Quarterly Updates for (16 Feb 2011 — 15 May 2011)

The Obama admin. remained divided this quarter over how best to proceed on the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Some senior officials, including Secy. of State Clinton, continued to press for the U.S. to present its own substantive peace proposal as a basis to relaunch talks, whereas the other camp, led by Obama’s chief Middle East adviser Dennis Ross, recommended taking no action given the instability in the region, the ill will between the parties, and the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation (see Quarterly Update in JPS 159 for background).

U.S.-Israel Relations

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on 3/7, Israeli DM Barak indicated that Israel might request an additional $20 b. of U.S. military aid in light of the popular uprisings across the Arab world. IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz had ordered a wholesale reassessment of potential threats to Israel given the regional instability and contingency plans to address them. When it was presented to IDF senior officers on 3/14, Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi highlighted various worst-case scenarios, including the possible fall of the Jordanian monarchy, Egyptian abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel and instability on that border, and increased probabilities of conflict with Iran. As Barak anticipated, the assessment concluded that defense against these possibilities would require significant upgrades in IDF personnel, training, and operational programs—the bottom line being a recommendation that Israel ask the U.S. for an extra $20 b. over several years. Israeli sources expected Barak to broach the subject with U.S. Secy. of Defense Robert Gates when Gates visited Israeli and Palestinian officials on 3/24–25 to discuss regional affairs, but there was no indication Israel formally made the request. Gates reiterated U.S. support for Israel’s right to self-defense, saying “no sovereign state can tolerate having rockets fired at its people,” but urged Israel and the Palestinians not to use regional unrest as an excuse to put off peace talks. In an address to the Anti-Defamation League’s annual conference in Washington on 4/2, Obama adviser Ross stated that regional turmoil made it increasingly important that Israel receive tangible security guarantees in exchange for concessions to the Palestinians.

Israeli pres. Shimon Peres visited (4/4–8) the U.S., meeting with Secy. of State Clinton at the State Dept. on 4/4 and with Obama at the White House on 4/5 to discuss the peace impasse and prospects that the PLO would bring a resolution to the UN in 9/2011 seeking recognition of a Palestinian state. He also called on the U.S. to release jailed spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard, handing the president a letter from Pollard (dated 4/1) asking him to “please send me home to Israel now.” Pollard, an American citizen, applied for and was granted dual Israeli citizenship in 1995, while in prison. Peres also met with congressional leaders on Capitol Hill on 4/6.

Of note: Israel’s chief Ashkenazi rabbi Yonah Metzger used his 4/14 Shabbat sermon to warn that Obama must prove he is a friend of Israel and “immediately free Pollard” before pressing Israel to renew peace talks, saying American Jews would not help reelect him if he did not grant Pollard clemency.

 

Congress

Following Judge Richard Goldstone’s 4/1 open letter qualifying some conclusions he and his team reached in conducting the UN investigation into OCL (see Doc. A1 and “Goldstone Report” below), Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and James Risch (R-Idaho) began (4/8) circulating a measure (S. Res. 138) calling on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to rescind the Goldstone Report; the measure passed on 4/14 by unanimous consent. Simultaneously, Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL; chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) began circulating companion measures (H. Res. 1501 and S. Res. 923) that would withhold U.S. payments to the UN until the report was rescinded. Reps. Robert Dold (R-IL) and Gary Peters (D-MI) circulated another measure (H. Res. 232) urging the admin. to “take steps to reverse the damage done” by the Goldstone Report. At the end of the quarter, these last 3 measures had been referred to committee. By 4/12, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was also drafting a revision to the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2009 (H. Res. 557) that would “make it U.S. policy to demand that the UN General Assembly revoke and repudiate the Goldstone Report and any UN resolutions stemming from the report, and . . . refund to U.S. taxpayers their share of the costs for the report and its follow-on measures,” but as of the end of the quarter, she had not formally submitted it. In addition, 22 House reps. sent (ca. 4/14) a letter to UN Secy.-Gen. Ban Ki-Moon, urging him to override the UNHRC (which had said on 4/2 that it would continue to consider the Goldstone Report an official document unless the authors formally asked it to be revoked) and remove the report from the UN’s official record.

Following the signing of the FatahHamas unity agreement, 27 Democratic senators sent (5/6) a letter to Pres. Obama urging him to halt aid to the PA unless the unified government reaffirmed the Quartet principles. The senators were concerned that while existing U.S. law bars aid to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, some experts had argued that “government” could be liberally interpreted to allow U.S. aid to continue if Hamas members are in the legislature but excluded from the cabinet. Separately, Reps. Kay Granger (R-TX) and Nita Lowey (D-NY), heads of the House appropriations subcomm., sent (ca. 4/28) a letter to Abbas warning that they would take steps to block disbursement of the $550 m. of U.S. aid to the PA budgeted for 2011 if he formed a government with Hamas.

In light of the 3/11 murder of 5 West Bank settlers, 49 members of the Republican Study Comm., the conservative caucus of the House Republicans, sent (3/28) a letter to Secy. of State Clinton denouncing the admin. for pressuring Israel on settlements instead of urging the PA to address incitement. A bipartisan group of 27 senators sent a letter to Clinton on 3/29, asking the admin. to force the PA to halt “dangerous incitement,” which they say “includes the glorification of terrorists and jihad and anti-Semitic stereotypes in the Palestinian media.” A similar letter signed by 46 members of the House was sent to Pres. Obama on 3/31.

Senior House Republicans Dan Burton (R-IN; chair of the House’s Europe Subcommittee), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and Steve Chabot (R-OH; chair of the House Middle East Subcommittee) introduced (3/10) the draft Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2011 (H. Res. 1006) that would strip the president of his power to waive requirements to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as permitted under the 1995 U.S. Embassy Act. Obama (like Presidents Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush before him) has consistently invoked the national security waiver. The White House would likely dismiss any law removing the waiver on the grounds that it is unconstitutional because it constrains the president’s executive authority to set foreign policy. The measure was referred to committee on 3/29 with 31 cosponsors but did not progress further during the quarter.

At the height of the U.S. budget debate that threatened a government shutdown, at least 11 of 13 freshmen senators and 65 of 87 freshmen reps., all Republicans, signed companion letters to the House and Senate Republican leaders (Doc. D1) in 4/2011 stating: “As we work to reduce wasteful government spending, we recognize that providing for the national defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, we must continue to prioritize the safety of our nation and the security of our allies, including Israel.”

In late 4/2011, a bipartisan delegation of U.S. House reps. visited Israel and met with PM Netanyahu and opposition leader Tzipi Livni to discuss Israel’s safety and security in light of the prodemocracy uprisings across the region and “the everpresent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

 

Lobbies

Days after vetoing the UNSC res. on settlements, Obama met (3/1) with 50 top members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations at the White House, urging them to speak to their colleagues in Israel and to “search your souls” over Israel’s seriousness about making peace. He also stressed his “opposition to any effort to delegitimize [Israel] or single it out for criticism.”

AIPAC arranged (4/13) a conference call with more than a dozen pro-Israel members of Congress—including Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), and Eric Cantor (R-VA)—to discuss “how best to promote Israel” during Netanyahu’s upcoming 5/2011 visit. The call was also aimed at urging members of Congress to press the Obama admin. to take Israel’s security concerns into consideration when responding to the antigovernment uprisings across the region, noting that Netanyahu saw real danger for Israel in the regional uprisings.

To cap its annual conference in Washington, the critically pro-Israel J Street organized (3/1) more than 700 activists for a lobbying day on Capitol Hill. In 240 separate meetings, activists urged continued robust foreign aid to Israel and the PA. J Street pres. Jeremy Ben-Ami also led a delegation to Ramallah on 5/8 to meet with Abbas, who urged J Street to lobby Congress to continue aid to the PA despite the unity deal with Hamas. Abbas reiterated that he would return to peace negotiations with Israel if the U.S. offered a plan for the creation of a Palestinian state on 1967 lines with agreed land swaps and a 2–3-mo. halt to Israeli settlement construction. BenAmi pledged to deliver the message to the White House personally.

American Jewish and Latino leaders held (3/27–28) a conference in San Antonio to discuss building bridges and alliances between their communities. Attendees included the heads of universities and Jewish and Hispanic organizations, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich (who declared his candidacy for president on 5/12), and the wife of Christians United for Israel founder John Hagee. Participants identified “common values and interests” ranging from equal opportunity in education and immigration reform to “protecting the State of Israel” and combating racism. Agreed action items included: organizing trips to Israel for influential Latino leaders and media reps. (with the stated aim of teaching Latinos about the Israeli education system and immigration programs); increasing coverage of national security issues on the Spanish-language TV network Univision; and developing and lobbying for programs to “pass on the story of Israel’s formation to the next generation, whether through schools or religious institutions.” An opinion poll of American Jews and Latinos conducted for discussion at the conference and released on 3/30 showed that 48.1% of Latinos believed the U.S. was “too supportive” of Israel; 34% of Latinos identified more with Israel, while 21.3% identified more with Palestinians (the remainder saying neither or both equally); 46.3% of Latinos believed there was anti-Semitism in the Latino community, as did 58.3% of Jews; and 31.9% of Latinos believed there was anti-Latino sentiment among Jews, as did 30% of Jews.

Jewish donors in Washington and New York issued (3/29) an open letter calling on regional Jewish federations to monitor or pull donations from Jewish community centers that support “cultural activities that denigrate Israel,” citing as an example the New York Jewish Community Center’s financing of a film festival that included a film portraying the difficult conditions for non-Jewish minorities in Israel. One signatory of the letter said the point was not “to infringe on anyone’s freedom of expression, but why should it be from my federation contributions?”

Dr. Alexander Mashkevich, pres. of the United Israel Appeal’s annual conference of Jewish leaders in Washington and pres. of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, announced (ca. 4/9) his plan to form a proIsrael international news network, similar to al-Jazeera and the BBC, to combat the delegitimization of Israel in the media and to influence public opinion. It would offer only news programs in Arabic, English, French, and Spanish. He said that he would lobby other U.S. Jewish philanthropists to contribute and that “in about three–four months we’ll hold a presentation in Israel. We’ll purchase talents from all other channels. From BBC, CNN—everyone.”

In late 4/2011, American philanthropists Miri and Sheldon Adelson, who have given millions of dollars to pro-Israel groups, pledged $1 m. to expand the Israel Fellows program—a joint effort of the Jewish Agency for Israel and Hillel (The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life) “to bring recent Israeli college graduates to Hillels on U.S. and Canadian campuses to assist with Israel education and advocacy.” The program would expand from 34 to 50 fellows.

 

Legal Action

Many of the legal actions this quarter stemmed from the efforts of pro-Israel groups to stifle any campus activity that could be seen as pro-Palestinian or critical of Israel. Most prominent among these was an investigation launched (3/7) by the U.S. Dept. of Education (DOE) Office of Civil Rights into charges filed in 6/2009 by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, professor of Hebrew at University of California, Santa Cruz, alleging that rhetoric used by individuals and groups on campus that “demonizes Israel, compares contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calls for the dismantling of the Jewish state, and holds Israel to an impossible double standard . . . crosses the line into anti-Semitism.” This marked the first investigation since the DOE announced in 10/2010 that it would extend Title VI protections to victims of antireligious bias as well as those of ethnic and racial bias—a change that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) had lobbied for 6 yrs. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination by organizations receiving federal funds.

Jessica Felber, a Jewish student at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), filed (3/4) a case in U.S. district court seeking damages and a jury trial, accusing UCB of failing to protect Jewish students from harassment and attack by 2 pro-Palestinian student groups—Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Student Association—and of tolerating “the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses” that violates the rights of Jewish and other students “to enjoy a peaceful campus environment free from threats and intimidation.” The suit stemmed from an incident on 3/5/10 in which SJP head Hussam Zakharia allegedly rammed into Felber with a shopping cart because of the pro-Israel sign she was holding during a pro-Israel rally. Zakharia was arrested for battery but later released and not charged.

On 3/9, 30 University of California Jewish studies faculty members asked the Orange County district attorney to drop criminal charges against 11 Muslim students who disrupted a 2/8/10 campus speech by Israeli amb. to the U.S. Michael Oren by standing up 1-by-1 during his address to call him a “mass murderer” and “war criminal,” prompting him to walk off stage twice. The charges of conspiracy to disrupt a meeting could carry jail terms of up to 6 mos. as well as fines. The Jewish Voice for Peace organization previously called for dropping charges on the grounds that the outbursts constituted freedom of speech and peaceful protest. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ZOA were among the Jewish groups supporting prosecution under Title VI. There was no ruling before the end of the quarter. The ZOA filed (4/7) a complaint with Rutgers University, saying that “the campus environment is increasingly hostile, anti-Semitic, and even includes violent threats against a Jewish student” and accusing the university of failing to prevent “anti-Semitism, Israel-bashing, and violent threats” on campus. The ZOA called on Rutgers to investigate its complaints; meet with Jewish students; “publicly label and condemn anti-Semitism when it occurs on campus, including when it is expressed as anti-Zionist or anti-Israel”; train faculty and staff to recognize and confront anti-Semitism; create programs to educate students “about the history and dangers of antiSemitism in all of its manifestations”; and to undertake “a comprehensive review of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that . . . students aren’t being discouraged or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel.” Rutgers had not responded by the end of the quarter.

In response to the UCB and Rutgers cases, the American Association of University Professors and the American Jewish Committee issued (Doc. D2, 4/20) a letter urging close scrutiny of claims that statements and activities on campuses that are critical of Israel amount to illegal intimidation of Jewish students. They stressed that Title VI had been misused to “seek to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers”—an application of Title VI that they called “unwarranted” and “dangerous” to free speech.

Taking example from the U.S. cases, Sammy Katz, a student at Canada’s York University in Toronto, filed a claim with Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the university tolerated an environment hostile to Jews after he was verbally abused at a pro-Israel rally in 2/2010. The university released a video of the event aimed at showing that pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian students were “evenly matched” in their verbal abuse and that there was little physical contact. The tribunal did not take action before the quarter’s end.

Of note: The University of California, Hastings’ board of directors convened (3/24) an emergency meeting the day before a 2-day conference on “Litigating Palestine” hosted by its law school opened. The meeting voted to “take all steps necessary to remove the UC Hastings name and brand” from the conference and to cancel plans for the university’s dean and chancellor Frank Wu to give an opening speech. The university had received complaints from some alumni and local Jewish organizations who denounced the conference as “an anti-Israel political organizing conference using law as a weapon.” In announcing its pull-out, the board did not explain the decision but stated that convening such gatherings is “among our responsibilities as an academic institution.”

Similarly, the board of the City University of New York (CUNY) rejected (5/4) the student nomination of Pulitzer-prizewinning playwright Tony Kushner for an honorary degree at its commencement after a board member (Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, also a trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) objected that Kushner was anti-Israel because of a recent statement he made acknowledging being conflicted about Zionism, since Israel’s founding in 1948 was based on ethnic cleansing. Wiesenfeld said Kushner should not be given an honorary degree until he repudiated his past statements about Israel. CUNY’s trustees, however, voted (5/9) to overturn the decision, stating: “Freedom of thought and expression is the bedrock of any university worthy of the name. . . . It is not right for the board to consider politics in connection with the award of honorary degrees except in extreme cases not presented by the facts here.”

Larry Klayman, a U.S. attorney, activist, and founder of the conservative public interest group Judicial Watch, filed (3/31) suit in U.S. District Court in Washington as “an American citizen of Jewish origin” who is “active in all matters concerning the security of Israel and its people,” seeking more than $1 b. in damages from Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for “negligence” for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down a page calling for a 3d intifada against Israel. Facebook removed the page on 3/29 after it had been up for several weeks and gained 350,000 followers. The suit also called on Facebook to remove all pages using the words “Third Intifada” or any other wording that “encourages violence toward Jews.” Facebook said (3/31) the case was one “without merit” and which it would fight, stating: “We strongly believe that Facebook users have the ability to express their opinions, and we don’t typically take down content, groups, or pages that speak out against countries, religions, political entities, or ideas.”