In the growing national debate on US-Israel relations, California's two US senators have very different things to say. On one side, Senator Barbara Boxer has firmly aligned herself with the pro-Israel lobby. On the other side, Senator Dianne Feinstein has adopted a more independent position in support of Middle East peace.
Just last month, Senator Boxer was the lead Democratic signatory on a Senate letter criticizing Palestinian leaders. The letter was organized by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it was addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In that letter, Senator Boxer joined with 75 other senators to criticize Palestinian leaders for "refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel." The letter called for "unconditional peace negotiations."
While "unconditional peace negotiations" might sound like a good thing, the details are something else entirely. Palestinian leaders have been opposed to entering into formal negotiations with Israel so long as Israel continues to build settlements on what is left of Palestinian land. Under those circumstances, negotiations essentially become a farce through which Israel buys extra time to keep expanding its territory. Supporting "unconditional" negotiations actually means holding talks without the precondition that Israel stop gobbling up Palestinian land.
Demonstrating her independence from AIPAC, Senator Dianne Feinstein did not add her name to this letter. In an email to constituents, she expressed "grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank." She considered the issue "a major stumbling block to a peace agreement."
Fortunately, the Obama Administration is also ignoring Senator Boxer's letter. In pressuring the Israeli government to stop building East Jerusalem settlements, the White House has made it possible for Palestinians to agree to indirect talks with Israel. Israel has a great deal further to go, but it is a first step in the right direction.
It may be surprising for liberal Democrats to note that on the question of Israel-Palestine relations, Senator Boxer has adopted a hawkish position that essentially defends the continued expansion of Israel's territory. In contrast, Senator Feinstein has become the risk-taker, boldly supporting peace negotiations that by implication would even have to address Hamas.
One year ago, Senator Feinstein joined 31 other senators to praise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for visiting Israel and the West Bank. In that letter, Senator Feinstein also referred to the "launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the ongoing challenge of formalizing an Israel-Hamas truce." It is difficult to imagine Senator Boxer or AIPAC using that last phrase -- "an Israel-Hamas truce."
But it is precisely this kind of independent thinking that Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians now need. Perhaps it isn't much of a surprise that Senator Feinstein declined to sign the Boxer/AIPAC letter. In response, AIPAC went so far as to set up a webpage where pro-Israel activists could email Senator Feinstein to "express disappointment."
Thankfully, it is Senator Feinstein's position that is winning the day. The weekend news was that indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis have begun. Good faith negotiations require an end to settlement construction, and the Obama Administration appears to be reaping the early rewards for advocating this position.
Sanjeev Bery is the Executive Director of Freedom Forward.
Follow Sanjeev Bery on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sanjeevbery
Noam Chomsky barred from Israel
Obama urges Israel, Palestine to ensure talks pushed toward peace
The press has exaggerated anti-Israel protests in Manchester
Israel Palestine indirect talks to begin next week
Israel-Palestine conflict: Imposing solutions
Palestine, Israel And The Road Less Traveled To Middle East Peace
The so-called peace process was a failure because of this major flaw: all territories given to Arabs have been turned into terror strongholds.
Shame on you.
Those who have watched this issue for 60 years will tell you what would likely transpire if Israel doesn't get those guarantees.
Within a year, Hamas or another Islamist group would take down the Fatah government - or a coup from within the military (that you've allowed the Palestinians to have) would be staged and the government would be replaced.
Weapons from Iran or whoever the Islamist player would come pouring in. Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would build training camps to train new fighters
The airspace would be filled with fighter planes and missiles by the thousands would be placed everywhere ...
Of course Israel doesn't lose in this likely scenario. Everyone does.
Israel unleashes all out war and much of the region is decimated. Millions die
The issue is finally ended along with tens of millions dead
That's why those realistic demands were made by Netanyahu
And if the Palestinians really want a State and not the destruction of Israel, then they'd accept it.
Lichtenstein has no military
Costa Rica has no military
Do they want a State or just perpetual war ?
In which time the settlements and their associated infrastructure grew exponentially. What do you suggest, that Abbas should allow settlements to grow for another 18 years while Israel goes on it's apartheid rampage? He has wised up to the problems of his previous approach. More power to him.
Negotiate what? A paper state with it's own flag. The Israeli's have been creating red herrings for decades to delay peace so they could steal land and resources and expand their settlements.
The entire world now sees Israel as the problem it always was. A complete a total settlement freeze is an Israeli commitment from Oslo, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Roadmap that Israel needs to adhere to and respect.
Get all those illegal settler terroritst behind the green line and let them be 'pioneers" in the Negev or stay and be part of Palestine.
If you actually want peace, you don’t build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital or on Palestinian land.
The Palestinians have been making concessions for 60 years. They’ve allowed the Israelis to occupy their land, free of charge.
If Abbas wants peace (doubtful), this is his best chance to get his best deal since Jordan lost the West Bank in their attack on Israel. Obama isn't taking any of Netanyahu's bull, so Abbas needs to get to the table, agree to actual peace (he refuses to address the concept of ending the conflict....peace for land) and get it over with. He won't though, if there was peace, Abbas would have to run a real country, the international donors would pull out and he would have to take out the garbage. He's not interested.
Luxury Real Estate in Israel, a Rothschild complex, which does have
some nice architecture to it.
And some clown running for Congress who hates J Street, a very
moderate Jewish group trying to find a path to peace.
And pajamas.....?
Help Winograd in her primary run in California.
But the truth is that those 75 Senators represent their constituents who have repeatedly, year after year, voiced their strong support of Israel.
And contrary to the idea that Obama's policies are reaping rewards, the truth is that Obama has alienated the Israelis while hardening the pre conditions of the arabs. Syria is reaffirming its alliance with Iran, Hezbollah is better armed than ever and gearing up for war, and Iran marches onward in its quest for nuclear weapons.
It was Bibi, it was Right Wing Israel, that STARTED this dispute,
by INSULTING VP Biden, a long time strong supporter of Israel !!!
Let me guess, some will claim that Biden had no reason to be insulted,
why he and the administration, with the foreign experts numbering at
least 50 people, that they just all decided to get angry for no
reason at all...????
Somehow forgetting that both GOP and Dem Presidents have
agreed with virtually the entire world that any steps to anger the
other side, by Israel or Arabs, were to be discouraged, naturally.
And by the mildest means, at least from the US. Not even
threatening the billions we give Israel yearly, which it
does Not Even Need !
Please call Congress and ask that that money stay here
where it is Needed and Appreciated !
I respect and honor those lost or who suffered in WW 2, but USING that
for naked politics, to take land from Arabs, to get over $ 100 billion from
the US, to INTERFER in US politics, IS WRONG !
Call Congress. Ask why we still send billions to Right Wing Israel
when they don't even need it, don't appreciate it, and we
need it here !
Why would the MSM be broadcasting Israel propaganda constantly?
recognize the many in Calif. that are not brain-washed by the MSM
and want a balanced approach to the MidEast.
There are many Arabs/Muslims in Calif; a large number of Iranians moved
to LA after the Shah fell in 1979 and brought a lot of money with them.
Listening to marketplace on public radio it talked about a famous building
near San F. where google, paypal, etc. were born. It is owned by
an Iranian family that has sometimes taken a small stake in these
startup's and made a fortune.
We NEVER ever want orthodox religious people in charge of our marriage laws and citizenship laws. We NEVER EVER want to disenfranchise lots of our population like we did before slaves, women could vote.
BUT it is not even close to being a democracy as we are
[assuming you don't count the stealing of Florida/ 2000 or
Ohio/ 2004.....and other such tricks... which can lead to war's...]
I try to respect Israel but it's democracy is even more in danger
from Right Wing Fascism than in the US. And it ticks off
so many people around the world with it's aggressive
policies, it makes it more dangerous for
our military and civilians.
The Palestinians are up against a concerted effort to prevent Americans from fully appreciating just how one-sided the narrative is. Our policy is equally one-sided and there are few politicians from any party with enough courage to publically acknowledge that. Tom Hayden wrote of the litmus test he saw within the Democratic party that meant elective hopefuls not offering the right view to various power brokers would not have much of a future rising through the ranks as they would not be able to tap into party and donor support (see: "I Was Israel's Dupe" - http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-dupe.html ).
This gatekeeping and filtering operates on many levels. It's difficult to even raise questions without being smeared or silenced. If one side works so fervently to thwart open discussion, it leads one to believe that maybe their position is not that strong to begin with.
http://www.gamla.org.il/images/war/colab2.jpg
I guess they fear video camera's and youtube, all the reason to help those
in Israel and around it to have more of them.
Ok, so you're saying it better for the palestinians to not negotiate with israel while israel continues to build new settlements, than for the palestinaians to negotiate with israel while israel continues to build new settlements?
I don't get it. If israel is going to build either way, isn't it better to negotiate to get the territory back and have peace than not to negotiate at all and continue the status quo?
There was a time when splitting Palestine up into an area for all Palestinians, and an area for those who wanted to have a country where most Palestinians were excluded might have worked. But that time passed, and isn't going to return (well, unless Israel is prepared to pay millions of dollars in restitution, the US and EU invest billions in building up the parts of Palestine that remain in Palestinian hands, and offer the Palestinian state ironclad mutual defence agreements that specify that one IDF incursion, or one Mossad hit operation, would trigger at least a 'shock and awe' type attack on Israel)
First, I think it's betetr to negotiate than not.
Second, I don't think Israel should pay for restitution to the Palestinians unless the palestinians and their neighbours are willing to pay restitution for all the jews who were forced out of their homes, who now live in Israel. And why should the US, EU, et al invest more money in Palestine - never mind that billions already go to palestine form these sources every year? And any mutual defense treaty would have to apply for israel as well, specifying that one palestinian incursion, rocket attack, suicide bombing, etc "would trigger at least a 'shock and awe' type attack on" Palestine.
Admit it though, all you really want is a situation where they palestinians are in control of the whole territory of palestine and israel, so they can force out (among other things) the jewish population.
tend to agree that not talking to them makes little sense.
But if Israel wants no preconditions in that regard
then counter-attacks, rockets fired in response
to F-16's from the IDF, etc., should
make sense too....?
Please call Congress, complain to the media.
Israel does not even need US money, why do
we send them billions when we need the
money here ?
They have insulted both GOP and Dem Presidents,
they do not appreciate our help at all.
Except that israel jet strikes almost always come in retaliation for a rocket or other palestinian attack on israel, so unless you want and endless back and forth retaliation, that doesn't really work.
You're right though, Israel doesn't need US money, but when one country uses another country as its proxy to do things that it doesn't want to get its hands dirty with, as is often the case between the US and Israel, there's usually some quid pro quo involved, so don't forget to mention in your letter to your representatives and senators, that you don't want the US using other countries to do their dirty work either. If they want to attack iran, the US will have to do it itself.
And uncontitional peace negotiations do sound like a good thing to me. Given that the two sides here have very different perspectives on what would be a fair outcome, I think that talking directly about the situation would be a more effectiv and more mature approach.
However, if you support peace talks, like I do, then you must be considered about the conditions of these talks.
And as for conditions, Israel's first prerequisite for peace talks has been the end of violence by Palestinians or a coordinated clampdown of terrorism by the Israeli govt and the PA.
But now Israel says it wants to continue building settlements, which would be impossible in Palestinians lands without FORCE OF ARMS!
So, I am sorry, but there is a whole lot of chutzpah in Israel's "supporters'" calls for negotiations in such a context!
want peace, esp. to US public opinion. I think they
should trade off talks, and accept building for now
as they can't stop it, BUT demand Israel stops
all actions against journalists, NGO's, etc.
that try to document all of this.
They should demand that there be thousands
of video camera's that the IDF will not take away
as they do now, and these can be a powerful
force for the truth.
A reality where the Obama is an honest broker and Diane Finestein is independent from AIPAC. And then I realize that to stay that intoxicated all day would cost too much money