AIPAC aligns itself with Netanyahu: Iran is the issue, forget for now about a Palestinian state

by on May 4, 2009 14

The big question about AIPAC in the wake of the formation of the Netanyahu government was: Israel has shifted right even as the US has shifted left; would AIPAC, which famously wants no daylight between the United States and the Israeli government, move right with Netanyahu? The answer is Yes. The AIPAC line on display at the policy conference is in line with the Netanyahu government: Iran is the priority, and don’t worry about the two-state solution.
From Shimon Peres to Congresswoman Jane Harman to the policy analysts who are gathered here, to the AIPAC executives, to Congressman Eliot Engel to Ken (Iraq/Iran) Pollack to a senior Netanyahu aide, the sense is that Israel faces an existential threat from a modern Hitler that it must respond to and the U.S. must do so too, and Obama must heed the urgency. And the two-state solution? It is not a priority. Yes of course Israel wants a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians can’t deliver on a two-state solution and are hopelessly divided politically, so there is no point in putting time into it.
Netanyahu senior adviser Ron Dermer said at a breakout session Sunday that Netanyahu was elected to “lead Israel down a different path”--away from the "path of weakness, and capitulation and concession, hoping, hoping that somehow the Palestinians will respond in kind is over.”
And what about the international pressure for the political self-determination of the Palestinian people? Of course we are for that, Dermer said. But all the energies in the last Israeli administration went into reaching an elusive agreement when there was no way on the Palestinians side to reach a deal on the core issues. The last government negotiated and negotiated and negotiated and it banged its head against the wall. Netanyahu doesn’t want to continue that focus. Yes we want them to have economic growth, but you cannot negotiate with militias and terrorists. "Land for war," Engel called the peace process. 
I am told that Shimon Peres said nothing about the two state solution in his speech this morning; I heard only about Iran, and vague statements about peace with neighbors. General Eival Gilady, who played an important role in previous governments, said at a breakout session today that he wished that the country had not turned right, but it has, and this means an abandonment of the peace process of the last two years. Netanyahu’s plan is to make life easier for the Palestinians by easing some checkpoints and allowing greater freedom of movement, so there will be economic improvements in the West Bank. But not time for a state now.
I would add that some speakers here have expressed a different line. Aaron David Miller gave a great speech yesterday on the urgency of the two-state solution that I will get to in days to come. David Makovsky of Washington Institute for Near East Policy also emphasized the importance of getting a Palestinian state. These men seem attuned to what Obama wants. But my impression is that the larger organization is more attuned to Netanyahu.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel Lobby, Israeli Government, One state/Two states, US Politics

{ 14 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. LeaNder says:
    May 5, 2009 at 5:39 am

    But my impression is that the larger organization is more attuned to Netanyahu.

    Yes, the moment the two state solution is mentioned, e.g. in the panel with and by Harman, the applause dies down enormously.

    Were have all the people gone? Enormously silent here.

  2. Citizen says:
    May 4, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    Gee, what a surprise. This pattern has been locked in since the mid-90's PNAC initiative. It's right on track (except for the Americans dropping the ball in Iraq clean up). Leo Strauss is proud. The goy hoy-poli remains dumb and harnessed.

  3. syvanen says:
    May 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    The lines are drawn. It is Netanyahoo and AIPAC against Obama. Who blinks first? This is a major confrontation. I am sure the Israelis and their allies here in the US would not embark on such a plan unless they believed they could win. If they are right, poor Obama will look like a fool for even suggesting the two state solution. I really do not know how this will play out. But looking at the co-sponsors on the Iran resolution I fear that congress will crush Obama if he defies the lobby at this point.

  4. Ed says:
    May 4, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    "Forget for now about a Palestinians state"? You mean, forget forever. I don't think the Zionists ever intend to grant the Palestinians their state; throwing out the possibility is simply a tactic employed to appease Israel's critics and prevent the Palestinians from rioting as they're slowly ethnically cleansed. And if the Palestinians DO ever get a state, it will likely be when the Palestinians people have been reduced to one family living in a garbage dump somewhere in the West Bank, at which point an Israeli prime minister and his entourage will approach the family, hand them a tiny toothpick Palestinians flag, and pronounce: "Behold, this garbage dump is the State of Palestine. So it is written, so it shall be."

  5. DICKERSON3870 says:
    May 4, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    RE: "AIPAC aligns itself with Netanyahu: Iran is the issue…" A RELATED ARTICLE: "Gingrich Pushes Suspense Thriller-Based Foreign Policy", By Matt Duss, 05/04/09 (EXCERPT) After blasting the Obama administration’s “weakness” in an interview with the Jerusalem Post earlier, Newt Gingrich spoke last evening to the 2009 American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference, predictably sounding the alarm on the threat posed by nuclear Iran. … …All of which is to say that, apart from the sanctity of marriage, it’s hard to think of an issue on which Newt Gingrich has less credibility than national security. It’s worth noting as well that the argumentum ad Chamberlinum that Gingrich predictably deploys throughout the speech always involves a sin of omission: Free nations failed to act in the face of a rising threat, resulting in disastrous consequences. I would suggest that, in the wake of the Iraq war, there now exists an effective counter to this heavily overworked rhetorical device. Rather than failing to act, the Bush administration acted — unwisely and incompetently, in response to a largely imaginary threat — resulting in disastrous consequences. Call it argumentum ad neoconservatum. We’ve just come off of eight years wherein a conservative administration used force and “showed strength” all over the place — yet, according to Newt Gingrich, “our very survival” is under threat… ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/author/M.%20Dus...

  6. Slowereastside says:
    May 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Hey Phil: Can you tell us what Rahm E. said during his closed-door meeting with the donors? Danke, Slowereastside

  7. DICKERSON3870 says:
    May 4, 2009 at 10:56 pm

    Have you heard that Newt Gingrich received thunderous applause Sunday night at AIPAC's conference when he attacked President Obama's views on Israel and Iran? It makes me so mad that Obama's political opponents think they can attack Obama over Israel – when they're just spouting off the same recycled Bush-Cheney views that got us nowhere. I joined with J Street, the new progressive, pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby, to defend Obama from these ugly attacks. Will you join me? We've got to make it absolutely clear that the majority of our community stands with President Obama and supports his vision for the Middle East – so that Congress and the media see how politically toxic and substantively wrong Gingrich's views really are. TO JOIN PETITION – http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...

  8. Citizen says:
    May 4, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    I joined you. And spread the word.

  9. Colin Murray says:
    May 4, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    I agree that Congress will crush Pres. Obama if he defies the Lobby. He has capitulated too many times to them already. The pre-meeting 'gift' to AIPAC of the cancellation of the Rosen & Weissman trial is yet another clear signal to them that they will be unopposed. He couldn't change his mind now if he wanted to. What potential ally would believe that he wouldn't fold again? The 'conciliatory' language coming from Israeli politicians now sounds to me like an effort to give him political cover to 'fail with honor' at diplomacy. The Lobby have nothing to gain by confronting Pres. Obama and making a permanent enemy when he has clearly shown he will give in. They are, in my opinion, trying to give him enough wiggle room to avoid political humiliation by his premature and uncertified announcement of a serious diplomatic effort to end the threat the I/P conflict poses to US national security. I don't blame the poor guy. If I were in his shoes, I'd do the same thing. He has to think of what's best for America, and in the very short term at least, he needs the cooperation of Lobby operatives in Congress to help plug the holes in our figurative ship. Sure, elements of the Lobby stove in half of them, but it is their collective interest to help repair them to maximize the utility of America to Israel. However, if challenged now when America is teetering and their cooperation is imperative, they would definitely let the whole ship sink rather than relinquish what control they have. When America ceases to be useful to Israel, the Israel-first pro-colonization wing of the Lobby will have no interest in America's health or well-being. This day will come, and American Jews who see America as their home, their promised land, will be left to pick up the pieces of Jewish standing in America. I'll be on their side.

  10. jon says:
    May 5, 2009 at 12:25 am

    I hope Obama doesn't drink the Hamas kool-aid….or the saudi billion dollar produced petrol…. you can bash israel and the jews all you want – it certainly a lot safer than saying boo about Islamo-fascism unlike the murdered purveyors of cartoons critiquing Islam, skewer Israel and Jews and you'll be adored (& hopefully paid) by the jihadists and might get some acceptance, finally, from your leftist comrades & you'll get some protests in blog comments from Jews and Israel-supporters – oh, who cares about them – only 13 million Jews in the world – and 1.3 billion Muslims in the world love me, love me love me….

  11. dalybean says:
    May 5, 2009 at 12:37 am

    I joined J Street last fall. I wish I had more money to give them. They have taken a position against the proposed Congressional economic sanctions on Iran that are being pushed by AIPAC and that appear to tie Obama's hands in advance. The lobbying focus of AIPAC right now is to economically strangle Iran.

  12. James North says:
    May 5, 2009 at 12:45 am

    This post is why I and others donated to Mondoweiss recently; we learn straightforwardly about AIPAC's change in strategy — shift all discussion to Iran — without the hedging and euphemism of the mainstream media. My investment in Mondoweiss is already paying off.

  13. Citizen says:
    May 5, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    I'm not a Jew but I also Joined J Street, for the same reasons as dalybean. It is said that Jesus said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." I feel the same about AIPAC supporters.

  14. bashir says:
    May 13, 2009 at 6:11 am

    I am a Muslim. I joined AIPAC last week because I am afraid of Iran's genocidal recklessness and fanatic Islamist radicalism. Forgive the supporters of J-Street because they are misinformed at best, timid weenies at worst.

Leave a Reply