Washington — Israel’s change of tone toward the Palestinian peace process under its new government has caught Jewish supporters in the United States off guard, leaving them to grapple with a policy shift that now stresses the need to limit future Palestinian sovereignty and avoids discussing a two-state solution.
Following Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington, pro-Israel activists sought to dismiss differences between Israel and the United States on this issue as semantic. At the same time, they made clear that they will not stop using the term “two-state solution” and will not change their message when advocating on behalf of Israel.
But while most activists agree that disputes over terminology can be resolved easily, they are concerned about a possible upcoming conflict over the Obama administration’s demand to stop expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. On this issue, pro-Israel activists say, the community could find it difficult to back Netanyahu.
Obama, according to officials briefed on his May 18 meeting with Netanyahu, asked the Israeli leader to get back to him with specific answers regarding America’s demand for a settlement freeze. Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed their requirement that Israel stop settlement activity and remove outposts as a key element in the administration’s Middle East policy. “Nothing should be done to undermine the potential resolution of the peace effort that could prevent such a two-state solution from taking hold,” Clinton said in a May 19 press conference.
For Israel’s Jewish supporters, an America-Israel clash over the settlement issue could be difficult to manage. In past administrations, they lobbied repeatedly against American pressure on Israel to stop Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. But in 1992, the first President Bush soundly defeated an all-out effort by Jewish groups to stop him from conditioning a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel on a West Bank settlement freeze. They declined a subsequent request from then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to continue their efforts.
Since then, most mainstream Jewish groups have been reluctant to come to Israel’s defense when it refused to stop building in the West Bank. Now, an official with one Jewish organization said, reaction will depend on how the Obama administration presents its demands. “If they allow reasonable natural growth and Israel still refuses, I think the community will support the president’s demand,” the official said.
Nathan Diament, Washington public policy director of the Orthodox Union, said that just as Netanyahu seeks to redefine the term “Palestinian state,” it is time to do the same with settlements. “There needs to be some nuanced approach,” he said, calling for the United States to make a policy distinction between building within the large settlement blocks and that which takes place in remote settlements.
As if to underline the resistance this will face from the settlement movement, a regional committee issued tenders for 20 new homes in Maskiyot, a new West Bank settlement in the Jordan Valley, just days before Netanyahu left for Washington.
Both the White House and the Israeli prime minister’s office worked hard to downplay the differences in Obama’s and Netanyahu’s approach toward the peace process in the wake of their meeting. Hours after both leaders expressed opposite views on Palestinian statehood at a lengthy Oval Office photo opportunity, aides to Obama organized a conference call for Jewish pro-Israel activists, where they discussed the meeting. Participants were asked not to reveal the content of the discussion, but according to multiple sources, the administration made clear to the Jewish activists that Netanyahu’s refusal to use the term “Palestinian state” is not viewed as an impassable obstacle.
“It seems to us that there is no substantial difference when it comes to the end result,” a senior administration official told participants. At the same time, he did stress that Obama believes a two-state solution “is the only realistic solution” to the conflict.
A similar message came from Netanyahu himself, who met with 40 Jewish leaders on May 19. Netanyahu, according to several participants, stressed that his approach is not meant to undermine prospects of Palestinian self-governance, but rather to give higher priority to ensuring what he sees as Israel’s security needs when such a Palestinian entity is created. “For me, this is a substantive issue,” Netanyahu told reporters, “and if there is understanding on this substantial issue, the other problem will be resolved.”
For most Jewish activists, Netanyahu’s explanations and the White House’s reassuring message were enough to put aside concerns regarding the discord over the two-state solution. “There might be areas in which the semantics are not lining up as it was in the past, but there is nothing that indicates any profound differences,” said Jason Isaacson, director of the Office of Government and International Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, after meeting with Netanyahu. Another official with a Jewish organization, speaking on condition of anonymity, added that it is clear Netanyahu has political constraints and that both Netanyahu and Obama agree on the final outcome of talks with the Palestinians, even if they use different terminology.
Still, Netanyahu’s change of emphasis on the Palestinian statehood issue comes at an uncomfortable time for the mainstream Jewish community, which has fully embraced the idea of a two-state solution and has been working to promote it within the community and among policymakers.
As Netanyahu visited Congress on May 19 and met with key lawmakers, 76 senators sent a letter to President Obama regarding the Arab-Israeli peace process. The letter, vigorously supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, includes a mention of a “viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.” The letter, which was among AIPAC’s three top lobbying priorities, also stresses the need for Palestinians to end terror and reform their institutions.
An official with a pro-Israel group said there is no reason now to change the language, despite Netanyahu’s reluctance to use the term “Palestinian state.”
M.J. Rosenberg, Washington director of policy analysis at the dovish Israel Policy Forum, said the idea of a two-state solution is “locked in concrete” for most Jewish organizations and unlikely to be replaced. But he also believes that “all the American Jewish community has ever done was to offer lip service to the idea of two states.”
Meanwhile, on the hawkish end of the Jewish political spectrum, Netanyahu’s new approach was a welcome change. “President Obama’s troubling reiteration of his call for a Palestinian state is the continuation of an old, failed policy,” said Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You've successfully signed up!
Two state solution formulations ignore the fact that Hamas will never recognize Israel and the West Bank is too small and mostly arrid to serve as a state. Far better would it be to incorporate the West Bank with Jordan where most of the Palestinians are now residing anyway. But absolutely most critical is to overcome the bias against Mizrachi Jews and ignoring their claims to be far MORE important than that of the Palestinians. Dramatizing their cause would be the most useful thing that the US Zionists could possibly do at this time. 850,000 or more were expelled from the Arab states from 1948 on
"Reasonable natural growth" - As far as settlements are concerned there is nothing reasonable about any growth, "natural" or otherwise. The settlement enterprise in and of itself is inherently tainted with its violation of international law, morality and justice. It is fundamentally illegal for an occupying power to move its citizens into the occupied territory. It is very simple. This means that each settlement is prima facie illegal.
The problem is that they have been allowed to exist in impunity for decades and now the Obama administration has to figure out how to cancel the ongoing US Presidential pardon of the settlements and the Occupation.
As an Israeli, a Jew, a human rights worker and peace activist there is no other way but ending the Occupation.
There is no reason why natural growth of cities and towns, falsely labeled as settlements, should not continue on Jewish owned land outside of the pre-1967 temporary armistice lines. Certainly the claim to that land is more valid for Jews with a three millenia history in Israel than for a two century Arab presence in the same area. When territory is recovered in a defensive war, international law, despite asll recent efforts at pro-Arab revision, entitles the one who has been exposed to aggression and is the victor to treat that area as their own, witness the recovery of Sudetenland by the Czech Republic and western Poland by that nation.
True Jewish supporters of Israel who are firmly grounded in reality and not subject to the delusion exhibited by those who think rational discussion with arabs/islamists will succeed, have always realized, given the eternal arab hatred and paranoia regarding Jews, that the 'two-state' solution was an impossibility.
Always worthwhile to read and consider what Ali Abunimah has to say:
Obama offers little new Ali Abunimah May 21, 2009 bitterlemons-international.org
Seldom has an encounter between American and Israeli leaders been as hyped as this week's meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. As expected, Obama committed himself to diplomacy with Iran and pledged an enormous effort to achieve a two-state solution. Netanyahu continued to incite confrontation with Iran and refused to commit himself to a Palestinian state.
On the surface it may seem there are real differences and that the forces arrayed on each side--including the formidable Israel lobby--are gearing up for an epic battle to determine the fate of US-Israeli relations.
But Obama offered little new, reaffirming well-worn US positions that view Palestinians, particularly Hamas, as the aggressors, and Israel as the innocent victim. While calling for Israel to halt settlement construction (as US presidents have done for decades), Obama offered no hint that he would back those words with action. Quite the contrary, the president said he would urge Arab leaders to normalize relations with Israel, rewarding it in advance of any renewed peace talks.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Obama applies unprecedented pressure to force Israel to make a deal with the Palestinians. What would such a deal look like? The outlines were suggested in the recent report sent to Obama by a group of US elder statesmen headed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. The document, warning that there was only a "six to twelve month window" before all chances for peace evaporated, called on the US to forcefully advocate the creation of a Palestinian state. But this would be a demilitarized truncated state "based on" the 1967 borders. Israel would annex large West Bank settlements and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees. This "state" would be occupied indefinitely by a NATO-led "multinational force," which the Scowcroft group suggests could also include Israeli soldiers.
Of course the Scowcroft proposal does not necessarily represent Obama administration thinking, but it expresses the pervasive peace process industry consensus that views such an outcome as "reasonable," "pragmatic" and all but inevitable, and it accords with Obama's own statements opposing the right of return and supporting Israel's demand to be recognized as a "Jewish state".
In other words, what the vast majority of Palestinians would view as a horrifying plan to legitimize their dispossession, grant Israel a perpetual license to be racist and turn the apartheid regime set up by the Oslo accords into a permanent prison, is now viewed as bold and far-reaching thinking that threatens to rupture American-Israeli bonds.
Netanyahu has little to lose by embarking on another "peace process" after making a show of resisting American pressure (or extracting more American concessions or money). He knows the chances of ever getting to the stated destination are nil. Obama will not apply significant pressure, and even if he did, it is unclear on whom he would apply it, since on the Palestinian side there are no leaders ready, willing and able to carry off a second Oslo-style fraud against their people.
Obama reportedly believes peace in Palestine is the key to transforming US relations with the "Muslim world". If he were serious about this, the United States would have to break with all its past policies and support peace based on democratic and universal human rights principles and equality--something incompatible with a commitment to Israel as a "Jewish state" practicing legalized discrimination. All the signs are, however, that the Obama administration will push to try to force Palestinians and Arabs to accept and normalize with Israel as it is and that the US will continue to underwrite a morally and politically bankrupt Zionist settler-colonial project with a permanent American military, economic and diplomatic bailout.
The real problem for US-Israel relations is not to be found in whether Netanyahu utters the magic words "two-state solution". Rather it is that after Gaza it is impossible to keep peddling the fiction that Israel is a brave, self-reliant liberal democracy deserving of unconditional support. No matter what this administration does, this will eventually result in pressure on Israel, such as growing American public support for the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.- Published 21/5/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org
Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse".
http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/inside.php?id=1117
The Forward gets it wrong yet again. It would seem that the Forward's definition of "activists' is 'those who agree with the Forward'. There are plenty of American Jewish activists who think that given recent history, Bibi has it exactly right. Try to cooperatively make things better for the "Palestinians". Put off any hint of statehood until they are prepared peacefully to accept Israel's definition of itself as the Jewish State (a definition which the UN also subscribed to in the partition plan), rather than some Palestinian attempt to define Israel out of existence. Sovereign states, not their declared enemies, get to define who they are.
Perhaps it is time for the Forward to put two and two together. It has recognized that the Reform and Conservative movements are shrinking rapidly, while Orthodox Judaism is growing by leaps, bounds, and Chabad Houses. Most orthodox Jews support Netanyahu. That is where the American Jewish community is going, not where George Soros and his J Street money would like to take it.
I agree completely with David Sternlights opinion regarding the total rejection of the policy supported by the Soros/J Street and Rosenberg's IPF. I'm not really worried about the "two-state-solution", because it won't happen. But I'm worried about a two- Jewry-split in America, with the Pro-Israel community on one side and a Ben-Ari/Rosenberg/Peace Now and Neturei Karta bunch of Also- Jews on the other side.
The Two-State Solution will be discuss-able when the Palestinians commit to nonviolence. I don't think the Palestinians even care about having their own state. Regardless, the Jewish people have to take steps to empower the right-thinking, reasonable people who live among the Palestinian-terror-oriented-extremists. Let's talk about that--someone throw out an idea, instead of this continual bickering and hate-mongering.
Learn the lessons of the Holocaust, which are not about fighting fire with fire.
'someone throw out an idea, instead of this continual bickering and hate-mongering....Learn the lessons of the Holocaust, which are not about fighting fire with fire.'
Sorry, Renee , it's you who has failed to learn the lessons of the Holocaust. If Europe and America had moved militarily years earlier against Hitler instead of relying on 'throwing out ideas' or as it's more commonly referred to, trying to appease Hitler, tens of millions of lives would have been spared, including 6 million Jews. How can anyone be blind to the ultimate futility of appeasing fascists?
This article along with the subsequent comments are just talk, talk. Israel has finaly reached a point where it no longer will accept land for peace or any other slogan that has been proposed since the failed Oslo agreement, which incidently, set off all the phony peace initives that followed. Israel, will finally, do what is good for Israel.
It is not the same country that Baker and Schocroft dictated too from Madrid. It has a viable economy that can very well do without US finacial military aid which supports the US Military Complex and Jobs. That won't happen as Obama has already ok"d 2.775 billion for this year, and a ten year plan is already in place. If his administration would use the termination of that they would have already let Netanyahu know this intent. Secondly, Both PA and Hammas already have said there would be no peace talks now.
Today Netanyahu said that Jerusalem would never be divided, a red line for the Palestinians, ever. All of this meeting is for show. Obama will speak from Cairo but submit no new policy for the ME.He has his hands full right now with his own party on Guantanimo, so all he probaly will say is reiterate his "TWO STATE FOR TWO PEOPLE" slogan that every American President has stated from Israels inception. The pals could have had that in 1948 but choose War instead.
Last, Guttman always sounds off as if he were the spokesman for American Jewish Activists. He cetainly doesn't speak for me and for the Many Organizatrions I belong too. In fact he speaks for the Liberal Jews in this country who would give away everything except TA for a phony peace which can only lead back to the ovens. These Jews have led the "Good Life" that the greatest Generation made possible through there blood. They do not know of the Anti-Semitism that was prevelent in this beloved country of ours. They probably have there head in there a-- now about the rising anti-semitisim prevelent today. They have better rely on Israel as an escape hatch if anyhting terrible happened here. I, personally, have no fear as I am a member of that generation and did my duty in Combat in WW II. I haven't got that many years left, but the "Yuppie" generation is ripe for anything bad that may happen.
Dear Mr. Eisenstein:
Thank you so very much for your excellent comments. The leftist bias in this article is quite evident.
And thank you so very much for your service! Folks like you are deeply appreciated by folks like me!
With Love of Torah and Yiddishkeit,
Sam
It is pretty clear from the Quran that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish State in the area of Greater Israel. There is not much to argue about that and I would challenge any Islamist to prove that is not the case. You can look to serious Muslim scholars to the truth of that, when they are allowed to speak. The Palestinians are a people who are only recently formed sometime after 1948 and whose origin, for the most part, is only since the late 1800s. The British, under mandate from the League of Nations, gave the area to the Jews and the United Nations, as an inheritor of all League obligations are in turn OBLIGATED to give it to the Jews as a homeland. From either the political or religouis perspective, the Muslims must make way for a Jewish State and the UN must accept this by law. We can argue over the boundaries, and make way for the current Palestinian population to have a state, but it is up to the Jews and not Barack Obama to decide, if he cares about international treaties and law. Jews can settle in the West Bank without oppressing anyone, and should be allowed to do so up to and including the point at which the Palestinians (and the Arabs) will make a reasonable peace and acknowledge a Jewish State.
Looks like Barack Obama has figured out that one of the main obstacles to mideast peace are the illegal Jewish settlements.The West Bank and Gaza Ghetto are Occupied Territories according to international law,The Geneva Convention,countless UN resolutions Israel has continuously ignored. It is important to note that these Illegal settlements are exclusively Jewish,built on stolen private land,and are connected by roads that are also exclusive.The IDF supports the whole ROTTEN system and is let loose on the Non Jewish captive Palestinian populace corralled in Israel designed walled reservations.The Aim is to make the lives of these Non Jews so insufferable as to drive them off their lands and bring in Jewish Israelis. Now if you build an Apartheid society not too many would argue it's not wrong,but the Israeli model is Funded buy things like tax free Israel Bonds and other slippery financial instruments with origins MOSTLY in these United States. Furthermore,Israel receives over $10 million a day in US DOLLARS that we know of.Unique in the annals of US foreign aid:US "CASH" is deposited in the Israeli treasury at the beginning of each year,and the US taxpayer pays the interest on that Borrowed money.Israel invests in turn that New money and collects interest.How sweet 'Tis. According to the Christian Science Monitor,the cost of Israel to the American TAXpayer has been over $1.3 TRILLION since 1973