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.

“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

This, for instance, won’t go over well:

Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

Now, people who don’t obsessively follow Israeli politics will probably read Peled’s description of Obama’s positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and ask what’s so controversial about asking Israel to “stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state,” all of which are either longstanding international obligations or principles that previous Israeli governments have accepted in writing. And they’ll probably really not like to read that a foreign government and ally believes it should intervene in U.S. elections in order to weaken the popular president so he won’t compel that ally to act on such longstanding international obligations. As for American Jews, about 77 percent of us voted for Obama. And when a Politico story suggested that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) might face a conservative-Jewish-sponsored primary challenger because of her outspoken views on peace, the progressive Jewish lobby group J Street raised $15,000 for her in four hours.

Farley, in patient terms, outlines why Israel has so much more to lose from this than the United States does, which is so obvious that it means Peled is shouting into the wind here. Netanyahu isn’t foolish enough to act on this memo, since his longtime closeness with the America means he understands that Israel’s indispensable diplomatic asset is its U.S. ally.

So there’s only the slimmest mathematical possibility that anything Peled suggests here going to become reality. The question is why he would allow a letter so damaging to U.S.-Israeli relations to become public. If Netanyahu’s trying to play an inside-outside game, he may want to think twice about the consequences for Israel of causing needless U.S. acrimony.

J Street commends President Barack Obama on restating today his commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his serious intent to pursue a viable and sustainable resolution to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.

Peace and security for Israel and the Middle East will require more than half-steps and further process. It requires the United States to, as the President said, “roll up our sleeves” and be seriously engaged in the diplomatic process.

J Street hopes that Prime Minister Netanyahu will act boldly and wisely in partnership with President Obama to make peace not simply with the Palestinians but with the entire Muslim and Arab worlds, as discussed by both leaders today.

Progress will require serious American leadership, full Israeli and Palestinian commitment, a regional approach and international engagement. As the President made clear, progress toward Israeli-Arab peace will help Israel, the United States and our allies to deal seriously with the threat posed by Iran.

Today’s meeting was a first step on a difficult road that must be navigated skillfully and quickly before time runs out on the two-state solution and Israel is forced to choose between its democratic nature and its Jewish heritage.

President Obama should know that the majority of American Jews support the direction he outlined and his commitment to actively pursue peace and security. We welcome as well his forceful statements that settlements must be stopped, Palestinian violence and weapons smuggling must end and the humanitarian situation in Gaza must be addressed.

But the Amelekites will KILL US ALL!!!1!