Partisans of the hardline "Israel, right or wrong" crowd are overflowing with righteous indignation over comments made in recent days by three Obama Administration officials (see here, here, and here, for example).  They are outraged over comments by Secretary of State Clinton - a staunch defender of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship - in which she expressed concern about the degenerating status of women in Israel and the anti-democratic trend in the Israeli Knesset.  They are dismayed by a speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Panetta - a longtime central player at the CIA and the Pentagon in U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation - in which he urged Israel to "reach out and mend fences" with some countries in the region, and called on both sides to "get to the damn table."  And they are apoplectic over remarks by U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman - an American Jew whose father spent World War II in Europe hiding from the Nazis - suggesting that there is a linkage between Israeli policies and the growth of anti-Semitism.

How dare these officials say such things about Israel?  

Maybe the answer is this simple: they dare because they care.  And because they know that caring about Israel means speaking some hard truths - not to hurt Israel but to save it.

As everybody who cares about foreign policy (and hasn't been living under a rock) knows by now, earlier this week the PLO was admitted as a full member by UNESCO, triggering pre-existing U.S. laws that mandate an immediate and 100% cut-off in U.S. funding to UNESCO.  These laws likewise mandate such a cut-off of funding to the UN, any specialized agency of the UN, or any affiliated organization of the UN who follows suit.  With the Palestinians reportedly planning to apply for membership in at least 16 more agencies, the specter of a far-reaching U.S. withdrawal from international agencies - including from agencies like the IAEA and WIPO, looms large.  And with it looms the specter of far-reaching consequences for U.S. international influence, leverage, and engagement, and for the U.S ability to protect and promote its interests across the whole spectrum of issues around the globe.

Absent from the reporting and debate around this issue is any real notice of the fact that the rationale that existed for passage of these laws in 1990 and 1994 no longer exists.  Objectively speaking, what we are seeing today is U.S. policy at the UN being hijacked by a pair of legislative anachronisms.

Vol. 7, Issue 1

Talk about settlement construction and a possible new settlement freeze is again in the news. In this edition of Settlements in Focus, we will highlight a number of post-moratorium trends, analyze the current talk about a new settlement freeze, and suggest what would actually be required to make a freeze sufficiently credible to restart, or continue for more than a brief interlude, Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.  Please note that the numbers in this document reflect the best information that Peace Now has been able to obtain; additional approvals of construction and planning may have been issued that have not yet come to light.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said this week that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should leave his post soon and that "anyone who replaces (Abbas) will be better than he is." Lieberman called Abbas "an obstacle to peace."

The firebrand foreign minister was talking about the same Abbas who Prime Minister Netanyahu called "my partner in peace," the same Abbas who Israel's President Shimon Peres recently characterized as "the best (Palestinian) leader we will work with," the same Abbas who former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin this week called a "statesman."

Outposts are again taking center stage in the settlements debate, as the Netanyahu government announces two new policies aimed at legalizing illegal outposts. In doing so, the Netanyahu government is sending a clear signal that it values settlements over negotiations, and it prefers "Greater Israel" to peace.

The October 24th issue of the Jerusalem Report (print only) includes this op-ed by APN Director of Policy and Government Relations Lara Friedman, written shortly after President Obama's speech at the United Nations.  A pdf of the original article can be viewed/downloaded here.
==================

Call for a New Paradigm
by Lara Friedman

In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in late September, US President Barack Obama, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stated: "The question isn't the goal we seek - the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades."

This past weekend there were press reports (original story in the Independent, with further reporting in the Israeli press) that Congress was blocking $200 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  As is often the case when it comes to the rather arcane world of Congress and appropriations, the press reports were partly correct and partly incorrect, and also missed some rather important points.

As the entire world now knows, yesterday an Israeli planning committee approved Plan 13261, Mordot Gilo - South (aka "Gilo Slopes") - a plan for large-scale settlement construction in East Jerusalem, adjacent to the settlement of Gilo (map, courtesy of Daniel Seidemann).

This development was predictable (and predicted).  Which is really the theme here.