Despite the beating drums of war on its news pages from David Sanger and others, the Times published an intelligent, pragmatic outline of a possible agreement between Iran and the U.S., written by two senior diplomats of past Republican administrations, Tom Pickering and Bill Luers.  Here’s the heart of it:

 …The United States would agree to full recognition and respect for the Islamic Republic, and Iran would agree to regional cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides would agree to address the full range of bilateral disputes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council could accept an Iranian civil nuclear program in return for Iran’s agreeing to grant inspectors full access to that program to assure that Iran did not build a nuclear weapon. Once international agencies had full access to Iran’s nuclear program, there could be a progressive reduction of the Security Council’s sanctions that are now in effect. Iran would agree to cease making threats against Israel, and the United States would agree to support efforts toward achieving a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It would be important to make arrangements for Israel’s security; the exact shape of those measures would have to be worked out in the negotiations. An agreement in which there would be full access to Iran’s nuclear program, with a monitored limitation of 5 percent enrichment, would offer Israel additional reasons for confidence in the deal.

Both sides would agree to cooperate in reducing the influence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in combating drug trafficking; and in keeping open the routes through which energy flows to the world from the Persian Gulf. Both sides would agree that while wide differences between the two nations remained, those differences must be resolved peacefully.

I’m not sure the 5% enrichment limitation is acceptable since it will hardly allow Iran to develop a civilian nuclear program.  But possibly no enrichment beyond 20% might work.  Also, the U.S. will have to promise to bring Israel into the NPT and to lobby intensively for a Middle East nuclear free zone.  Only the U.S. can compel Israel to do this.  Otherwise, it won’t happen.  Those are big stumbling blocks.

What the proposal doesn’t mention, and which could be a critical long-term component in any resolution, is solving the Israel-Palestine issue.  Even if the U.S. and Iran agree to a settlement between themselves, a festering Israel-Palestine conflict will maintain a high level of tension in the region.

The op-ed uses the example of Nixon and Mao’s rapprochement as a parallel to the current situation between Iran and the U.S.  But the former diplomats note this important distinction between the two eras and situations:

The China analogy for American-Iranian relations falls short in some areas. The most important is that Mao was ready for an American approach, while Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not. Instead, he is convinced that the United States will not work with Iran until his regime is gone.

For Iran’s leadership, the notion that the United States is bent on overthrowing its rulers is rooted in historical experience: the United States did overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, supported the Shah afterward, supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, and now backs increasing efforts to weaken and isolate Iran.

Reducing the malign influence of this legacy on the thinking of Ayatollah Khamenei will be essential to achieving any deal. Simply “keeping the door open to diplomacy” will not be sufficient. So the Iranian leader must be approached directly, but discreetly, by someone he trusts who conveys assurances from President Obama that covert operations and public pressure have been demonstrably reduced. The interlocutor might be a leader from a country in the region, enlisted when the American president felt the time was right.

Ayatollah Khamenei will have to be convinced by actions, not just messages. Just as Nixon halted covert action in Tibet before approaching China, a similar signal will be needed with Iran.

There is no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. But that is also true of war. And only diplomacy can offer Iran’s current rulers a stake in building a secure future without a nuclear bomb. Only diplomacy can achieve America’s major objectives while avoiding the mistakes committed in Iraq or Vietnam.

After so much blather and delusional thinking from so many U.S. (I especially “like” Niall Ferguson’s call for a new “Six Day War” against Iran which would involve “creative destruction,” which is turn is reminiscent of that other infamously delusional phrase crafted by Condi Rice during the 2006 Lebanon war, which she called the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”), and particularly Israeli politicians and analysts, it’s finally welcome to hear clear thinking and realism.  Though I am afraid that the conflict has gone beyond such pragmatic approaches.  I fear that both sides are on the road to war and nothing can stop it.  Though I hope I’m wrong.

Another issue that complicates the Pickering-Luers proposal is that the U.S. would essentially have to turn its back on Israeli hysteria about Iran.  It would have to drop its participation in the Israeli covert ops campaign against Iran.  It would have to firmly tell Israel the war scenario has come to the end of the road.  We will also have to demand that Israel join NPT and that it confront world pressure for a nuclear free Middle East.  Israel wouldn’t have to necessarily accede to this immediately.  But it will not be able to dawdle forever as it has regarding solving the Palestine issue.  I just don’t see Obama having either the will or the muscle to pull this off.  If it were Nixon and Kissinger–maybe.  Or Clinton–maybe.  But Obama? He doesn’t have it in him.  Again, may I be proven wrong.

In a somewhat related development, Efraim Halevy, the former Mossad chief touts a Pax Israelitus which envisions toppling the Syrian regime, icing Iran out, replacing Assad with a compliant, pro-western (i.e. pro-Israel) puppet.  Of course, he only says some of those things.  But he means all of them.  Halevy has a grand vision that foresees a new Syria cutting Iran’s arms lifeline leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  This is turn will somehow force Iran to end its nuclear program and even topple the Ayatollahs.

Though I usually find Halevy eminently pragmatic, here he’s drunk the typical Israeli Koolaid, which usually involves elaborate fantasies of skullduggery and manipulation that turns the world from hostile to friendly to Israeli interests.  Returning to the Pickering-Luers thesis, there is only one way to create a stable Middle East.  That is negotiations among equals and with full consideration of the interests of all parties.

What Halevy is proposing is more of the same contrived realpolitik which has meant rivers of blood running for decades.  It’s also part of a neocon vision of western intervention to make the Middle East safe for Israel and our interests.  Other pro-Israel sources who’ve been touting this path are Michael Weiss in the pages of Foreign Policy and the Aipac affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  They spin a fantasy of hitching our wagon to the star of the Free Syrian Army, which, once it comes to power, will cast out Iran, make nice with Israel and turn off the spigot to Hezbollah.

Instead, all parties including Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and others need to sit and figure out how to give each party something of what they want to satisfy its most critical needs.  For Syria, that will mean a new government that is independent and not dominated by the U.S., the west or Israel.  One hopes such an independent Syria will pursue a course that favors neither Iran nor Israel unduly, but approaches each for what it can offer Syria.

This sort of new Syrian government would focus on improving its domestic economy and improving people’s lives rather than dabbling in regional power politics as it does now with Iran and Lebanon.  In turn, this would mean Israel would have to reign in its own impulse to dabble in the double game of spycraft and covert war against its neighbors.  Territorial disputes would be resolved by Israel returning the Golan and Shebaa Farms to their rightful owners.  In turn, Syria and Lebanon would recognize Israel and normalize relations.  This of course would help sideline or defang Hezbollah.

But none of this can happen through Halevy’s machinations.  It can only happen by negotiations in good faith, something Israel clearly isn’t prepared to do (yet).

If I truly thought this meant a major change in Barack Obama’s Middle East approach I’d be rejoicing at the news that Dennis Ross was resigning as the president’s go-to guy for anything regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.  He is one of the most pernicious influences in American policy going back decades.  His allegiance is clearly to the Israelis and he clearly sees the Palestinians and Arabs in general as authors of their own misery.  His approach to them has always been condescending as anyone can tell by reading the offers Mahmoud Abbas was entertaining from Israel and the U.S. in the Palestine Papers.

But the NY Times report, if true, indicates that Ross is leaving for personal, rather than policy reasons.  This indicates that Obama policy will remain in the rut it’s been stuck in for ages.  In fact, we can write off any major constructive intervention for the remainder of any Obama presidency.  Which means that the next war, whether in Iran, Syria, Gaza or Lebanon is just around the corner.  And when it breaks out we’ll have some Obama administration flack telling the world that Israel’s bombing of civilian targets will signify the birth pangs of democracy in the Middle East.  With any luck those words might be spoken by a Secretary of State who actually experienced the real suffering of real birth pangs, unlike Condi Rice, who never did.

I don’t know how the rest of the world will react to this news.  I can’t imagine it will motivate the Quartet or EU to take any new initiatives, which means the entire world is leaving it to two recalcitrant enemies to sort out their differences any which way they can–including by war if necessary.  I wonder whether this might tend to make the world more sympathetic to Palestinian inspired initiatives like the one for Palestinian statehood.  When a major power like the U.S. leaves a vacuum, other forces and factors come into play.  Most will be negative, but some may be sleepers and surprise us, like BDS or the statehood initiative.

This is a sad day because it means that while a negative influence is gone from U.S. policymaking, no one and nothing is taking his place.  This is the equivalent of benign neglect without the “benign.”

Six years ago, I began the Israel-Palestine Forum as a place for progressives to discuss and debate the Israeli-Arab conflict.  It gives members a chance to explore the issues in greater depth and length than they can here in a few short comments.  As a member, you can set the agenda for discussion.  And it also gives you a chance to get to know fellow members better without having me as the author-intermediary.

I began the Forum on my own and gradually a few other members took a leadership role and are now administering it (hats off to them).  We all grew tired of the limitations (and spam registrations!) of the phpBB platform and I decided to migrate the Forum to vBulletin, a more robust and feature rich (and expensive!) product.

Now that the forum has a whole new look and offers so much more, I’d like to invite readers to visit it and find out if it suits your fancy or your needs for deeper discourse on the conflict.

Larry Derfner and I are about to embark on a new blog (not replacing Tikun Olam in case any of you are worrying–or hoping!) in which we will debate from a left-Zionist perspective the Israeli-Arab conflict.  Larry is one of the few remaining progressive commentators at Jerusalem Post and has written very courageously in an Israeli context about the evils of Israeli policy concerning Occupation and the wrongheadedness of Israel’s approach to Palestinian people.  He made aliyah a few decades ago and, unlike me, made the commitment to live the Zionist dream in Israel.  Though he has seen the dream sour, he still maintains a strong commitment to Israel and trying to be a voice of sanity in the English language media there.

There is a difference in our voices and that is where we hope the richness of a possible debate/dialogue will make itself felt.  Though Larry calls himself a post-Zionist, I think he retains some of vestiges of the attitudes and approaches of liberal Zionism.  Or that he’s to my right on some aspects of the Israel debate while still remaining progressive.  I too was raised as a liberal Zionist.  Though I now call myself a progressive Zionist, I’m probably to Larry’s left on a number of these issues (though I too like the term post-Zionist).  While Larry and I are probably both critical of the Israeli left and liberal Zionism, we think there is much that may be gained by turning over these issues to ensure that the left stays relevant to Israel and Israel stays relevant to the world (both phenomena that seem increasingly unlikely).  We also hope to debate issues from a left point of view to determine whether there is a way that this perspective can reach outside itself to impact the broader debate and dialogue.

I’m not just thinking here of the debate within Israel or the Jewish community.  I’m also thinking of the growing number of progressive non-Jews who understand the centrality of the resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict to overall stability in the region and to world peace.  How will such readers react to the clash of our ideas.

I’m flattered that Larry thinks that despite my sharp debating style in the comment threads here, that I’m a principled, decent representative of my brand of political discourse.  We hope to incorporate that principle in our new blog.  It will be a strong, sharp debate, but one between two individuals who respect each other even when they disagree.  I should also note here that this is my own articulation of our joint project and Larry may describe himself or our project differently.

We have general ideas of subjects we’d like to debate: some historical questions like Nakba/1948; the Jewish nature of the State vs. democracy; Right of Return vs. Law of Return.  We’ll probably take one idea or issue (or perhaps two) every week and write a post about it and then allow readers to weigh in.  In this way, we hope it will become a running diary of our concerns and interests.

Larry and I have come up with scores of possible blog titles, but none of us yet are sold on any of them.  I invite you readers to contribute your own ideas if you have them for such a title (jokes are allowed–but no snark please).  Titles should try to incorporate the fact that the blog will be a debate between two writers on the left of the Israeli spectrum who are arguing about the fate of Israel.

Z Street: 'fearless' defender of Jewish settler hate

A number of progressive Jewish bloggers have been shreying for years (it feels like) about both the violent extremism of American Jewish groups favoring Israel’s settler movement AND about the fact that these groups like the Hebron Fund, Central Fund of Israel, and Z Street, also harshly oppose U.S. policy regarding the settlements.  We’ve been shouting about the abuse of the 501c3 tax code which compels U.S. citizens to subsidize tax deductions for these groups.

Now, apparently, the IRS has quietly taken notice.  The execrable Z Street, founded as a rip-off parody of J Street, applied for non-profit status last December and, according to Z Street, was told by the IRS that its application was being reviewed by a special office establishing to review the status of such extremist groups.  Ben Smith reports that an Arab-American activist informed him that there is a similar office for Arab-American groups.  So finally, the American Jewish haters are getting the same treatment as the Arabs.

It’s about time that these extremist groups receive such scrutiny.  If the government can sue Arab groups like the Holyland Foundation, why not deny tax-deductible status to groups raising funds to buy guns for settlers?  Group which advocate assassinating Palestinian leaders and hanging Israeli prime ministers?  Groups which support settlers who kill Palestinian civilians with impunity?  Groups funding the theft of Palestinian buildings and land?  Groups funding the Judaization of  East Jerusalem?

Now Z Street is suing the government to force it to grant the status and return the process to status quo ante.  If they fail, and God I hope they do, the government I expect will deny the application.  But that is small potatoes, since the ability of Z Street either to raise money or effect the policy debate is minimal.  The real target are the big guys at Hebron Fund and CFI, who’ve raised scores of millions for settlements.  I’d predict that in a year we may face the real battle, which will be to revoke the 501c3 status of these groups.  When you start going after Irving Moskowitz, then you’re really making a serious dent in the settler funding apparatus.

In this context, it’s also important to note the recent decision by the Houston federation and John Hagee to defund Im Tirzu.  Hagee’s gift received a U.S. tax deduction by virtue of it being passed through the federation and Jewish Agency.  Such new IRS scutiny puts Jewish federations and potential funders of settler groups on notice that gifts that contravene U.S. policy will receive special scrutiny.  Given Im Tirzu’s outrageous assault on Israeli democracy and academic freedom, it can’t be hard to argue convincingly that the group opposes U.S. policy toward Israel.  If such donors are prepared to face this scrutiny (thankfully the Houston federation wasn’t), they will perhaps consider putting their money into more mainstream projects.  And if they’re prepared to withstand the glare of the public, then let us have a debate about the goals of their philanthropy and its impact on both U.S. policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Those who haven’t been reading our blogs will think mistakenly that the Forward and N.Y.  Times first brought these issues to the government’s attention.  In truth, it was bloggers and peace activists who took up this cause long before the MSM got to it.  Certainly, the government didn’t take action because of us.  The Times gets the IRS’ attention.  But without those who took up the issue first there would’ve been no Times story.

It’s also worth noting that former IRS officials are quoted by the Forward doubting there is such an office reviewing the Z Street application.  Which means Z Street may just be using the courts to toot their own horn and gain publicity by fightin’ the Man.  No American rightist, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, has ever lost favor by taking on the mean old federal government.  And given the Obama administration’s purported anti-Israel slant it may be part of Z Street’s strategy to file suit in order to publicize its differences with the administration.

Obama addresses nuclear security summit (AP)

Yesterday, the N.Y. Times published one of those tea leaf articles about presidential politics which can either be suggestive or frustrating depending on whether you believe there’s any substance to the speculations.  Pres. Obama has made two rather astonishing statements regarding Israel in the past few days which, depending on how you look at them, may indicate a new-found resolve to get tough on Israel and its prime minister Bibi Netanyahu; or it may be more high-minded bloviating along the lines of the Cairo speech, which sounded good and seemed to signify nothing.

Here’s how the Times reported it:

It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

There are two strains that I read in Barack Obama’s political approach: one is playing for time, which is mostly what he seems to have done regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict until now; and then there is keeping your eye on the prize and seeking historic change.  If Pres. Obama got frustrated enough that he proposed his own settlement parameters and he got the Quartet and EU on board, along with the Arab League, he would have a winner, regardless of Israeli government intransigence.  In fact, I believe that faced with such a wall of support an Israeli government would either acquiesce or be replaced in elections.

When I first read Steve Walt’s portrayal of General Petraeus’ Congressional testimony in which he advanced the ideas in the last paragraph of the quotation above, I knew Obama had a winner.  There is no argument stronger than a national security argument and what was so powerful and persuasive about this one was that it took the ground away from the Israel lobby.  If American boys are facing down the wrath of Islamic militants at least partially because of the latters’ frustration at the injustice of the Occupation and suffering of the Palestinian people–this is an idea that will resonate with the American people even more than the idea that Israel and the U.S. have “shared values” or Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East.”  Body bags trump “common values”  every time.

The second titillating statement concerned the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the president urged Israel to sign it:

“Whether we’re talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important…”

While he hastened to add that this has been U.S. policy for decades, the truth is that no president in my lifetime (as far as I recall) has ever made mention of this issue.  The fact that Israel is a non-signatory is a major factor in Iran’s concern about its lack of a nuclear weapon.  It realizes that Israel could strike at Iran at any time using its own nukes and Iran would have little recourse.  This is a big destabilizing factor not just for Iran, but all of Israel’s neighbors who are without such weapons.  Obama’s sensitivity to this issue is a very good sign, even if there’s not much he can do about it right now.

It is, of course, no accident that Bibi Netanyahu was a no-show at the conference attended by forty-seven other countries.  He knew that Obama would likely make such a remark and couldn’t bear the idea of it.  The fact of the matter is that if Israel wishes to make a stink out of Iran’s supposed thirst for nuclear weapons, the former doesn’t exactly have the cleanest act itself.

Being someone who’s interested in “inside basball” regarding this subject, I found this sentence fascinating and I wonder who the guests referred to were:

Last week, National Security Council officials met with outside Middle East experts to discuss the Arab Israeli conflict.

My money is on Daniel Levy as a sure thing.  Not sure about Rob Malley or Dan Kurtzer but they were distinct possibilities along with Aaron David Miller.  If you know the answer, let me know.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ron Lauder Doesn’t Speak for the Jews (peacenow.org)

Friends of Sabeel will host a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here in Seattle February 19-20th at St. Mark’s Cathedral.  Among the speakers will be Neve Gordon, professor at Ben Gurion University, whose Los Angeles Times op ed supporting the BDS movement was hailed and derided around the world, leading to denunciation by his own university president and an attempt to sack him.

I’ve organized the following media panel on Saturday, February 20th at 3:15 PM:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Media

Richard Silverstein, author of Tikun Olam, Israeli-Palestinian peace blog
Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times editorial writer
Larry Johnson former foreign editor, Seattle Post Intelligencer and author, Looking for Trouble, foreign affairs blog

The panel will examine the nature and quality of reporting on the conflict in both the U.S.:

1. Getting more & better coverage into the media
2. Making coverage more accessible to the average American
3. the collapse of print media: how does it alter the landscape for coverage
4. Where do people get their coverage of the conflict?
5. Critique of media coverage of I-P conflict: why is so much, so bad?
6. Political issues that should be covered and aren’t?
7. Improving communications between Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. media and peace activists
8. Role of digital media, social networking in expanding access to news about the conflict

If you live in or near Seattle, I hope you can make it.

The RJC tweet smeared round the world

The RJC may not realize it but if there is any justice in the world they’ve just stepped in a big pile of dog poop and some staffer’s head should roll.

First a little back story: recently 54 members of Congress and major peace groups (among them Peace Now, J Street and B’Tselem) sent separate letters to Pres. Obama urging him to pressure Israel to relieve the siege of Gaza.  The letters were groundbreaking for several reasons. First, I can’t remember the last time a large group of Congress members and Mideast peace groups coordinated any political activity so publicly and forcefully.  Second, never before have members of Congress been so bold as to call outright for the end of the savage suffering inflicted by this illegal siege.  This is yet another nail in the coffin of the Israel lobby and its stranglehold over such discourse in Washington DC.  In the past, publicly advocating a position sympathetic to Palestinians would have been absolute anathema.

I’m proud to declare that Jim McDermott, my House member, drafted this statement and spearheaded it together with the first Muslim-American member, Keith Ellison.  The Forward covered the story.  Here is a portion of the statement directed to Pres. Obama:

Thank you for your…commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals.

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza…

The peace groups’ letter is slightly more forceful in addressing the siege:

We urge, therefore, that your administration use America’s unique relationship with Israel to persuade it to lift the closure of its border crossing with Gaza now.

Of course, the counter-attack has been hot and heavy.  Yvette Clark (D, Brooklyn), who is African-American renounced her support when Agudath Israel, the far-right pro-Israel Orthodox group, organized constituents to read her the riot act and publicly humiliated her at a meeting they called.  She obediently announced her capitulation.

Further, the slimeballs at the Republican Jewish Coalition have gotten in on the act.  And when they do you know something really, really dirty will come out of it.  The RJC has done nothing less than accuse two veteran Jewish journalists, Ron Kampeas (JTA) and James Besser (Jewish Week) of being “leftist propagandists and weasels.”

Why?  Because they dared to question the truth and accuracy of claims the RJC made in attacking the Congressional letter.  Kampeas had the temerity to accuse the RJC of telling an “untruth” in this statement:

These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!

Anyone who can read can see from the above passage that the Democrats who signed this letter expressed strong support for the residents of Sderot.

Besser also did something unpardonable: he implied the RJC was being racist and misleading in identifying the letter solely with its Muslim-American co-sponsor, Ellison.  The latter is a convenient target for the Republican Jewish anti-minority machine.  They don’t have much use for African-Americans OR Muslims and Ellison is the ‘daily double’ as far as they’re concerned.

Besser adds this interesting perspective to the controversy about Ellison:

…Everybody wants to blame Ellison, which raises some interesting questions, starting with this one: does being pro-Palestinian automatically mean a politician is anti-Israel? Can someone be friendly and sympathetic to both sides?

…Every time I’ve heard him speak…he’s stressed his belief that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to do more to live up to past commitments and take greater chances for peace. He’s spoken clearly about Israel’s need for security as part of any ultimate settlement.  He speaks the language of compromise – for both sides.

In short, he sounds pro-Palestinian without sounding anti-Israel.

Still, many castigate him  as just another Israel hater, which they seem to find even easier because of his religion.

So I wonder: are pro-Israel forces only interested in working with those who are 100 percent on their side, and defining everybody else as beyond the pale?

So for penning some relatively mild and thoughtful questions for the Israel lobby about why it demonizes everyone it can’t control, you get tarred and feathered and practically called anti-Israel.  Next thing you know they’ll be calling for Kampeas and Besser’s heads on a platter.

I know this is going to sound strange but…in a perverse way this is a good thing.  Yet another example of the lobby overreaching.  They see a chance to go for the jugular and point out the perfidy of Democrats toward Israel.  But by the very nature of their attack they’ve discredited themselves among the lion’s share of American Jewry who are more fair-minded and lucid on these same matters.

So I say: whichever RJC goon tweeted that message about Besser and Kampeas–promote him.  The higher this guy rises to his level of incompetence and pro-Israel fury, the quicker the lobby will be vanquished or turned into something truly pro-Israel.

Related articles by Zemanta

• House Dems Call On Obama To Press Israel To End Gaza Siege (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• 54 Members Of Congress Urge Obama To Work To End Gaza Siege (huffingtonpost.com)