Israel’s new government does not support a two-state solution. But don’t take it from us. Listen to the words of the leading figures in Israel’s government. Read more at the FMEP blog.
Posted in Two-State Solution | Tagged Ayelet Shaked, Benjamin Netanyahu, Danny Danon, Israel, Miri Regev, Moshe Ya'alon, Naftali Bennett, Palestine, Silvan Shalom, Two-state solution, Tzipi Hotovely, Uri Ariel, Yosrael Katz, Yuval Steinitz, Ze'ev Elkin | 3 Comments »
In the wake of the collapse of the last round of Israeli-Palestinian talks last April, it’s become widely accepted that the continuing growth of Israeli settlements is a key obstacle to an agreement. This has created difficulties for those inclined to support the Israeli government’s ability to do whatever it wants. One way to make it easier to defend the settlements and the occupation that sustains them is to obscure the difference between them and Israel proper. As I wrote last month, a method that lobbyists like the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have been employing lately to accomplish that is to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS).
Several recent pieces of legislation demonstrate how this is accomplished. In Illinois, a billprohibiting Illinois from contracting with businesses that are boycotting Israel passed unanimously in both the State Legislature and Senate. The language of the bill specifically includes “territories controlled by the State of Israel” – that is, territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, which no country in the world, including the U.S., recognizes as part of Israel. Read more at the FMEP blog.
Posted in Settlements, US-Israel Lobby | Tagged AIPAC, Arab League Boycott of Israel, BDS, Eugene Kontorovich, European Union, Fast Track, free speech, PCUSA, Presbyterian, Settlements, TPP, Volokh Conspiracy | Leave a Comment »
After Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprising victory in Israel’s national elections in March, he took until the last possible minute to complete the process of forming the government for his fourth term as Israel’s prime minister. For all the time he invested, despite making it just under the wire, Netanyahu ended up with a fragile, ultra-right-wing coalition and more work ahead of him to bring in at least one more party.
The government Netanyahu presented to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin was a bare majority of 61 seats out of the 120-seat Knesset. There are no fig leafs in this coalition, no Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak for Netanyahu to send to talk fruitlessly with the Palestinians. One might think this would make the coalition more stable, since it consists entirely of the right wing. In this, one would be wrong. Read more at LobeLog.
Posted in Elections, Israel, Knesset | Tagged Avigdor Lieberman, Ayelet Shaked, Benjamin Netanyahu, Habayit Hayehudi, Isaac Herzog, Israel, Mitchell Plitnick, Naftali Bennett, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Palestine, Reuven Rivlin, settlers, Uri Ariel, uri Elitzur | 1 Comment »
The shell game is a tried-and-true method of persuading people to give their money to the person running the game. In political terms, it’s also a reliable method of persuading people to buy into the political stance of the man running the game.
Elliott Abrams is a master of the shell game. He provides what seems like a serious and sober analysis, with just enough cherry-picking of facts and omission of detail to convince you of his point of view. That is a big reason why this man, who is responsible for some of the greatest foreign policy fiascos in American history, continues to be considered a legitimate source for foreign policy analysis. Read more at LobeLog
Posted in Settlements | Tagged Americans for Peace Now, Ariel Sharon, B'Tselem, Benjamin Netanyahu, Elliott Abrams, Foreign Affairs, Israel, Lara Friedman, Mitchell Plitnick, Occupied Territories, Palestine, Settlements, Two-state solution | Leave a Comment »
On Wednesday, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA) designed to defend Israel against the global “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement” (BDS). A similar amendment was adopted in the House of Representatives. Whatever one thinks of the bill’s intentions, the actual content of it is troubling enough that it must be opposed, whether or not one opposes the global BDS movement.
Let’s dispense with one point right away. There is no comparison between the sort of actions this bill is targeting and the Arab League boycott of Israel, from which the United States has been defending Israel through legislation since 1977. The Arab League boycott had one purpose and that was to destroy the Israeli economy. It sought no change in policy. What it was protesting was Israel’s very existence. Read more at FMEP
by Mitchell Plitnick and Matt Duss
The Framework Agreement between the P5+1 and Iran announced on April 2 was an important step toward ending the long standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Not surprisingly, it has already come under fierce attack by hawks in Washington and Iran.
On the U.S. side, opposition to the deal is rooted in a desire to see Iran’s complete capitulation, if need be at gunpoint. But negotiation requires compromise; and compromise, by definition, means no one gets exactly what they want.
Ultimately, here are the questions at hand: Can a deal based on this framework prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Will the U.S. and its allies be more secure because of it? The answer to both is yes. Read more at the FMEP blog.
Posted in Iran, Uncategorized | Tagged Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Congressional opposition to Iran nuclear talks, IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, Iran Deal, Iran Nuclear Framework Agreeement, UN Security Council | Leave a Comment »