Ira Glunts writes:
Back in February, in this space, I criticized Americans for Peace Now (APN) for initiating an email campaign profusely praising the “courageous statements” on the settlements made by Rep. Gary Ackerman during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. One of my points was that Ackerman, who is among the most powerful congressional allies of the pro-Israel lobby, should not be lauded for any isolated statement that sounds like it is pro-peace. Why enhance the credibility of someone who is the opposition?
In the same APN initiative Rep. Robert Wexler was also mentioned for his heroic remarks at that hearing. The Florida Congressman, a crafty politician, is a close friend of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who somewhat surprisingly is endorsed by the pro-Israel, pro-peace, J Street.
The press largely reports political speech under the questionable assumption that statements are made honestly. This is how the Washington Post described the Ackerman and Wexler statements made early this year in a recent piece:
There is also growing impatience on Capitol Hill with such settlement expansion. At a hearing in February, Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), the pro-Israel chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee panel on the Middle East, equated "terrorism and the march of settlements" as part of a pattern of "shallow calculation and venal self-interest" through which "the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is finally rendered impossible."
At the same hearing, another strong advocate of Israel , Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), declared: "The Palestinians have enormous responsibilities, but the notion that Israel can continue to expand settlements, whether it be through natural growth or otherwise, without diminishing the capacity of a two-state solution is both unrealistic, and, I would respectfully suggest, hypocritical." [Emphasis mine.]
That was then, but now that the Obama administration is seemingly challenging the Israelis to completely freeze settlement expansion these two faux men of conscience are now apparently of a different opinion.
Here is a sample of what Mr. Ackerman has said recently regarding the issue:
I do not believe in, and I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane. Real life is messy and the exigencies of any vibrant population need to be acknowledged and accommodated.
For a good analysis of Ackerman’s statement see, “Ackerman’s Nonsense” by Josh Marshall.
Here is a statement which has been attributed to Mr. Wexler.
… the settlement freeze should apply only to settlements outside Israel ’s security fence, or wall, and should exclude territory that appears likely to ultimately remain part of Israel.
As Bruce Wolman notes, this statement "presupposes what is to be negotiated." The assumption that all the territory on the “Israeli side” of the security fence is not even the public position of the Netanyahu government, which argues that only the ‘settlement blocks” will be annexed to Israel . In other words, Wexler is much worse than Netanyahu on this issue.
Both Congressmen are considered strong supporters of President Obama. Rep. Wexler as a Jewish pro-Israel legislator gave an early and important endorsement to the presidential candidacy of then Senator Obama, who at the time was actively courting the Jewish vote.
So if the likes of Wexler and Ackerman are the congressional allies that President Obama has to rely on if he is serious about fighting a battle for a viable Palestinian state and a just peace, I think that it is going to be a difficult.
