Preserving the two-state solution

By Jeremy Ben-Ami, Published: January 4, 2013

The Washington Post 

Jeremy Ben-Ami is president of J Street, a Washington-based organization that advocates a diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
A mere 24 hours after it takes office this month, President Obama’s new national security team will come face to face with a fundamentally different political reality in Israel and the Palestinian territory than their predecessors dealt with.
The real story of the Israeli election scheduled for Jan. 22 is the meteoric rise of the right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) Party and its new leader, Naftali Bennett. Likely to head the second- or third-largest party in the next Knesset, Bennett advocates immediate annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank.
Gone from Israel’s next government will be any semblance of a moderate voice favoring a two-state solution. Instead, the ruling coalition will feature leaders such as Moshe Feiglin, a firebrand who wants to rebuild a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, denigrates Muslims and democracy and suggests paying Palestinian families to emigrate.
Cabinet members are still likely to include Public Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein, who says Israel should move toward gradual or total annexation of the West Bank, and Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who assures his supporters that “two states for two peoples was never part of Likud’s election platform.”
This is the Israeli reality of 2013, enabled in part by American politicians and staunch supporters in this country who refuse to question Israel’s policies as the two-state solution slips through our fingers.
Also awaiting Obama’s new team will be a clear message from the Palestinian leaders who still believe in two states: President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Without immediate, meaningful diplomatic action to bring about two states, they will say, talking about a two-state solution while Israel settles the land where Palestinians look to build their state is no longer a viable option.
Unless Obama acts meaningfully, the Palestinians’ next move is likely to be to either dismantle the Palestinian Authority or to pursue relief in an international legal forum.
The Obama team’s understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and what needs to be done to solve it, has to catch up with these new realities.
Sadly, many in the nation’s capital remain convinced that Israel is simply building on land that “everyone knows” it will ultimately keep. In their view, the present settlement-building frenzy should not be a problem for Palestinians.
Contrary to The Post’s assertion in its Jan. 2 editorial, “Rash rhetoric,” that there is no concerted Israeli campaign to block creation of a Palestinian state, the words and deeds of Israeli leaders today say otherwise.
Construction and planning are taking place in areas far outside the “consensus” blocs that President Bill Clinton envisioned remaining with Israel in 2000. From construction in Shiloh and Beit El, to accrediting a national university in the outlying settlement of Ariel, to planning to develop the E-1 area east of Jerusalem, the government of Israel is unrelentingly establishing that it has no interest in the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
If Obama believes that achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fundamental American national security interest, he will need to chart a far different course than has been tried before — and quickly.
No, he cannot impose a settlement. But these parties — with their lack of trust and wildly conflicting narratives and interests — cannot and will not work this out on their own. We need to stop fixating on “direct talks” as the only option and move the focus away from simply getting the parties “to the table.”
Obama must go to the region early in his second term and, backed by the entire international community, lay out the parameters for resolving the conflict, a credible timeline and a process for mediated discussions that assures both sides their concerns will be heard.
He and the world need to exert meaningful pressure on both sides to decide whether they will accept the well-known terms of a viable two-state solution.
If the majority of the people on both sides believes the package offered is reasonable — and polling consistently shows these majorities would support a reasonable two-state deal — then the leaders will be pressed by their own constituencies to say yes.
Israelis will have to decide between leaders such as Feiglin and Bennett, who say no to compromise and peace, and those who — like all six of Israel’s living internal security chiefs — are willing to lead the way to a two-state solution. Palestinians will have to decide between leaders such as Abbas and Fayyad, who believe in nonviolence and diplomacy, and Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel’s existence.
Inaction on the part of the United States is a recipe for a continued spiral toward extremism on both sides. Allowing this conflict to fester will be disastrous for the region and U.S. interests.
And throwing one’s hands up in despair or saying there’s nothing to be done until the parties themselves solve the conflict is not a policy.

Sale of Current TV may be a win-win

By Gary Wasserman, Published: January 4, 2013

The Washington Post 

Gary Wasserman teaches government at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar.
The announcement that al-Jazeera is buying Al Gore’s Current TV network can be expected to run into what pundits call “a serious image problem.” Allowing the Qatar-based, Arab-owned network to be seen in 40 million U.S. households may be more than our fragile citizenry can bear.
With its alleged positions against U.S. foreign policies and wars, al-Jazeera is just too “left” to be allowed access to our fearful public.
Has anyone noticed that much of the world is “left” of the United States?
Because of my occasional appearances on al-Jazeera news shows, and having written opinion pieces for its Web site, I can be accused of knowing on which side my pita is being buttered. Fair enough. And my experiences with al-Jazeera will only confirm the obvious. In its selection of stories and editorial slants, it is to the left of mainstream American media.
So what?
Al-Jazeera is also an outlet of professional journalists, generally well-informed and seeking to at least appear balanced. No one has ever suggested to me what to say or write. The network may present Arab voices, but its coverage includes more of the world than this parochial image allows. From oppressed native tribes in Peru to Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa, al-Jazeera reports undercovered news. Its reporters may be pro-Palestinian, but the network provides a rare platform in a region where Israeli officials and dissenters can both appear.
Looking for objective journalism in an era of 400 channels plus the Internet is looking backward to the bygone ideals of three national networks and Uncle Walter. Seeking the widest, most diverse sources for views of the world seems a more realistic goal for American media.
My own opinions may be shaped by experiences with al-Jazeera’s English-language channel. The Arabic part of the network has a separate staff, housed in more modest quarters across the street in Doha from the English channel. And in my few appearances on the Arabic channel, the editorial slant seemed a bit different.
Whether I was invited to comment on congressional elections, global warming or race relations, the questions inevitably veered toward the pro-Israel lobby. As in, after a few questions on the scheduled topic, something like: “Interesting point about liberalizing relations with Cuba, and how does that affect the Israel lobby?”
Obsessed? A bit. But perhaps we should wait for Chuck Hagel to actually be nominated as secretary of defense before we write off this view of the power of the pro-Israel lobby as completely delusional.
al-Jazeera will be running its American operation under a separate U.S.-based news channel with its own staff, which shows recognition of the issue of bias. Much of the paranoia about al-Jazeera rests on a somewhat antiquated notion of media ownership. While any of us writing about media will occasionally fall back on the vision of the willful reactionary owner (read: Rupert Murdoch) controlling the direction of his empire, the reality is more complicated. Reporters, editors, advertisers, sources, competitors, corporate strategists and even the audience shape the content of modern media. Bringing al-Jazeera to more of America may also mean bringing more of America to al-Jazeera.
There may be winners on both sides. We Americans do brag about our marketplace of ideas. The U.S. audience may gain access to the perspectives of a respected international network covering stories from regions of the world — sub-Saharan Africa, the various -stans and South Asia — that our national media has largely ignored. Al-Jazeera may gain insights into people that are far more diverse, engaged and welcoming than many of the images it broadcasts abroad.
Those still stridently opposing this alien investment in our homeland might remember the words of the great media strategist Lyndon Johnson. When asked why he had brought a longtime political antagonist into his camp, he replied: “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”
Read more at PostOpinions: Fouad Ajami: Why is the Arab world so easily offended? Erik Wemple: Gore: Al-Jazeera ‘thorough, fair and informative’ Erik Wemple: O’Reilly rips Al Gore for tax hypocrisy in Current TV sale Alexandra Petri: Current TV goes from one Al to another

© The Washington Post

BJ Rabbis Offer Another Statement on Palestine

Synagogue Members Mull Over Response and Next Step

By Seth Berkman
Edited By Larry Cohler-Esses
Published December 21, 2012, issue of December 28, 2012.

The turmoil appears to be continuing at one of Manhattan’s most prominent synagogues following a public statement by its rabbis embracing the recent United Nations resolution recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state.
Rabbi Rolando Matalon, one of three co-rabbis at B’nai Jeshurun, read from the pulpit a carefully worded apology for the recent email letter the rabbis sent out hailing the November 29 U.N. General Assembly resolution.
Matalon read his latest statement out loud at Friday evening Sabbath services December 14 before hundreds of congregants, according to members of the synagogue.
Though the U.N. resolution passed overwhelmingly, 148 to 9, the rabbis’ email statement stood in contrast to the positions of Israel, the United States and most of the organized Jewish community, all of which opposed the G.A. initiative.

Neither Matalon nor his two co-rabbis, Marcelo Bronstein and Felicia Sol, responded to multiple telephone and email messages from the Forward seeking information about the recent apology and what motivated it. Denise Waxman, B’nai Jeshurun’s communications director, would not provide a copy of the text. Jeannie Blaustein, president of the congregation’s board, did not return several phone messages seeking comment.
One longtime member who spoke with Blaustein about the apology told the Forward that Matalon “expressed his profound apology for the way the letter was crafted. Much of what was said in it was what they wanted to convey…. But the rabbis didn’t do their due diligence. There were things they wanted in the letter that didn’t get in there.”
The congregation member, who was not present at the Friday night services, declined to be identified, because the information the member had on what happened was based on private conversations with Blaustein and others who were there.
B’nai Jeshurun member Todd Chenko, who attended the synagogue December 14, declined to talk about Matalon’s apology, except to say, “I think the whole situation is very upsetting because of the drama that ensued.”
The rabbis’ original email, sent to the congregation November 30, was from the beginning highly controversial. It described the U.N. vote to grant Palestine non-member observer state status as “a great moment for us as citizens of the world.”
“This is an opportunity to celebrate a process that allows a nation to come forward and ask for recognition,” the email said. Referring to Israel’s founding, which also was accompanied by a formal vote in the U.N. General Assembly, it added: “Having gained independence ourselves in this way, we are especially conscious of this. Every people has the right of recognition.”
Less than a week after the email was sent, The New York Times published a front-page story that quoted members of the congregation as being divided on the announcement. The story led to another email the following day, in which rabbis Matalon, Bronstein and Sol wrote that an unedited version of the original email was sent out mistakenly. The rabbis further said that the congregation’s president and executive director, whose names were included as signatories on the letter, had never approved the statement. Nevertheless, the three rabbis affirmed “the essence of our message.”
Matalon’s public declaration from the pulpit December 14 at the congregation’s most heavily attended weekly services seemed to signal that he and the other rabbis wanted to take their apology to a higher, more prominent level.
Alan Ripp, a member of B’nai Jeshurun who did not agree with the rabbis’ initial email, said: “I love the community, I love the shul. I have great affection for the rabbis. They have far greater wisdom than I do, and dedication, but they have very strong, outspoken points of view on Israel that I don’t think they realize many of their members don’t share. I want the best for this congregation.”
The rabbis’ apology from the pulpit took place as a group of B’nai Jeshurun members was organizing to press the synagogue to establish clear policies on the rabbis’ future freedom to speak out unilaterally on public issues.
Sally Gottesman, a vice president of the synagogue board who supports the rabbis’ stand, indicated she thought the group, which reportedly includes some important donors, was having an impact. “I think they are putting on real pressure,” she said. “Minority voices often know how to make their voices heard. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Gottesman stressed that she was addressing the issue only in her personal capacity as a congregation member, not in her official role with the synagogue board.
Marvin Davis, who is a Manhattan real estate mogul and one of the reported key members of the ad hoc group, declined to comment on the matter when reached by the Forward.
Another individual involved with the group, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, described it as an informal “group of wealthy people.”
“They like BJ,” this source said, “but they are very unhappy. But instead of walking away, they’re meeting and asking what can be done.”
So far, the source related, the group has met several times, most recently on December 9.
The source said that the “agenda is to draft some kind of guidelines for the synagogue on appropriate behavior when sensitive issues come up that the group would present to whatever governing body would be appropriate — the board, executive committee.”
Now, partially in response to the efforts launched by the ad hoc group, Gottesman plans to meet with the rabbis in early January with about 100 members who support their stand.
“I think what’s true is that everybody loves the congregation and feels a lot of ownership, attachment to the congregation,” she said. “There are people, who are in the majority, who have been silent because we realize the rabbis were under pressure. These include major donors of the shul who wrote the rabbis last week and plan to meet with them and support their right to speak freely.”
Neither of the two major non-Orthodox rabbinical associations maintains formal policies on the right of rabbis to speak freely from the pulpit. But both the Rabbinical Assembly, which represents the interests of Conservative rabbis, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, a Reform rabbinical group, support their freedom to do so in principle.
“I believe freedom of pulpit is core to rabbinic leadership,” said Rabbi Steven Fox, chief executive of the CCAR. “Being a rabbi is not always being in a position of the most popular person.”
Jonathan Sarna, the Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University, said that in early Sephardic congregations, the cantor had to submit his words to the leadership of the congregation before they were delivered. “These battles over the freedom of the pulpit have really been a fixture in American Jewish life for almost as long as we’ve had rabbis,” Sarna said.
Forward assistant managing editor Larry Cohler-Esses contributed to this story.
Contact Seth Berkman at berkman@forward.com

Federal Power to Intercept Messages Is Extended

December 28, 2012

The New York Times

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Friday to a bill extending the government’s power to intercept electronic communications of spy and terrorism suspects, after the Senate voted down proposals from several Democrats and Republicans to increase protections of civil liberties and privacy.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 73 to 23, clearing it for approval by President Obama, who strongly supports it. Intelligence agencies said the bill was their highest legislative priority.

Critics of the bill, including Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, expressed concern that electronic surveillance, though directed at noncitizens, inevitably swept up communications of Americans as well.

“The Fourth Amendment was written in a different time and a different age, but its necessity and its truth are timeless,” Mr. Paul said, referring to the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. “Over the past few decades, our right to privacy has been eroded. We have become lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. Digital records seem to get less protection than paper records.”

The bill, which extends the government’s surveillance authority for five years, was approved in the House by a vote of 301 to 118 in September. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill in the next few days.

Congressional critics of the bill said that they suspected that intelligence agencies were picking up the communications of many Americans, but that they could not be sure because the agencies would not provide even rough estimates of how many people inside the United States had had communications collected under authority of the surveillance law, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The inspector general of the National Security Agency told Congress that preparing such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office.

The chief Senate supporter of the bill, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the proposed amendments were unnecessary. Moreover, she said, any changes would be subject to approval by the House, and the resulting delay could hamper the government’s use of important intelligence-gathering tools, for which authority is set to expire next week.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was adopted in 1978 and amended in 2008, with the addition of new surveillance authority and procedures, which are continued by the bill approved on Friday. The 2008 law was passed after the disclosure that President George W. Bush had authorized eavesdropping inside the United States, to search for evidence of terrorist activity, without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that he and Mr. Wyden were concerned that “a loophole” in the 2008 law “could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans’ communications.”

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Congress, “There is no loophole in the law.”

By a vote of 52 to 43, the Senate on Friday rejected a proposal by Mr. Wyden to require the national intelligence director to tell Congress if the government had collected any domestic e-mail or telephone conversations under the surveillance law.

The Senate also rejected, 54 to 37, an amendment that would have required disclosure of information about significant decisions by a special federal court that reviews applications for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases.

The amendment was proposed by one of the most liberal senators, Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and one of the most conservative, Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.

The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said the surveillance law “does not have adequate checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of innocent American citizens.”

“It is supposed to focus on foreign intelligence,” Mr. Durbin said, “but the reality is that this legislation permits targeting an innocent American in the United States as long as an additional purpose of the surveillance is targeting a person outside the United States.”

However, 30 Democrats joined 42 Republicans and one independent in voting for the bill. Three Republicans — Mr. Lee, Mr. Paul and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted against the bill, as did 19 Democrats and one independent.

Mr. Merkley said the administration should provide at least unclassified summaries of major decisions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“An open and democratic society such as ours should not be governed by secret laws,” Mr. Merkley said, “and judicial interpretations are as much a part of the law as the words that make up our statute.”

Mrs. Feinstein said the law allowed intelligence agencies to go to the court and get warrants for surveillance of “a category of foreign persons,” without showing probable cause to believe that each person was working for a foreign power or a terrorist group.

Mr. Wyden said these writs reminded him of the “general warrants that so upset the colonists” more than 200 years ago.

“The founding fathers could never have envisioned tweeting and Twitter and the Internet,” Mr. Wyden said. “Advances in technology gave government officials the power to invade individual privacy in a host of new ways.”