AIPAC REDUX 2011: PART 1
ANALYSIS

Eleven thousand members and guests, the POTUS, the Israeli Prime Minister, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the House, two thirds of the US Senate, and over 300 members of the House… and a production so professional, so well written, so well rehearsed that all of the conferences I’ve attended paled in comparison. And TVOM was in the midst of it all … hundreds of members of the press… hard at work on their laptops, video equipment, and, yes, the time tested note pads.

But this time it was different. For an organization whose mission is ensuring a strong relationship between the US and Israel, and whose constituency are the members of Congress and the President, the mood of the attendees of the AIPAC Policy Conference was upbeat, but apprehensive at the same time. For decades, the perception of many American Jews has been that Israel could rely on the US government, the Jewish “leaders”, and free, fair, and balanced media for support. And while that perception continues for some, even in the face of an ever intensifying PR war, for many more the reality of the need for “grass roots’ Jews to get personally involved in some way is growing. The Arabs are having their Spring. But there is a Jewish Awakening emerging.

The unquestionable highlights of the conference were the speeches by Obama and Netanyahu. Although separated by 36 hours, they seemed to have the feeling of the dueling banjos in Deliverance. Although, the President emphasized that US support for Israel still consisted of a unbreakable bond, he seemed to be trying to do damage control for his public statement, first ever by a US president, that the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority should involve the “’67” borders”, a term that has special significance to both sides. And his use of “contiguous” wasn’t any more well received, either.

In making his case, he asserted that the tide of world opinion was turning away from Israel because there has been a growing impatience of the lack of progress with the peace process. He also referred to the PA tactic of seeking a vote at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state, saying that as troubling as it was, it wouldn’t achieve its goal. He also argued that the unfolding events of the “Arab Spring”, while highly uncertain, had potential for a favorable outcome and that this is the time for Israel to take bold moves … to take the high ground in renewing the negotiations with an adversary that has made it clear that they are only interested in the destruction of Israel and Jews. It was this part of his thesis which found little agreement.

Listening to his rationale, people were angry, in disbelief, suspicious, incredulous. Some interpreted his thesis, in the context of his ’67 Borders remark, as a signal that he expected Israel to concede, to capitulate. While he said that peace could only be achieved by negotiations between the two parties, he was describing “the Obama peace plan”, pre-empting and prejudicing the terms of the negotiations. Some saw the remarks about the US rejecting the unilateral vote at the General Assembly as a veiled threat, an implied quid pro quo. One attendee asked me whether I thought Obama saw the conflict as a root cause of the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

One woman was very concerned that she had not heard a stronger rejection by the President of the Palestinian’s attempt to get unilateral recognition at the UN General Assembly. She felt that he should have said, “I will instruct my ambassadors and their staffs to call on every head of state and every Ambassador in every Embassy. I will instruct the US delegation at the UN to talk to their colleagues from other countries. We will engage them in their offices, in meeting rooms, restaurants, hallways, and, yes, even bathrooms. We will explain why the US will not vote in favor of the resolution and that this type of action is a perversion of the ideals of an institution that was founded on democratic principles. We will inform them of American opposition to any attempt to circumvent the agreed upon negotiation process between the two parties. It’s not in the best interests of the US, the people of Israel, a future Palestinian state, the UN, or the free world.” She was really fired up, and from the nodding heads around her, I think many others would have cheered those words from the President

Many, if not most, felt that a time of great convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa was the worst possible setting to try to resolve the conflict. As many others have observed, we are facing a period of instability, shifting alliances in Israel’s neighborhood. As I stood in a very long line with attendees waiting for the doors to open for seating for the Prime Minister’s speech, I overheard a man telling his wife that he strongly disagreed with Obama’s contention that Israel needed to act now. .He emphatically stated that Israel would be better off waiting until the Arab spring passed into summer, then fall, and winter, Of course, he was right. It is pointless to negotiate into an environment where there is no certainty of leaders in any the neighboring countries. Any rational person would understand that the negotiation between Israel and Palestinian Authority needs to take into consideration the degree of security or lack thereof, in the neighborhood. If you lived in a relatively safe neighborhood you might get a watchdog; but if you live in an unsafe neighborhood you’re probably going to need at least a shotgun.

The “Unity” agreement between Fatah and Hamas, an adversary who does not want and has never wanted to recognize Israel’s very existence, let alone it’s designation as a Jewish State, and whose charter calls for the destruction of the “country with no name” (ironic, huh?), relegates “peace talks” to an exercise in futility. “Let’s kill all of the Jews”, is not a negotiating position. That was one of Der Fuehrer’s “teachable moments”. As Bob Casey, Democrat Senator from Pennsylvania, said to the AIPAC audience, “The Palestinian Unity agreement is just placing a veneer of respectability on a terrorist organization,” To understand the impact of Arab Spring as viewed through the eyes of Hezbollah, it was recently reported that, in spite of having won of the elections in Lebanon, they are delaying the formation of the government until they see the developments in their neighborhood. Clearly, the situation is no more stable for Israel than for Hezbollah.

Lest it not be forgotten, a fundamental principle of negotiation needs to be emphasized… if a party rejects the proposal from another party, the offer is null and void, withdrawn, off the table. No experienced negotiator would allow a previous negotiation to prejudice a future one. It’s counter intuitive to try to force Israel to restart negotiations by assuming all prior concessions and piling even more on top. It’s “Etch A Sketch” time! Let’s start with a clean slate. Perhaps, the best teachable moment was provided by Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, who said, “We need to see the world, not as we wish it would be, but as it is.” So why do the President and other countries’ leaders want to push ahead with the peace process before the dust settles?

Conclusions: Writing this article is a challenge for me. I’m not a journalist, but a fairly good analyst, always careful not to have too much anal in my analysis. My approach is to do as much research as is practicable in order to get as many pieces of the puzzle as possible. Then I turn everything 180 degrees to see what’s on the blind side. So …I came across a scenario that might lead to a resolution. Most of us know little about the historical competition between the Ottoman Empire (Muslim caliphate) and the British Empire (GB). Let’s just say that it involves lots of “layers and tentacles”.

Well, around the time that Israel became a recognized state, India was gaining independence from GB. But there was serious conflict between the Hindus and a smaller, but still very large, Muslim population. So, they implemented a Two State Plan, and that’s where Pakistan came from (I’m not sure, but before the Jew’s were expelled, I think it was called Pakistein). Anyway, Pakistan was formed by two pieces of India’s land separated by a looong way. But no “contiguous” for them. Why? Because the land in the middle was populated by Hindus! Well, a few short decades later, the hostility between the Muslims in the Eastern part of Pakistan and the Western part resulted in a Three State Plan … from west to east … Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

You guessed it !. Let’s cancel the Unity Agreement and have a Three State Plan, ,,, Hamasistan (or if you prefer, Iranistan), Israel, and Palestine, so long as they use the historically correct spelling Palestein, (or whatever the PA wants to call it, just not Israel or USA). In all likelihood, Hamas and the PA, no love lost there, will wind up like Pakistan and Bangladesh anyway. So let’s just jump to negotiating with each separately. NO “contiguous” and a deal with the PA will be much more achievable without the Hamasistani’s Then Israel can negotiate with Iranistan, or not. If they want to be difficult, then homey won’t play that game.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that this writer saw the President’s remarks as a “teachable moment” to us all; that we cannot rely solely on the US government, the Jewish “leaders”, and free, fair, and balanced media for support. The PR war is on the doorstep of all Jewish people and the trajectory is increasingly unfavorable. We need to come off the bench. We must have a counter offensive … massive coordinated email campaigns. Tens of millions of them from members/donors of Jewish and Christian organizations, and unaffiliated Christians and Jews, who support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state to the global leaders and media will be a loud voice never before heard that we object to the treatment of Israel. As AIPAC’s President, Rosy Rosenberg, said to the members, “We must reinvent the nature of our involvement; we must widen our sphere of influence.” Now is the time.