It’s been well over a year since I began to explain to anyone who would listen to me that there was a sea change in attitudes towards the occupation and the settlements under way in Congress, including and especially from some crucially placed Jewish-American members who are traditional staunch supporters of Israel. For a long time, this was met with derision and skepticism. Following the Feb. 12 hearing of Gary Ackerman’s House International Relations Subcommittee into the Gaza war, and subsequent developments surrounding the Obama administration’s strong push to change Israel’s policy on settlements, these changes become more apparent to many people. Israeli press reports held that Netanyahu and his delegation were "stunned" to find that the firm American position on settlement expansion was not only consistent throughout the administration, but extended to key members of Congress who, in the past, could have been relied upon to support the Israeli government stance. I wasn’t surprised, but a lot of people I know are still struggling to internalize this transformation.
This pattern is essentially intensifying, with language that heretofore would have been considered unthinkable coming from friends of Israel who understand that Netanyahu’s approach to settlements is neither in the Israeli nor the American national interest. Harold Meyerson’s column in the Washington Post yesterday quotes Ackerman as stating categorically that, "having children can’t be an excuse to expand a settlement. Neither side should be expanding beyond its perimeters or attacking the other side. No expansions, no how, no way, no shticks, no tricks." This language not only lays out the firm American consensus that settlement activity is unacceptable, it also acknowledges that in the past Israeli governments have tried to play rhetorical games through which settlement growth would continue under some rubric or other that extends the process of transforming the West Bank and East Jerusalem in a manner that does irrevocable harm to the peace process. Ackerman is one of those who has cognizant of both what really might be considered "natural growth" to do with babies, and the past propensity of Israeli ministries, and their possible inclination at the present time, to use such rhetoric in order to conduct significant expansions of settlements territory or populations.
Having friends of Israel who are not hostile to settler babies take the lead in insisting that there be "no shtick, no tricks" from Israel on settlements represents a dramatic transformation of the American landscape on policy towards Israel and the occupation. Supporters of Palestine and Palestinian rights in the United States need to understand both the extraordinary opportunities that arise in this context and the serious limitations of how far it is likely to go. What we are looking at is a burgeoning consensus that the occupation must end in the interests not only of the Palestinians, but also of Israel and the United States. But we are not approaching a situation in which the special relationship between the two countries is undermined, up for grabs or in any sense in play. These are the bookends that define the new space that has opened up on Middle East policy within which friends of Palestine can find extraordinary new opportunities for advancing their goals. It’s still the case that far too many people dismiss or fail to recognize the significance of the transformation in American, and especially Jewish American, attitudes towards the occupation and the settlements. It’s also the case that for a variety of reasons, some activists continue to pursue strategies designed to attempt to challenge or undermine the special relationship, cut aid to Israel, otherwise overreach for implausible goals that will not only squander the present opportunities but also make life more difficult for Jewish-American supporters of the President’s strong stance on settlements and the occupation.
The political ground is shifting under our feet very quickly. Too many Americans most interested in Middle Eastern events — especially Jewish and Arab Americans — continue to think and speak as if it were still the mid-1990s (as the Israeli Prime Minister did last Sunday). However, to operate effectively in what is, whether people like it or not, a quite dramatically transformed political landscape, it is necessary to understand and acknowledge both the changes that have taken place and what can and cannot be plausibly achieved under these circumstances. We have a tremendous opportunity to move forward towards ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state, under the leadership of the American President and with the support of key members of Congress, including staunch supporters of Israel. However, those who seek in vain to break the special relationship between Israel and the United States, or to go beyond issues involving the occupation and, rather than supporting the creation of Palestine, begin to challenge the existence of Israel itself, are not only failing to take advantage of the extraordinary new opportunities that have opened up, they are actually undermining the very basis of the new consensus.
It is extraordinary that just as a critical mass in the American foreign policy establishment, including many staunch supporters of Israel, begin to adopt the very positions that Arab-Americans and other friends of Palestine have been advocating for decades (i.e. ending the settlements, creating a Palestinian state, etc.), a significant subsection of Arab-Americans is moving away from those positions, deriding them as insufficient or implausible. This is a striking historical and political mistake, albeit the predictable consequence of extremely unhealthy levels of cynicism and alienation born of years of frustration and disappointment. It is essential that the Palestinian and Arab-American majority that continues to support the aim of ending the occupation and securing a reasonable end of conflict agreement with Israel makes its voice heard loudly and clearly in favor of peace with no shtick and no tricks.