IPF President: A Call For Civility, Not Censorship

Jason Attermann — November 4, 2011 – 10:28 am | Foreign Policy | Israel Comments (0) Add a comment

Israel Policy Forum President and NJDC Board member Peter A. Joseph penned an op-ed in The Jewish Week defending the “Unity Pledge for Israel” sponsored by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Joseph supported the pledge’s goal of removing partisan vitriol from the discussion about Israel and lambasted certain conservative groups for rejecting the pledge. Contrary to their claims, the pledge “is intended to keep legitimate policy criticisms in perspective” by keeping discussions fact-based and civil.

Joseph explained the importance of bipartisan support for Israel, and the historical commitment by both parties to work together:

The Democratic and Republican parties share long-standing records of supporting Israel’s security and its pursuit of lasting peace. The vast majority of Democratic and Republican elected officials and politicians agree that the Jewish people deserve a state of their own, that the ‘special relationship’ forged between the U.S. and Israel is based on shared values and common interests, and that Israel needs to retain its qualitative military edge over still-hostile neighbors.

Continued American support for these principles has always been a key strategic asset of Israel, and that is why the American Jewish community has worked hard to retain solid relationships with both sides of the aisle. This bipartisan alliance has ensured that Israel’s enemies would always know that America has Israel’s back - no matter which party is in power. This perception should not change even as differences about America’s Israel policy are expressed in election campaigns. The ADL-AJC pledge was an admirable effort to clarify the distinction between the broad consensus in support of Israel’s security and legitimate policy debate.

Joseph argued that no political party has a monopoly on support for Israel:

Of course, the critics of the unity pledge have only one real interest: defeating Barack Obama in the coming presidential election. However, when Obama’s critics slam his Middle East policies, they should be careful not to distort American political history. Recent, broad claims that the president and his party are not ‘pro-Israel’ or are throwing Israel ‘under the bus’ leave the impression that Obama has embarked on a radically different course from his predecessors. Democratic administrations have not had a monopoly on proactive Middle East peace diplomacy or disagreements with Israeli governments. In fact, Obama fits the mold of presidents from both parties who have tried to resolve differences between Israel and its neighbors.

It was the Reagan administration, and Secretary of State George Schultz, who decided to talk to the PLO, despite fierce Israeli objections.  It was the George H. Bush administration that tried to condition American loan guarantees on halting Israeli settlement construction, to the chagrin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir. It was the George W. Bush administration that articulated the goal of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and with the other members of the Quartet formulated a ‘road map’ to Middle East peace that is not dissimilar to the vision Obama has articulated.

The world needs to know that the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are too strong to be severed by sporadic disagreements either between their respective governments or between American politicians.

Click here to read Joseph’s full op-ed.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry