I get the feeling this Jerusalem Post article is slightly exaggerating the importance of this. I have no idea of supporting a two-state solution is even a shift in AIPAC's policies. And I can't tell if AIPAC is making lobbying for a two-state solution specifically a central program, or if it is just part of the overall agenda it is forwarding to Congress.
Even still, it is a good thing. The more Congresspersons on the record supporting a two-state solution, the better off we all are. And the more unified the pro-Israel community is on the point, the more we can dissipate the notion that being "pro-Israel" means being implacably opposed to Palestinian rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm surprised you don't know whether AIPAC had heretofore supported a two-state solution -- that seems pretty central to knowing whether you broadly agree with AIPAC or not. From what I understand, AIPAC has nominally supported a two-state solution but insisted on an undivided Jerusalem that belongs solely to Israel, which I suppose is the same as Obama's position but makes its "two state solution" something of a nonstarter in reality. The real question is whether AIPAC has shifted from its Jerusalem-just-for-Jews position and become more pro-Palestinian than the president.
I've never particularly identified with AIPAC -- I'm a J Street guy, remember?
PG,
A minor point about semantics, something I wouldn't have noticed at all except a friend just today sent me an article by Bernard Avishai from October about Obama and Jewish voters, and he makes a distinction that's relevant here:
"(Obama) promised an “undivided” Jerusalem—a capital without barbed wire—not the Likud’s “united” Jerusalem under exclusive Israeli sovereignty."
911 Sham?
AIPAC Bankers?
Israel-first, dual-national?
Extortion, blackmail, & bribery?
David,
Right, but to the extent J Street is set up as an alternative to AIPAC, isn't it important to know how J Street differs from AIPAC on fundamental questions?
chingona,
Thanks for the clarification.
J Street will tell you that it isn't necessarily in opposition to AIPAC, it just has a more specific focus. I think that's a little contrived, but there you go.
I just have never had a strong opinion on AIPAC. I've never been affiliated with it, never gone to one of their conferences, never used their resources. Direct Congressional lobbying has never really been my thing.
Post a Comment