There are three reasons why monitoring AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a valuable use of time for anyone following events in the Middle East.
The first is that AIPAC faithfully reflects the positions of the Netanyahu government (actually it often telegraphs them before Netanyahu does).
The second is that AIPAC's policies provide advance notice of the positions that will, not by coincidence, be taken by the United States Congress.
And third, AIPAC provides a reliable indicator of future policies of the Obama administration, which gets its "guidance" both from AIPAC itself and from Dennis Ross, former head of AIPAC's think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and now the president's top adviser on Middle East issues.
The next few months, as AIPAC prepares for its annual conference (May 22-24), will be especially fruitful for AIPAC watchers. The conference is a huge event, attended by most members of the House and Senate, the prime minister of Israel, and either by the president or vice president of the United States. It is also attended by thousands of delegates from around the country and by candidates for Congress who raise money for their campaigns at the event. This year, the leading Republican candidates for president will also be in attendance, all vying for support by promising undying loyalty to the AIPAC agenda.
The conference actually begins long before it convenes at the massive Washington Convention Center. Right now, AIPAC's top officials are deciding which policies are the most important to be conveyed to the hundreds of officials who will be in attendance. Those policies will constitute AIPAC's agenda not just for the conference but for the next 12 months (see last year's AIPAC policy book here).
In recent years, AIPAC's main message has been about Iran and its view of the dangers posed by the Iranian nuclear program. Speaker after speaker at various AIPAC conferences over the past decade (including, most histrionically, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu) has invoked the Holocaust when discussing the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
These speakers laid the groundwork for AIPAC's presentation of legislation imposing "crippling sanctions" on Iran -- along with the declaration that the military option remained "on the table" if sanctions failed to end Iran's nuclear program. Most of the sanctions legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president originated at AIPAC.
But this year Iran will have to compete for attention with AIPAC's worries about the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world. For AIPAC, as for Netanyahu, those revolutions have already turned 2011 into an annus horribilis and the year is not even half over.
Early indications are that the main theme that will dominate the conference will be that Israel, once again, has "no partner" to negotiate with. This is an old theme, but one that receded as the Israeli right came to view the Palestinian Authority (led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad) as not only partners but as collaborators in maintaining the status quo.
As Al Jazeera's Palestine Papers demonstrated, Abbas and Fayyad rarely said "no" to the Netanyahu government -- which made them the only kind of partners acceptable to the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak troika.
But, fearing that it might be next to fall to democracy, the PA started showing some spine recently. It refused to yield to U.S. and Israeli demands that it shelve the United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning settlements. It absolutely refuses to negotiate with Israelis until Israel stops gobbling up the land they would be negotiating over. And, most disturbing of all to Netanyahu and company, it says that it intends to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state this summer.
Netanyahu, who needs the illusion of movement to ensure that there isn't any, is suddenly feeling the heat. Even Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor and a staunch Israel backer, both supported the U.N. resolution condemning settlements and told Netanyahu, in a well-publicized February 24 phone call, that the Europeans are sick and tired of him. Haaretz reported:
Netanyahu told Merkel he was disappointed by Germany's vote....
Merkel was furious. "How dare you," she said...."You are the one who disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."
A shaken Netanyahu immediately put out the word that he is getting ready to announce his own plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told political allies that he has to act fast to deter pressure from the so-called Quartet (composed of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia). It is due to meet later this month to set out the parameters for a final agreement. In advance of that meeting, British Foreign Minister William Hague said that the territorial basis for any agreement must be the pre-'67 borders, the last thing Netanyahu wants to hear.
Reports from Israel indicate that Netanyahu's plan rules out any withdrawal to the '67 lines, offering instead a Palestinian state within temporary borders and only a very partial settlement freeze (no freeze in East Jerusalem at all).
Knowing that the PA can no longer afford to even consider such an offer, Netanyahu has decided to preemptively label Israel's old friends in the Palestinian Authority as extremists, with the goal of ensuring that both Congress and the Obama administration back his plan. His hope is that with the United States safely in his corner, any Quartet initiative will be blocked. As always, his goal is to maintain the status quo, which requires U.S. acquiescence in his schemes. Thus far, the tactic has worked.
Hence, the new AIPAC approach: smear the PA. By the time the AIPAC conference ends, the "there is no partner" mantra will have returned to its position as one of Israel's greatest hits -- a true golden oldie.
Check out a few of the messages AIPAC has sent out over Twitter these past few days (the message is old but the technology is new):
AIPAC: PA doesn't want a terrorist organization to be called a terrorist organization, instead it wants unity govt with it.
AIPAC: PA seeks to isolate Israel to gain statehood.AIPAC: PA to Israel: NO.
By contrast, this is a typical AIPAC tweet before the Palestinian Authority started pushing back.
AIPAC: Can direct talks with PA President Abbas lead to a peace agreement in a year? "Yes, I think so," says Israeli PM Netanyahu.
The bottom line is this. The Europeans, the United Nations, and, it is safe to say, the entire world (except the United States) fear that the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of collapsing and, along with it, the whole notion of a peace process. These same forces are determined to re-start negotiations, which will require seeing Israel actual freeze settlements, at the very least. It seems to understand that a PA that is perceived as Israel's lackey (which is precisely how it is perceived) will not survive. It has no faith whatsoever in the good intentions of the Netanyahu government.
The Israeli government, understanding all this, is determined to put the onus back on the Palestinians to forestall any pressure. Most important of all, it is terrified that the Palestinian Authority will go ahead with its plan to unilaterally declare a state this summer, the only PA plan in years that actually has real momentum. It needs the United States to block that plan by any means necessary, including a full cut-off of U.S. (and even international) aid to the Palestinians (this at a time when Defense Minister Barak is requesting another $20 billion in aid to Israel from the United States). Stopping a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence dead in its tracks is now Netanyahu's number one goal. And getting Obama to go along with him (which shouldn't be too difficult with the 2012 election looming) is the way he intends to do it.
That is why we are about to see a new Netanyahu plan. It is why AIPAC is busy denigrating the PA. And it is why AIPAC will soon have the United States Congress saying, practically in unison, that "there is no Palestinian partner." That will be followed by the demand that the Obama administration support the Netanyahu plan, which will be labeled the most generous offer in history.
At this rate, the Israeli government and its lobby will soon be back to its old mantra (1948-1977) that "there is no such thing as the Palestinian people" at all.
All this to preserve an ugly and deadly status quo. So far, this tactic has worked every time. Don't bet against it winning again. As so often, a winning strategy for AIPAC and Netanyahu is a losing strategy for Israel and the United States.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, would do well to work on achieving some kind of unified strategy with Hamas and to stick with the idea of a unilateral declaration. As David Ben-Gurion would tell them, self-determination often requires going it alone.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Maybe we could ask AIPAC to demand that Congress legislate a decent healthcare plan for the US.
Which plan???
Israels plan!!!
It's great!
A perfect mix of public and private coverage for all.
Israel has a higher doctor to citizen ratio than the US already and they are concerned even that is not enough to provide the quality care expected for it's citizens.
"Congress, legislate Israel's healthcare plan for the US now! No debate. No changes. Just do it! "
NOW!
In Itamar, they did. You really are beyond salvation.
"Israeli Palestinian Conflict-Peace propaganda & the Promise Land" produced by Bathsheba Ratzkoff
http://www.moveoveraipac.org/
Congrats Code Pink for taking the bull by the horns!
.......didn't realize Israel is going to ask the USA for another 20 million dollars in addition to the 3 billion it already gets from us each year. jeesh-- the stranglehold on our country is incredible.
Firstly I have to overcome my scepticism about politicians, in that they are all corrupt and lie. I did have an inkling of some sort of indication that Obama was a man of Honour. That indication has dimmed and faded to be almost unrecognisable at the moment. However, should that indication brighten and take form and shape. A man of Honour would be an anathema to AIPAC, something to make it fearful. AIPAC would prefer an American leader that fits more securely into its pocket.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02lobby.html?_r=1&ref=lobbyingandlobbyists
Yemen ? Libya ? Morocco? Please tell me another.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/03/01/3147927.htm
Alan Dershowitz, a senior member of Israel Hasbara Committee.
IRIN reported that aid to Haiti arriving from UAE, Jordan, Islamic Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, Lebanon and Islamic Relief .
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169775.html
Red Cross Red Crescent appoints Swedish aid chief to lead tsunami operations
http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/press-releases/asia-pacific/japan/red-cross-red-crescent-appoints-swedish-aid-chief-to-lead-tsunami-operations/
So why don't you go and
Have a nice day
If he is so convinced that Netenyahu an AIPAC are conspiring to place blame on Abbas for the collapse of the peace talks, why doesn't Rosenberg propose to his Palestinian friends that they call Obama and immediately accept Obama's call for face to face talks? This should smoke out Netenyahu. They could show the world that everything is 100% Israel's fault.
Of course the danger here is that Netenyahu might say "yes" and begin negotiations, but hey, if Rosenberg is right, and Netenyahu is just scheming then he will have to show his cards. Go ahead Rosenberg, call your boys and tell them to show up at the negotiating table. If you are so certain that the Palestinians want to negotiate a peace settlement, and that they won't walk away from the table once they find that the final settlement will mean the end of the conflict, not the next step towards the destruction of Israel, then its time to put up.
Or shut up.
"Yesterday at the UN, as many countries of the Middle East navigated a great generational change, the United States missed a perfectly timed opportunity to take a stand for peace and human rights. The U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution, sponsored by 130 nations, calling on Israel to cease settlement activity in Palestinian territory.
The settlements, along with the evictions, demolitions, forced displacements that go with them, are seen as a main obstacle to any legitimate peace process. Human rights groups like Amnesty International have also argued that Israel's policy of settling its civilians on occupied land violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The U.S. stood totally isolated as every one of the other 14 members of the Security Council voted for the resolution. The veto was all the more controversial because it contradicts the Obama administration's opposition to settlement activity. UN ambassador Susan Rice acknowledged this but added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations." Apparently most of the rest of the world -- from close U.S. allies like Britain, France, and Germany to leading Arab nations -- disagrees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-rainwater/us-veto-of-un-israeli-set_b_825621.html
Because it says one thing but does the opposite.
The wording of the U.N. Resolution was done carefully so as to reflect U.S. bylateral statements to Israel. In some cases Obama's own words were used. Yet so invested is U.S. Politics with AIPAC that the U.S. could not bring itself to allow its own policy to become a U.N. Resolution.
Says one thing but does the opposite
So having the Palestinians "call Obama and immediately accept Obama's call for face to face talks" is tantamount to the Palestinians agreeing to slip on a straigh-jacket in order to score some cheap points against Bibi.
Bibi would laugh off those barbs - he wouldn't even feel them - yell "Yippppppeeeeeeeee!", and rush to drag those straghtjackeded Palestinians directly into the negotiating tent.
Why do women rub their eyes when they wake up?
Because they don't have B-lls to scratch.
However, the world is no longer a 'unilateral place'. Perhaps this is the real pressure Israel and the US is feeling.
Of course, those who break the laws and dont stand with moral and ethical values that they rest of us have to follow...as individuals...as groups...nations...and institutions dont have any partners for a reason.
What moral and ethical values do people who support Hamas have?
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011391283253851.html#
Livni . . on democracy in the Middle East . . . . an oxymoron at best
Outside of Israel I cannot think of a single thing they have ever done.
Was invading Lebanon and killing civilians for no reason supporting democracy?
Was supporting Mubarak over the people of Egypt supporting democracy?
What are you talking about?
Thanks in advance!
I could meet in a duel
the man who killed my father
and razed our home,
expelling me
into
a narrow country.
And if he killed me,
I’d rest at last,
and if I were ready—
I would take my revenge!
*
But if it came to light,
when my rival appeared,
that he had a mother
waiting for him,
or a father who’d put
his right hand over
the heart’s place in his chest
whenever his son was late
even by just a quarter-hour
for a meeting they’d set—
then I would not kill him,
even if I could.
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-08-11/chris-hedges-the-tears-of-gaza-must-be-our-tears/
"The majority of Palestinians support a peace agreement with Israel and believe that the Palestinian Authority should use non-violent means to achieve their political goals, a new Fafo poll revealed.
Fafo, a Norwegian based international multidisciplinary research foundation, found that 73 percent of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza were in favor of peace negotiations with Israel, but stressed that a settlement freeze should be a precondition to talks. "