An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel, nor for that matter, the world, can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. 

The Republican Jewish Coalition has had it with people criticizing Israel about Gaza. That is the gist of the RJC's latest partisan, grand-standing screed, published today in the Jerusalem Post, opposite an op-ed by myself and my J Street colleague Hadar Susskind.

As the RJC makes clear in the piece, it is especially frustrated with the 54 members of Congress who signed a letter to President Obama expressing concern about the humanitarian suffering in Gaza.  The RJC wants the world to know that everything -- yes, everything -- Israel does with respect to Gaza reflects bona fide Israeli security needs, and that any resulting suffering is 100% the fault of the Palestinians for making bad choices.  And the RJC is putting these members of Congress - and everyone else - on notice that suggesting otherwise is no less than anti-Israel calumny. (The RJC is so excited about taking on APN and J Street over the Gaza letter that today it sent out a fund-raising email highlighting the JPost articles.)

The RJC's logic is the latest example of the kind of tactics Hadar and I are talking about in our article: "No American - Jewish, Muslim or Christian, Democrat or Republican - who recognizes the security benefit to Israel in ending rather than enabling Hamas' monopoly over basic goods in Gaza, who sees that furthering a humanitarian crisis does not equate to fighting terrorism, and who cares for the future of children in the Middle East, Israeli and Palestinian, should let anyone use fear and smear tactics for their own partisan benefit."

And as Hadar and I point out: "There are real threats to Israel. There really are people out there who don't support Israel as a Jewish democratic homeland.  We don't need to invent opposition to Israel and we certainly don't need to push people who are supportive of Israel away from us by calling them 'anti-Israel' every time someone expresses either concern for Palestinians or opposition to a particular Israeli government position." 

Shame on the RJC for this further shameless partisan grandstanding at the expense of Israel.

Those of us who oppose efforts to impose "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian people - an approach supported by many in Congress (and most of the Jewish community) are often belligerently asked: "if you don't support these sanctions, what is your alternative?"  The implication being that if we can't propose another course of action then we must support the crippling sanctions, even if nearly everyone agrees that such sanctions won't work and will likely prove counterproductive. 

This is of course a silly argument - imagine two doctors arguing about how to treat a patient: Doctor 1: "We've tried everything we can think of and he's not getting better, so I propose we try radiation."  Doctor 2: "Are you nuts?  Given his condition, all medical science points to the fact that radiation won't do anything to help him and will almost certainly make him worse"  Doctor 1:  "Well, unless you have a better idea you have no choice but to accept my recommendation." Doctor 2:  "Where did you get your medical degree??"

But imaginary dialogues aside, there are some sanctions that actually make sense.  For example, it seems self-evident that it makes sense to impose sanctions on those who are enabling Iran to block the internet, censor electronic communications, and otherwise interfere with the ability of Iranian citizens to communicate with each other and the outside world (anyone remember the term "twitter revolution?")

To which I think most people would reply: great idea!  Someone in Congress should get working on this!
 

Here is a list of the signers of the Congressional letter on Gaza.

By Nathan Guttman

Published February 03, 2010, issue of February 12, 2010.

Washington -- A congressional letter calling on the United States to press for the lifting of the blockades imposed by Israel and Egypt on Gaza has sparked controversy within the Jewish community.

Picture: Reps. Jim McDermott (left) and Keith Ellison sponsored effort to ease blockade on movement of civilian goods.

As President Obama embarks on his second year in office, he and his team continue to reiterate their commitment to achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. Indeed, President Obama's peace team remains actively engaged and for the first time in months there are encouraging signs of progress toward renewing peace talks.  

An important lesson from 2009, however, is that it will take more than patience and polite words to make peace.  In his first year in office, President Obama articulated a clear vision for Middle East peace, worked tirelessly to make progress toward that goal, and in tangible terms achieved something significant, in the form of Israel's decision to adopt a partial settlement moratorium.  His efforts to make further progress, however, were stymied by intransigence on the part of both Israel and the Palestinians, by lack of clear buy-in and support from the Arab world, and by his own resolve to be unfailingly patient and polite, regardless of the behavior of others.    

In order to achieve a breakthrough toward peace in 2010, the Obama Administration will have to be prepared to play political hardball, re-orienting the US approach to Middle East peace efforts in the following ways:

For some time there has been a debate over whether President Obama will, or should, release his own ideas about the content of an Israeli-Palestinian permanent status agreement (PSA).  Now, as there appears to be a renewed push underway to launch Israeli-Palestinian permanent status talks, there is again discussion of whether it is time for President Obama to lay down some clear US ideas about those talks.

Interestingly, the Obama Administration has already gone a good way in this direction.  The fact is, with little fanfare and nobody really noticing, the Obama Administration has - in speeches and other statements of President Obama and his top officials - been gradually laying out some clear premises upon which it believes any permanent status talks will be based.  While these statements fall short of directly stating US expectations for the content of a PSA, they very clearly communicate US policy on some of the key permanent status issues, and it is no great leap to infer from them some clear US expectations about the shape and content of a PSA.

Transforming these discrete policy utterances into a cohesive set of premises about peace could arguably be very helpful in energizing President Obama's Middle East peace effort, reasserting US leadership and confidence in the Middle East policy arena.  Doing so could also reassure Israelis and Palestinians - as well as key allies in the region whom the US needs help from in launching talks - that the US recognizes and validates their core concerns.  Moreover, were the US to release a formal policy statement of some kind, along the lines discussed below, it would be very difficult for Israel or the Palestinians to attack the content, since it genuinely includes nothing that has not already been said.

Since Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell's appearance on Charlie Rose, the Israeli press has been full of reports of official indignation and outrage.  The running theme is: how dare Mitchell threaten Israel with cutting aid if it does not play ball on the peace process?  

And in a gift to Israeli hasbara-niks, this weekend's visit to Jerusalem by two of Obama's chief opponents in Congress, defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) and his lackey, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) spent most of Sunday telling the Israeli media how they would never allow such a thing to happen.

What Mitchell actually said, after Rose pressed him on whether the US has any sticks to use in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, was this: 

Glenn Kessler has an interesting piece in today's Washington Post talking about the Obama Administration's plans for additional sanctions against Iran (full text after the break).  

Interesting, because Kessler talks to senior Obama Administration officials who make clear that "We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy."  And who argue that "We have to be deft at this, because it matters how the Iranian people interpret their isolation -- whether they fault the regime or are fooled into thinking we are to blame." Kessler adds that "As a result, top officials show little apparent interest in legislation racing through Congress that would punish companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran. 'Sanctions would not be an alternative to engagement,' another senior official said. 'Our intention is to keep the door open.'"

For anyone who might not have been paying attention, this Glenn Kessler report is completely consistent with what Obama Administration officials have said in the past about IRPSA - most notably in a largely ignored appearance by Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey before the Senate Banking Committee hearing about IRPSA on 10/6/09, and in the letter sent by Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry (D-MA) on 12/11/09.

And again, for anyone who has not been paying attention, APN has opposed IRPSA from the start - generally for the same reasons articulated by Administration officials.  We have been one of the sole voices - and the sole voice in the Jewish community - aligned with the Obama Administration on this issue, and pressing both the House and Senate to reject or amend this very problematic bill (including offering specific amendments to both versions of the bill).

Congress comes back next month, and Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has already promised to take swift action on IRPSA.  It remains to be seen if the Senate Majority leader will heed the Administration's words -- permitting the bill to be amended in substantively significant ways or slow-walking the bill until such time as the President has implemented his own new sanctions strategy. 

Critics (including this writer) of HR 2194 -- the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), which was passed by the House yesterday -- have argued that if the US wants to put pressure on the government of Iran, sanctions that deliberately cause suffering to the Iranian people are unlikely to do the job and could well backfire.   During yesterday's House debate on IRPSA, several speakers attempted to refute this criticism by raising the South Africa precedent.  They noted, correctly, that in the South Africa context, crippling economic sanctions worked.   

It is clear why supporters of IRSPA want to focus on South Africa:  this is the only example in recent history where sanctions similar to those being proposed for use against Iran achieved their intended purpose.  

But those raising the South Africa ignore a key fact:  while the sanctions may be similar, their justification and intended purpose are not.  These differences render the comparison specious and the conclusion - that sanctions that worked in South Africa will work in Iran - dubious.