The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin is a right-winger, a predictable neocon, and about as aggressive a defender of Binyamin Netanyahu as exists anywhere in the mainstream media. In fact, her entire political worldview seems to be dictated by her devotion to the concept of Greater Israel. Nonetheless, she is provocative and worth reading.
In fact, it is precisely those attributes that make her worthy of attention. Reading Rubin provides insight into what the Israel-first crowd is thinking because she is one of the first people her ideological allies call when they want to influence the media narrative. Now that the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has sharply deviated from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's line, Rubin is one of our best sources of insight into what the lobby (and people to its right) are up to.
This week AIPAC issued a rare press release, ostensibly to criticize the Palestinian Authority for not responding positively to Netanyahu's "commitment to direct negotiations and peace" nor to the "painful decisions" it says he is making to accommodate the Palestinians.
In a sense, the press release was pure boilerplate. It can hardly be considered news when AIPAC offers a litany of Palestinian actions it views as designed to subvert peace combined with a list of sacrifices the Israelis are prepared to make. AIPAC is attacking the Palestinians. So what?
But Rubin asserted that the AIPAC criticism contained in the press release was not directed at the Palestinian Authority at all, but at President Obama.
Here is Rubin's explanation of what AIPAC is up to (emphasis mine):
In a rare release, AIPAC sent out a defense of the Israeli bargaining position. While the critique was ostensibly phrased in opposition to the Palestinians' tactics, make no mistake: these were the U.S. positions that AIPAC was criticizing.
For example, the memo states: "PA President Mahmoud Abbas is blocking the resumption of talks by setting onerous preconditions on issues that are supposed to be solved through negotiations. . . The Palestinians have now stepped up their preconditions by demanding that Israel publicly commit that a Palestinian state will be based on the pre-June 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps." But wait, that's Obama's precondition ("1967 borders with land swaps").
Rubin then noted the response to the AIPAC release by some of those attending a conference of Orthodox Jews in Washington:
The reaction among a number of informed attendees was amazement and sadness. Had it come to this: that an indictment of the PA reads like an indictment of the administration because in many respects the positions of the two are identical?
Bad news, Jennifer. It has indeed come to this. The Obama administration agrees with the Palestinian Authority "that a Palestinian state will be based on the pre-June 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps."
Of course, that has been U.S. policy ever since Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem (and other territory) in the June 1967 Six-Day War. It is encapsulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (passed that year), which established the "land for peace" principle and which was endorsed by the United States, Israel, and the Arab states.
Security Council Resolution 242 provides for "[w]ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." In exchange, Israel is granted "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
That's the deal. Land for peace. And it has been incorporated both in U.S. policy and in every agreement Israel has reached with the Palestinians since the Oslo Agreement in 1993. It has also been endorsed by every Israeli prime minister since 1967.
One reason why prime ministers ranging from Rabin to Begin and Sharon have endorsed it is that they have been assured that any territorial withdrawal would have to be "mutually agreed" upon and that the United States will never support any withdrawal that would jeopardize Israel's security. Here is what Obama said on the security issue in his AIPAC speech:
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
The only recent amendment to the basic land-for-peace idea is the concept of "land swaps." Because successive Israeli governments have insisted that it will not give up Jewish settlements adjacent to Israel, they devised the concept of "land swaps" under which Israel would hold on to certain territories in the West Bank in exchange for yielding land parcels inside Israel. In other words, there would be no full return to the pre-June 1967 borders, but rather a return to those borders with certain mutually agreed-upon modifications.
None of this is remotely controversial except among Israel's radical rightists, who oppose any and all land concessions to Palestinians, and among their counterparts, Palestinian extremists who recognize no Jewish right to any part of historic Palestine.
And that is why Obama probably didn't think twice before he said, "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
Why would he think anyone could take umbrage at that?
And in fact no one would, except those who are flat-out opposed to peace between Israelis and Palestinians and believe that Israel must not cede any part of the West Bank. After all, how can peace be achieved unless it is built on the pre-June 1967 lines? (The alternative would be to work off the pre-May 1948 lines, which would put the Negev and parts of the Galilee on the table.)
So what was that AIPAC press release all about?
Rubin believes it was intended as a warning to Obama, although AIPAC itself says she is wrong.
In any case, AIPAC's commitment to maintaining the status quo goes well beyond an occasional warning to the president. Besides, Obama does not need additional warnings to remind him what AIPAC will do if he dares go beyond rhetoric in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He recalls how AIPAC enlisted its congressional cutouts to back Netanyahu's position on settlements (and not the U.S. position) in 2009 and 2010, when he had the temerity to suggest a 90-day settlement freeze. He has no illusions about what he is up against when he deviates, in any way, from Netanyahu's policy. He gets it.
So the AIPAC message was probably not designed to keep Obama in line. It was designed to make sure that the 3 percent of American Jewish voters and donors who make their decisions on who to back for president based on Israel understand that the "pro-Israel" litmus test for 2012 is the 1967 lines.
It was to ensure that they carry that message to each and every candidate for office from president on down. And it is to correct the impression still held by many of them that the acceptable (to AIPAC) position is support for negotiations over the lands Israel captured in 1967, as stipulated by Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama.
That has now changed. AIPAC now favors negotiations, but not "based on the pre-June 1967 lines." In other words, AIPAC favors negotiations only in the abstract. It expects all those who want the benefits of being deemed "pro-Israel" to fall in line. Sadly, virtually all will.
Meanwhile, Israel's geostrategic position is rapidly deteriorating, along with its popularity worldwide. The Palestinians have finally recognized that the United States is not an "honest broker" and have abandoned negotiations in favor of seeking recognition by the U.N. As for the United States, its standing in the Muslim world has never been lower — thanks largely to the unsurprising perception that the U.S. government is in Netanyahu's pocket.
But, hey, it's only a game — although, in this case, a deadly one. Party on, Democrats and Republicans.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Go further and just tell the truth.
Israel, and AIPAC, will need to accept a Palestinia¬n state and start respecting the right of the people who occupied the land before them or they will not have peace.
Obama had two full years to lay out a coherent, energized vision of Middle East peace, pursue it, and realize it. It is sad indeed that the first African-Am¬erican president of the United States defends in israel exactly the kind of institutio¬nalized bigotry, apartheid oppression¬, and racism in israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible.
Obama claims the U.S. will veto any such vote in the UN. Let’s call his bluff. Let’s find out if this president is ready to stand utterly alone on the world stage as the sole head of state refusing to recognize the existence of a Palestinian state just so he can appease an ally, israel, and it's isolating and delegitimzing lobby AIPAC, that over the last year has repeatedly gone of out its way to embarrass his administration and stifle his attempts at achieving a two-state solution.
Sam is telling an untruth.
I will now quote from the press statement by the Israeli Prime Minister of the day (some dude called Benyamin Netanyahu, heard of him?) who had this to say on the topic:
"Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed his satisfaction at the result of the PNC vote today, achieved as a result of the firm stance taken by the Government of Israel on the issue of the vote to revoke those clauses in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of the State of Israel."
So, apparently, the efforts of the PLO were not only *good* *enough* for that right-wing Israeli PM, but was *so* *good* that he felt compelled to rush out and take sole credit for it.
But not good enough for you, heh?
Sam, a man who is further to the right than Bibi Netanyahu.
Which says it all, really, doesn't it?
Any further US veto in the UN Security Council can be overcome by Resolution 377.
Personally I think it's hilarious that a UN Resolution the US pushed through to screw the Russians is going to be used to screw the US and Israel.
Which facts did he 'twist'?
War is the only form which has shaped this region and is unavoidable. The powers in Islam will never be satisfied until they have complete and utter control and expulsion of Israel....period.
If this is all about religion, then God himself will have to decide the outcome....for no man nor country can.
The world has tried ever since the end of WW11 to accommodate and protect Israel from the horror Islam has and will bring upon it. Either God himself decends and ends this conflict or eventually it will continue for another 60 years or erupt into war again.
Yup, there's facts for ya.
Resolution 242 doesn't specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council didn't say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."
This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.
*sigh*
Resolution 242 says what it says, and what it says is that if there is ever going to be PEACE in the Middle East the one of the things that must happen is this:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
Now, so very sorry, but that involves a formula that is quite clear:
IF Israel is holding territory in a belligerent occupation post-67
THEN Israel has to withdraw from that territory
OTHERWISE there can be no peace.
You can trot out your Caradon's and your Goldberg's to your hearts content, and no matter wht you have them mouth a very obvious and irrefutable truth remains i.e. if Israel DOESN'T withdraw to the June 5 lines then this sentence:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
is not fullfilled, and if it ain't fullfilled then There Can Be No Peace.
Now, that's what Resolution 242 *says*, and so that's what Resolution 242 *means*.
Finally, Israel has a PM that is standing up for Israel. Bravo BB!!!!!!
Let's start talking about the Muslim Lobby and Muslim Money in the USA, Canada and Europe!
talk about them
we need to be free of the poweful palestinian lobby
The truth is usually very ugly and would never be hidden if it were not just that.....The Truth.
So hfpf, you are either afraid of the truth being exposed or ashamed by the truth...which is it?
If you mean by "real stuff", what excactly is this "real stuff" you elude to?
Please enlighten my by a link of "real stuff" that would support your comment.
Land for continued terror-------the Palestinians are for that.
Hahahahah!
Riiiiiiiiight. Next you'll be telling me to read the unbiased and impeccible books by that respected historian Mr Michael Oren....
So why don't you put your name on the ballot an win as a the first 'real' American. Or you are so intimidated by the lobby and personnel of your mental institution?
Orwellianesque neo~speak.
According to the author, any American who chooses to support Israel does so at the expense of their own loyalty to the USA. A common accusation. Also very false and offensive.
Israel has the profound misfortune of being a modern free democracy surrounded by 1,400~year~old petty dictatorships. For that misfortune, they require some support. No disloyalty to my nation.
Once again the intent of UNSC 242 is being misrepresented. It calls for a PARTIAL (undefined) withdrawal of the Israeli military from [undefined] territories it occupied as result of the 1967 war. As every political historian knows, a major controversy existed regarding the word "ALL", which the Arabs and their allies insisted on including in 242 but were ultimately denied. If that word was so meaningless, why did debates rage on for weeks over that single word. Under US Contract law, which is quite often based on Maritime law and therefore not far afield from "international treaty law', the INTENT of the parties to any contract is PARAMOUNT, provided that such intent can reasonably and reliably be ascertained from the evidence.
Res~242 says NOTHING about final national borders and does not mandate the creation of any other new nation. It requires all mandated provisions to be enacted in tandem. In other words, the Israelis have no independent obligation to comply at all, until "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity ", which has never yet occured.
The sentence in 242 is this:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
That formula is clear i.e.
IF the IDF is standing on territory seized in June 5-10
THEN that army must withdraw from it
OTHERWISE there can be no peace
"As every political historian knows, a major controversy existed regarding the word "ALL", which the Arabs and their allies insisted on including in 242 but were ultimately denied."
The word was "THE", not "ALL", which just shows how little you understand about this issue.
"Res~242 says NOTHING about final national borders"
Res 242: ...their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries...
The key word is "recognized", not "redrawn".
"and does not mandate the creation of any other new nation"
The one and only true thing you have said in that entire rant.
BTW: When England went to war with the Malvinas ("Falkland Islands" off Argentina), the British did NOT need us for military support. They needed us for MORAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL support, whereas Argentina would see that they are facing us (Fellow Americans) as well as the UK as adversaries. This decision cost us considerable good-will with our South and Central American neighbors. When recently the EU was inclined to invade Libya, they needed the US, this time for BOTH military and moral support, although the USA did NOT need to participate, except for our tendency to appease allies and enemies alike. Your statement is completely wrong.