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.
Astute.
There will be no two state solution anyway. Israel will shoot missiles at themselves first. Not to even mention that two states is a solution to nothing. One Palestine for all citizens. It's the only way. Question really is though, where will Obama take this? It should be interesting…or not, depending on what drama Israel creates and if they challange the president's authority. Then things might get interesting. Otherwise this is the same old boring crapola.
RE: the need to "strengthen the Palestinian institutions necessary for the creation of a viable Palestinian state." MY COMMENT: In reality, I suspect that this is just a cosmetically enhanced version of Netanyahu's "economic peace". You see, the Palestinians aren't capable of having a state; that's why it is always necessary to work on "building Palestinian institutions" (while expanding the Jewish settlements). Of course, in the eyes of the 'lobby', no matter how hard Israel tries to help them, the Palestinians will never have the institutions "necessary for a viable Palestinian state." What a pity; but it's the Palestinians' own fault. That's just the way those desert critters* are! *NETANYAHU'S ÜBER RACIST FATHER: “The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases." ….. …."The two states solution doesn’t exist. There are no two people here. There is a Jewish people and an Arab population… there is no Palestinian people, so you don’t create a state for an imaginary nation… they only call themselves a people in order to fight the Jews." – Ben Zion Netanyahu SOURCE OF NETANYAHU'S FATHER'S WORDS – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009...
FOR NETANYAHU'S DAD – Artist: Stevens, Ray Song: Ahab the Arab Let me tell you about Ahab the Arab The sheik of the burning sand He had emeralds and rubies just drippin’ off ‘a him And a ring on every finger of his hand He wore a big ol’ turban wrapped around his head And a scimitar by his side And, every evenin’, about midnight He’d jump on his camel named Clyde, and ride…. SOURCE – http://www.metrolyrics.com/ahab-the-arab-lyrics-r...
AIPAC is approving the notion of Bantustans, quite cynically, taking as part of the definition thereof that Bantustans are like Potemkin villages, they are basically shams or facades. I doubt they would deny this, behind closed doors, but the opposition to this pseudo-solution has saved them the trouble of defining it explicitly themselves — all they have to do is not deny the opposition's description of it as such.
You see, Adam, no nation really has the right to demand a "viable" state any more than a nation can demand the right for "existence" or the inherent right for "security" of its state. In all these cases, it is up to the people of that state to make the state "viable" (or to ensure its "existence" or its "security"). There are many states in the world smaller, or more resource starved, or more fragmented that what the Palestinians will probably wind up being offered. The question is, will they be wise enough this time to accept the offer, or will they continue demanding "viability".
Terrific article in the IHT. "The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide — Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate. There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave." http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090509/COL... To the Phil's,Adam's, Martillo's of the world this is a suitable solution. Fortunately Israel will never accept it.
After reading hundreds of posts on this sorry blog, it is obvious that the 10 year plan is music to Phil and Adam's ears.
The real question is how long will Uncle Sam support Israel's intact recipe for eternal war on earth? Time to end enabling the mental patient , time to take that patient off the public streets as a danger to self and others.
uncle sam, usa? neither exists. aipacistan (lobro at xymphora) is correct name for this 2-bit state
What offer exactly? The only offer currently on the table (As far as I know) is the Arab Peace Plan, which Israel is delaying on.
'hostile Arab refugees' Yes, because every Arab is a terrorist, right? Why not talk to Hamas and demand a permanent peace then?
Most powerful nation on earth is 2-bit? That would make the Arab world worthless.