“I greatly appreciated the opportunity to sit down with Ambassador Oren for a frank and fruitful conversation about how we can work together to ensure Israel’s prospects for peace and security.  I applaud the Ambassador’s commitment to building a bridge to the pro-Israel, pro-peace community in the months since our national conference,” said Ben-Ami.

“The Ambassador clearly recognizes the importance of dialogue and communication between the State of Israel and those parts of the American Jewish community that are deeply pro-Israel but at times disagree with the policies of its government.

“J Street hopes that going forward we are building a relationship based on mutual respect and recognizing that our disagreements are rooted in a deep commitment to Israel’s security and its future as a democracy and the home of the Jewish people.

“I hope this is but the first of many conversations we will have.”

If the Jewish community can’t come together during the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps, when can it? Oren’s fence-mending move is an indication that Israel needs the help of all its supporters as it seeks to overcome its current difficulties with the Obama administration over the peace process — particularly the aid of those, represented by J Street, who support both Israel and Obama.

2009 attitudes towards Israel among…
Dems: Favorable: 55% Unfavorable: 32 %
GOP: Favorable: 91% Unfavorable: 6%

2010 attitudes towards Israel among…
Dems: Favorable: 42% Unfavorable: 49%
GOP: Favorable: 92% Unfavorable: 7%

So there’s practically no change among Republicans, but a 13-point drop in favorability and a 17-point rise in unfavorability among Democrats. I think I’ll refrain from offering analysis until I see the full poll results, but the first explanation that jumps into my mind is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rough interactions with President Obama would stand a good chance of rubbing some Democrats the wrong way.

On a related note, J Street released its annual poll of American Jewish attitudes, and according to a press release, this is part of what it found:

American Jews by a four-to-one margin, 82-18 percent, support the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, with 73 percent of American Jews supporting this active role even if it means that the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs.

And by a 71-29 percent margin, American Jews support the United States “exerting pressure” on both the Israelis and the Arabs to make the necessary compromises to achieve peace. An earlier J Street poll last March found a similar level of support.

The full poll is here.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses AIPAC on Monday. (EPA/ZUMApress.com)

Setting nearly two weeks’ worth of diplomatic acrimony behind her, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a passionate address to the U.S.’s largest pro-Israel lobbying organization, declaring the the U.S.’ bond to Israel to be “rock solid,” and gently challenging the Israeli government to commit wholeheartedly to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Security1] In a rhetorical flourish to play down the tension over Israel’s announcement of Jerusalem settlement expansions during a visit by Vice President Biden, Clinton said the settlement move “exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit.” That line implicitly rebuked Israel’s more conservative American defenders over the fracas, who have said that Obama’s reaction — that the Israelis “insulted” the U.S. — was the problem, not the settlement expansion itself. Clinton, speaking to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center, effectively shifted the burden of the division onto Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will address the conference early on Monday evening.

That set the tone for the message Clinton sought to deliver on the need to reinvigorate Mideast peace talks, starting with the new indirect talks the U.S. is brokering: she said the peace process exists within the context of a strong U.S.-Israel bond, and never suggested that the U.S. views Israeli cooperation on a two-state solution as a diplomatic dealbreaker. By contrast, Clinton made a case that intransigence on a two-state solution was against the Israeli interest. “The inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland,” Clinton said, a statement for which she received no applause from the assembled pro-Israel activists.

The secretary received a more fervent reception by forcefully denouncing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the fulfillment of which AIPAC executive director Howard Kohl called an “overarching imperative” that “no other issue can be allowed to detract, distract or derail.” She called on Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip, to “renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by previous signed agreements” and gave no indication that it would be invited to peace talks. And she tied President Obama — about whom AIPAC maintains a somewhat skeptical view, despite 78 percent of American Jews voting for him in 2008 — to Jewish history, saying he and his family “have lived the Diaspora experience.”
With a deftness to what her audience wished to hear, Clinton said that “reaching a two-state solution will not end all these threats” to Israel’s security, an article of faith among the pro-Israel community, but immediately added that “failure to do so gives our extremist foes a pretext to spread violence, instability, and hatred.”

At the same, Clinton did not use the speech to outline additional commitments the U.S. expects Israel to fulfill, saying instead that both Israel and the Palestinians ought not to issue “unilateral statements and actions that undermine the process.” Nor did Clinton unveil any U.S. peace plan, as some advocates of a two-state solution had hoped she would, let alone chastise Israel for additional settlement activity that the Israeli peace organization Peace Now has identified as being in the planning stages. The closest she came was to urge Netanyahu to “continue” building “trust and momentum toward comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” all of which fall short of new concrete responsibilities for Israel.

Hadar Susskind, the policy and strategy director for J Street, AIPAC’s younger and more progressive counterpart organization, said Clinton “obviously knows and understands intimately the room she’s in,” but praised the substance of the secretary’s message. “She did a good job of saying we’re all coming at this from the same goals,” Susskind said. “She said, look, we don’t think this [Jerusalem settlement expansion] is in the best interest of Israel, and we’re going to continue to do what we can to bring the parties to the table for direct talks.”

Clinton did not disclose any details of any diplomatic assurances Netanyahu conveyed to her before the weekend, a move that cleared Mideast envoy George Mitchell to return to the region over the weekend and for Netanyahu to receive a White House reception Tuesday. Before Netanyahu addresses AIPAC, his chief political rival, Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni, will deliver a speech to AIPAC delegates at 2 p.m.

“The speech was very good overall,” said Hadar Susskind, J Street’s policy and strategy director. “She’s good on content, and she obviously knows and understands intimately the room she’s in.” Susskind gave Clinton high marks for the speech’s forceful challenge to Iranian nuclear ambitions and Palestinian incitement ahead of “the issue at hand, and the real substantive disagreement the U.S. administration and the Israeli administration have. She did a nice job of saying we’re all coming at this with the same goals.”

On Clinton’s brief reminder that the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict damages U.S. interests in the Middle East — a notion that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League called “dangerous and counterproductive” last week in rebuking, of all people, Gen. David Petraeus — Susskind said, “It’s unquestionably a true fact that this issue has an impact on U.S. issues with the rest of the world. You can argue that shouldn’t be the case, but you can’t really argue that it doesn’t, and I think she was merely stating the fact.”

Susskind and J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick were generally pleased with the reaction Clinton got from AIPAC’s delegates, although expectations were pretty low. “I was happy she didn’t get booed,” Susskind said. “Our interest is in having a safe, secure, Jewish democratic Israel, and that’s what the U.S. is working toward.”

I asked them how they’ve been received, as AIPAC has tended to look upon J Street as something between an annoying lefty younger cousin and the insufferable kid who threatens the harmony of the family seder. Spitalnick said she walked into the conference yesterday and overheard an older couple “saying, you know, ‘How can an entire group of Jews be against AIPAC, be against Israel?’ And the wife goes, ‘Oh, you mean J Street?’ and the husband goes, ‘Of course.’

“So I go, ‘Hey, I’m J Street, and I’m here, and I am enjoying this conference and I don’t think I’m against Israel because I love Israel, and I don’t think I’m against AIPAC either, and by no means are we here to oppose AIPAC.’ And we had a nice conversation. We were waiting to get into the evening plenary, and by the end she took my card and said she was going to read our literature, learn more and hope she’s able to understand a little bit more.”

A recap: While in Israel last week for a goodwill tour right as word of “indirect talks” between the Israelis and Palestinians leaked out, Vice President Joe Biden was greeted with an announcement that Israel was expanding its settlements in a Palestinian part of East Jerusalem. Biden condemned the move, and was soon echoed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hectored him for 45 minutes about how provocative the move was. She added that she considered it an “insult to the United States.” Netanyahu faced an avalanche of criticism at home over the weekend, leading him to finally say, “There was a regrettable incident, that was done in all innocence and was hurtful.” Laura Rozen passes on word of a Haaretz story reporting that Michael Oren, Netanyahu’s ambassador to Washington, considers this moment a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations and wants to get the message out that Netanyahu didn’t mean to insult Biden.

Enter J Street. The lobby group issued a statement this morning urging both sides to get past the tension and focus on its source: the need to establish the borders of a Palestinian state. “We must not lose further time allowing a single development, as objectionable as it may be, to derail progress towards achieving a two-state solution,” the group said. Meanwhile, two lobby groups to J Street’s right, the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, criticized the Obama administration for the deterioration in relations, with AIPAC urging Obama to take a “conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel.” It’s as if the organization, at whose conference next week Clinton will speak, forgot that the whole thing started with Israel humiliating Biden, a staunch ally of Israel for decades. And as if AIPAC forgets that Israel is pursuing much greater settlement expansion than just what was announced last week.

Here’s J Street’s full statement:

The recent escalation of tension between the United States and Israel – sparked by Israel’s announcement regarding 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem – is a matter of serious concern to J Street and Israel’s friends generally.

Preventing provocative actions which undermine the peace process and decisions which weaken U.S. credibility in the region is also a matter of fundamental American national security interest, particularly as the U.S. government works to build a broad international coalition to address the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States is Israel’s closest ally. Their special relationship is rooted in shared interests and values and enjoys broad bipartisan support in Washington and across the country.

That is all the more reason why the Obama administration’s reaction to the treatment of the Vice President last week and to the timing and substance of the Israeli government’s announcement was both understandable and appropriate.

As Vice President Biden said, “Sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth.” That is what he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod have done in recent days – and J Street, along with many friends of Israel, stands solidly behind them.

The important question for us is how the present situation can be turned into an opportunity to tackle a core issue at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians – the need to establish a border between Israel and the future Palestinian state.

Fixing borders would eliminate the need to deal further with issues related to settlements on the West Bank or building in East Jerusalem.

We urge the United States to take this opportunity to suggest parameters to the parties for resuming negotiations – basing borders on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with the Palestinian state demilitarized and on territory equivalent to 100% of the area encompassed by the pre-1967 Armistice lines.

Too much time has already been lost in getting the two sides into negotiations. We must not lose further time allowing a single development, as objectionable as it may be, to derail progress towards achieving a two-state solution.

Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a fundamental American national security interest.

The Obama administration will find vast support among American Jews and other friends of Israel for a bold new approach that aims to advance that interest and guarantees Israel a secure, democratic and Jewish future.

J Street, the progressive American Jewish lobby, favors the Berman bill. Americans for Peace Now, another progressive American Jewish lobby group, opposes it. And the Israel Project, more-hawkish American Jewish lobby group, favors additional sanctions on Iran generally, but many signatures on its most recent petition on sanctioning Iran were inauthentic.

To find out, I spoke with J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami. An edited transcript of our conversation follows.

The Washington Independent: Why in the world is J Street supporting the Berman bill? Hasn’t the experience of the last three decades shown that unilateral sanctions only benefit the Iranian regime?

Jeremy Ben-Ami: The reluctance and the unwillingness of the Iranian regime to engage in any diplomacy and to accept — or at least begin negotiations on the basis of the offer that has been made — can’t go unanswered. We’ve said all along that our position on the Berman bill was simply a question of timing. This need to follow, first, the diplomatic engagement. And even then the president said, that we can’t go on with [the outreach] indefinitely. So this gives the president this tool, this additional tool, to work with in trying to convince the Iranians that there’s no time.

TWI: Aren’t unilateral sanctions inferior to multilateral sanctions?

Ben-Ami: Absolutely. And this bill doesn’t rule out [multilateral sanctions]. As Berman himself has said, the hierarchy of preference is first, resolve thiss diplomatically; second, resolve this multilaterally through the UN; third, resolve this multilaterally through a non-UN regime by putting a coalition together, and last, calls for the unilateral route. But this doesn’t rule out [multilateral sanctions]. Our preference is still, absolutely, to make this as broad an international coalition as possible.

TWI: What do you say to groups like Americans for Peace Now who’ve come out against the Berman bill because of the harm sanctions can do to the Iranian people without damaging the regime, or to some in the Green revolution in Iran who’ve warned that a new sanctions regime — unilateral or multilateral for that matter — is going to basically preempt any space they’re trying to open up to dislodge the regime or drastically change the character of the Iranian regime?

Ben-Ami: There might be a better bill that one could construct, but this is the one that’s there. And this is the tool that we’re giving to the president. There are very few other routes that are open and lots of the things that prompted the deliberations have been put in place. This is in conjunction with all of the diplomacy that the United States is going to pursue and it’s in conjunction with all of the outreach from the international community. It’s not a standalone policy. It fits into the broader approach that the Obama administration has taken.

TWI: What about its possible impact on the Iranian people?

Ben-Ami: Well, there’s no question that the sanctions ultimately does hurt people. This is also important in putting a real squeeze on the government. The petroleum sector is vital to the economy of the country as a whole. And so this is going to put pressure on the government and its going to put constraints on their economic growth generally. And it’s maybe one more incentive to them hopefully, to abandon this [nuclear] course and to come back to the table and accept what, in our opinion, is a very fair offer related to the fair enrichment.

TWI: What do you say to those who think that this is a capitulation by J Street to those — particularly on some of the American Jewish right — that have been attacking your credibility and your authenticity as a Jewish organization and your bona fides as a pro-Israel organization?

Ben-Ami: They haven’t been listening to us. We have said from the very first day that J Street was created that we’re very seriously concerned about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That we really believe that diplomacy is the right approach, but that diplomacy can’t be open-ended. Every one of our statements says we are not opposed to sanctions per se. Back in June, when Berman introduced this particular bill we said that we supported the bill, but we agreed with him that the time wasn’t right to move it. So this is completely consistent with everything we’ve ever said. We are ardently opposed to military action. We are deeply supportive of the diplomatic route. But if the diplomatic route is completely disregarded and the offer [rejected] — after probably ten or 20 warnings, they’re practically beyond saying no. They’re sticking a finger in the eye of the world. The U.S. has really tried to find a way to offer them a path to full engagement. There have to be consequences. We can’t just allow that kind of disregard of the international community.

TWI: Is it too wily to think that you’re doing this in order to basically signal your stand with the rest of the pro-Israel community in this country while saving the harder battles for things like Jerusalem, the two-state solution and so forth?

Ben-Ami: Well look, those are issues where we are definitely not in line with most of the other organizations. For us, we’ve always said that is the issue. The real existential threat to a Jewish democratic Israel is the failure to reach a two-state solution. There is a threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. But the real existential threat that we’re focused on is that we have got to reach a two-state solution now or else we’re going to lose Israel.

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

Uh, more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead? Does Palin think the end times, heralded by the ingathering of the Jews, is nigh? In reality, Jews are immigrating to Israel at a fairly historically low rate.

J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami had this reaction, issued in a statement from the pro-peace pro-Israel pro-Palestinian group:

J Street rejects Sarah Palin’s comments attacking President Obama’s sensible policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank yesterday during an ABC News interview with Barbara Walters.

Palin’s pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, the lives of those actually living the conflict, and the fundamental American interest in achieving a two-state solution in the near term. Her words reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts and a callous disregard of past and present U.S. policy.

For decades, American presidents have held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. They are joined by the majority of Israelis and pro-Israel Americans who view the growing settlement enterprise as a threat to Israel’s very future as a Jewish democracy.

President Obama’s administration continued along that path yesterday, rightly and sensibly expressing concern with unilateral actions on both sides that would preempt the negotiation of final status issues that are necessary to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict.

J Street supports President Obama and Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell as they press the parties to begin the hard work of achieving a two-state solution, the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland.

APN has serious reservations about H. Res. 867. We do not believe that Israel or the cause of peace is aided by a Congressional effort that, however well-intentioned, is focused solely on denouncing the Goldstone Report and its authors and dismissing its findings.

The full resolution is after the jump.

APN has serious reservations about H. Res. 867. We do not believe that Israel or the cause of peace is aided by a Congressional effort that, however well-intentioned, is focused solely on denouncing the Goldstone Report and its authors and dismissing its findings.

APN is not a human rights organization, nor an organization that has any resources on the ground to judge the veracity, or lack thereof, of the information detailed in the report. We therefore do not presume to make any such assessment.

However, there is much in the resolution that reflects legitimate and longstanding concerns about the UN Human Rights Council and its treatment of Israel. The recent US decision to join the council is a promising development. The resolution, too, accurately reflects serious and legitimate concerns about the original mandate of the Goldstone mission, as well as the implications the Goldstone Report and its findings may have for Israel in the international arena. We urge the Obama Administration to show leadership in the UN and other multilateral fora in order to ensure that the Goldstone Report becomes a basis for moving forward toward peace and reconciliation, rather than a new obstacle to peace or a new weapon for some in the international community to wield to cynically attack Israel.

We believe that the correct course now is for Israel’s government to launch its own independent investigation of alleged violations of human rights and international law that may have taken place in the context of the Gaza war, including those documented in the Goldstone Report. We strongly believe that such an investigation is in the interests of Israel.

We believe that the correct course for friends of Israel in Congress is to focus now on moving forward toward negotiations and peace. In doing so, they can ensure that Israel will not find itself in a similarly untenable situation with respect to Gaza or any of its neighbors in the future.

Regardless of how one judges the Goldstone Report and its findings, the report serves as a clear reminder of both the horrors of war and the critical importance of President Barack Obama’s efforts to renew peace talks. Whatever Members of Congress may feel about the Gaza war or the Goldstone Report, the reality is that absent progress towards peace, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out and more lives are lost. We believe that H. Res. 867 does not serve the cause of peace and therefore, regrettably, cannot support it.

J Street focuses less on what’s wrong with the Goldstone resolution and more on what it wants to see in changes to the resolution, using language that largely tracks with the rest of the American Jewish lobby community in defense of Israel. In particular, the progressive organization says it favors a resolution that calls on the Obama administration to “veto in the [United Nations] Security Council any resolution which refers charges against Israel and Israelis to the International Criminal Court.” The full statement, after the jump.

J Street is unable to support House Resolution 867 regarding the Goldstone Commission report on Operation Cast Lead.

J Street would be able to support a resolution that:

· Recognizes the history of bias against Israel at the United Nations, the flaws in the original mandate to the Goldstone Commission and the dangers in pursuing resolutions in multilateral fora with a track record of anti-Israel bias;

· Condemns the series of one-sided resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council;

· Expresses support for the people of southern Israel who were traumatized by years of constant rocket and mortar fire as well as for the people of Gaza who are suffering greatly from the effects of both the military operation and the ongoing blockade of Gaza;

· Correctly acknowledges that the Commission’s original mandate was adjusted by Judge Goldstone himself and accepted by the Human Rights Council to include a focus on the conduct of both sides, and that the report included the first-ever exposure by a UN body of war crimes and human rights violations by Hamas;

· Calls on both the Palestinians and Israelis to launch independent investigations into their conduct during Operation Cast Lead;

· Calls on the US government to attempt to defeat in the General Assembly any resolution which unfairly focuses only on Israel and

· Calls on the US government to state unequivocally that it will veto in the Security Council any resolution which refers charges against Israel and Israelis to the International Criminal Court.

We urge members of the House to consider changes in the Resolution in line with the positions above and to call for independent investigations by both Israelis and Palestinians, adding their voices to those in Israel such as Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor.

J Street further urges the Obama Administration to make every effort to oppose and defeat the one-sided and biased resolution that is likely to be presented next week in the General Assembly and to work actively for the adoption of a better, balanced resolution. We urge the United States to make clear that it will use its veto to prevent any referral of this matter to the International Criminal Court.

Finally, we urge Congress to express support for the President’s efforts to prioritize swift resumption and conclusion of permanent status negotiations. No matter what happens at the United Nations, Israel’s future as a democratic home for the Jewish people depends on achieving a two-state solution before the window of opportunity closes and the Administration must urgently press forward toward a comprehensive regional peace.

Update: J Street emails to say that they’re not actually telling members to oppose the resolution, but rather to modify it a whole lot, along the lines described in the statement. I’ve modified this post, including the headline — which previously used the verb “Opposes” — as a result.