considered moving there.

The shift in my views was a gradual thing, but the breaking point was Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 (this was the name Israel gave to its assault on the Gaza Strip at that time). I came to realise this was not a conflict between two equal parties but an essential injustice that began with the birth of the state of Israel and has continued since that time. It is a situation of one very powerful party bending the other to its will.

Once I spoke out about Israel’s outrages in Cast Lead, the dominoes really started to fall for me. As a congregational rabbi I was in a difficult place and people looked to me for guidance. About a year after that, I reassessed my relationship as a Jew to Israel, to the entire issue, not just Gaza, but about Zionism in general.

I become more involved in Palestine Solidarity work, reaching out to Palestinians, some of whom were friends and others who were activists in this area. So many of them reached out to me when I spoke out on Gaza, and I wanted to learn from them what their experience of this issue was.

Today, I know where I stand, very much a rabbi in the Jewish community, still serving my congregation, still motivated by Jewish values, but also someone who stands in solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle for human rights, equal rights and dignity in the land they either live in or seek to return to.

Q: Jewish Voice for Peace is one of the leading groups involved in targeted divestment from Israel’s occupation, a part of the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to bring public economic and political pressure on Israel. How do you see the future of this movement?

A: I think the movement is growing by leaps and bounds, attracting more and more people. When the U.N. vote on Palestine’s non-member status hit, it drowned out another story I thought was actually more important: Stevie Wonder backed out of a fundraising concert for a U.S. group called the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.

He is the latest celebrity to express his support for the Palestinian cause by cancelling such concerts following a long list of artists and entertainers who have cancelled shows in Israel. Whether they did it because of public pressure or because they believed it to be right, it shows the power of the boycott movement.

To create political change, leveraging people power is the best method; historically, this has consistently been the case. The fact that Israel reacts so harshly against it shows its potential. When Hillary Clinton says 3,000 new settlement units are “not helpful”, that doesn’t get Israel’s attention.

On the other hand, when Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice in Palestine and a wide range of church groups succeed in getting a large holding company to divest from the occupation, that’s front page news in Israel. That is a sign that this has a great impact, when used in a smart and concerted way.

Contrary to the frequent accusations, BDS is not anti-Semitic. I think the argument that it unfairly singles out Israel from other human rights abusers is disingenuous… The question is not whether Israel is legitimate; it exists and is part of the international community. But if Israel acts in an illegitimate way, citizens around the world have the right and responsibility to leverage what power they can to get them to cease.

Q: Do you think the recent call by 15 mainstream Protestant leaders of many different denominations for an inquiry into whether U.S. aid to Israel is in compliance with existing U.S. law is a significant new development?

A: Yes. I think the most important thing is that the leaders are standing firm and are not backing down despite being excoriated and being called everything up to and including anti-Semites. That is important because up until now the covenant on religious relations has been that you can talk about anything BUT Israel, and this time they’ve broken with that.

They have until now been bullied by the Jewish establishment. This can usher in a new relationship where we can talk about anything, not only the things we have in common, but also these issues, like Israeli policy, where we don’t always agree. I’m proud that JVP stood behind the statement.

Jewish leaders said they would walk out of a planned interfaith summit, and demanded a separate summit to discuss these issues. I thought this was very damaging, this is not something resembling dialogue.

The Church leaders have issued a second statement saying they would be happy to meet with Jewish leaders about this, that we’re happy to talk, but we are not going back on what we said. This is very healthy; this is real dialogue, which occurs when you focus on the painful issues you don’t agree on.

It’s very important that Christians see that many Jews do stand with them when they make statements like this. The Jewish establishment does not represent the Jewish community. The Jewish community is much larger and more complex than these unaccountable representatives whose names most Jews don’t even know.

*Rabbi Brant Rosen blogs at Shalom Rav.

Excerpt:

Injured being rushed into Shifaa hospital, Gaza on Nov. 20, 2012. Credit: Gigi Ibrahim/cc by 2.0

By Mitchell Plitnick and Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Nov 20 2012 (IPS)

Amidst reports of an Egyptian-mediated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, U.S. President Barack Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the region Tuesday in apparent hopes of gaining some credit for sealing the deal.

Until Tuesday, Obama, whose four-day swing through Southeast Asia was designed in part to underline his administration’s “pivot” from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific, had confined his involvement in the past week’s violence to telephone calls to regional leaders, public statements of support for Israel softened by concern for civilian casualties, and hopes for de-escalation.

The staunch backing Washington has given Israel for its latest assault on the Gaza Strip has seemed to be business as usual, not so very different from the position taken by the George W. Bush administration during Israel’s three-week 2008-9 “Operation Cast Lead”, which ended with more than 1,400 dead, all but 13 of them Palestinians.

At the time, Obama had just been elected president. Part of his campaign had been a promise to mend relationships internationally that had been badly damaged by Bush, especially in the Muslim world.

Almost exactly four years later, Israel launched a new assault – more than 130 Palestinians have been killed so far, while the Israeli death toll was five as of Tuesday morning – and Obama has been unwavering in his support for “Israel’s right to defend itself”.

However, the administration has also made known its preference that Israel not introduce ground forces that have been massed along the Gaza border over the last several days.

Congress, as might be expected, has been even more extreme, with both houses issuing nearly identical statements in full support of Israel’s actions without either urging an end to hostilities or, unlike Obama, expressing concern for civilians on either side.

Those omissions stood in stark contrast to the resolutions passed by both houses four years ago during Cast Lead, a reflection of the degree to which Congress has reflexively taken Israel’s side over that period.

“Some might suggest that these omissions weren’t deliberate,” said Lara Friedman, a veteran Middle East specialist and director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now. “This suggestion hits a wall, however, given that much of the … text appears to be drawn directly from (the resolutions four years ago).

“This pared-down version …sends the message that the Senate isn’t concerned about harm to civilians, and that the Senate is in no hurry to see a ceasefire…Such a message seems both politically shortsighted and morally dubious,” she told IPS.
A poll conducted by CNN over the weekend found that 57 percent of respondents considered Israel’s actions justified, a small decline from the 63-percent support Israel’s actions enjoyed four years ago. The poll, however, also disclosed sharp partisan differences compared to 2008.

Only 40 percent of Democrats said they believe Israel’s actions this past week were justified, a 12-percent drop from the Cast Lead poll, a finding made potentially more significant given the so far much lower casualty toll compiled so far in the latest operation.

Republican support – about 75 percent – remained about the same.

Despite the lack of support from voters within his own party, it is not surprising that Obama has so far stood behind Israel. Even a second-term president, while theoretically freer to act since he need not worry about running for re-election, is still concerned about his congressional allies and his need to work with Congress on key initiatives.

And in this case, Obama has some more immediate concerns that would make him averse to taking on the powerful pro-Israel lobby at this time, despite his well-known personal dislike for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

With the Dec. 31 deadline for reaching a budget agreement with Congressional Republicans on averting the so-called “fiscal cliff”, the last thing Obama wants to do is get into a major partisan battle – and risk splitting his own party’s Congressional delegation given its strong support for Israel – over an unrelated matter. The same considerations may well carry over into the New Year when a new Congress is seated.

Obama has thus seemed to have preferred to leave most of the work to mediate a ceasefire to Egypt in what might be a test of the new Muslim Brotherhood-led government’s intentions to preserve the 1979 Camp David Accords.

Both Israel and Hamas have discussed a ceasefire with Egypt, just as they did in the past when Egypt was ruled by Hosni Mubarak, an ally of the United States, whose strict adherence to the Accords and seeming indifference to Gaza and the Palestinians were always unpopular in Egypt.

The big question many analysts are asking now is what the government of President Mohammed el-Morsi will do if it fails to reach a cease-fire accord, thus ensuring a continuation of hostilities and the very real possibility that Israel will send ground forces into Gaza.

Some U.S. lawmakers have expressed scepticism about Morsi’s intentions, with Sen. Lindsay Graham, an influential Republican, suggesting that the more than 1.6 billion dollars in U.S. bilateral aid to Egypt will be on the chopping block if his efforts fail to achieve a result satisfactory both to Congress and to Israel.

There have also been suggestions that promised debt relief for the struggling Egyptian economy, as well as a pending 4.8-billion-dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), could be at risk.

Israel also apparently wants to see whether Egypt can broker a ceasefire. Netanyahu rejected a French-Qatari ceasefire proposal over the weekend, insisting that negotiations be run through Egypt alone. Only a few hours earlier, the White House reported that President Obama had spoken with Morsi to discuss ways to “de-escalate” the fighting.

Netanyahu is also aware that Egypt, due to its proximity and the close relationship between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, is the best guarantor of any cease-fire.

On the other hand, the longer the intensified fighting with Gaza goes on, the more Israel risks inflaming the populations not only of Egypt, but possibly also of Jordan, whose government, a de facto ally of the Jewish state, has been struggling over the past week to cope with growing economic protests.

Obama, as well as and his European colleagues, clearly want to see this latest flare-up end as soon as possible and that Egypt under Morsi will continue playing the role it served under Mubarak.

Indeed, Clinton’s eleventh-hour mission to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Cairo would likely be designed to seal that outcome, as well as a ceasefire agreement, according to Robert Danin, a Middle East specialist who served in the Bush White House.

Clinton’s presence “will make it much more difficult for the parties to break a cease-fire” if one is concluded, he told a teleconference with journalists from his perch at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

She is also being sent “to impress on President Morsi that Hamas has to be kept in line,” he said, noting that the longer-range rockets used by Hamas during the current hostilities are being smuggled in part through Egyptian territory.

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Jewish groups have reacted furiously to a letter to Congress by 15 leaders of Christian denominations asking for a review of whether some of the three billion dollars in annual United States aid to Israel is being used in violation of U.S. law and policies.

After pulling out of an interfaith dialogue conference, several Jewish groups stepped up their attacks on the Christian leaders, accusing them of bias against Israel and even of anti-Semitism.

The Christians’ letter stated that they believed that the unconditional U.S. aid given to Israel contributes to 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… sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The letter was sent to Congress by leaders of such prominent Protestant denominations as the Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ and the National Council of Churches (USA), among others.

It called for “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 to ‘internal security’ or ‘legitimate self-defense.’”

The church leaders state that their concerns are based on witnessing the questionable use of U.S. weapons firsthand as well as the annual report of the U.S. State Department, which, they say, “details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.”

Jewish groups, led by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), responded angrily. The JCPA stated, “(The churches’) stony silence to the use of anti-Judaism and relentless attacks on the Jewish state, often from within their own ranks, speaks loudly to their failure to stand up and speak the whole truth about what is occurring in the Middle East.”

The criticism spanned a wide spectrum of U.S.-Jewish politics. Prominent neoconservative Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. official who also headed the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he frequently clashed with church peace groups, called it “the latest chapter in the unending hostility to Israel that has marked several of the mainline Protestant denominations.”

Abrams, like the more mainstream Jewish groups, sees the letter as motivated by hostility toward Israel. Like them, he does not engage directly with the substance of the letter, nor does he answer the charges of systematic human rights abuses by Israel, but instead raises questions not directly related to the letter’s content to support his contention that the letter is motivated by anti-Israel malice.

And, while Abrams is surely correct in asserting that “It is unlikely that the churches’ letter will affect the level of aid to Israel,” he does not explain why, if that is the case, such a wide spectrum of the Jewish community has reacted so strongly to it.

The centrist J Street was just as critical as Abrams, though with a far more conciliatory tone. In an op-ed on Newsweek’s Daily Beast web site, the vice president of their education fund, Rachel Lerner wrote: “J Street opposes proposals to condition or cut security assistance to Israel…As with so many efforts to address this complex situation, the letter fails to weigh criticism of Israel’s behavior with appropriate criticism of, for instance, rocket fire from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas…

“We also question the timing of the letter – coming as it does a few short weeks before Election Day, when this sensitive issue has already become too much of a political football.”

These specifics were cited by Abrams, the JCPA and the ADL as well. But the letter asks not for a cut or conditioning of aid, but a review of whether that aid is being given in compliance with U.S. law, something that has been done frequently with U.S. foreign aid.

The letter also makes several mentions of Israeli hardships, specifically rockets fired from Gaza, and consistently equates Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

“Over the years, a number of members of Congress have asked the State Department to report on whether specific incidents constituted violations of the Arms Export Control Act, Foreign Assistance Act or other U.S. laws by Israel,” Joshua Ruebner, the National Advocacy Director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, told IPS.

“Even though the State Department’s annual report on human rights in the Occupied Territories regularly documents abuses, the reports come back clean every time. Even though the Christian leaders’ letter asks for a comprehensive review, which has never been done before, the Jewish groups’ response seems like an overreaction.”

Indeed, Ruebner documents that just under the last two U.S. presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. has cut or placed under review aid to five countries – Zimbabwe, Colombia, the Phillipines, Pakistan and Bahrain – due to violations of U.S. law in the use of weapons supplied through U.S. military aid.

“The United States has in the past sanctioned both Israel and other countries for violations of U.S. laws,” Ruebner said. “Yet, despite Israel’s systematic human rights abuses during this period, not once since 2000 has any administration formally or publicly held Israel accountable for its misuse of U.S. weapons in violation of its own laws.”

The Christian leaders who wrote the open letter have remained quiet, neither responding to the attacks on them nor backing away from the substance of their letter. But they have also received support from some Jewish circles. The group Jewish Voice for Peace, and more importantly, their Rabbinical Council, came out in strong support of the Christian letter.

As dismay among more liberal U.S. citizens with Israel’s ongoing occupation and intransigence on negotiations grows, it is possible that this letter will come to be seen as the beginning of a wider debate within mainstream churches over U.S. policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Some church organisations which have been actively working for peace for some time and are part of denominations which signed the letter are apparently energised.

“Israel’s grave and systematic abuses of Palestinian human rights and violations of international law have been thoroughly documented for many years by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and even by the U.S. State Department,” said Rev. Jeff DeYoe, Advocacy Chair of Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“We’re pleased and encouraged that church leaders from a growing number of denominations are recognising this and taking a stand in favour of justice and freedom for all the peoples of the Holy Land. We hope members of Congress will do the same.”

The Democratic National Convention erupted in controversy this week over the removal of a clause in the party platform stating that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital and only grew worse when the wording was hastily re-inserted.

Though party platforms are routinely ignored by presidents and members of Congress, the politically sensitive issue of Israel, which has been particularly prominent in a U.S. presidential election where foreign policy has been downplayed by both sides, has caused ripples far beyond Washington.

The Democratic Party platform had initially intended to remove the wording from 2008 which had affirmed the party’s stance on Jerusalem in order to bring it in line with long-standing United States policy, upheld by presidents of both parties, which holds that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Both Republicans and Democrats, however, have routinely voiced support for Jerusalem being Israel’s “undivided capital” in their party platforms in order to gather support from wealthy pro-Israel donors and secure votes in swing states where Jewish voters are believed to be decisive.

Barack Obama, in a 2008 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobbying group, said that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but quickly backtracked and has since held to a policy of keeping Jerusalem as a final status issue.

Although the George W. Bush administration repeatedly stated its intent to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, it never acted to do so, the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and the United States still has not formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Numerous media outlets reported that the Democratic platform had been vetted by AIPAC, which had voiced its approval. But after the controversy erupted, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney referred to the omission of the Jerusalem statement as “shameful”, President Obama was reported to have personally intervened to have the language re-inserted.

The amendment needed approval by a two-thirds majority in a voice vote on the conference floor. The controversy deepened when three calls for a vote came back without a clear majority in favour, much less the required two-thirds. But conference chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, declared that he had heard the required majority. Video recordings of the vote cast strong doubts on that assertion.

“The handling of the Jerusalem amendment in the Democratic party platform was ham-fisted to say the least,” Saqib Ali, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates and a Democratic Party activist, told IPS.

“By ramming through the amendment on a dubious procedural move, Mayor Villagarosa and party leaders insulted those who believe Palestinians deserve equal human rights to everyone else in the world.

“The Democratic Party platform on this issue contradicts the position of the Obama administration. The divergence between the Democratic platform and the Obama administration policy just doesn’t make any sense,” Ali added.

Palestinians noted the controversy as well. Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said that while the entire episode might just be “election propaganda”, a failure to recognise the Palestinian claim to east Jerusalem will “destroy the peace process” and lead to “endless war”.

The Democrats’ official stance also seems to lack support from the party’s rank and file. In a recent poll by the Arab American Institute, while nearly 60 percent of Democrats said they were not sure what they thought the ultimate disposition of Jerusalem should be, those who voiced an opinion favoured dividing the city over it being controlled by Israel alone by a nearly two-to-one margin.

“Pushing through the amendment was in part a reaction to Republican criticisms that the Obama administration – despite providing record amounts of taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel’s rightist government and blocking the United Nations from challenging Israeli violations of international humanitarian law – was somehow not supportive enough of Israel,” Professor Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, wrote in an article for Foreign Policy in Focus.

“It was also a demonstration of just how determined the Democratic Party leadership is to undermine the Middle East peace process and weaken international law, even if it means running roughshod over their members and thereby hurting their chances in November,” Zunes said.

Other observers were much more explicit about the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the incident.

John Mearsheimer, a professor of politics at the University of Chicago and co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, says that this episode reflected how out of touch U.S. leaders are with public opinion on Israel and the Palestinians.

“I don’t think the flap over Jerusalem will have any effect on the election, since there is no evidence that Obama was responsible for the problem and he fixed it right away,” Mearsheimer told IPS.

“Nevertheless, what happened yesterday was very important because we saw right before our own eyes that the president and his lieutenants were caving into pressure from Israel and the lobby, but at the same time, there was significant opposition to what Obama was doing among the rank and file in the Democratic Party.

“Actually, this is not surprising if you look at public opinion polls on how the American people think about our special relationship with Israel. The evidence is clear that the public is generally pro-Israel, but not so much as to justify the present relationship, where we give Israel more aid than any other country and give it unconditionally.”

Notably, while Obama visibly intervened to change the party platform, he made no mention of Jerusalem in his convention speech, and barely touched upon Israel at all, confining his remarks to a pro forma statement that “Our commitment to Israel’s security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace.”

Obama also was sparing in his remarks on Iran, which has been dominating U.S. foreign policy for the past year. While this may all reflect a general preference of both candidates to speak to ongoing domestic economic issues in this election, some observers thought there might be some small indication of the beginnings of a shift in pro-Israel influence on U.S. foreign policy.

“Like everyone who saw this appalling misprision of democracy by the Democratic National Convention, I was struck by the blatancy of the political manipulation on view,” former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman told IPS.

“Whatever the merits of the issue itself in terms of campaign politics, the Israel Lobby can have done itself no good by exposing its contempt for the opinion of the delegates now gathered in Charlotte in this way.”

Mearsheimer agreed. “What makes the special relationship (between the U.S. and Israel) work is the fact that the lobby is deadly effective at putting pressure on American politicians and policymakers to support Israel no matter what. If the public had a real say in our policy toward Israel, we would have a very different policy than we now have. Wednesday, that point was driven home clearly on our TV screens for all to see. Nothing like that has ever happened before.”

The ambitions of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, as harboured by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, have been defeated by internal opposition, a growing number of observers have come to believe in the wake of dramatic opposing statements by prominent Israeli leaders, including President Shimon Peres.

The picture emerging is one of the prime and defence ministers’ isolation in advocating for unilateral Israeli action. It has been known for some time that the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Benny Gantz, and Tamir Pardo, the head of the Mossad, or the Israeli intelligence agency, both oppose a strike on Iran.

This knowledge in itself is unusual. While such sentiments can be leaked, both Gantz and Pardo have been clear in media interviews that they do not share Netanyahu and Barak’s assessments regarding the immediacy of the Iranian threat or the utility of a military strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is worth noting that both Gantz and Pardo were appointed by the current government.

Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, writing in the daily Yediot Ahoronoth on Aug. 10, listed not only Gantz and Pardo among current military leaders opposing an Israeli attack on Iran, but also Air Force chief Amir Eshel, Military Intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi and General Security Services (Shin Bet) director Yoram Cohen, in what amounts to a consensus among Israel’s top defence and intelligence leaders.

Public disagreement

But it was statements by Peres and by the former IDF Director of Military Intelligence General Uri Saguy that exposed the extent of Netanyahu and Barak’s isolation and criticised Israeli’s leaders on points rarely raised in public.

Peres told Israel’s Channel 2: “It is now clear to us that we cannot go it alone. We can forestall (Iran’s nuclear progress); therefore it’s clear to us that we have to work together with…America.”

“Iran is a global threat, to the U.S. and Israel alike,” he said, adding that he was convinced that the U.S. would take action when necessary.

Peres’s statements were widely interpreted as criticism of Netanyahu’s and Barak’s ongoing attempts to pressure President Obama to attack Iran and the perception that Netanyahu was working to unseat Obama in favour of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who is on much friendlier terms with Netanyahu.

There was also a widespread belief that Peres was warning that the tactics Netanyahu and Barak were employing with the U.S. threaten to harm the “special relationship” between the two countries.

While Israelis value their freedom to act on their own, they also recognise the need for U.S. support, as the United States is the only major power that has consistently supported controversial Israeli policies and actions. The idea that the Israeli government may be directly interfering with U.S. politics is an extremely unpopular one in Israel.

Diminished credibility

For his part, General Saguy cast doubt on the ability of Netanyahu and Barak to lead the country under dire circumstances. A reporter who interviewed Saguy for the Israeli daily Ha’aretz described his views of both.

“Saguy does not trust (Netanyahu) because he has not seen him make…one single important decision. He does not trust Barak because he’s seen the results of many important decisions the minister has made, as chief of staff, prime minister and defence minister,” the reporter wrote.

This view from a highly respected Israeli military leader seriously undermines the credibility of Israel’s two leading decision-makers with regard to military action. Combined with the military and intelligence consensus, the public statements suggest the possibility of an open revolt against the current leadership if Barak and Netanyahu try to move forward with an attack on Iran.

Netanyahu, however, sharply criticised Peres for “overstepping” his role as president, a largely ceremonial office in Israel. That sharp retort, as well as Netanyahu’s continued campaign among important Israeli party leaders, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual head of the Shas party, could indicate that he has not yet given up on finding a way to attack Iran.

It is widely believed that at least part of the Israeli strategy in beating the war drums on Iran is to pressure the Obama administration into acting against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Netanyahu surely fears that if Israel is no longer believed to be seriously considering a unilateral strike, the urgency in Washington, already far less than he would like it to be, will diminish considerably.

Challenges for Obama

Obama’s position on Iran has been remarkably consistent: pursue sanctions and diplomatic engagement in the hope that Iran will agree to the monitoring of its nuclear program to ensure that weapons are not being developed. Obama has also pledged that all options, including a military one, remain open to prevent Iran from obtaining such a weapon.

An Israeli strike could put Obama in a very difficult position: he could either risk staying out of a conflict not of his making, which would surely set Israel’s supporters in the United States ablaze in opposition to him, or he could support, either directly or indirectly, the Israeli war effort, which would make it easy to cast him to blame when oil prices skyrocket as a result.

With the Israeli threat diminished, at least for the moment, Obama can continue to pursue his approach to Iran with a reasonable level of confidence that this will not hurt his chances of re-election in November. That surely does not please Netanyahu, but unless the situation changes in Israel, he will find it very difficult to raise this issue again before the election.

Tensions rose Thursday between the Barack Obama administration and the Israeli government when a leading Israeli official claimed to have knowledge of U.S. intelligence that portrays Iran as a more immediate threat than Washington has been saying.

Israel has been urging the United States to take a more aggressive stance with Iran, while President Obama has maintained that sanctions and diplomacy must be given more time to work.

But Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak touched off a controversy with the United States Thursday when he told Israel Radio that a new U.S. report “being passed around senior offices… comes very close to our own estimate… as opposed to earlier American estimates.

“It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one and it is even less likely that we will know every development in time on the Iranian nuclear programme,” he said.

The Obama administration did not respond immediately, but later in the day a spokesman for the National Security Council stated that, “We believe that there is time and space to continue to pursue a diplomatic path, backed by growing international pressure on the Iranian government. We continue to assess that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapon.”

However, U.S. officials would not comment on whether there was a new intelligence assessment on Iran.

The issue of a possible military strike on Iran has become an increasingly heated topic in the United States as the presidential election in November draws closer and the campaigns move into higher gear.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visited Israel last month with the message that he would be a stronger supporter of Israel’s security than President Obama, pointing specifically at the Iranian threat.

For his part, Obama recently sent high-level officials to confer with Israeli leaders, signed a bill authorising additional security sales to Israel, and repeatedly assured the Israelis that he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

In this atmosphere, a new U.S. intelligence assessment which says, in Barak’s words “…that Iran has made surprising, significant progress toward military nuclear capability,” could significantly increase pressure on the Obama administration to take military action against Iran. Barak’s statement is a dramatic and unusual step in international diplomacy.

In 2007, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran shook up the George W. Bush administration by stating that Iran had halted its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. In 2011, a new NIE reaffirmed that assessment.

An update to this part of the NIE is rumoured to have been completed, but the exact contents of the report are unknown.

However, back in January, James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, testified before the Congress, saying: “We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

John R. Schindler, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote on his blog that, “(There are) a few possibilities. Barak and his government are playing one huge head-fake with Obama, whom they openly dislike, even though he just dumped more money on Israel.

“Or, they have seen (the update to the NIE) – how, exactly, this former counterspy wonders – and are diming out DC in a very tough game of hardball. Regardless, the rules of the spy game are clear and have been since Moses was a boy. When intelligence services share information, as they do every day, you don’t pass it to third parties without clearance. Ever. And if you do, eventually you will get burned and nobody will want to play marbles with you.”

Both Israeli and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they share intelligence with each other on Iran.

According to several sources with contacts in the U.S. administration, there was considerable anger in Washington over Barak’s statements. It is also unclear what Barak was referring to when he said that a new assessment “comes very close to our own estimate”.

Reports from Washington and Israel have repeatedly stated that Israeli and U.S. intelligence assessments on Iran’s nuclear abilities and research have been closely in tune all along.

However, in recent weeks, reports from Israel have indicated sharp divisions between the heads of the Israeli government, including Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Israeli military and intelligence community. There is also sharp disagreement within Netanyahu’s government over whether or not to pursue a military strike on Iran.

The leading Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot reported Friday that Barak had gathered the top military leaders on two separate occasions to rally them behind an Iran strike and met fierce opposition both times.

On Aug. 1, Prime Minister Netanyahu, responding to numerous questions about opposition to an Iran strike on the parts of the Army chief of staff and the head of the intelligence agency, Mossad, did not deny such opposition, but merely said that, “In the Israeli democracy, the one to decide is the ministerial level, and the one to carry out the decision is the military. I haven’t made up my mind yet.”

The reported similarity between U.S. and Israeli intelligence suggests that any gap between Barak’s view and that of the U.S. is similar to the gap between the top Israeli leadership and their own military and intelligence assessments and recommendations.

Militarised Caterpillar D9 by the West Bank barrier. Credit: Joe Skillet/CC By 2.0

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Jul 6 2012 (IPS)

A resolution at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to divest from three corporations which provide equipment used to maintain Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands failed by a mere two votes on Thursday.

Yet despite this apparent setback, the movement to divest from such corporations has gained tremendous momentum in recent weeks.

On Jun. 25, Morgan Stanley Capital Index (MSCI) announced that it had removed the Caterpillar corporation from its index of socially responsible companies, due in part to the use of its equipment to violate the human rights of Palestinians in the West Bank.

As a result, the leading retirement assets management firm for workers in the academic, research, medical and cultural fields, TIAA-CREF divested from Caterpillar. Activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli occupation hailed this as a major victory, as TIAA-CREF had been the target of a divestment campaign for several years.

The TIAA-CREF decision raised hopes among pro-Palestinian activists that the Presbyterian Church (USA) would also choose to divest from three corporations – Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solution – which their Israel-Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) had identified as profiting from Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights.

If the Presbyterians passed a divestment resolution they would become the first mainstream Christian church body to do so.

But major Jewish institutions lobbied hard, as they have in previous years, to defeat the Presbyterian divestment initiative, and they succeeded, albeit by the narrowest of margins. The final vote was 333 against the resolution, 331 in favour and two abstentions.

The narrow margin of defeat, however, provided substantial encouragement to some BDS activists.

Rabbi Alissa Wise, director of Campaigns for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a major national Jewish peace group which has spearheaded the campaigns to divest from Caterpillar and to engage both the Presbyterians and TIAA-CREF in that effort, said, “It’s too early to know what is going to happen, but I have been moved to tears on multiple occasions as I saw authentic recognition of Palestinian experience and deep commitment to justice for all people by the Presbyterian Church.

“This is a historic moment in the struggle for dignity and justice, and I commend the PC(USA) for getting us this close to holding corporations accountable for profiting from the occupation.”

Rebecca Vilkomerson, JVP’s executive director, said, “The recent divestment wins, and the incredibly thin margin of this vote, show that the discourse is shifting. The conversation was only about how to end the occupation, not whether or not it should end. This in and of itself is incredible progress.”

That progress was further demonstrated when the Presbyterians voted on Friday to “boycott products made in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories”.

While JVP prominently agitated in favour of divestment, a possibly decisive blow was dealt to the initiative by two other Jewish pro-peace groups, J Street and Americans for Peace Now.

Both groups came out strongly against divestment and both cautioned the Presbyterians that they believed such initiatives could lead to increased anti-Semitism around the world and that passage of the initiative could jeopardise, or even destroy, Presbyterian-Jewish relations in the United States.

“Divestment campaigns such as this therefore raise very real and understandable worries about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel,” said Debra DeLee, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.

J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, was equally direct: “If PCUSA disregards the voices of its Jewish allies in the quest for a two-state solution and votes to support divestment, it won’t bring a just peace any closer. It will merely lose the good will of many American Jews and further dissipate the energies we so desperately need to apply to the task at hand.”

Even more threatening were two rabbis, Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Alderstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. They stated that “it is almost beyond belief that as the ground literally burns beneath the Christian faithful in Egypt, Nigeria and Iraq that PCUSA stays fixated in aiding and abetting the de-legitimizing of Israel.

“All other mainline Christian denominations have either rejected or shelved divestment measures… A huge number of ordinary Presbyterians reject the actions of their church leadership. They enjoy a mutually warm and respectful relationship with Jewish friends. Those valued friendships will continue. But as far as PCUSA denominational leadership, the upcoming vote may bring us to the end of the road.”

Numerous groups, Jewish and non-Jewish, worked hard to defeat divestment at the GA, but despite their seeming success, the razor-thin margin of defeat could not have been encouraging for them.

“In the long-running Palestinian quest for human rights, it is important not to stop at individual victories or defeats … but to track long term trends,” said Nadia Hijab, co-founder of Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

“And those trends have definitely been moving in favour of Palestinian rights and against Israeli colonisation of the occupied territories and discrimination towards its Palestinian citizens as well as Palestinian refugees. Perhaps most significantly, Palestinian civil society has in recent years been able to define the terms of the struggle, forcing pro-Israel forces on the defensive and costing them millions.

“Although church organisations such as the United Methodists and the Presbyterians have not yet been able to bring themselves to divest from companies that support Israel’s occupation, they have been forced to respond to the flagrant illegality of the occupation by such measures as boycotts of goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements.”

By Mitchell Plitnick and - -
WASHINGTON, Mar 27 2012 (IPS)

At the third annual conference of J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby group that is widely seen as a counterweight to the more right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israel-Palestine conflict took the focus back from the ongoing tension with Iran.

There was much talk of Iran at the Washington conference, but J Street intended to shift attention back to the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has successfully focused international attention on Iran, pushing the Palestinian issue off the agenda.

Controversy swirled even before the conference began. Peter Beinart, whom J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami dubbed the “troubadour of our movement”, had published an op-ed calling for boycotting products from Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

J Street does not agree with this proposal, and Ben-Ami criticised Beinart’s proposal heavily. With Beinart using the J Street conference to launch his new book, this made for some awkward moments, and when the issue came up at one of the plenary sessions, the crowd was evenly split among supporters and opponents of Beinart’s idea.

J Street was also criticised in some circles, especially by Palestinian civil society groups, for having former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as its highest-profile speaker.

The leading U.S. Jewish periodical, The Forward, published an op-ed criticising J Street for bringing Olmert, whom many, including Israeli human rights organisations, have accused of war crimes in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2008-09, and who left office under the cloud of a corruption investigation.

The Israeli government faced criticism last year for refusing to participate in J Street’s conference. It decided this time to send the deputy head of mission from Israel’s U.S. embassy, Baruch Binah, to address the audience, and admonish them for putting pressure on Israel. This stood in sharp contrast to calls for open dialogue from virtually all other speakers.

After having sent his national security adviser to J Street’s first conference and his top Middle East negotiator to their last one, President Obama sent the Vice President’s top foreign policy adviser, Anthony Blinken, and his own key spokesperson, Valerie Jarrett, who has little involvement in Middle East matters, to this conference. These choices were widely seen as a sign that the administration was being very cautious about J Street.

Jarrett’s speech was largely devoted to campaigning for the president’s re-election in November, and hardly touched on foreign policy at all.

Blinken’s was mostly a reiteration of Obama’s talk at AIPAC, focusing on Obama’s strong support for Israeli security, the strengthening of U.S.-Israeli military coordination and cooperation that has been called “unprecedented”, and on Obama’s insistence that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon but intends to exhaust other options before turning to a military one.

“Later this year, (the United States and Israel) will conduct the largest joint exercise ever,” Blinken said. “Despite fiscal challenges, President Obama has requested 3.1 billion dollars (in military aid to Israel) for 2013, the most ever.”

On Iran, Blinken noted, “Iranian nuclear weapons pose a security threat to the United States as well. That’s why President Obama said we do not have a policy of containment but are committed to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

“This ‘loose talk of war’ … is incredibly counterproductive. It drives up oil prices, taking money from us and putting it in Iran’s pocket… We believe it is possible to be smart and tough at the same time.”

Neither Blinken nor Jarrett gave any indication of new or renewed initiatives designed to restart Israel-Palestinian peace talks. But former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt Daniel Kurtzer offered some ideas as to how to move forward.

“Why not suggest Obama Parametres that say this where you start because this is where you left off,” Kurtzer said.

This echoes the “Clinton Parameters”, which former President Bill Clinton laid down for the two parties in December 2000 at the end of his second term in office and in the wake of the failure of the Camp David II peace summit to produce results several months earlier.

Kurtzer suggested that Obama sum up all the results of prior negotiations, modify them for current realities and present them as a starting point for new talks.

“Within the context of negotiations, we should be pushing both sides to do what they said they would do in the Roadmap in 2002,” Kurtzer said, referring to the “Roadmap for Peace” developed by President George W. Bush.

“Freeze settlements; permit Palestinian mobility in order to build their economy; destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism, and build the infrastructure of a Palestinian state. These are requirements two sides accepted, and in the context of negotiations, we should demand they fulfill them.”

Kurtzer also criticised the United States’ approach to dealing with Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist group and which controls the Gaza Strip. “On one hand we demanded elections, but when Palestinians had them, we walked away because we didn’t like the results.”

Hamas won a majority of Parliamentary seats in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Since then, the United States and Israel have imposed conditions — acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, renunciation of violence and acceptance of all prior agreements entered into by the Palestinian Authority – for dealing with Hamas as a part of the Palestinian government.

“I think it’s fair to ask Hamas to comply with those conditions,” Kurtzer said. “The question is whether they are etched in stone or is Hamas given a path to follow. Hamas is charged with maintaining a ceasefire in Gaza. They may not do a good job, but they have the charge, so how do we encourage Hamas to continue, instead of just waiting at the finish line.”

The conference itself was saturated with calls to avoid despair, a reflection of the stalled peace process and diminishing hopes for the two-state solution that J Street is dedicated to.

“In 1967, David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) said we have to give back the West Bank and Gaza,” said Avishai Braverman, a member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, from the Labor Party. “It’s clear today that we must partition the holy land as soon as possible, because otherwise we will have either one, majority Arab state or Arabs will not have rights.”

Knesset member Zehava Golan, the head of the left-wing Meretz party, was more direct. “Today (the fight within Israeli society) is between those who protect Israeli democracy and those who would sacrifice democracy for a messianic vision. They are willing to keep the land and control of millions of Palestinians at the cost of Israel’s democratic character,” he said.

“Oppressing millions of people for so long is first of all abusive to the Palestinians but also erodes the democratic principles of Israel. Those who think we can do this and maintain democracy are delusional. ..Democracy and human rights cannot coexist with the occupation of another people.”

Excerpt:

By Mitchell Plitnick and - -
WASHINGTON, Mar 7 2012 (IPS)

More than 10,000 U.S. citizens descended on Capitol Hill Tuesday under the direction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading voice of the powerful Israel lobby here, to urge their congressional representatives to take a more aggressive stance towards Iran.

Their swarming of Congressional offices marked the final act of their annual three-day conference, which this year featured speeches by President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, three of the four leading Republican contenders for the White House this fall, and the top leaders of both parties in Congress.

The dominant theme of the conference was Iran’s presumed effort to develop nuclear weapons and what to do about it. The tone was heavily tilted toward actual or an increased threat of military action. This stands in stark contrast to Tuesday’s announcement that the U.S., United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany had agreed to resume talks with Iran in hopes of reaching a diplomatic resolution on the Iranian nuclear programme.

President Obama’s speech, at the conference’s opening plenary and ahead of his meeting with Netanyahu the following day, reaffirmed his administration’s policy of applying “crippling” economic sanctions on Iran and leaving the military option as a last resort.

For his part, Netanyahu, who has recently been increasingly vocal about the need for stronger action regarding Iran, tried to strike a balance between avoiding a confrontational tone with Obama similar to the one he took during his controversial trip to Washington for last year’s AIPAC conference, and holding fast to his position that sanctions and diplomacy are not succeeding in their aim to deter Iran from its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

One key area of disagreement between Netanyahu and Obama is where the critical “red line” would be drawn with Iran. Would it be at the point where Iran was about to actually acquire a nuclear weapon, or merely at it gaining the technical capability to do so, a point many analysts believe Iran has already reached.

While Obama reinforced his view that the critical threshold was Iran actually obtaining a weapon, Netanyahu, whose government has long opposed any outcome that would permit Iran to enrich uranium on its own territory, carefully avoided mention in his speech of where the line should be drawn.

“President Obama has … stated clearly that all options are on the table, and that American policy is not containment,” Netanyahu told the AIPAC audience in the cavernous Washington Convention Centre. “Well, Israel has exactly the same policy – we are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; we leave all options on the table; and containment is definitely not an option.”

From there, Netanyahu took a more militant stance.

“Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue. We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer,” Netanyahu continued, signaling that, while he may have agreed to let the United States pursue diplomacy for the moment, he was not committed to refraining from his own military action in the future.

Netanyahu’s stance was bolstered by Obama’s potential Republican opponents in November’s election. Each accused the president of not taking a strong enough stance against Iran.

Speaking by satellite hook-up, Mitt Romney, the persistent favourite in the Republican presidential race, criticised Obama’s approach and promised a tougher stance, including a military buildup around Iran aimed at intimidating its leaders.

“I will make sure Iran knows of the very real peril that awaits if it becomes nuclear,” Romney said. “I will engage Iran’s neighbours. I will station multiple carriers and warships at Iran’s door.”

He also won thunderous applause by promising that “… as president, my first foreign trip will not be to Cairo or Riyadh or Ankara. It will be to Jerusalem.”

Obama, however, was not without support at the closing plenary.

Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, who warned that attacking Iran could well prove counterproductive, told the conferees the U.S. was prepared to take military action “when all else fails”.

“We will keep all options – including military action – on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He described that as “a last alternative when all else fails, but make no mistake, we will act if we have to.”

More dramatically, Senator Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went into some detail about how the United States is already acting to enhance Israeli security, not just in general terms, but in ways that will specifically be of use against an Iranian attack.

“When Iran faces the fateful nuclear decision before it, it will have to recognise that should it cross the red line which would bring about military action against its nuclear facilities, its ability to retaliate, or even credibly threaten to retaliate, against Israel will be severely degraded by Israel’s missile defenses,” many of them developed by U.S. technology and, in the case of one powerful radar system, manned by U.S. troops, Levin told the AIPAC audience.

The United States provides well over than three billion dollars a year in military aid to Israel, an amount that has increased steadily under Obama.

The range of discussion within the conference – normally confined with rather narrow ideological limits – was widened by protest activities outside the convention centre.

The groups “Occupy AIPAC” and CODEPINK demonstrated against the conference from the beginning, picketing and setting up mock checkpoints to remind attendees of one of the key features of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and its ongoing siege of the Gaza Strip.

But inside the conference, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands was hardly mentioned, as conference organisers made certain that attention remained focused squarely on Iran and the “existential” its nuclear programme posed to Israel.

With the White House press conference Tuesday afternoon, Obama and his call to give more time for diplomacy got the last word.

“…(B)ecause the sanctions (against Iran) are going to be even tougher in the coming months, because they’re now starting to affect their oil industry, their central bank, and because we’re now seeing noises about them returning to the negotiating table … it is deeply in everybody’s interests – the United States’, Israel’s, and the world’s – to see if this can be resolved in a peaceful fashion,” Obama said Tuesday.

“I think there’s no doubt that those who are suggesting or proposing or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be,” he said in an apparent swipe at Republicans who have lined up behind Netanyahu.

“The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table, and we’ve got the opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays out.”

*Jim Lobe contributed to this story.

Excerpt:

Obama urged a diplomatic resolution of the tensions with Iran, which, he contends, there is still time to achieve. Credit: White House photo

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Mar 7 2012 (IPS)

U.S. President Barack Obama Sunday made a clear statement against a rush to war – either by the U.S. or Israel – with Iran, while also emphasising that he would pursue that option if alternatives were unsuccessful in ensuring that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon.

Speaking at the annual policy convention of the powerful American- Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama decried the “loose talk of war”, and contended that sanctions and international pressure are working.

“Now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built,” he said, noting that the recent drumbeat for war “has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil…”

He was no doubt referring to recent reports that Israel was preparing to strike Iranian nuclear targets this year, as well as exhortations by its supporters here, including three of the four major Republican presidential candidates, to take a more aggressive and threatening stance against Iran or to support Israel if it undertakes an attack against Tehran’s nuclear facilities on its own.

Obama began pushing back on that pressure last week in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine in which he stated that “…our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.”

Obama went on to urge a diplomatic resolution, which, he contends, there is still time to achieve. He reiterated that point at the AIPAC conference Sunday.

“Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.”

AIPAC has been backing a resolution in the U.S. Senate which would draw a “red line” at Iran’s acquisition of the “capability” of building a nuclear weapon, a lower, if substantially more vague threshold than actually possessing one.

The group, whose positions generally reflect those of the Israeli government, will be sending thousands of its members gathered here for the conference to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lobby lawmakers to support that resolution. The conference will hear directly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday night after what many regard as a critical meeting between the two leaders earlier in the day.

Many analysts, including the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies, believe that Iran is already technically capable of producing a nuclear weapon but has not yet made the decision to actually build one. So the Senate’s approval of the resolution, especially if it carries an overwhelming majority of the upper chamber, not only risks escalating tensions with Tehran, but would also challenge the administration’s policy, as enunciated Sunday by Obama himself.

Obama drew this distinction in his speech Sunday at the AIPAC conference by repeatedly warning about Iran “obtaining” a nuclear weapon, while not mentioning “capability”.

“I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table,” the president stated. “And I mean what I say.

“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told the 13,000 AIPAC delegates. “And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

In the last several weeks, it has become increasingly clear that the U.S. and Israel disagree not only on their definition of “red lines” that would provoke military action, but also on what an acceptable negotiated outcome with Iran might be.

Israel has long held to the same position as former President George W. Bush: that Iran should not be permitted to enrich uranium on its own territory, a result that is also favoured by the sponsors of the pending resolution. The Obama administration, on the other hand, has indicated it is willing to accept a settlement permitting enrichment in Iran, provided it is subject to enhanced international oversight.

On the eve of his visit here, Netanyahu said he saw no use in further negotiations, but most analysts believe a new round of talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) will take place as early as the end of this month.

Obama’s presentation at AIPAC came in the context of a larger controversy over his role in U.S.-Israel relations.

Speaking Immediately before Obama, Israeli President Shimon Peres, who is believed to oppose a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, praised him for his support of Israel and his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“He has made it clear that the United States of America will never permit Iran to become nuclear. He made it clear that containment is not a viable policy,” Peres said. “And as the president stated, all options are on the table…Mr. President, I know your commitment to Israel is deep and profound. Under your leadership, security cooperation between the United States and Israel has reached its highest level. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a friend in the White House.”

Yet the applause for Peres when he was introduced was noticeably much greater than that for Obama.

And just before the two presidents spoke, Liz Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney and an ascendant neo-conservative in her own right, drew considerable applause herself when she charged during a discussion with several other prominent analysts that Obama had undermined Israel more than any president before him.

Although that applause was exceeded when fellow panelist and former Congresswoman Jane Harman, now head of the prestigious Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, chastised those who would break the bipartisan consensus on support for Israel and turn the issue into a “political football”, it remained a strong indication of the sizeable contingent in the cavernous Washington Convention Centre hall used by AIPAC for its annual convention that was very hostile to Obama.

Aware of this, Obama preceded his statements on Iran by defending his record of support for Israel and echoing Harman’s criticism of those who would politicise the issue.

“If during this political season you hear some question my administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts,” Obama said.

He pointed to the widely acknowledged fact that U.S.-Israel security cooperation is greater than ever, as well as his repeated – and often lonely – defences of Israel at the U.N. and other international forums, many of which have drawn criticism from some of Washington’s closest allies.

Obama thereby set the stage for his defence of his Iran policy, and where the role of military force fits into it.

“As president and commander-in-chief, I have a deeply-held preference for peace over war,” Obama said. “I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. …I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it.”

Although most of his speech was devoted to Iran, Obama also spent several minutes warning against “cynicism” and “despair” regarding the Palestinian issue, which has virtually disappeared from the headlines over the past year, displaced by the so-called “Arab Spring” and the escalation in tensions over Iran. But he announced no new initiatives in that regard.

*Jim Lobe contributed to this story.

Excerpt:

U.S. President Barack Obama Sunday made a clear statement against a rush to war – either by the U.S. or Israel – with Iran, while also emphasising that he would pursue that option if alternatives were unsuccessful in ensuring that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon.

Speaking at the annual policy convention of the powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama decried the “loose talk of war”, and contended that sanctions and international pressure are working.

“Now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built,” he said, noting that the recent drumbeat for war “has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil…”

He was no doubt referring to recent reports that Israel was preparing to strike Iranian nuclear targets this year, as well as exhortations by its supporters here, including three of the four major Republican presidential candidates, to take a more aggressive and threatening stance against Iran or to support Israel if it undertakes an attack against Tehran’s nuclear facilities on its own.

Obama began pushing back on that pressure last week in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine in which he stated that “…our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.”

Obama went on to urge a diplomatic resolution, which, he contends, there is still time to achieve. He reiterated that point at the AIPAC conference Sunday.

“Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.”

AIPAC has been backing a resolution in the U.S. Senate which would draw a “red line” at Iran’s acquisition of the “capability” of building a nuclear weapon, a lower, if substantially more vague threshold than actually possessing one.

The group, whose positions generally reflect those of the Israeli government, will be sending thousands of its members gathered here for the conference to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lobby lawmakers to support that resolution. The conference will hear directly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday night after what many regard as a critical meeting between the two leaders earlier in the day.

Many analysts, including the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies, believe that Iran is already technically capable of producing a nuclear weapon but has not yet made the decision to actually build one. So the Senate’s approval of the resolution, especially if it carries an overwhelming majority of the upper chamber, not only risks escalating tensions with Tehran, but  would also challenge the administration’s policy, as enunciated Sunday by Obama himself.

Obama drew this distinction in his speech Sunday at the AIPAC conference by repeatedly warning about Iran “obtaining” a nuclear weapon, while not mentioning “capability”.

“I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table,” the president stated.  “And I mean what I say.

“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told the 13,000 AIPAC delegates. “And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

In the last several weeks, it has become increasingly clear that the U.S. and Israel disagree not only on their definition of “red lines” that would provoke military action, but also on what an acceptable negotiated outcome with Iran might be.

Israel has long held to the same position as former President George W. Bush: that Iran should not be permitted to enrich uranium on its own territory, a result that is also favoured by the sponsors of the pending resolution. The Obama administration, on the other hand, has indicated it is willing to accept a settlement permitting enrichment in Iran, provided it is subject to enhanced international oversight.

On the eve of his visit here, Netanyahu said he saw no use in further negotiations, but most analysts believe a new round of talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) will take place as early as the end of this month.

Obama’s presentation at AIPAC came in the context of a larger controversy over his role in U.S.-Israel relations.

Speaking Immediately before Obama, Israeli President Shimon Peres, who is believed to oppose a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, praised him for his support of Israel and his efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“He has made it clear that the United States of America will never permit Iran to become nuclear. He made it clear that containment is not a viable policy,” Peres said. “And as the president stated, all options are on the table…Mr. President, I know your commitment to Israel is deep and profound. Under your leadership, security cooperation between the United States and Israel has reached its highest level. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a friend in the White House.”

Yet the applause for Peres when he was introduced was noticeably much greater than that for Obama.

And just before the two presidents spoke, Liz Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney and an ascendant neo-conservative in her own right, drew considerable applause herself when she charged during a discussion with several other prominent analysts that Obama had undermined Israel more than any president before him.

Although that applause was exceeded when fellow panelist and former Congresswoman Jane Harman, now head of the prestigious Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, chastised those who would break the bipartisan consensus on support for Israel and turn the issue into a “political football”, it remained a strong indication of the sizeable contingent in the cavernous Washington Convention Centre hall used by AIPAC for its annual convention that was very hostile to Obama.

Aware of this, Obama preceded his statements on Iran by defending his record of support for Israel and echoing Harman’s criticism of those who would politicise the issue.

“If during this political season you hear some question my administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts,” Obama said.

He pointed to the widely acknowledged fact that U.S.-Israel security cooperation is greater than ever, as well as his repeated – and often lonely – defences of Israel at the U.N. and other international forums, many of which have drawn criticism from some of Washington’s closest allies.

Obama thereby set the stage for his defence of his Iran policy, and where the role of military force fits into it.

“As president and commander-in-chief, I have a deeply-held preference for peace over war,” Obama said. “I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. …I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it.”

Although most of his speech was devoted to Iran, Obama also spent several minutes warning against “cynicism” and “despair” regarding the Palestinian issue, which has virtually disappeared from the headlines over the past year, displaced by the so-called “Arab Spring” and the escalation in tensions over Iran. But he announced no new initiatives in that regard.

*Jim Lobe contributed to this story.

(END)

Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, left, with former U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross, in 1999. Ross is known for having strong pro-Israeli views. Credit: Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

By Mitchell Plitnick and - -
WASHINGTON, Dec 13 2011 (IPS)

In his first public address since departing from the White House, Dennis Ross, former top Middle East aide to U.S. President Barack Obama, called for increased sanctions on Iran, a careful approach to new Arab regimes and a low-key approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, left, with former U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross, in 1999. Ross is known for having strong pro-Israeli views. Credit: Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

“(A nuclear Iran) poses a threat to vital American security interests,” Ross said. “A nuclear Iran will trigger a regional arms race and undermine non-proliferation… It will lead to a situation where people can’t afford to wait.”

“President Obama has said all options are on the table. Force is not the first choice, but it is on the table, and time remains for diplomacy and pressure,” he stressed.

On the recent electoral victories of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ross said that the Brotherhood has “evolved and are not the same as the Salafists”, the fundamentalist Muslim group that placed a strong second to the Brotherhood in the first round of parliamentary elections earlier this month.

“We should not view (the Brotherhood) as we have in the past, though we should keep a wary eye and not dismiss their ideology.”

Ross also advocated a low-key approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, suggesting that the U.S. and Israel promote the Ramallah-centred Palestinian economy and enhance Palestinian security control in what is called Area B, the West Bank region currently administered by the Palestinian Authority but ultimately subject to the control of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

He made no mention at all of ongoing Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Powerful players

Ross’ voice is an extremely important one, both because of the central role he played in Mideast peace negotiations under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as Barack Obama, and because of his renewed association with WINEP, where he was based during the administration of President George W. Bush.

WINEP is an influential voice on Capitol Hill. Established in 1985 by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it has positioned itself as a key source of information and advice about the region to the White House, State Department and Congress.

In recent months, WINEP has been a leading voice for stronger measures against Iran, including the use of force.

The director of WINEP’s Military and Security Studies Program, Michael Eisenstadt, wrote in November, “(T)o succeed diplomatically and to deter, the United States needs to be ready to use force in response to further acts of terrorism by Iran, or to an attempt by Iran to build a bomb.”

“For the threat of force to work, however, it has to be credible, and it has to dramatically alter Iran’s risk calculus. Right now, neither condition is present. The United States ignores this state of affairs at its own, and its allies’ peril,” he continued.

More recently, WINEP’s Managing Director, Michael Singh, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration, wrote that “the Iranian regime is unlikely to extend us the courtesy of waiting until we have exhausted all sanctions and diplomacy before going nuclear”.

“The surest way to put off that date and buy breathing room for a diplomatic strategy is to convince Iran’s leaders that while we are not eager for a conflict, we are prepared to fight and win one if necessary.”

“Israel’s lawyer”

Ross was initially brought into the Obama administration as the State Department’s special advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia, a post he held from February to June 2009.

He then moved to the White House where he has served as special assistant to the president and as senior director for the “Central Region” at the National Security Council – essentially the civilian counterpart of the chief of the Pentagon’s Central Command (CentCom), covering a region stretching from Egypt to Afghanistan.

While adept at keeping a low profile, Ross has focused in particular on U.S. policy toward Iran, about which he has hawkish views, and on Israeli-Arab relations, especially the U.S.-led Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”, which appears to have reached a dead end under his supervision.

His announcement last month that he was leaving the administration – and the announcement by WINEP just a few hours later that he was rejoining their ranks – sparked speculation about his reasons for leaving.

Although he stressed that he had promised his wife to leave after two years, which he had stretched to almost three, some observers speculated he no longer wanted to defend the administration’s policies to the right-wing leadership of the organised Jewish community.

With his strong association to major Jewish institutions, Ross, who has been characterised by some of his Palestinian interlocutors as “Israel’s lawyer”, has served as a shield for the White House against attacks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies here.

In his remarks Tuesday, Ross continued to defend the administration’s policies.

Responding to a question regarding the continued viability of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Ross offered little optimism that such a goal was still attainable, but insisted there was no viable alternative.

Ross has long been viewed as a problematic negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians due to his perceived bias toward the Jewish state.

Indeed, after leaving his job as Middle East envoy during the early days of the George W. Bush administration, he became the founding chairman of the Jewish People’s Policy Institute (JPPI), a Jerusalem-based think tank that was established by the Jewish Agency for Israel.

Ross was also a founding member of United Against A Nuclear Iran (UANI), a hawkish group that has mounted an aggressive public campaign to highlight the alleged threat posed by Iran to Israel and the U.S.

As election year campaigning ramps up, a voice like Ross’s, coming from a bastion of the powerful pro-Israel lobby like WINEP, is likely to be taken very seriously when he says, “We still have time and space to ramp up the pressure (on Iran) and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. This must be the objective, not living with a nuclear Iran.”

Excerpt:

By Mitchell Plitnick and - -
WASHINGTON, Dec 1 2011 (IPS)

A clear majority of Israeli Jews would support a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, even if it meant that Israel too would have to give up its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

This was the most surprising result to come out of a pair of polls conducted separately on Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. The polls, conducted in November by Professor Shibley Telhami and presented Thursday at the Brookings Institution, covered a range of topics, from the Arab Spring to perceptions of the United States and hopes for the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

While 90 percent of Israeli Jews believe Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, 63 percent prefer that neither country possess nuclear weaponry, while only 19 percent would prefer they both do, if those are the only two choices.

By a narrow margin of 43 to 41 percent, Israeli Jews support the idea of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Sixty-eight percent of Arab Israelis oppose such an attack, with only four percent saying they support it.

The poll also revealed that most Israeli Jews believe that the Arab Spring will negatively impact their own country, largely because they do not believe it will bring democracy to the Arab world.

When asked how the Arab Spring will affect Israel, 51 percent responded “mostly for the worse”, with only 15 percent saying it would change things for the better. Twenty-one percent said it would make no difference.

Yet, when asked “If the Arab Spring does, in fact, lead to more democracy in the Arab world…” 44 percent thought this would be better for Israel, with only 22 percent saying it would be worse and 28 percent saying it would make no difference.

Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, responding to the presentation of Telhami’s polls, noted that, “The Israeli people are made more fearful of the Arab Spring” by government and media warnings that it will increase hostility toward Israel.

The poll of Palestinian citizens of Israel revealed some sharp changes on key issues from only a year ago.

When asked if they would “accept the transfer of some Arab/Palestinian towns currently in Israel to a new Palestinian state”, 78 percent responded that they would not accept such a transfer, with only 17 percent saying they would. That is a clear shift from 2010, when 58 percent said they would oppose such a transfer while 36 percent would accept it.

There was also a strong shift toward compromise on the question of Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the lands from which they were exiled. In 2010, 57 percent of Arab Israelis said the right of return “could not be compromised away”, while 28 percent said it was “important, but a compromise should be found” and 11 percent said it was “not too important”.

In the current poll, the plurality shifted and now 57 percent are in favour of compromise, 34 percent say it cannot be compromised and only five percent say it is not too important.

Telhami was unsure about the reasons for the drastic shift in opinion on this issue. He did say, however that, “Those who had refugees in their families were much more inclined not to compromise than those who did not.”

The polls also showed a stark contrast between Arab and Jewish citizens in the perceptions of the status of Arabs in Israel. While majorities in both groups (52 percent of Jews, 57 percent of Arabs) believe that, “There is legal equality but institutional and societal discrimination” against the Arab minority, 36 percent of Arabs believe that the relationship between Jews and Arab in Israel “is an apartheid relationship”.

While only seven percent of Jews subscribe to that view, 33 percent of Jews believe there is “full equality between Arab and Jewish citizens” in Israel, but a mere three percent of Arabs share that view.

Jewish Israelis hold little hope for a resolution of the conflict in the near future, with only six percent saying it will be resolved in the next five years. Forty-nine percent believe it will never be resolved, while 42 percent say that it eventually will be, but it will take more than five years.

There is a widespread consensus among Israeli Jews that Israel must be recognised as a Jewish state, something the Palestinian Authority has adamantly refused to do. Thirty-nine percent insist such recognition must be a precondition of negotiations or a settlement freeze, while 40 percent are willing to accept that recognition as part of a final peace agreement. Only 17 percent do not support the demand for recognition as a Jewish state.

But when asked if they would accept defining Israel as “the homeland of the Jewish people and all its citizens”, 71 percent of Israeli Jews said they would support such a formulation, while only 25 percent oppose it.

By a 66 percent to 31 percent margin, Israeli Jews said they believe their government should be doing more to “promote comprehensive peace with the Arabs based on the 1967 borders with agreed modifications”, indicating dissatisfaction with the way the Netanyahu government has handled this issue.

Yet 47 percent of Israeli Jews also believe that if the two-state solution collapses, “the status quo will continue with little change.” Thirty-four percent believe it will lead to intense, long- term conflict.

Telhami pointed out that, “In the Arab world, most believe that the collapse of the two-state solution will lead to intense conflict for years to come.”

The polls found that Arab citizens of Israel were generally well in line with the rest of the Arab world in their attitudes toward the Arab Spring and in seeing Turkish Prime Minister Tercep Erdogan as the model for new leadership.

The one stark difference between Arabs in Israel and in the Arab countries surveyed in an earlier poll was in the view of the United States’ role in the Arab world in recent months. When asked which two outside countries played the most productive roles in the Arab world in recent months, the United States ranked third in the Arab countries, being named by 24 percent of respondents, but ranked first at 45 percent among Arabs in Israel.

As the United States’ presidential election draws nearer, Barack Obama might take heart that his positive rating among Israeli Jews is up to 54 percent from 41 percent last year. But faith in his policies remains low, as only 22 percent say their attitude about them is “hopeful” while 39 percent describe their feelings as “discouraged”.

Excerpt:

By Mitchell Plitnick and - -
WASHINGTON, Nov 3 2011 (IPS)

Veteran U.S. diplomats and scholars who have worked for decades on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have grown increasingly pessimistic about the continued viability of the U.S.- sponsored “peace process” and the two-state solution that was presumed to be its goal.

“Things look as bleak today as they did before Madrid,” said former Secretary of State James Baker at a major gathering in Washington this week, in a reference to the landmark Middle East conference in the Spanish capital exactly 20 years ago this week. “The peace process is not dead, but it is on life support.”

“What is lacking is leadership and political will and, regrettably, (that lack) is on the part of the United States, and that has been the case in both Republican and Democratic administrations,” Baker told the audience at the U.S. Institute of Peace which, along with Baker’s Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, co-sponsored the conference, entitled “Twenty Years After Madrid”.

The long list of notable presenters, including a video interview with former President George H.W. Bush, gathered to mark the 20th anniversary of the conference, the first major summit that brought together Arab and Israeli leaders for face-to-face discussions and helped lay the basis for the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) two years later.

Bush and Baker led the effort to assemble the 1991 Madrid conference, which followed the first Gulf War in which a U.S.-led military coalition that included key Arab states successfully routed Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

The conference, which the Bush administration pressured Israel to attend over the strong objections of then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, was seen as a quid pro quo for Arab support for the U.S. war. Its intent was to build links between Israel and its Arab neighbours while establishing a forum that could begin to address Palestinian grievances against Israel.

“The Madrid conference laid down the framework for the peace process,” Bush said in his videotaped interview. “Peace can only come from direct negotiations, compromise and give and take. We showed that the United States could be an honest broker.”

Bush, who is recognised as the last U.S. president who could legitimately claim to having been an honest broker in the conflict, acknowledged that the momentum and goodwill generated by the Madrid conference have long since been lost.

“We are Israel’s best friends, but we cannot be Israel’s attorney,” noted Aaron David Miller in an implicit criticism of Washington’s role in overseeing the peace process for most of the past 20 years. Miller served six secretaries of state as a top Middle East “peace- processer” between 1988 and 2003 and is now based at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here.

A panel consisting of Miller, former U.S. Aambassadors to Israel Samuel Lewis and Daniel Kurtzer, as well as Shibley Telhami, a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, expressed the general view of the conferees when they unanimously agreed that the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is the only feasible option for settling the conflict, but one that may soon cease to be viable.

“There is no one-state solution; the choice is between two states and continued chaos,” Lewis said. “It’s not dead yet, but continued (Israeli) settlement growth jeopardises it.”

“Palestinians have already accepted the principle of land swaps to accommodate major Israeli settlement blocs,” said Kurtzer. “But if (settlements) keep expanding, the swaps may be too large for either side to make a deal.”

Telhami, whose annual surveys of Arab opinion enjoy a considerable following here, wondered if it was not already too late for the two- state solution. “Both Israeli and Arab majorities don’t believe (the two-state solution) will happen,” he said. “But they also don’t think there can be any other resolution, so they continue to support two states.”

In recent months, the PLO, led by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, has begun to press its case for statehood at the United Nations, and on Monday its application for membership as a state was approved by the governing board of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

While most of the speakers agreed that this strategy, which is strongly opposed by Israel and the administration of President Barack Obama, was risky, a senior PLO official, Nabil Sha’ath, defended the move and questioned what he characterised as a double standard in Washington’s response.

“At Madrid, we Palestinians felt for the first time that the United States is there, will stay the course, and will equalise the great disparity of power (between the Palestinians and Israel), which is necessary for negotiations between two such unequal parties,” Sha’ath said.

“Today’s problem is that settlements expand with no consequences to Israel, but when we seek UNESCO membership, our funding is threatened. This was something the U.S. made clear would not happen at Madrid,” he said.

“You can’t negotiate land for peace when that land is being taken away,” Sha’ath went on. “It requires real resolve and leadership, and the coming (U.S. presidential) elections will make that very difficult for the next year,” he noted.

“(Israeli Prime Minister) Netanyahu has decided to build more settlements in that year, while we will continue to maintain security, prevent a return to violence, maintain our recognition of Israel within the 1967 borders, and also work to secure recognition from the international community. What’s wrong with that?”

The 2012 presidential elections in the U.S. came up repeatedly during the day, and with it came questions about the extent to which domestic politics influence U.S. foreign policy. As Baker put it, “Nothing will happen until after the 2012 elections. Domestic politics is a reality for both parties (Democrat and Republican), and there is no chance for a breakthrough on peace for the next year.”

Shibley Telhami said he saw a desperate need for stronger presidential leadership on the issue.

“Congress will be on autopilot, following the lead of the pro-Israel Lobby until the president makes the case that (the current policy is not in) the national interest,” he said. “For the president to do that, it requires a lot of effort, and he may not do it when he has higher priorities.”

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who helped broker the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt under President Jimmy Carter, was more direct about the influence of domestic politics and Congress on U.S. Mideast policy.

“Absolutely, there is too much influence in Congress (on the part of the pro-Israel lobby),” he said. “The president has the most (option) in the foreign policy arena, provided he asserts it. Otherwise, the void will be filled by Congress and lobbying groups.”

“The president must lead on this issue and recent presidents haven’t. At Camp David we made it clear that the United States would be more critical of whichever side blocks the agreement. We told the Israelis not to push the envelope on this, that we were serious about this stance. Is that abandoning Israel? No, it’s doing Israel a service. That’s what we need to do and are not doing. That is leadership.”

Excerpt:

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to descend on Washington in less than two weeks, President Barack Obama faces some difficult decisions about how to restore the credibility of his promise to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without triggering a backlash in a Congress that is solidly pro-Israel.

That challenge has been rendered much more difficult by recent events, particularly last week’s Egyptian-mediated reconciliation agreement between the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist group, and by the drive by PA President Mahmoud Abbas to gain U.N. recognition for a Palestinian state when the General Assembly convenes in September.

Both moves have been strongly denounced by the Netanyahu government and are considered anathema by the so-called Israel Lobby, which enjoys considerable influence among lawmakers on both sides of the Congressional aisle.

Indeed, leading members of Congress are already threatening to cut off the approximately 400 million dollars a year Washington provides to the PA unless it reconsiders its decision to reunify with Hamas, and are also calling for Obama to oppose the Palestinian effort at the U.N. statehood vote.

But punishing the PA, according to a number of Mideast experts, is the last thing that Washington should be doing.

“At a time when the United States is calling on Arab governments to be more responsive to the demands of their people, U.S. opposition to national unity, which has been a central demand of the Palestinian people for many years, would send all of the wrong messages to the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world,” Khaled Elgindy, a former advisor to Palestinian negotiators, wrote at Foreign Policy’s Mideast Channel.

Obama will meet Netanyahu with less sway than he once had over the PA in the wake of a U.S. veto in February of a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution was recognised by many analysts as being completely in line with stated U.S. policy.

Abbas pointedly expressed his disappointment in the U.S. veto by pointing to the subsequent statement by the major European powers.

“After the United States’ use of the veto in the Security Council, a declaration was published by Britain and France, supported by Germany, Italy and Spain,” Abbas said. “We accept the content of that declaration from A to Z, since it includes the total freezing of settlement building, and is backed by international references.”

Abbas subsequently stated that Britain and France would support Palestinian statehood in September and that at that time “we will ask the American president to fulfill his promises. He said that he wishes to see a state with full partnership in the United Nations. This is a promise from the American president.”

Obama needs to regain control of Mideast diplomacy. Former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told IPS recently, “Saying no to the United States without cost has become everybody’s favourite pastime. Leaders throughout the region say no to us and there’s no cost. Our street cred is way down.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not rule out the possibility of dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, but reiterated that the group would have to recognise Israel and renounce violence.

Abbas left his own door open when he said on Sunday that, “If progress was recorded in negotiations, September would become a meaningless deadline because our preference is a peace process.”

Cutting off aid to the PA over Hamas’s presence, then, would severely limit the U.S.’s ability to stem the tide of the statehood vote.

Congress, however, is pushing for both shunning a PA with Hamas in it and sparing no effort to stop the statehood vote.

The first calls came from Republicans. Senator Mark Kirk sent an open letter on Apr. 29 spelling out what he saw as the U.S.’s legal obligation to cut off all support to a Palestinian unity government.

The chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, agreed: “The administration must follow U.S. law and immediately cut off all assistance to the PA.”

This was followed on May 6 by a letter to Obama signed by 27 senators, mostly Democrats, declaring: “It is imperative for you to make clear to President Abbas that Palestinian Authority participation in a unity government with an unreformed Hamas will jeopardize its relationship with the United States, including its receipt of U.S. aid … We urge you to conduct a review of the current situation and suspend aid should Hamas refuse to comply with Quartet conditions.”

Both the senators’ and Ros-Lehtinen’s letters also demanded that Obama spare no effort in opposing the statehood vote.

Obama has no doubt strengthened his political position in dealing with this dilemma in the wake of the assassination of Osama bin Laden. “Obama… has never been stronger and, following the revolutionary changes in the Arab world, Netanyahu has never been weaker,” says MJ Rosenberg, senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network.

Still, Rosenberg wrote, in his weekly column for Media Matters, “The [Israel] lobby remains as powerful as ever, its donors as single- minded as ever, and Congress as devoted to pleasing it as ever. Obama might buy into the line…that this is no time to upset the Israelis and their friends.”

Abbas this week asked a delegation from J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group which has called for Israel and the Obama administration to “wait to see the policies of a new Palestinian government before condemning it”, to advocate in Congress for continuing aid and relations with a PA that includes Hamas.

J Street’s Director, Jeremy Ben Ami, said the group would “bring back to Washington the message that this may be the last opportunity with a Palestinian leader willing to say yes to peace with Israel.”

This can be an opportunity for Obama, according to former Israeli diplomat Daniel Levy: “There might be advantages for the U.S. in having this issue taken somewhat out of its hands… [it] might enhance the prospects of a solution, produce openings for more effective U.S. engagement with Israel, or at least might mitigate the debilitating cumulative impact this issue has on America’s standing in the Middle East.”

Navigating these contradictory pressures will be tough going for Obama, and both Israeli-Palestinian peace and the failing U.S. stature in the Middle East will hang in the balance of his choices.