Americans for Peace Now

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg gets it right in his criticism of AIPAC's stacking the panels of its Policy Conference with conservatives and hawks. By not exposing its activists to a broad spectrum of views on Israel, AIPAC does a disservice not only to the 7,000-odd participants but to Israel.

One of the beauties of Israel's political culture - still, despite the efforts of Israel's ultra-nationalists to squash dissent - is the diversity of views and the relative tolerance of conflicting political views. It is a democratically-harmonious, often chaotic, cacophony of opposing views, negotiated in the public arena. Goldberg correctly points out that there seems to be little of that echoing at Washington's Convention Center this week.

The title of this year's AIPAC conference is "Israel: Tell the Story." Does the makeup of the conference's panels really reflect the Israeli narrative? Does it fairly represent the makeup of the pro-Israel community in the United States? How accurate, fair and honest is the story that AIPAC is telling its activists and Israel's supporters on Capitol Hill?

The current crisis in US-Israel relations regarding construction in East Jerusalem is an opportunity for the Obama administration to assert its vision for a final-status resolution to the question of Jerusalem, and perhaps for all the "core issues" that Israelis and Palestinians need to resolve.

Many foreign policy experts say that this is the time for Obama to do just that. The Washington Post's David Ignatius, on of America's chief experts on Washington's Middle East policy, advocates such a course of action. His article in Sunday's Post follows. What do you think?

CLARIFICATION:  Nothing in this post reflects secret, leaked, or internal AIPAC documents.  The Senate letter was circulating widely by email among Senate staff as of late Friday afternoon.  All the other documents referenced here are available for anyone to see on the AIPAC website (and links to them, on the AIPAC website, are provided).

As noted in today's Round-Up, AIPAC will be on the Hill next week lobbying members of Congress to pass "crippling" Iran sanctions and to sign on to letters to the Administration regarding US-Israel relations and the peace process. 

The Senate version of that letter, being circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), can now be read here; the Dear Colleague circulating with it can be read here.  As expected, it is a carefully crafted, moderate-sounding letter -- an updated version of last year's Bayh-Risch letter.  In brief, the letter (addressed to Secretary Clinton):

• implies that the problem with the recent announcement of new Jerusalem settlement plans was a problem of timing, not substance, and that the construction itself is not a serious issue since it will take place sometime in the future ("We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations.")

• asserts that the failure to re-start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is entirely due to Palestinian intransigence and in no way due to Israeli actions ("Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen over the past year.  Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel.  Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions.  By contrast, Israel's prime minister has stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians."

• implies that the Obama Administration should not publicly criticize Israel, even when Israel does things to publicly embarrass it ("We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process.  But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies."
  

1.  Bills and Resolutions 
2.  Congress and the Jerusalem Settlements Dust-Up 
3.  AIPAC on the Hill Next Week 
4.  Dear Colleague Bashing PA 
5.  APN on Iran Sanctions, Jerusalem Settlement Issue 

Haaretz today published a poll of Israeli public opinion, with some very significant findings in the wake of the tensions between Israel and the United States following the Israeli decision to approve a massive new settlement expansion in East Jerusalem.

I could not find the full poll results in English. So I have translated them. The original Hebrew is here if anybody wants to check my translation.

ADL put out a statement today criticizing General David Petraeus for his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Petraeus had made the observation that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility."

"Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region]," Petraeus added.

This is common sense. America's interests are directly tied to Middle East peace and to Israel. The U.S. is fighting two wars in the greater Middle East, and is trying to mobilize an international effort to address the threat posed by Iran.

Why did Israel greet Vice President Biden with an announcement of more settlement activity in East Jerusalem?  Was it a deliberate insult?   A provocation?  A sign of colossal hubris?  

The more likely answer is less sinister but no less ominous: this was just business-as-usual - an Israeli government thumbing its nose at the US, assuming there will be no consequences.  

Most insiders agree that Netanyahu probably didn't know in advance about the settlement plan coming up for approval, and that the timing was more about one of Netanyahu's ministers trying to embarrass him than about trying to pick a fight with Washington.   But that absolves Netanyahu of nothing.  For him to not be keeping track of (and taking control of) Jerusalem settlement plans at this point is either gross negligence or willful ignorance.  

And that, too, is business-as-usual: an Israeli Prime Minister who believes it is politically easier and less costly to clash with the US than with his own cabinet or domestic constituencies.

For months APN has been working to get President Barack Obama to step up his efforts in support of peace for Israel. We've called on him to be prepared to confront Israel, the Palestinians, or the Arab states when they fail to play ball.

Last week the Obama administration did just that.

My new piece on Iran and sanctions, published today on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel...

Getting over the sanctions delusion

Recently I was talking with a friend from the military-intelligence world about the mounting pressure on Congress to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - legislation aimed at "crippling" Iran's civilian economy.  Reportedly a House-Senate conference is already informally underway trying to craft a consensus version of the bill, and last week AIPAC sent a message to every Member of Congress urging that IRPSA be enacted "without delay."

I explained that in my view sanctions aimed at civilians were a bad idea, and that sanctions in general, while a potentially powerful tool, do not, on their own constitute a policy.  My friend's  response? "Sanctions are the sign of a failed policy, period."

He makes a good point.  Fundamentally, sanctions are how the US tells a foreign government:  we don't like you, we can't convince you to see things our way, and we can't (or aren't ready to) overthrow you - so get ready to feel some pain.

Alpher answers questions about US-Israel tensions following last week's announcement of construction of 1,600 housing units in an East Jerusalem.