Sunday, May 03, 2009

AIPAC Lobbies for a Two-State Solution

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.


PG said...

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.

David Schraub said...

I've never particularly identified with AIPAC -- I'm a J Street guy, remember?

chingona said...


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."

nader paul kucinich gravel said...

911 Sham?

AIPAC Bankers?

Israel-first, dual-national?

Extortion, blackmail, & bribery?

PG said...

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?

Thanks for the clarification.

David Schraub said...

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.