AIPAC, J Street wage letter wars on eve of Bibi-Obama meeting
Update: In the post below I neglected to mention a third pre-summit letter: the Israel Policy Forum’s (IPF) missive from four former ambassadors.
Signed by former Ambassadors Sam Lewis, Robert Pelletreau, Thomas Pickering and Edward Walker, the IPF letter called for an “immediate renewal of US-mediated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel” and a “freeze on West Bank sett construction, the dismantling of superfluous checkpoints and illegal settlements and the cessation of demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.”
At the same time, the former ambassadors and IPF called for the “cessation of Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis and of weapons smuggling into Gaza, and an increase in the number of American-trained Palestinian security forces in the West Bank.”
Does anybody really think that advocacy group-sponsored letters from members of Congress have a big impact on shaping administration Middle East policies?
That question is relevant as AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby giant, and J Street, the upstart, pro-peace process lobby and political action committee, push lawmakers to sign competing letters on the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inaugural meeting with President Barack Obama.
| Return to Jewish Week Home Page
Follow the Jewish Week on Twitter And check out the Jewish Week’s Facebook page and become a fan! |
The AIPAC-sponsored letter, circulated by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), agrees with the President that “every effort should be made to try to realize …peace at the soonest possible time,” but goes on to emphasize that the details of any agreement must be negotiated by ” the parties themselves.”
Israel’s the one taking the risks, the letter writers say, so “the proven best way forward is to work closely and privately together both on areas of agreement and especially on areas of disagreement.”
Translation: No U.S. pressure On Israel, no sweeping new U.S. initiatives.
Not surprisingly, the J Street letter, circulated by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) and Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), takes a different tack, saying this:
“Unfortunately, Israelis and Palestinians have not been able to achieve peace on their own, and we therefore share your belief that American leadership is essential to achieving meaningful progress. Left to themselves, the parties have been unable to make the necessary progress toward ending the conflict, and an American helping hand is now needed to bridge those gaps.”
The letter also suggests resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “is essential for American interests in the Middle East and around the world,” serving “America’s critical national goals - from addressing Iran and withdrawing from Iraq to defeating Al-Qaeda and pushing back against extremism.”
Translation: J Street believes in the kind of “linkage” AIPAC abhors.
The letter also backs “consideration” of a “regional, comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict, such as the Arab Peace Initiative.”
There you have it: J Street wants an aggressive U.S. stance toward new peace negotiations, AIPAC wants the administration to back off from sweeping plans and pressure. J Street wants the administration to be a forceful leader willing to push both sides; AIPAC wants it to serve as a “trusted mediator and devoted friend to Israel.”
The question remains: are such letters, for years a staple of pro-Israel groups on both sides of the peace process debate, influential in affecting administration policy?
The answer: probably not - but that’s almost beside the point. The point is lining up forces for what comes next. The letter’s originators are anticipating and preparing for what is likely to happen if Netanyahu and Obama don’t see eye to eye when the meet in the Oval Office on Monday.
Past Israeli leaders and their U.S. allies have often sought to use Congress as a counterweight to administrations that were pressing for policies they didn’t favor; Netanyahu, when he was in office last, was particularly aggressive in pursuing a Hill strategy, using primarily Republican members in an effort to thwart the efforts of the Clinton administration.
Results were mixed, but few doubt Bibi will try the same thing if he believes Obama, who is committed to fast progress, decides to turn the screws.
Netanyahu, many observers believe, has maintained strong relations with many members of Congress, primarily Republicans, and with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has become one of the Obama administration’s most vehement foreign policy critics.
Assuming there is a conflict - which is by no means certain (see this week’s “Friction Watch” story in The Jewish Week) — is this strategy likely to work?
It’s hard to tell, but it’s clear that this time around Netanyahu will face a tougher environment on Capitol Hill. The Democrats have solid majorities in both Houses, and President Obama, at least for now, is riding a wave of popularity that will make it harder for hawkish pro-Israel forces to peel off some Democrats.
By most accounts, Christian right forces that were prime Netanyahu allies last time around have lost a lot of congressional clout.
Moreover, this is an administration that genuinely sees progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front as a critical element in its overall foreign policy. And in the end, administrations tend to go their own way on these matters anyway, regardless of congressional letters and nonbinding resolutions.
I don’t think either side thinks they have much of a chance of altering the emerging administration policy except, maybe, around the edges.
But both want to be prepared for the congressional skirmishes that are likely if Bibi and Barack clash next week or after the President’s round of Middle East visits later in the month, and if the administration moves ahead with a sweeping Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.
.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I had thought that AIPAC is pro-Israel government whomever may be in power in Israel, left, right, center or whatever. Apparently, J Street is not and has its own agenda. Has that message gotten through to the “powers that be?”
May 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
It should be obvious to all tha J Street is a off shoot of the Peace Now Movement, that has been aiding the Arabs in their efforts to place Israel in a position that it cannot survive.
There can not be peace with the Arabs as long as their agenda is the death and elimination of Israel and the Jewish People. They still preach hate, to their children, and to the masses via their Mosque, and the radio, and tv.
They still support the idea of suscide murder.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
My disillusionment with AIPAC arises from their being wedded to some of the most reactionary conservative elements in American politics — and to the religiously conservative elements in Israeli politics. Over the years, by supporting such people as Jesse Helms long after they had ceased to be relevant to anything of value in American life, and by insuring that the most orthodox religious elements in Israel would control such vital questions as who is qualified to be married in Israel and who is entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return, AIPAC has done a huge disservice to both America and Israel.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I do not beleave any person or organization from the USA including AIPAC has the best interest in Israel. Even Bibi is suspect from his past actions. Israel has to depend on its citizens that love the land and not to give it away. All others are suspect to do Israel in.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:14 am
You have it nearly correct. J Street wants to tell the Israelis what they have ti do–and too bad if it causes casualties. AIPAC is looking after the relationship with the US because America is Israel’s only trusted ally. The current letter that J Street supports says that America should help establish a Palestinian state before they have any infrastructure or without any commitments to live in peace. We saw what that looks like–Gaza. Israelis are not as stupid as the J Streeters hope.
Peace with painful compromises will come with America’s help and prodding–but only when both sides agree to live in peace with the other. Note the Cohen letter asks nothing of the Palestinians.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I really wish the J-Street gang would pay more attention to what the Palestinians want. To date, there has been no great desire expressed for a Palestinian state unless that state is able to serve as a platform for future attacks against Israel; the goals expressed in their letter are thus unacceptable to the Palestinians.
There is no solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that does not start with the need for Muslims to accept that Jews will have the same individual and collective rights that Muslims claim for themselves. Until this is addressed, we’re merely counting angels on the head of a pin.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:25 am
I have heard some Jews complain that electing Netanyahu was a big mistake by the Israelis. My reply to them is that Bibi was elected because you elected Obama. When the US has a strong supportive role to play, or at leasst a non interventionist role, Israel doesn’t need a strong PM. But when the US elects a president weak on supporting Israel and whose goal is a written “agreement”, , then a strong PM is required so as to (hopefuly) not give up Israel’s security for words, words, words, which have always proven to be meaningless.