The whiff of revenge taints the Arab Spring

By David Ignatius, Published: May 27
The Washington Post

“Revenge, at first though sweet, Bitter ere long back on itself recoils.” The wisdom of that couplet from John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” extends in many directions. But let’s consider the context of the Arab Spring and its transition from dictatorship to democracy.

Revolutions can go off the rails for many reasons. But history shows that one of the most dangerous (if also understandable) mistakes is the desire to settle scores with the deposed regime. That toxic whiff of revenge has been in the air lately in Egypt, and it poses a danger for the Tahrir Revolution and the other movements that emulate it.

The New York Times reported last week that Egypt’s transitional military council intends to try deposed President Hosni Mubarak for conspiring to kill unarmed protesters. Conviction could mean the death penalty. The new regime also plans to prosecute Mubarak and his two sons, along with a wave of business cronies, on charges of corruption.

This prosecutorial zeal has frightened conservative Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which has warned that it won’t provide economic assistance to Egypt if Mubarak is humiliated. But the greater danger is that Egyptian and international investors will steer clear of the country if they think doing business there might expose them to legal risks.

Sen. John Kerry had it right when he told a gathering of the trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars last week that a vengeful legal assault on Mubarak would be an “enormous mistake.” The biggest cost, Kerry said, is that it would undermine the economic strategy of innovation, investment and entrepreneurship that was the overlooked centerpiece of President Obama’s big speech on the Middle East.

What’s needed in Egypt and the other Arab countries that have suffered from dictatorship is a sense that the rule of law will prevail, with safeguards against vindictive prosecution. This protective legal framework is as important as democracy itself, which as Alexander Hamilton and other American founders warned more than 200 years ago can be bent to become the tyrannical will of the mob.

On my visits to Egypt since the Tahrir Revolution, I have been struck by the growing polarization between Christians and Muslims and the vindictiveness against Mubarak’s family and friends. It’s nice to see Egyptians lining up at newspaper kiosks (to buy real newspapers, as opposed to canned official lies), but my Cairo friends say that too many headlines carry the implicit message, “Off with their heads!”

There’s a difference between accountability for the crimes of the past, which is healthy, and a spirit of vengeance, which is not. South Africa sought that balance with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which denounced apartheid but also tried to reassure whites that they had a future in a multiracial democracy. Rwanda has struggled to craft a similar process that reconciles Hutus who perpetrated the 1994 genocide with the Tutsi victims (who now run the country).

Neither the South African nor the Rwandan efforts have been entirely successful. But both established a legal process of justice that had reconciliation as its explicit goal, which checked the impulse for vengeance.

Failure to develop such a framework can have disastrous consequences. The French Revolution of 1789 was inflamed by the Committee of Public Safety and its practice of national purification by guillotine; the Iranian revolution of 1979 was manipulated by zealots who, from the first months, began purging those they judged insufficiently devoted to Ayatollah Khomeini.

Finding a post-revolutionary path to reconciliation is especially important in the Middle East, whose nations are mosaics of different religions, tribes and clans. Unless an inclusive spirit of “truth and reconciliation” can be nurtured, these countries will fracture into pre-modern loyalties, as happened in post-Hussein Iraq.

This transition process is especially volatile in Syria, where a blood feud between the ruling Alawite minority and the Sunni majority has been building since the 1970s. Exacerbating this religious fracture is the regional tension between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

For an example of how the blood feuds of the past can poison the present, one need look no further than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Both sides are so embedded in their narratives that they can’t write the common document of a peace treaty. They could use a little truth and reconciliation, too.

As the Arab Spring rolls forward, the new revolutionaries must build pathways to a stable and tolerant future, even as they take proper account of the past. Otherwise, as the movie title had it, “there will be blood.”

davidignatius@washpost.com

Several Jewish Dems in Congress back Obama on Israel, characterize his stance accurately

By Greg Sargent | 12:59 PM ET, 05/27/2011
WP

Since it’s being widely reported that many leading Democrats in Congress are criticizing Obama’s stance on the pre-1967 lines, it’s perhaps also worth mentioning that a few Jewish Congressional Dems have stepped forward to defend him. What’s more, these courageous souls, who are considered good on Israel, are also characterizing Obama’s stance accurately, noting that Obama did not call for a return to pre-1967 borders, despite widespread and false claims to the contrary.

What’s particularly interesting here is how few Dems in Congress have been willing to do this, as if it’s simply assumed to be an enormously controversial undertaking.

Here’s Dem Rep. Howard Berman, in a new interview that’s getting surprisingly little attention, given that he’s the ranking Dem on the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

“The Republicans, in their never-ending quest to try and persuade Jews to shift their voting, have jumped on this to try to exacerbate that split,’’ Berman said in a Thursday morning interview...

Not only did Obama make clear that he wasn’t calling for a restoration of the pre-war lines, the president has presided over a U.S.-Israel relationship marked by close military ties, cooperation in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and intelligence sharing, Berman said.

Here’s Dem Rep. Steve Rothman, who’s widely seen as pro-Israel:

Despite some efforts to exploit the support for the U.S.-Israel relationship for partisan gain, it has become crystal clear that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu agree on one important detail to any future two state solution: a return to the 1967 lines will be indefensible for the Jewish State of Israel and hurtful to America’s interests in the region.

And here’s Dem Rep. Gary Ackerman, who put out a preemptive strike of a statement defending Obama and bashing his critics even before he spoke:

No matter what the President says, his automatic opponents are going to be opposed. But their objections are not in fact going to have anything to do with Israel or Israel’s security. Their true contention, as has been illustrated by the whole stupid birth certificate thing, is that the President is alien, illegitimate and untrustworthy. That’s their smear and they’re sticking to it.

Ackerman has not put out a statement since Obama’s speech, which can be taken as a sign that his support for the President still stands. I’m checking with his office to confirm this, but for now, put him in the president’s camp.

According to the National Jewish Democratic Council, which tracks this kind of thing, these three (plus Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doesn’t count, because she’s the head of the DNC) are the only “pro-Israel” Democrats in Congress who have been willing to defend Obama.

In contrast to these Democrats, many others, including some in the Democratic leadership, have been playing a clever little game, in which they attack the idea of a return to pre-1967 borders without quite addressing whether this is actually Obama’s position or not. Apparently, for some Dems in Congress, even accurately characterizing Obama’s position is considered too politically risky a move.

It’s been a bit surprising to me that these Dems aren’t getting a bit more pressure from the left to come clean and admit that the stance they’re attacking isn’t Obama’s stance at all. That’s beginning to change: Today’s New York Times has a very tough editorial blasting Democrats in Congress for their craven pandering on this issue, adding that the attacks on Obama are “not helpful” and are “unusually dishonest.” But beyond a few lonely voices, it’s widely taken for granted that Dems should simply be left to do what they have to do in order to put distance between themselves and Obama on this one subject.

What Obama did to Israel

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, May 26, 6:33 PM
The Washington Post

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.

It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.

For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.

It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.

The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.

Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”

Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?

No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”

Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.

Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.

The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Members of Congress Get Abnormally High Returns From Their Stocks

Dan Froomkin
huffingtonpost.com
05/25/11

Members of the House of Representatives considerably outperform the stock market in their personal investments, according to a new academic study.

Four university researchers examined 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House representatives from 1985 to 2001, and found what they call "significant positive abnormal returns," with portfolios based on congressional trades beating the market by about 6 percent annually.

What's their secret? The report speculates, but does not conclude, it could have something to do with the ability members of Congress have to trade on non-public information or to vote their own pocketbooks -- or both.

A study of senators by the same team of researchers five years ago found members of the higher chamber even better at beating the market -- outperforming it by about 10 percent, an amount the academics said was "both economically large and statistically significant."

"Being one of 435, as opposed to one of 100, is likely to result in a significant dilution of power relative to members of the Senate," the researchers wrote.

The researchers, Alan J. Ziobrowski of Georgia State University, James W. Boyd of Lindenwood University, Ping Cheng of Florida Atlantic University and Brigitte J. Ziobrowski of Augusta State University, noted that the circumstances are ripe for abuse.

"In the course of performing their normal duties, members of Congress have access to non-public information that could have a substantial impact on certain businesses, industries or the economy as a whole. If used as the basis for common stock transactions, such information could yield significant personal trading profits," they wrote.

At the same time, House rules don't require them to divest themselves of common stocks when they assume office, don't prevent them from trading freely while in office -- and don't require them to recuse themselves from votes that could affect their own interests.

The House ethics manual clearly states that "all Members, officers, and employees are prohibited from improperly using their official positions for personal gain" and members must disclose their holdings annually.

But the House's official position is that demanding that members either divest themselves of potential conflicts or recuse themselves when there is a conflict is "impractical or unreasonable" because it "could result in the disenfranchisement of a Member's entire constituency on particular issues."

Ever since 2006, a small coterie of Democrats has been trying to officially prohibit members of Congress and their staffs from using non-public information to enrich their personal portfolios.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was most recently re-introduced in March by Reps. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Tim Walz (Minn.). It has not been heard from since.

The study found some significant difference based on party membership and seniority, with the Democratic sample beating the market by nearly 9% annually, versus only about 2% annually for the Republican sample.

And representatives with the least seniority considerably outperformed those with more seniority.

Why would that be? The researchers suspect need had something to do with it. "The financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious" than a senior member's, they wrote. "House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise."

The report does not make any firm conclusions on causality, although the researchers explain that their kind of "event analysis" has become a common "method for analyzing whether actors have profited from confidential information in their possession."

* * * * *

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

After Egypt’s revolution, malaise spreads

By Ernesto Londono, Published: May 24
The Washington Post

KAFR EL-MESELHA, EGYPT — The main road in this dusty town on the Nile River Delta no longer bears the name of its most famous son. Hosni Mubarak Road is now simply Road No. 16.

Gone too are the once ubiquitous mosaics and framed photos of the ousted Egyptian president.

While millions of Egyptians celebrated Mubarak’s downfall three months ago as the rebirth of a nation, the mood in this village 45 miles north of Cairo was markedly subdued. Many here warned at the time that the revolutionaries were reckless enthusiasts without a morning-after plan. Mubarak, they argued, had kept the nation safe for three decades, and he deserved a dignified exit.

Instead, Egypt’s top prosecutor said Tuesday that the former president will stand trial on charges of corruption and conspiring in the deadly shootings of protesters — charges that could carry the death penalty.

But as Egypt confronts a surge in crime, an anemic economy, an outbreak of deadly religious violence and other aftershocks of the revolution, many here are feeling vindicated.

“The old days were better,” said Sabeen Mursi, 30, sitting in front of a wooden cart of fruit and vegetables that attracted few customers. “Even though there was no money, people would take care of each other. We would all find something to eat at the end of the day. Today, no one cares about one another.”

That sense of malaise is spreading throughout the country, even to supporters of the revolution in Cairo. And as similar uprisings in other autocratic states in the region flail, Egypt’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale.

Perhaps the most worrisome effect of Egypt’s revolution is the toll it has taken on the economy, which was softening even before demonstrators first took to the streets in January.

Egypt’s interim military leaders are scrambling to negotiate deals with foreign governments and world bodies to keep the country afloat as the budget deficit grows and the economy remains stagnant. The World Bank said Tuesday that it will provide up to $4.5 billion to help Egypt modernize.

Mursi said she barely pulls in enough money to eat these days, and she worries about the spike in prices for staples such as tomatoes and rice.

Ahmed Farid, a shopkeeper in this flat village surrounded by citrus trees and farmlands, said the economic slump is driving people over the edge. “We can’t find fuel,” he said. “Things are being stolen every day.”

In the new Egypt, there are knife fights at the pump over scarce gasoline, as well as armed robberies — a level of crime and violence unheard of when Mubarak’s feared security forces kept tight control.

Reverence for Mubarak is not universal in his home town, which the former president left after high school and seldom visited.

Hassam Atyia Suleiman, 58, a guidance counselor employed by the Ministry of Education, said even Mubarak’s supporters, himself among them, had become disenchanted with the regime in recent years as Egypt’s middle class shrank while the country’s elite became wealthier.

“The government started to abuse the riches of the nation,” Suleiman said on a recent morning, sitting on a small wooden chair outside his home. “The situation became unsustainable in the last few years.”

As he watched from afar, two women selling vegetables under the sun bickered over Mubarak’s legacy.

“May God help him through these hard times,” one woman said.

“You want Hosni back,” the other replied indignantly. “Damn you. Suffice it to say we got rid of a corrupt regime.”

But as the glow of the largely peaceful revolution fades, Suleiman said, Egypt appears to be entering a precarious phase.

“This is a group of youth that doesn’t have a leader,” he said. “We think there should be a leader so we know what this revolution wants.”

The young generation that led the revolution gave Mubarak too little credit for keeping them safe, said Metwaly Ibrahim El-Manakhly, 53, a truck driver here. His two brothers were killed in Egypt’s 1973 war with Israel. “This is something today’s youth never saw.”

While those young people may still be celebrating, he said, they might come to regret toppling the president.

“They will one day bear the cost, because if there is a war, it is them who will be on the front lines, not me,” Manakhly said.

But the split that the revolution has most exacerbated has resulted in deadly street clashes between Coptic Christians and hard-line Muslims.

And along with the crime and the financial strains, that division is fueling a sense of gloom far beyond the pockets where support for Mubarak was always strong.

Suheir Tawfiq, a Christian housewife in Cairo, said she and her family were among the millions who cheered in the capital when Mubarak stepped down.

“Now, not really,” she said as she walked to collect her pension. “Psychologically we’re in a bad place. The churches being destroyed, the beatings, our kids being killed.”

The elation turned into gloom for Marwa Yehi, a 30-year-old office worker, when her car was stolen in a normally safe Cairo neighborhood a few weeks ago.

She found little sympathy when she reported the theft at a nearby police station, where she was asked to come back three days in a row because no officers were on duty. When an investigator finally filled out a report, he told her not to hold out too much hope.

“We have no authority over people,” Yehi said the officer told her. “The people control us now. We no longer control the streets.”

In Mubarak’s home town, Mursi, the produce vendor, sat on the curb cradling her young daughter, seeing the streets as a gauge of how much life has changed. People used to stay out late when the sense of security was strong, she recalled. “Now the streets are empty after sundown.”

Obama out of sight, and out of touch on Israel

By Jennifer Rubin | 05:59 PM ET, 05/24/2011
The Washington Post

In the wake of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s speech there are a few interesting points to ponder. The first is President Obama’s growing irrelevancy. Maybe it was unlucky, but this morning we heard a statesman being embraced by lawmakers. Serious issues and serious people. This afternoon it is party time with a monarch with no power. A staunch Obama critic found the contrast between a “smug, second-rate, establishment-liberal narcissist” and the Israeli prime minister striking. As Obama is flitting around Europe, Netanyahu and Congress reached (perfect) agreement on Middle East policy.

For those searching for bipartisan foreign policy, we had loads of it today. The Hill reports: “House lawmakers from both parties are siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over President Obama in their differing approaches to the Israel-Palestine border dispute.” If you thought Republicans were tough on the president, consider this: “Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that Obama is ‘tilting toward Hamas’ – a reference to the Palestinian group the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on such a position. ‘A majority of the Congress disagrees with him,’ Andrews said of Obama.”

Ever since conservative critics started taking issue with Obama’s approach to Israel and holding liberal lawmakers accountable for their voting records, the cry has been that Republicans are making “Israel a partisan issue.” Some even grotesquely intimate that conservatives are disloyal because they favor Netanyahu’s position (which coincides with every U.S. president before Obama). That meme was blown to smithereens by the 29 standing ovations by Democrats and Republicans, by the aggressive pushback from House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and by a fairly remarkable uppercut (he was a boxer, remember) by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

So it was particularly poor timing when it came out that the new DNC chairwoman introduced partisan squabbling in a meeting with Netanyahu and Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “A spokesman for the Israel embassy, Jonathan Peled, told me yesterday that the two Jewish groups ‘argued between them’ but that Netanyahu simply ‘stressed bipartisanship.’ ” Downright embarrassing, but more than that — out of touch with reality. If Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) wanted Netanyahu to squash criticism of Obama (a ludicrously inappropriate thing to do) she should have given him Harry Reid’s number.

On a final note, many pundits observed how well and emotionally Netanyahu articulated American values of liberty, diversity and tolerance. It’s not surprising given that he has spent a good chunk of his life here and that his closest aide is a former Floridian. His ode to America (like that of former British prime minister Tony Blair) is a reminder of what a leader eager to tout America’s greatness sounds like.

Obama and Netanyahu: The scorecard

by Jackson Diehl | 06:33 PM ET, 05/24/2011
The Washington Post

Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu have now spent six days lecturing each other about the “realities” of the Middle East, either face-to-face or with Congress, the State Department or the AIPAC lobbying group as an audience. They have managed to focus the attention of Washington and much of the world on their differences over Palestinian statehood, and their evident animosity toward each other.

So it’s worth asking: Did either of them accomplish anything positive?

Let’s start with what they did not achieve. Far from restarting the Mideast peace process, Obama and Netanyahu ensured that it will remain moribund for months to come. Palestinians were reconfirmed in their plans to take their case for statehood to the United Nations General Assembly in September, and to set up a new government backed by both the Fatah movement of Mahmoud Abbas and the Islamic Hamas. Their spokesmen declared disappointment with both Netanyahu and Obama.

Nor did Netanyahu and Obama appear to have any effect on each other. After meeting for several hours at the White House on Friday, each delivered a full-throated restatement of positions that are at odds both on the terms for Palestinian statehood and the tactics for making it happen. Netanyahu objects not only to Obama’s formula for basing a Palestinian state on Israel’s 1967 border lines but also to the strategy of pressuring Israel to make concessions on territory before addressing Palestinian demands for a “right of return” to Israel for refugees.

Netanyahu believes there must be a tradeoff between territory, refugees and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state — especially as Israel has little to concede other than land. Remarkably, however, in three public statements over five days, Obama never reconfirmed the U.S. position under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, which is that most or all refugees must be resettled in the new Palestinian state.

This is all pretty counterproductive. But supporters of Obama and Netanyahu might argue that their intention was never to please each other, or to convince the Palestinians; nor did they expect peace negotiations to start. Rather their real aims were more limited and indirect.

Obama’s real target, by this logic, was European governments, while Netanyahu’s was Congress. And each may hope that his rhetoric won over those audiences.

Obama is worried about Europe because the votes of European nations will determine whether the United States is isolated with Israel in opposing a U.N. declaration of Palestinan statehood in September. By stating the principle of a settlement based on the 1967 lines, and showing his willingness to publicly take on Netanyahu, Obama won some European sympathy. He will find out how much during his meetings during this week’s European tour, when he will argue that EU governments should continue to support a U.S.-brokered peace process rather than a U.N. declaration.

This is a priority for Israel, as well — which is why Netanyahu offered several concessions in his speech to Congress. Though hardly noticed, they were real for the Israeli prime minister — particularly an acknowledgement that in any final agreement some Israeli West Bank settlements will be left outside of Israel’s border.

But Netanyahu had another purpose — rallying congressional support for Israel’s peace terms, rather than those of Obama. The Israeli leader elicited standing ovations as he declared that Israel would never return to the 1967 lines, and that Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel. And some, though not all, congressmen stood when he declared that Israel would need a long-term military presence on the Palestinian border with Jordan — a stance at odds with Obama’s.

Israelis counted the ovations as a victory. One official noted to me that Netanyahu collected 28, compared to 26 for Obama at the last State of the Union address. But the Israeli leader has pursued this strategy before. As he himself said, he addressed a joint session of Congress 15 years ago; at that time, he was at odds with the Clinton administration. But congressional support didn’t spare Netanyahu from Clinton’s ire — and Israeli voters punished him for his disputes with the White House by voting him out office. Evidently, the Israeli leader feels confident that history won’t repeat itself.

Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel

By Peter Wallsten, Published: May 24
The Washington Post

Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election.

The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and other Democrats appeared to reject the president’s reference to the 1967 lines in his latest attempt to nudge along peace talks, thinking that he was giving away too much, too soon.

White House officials say Obama’s assertion did not reflect a shift in U.S. policy. But the president’s comments touched a nerve among pro-Israel activists, drew a rare Oval Office rebuke from Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and instantly became a litmus test in domestic American politics.

Now Obama — whom critics often accuse of employing a play-it-safe governing style in which he waits for others to take the lead — is largely isolated politically in raising the issue of boundaries.

By this week, White House aides were reaching out to Israel supporters in the Jewish community to try to ease concerns, according to people familiar with the effort. The White House has arranged a conference call with Jewish leaders and contacted others for advice on repairing ties.

The political uproar, coming as Netanyahu received a bipartisan hero’s welcome Tuesday for a speech to Congress, underscored the careful calculations being made by leaders in both parties.

Democrats and Obama must balance the need to pursue delicate international diplomacy while retaining the party’s traditional support among Jewish campaign donors and voters, particularly in competitive states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The party’s liberal base, however, is divided, with many on the left urging more concessions by Israel.

Republicans increasingly consider Israel a core issue that can unify sometimes disparate party factions, with evangelical voters and foreign policy hawks alike emerging as some of the Jewish state’s most vocal U.S. backers.

Netanyahu, who since Thursday has repeatedly called the 1967 borders “indefensible,” helped set the stage for the torrent of White House criticism.

His response was quickly followed by criticism from Republicans vying to take on Obama next year. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the presumed GOP front-runner, accused the president of throwing Israel “under the bus.” Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said Obama had made a “mistaken and very dangerous demand.”

The pressure from Republicans and fellow Democrats leaves the White House and top political aides with the added task of making amends with Israel backers by touting Obama’s history of support for that nation.

Among the prominent Israel supporters upon whom Obama has relied for advice are Lee Rosenberg, president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Alan Solow, who will leave his post as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations next month. Both have been key behind-the-scenes advocates for Obama in reassuring skeptical backers.

This week, the president’s newly chosen national Democratic Party chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, signaled that she, too, will serve as an emissary. Her South Florida district is home
to one of the country’s biggest Jewish populations, a place where Obama’s 2008 campaign tapped prominent Jewish lawmakers and local elected officials to visit synagogues and community centers and debunk rumors that Obama is a Muslim and anti-Israel.

“As a Jewish member of Congress who cares deeply about preserving Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, I am proud that President Obama spoke forcefully about continuing the United States’ strong and stalwart support of Israel,” Wasserman Schultz said in a written statement.

As part of their defense, a number of White House allies said Tuesday the political row had been fueled by Netanyahu, who seized on Obama’s reference to the 1967 lines but glossed over his additional point regarding land swaps.

Appearing irritated by the controversy, Obama said in his own speech to AIPAC on Sunday that his views had been “misrepresented several times.”

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,” Obama said, sounding exasperated. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what ‘mutually agreed-upon swaps’ means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.” Obama went on to play down his remarks, saying “there was nothing particularly original in my proposal.”

Even so, he tried to portray his position as a sign of political courage, while also offering a subtle reminder that two of his closest advisers, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, are Jewish. “I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a president preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy,” he said. “I don’t need Rahm to tell me that. Don’t need Axelrod to tell me that.”

But between his Thursday speech, which was aimed in part at an Arab audience, and his Sunday address to AIPAC, Obama shifted some of his rhetoric toward the Israeli position. For instance, he referred to the Islamist militant group Hamas more directly as a “terrorist organization.”

Several experts said the president’s stance on boundaries was in line with past U.S. policy, albeit stated more bluntly. But some said it marked a significant shift, at least in tone, that Obama seemed open to an even swap of territory while deferring the more emotional questions of dealing with Jerusalem and the future rights of Palestinian refugees.

“He has shown a willingness to use political capital in pushing forward ideas that are not always going to be what people want to hear,” said David Makovsky, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who co-wrote a book in 2008 with Obama adviser Dennis Ross that suggested a land swap and waiting on Jerusalem and refugees.

Makovsky noted that Obama received about eight in 10 Jewish votes in 2008, and that “many of those people who voted for him understand some of the positions that he has articulated,” such as his argument that further delays risk undermining Israel’s security and emboldening extremists.

Still, some Jewish Democrats said they remain concerned. One major party donor who attended AIPAC described a sense of “disappointment” in the hall about Obama’s remarks.

Reid said late Monday night at AIPAC that “no one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else.” Hoyer said negotiations must begin “without preconditions.” And Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), drew applause Tuesday when he said Israel’s borders “ must be determined by parties on the ground.”