To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

Two Essays re: Mideast Policies for the next American President

Jeremy Ben-Ami and Galia Golan offer their perspectives on policies that should be embraced

Jeremy Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street and JStreetPAC, the political voice of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. A veteran of American politics, he served as policy director for Howard Dean's presidential campaign and as President Bill Clinton's Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor. He also serves on the Board of Americans for Peace Now.

Galia Golan, professor emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is one of Israel's leading political scientists. Today she is affiliated with the Lauder School of Government, Policy and Diplomacy of the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, where she specializes in issues related to globalization, international crises and current political issues. Golan has been a leading activist in Peace Now since the movement's inception in 1978.


JEREMY BEN-AMI

"While the issue of Israel is - in truth - not hugely significant for this American election, this American election is hugely significant for Israel."

ONE OF THE MOST ENDURING MYTHS SURROUNDING THE "JEWISH VOTE" IN AMERICAN Presidential politics is the belief that a candidate's position on Israel is key to garnering Jewish support in American elections.

We all know how this myth plays out. Asked for their views on Israel and the Middle East, candidates turn on a little tape recorder in their heads and spew out nearly identical answers, no matter the audience, the office being sought or even the region of the country where they are speaking. Invariably, the canned response will include some combination of the words 'security', 'terror', 'special relationship', 'democracy', etc. Rarely will it include the words 'peace' or 'Palestinian'

Over the years, professional campaign staff, finance directors, and consultants have internalized this myth and in a form of political groupthink provide all candidates with the exact same talking points to guide their charges safely to election day by saying "what Jews want to hear" on Israel. This kind of political groupthink explains how - to appeal to Iowa caucus voters - we have ended up stuffing a third of the nation's corn crop into our gas tanks, driving up world hunger and world food prices. And it explains how - to appeal to the Cuban community in Miami - we have pursued a bizarre policy of isolation toward Cuba for over two decades since the end of the Cold War.

Unfortunately for Israel, it explains how we as a country have managed to avoid pursuing a responsible policy in the Middle East - one that would promote not only US interests, but Israel's interests as well. Believing that there is no political gain in taking a strong stand for peace and diplomacy, our elected officials have adopted the accepted wisdom that getting Jewish votes and financial support requires simply reciting formulations of unquestioning love and devotion to the State of Israel.

There has been little recognition that the community as a whole is not only more progressive than is commonly believed but also more sophisticated. Recent public opinion research conducted by Gerstein/Agne Strategic Communications for J Street shows not only that Israel is less central to the electoral decisions of American Jews than is commonly thought but also that they hold views that are far closer to those espoused by APN and its allies than by the voices usually heard most loudly in the political debate on Israel.

Jews, like most other Americans, decide who to vote for by taking into account a wide range of issues, including but not limited to Israel. In fact, when asked to name the two most important issues in deciding their vote, only eight percent of American Jews mention Israel spontaneously. It turns out that - like everyone else - Jews are concerned about the stagnant economy, high gas prices, the war in Iraq and the nation's broken health system. It is based on these issues that the overwhelming majority of Jewish voters will make up their minds in this election as they do every year.

Israel is, as political strategist and APN Board Member Jim Gerstein terms it, a "threshold" issue. 58 percent of American Jews say Israel does play an "important role" in their vote.When looked at in tandem with the 8 percent that volunteers Israel as a top issue, it seems clear that as long as the majority of American Jews know that a candidate passes their "smell test" for being OK on Israel, they'll move on and make their decision on a range of other issues.

Even more important, though, the poll demonstrated that most American Jews have a far different sense of what it would mean to be "OK on Israel" than the conventional wisdom believes. American Jews want the US to be actively engaged in reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. They recognize that Israel's security demands more than military superiority - it requires a political accommodation with its neighbors. They recognize that peace will require sacrifices, primarily in terms of trading land for peace. And, to be fair, the poll shows that there is still education to be done on some issues like Jerusalem, where American Jews are wary of compromise - possibly because the issue is viewed far more as a symbol than a geographic or demographic reality.

While the issue of Israel is - in truth - not hugely significant for this American election, this American election is hugely significant for Israel. Seven and a half years of neglect by the Bush Administration (with the minor exception of the efforts of Secretary Rice around and following the Annapolis conference) have helped the chances deteriorate for a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Americans for Peace Now has passionately argued over this time, Israel's security and indeed its survival as a Jewish, democratic state depends on the creation of a Palestinian state that is not simply viable but successful. The greatest challenge to the fulfillment of the vision of Israel's founders is to find a workable formula by which two peoples can share this one land by creating two states living side by side in peace and security.

The next president will have precious little time to change the course of American policy in the Middle East. He is most likely to find - as his predecessors all eventually realized - that there is no solution to the broader challenges facing the Middle East without dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issues. And he will quickly come to see the need for agreement between Israel and the Arab world as a whole that finally puts to rest the question of Israel's acceptance in its neighborhood.

The biggest challenge for the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" movement in the coming year is to use this election cycle as an opportunity to de-program our politicians, to prove to them the depth of support for peace and diplomacy in the American Jewish community, and then to press for active leadership from day one of a new administration to finally bring the conflicts in the Middle East to a peaceful, diplomatic conclusion that serves Israel's, America's and the Middle East's interests.


GALIA GOLAN
"Israeli leaders need American backing when taking bold steps for peace."

AS ISRAELIS FOLLOW THE US ELECTION SEASON, THE PREDOMINANT QUESTION bandied about is whether the next President of the United States will be "pro-Israel," a friend of Israel.

The answer to this question depends in part on what it means to be "pro-Israel." There are those who say that the best way to serve Israel's interests is to support whoever is prime minister in Jerusalem and whatever policies he or she pursues, or at the very least refrain from undermining those policies. That is one way to define the special relationship between the US and Israel. And operating largely according to this definition, the Bush Administration virtually ignored the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for most of its two terms in office: It refrained from sustained engagement in any political action that might have broken the log-jam in the peace process. It accepted Israel's refusal to implement the first stage of the Road Map and Israel's procrastination in fulfilling its commitments, including those that might have strengthened the moderate Palestinian leadership struggling against the appeal of Hamas. And even when Washington appeared to be engaging, finally, by hosting the Annapolis conference, the administration did little to ensure progress in that belated effort.

The imprint of eight years without a credible US-sponsored peace process is evident today: Israelis regularly face rockets and mortar shells. A wall divides Palestinian farmers from their lands and children from their schools. Hundreds of road blocs separate Palestinians from each other far from Israel's borders. Settlement construction and land expropriation continue, as does settler violence. Palestinians are increasingly drawn into the arms of violent, antinegotiation organizations.

As Americans head towards the ballot box again, it is time to ask: Was this a "pro-Israel" president? Was this in fact a "pro-Israel" policy, serving Israel's interests (or even those of the US)?

It is clearly in Israel's interests to make peace, to end the conflict with the Palestinians. Not only because of physical threats such as terrorism, but also because of the high cost Israeli society is paying as a result of Israel's role as an occupier. The growing violence within Israel, the lack of respect for law, the dwindling of social solidarity - all these are, at least in part, the result of over forty years of an increasingly brutal occupation beyond Israel's borders. We cannot have one set of norms and values beyond the Green Line and another, decent one, upon returning to Israel proper. It just doesn't work that way, and Israeli society is paying the price.

No American administration can or should force Israel to seek peace. But it can - and if it is pro- Israel, it must - adopt a policy of active engagement in the pursuit of a two-state solution to the conflict. This is the goal the Israeli government claims as its own. The parameters of such a solution are already wellknown. They have been negotiated and renegotiated.What would help significantly is persuasive mediation from the US, the most powerful country in the world, one that is trusted and considered key to Israel's welfare. The Israeli public expects its leaders to maintain a positive relationship with Washington; Israeli leaders need American backing when taking bold steps for peace.

Now is the time for this pro- Israel policy. Time is running out for the two-state solution: As settlements take up more and more land, and the path of negotiations is increasingly viewed as unproductive, the idea of simply waiting for the demographics to do the job becomes an alluring alternative for many Palestinians. But such a solution is in reality a recipe for perpetual conflict. At the same time, the Middle East is ripe for resolution of this conflict. The entire Arab League - all 21 states plus the Palestinians - is willing to declare an end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, open normal relations with Israel, and ensure security for all once there is an agreed-upon two-state solution. The Arab states have their own reasons for wanting to see the conflict ended, in particular the desire to be rid of the rallying call of the Palestinian struggle among radical elements (often supported by Iran) that threaten the Arab regimes. Israeli-Palestinian peace is indeed in the interests of the pro-Western states in the region, and as such is also in America's interests.What policy approach, then, could be better for Israel's interests? Or those of the US and the region?