Americans for Peace Now

New Israeli public opinion poll

2010-03-19T13:46:06Z

Haaretz today published a poll of Israeli public opinion, with some very significant findings in the wake of the tensions between Israel and the United States following the Israeli decision to approve a massive new settlement expansion in East Jerusalem.

I could not find the full poll results in English. So I have translated them. The original Hebrew is here if anybody wants to check my translation.

There are those who say that Israel needs to stop construction in Jerusalem until the end of negotiations. Others say that it should continue construction in the entire city, even at the cost of a rift with the United States. What's your view?

48% Israel should continue construction in all of Jerusalem even at the cost of a rift with the United States.
41% Israel should stop construction in Jerusalem until the end of negotiations with the Palestinians.
11% Don't know.

How would you charachterize the behavior of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the incident: responsible or irresponsible?

42% Irresponsible behavior.
37% Responsible.
21% Don't know.

Do you think Netanyahu is purposefully creating a crisis with the Americans in order to wipe out the start of negotiations with the Palestinians?

61% No, not an intentional crisis.
23% Yes, crisis was intentional.
16% Don't know.

There are people who claim the U.S. President Barack Obama is an anti-Semite. Do you agree or disagree?

56% Disagree.
27% Agree.
17% Don't know.

Do you think that Obama is exploiting the issue of construction in Jerusalem in order to try to topple Netanyahu from the government?

55% No.
31% Yes.
14% Don't know.

How would you charachterize Obama's approach to Israel?

51% Fair.
21% Hostile.
18% Friendly.
10% Don't know.

Do you think Netanyahu should or should not remove Interior Minister Eli Yishai from his post and replace him with a more moderate minister?

48% Should not.
36% Should.
16% Don't know.

Are you satisfied or not satisfied with Netanyahu's functioning as prime minister?

44% Not satisfied.
42% Satisfied.
14% Don't know.

Netanyahu declared this week in the Knesset that the construction in Jerusalem will continue, as all Israeli governments have done. Was this declaration appropriate, or not appropriate?

53% Appropriate.
38% Not appropriate.
9% Don't know.

Who, among the following, is most fitting to be prime minister?

36% Netanyahu.
26% Livni.
9% Lieberman.
6% Barak.
10% Someone else.
13% Don't know.

Foxman should stop crying wolf

2010-03-18T21:30:44Z

ADL put out a statement today criticizing General David Petraeus for his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Petraeus had made the observation that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility."

"Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region]," Petraeus added.

This is common sense. America's interests are directly tied to Middle East peace and to Israel. The U.S. is fighting two wars in the greater Middle East, and is trying to mobilize an international effort to address the threat posed by Iran.

But ADL's Abe Foxman doesn't appear to be interested in these facts. To make his case, he miscasts Petraeus's comments into a straw-man argument:

"The General's assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region... Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point, Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then fall into line. "

Of course, that's not the conclusion that Petraeus offered. He didn't say that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would solve all the problems of the region. It's not a silver bullet. He simply said that it's one in a series of items that influence the strategic environment in which America operates in the Middle East and South Asia.

I hope that Foxman takes the time to review some of the studies of public opinion from this part of the world, like this Brookings Institution study which shows that America is often viewed through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Foxman doesn't have to like it. (I don't like it myself.) But it is an objective fact. And it does us no good to stick our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged last Spring that the Arab-Israeli conflict has an impact on efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons: "There are causal links... It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians," he said.

A similar point, by the way, was made by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, which wrote: "The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability."

But beyond lacking factual basis, Foxman's statement is troubling for two other reasons:

First, Israel's future depends on peace. And peace requires strong American diplomatic leadership. Such leadership will likely entail a high political cost for any president. The effort to make discussion of America's national security interest in peace a taboo subject plays into the hands of those who are comfortable with the status quo, a status quo in which Israel is slowly drifting towards an apartheid state.

Second, ADL is one of the most storied organizations in American history. It plays an invaluable role fighting bigotry and anti-Semitism. When its leader makes such a statement, it inevitably undermines ADL's ability to be credible when it seeks to carry out this core mission. American Jews can't afford to have ADL cry wolf.

Ending the "business-as-usual" settlements era in East Jerusalem?

2010-03-17T14:45:09Z

Why did Israel greet Vice President Biden with an announcement of more settlement activity in East Jerusalem? Was it a deliberate insult?   A provocation? A sign of colossal hubris?

The more likely answer is less sinister but no less ominous: this was just business-as-usual - an Israeli government thumbing its nose at the US, assuming there will be no consequences.

Most insiders agree that Netanyahu probably didn't know in advance about the settlement plan coming up for approval, and that the timing was more about one of Netanyahu's ministers trying to embarrass him than about trying to pick a fight with Washington.   But that absolves Netanyahu of nothing. For him to not be keeping track of (and taking control of) Jerusalem settlement plans at this point is either gross negligence or willful ignorance.

And that, too, is business-as-usual: an Israeli Prime Minister who believes it is politically easier and less costly to clash with the US than with his own cabinet or domestic constituencies.

Of course, you can only have business-as-usual if the US plays along - Israel provokes, the US issues a statement, an Israeli leader expresses some carefully calibrated, limited regret, and the whole thing goes away. Except of course in the minds of the Palestinians and the Arab world, on whose consciousness it is etched as further evidence that Israel is not serious about peace, and that the US is not serious about being a peacemaker.

Could things be different this time? So far, by not letting this Biden Incident go away, the US does seem to be sending the message: no-more-business-as-usual. So far the message seems to be: this cannot happen again.

And for the record, Netanyahu can make sure it doesn't happen again - this is a question of political will, not authority. Netanyahu has the power to put the kibosh on new government tenders - like the tender for 1600 units in Rekhes Shuafat that set off this crisis, and like the newly issued tenders for Neve Yaacov and Har Homa. He can also intervene to stop provocative actions by the Jerusalem municipality - as evidenced a few weeks ago when Netanyahu intervened to get the mayor of Jerusalem to freeze an explosive project in Silwan.

There are some signs that Netanyahu is taking this seriously. Over the weekend it was announced that meetings of the key committee that approves East Jerusalem plans had been put on hold. Netanyahu also announced that he was appointing a committee to "investigate" what happened - which is silly, of course, since there is no mystery about how this happened, but an "investigation" could give Netanyahu the political cover to implement new procedures that he will now "discover" are necessary.

And clearly right-wing Jewish groups are taking it seriously -- groups like the ADL, AIPAC and the OU are up in arms that the Administration is being too tough on Israel, as are hard-liners in Congress led by the "Israel, right or right" crowd of McCain (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT), Brownback (R-KS), Berkley (D-NV), and Cantor (R-VA). They seem to take very seriously the threat that Israel won't be able to get away with the business-as-usual approach anymore.

But there are also discouraging signs. Like Netanyahu telling his Likud faction over the weekend that he will keep building in East Jerusalem. And Netanyahu telling the Brazilian president this week that Israeli construction in East Jerusalem has no impact on Palestinians and doesn't matter, since all this area will remain under Israeli control under any peace agreement, and this is something that "everybody knows." And more ominously, we have new tenders (that were announced in December but not issued until now) for construction in the East Jerusalem settlements of Neve Yaacov and Har Homa.

Which puts the spotlight squarely on Washington.

Sooner rather than later Israel will test the Obama Administration's resolve (and actually it is doing so already with the new tenders in Har Homa and Neve Yaacov, but so far that story is not getting much press). And this time, not just Israelis but the entire world will be watching to see if the US reaction is one again just more words - more condemnations, more expressions of impotent frustration - or if this time there are concrete consequences.

And at that point, how the Obama Administration reacts will determine whether this Biden brouhaha was a watershed moment that led to new rules of behavior in Jerusalem, or if it was the ultimate confirmation that business-as-usual - including Israeli activities that threaten US peace efforts and conflict with US national security interests - is still the name of the game.

AIPAC doesn't speak for me

2010-03-16T13:36:54Z

For months APN has been working to get President Barack Obama to step up his efforts in support of peace for Israel. We've called on him to be prepared to confront Israel, the Palestinians, or the Arab states when they fail to play ball.

Last week the Obama administration did just that.

Following the Israeli announcement of new settlement plans in East Jerusalem, Vice President Joe Biden spoke out loudly and clearly while visiting Jerusalem and Ramallah. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to task in a 45 minute phone call. David Axelrod and other administration officials spoke about the problem on the Sunday morning talk shows.

There are some, however, who are trying to cut President Obama's efforts off at the knees. AIPAC issued a statement voicing "serious concern" with the administration's statements. ADL's Abe Foxman said he was "shocked and stunned" by the American "gross overreaction."

We need your help to show our fellow Americans that AIPAC and ADL do not speak for us. Click here to send letters to the editors of your local papers.

Israel publicized the approval of a plan to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem just after the Obama administration announced that indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would begin. While the Israeli government later apologized for the timing of the announcement, it never addressed the heart of the matter: the massive expansion of a settlement in territory over which Israel committed to negotiate undermines the prospects for peace.

Americans are not stupid. We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements. We also know that America's interests are directly tied to Middle East peace and to Israel.

Peace talks will not succeed without genuine, sustained American leadership. All sides must know that there will be a price to pay for frustrating peace efforts. Our role, today, is to show Washington that President Obama enjoys a groundswell of support when he demonstrates such leadership.

Stand for peace for Israel. Click here to send letters to editors of your local papers.

My Post on Foreign Policy's MidEast Channel: Getting Over the Sanctions Delusion

2010-03-15T20:52:51Z

My new piece on Iran and sanctions, published today on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel...

Getting over the sanctions delusion

Recently I was talking with a friend from the military-intelligence world about the mounting pressure on Congress to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - legislation aimed at "crippling" Iran's civilian economy. Reportedly a House-Senate conference is already informally underway trying to craft a consensus version of the bill, and last week AIPAC sent a message to every Member of Congress urging that IRPSA be enacted "without delay."

I explained that in my view sanctions aimed at civilians were a bad idea, and that sanctions in general, while a potentially powerful tool, do not, on their own constitute a policy. My friend's response? "Sanctions are the sign of a failed policy, period."

He makes a good point. Fundamentally, sanctions are how the US tells a foreign government: we don't like you, we can't convince you to see things our way, and we can't (or aren't ready to) overthrow you - so get ready to feel some pain.

But many people today are operating under the delusion that sanctions are about more than inflicting pain. They seem to believe that the message of sanctions is: you will see things our way or we will sanction you into submission.

Where does this delusion come from? Maybe back in 1960, when the US first imposed sanctions on Cuba, someone could have believed this. But today? Sanctions still haven't worked in Cuba (unless you define "working" as impoverishing the population). They didn't work in Haiti or Iraq. They aren't working today in North Korea, Syria, or Gaza (or even Iran, where far-reaching sanctions have been in place for three decades)

The record is clear: sanctions may make angry Americans and frustrated policymakers feel less impotent, but they don't force regimes to fold or change their behavior, and they don't motivate populations to overthrow their leaders. In fact, they usually have the opposite ef fect.

Here is where supporters of sanctions will raise, triumphantly, the case of South Africa. But South Africa is the exception that proves the rule. Because South Africa is the one case where sanctions were about supporting the self-identified interests of a large portion of that country's population. In every other case, sanctions have been about promoting US interests, not the interests of the people bearing their brunt. We sanctioned the Castro regime because we refused to tolerate Communism so close to home. We sanctioned Gaza because we rejected any dealings with Hamas. We sanctioned Iraq because we decided that Saddam Hussein had become an irredeemable enemy of the US. We started sanctioning Iran because we decided that the Iranian regime was beyond the pale. And - no surprise - in every case except South Africa, the populations that were expected to rise up and act as tools of US foreign policy obstinately refused to cooperate.

And so we return to Iran.

Historically speaking my friend is right: the US-led Iran sanctions regime - which dates to the bad-old-days of the embassy takeover - signaled the failure of America's Iran policy. We don't need to re-hash the ugly history that led to this failure. It is enough to recognize that thirty years ago the US decided: until something significant changes, we are abandoning policy in favor of sanctions and saber-rattling.

That was then. This is now.

And now Iran represents an acute foreign policy challenge to the US and the world. The kind of challenge that demands sober, rational policy reflecting clearly-defined, well-understood prioritized objectives. Objectives like getting Iran to abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons and accept stringent international oversight of its nuclear program; to stop supporting terrorist groups; to end activities that undermine US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan; to cease belligerent anti-Israel rhetoric; and to respect international norms of human rights and civil liberties inside Iran.

Is this a call to end sanctions against Iran? Not at all. I still believe that smart, targeted sanctions can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, as part of a broader strategy that uses engagement and pressure - bilateral and multilateral. And even if existing sanctions have failed to achieve US foreign policy goals, they unquestionably represent leverage that the US can use as part of a smart, resolute diplomatic strategy today. Can such a strategy work? Maybe. The truth is, nobody knows, because it's never been tried.

But let's not kid ourselves about what adding new sanctions will achieve. New Iran sanctions may represent valuable domestic political currency in the US, and new targeted, multilateral sanctions could have some impact on the margins and send an important message to Iran that the international community is united. But in terms of achieving US foreign policy objectives, new sanctions on their own won't do the job - and unilateral US sanctions targeting civilians will likely backfire.

And more broadly speaking, persisting in making sanctions the primary focus of the US approach to Iran will be a signal of the continuing failure of US policy, not of a new US seriousness to confront this major foreign policy challenge.

Hard Questions, Tough Answers with Yossi Alpher- March 15, 2010

2010-03-15T18:31:57Z

Alpher answers questions about US-Israel tensions following last week's announcement of construction of 1,600 housing units in an East Jerusalem.

Yossi Alpher is an independent security analyst, co-founder and co-editor of the Israeli-Palestinian internet dialogue bitterlemons.org and Middle East roundtable bitterlemons-international.org. He is the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and a former senior official with the Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency. His views do not necessarily reflect those of Americans for Peace Now or Peace Now.

Q. What is the strategic significance of US-Israel tensions following the announcement of construction of 1,600 housing units in an East Jerusalem ultra-orthodox neighborhood during the Biden visit?

A. The incident appears to have brought the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration to a genuine crisis in their relationship, one defined by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren as "the worst in 35 years" (since Henry Kissinger's 1975 "reassessment"). The escalating tensions generated by the incident have revealed weaknesses and contradictions in the approach of all three sides: Israel, the US and the Palestinians.

Beginning with the contradictions embedded in the approach of the Netanyahu government: The prime minister and his coalition appear to believe that they can adhere to their refusal to contemplate any negotiating concessions whatsoever regarding the entirety of Jerusalem, including both Jewish and Arab neighborhoods beyond the 1967 green line, and reinforce that position by proceeding with construction of Jewish housing, while simultaneously entering into negotiations with the Palestinians and maintaining close relations with the administration.

From Netanyahu's standpoint, the unpleasantness with Vice President Joe Biden was caused by the timing of the Ramat Shlomo construction announcement, not the intention to build there. Biden even seemingly agreed to buy into this concept when, in his Tel Aviv University speech last week, he acquiesced in Netanyahu's apology for the timing of the announcement and noted that since it would take several years to begin construction, the parties still had time to reach a two-state agreement. Even the administration's reported later demands on Netanyahu--that he cancel the Ramat Shlomo building plan, investigate the unfortunate timing of the announcement of the plan, make confidence-building gestures to the Palestinians and declare that negotiations would deal with all core issues (read: Jerusalem)--still do not call for a freeze on Israeli housing construction in East Jerusalem, thereby seemingly exonerating Netanyahu of any truly devious intention.

Most Israelis, familiar with their own convoluted bureaucracy, were in fact certain that Netanyahu had been caught by surprise by his Housing Ministry. According to Amir Cheshin, Mayor Teddy Kollek's Arab affairs adviser when the original plans were drawn up, Ramat Shlomo is built primarily on privately-owned Arab land originally seized by the municipality for the purpose of erecting a municipal stadium, which soon metamorphosed (typically and unethically if not illegally) into housing for the burgeoning Sephardic ultra-orthodox population represented by Shas, which now holds the Housing Ministry portfolio. So this has nothing to do with messianic settlers. Israelis who take a humorous approach to even the worst events suggested that Netanyahu simply explain that the construction was intended for Ramat HaSharon--where I live, near Tel Aviv--not Ramat Shlomo, and that the misunderstanding was over a misspelling.

What Netanyahu did not take into account was that, back in Washington, the incident appeared to crystallize a kind of critical mass in the administration's frustration with Israel. He should have been alerted by Biden's reported complaint behind closed doors in Jerusalem that "This is starting to get dangerous for us. . . .What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace."

It was in the spirit of this comment that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton proceeded to take Netanyahu to task over the phone just as he thought he had survived the Biden visit fiasco. She focused among other things on the obvious incompatibility between Netanyahu's coalition and the demands of the hour. Her tongue-lashing prompted speculation that the administration might now contemplate some sort of sanctions against Israel due to Netanyahu's seeming inability to get into the spirit of a peace process.

Clinton's and Biden's complaints were reinforced over the weekend by senior presidential adviser David Alexrod's claim that the Ramat Shlomo slight was deliberate, by Tom Friedman's characterization of Netanyahu as a drunk driver and, most damaging of all, by revelations that the senior echelon of the US military in the Middle East were behind the contention, alluded to by Biden, that Israel's intransigence was endangering American troops by painting the administration as a lackey of Israel.

This latter argument will almost certainly be amplified in the weeks to come. Its significance cannot be over-estimated. It is liable to link, in the eyes of the American public, the death of US forces in Afghanistan to Netanyahu's double talk about a two-state solution. Its veracity is virtually impossible to verify. Certainly it is undermined by the refusal of moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, to contribute to the Israeli-Palestinian process by offering Israel low-level diplomatic gestures.

Still, the new American argument about Israeli intransigence endangering US forces is potentially a far more powerful assertion than the old accusation that the absence of a Palestinian solution was responsible for everything else that's wrong in the Middle East. Apparently, even though it was delivered to IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi weeks ago, it failed to register with Netanyahu (though it may explain Defense Minister Ehud Barak's desperate calls of late for peace processes with the Palestinians and Syria).

Turning to the consistency of the American approach, Netanyahu and his aides believe they have a legitimate complaint. At the time the Ramat Shlomo incident occurred, the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government had agreed to a settlement freeze that was at best partial on the West Bank and did not apply at all to East Jerusalem. Even PLO leader and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had conceded that proximity talks could commence on the basis of this understanding. Undoubtedly, there were quiet understandings regarding Israeli discretion over announcements of construction in Jewish neighborhoods across the Jerusalem green line at sensitive times. But that's all.

So according to its own understanding of events, the Netanyahu government at most violated these quiet understandings by dint of the timing of the Ramat Shlomo incident. Its ongoing intention to build in East Jerusalem was tacitly approved by the administration back in October-November of last year when Washington welcomed the West Bank settlement-construction "freeze".

Why, then, did Clinton declare last week that the Ramat Shlomo construction plans were an "insult" to the US and sent a "deeply negative signal"? Why did she demand that the Israelis "demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to the [US-Israel] relationship and to the peace process"? Netanyahu, who is well known for his presumed understanding of the American scene (at least compared to some of his predecessors), has clearly badly misread this administration.

But the Obama administration also undoubtedly misread Netanyahu. Axelrod is almost certainly wrong about a conspiracy. More important, the US has to recognize that compromises like this with Netanyahu will never work. They only end up highlighting the contradictions within the prime minister's coalition and, indeed, those reflected in his ambiguous, halting and constrained commitment to a two-state solution. A "peace process" (now reduced to the proximity talks agreement) has to be based on far more stable foundations. As Clinton hinted, this Israeli coalition cannot deliver them. So what does the administration do now?

Finally, there are the contradictions within the Palestinian position. Abbas knew Netanyahu would keep building in East Jerusalem when he, backed by the Arab League, agreed to proximity talks. But his assent was so fragile, so unwilling, that he gladly latched onto the Ramat Shlomo incident to threaten to back out. He appears to believe that continued intransigence will ultimately compel the administration to pressure Netanyahu into more and more concessions. He may be right, though so far all we've seen from Obama is rhetorical pressure on Netanyahu. The PLO leadership seemingly deliberately fed the new tensions on Sunday and Monday by encouraging demonstrations in Jerusalem against the inauguration of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. That Palestinian move was based on trumped-up accusations that the synagogue had something to do with Israeli intentions regarding the Temple Mount mosques.

Wouldn't it be simpler for Abbas to go willingly into negotiations and demonstrate for all to see just how little (or, surprise surprise, how much) Netanyahu is prepared to offer? But Abbas, like Netanyahu, is constrained by more extreme parties: Hamas, but also Fateh hardliners who believe the settlements are the heart of the problem and who don't even like PM Salam Fayyad's unilateral state-building program that is moving forward with Abbas' approval.

Q. What are Netanyahu's options for restoring greater trust to his relations with both Washington and Ramallah?

A. Biden's warm speech at Tel Aviv University last week leaves plenty to build on: solid US support for Israel, particularly regarding Iran and security issues. But Biden also touched on more controversial issues during his visit. As the remark attributed to him about problems the US encounters in Iraq and AfPak due to Israeli intransigence suggests, the Palestinian issue is linked in American eyes with US strategic interests to the east. Biden mentioned countries where American troops are deployed; Netanyahu is more interested in Iran. The Israeli prime minister, who has never hidden the priority he assigns to the Iran issue and whose closed discussions with Biden focused on it, now has to address Israel's security predicament regarding Iran alongside Jerusalem's absolute need for close coordination with the US in this regard. He has to look at these issues through the prism of international pressure to move ahead on the Palestinian issue, pro-settler pressures within his coalition, the new allegations that his intransigence could cost American lives in the Middle East, and his own inner ideological conflict regarding the substance of a Palestinian settlement and how to achieve it.

Netanyahu can easily comply with the four American demands. His first decision, already evident, is to investigate the Ramat Shlomo incident and take administrative steps to ensure that such settlement construction misunderstandings do not happen again. For a few weeks, we can expect the government to try to prevent any new and provocative construction in Jerusalem or the West Bank, reflecting Netanyahu's hope that the incident will blow over and administration pique will remain limited to rhetoric. Netanyahu will offer Senator George Mitchell, the US peace facilitator due to return this week, some new gesture to entice Abbas back to proximity talks and improve Israel's stock with the administration. And he should have no trouble committing to discuss all core issues with the Palestinians; he has already done so. The real question is whether he is prepared to offer concessions on those issues.

Further afield, as long as this Israeli government comprises elements who believe that settlement construction is God's will, someone will always build and "embarrass" the prime minister. This is particularly likely in East Jerusalem, which the government (in all fairness, to one degree or another like its predecessors) treats as no different than Ramat HaSharon, where it goes without saying that the prime minister does not have to be informed of housing construction.

Undoubtedly, too, the Israeli political scene will now enter a period of hyper-activity. The option of reshaping his coalition, virtually suggested by Clinton, will now get another look from Netanyahu. Labor dissidents will again pressure Defense Minister Ehud Barak to pull out. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni--Netanyahu's only option for a more moderate coalition--will be back in the spotlight. The extremists in the coalition will go out and "create facts".

And there is an option of alternatives that might distract everyone. Don't be surprised if we now hear more about a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas for Gilad Shalit. Or Israeli acceptance of the latest Turkish offer to mediate renewed proximity talks with Syria.

At the end of the day, this Israeli government's composition is incompatible with peace. That should have been clear from the start. Only an extremely forceful administration position can conceivably address this predicament. Thirty-five years ago, "reassessment" meant cancellation of vital US arms shipments to an Israel still licking its wounds after the Yom Kippur war. That led to the second redeployment from Sinai and ultimately to peace with Egypt.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the week ending March 12, 2010

2010-03-12T18:48:10Z

1. Bills and Resolutions

2. House/Senate/AIPAC Gear Up on "Crippling" Iran Sanctions

3. New APN Policy document - Needed: A Rational Approach to Iran

4. Crowley Circulates Dear Colleague in support of Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence Programs

1. Bills and Resolutions

(IRAN) HR 4807: Introduced 3/10/10 by Rep. Kirk (R-IL) and 10 cosponsors, "To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to require the President to investigate possible violations of that Act within a specified period, and for other purposes."

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

NOTE: The goal of this bill is to compel the President to publicly "name names" of companies and individuals believed to be violating Iran sanctions, even if the President has, for reasons of US national security, used his waiver authority to waive sanctions against them (as has occurred under every President since the ISA became law).

As discussed in Section 2 (below), it is generally understood that one of the things the Administration is seeking to change in IRPSA is the requirement that it report the name of every sanctionable company or individual (even if sanctions are waived), since this would contradict the very reasons that the sanctions were being waived (e.g., trying not to publicly embarrass countries that are cooperating with the US in our efforts regarding Iran).

If passed into law, this legislation would render any such changes in IRPSA moot.

Once again, under the guise of "getting tough on Iran" and "giving the President more tools to deal with Iran," we are seeing legislation that is really about tying the President's hands and limiting his policy options, to the detriment of US national security interests.

And from the point of view of partisan politics, once again we are seeing Republican members of Congress trying to force President Obama to take steps that they never tried to force President Bush to take.

2. House/Senate/AIPAC Gear Up on "Crippling" Iran Sanctions

Despite the fact that the Obama Administration has made clear that it wants to focus on a multilateral approach to Iran, Congress is gearing up to pass legislation that, unless significantly amended, will compel the Administration to take unilateral steps that (among other things) will directly undermine its efforts to muster multilateral consensus and action.

The legislation in its current form is clearly opposed by the Obama Administration.

APN is the sole voice of the American Jewish community opposing IRPSA and offering specific amendments that would make it acceptable (see: APN message to the House and to the Senate before each passed the bill).

The first formal sign of this was March 11^th, when Conference season on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act officially opened.

On that day the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to amend HR 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - by deleting the entire House text and replacing it with the text of S. 2799 - and then pass it.

The Senate immediately notified the House that it insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees to represent it in the House-Senate conference to reconcile the two versions of the bill.

The Senate conferees are: Dodd (D-CT), Kerry (D-MA), Lieberman (I-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Shelby (R-AL), Bennett (R-UT), and Lugar (R-IN).

House conferees have not been named as of this writing.

It is expected that the bill will be amended in conference.

Anticipated amendments include McCain language imposing sanctions on human rights violators (S. 3022 and HR 4647/4648, covered in this previous edition of the Round-Up).

In addition, as noted in Section 1 (above), the Administration is reportedly seeking specific changes, including adding discretionary authority for the President to waive sanctions with respect to countries that are cooperating with the US in our efforts to deal with Iran, removing the mandatory requirement to report all sanctionable companies (the "name names" provision), as well as changing the sanctions threshold (as written, IRPSA would punish very small value transactions in the refined petroleum sector much more harshly than current law punishes much larger value financial sector transactions).

Finally, on March 9^th AIPAC sent a letter to every member of Congress expressing its outrage over a March 6^tharticle in the New York Times reporting on US contracts with companies that are defying existing Iran sanctions.

The letter calls on Congress to do four things:

"1. Investigate why successive administrations have failed to implement the law by failing to determine what companies have invested in the Iranian energy sector; 2. Enact -- without delay -- the Iran sanctions legislation currently before Congress, which, inter alia, contains provisions barring federal contracts to companies which are investing in Iran's energy sector or providing sensitive technology, and their parents or subsidiaries who are engaged in such activity;

3. Demand that the U.S. Government enforce existing sanctions law and impose crippling new sanctions on Iran."

And "In addition to these actions, we hope you will join with us in urging the administration to impose tough new multilateral sanctions with like-minded states without delay while continuing to pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council."

For anyone not following AIPAC's Washington schedule, it should be noted that AIPAC's annual WashingtonPolicy Conference (and lobby days) will be March 21-23.

So watch for these "asks" to come up again, bearing in mind that Iran sanctions have in past years consistently been the focal point of lobbying around the AIPAC policy conference.

3. New APN Policy document - Needed: A Rational Approach to Iran

For anyone who missed it, on March 8th APN released a new Iran policy document entitled "Needed: A Rational Approach to Iran."

The document, which lays out specific recommendations as well as once again explains APN criticisms of IRPSA, is available here.

4. Crowley Circulates Dear Colleague in support of Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence Programs

On March 11th Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) circulated a Dear Colleague in support of increased funding in the Foreign Operation Appropriations bill for people-to-people reconciliation and co-existence programs in the Middle East.

The Dear Colleague seeks cosigners on a letter to ForOps Subcommittee Chairwoman Lowey (D-NY) and Ranking Minority Member Granger (R-TX).

The Dear Colleague notes that "At this challenging time facing the Middle East, it is vital that we continue to support non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote peace and cooperation among Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews in the region. Through grassroots reconciliation programs, everyday people can come to understand one another and build positive relationships in support of peace and mutual social, political, and economic gains."

The letter to Reps. Lowey and Granger is copied below.

Dear Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger:

We write to thank the Subcommittee for its commitment to peace-building programs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote people-to-people coexistence and reconciliation around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, where the work of bringing people together in peace is most desperately needed. In these uncertain times, with the combined hope and challenge of renewed diplomatic negotiations, people-to-people contacts are more critical than ever. For FY10, the House approved $11 million for USAID-funded people-to-people reconciliation and coexistence programs in the Middle East ($10 million emerged from conference). We urge you to expand this critical funding for FY 2011.

As we all recognize, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict retains a key role at the heart of U.S. security and foreign policy. For this reason, Congress appropriated $9 million in funding for Middle East coexistence in FY 2008. These funds have demonstrated the impact of bringing together ordinary Israeli and Palestinian citizens to work jointly on educational programs, business cooperation, sports activities, recreation centers, healthcare initiatives, community development, and inter-religious dialogue. This "track two diplomacy" is a critical U.S. foreign policy tool in laying the groundwork for successful diplomatic efforts.

In order to support this work, we urge the Subcommittee to provide $12 million in funding focused exclusively on people-to-people coexistence and reconciliation in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Middle East has a robust network of NGOs working on people-to-people coexistence. A modest level of support will have substantial, rippling effects.

We request your help to lay the groundwork for peace in the Middle East and to support the brave and inspiring Israelis and Palestinians who are willing to reach across conflict lines and work toward peace. Please feel free to have your staff contact Jeremy Woodrum with Rep. Joseph Crowley at jeremy.woodrum@mail.house.gov if we can provide any further information about this request. Thank you for your consideration.

========================================

Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.

========================================

For more information, contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.

APN Leadership Meets with Fayyad, Livni

2010-03-11T22:00:09Z

A leadership delegation of Americans for Peace Now, on a fact-finding trip to Israel and the West Bank, met today in Ramallah with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and in Jerusalem with Israel's Opposition Chair MK Tzipi Livni.

(Pictures on left: Livni with APN's Debra DeLee & Martin Bresler; right: Fayyad with Bresler)

APN's leaders urged Prime Minister Fayyad to stay focused on the two-state solution, the best hope for Israel and the for the Palestinians to live in peace, security, democracy and independence.

APN's delegation urged Fayyad to make sure that the Palestinian authority stays committed to the diplomatic process, despite the challenges. "Peace is too important for any of us to despair," APN's President and CEO Debra DeLee told Fayyad.

The delegation's members told Fayyad that Prime Minister Netanyahu's rhetoric of peace must be backed up by action, and such action necessitates Palestinian commitment to the political process brokered by the US administration. "The Israeli public needs to know whether Netanyahu means what he says," said DeLee.

Members of APN's delegation met with Fayyad at the Palestinian government's compound in Ramallah.

APN's leaders raised concerns about statements made recently by some members of the Palestinian government, which were not consistent with the parameters of achieving a two-state solution.

In meetings that APN leaders held with Palestinian Authority officials on Wednesday, APN's representatives raised deep concerns over the PA's intention to name a major square in Ramallah after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the Palestinian female terrorist who took part in a murderous attack on a bus in Israel in 1978. On Thursday, the PA announced that it will indefinitely suspend the naming of the square. APN hopes that the PA will not go ahead with naming the square after al-Mugrabi.

Members of APN's delegation also met today with Israel's Opposition Chair Tzipi Livni of Kadima and with other Israeli Knesset members. MK Livni said that the main challenge facing Israeli leaders today is to convince the Israeli public that "a safe, Jewish, democratic state in the Land of Israel can only be established on a part of the land of Israel."

Buildings for Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem: More to Come

2010-03-11T21:04:10Z

By Jo-Ann Mort, March 11, 2010

(Originally posted on TPM Cafe)

The announcement by Israeli Interior Minister that Israel is building 1600 more housing units in East Jerusalem made during VP Biden's visit was probably not an accident--hard to imagine otherwise. But, not simply because Eli Yishai, the Minister, wanted to embarrass the VP; also because he honestly has little interest in listening to any elected official--from his own Prime Minister to our nation's VP.

That's because, as a leader of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party, he answers to a higher power. And, the building is for his constituents: ultra-Orthodox Jews who, ironically are not Zionists and don't consider Israel a true state until the Messiah himself (it will be a him, in their mind; not a her for sure) lands on the holy ground himself.)

That's why Yishai will continue to build--and until he is stopped, Bibi will continue to support the building. He counts Shas as a critical core constituency of his coalition, as short sighted as it is. The ultra-Orthodox community in Israel is anti-democratic, anti-state (no matter who the leader is), and threatens Israel's security and modernity as much as any external threat, if not perhaps more.

The Shas party doesn't recognize the Reform Synagogue Movement as a legitimate form of Judaism; and, that means they don't recognize the majority of American Jews as Jews since that is what we are (over 50% of affiliated American Jews are Reform)....

Their ultra-Orthodox constituents rarely serve in the army, but their actions are sending tens of thousands of Israeli young people to serve an occupation that --still--the majority of Israelis oppose. Their young people don't attend public schools, don't learn English and don't learn Math and modern technology on the whole. Indeed, the growth of the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) sector in Jerusalem is as harmful to the divide in that city as the East-West divide there.

In reality, there are three Jerusalems: one is the small, but struggling secular Jewish community that wants to live in normalcy; they attend and support Israel's top university: Hebrew University, a thriviing cultural scene in spite of it all, and would like their own young people to have a future in Israel's capitol city. The second Jerusalem is the ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem, which has pulled the city under the poverty line, underminded public services and could likely not only erupt any future negotiations along with the settler population on the West Bank that hails from a nationalist religious background, but they will do it without every declaring loyalty to the state. Incredible~

The third sector, of course, are the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem, disenfranchised from West Jerusalem and Israel's state and cut off from their natural partnership with the West Bank and Ramallah and Bethlehem due to the separation wall and all of the checkpoints.

In today's Hebrew paper, Yediot Achranot, the largest circulation paper in Israel, Ofer Petersburg published this helpful 'cheat sheet' of new building to come in Jerusalem as charted by Peace Now in Israel. Here is Petersburg reporting:

Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 4) by Ofer Petersburg -- Ramat Shlomo is not the only neighborhood [in which construction permits are liable to be the source of an international outcry]: An examination by Yedioth Ahronoth has found that no fewer than 19 other construction plans in East Jerusalem, in which a total of 7,038 housing units are to be built, are currently in the process of receiving authorization.

The various construction projects that are liable to become the next source of friction are all at different stages of the planning process. Some are at a very preliminary stage, after having been submitted to the Interior Ministry's Planning and Construction Committee, and are now being debated. Others are at a more advanced stage: an announcement has been made to the public about the planned construction, to allow for anyone who opposes the planned project to submit a petition. Still other construction projects are on the verge of receiving final approval.

Furthermore, there are no fewer than 2,193 housing units that have completed the necessary stages of approval, according to data that were provided by Peace Now. Construction on those housing units can begin immediately. Among these housing units are 1,083 new apartments in Ramot and other projects that have already solicited criticism of Israel, such as the project planned for the Shepherd Hotel.

"There is a tremendous shortage of housing units in the capital. Projects of this kind have to be approved, otherwise the city will stop," said a senior member of the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee, which granted its approval to the Ramat Shlomo project this week. "We were stunned by the storm it raised. Everything is technical. We never regarded Ramat Shlomo as a place that is beyond the Green Line. This is a project that has been bouncing around the bureaucracy for seven years. We had no reason not to approve it. Nor are there any instructions in that vein, and that applies to every other neighborhood, either Jewish or Arab, in East Jerusalem.

Peace Now Secretary General Yariv Oppenheimer said: "It isn't a matter of timing, it's a matter of policy. The intention here is to turn Jerusalem into a bi-national city and to preempt a two-state solution. It was a miracle that only one project was approved during Biden's visit."

[the figures cited beneath appear on an aerial photograph provided by Yedioth Ahronoth, marking where each one of the following East Jerusalem sites is situated]

· Neve Yaakov: 393 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Pisgat Zeev: 600 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Ramat Shlomo: 2,250 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Ramat Eshkol: 267 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Ramot: 1,083 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Ramot: 320 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Sheikh Jarrah: 72 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Shepherd Hotel: 20 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Wholesale Market: Mall + 200 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Herod's Gate (Old City): 30 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Western Wall Plaza: Strauss House; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Western Wall Plaza : Mughrabi Bridge ; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· City of David: Master plan; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Kidmat Tzion: 220 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Nof Tzion B: 30 housing units + 150 hotel rooms; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Nof Tzion: 100 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee.
· Nof Tzion: 91 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· East Talpiot: 180 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Givat Hamatos: 549 housing units; Status: Objections have been aired, awaiting approval.
· Givat Hamatos: 1,100 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee
· Givat Hamatos: 3,150 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Har Homa B: 50 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee
· Har Homa C: 983 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee
· Gilo: 170 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee
· Gilo: 207 housing units; Status: approved, awaiting construction.
· Moradot Gilo: 844 housing units; Status: Being debated by committee

50,000 new units for East Jerusalem - Behind the Headlines (Seidemann/Friedman)

2010-03-11T17:00:23Z

(Special to APN by Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman)

Attention today is riveted on headlines in the Israeli press reporting Israeli plans for 50,000 residential units in East Jerusalem. Coming on the heels of the Biden visit debacle, the interest in this report is unsurprising. Here we offer some information and analysis about the facts behind the headlines and what they mean for the prospects of peace and the two-state solution.

(picture: Peace Now's Hagit Ofran leads a tour in East Jerusalem)

The Reality Behind the Headlines: It is not a secret that there are a large number of plans for construction in East Jerusalem in the drawers and on the desks of Israeli planners.

These include the massive settlement schemes for E1 (in the northeast), a major new settlement scheme in Atarot (in the north) and the new settlement of Givat Yael (in the south). Most of these plans are in the very early stages - assuming no obstacles (like the kind of US opposition that has kept Israel from building in E1 since the 1990s), it would still be years before most of these could be implemented. In addition there are schemes for construction within and on the edges of existing veteran East Jerusalem settlements and within Palestinian neighborhoods.

Some of these (like Shepherd's Hotel) can be implemented at any time. Some of them (Har Homa C, East Talpiyot, Pisgat Zeev, Ramot, Neve Ya'acov, Mordot Gilo, Givat Ha'matos), are moving forward at a steady, but not break-neck, pace. Others (E1, Mufti's Grove, Herod's Gate, Kidmat Tziyon) are being worked on but are not yet imminent. Others (Atarot, Givat Yael, Mazmoriyyah) are embryonic - schemes that reflect a very real aspiration but are not yet becoming operational plans.

Adding all of these plans together, one can say - accurately - that there are current and anticipated Israeli plans to build nearly 50,000 units in East Jerusalem. But this does not reflect an operational reality. It reflects a compendium of numbers taken from various categories - a mixing of apples (plans that are genuine, imminent threats), oranges (plans that are not close to being implemented but in which serious energy is being invested), and bananas (plans that right now are pipe dreams on paper). The fact is, Israel has built a total of 50,000 units in East Jerusalem since 1967 - the idea that a similar number are suddenly going to be built in the coming months or years is not realistic.

Looking at the numbers this was is not a particularly meaningful or useful exercise in terms of measuring real threats on the ground to the political process or the viability of the two-state solution.

The Politics Behind the Headlines: It is reasonable to ask: given the fact that all of the information about settlement projects in the pipeline is generally known, why is it being highlighted today, and in such a heavy-handed way?

One answer is that following the Biden visit fiasco, interest in the Jerusalem settlement issue is high and well-known facts are now being reexamined and presented as "news." The other answer is that we are seeing a rare confluence of interests of competing agendas: those who are most worried about Jerusalem settlement activity find today an eager audience for bad news; those who want to see more settlement in Jerusalem see an opportunity to make the current tough political situation worse, and are happy to fan the flames.

Looking Ahead: As we have already seen, the announcement of any East Jerusalem settlement construction today is enormously detrimental to the political process.

Moreover, certain of the schemes in the pipeline represent a direct threat to the viability of the two-state solution. These are those that:

seek to change the borders of Jerusalem
seek to implant additional settlers in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods, or
seek to "weld" together existing settlement with adjacent Palestinian neighborhoods, making it impossible in the future to draw a political border between Israeli Yerushalayim and Palestinian Al Quds.

Given these very real threats, the focus today should not be on numbers-generated hysteria about Israel's "no-holds-barred" aspirations in East Jerusalem, but on identifying which East Jerusalem settlement schemes are real, imminent, and dangerous. Once identified, the goal should be to target them and look at the mechanics of how they can be stopped, either through private or public intervention. Bad things are indeed happening in Jerusalem; what is required today is sober, pragmatic resolve to put an end to them.

Biden: US will Hold Israel and Palestinians Accountable

2010-03-10T19:37:56Z

Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority are well advised to take note of Vice President Joe Biden's comments in Ramallah today.

From now on, Biden said, "As we move forward, the United States will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did." The decision he was referring to was Israel's decision to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. The Obama administration's reaction was swift and harsh. If it reflects the way in which the administration will hold the parties accountable to their actions from now on, it signifies a change in Washington's role as a broker.

following is the full text of Biden's comments at the photo-op, following his meeting with President Abbas:

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Mr. President, thank you very much for your hospitality and for the opportunity to be with you again. I greatly appreciate the time you've given me, you and the Palestinian Authority. I also had the pleasure of meeting earlier this morning with your Prime Minister Fayyad in -- here in Ramallah. I must say I admire the courage and conviction of the two of you, whom President Obama and I consider willing partners in the quest for a lasting peace in the region.

Our administration is fully committed to the Palestinian people and to achieving a Palestinian state that is independent, viable, and contiguous. Everyone should know -- everyone should know by now that there is no viable alternative to a two-state solution, which must be an integral part of any comprehensive peace plan. The United States considers the goal to be not only in the interest of the Palestinians and the Israelis, but in the United States' interest as well. We also believe that the divide between the Israelis and Palestinians can only be resolved by negotiations. The indirect talks being launched should lead to direct negotiations, which will necessarily reach -- which would be necessary to reach an agreement on the permanent status -- status issues which you referenced, Mr. President, such as borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the United States pledges to play an active as well as a sustained role in these talks. It's incumbent on both parties to build an atmosphere of support for negotiations and not to complicate them.

Yesterday -- yesterday, the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem undermined that very trust, the trust that we need right now in order to begin as well as produce -- have profitable negotiations. That is why I immediately condemned the action.

As we move forward, the United States will hold both sides accountable for any statements or actions that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks, as this decision did. The United States strongly supports the Palestinian Authority's efforts to build as well as strengthen its institutions and develop the economy of a state, including Prime Minister Fayyad's two-year institution building plan.

We must find a way to improve the lives of Gazans, as well. The Palestinian Authority offers the possibility of a peaceful, independent, and more prosperous future rather than the false promises of extremists. A historic peace is going to require both the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, as well as their leaders, to be historically bold.

And I promise you, Mr. President, the United States will always stand with those who take the risk that peace requires. Again, Mr. President, I thank you very much for the courage you've shown in moving forward. I thank you for the hospitality you've extended to me and my delegation. And I look forward to seeing you many more times.

Thank you.

The Latest Jerusalem Debacle (facts/analysis from Seidemann and Friedman)

2010-03-10T16:58:43Z

(Special to APN by Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman)

On 3/9/10 - just in time for the visit to Israel of Vice President Biden and just a day after Special Envoy George Mitchell announced that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to indirect talks - news broke in the Israeli press that Israel had approved the construction of 1600 new settlement units in East Jerusalem. The decision was strongly condemned by the US, the Palestinians, and the members of the international community. The Arab League, which the previous week had endorsed indirect talks, announced that it would meet March 10 to consider its reaction to the decision.

(For a map showing the location of the planned construction, click here. For complementary reporting on the plan from Peace Now Settlement Watch director Hagit Ofran - and another map - click here.)

The facts of this matter: The settlement in question in Rekhes Shuafat (aka Ramat Shlomo). The plan in question is Plan number 11085. The plan was originally for 1300-1400 units (although it erroneously appears on the Municipal computer as 650 units). The plan as approved today includes 1400 units, with another 200 tacked on for low income housing. What happened today was not/not final approval. What it was a decision to deposit the plan for public review - a significant, but not irreversible - step toward final approval. It should be emphasized that this is a government plan, not a private plan. This means that the government has 100% control over whether the plan moves forward. The government could withdraw the plan at any time, if it wanted to do so. Under similar in circumstances in 1995 this is precisely what then-Prime Minister Rabin did.

The Context: This has been reported by many as a deliberate slap in the face to Vice President Biden by the government of Israel. The facts are less clear. From what we understand it seems almost certain that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not know about the plan or have advance warning that it would be considered and approved for public review at this time. Likewise, this is not the sort of thing that comes under the authority of Mayor Barkat. If the timing of this approval/announcement was deliberate, than the culprit here is more likely Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) and/or right-wing officials in the Interior Ministry bureaucracy. (For interesting reporting, see Ynet: PM demanded no surprises from Yishai during Biden visit).

Netanyahu's Responsibility: All that, of course, does not absolve Netanyahu of responsibility. One would think that given the Gilo fiasco (that preceded the announcement of the settlement freeze) and subsequent "surprises" in Jerusalem, senior officials in the Prime Minister's office would by now have demanded that, as a matter of course, they review the agendas for the planning committees in advance. Failure to do so at this stage of the game can only be viewed as gross negligence or, worse yet, a deliberate policy of preferring not to know, so as to not be expected to act.

Looking Ahead: It is tempting to view this incident as just another in a series of Jerusalem-related skirmishes between the Obama administration and Netanyahu. This is far from being the case. The approval of this plan has all of the markings of a formative "watershed" event: its publication was so humiliating to the Administration and to the Palestinians, its impact on an already struggling political process so pernicious, that it is correctly perceived as intolerable behavior not only in the international community but within Israel (Haaretz: The Slap Heard Round the World, Ynet: Defense ministry sources: East Jerusalem housing approval hurts peace talks). If left unattended the message to Israel will be clear: if the American Vice President (or President) is in Israel, don't announce new Jerusalem settlement plans. Any other time, go ahead.

It is now abundantly clear that with or without a formal declaration from Netanyahu, getting events in Jerusalem under control - which includes a de facto full-stop settlement freeze in Jerusalem - is no mere discretionary gesture but a political imperative. Failing that, this political process will be stillborn.

Joe Biden got it right: Settlements and peace talks don't go together.

2010-03-10T16:13:39Z

On Monday -- during the vice president's visit to Israel -- American peace envoy George Mitchell announced that Israelis and Palestinians will soon resume peace talks.

This is good news for those of us who care about peace for Israel. Negotiations are needed to achieve a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

But then on Tuesday -- while Biden was still in Israel -- the Israeli government announced plans for 1600 new housing units in contested East Jerusalem.

This is no way to make peace, and Joe Biden said so. "I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," Biden said. He added that it is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now."

This type of American leadership is essential for peace talks to succeed. And we need your help to encourage the Obama administration to continue to press for peace.

This means America must be ready to lay down some clear principles on the key final status issues. And -- just like Joe Biden did yesterday -- America must be willing to confront Israel and the Palestinians when they fail to support peace.

Not only must America keep pressing Israel to stop pro-settlement policies, the Palestinians should be pressed to abandon public positions that suggest a lack of seriousness about negotiations.

Click here to edit and send your message for peace to President Barack Obama.

APN Denounces New Israeli Settlement Plans in East Jerusalem

2010-03-09T21:19:17Z

APN denounces in the sharpest terms Israel's announcement today of plans for new settlement construction in East Jerusalem. Speaking from Jerusalem, where he is part of an APN leadership delegation to Israel, APN spokesman Ori Nir commented:

"Yesterday, with the announcement of indirect talks, we heard some cautions words of optimism from both Israelis and Palestinians. Today, with these new settlement plans in the headlines, we see that optimism already fading. As we said yesterday, negotiations - including indirect talks - cannot succeed unless all sides act with good faith. Announcing plans for East Jerusalem construction is a perfect example of what Israel cannot be doing if it is acting in good faith and wants to be taken seriously as a partner in negotiations. This announcement is a slap in the face of not only the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the Obama Administration, but of the entire peace effort.

"The fact that the announcement coincided with the visit to Israel of Vice President Joseph Biden only adds insult to injury. We applaud Vice President Biden for clearly condemning the plan but we repeat what we said yesterday: if there is to be real progress, the US role must include 'heavy lifting' -- meaning real pressure on the parties to get serious about negotiations and meaning, sooner rather than later, the laying down of clear US principles on the key final status issues."

For any further inquiries, Ori can be contacted via email at: ONir@peacenow.org

APN Welcomes Indirect Israeli-Palestinian Talks

2010-03-08T21:49:09Z

Washington, DC -- APN welcomes today's announcement that Special Envoy George Mitchell will be brokering indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. APN welcomes the involvement of Arab governments in the process that lead to today's announcement.

Speaking from Jerusalem, where she is taking part in an APN leadership fact-finding trip to Israel, APN President and CEO Debra DeLee commented: "We very much hope that this announcement signifies the start of a new chapter in the decades-long effort to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But nobody should have any illusions: negotiations -- direct or indirect -- are not and never have been the goal. The goal is an agreement that will resolve all the final status issues: settlements, refugees, security, and Jerusalem, and end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Achieving such an agreement will be difficult under the best of circumstances. This current effort will bear fruit only if both Israel and the Palestinians enter into it seriously and in good faith, and if the United States is patient, tough and resolute in its role as broker."

DeLee added: "This means that Israel cannot on one hand enter negotiations while on the other hand pursuing settlement policies -- in the West Bank and Jerusalem -- that signal it is not serious about resolving all the final status issues through negotiations. Likewise, it means that the Palestinians cannot on one hand enter negotiations while on the other hand taking public positions that indicate a lack of seriousness. And it means the US cannot lose focus and stand on the sidelines when things get hard. The US role must include 'heavy lifting' -- meaning real pressure on the parties to get serious about negotiations and meaning, sooner rather than later, the laying down of clear US principles on the key final status issues."

An APN leadership delegation met today with Israel's deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon. In the coming days the delegation will meet with other senior Israeli and Palestinian officials and policy experts to hear more about the expected resumption of the political process and to encourage both sides to talk in earnest.

APN is America's leading Jewish organization advocating for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

For more information, contact Ori Nir at onir@peacenow.org