The Pro-Israel Consensus Shifts

Good news. Some of the more conservative American Jewish institutions are coming around to acceptance of the two-state solution, ending the occupation, and sharing Jerusalem. And Israeli leaders visiting the US this week are conveying the same messages to Americans and members of Congress.

It's about time. The overwhelming majority of Israelis and Jewish Americans favor those positions and eventually the more status quo-oriented organizations had to catch up--especially now that the Israeli government asserts that it finally has a genuine Palestinian partner.

Today's New York Jewish Week provides tangible evidence of a seismic shift. The Jewish Week is the largest circulation Jewish paper in the United States. It is the official voice of the New York Jewish community.

Its publisher, Gary Rosenblatt, is an important figure in New York. A respected journalist, and a right-of-center Orthodox Jew, he is a key member of the New York Jewish establishment.

Accordingly, I can't overstate the significance of an editorial he published in this week's paper in which he tells Jews to essentially "get real" about Israel, its borders, the future of Jerusalem, the occupation, and the Palestinians.

Rosenblatt writes:

Now is a good time for diaspora Jews to start thinking about the differences between the ideal Israel and the real Israel. The ideal Israel may indeed have the holy city of Jerusalem as its eternal and undivided capital. But if there is to be a peace agreement--at the end of next year or at the end of this century--it may well call for formalizing the kind of division within Jerusalem that we have seen for decades, with much of East Jerusalem under the sovereignty of a Palestinian government. . . .

And we diaspora Jews who have listened so long to Israeli leaders tell us about the state's absolute red lines must realize that the rhetoric and realities are changing. Otherwise we will be of little help in supporting our brothers and sisters in Israel, the majority of whom have come to believe that an end to wars and bloodshed is worth real sacrifice. They will have to decide if the risks are worthwhile because they already live in the real Israel.

Rosenblatt's editorial appeared the same week as Israel Policy Forum's annual event at a Manhattan hotel. The first thing that struck me about the IPF event was that on each table in the grand ballroom was a centerpiece made up of the American, Israeli, and Palestinian flags. The second was the list of speakers: keynote speaker Haim Ramon, vice prime minister of Israel; Ephraim Sneh, former Israeli deputy defense minister and current MK General; Jordanian Ambassador to the United States Prince Zeid al-Hussein; and Afif Safieh, head of the PLO mission to the United States.

Just a week after Annapolis, the IPF event resembled similar events during Oslo's best days. Clearly, the seven year dormant peace process is back.

But not back at square one.

During Oslo, representatives of Israel, Jordan, and the PLO would have set forth clearly different views of what a future agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would look like. No more.

Although the 2000 Camp David summit failed, it is quite clear that the agreement nearly reached at Taba in 2001 (an agreement that almost surely would have been signed had President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak remained in office) is alive and is now accepted by both sides as the basis of a final status agreement.

That became obvious in Vice Prime Minister Ramon's speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York this week in which he made clear that the position of the Israeli government on all the major final status issues is in line with both Taba and the Geneva Initiative.

On the occupation:

We have to understand that the occupation is a threat to the existence of the state of Israel. . . . If we don't bring an end to the occupation, the occupation will bring the end to the state of Israel. . . . This is not about giving something to Palestinians. It is rather about trying to secure the Jewish state.

On Jerusalem:

It is clear and in the interest of both sides that East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state and that its Arab neighborhoods will be under Palestinian sovereignty. It is also clear that the Jewish neighborhoods, including the neighborhoods beyond the 1967 Green Line, will be under Israeli sovereignty.

On borders:

It is clear to everyone that territory on the east side of the fence will not remain under Israeli sovereignty. It is even clear to those Israelis currently living east of the fence; they have demonstrated that with their efforts to be included on the west side.

Under the Geneva Initiative, the Palestinians recognized that about 2½ percent of the West Bank would be included under Israeli sovereignty. The gap between the two sides is between 2½ and 8 percent. It's not easy to bridge this gap. It is agreed, however, that between our position of 8 percent and the Palestinian position of 2½ percent there will be a land swap. Where the swap will be and how it will happen is something that we have to negotiate. But the principle is accepted. So let's formalize it.

On refugees:

The Palestinian leadership knows that the refugees will not return to the state of Israel [but to an independent Palestinian state]. They know that the idea of Palestinian refugees having a right to return to the state of Israel contradicts the two-state solution [which they support]. So what will happen with the refugees? What can happen is the creation of an international fund to deal with compensation as well as the humanitarian problems of the refugees. And maybe, if because of humanitarian reasons, and only because of humanitarian reasons, Israel will decide that some of the refugees will return [to Israel], Israel will discuss it.

On Israeli security:

The principle that the Palestinian state will be demilitarized is clear. The meaning of demilitarization has to be discussed, but the principle is agreed upon.

Ramon covered all of the key areas which must be resolved in negotiations. He knows that reaching an agreement will not be easy. Keeping everything west of the security barrier as part of Israel is, in itself, very difficult. Unless parts of the security wall are moved west, the Palestinian state will not be viable and too many Palestinians will be included in Israel against their will and Israel's demographic interests.

The refugee issue remains problematic. Although the refugees would return to the state of Palestine and not to the state of Israel, the Israeli government will likely have to acknowledge responsibility for creating the refugee problem and offer at least symbolic reparations. Palestinians, for their part, could reciprocate by acknowledging responsibility for the terror Israel has endured for so much of its history. Such statements of empathy cost nothing but, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in situations of conflict, acknowledging the pain one side has inflicted on the other is essential if peace is to be achieved.

Clearly there are hurdles that have to be overcome. Ramon not only believes that they can be, but that a deal can be reached in 2008.

Former deputy minister of defense, and current MK General Ephraim Sneh, agrees. I joined him on a number of visits to Capitol Hill this week and his message was the same as Ramon's, but with a twist.

Like his mentor and friend, Yitzhak Rabin, Sneh believes that finally ending the occupation and establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state is not only the right thing to do, but that it will help neutralize real threats to Israel from the likes of Iran and its terrorist clients (i.e., Hezbollah and Hamas).

"Israel must strike a deal as soon as possible with the Palestinians," Sneh said. "Peace with the Palestinians is crucial for Israel to defeat not only Hamas but Iran and Hezbollah as well. The conflict with the Palestinians is eroding the country's military strength, while undermining its friendships and alliances in the region and around the world.

"If Israel starts the process of solving the conflict with the Palestinians, it will be easier for the moderates in the Arab world to ally with the Jewish state against extremists like Iran. It is a mistake for people to say that because the government is weak it can't negotiate. A government that negotiates will be a strong government. If the government does nothing, it will be weak."

Nothing, Sneh believes, pleases the mullahs and Ahmadinejad more than the perpetuation of the status quo.

So why should that same status quo also please the pro-Israel establishment in the United States? It shouldn't and, perhaps, at long last, it doesn't.

The year 2008 will be one of decision. For Israelis, Palestinians, and for the rest of us, too.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[nycerbarb]

And can you find for a similar article from an Arab publication posting the point of view that they can live side by side with a Jewish State?

[avergejoe]

Perhaps you should use your influence in isreal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071207/wl_mideast_afp/mideastdiplomacyisraelsettler

Building of Jerusalem settlement to continue: Israel minister

Construction of a Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem will continue despite criticism from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an Israeli minister said on Friday.

"Construction will continue at full flow, and our friends must be told this," Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a deputy premier, told public television.

On Tuesday Israel said it had invited bids to build more than 300 new housing units at Har Homa in annexed east Jerusalem, the first settlement expansion since the revival of peace talks with the Palestinians.

"It is clear to the whole world that Har Homa is an integral part of Israel and that Har Homa will remain an integral part of Jerusalem," Lieberman added.

Referring to last week's Middle East peace conference, Rice on Friday criticised the decision.

"I made it clear that we are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties," she told a news conference in Brussels. "This is not going to build that confidence."

The decision to build the new homes has been slammed by the Palestinians as an attempt to undermine the renewed peace drive officially launched after a seven-year hiatus at the US-hosted talks last week.

It was taken after the meeting, where Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehid Olmert agreed to try to reach an accord before the end of 2008 that would allow creation of a Palestinian state.

They also pledged to implement the 2003 roadmap plan, the first phase of which calls on Israel to freeze all settlement activity and for Palestinians to improve security.

Jewish settlements are one of the core issues that will be addressed in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also said on Thursday that the Israeli decision to expand Har Homa, known to Arabs as Jebel Abu Ghneim, was "not helpful" so soon after the conference held at Annapolis near Washington.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Your web site indicates"
"we are passionate advocates for maximizing Jewish impact on American policies".

You now say that there is "Good news" and you imply that there is a shift in the policies of certain organizations that work to have a Jewish impact on American policies.

You also tell us that the good news is that some conservative American Jewish institutions are willing to accept a two-state solution, or at least a two-state solution in the Middle East.

Should we believe that there is a change in policy or a change in tactics?

If there is a change in policy so that Zionists no longer want to engage in endless conflict and use the resources of the United States for that purpose, that truly would be worth celebrating.

For one thing, this would mean that there are those who would no longer feel it necessary to call individuals who want peace in the Middle East, such as former President Carter, anti-Semitic. (You have influence. Please tell your friends to stop doing that.)

If there is only a change in tactics, then all we are hearing is double-talk while our democratic ideals are being compromised.

How can we tell if there has been a change in policy rather than just a change in tactics?

Here's one way. AIPAC puts money in the hands of those American politicians who are willing to compromise our American values in favor of Israli interest. They have done so for some time, and the some of the contributions can be quantified. Other Israli representatives have also done so.

If there is something to celebrate, there would be a measurable difference between the amount of money given by AIPAC in the past and the amount that it and other Israli representatives will give to our politicians in the future.

Good news? There will be when the Israli representatives recognize a two-state solution, a separation between their country and this one, the United States.

[FlowerGirl]

Bigotry doesn't yield except to power. (Think of what it took to get civil rights to Blacks in this country!) Zionism will back away from its inhuman expansionist tactics only when the rest of us are awakened to the true nature of Zionism and tell our politicians to end our enslavement to them. Maybe that is happening. That alone could explain the shift mentioned in this article.

[Plowboy]

The only reason the ultraZionist, in whom no justice exists, would give an inch is that they must realize that the American people are beginning to discover the truth of our enslavement and to grow tired of it. And without the big American shield and feedbag, Israel isn't so rich and tough.

[Ashraft]

Beautiful post.

I am the grandchild of 1948 refugees, and for Israel to acknowledge of their suffering is monumental. It will certainly create an air of clemency and reconciliation. Admitting that land and property previously owned by the likes of my grandparents would be compensated will also is a very decent step. But just wait and propagandists will label it as a bribe.

Yet I hope the approach to the refugee situation is not taken solely as an Israeli initiative because that would not be enough. After all, marginalizing the Palestinians was beneficial for Arab Nationalism, and amplifying their suffering served to keep the population with an eye on Israel rather than corruption. Assad (father and son), Nasser, Saddam, and the Hashemite (prior to the 90s) all saw that keeping the Palestinian hungry would keep their populations occupied with Israel hating. I think that these Arab nations should partake in the process; after all they all owe us!

[ElkoJohn]

if israel wasn't our 51st state & military outpost in the Big Oil Country, there would have been a solution long, long time ago.
`

[altohone]

"Peace with the Palestinians is crucial for Israel to defeat not only Hamas but Iran and Hezbollah as well" and "extremists like Iran"...

... two quotes that suggest rational heads aren't necessarily prevailing despite your optimistic post.

How can they hope to have peace if they remain in conflict with groups representing more than half the Palestinians?

Can a whole country be "extremist"?
Isn't that a grand generalization that fails to acknowledge the variety of forces at play in Iran?

[realitytrumpsbull]

'God', I hope those people get their act
together, someday...maybe as we get oil-independent, the whole ugly mess will finally
start to resolve...

[DC]

Excellent posting. Your clear conclusions are nothing new and were obvious to the honest many many years ago.

When thinking about it in details, it seems that the conflict (like so many) is artificial and the masses are incited with romanticism, propaganda and fear to keep the artificial conflict going.

Conflict is a far reaching industry. There might be just too much interest in keeping it going. I wish I were not so pessimistic. I hope you are right.