AIPAC is stuck in a tough position. Among the news stories emanating from this week's conference is the lobby's acceptance, if not embrace, of the two-state solution. Several stories of the conference highlight that AIPAC attendees were asking their congresspeople to "sign on to a letter addressed to Obama that explicitly posits the need for a 'viable Palestinian state.'" This has been seen as a nod to the Obama administration and an attempt to influence the peace process rather than reject it outright. This decision ruffled the feathers of organizations that typically support the lobby, and see AIPAC advancing a solution that even the Israeli government doesn't support.
But what exactly is AIPAC asking for?
There are two useful documents to figure this out. The first is the "Key Principles to the Peace Process" which AIPAC was advancing as a context for negotiations, the second is the sign-on letter itself (you can find copies of both on the AIPAC website).
The Key Principles quickly puts to rest any hopes that things have actually changed. Under the heading "The U.S. and Israel Should Work Together," AIPAC argues against “evenhandedness,” parroting a line that Abe Foxman was roundly ridiculed for following George Mitchell's appointment. The document reads, "While the United States should be sensitive to the needs of both parties to negotiations, it should not adopt a posture of 'evenhandedness' between its ally, Israel, and other parties." The illogic continues, "America’s approach—including its special relationship with Israel—is an asset to the negotiations process, and has historically made the United States the only outside party trusted by both sides to be an effective mediator." Both sides? Perhaps the only party trusted by Israel; but even past US negotiator Aaron David Miller has admitted to serving as "Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations." If AIPAC was really advocating for a viable Palestinian state, is this really the approach that makes the most sense?
Process aside, the sign-on letters that AIPAC volunteer lobbyists took with them on Tuesday show that your viable Palestinian state and their viable Palestinian state probably look very different. At its most basic, the term "viable Palestinian state" usually refers to a contiguous stretch of land where citizens of a Palestinian state could conceivably live with freedom of movement. This is to say nothing of access to natural resources, borders and security, all of which would contribute to viability. This definition of viability is a response to the current state of affairs in the occupied territories where communities are separated and divided from one another creating what some have compared to bantustans, reservations or an archipelago. It has been widely acknowledged that ending this forced separation is necessary for viability and this can only happen if Israeli colonization of the West Bank ends. This however is not what AIPAC is calling for when it calls for a viable Palestinian state.
Rather than considering viability as it would look on the ground, the AIPAC letters refer to viability from the institutional sense. The sign-on letters to the House and Senate use very similar language when it comes to this idea. The House letter (initiated by Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor) says the US must continue "our insistence on an absolute Palestinian commitment to end violence, terror, and incitement and to build the institutions necessary for a viable Palestinian state." The Senate letter (initiated by Dodd, Specter, Isakson and Thune) says "we must redouble our efforts to eliminate support for terrorist violence and strengthen the Palestinian institutions necessary for the creation of a viable Palestinian state." I.e., rather than viewing viability from the perspective of what Palestinians actually need to conduct their lives, AIPAC is viewing it from the perspective of what Israel would be willing to accept. At the most cynical reading, this simply looks like a call to bolster the Palestinian security services which many Palestinians already feel are doing Israel's bidding. Even being more generous, it clearly does not go nearly far enough.
Of course this is what is to be expected from AIPAC. Even coming this far is a sign of change, that they know which way the wind's blowing. They are entitled to lobby for whatever they want – why should we be surprised if they are trying to advance Israeli over Palestinian interest? In the end, the real test be whether the Obama administration agrees with them. While certain signs show that change may be in the works, to this point what this will mean on the ground is far from clear.
