Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements. Let me say to all the people of the region and world: our commitment to achieving a solution with two states living side by side in peace and security is unwavering.

Clinton created a great deal of outrage in the Arab world after she called a previous offer from Netanyahu that came far short of a total freeze “unprecedented.” This reply is far more restrained.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just released this statement:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

But your post mentions a couple times the possibility of Hamas running in elections. You’re missing something (though you’re in good company). They can’t run.  They are barred by Abbas’s decree law on elections.  Not by name, but still pretty explicitly: nobody can run who doesn’t certify his/her acceptance of some things that Hamas won’t accept.  Those provisions were inserted precisely to keep Hamas from running.

This is, by the way, another case of blindness to Palestinian domestic politics.  The reason elections are unlikely is because they would be deeply unpopular unless they would be based on national reconciliation.  They would give nobody in Ramallah any legitimacy and would probably cost them dearly.

Since the June 2007 fighting in Gaza, it’s been pretty clear that there couldn’t be elections unless Hamas and Fatah agree, the US supports them, and Israel acquiesces.  And that’s a tough series of hoops.  The most likely course, by the way, is for the Central Elections Commission to report to Abbas that they don’t think they can carry out elections. He then regretfully reports that while he is a good democrat, Hamas is not. And he throws the problem to the PLO to appoint a president (and get rid of the parliament where Hamas still has a majority).  I don’t know who that president will be—we’ll hear what Abbas has to say about that soon—but I would guess Abbas himself is still the most likely option.

A likely consequence is that Hamas — which formally rejects a two-state solution to the conflict and with which Israel is, to put it mildly, extremely reluctant to negotiate — will benefit if next year’s scheduled elections go forward. Abbas is now polling even with Hamas’ Ismael Haniyeh for the presidency. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress continues to denounce and reject Goldstone, with little attention paid to the consequences of such a stance for the alternative to Hamas in Palestinian politics.

I asked my friend Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine for his perspective on the Obama administration’s relationship with the Palestinians — over Goldstone and beyond — and he emailed me a typically insightful and judicious reply:

I think they also showed a very profound lack of understanding about how what they were asking the PLO to do diplomatically would play out domestically in Palestine in the context of the lack of a settlement freeze and actually the lack of anything specifically concrete the PA could point to as positive benefits deriving from the PLO’s diplomatic strategy of maximum cooperation with the Obama administration. To be fair, the administration has had to balance a lot of different factors while trying to pressure both Israel and the Palestinians to come to terms when there are tremendous domestic political obstacles to either of them actually doing that.

I do think the administration understood to some extent the problem the PA found itself in because the attitude, at least in Geneva, of US representatives towards the Goldstone report softened somewhat after the uproar in Palestine and the Arab world, and I think they’ve shown some understanding of the Palestinian position. However, they seem to decided now is the time to tack towards easing pressure on Israel and turning pressure towards the Palestinians, possibly partly motivated by displeasure on Goldstone but probably more because they want the Palestinians to return to negotiations without insisting on a complete settlement freeze which they have come to understand they are not going to get out of Netanyahu. Overall, I think this administration is more sensitive to the needs of its Palestinian partners than any of its predecessors, but I think the United States in general has a long way to go in realizing how much it shapes the Palestinians it will be dealing with and how much every little detail determines who will be in power in Palestinian society. I think we are inching towards a better understanding of that, but it obviously hasn’t been fully digested yet or things would have gone somewhat differently than they have.

Hussein thinks there just won’t be elections next year. That’s how serious the consequences of this episode are — though he points out that Hamas’ unpopularity means that it won’t necessarily benefit from the damage inflicted on Abbas’ Fatah party. Yet the Goldstone debacle seems to be barely discussed in the United States, a chasm in the story the size of the political and humanitarian problems in Gaza.

Some aspects of the resolution and Goldstone’s letter cannot be reconciled. The resolution says that “Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and pre-screening some of the witnesses and intimidating others.” Goldstone replied that the allegation is “devoid of truth and I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.”

For a thorough and judicious reading of both the resolution and Goldstone’s letter, see this Ron Kampeas post.

The Ros-Lehtinen/Berman resolution currently has 124 co-sponsors, and unless something changes before close of business today, it should come up for debate on Tuesday. Weil said, “Chairman Berman expects to issue a complete response to Judge Goldstone” before the House considers the resolution.

Update: This item has been changed. I misunderstood Weil to say that the staffers were discussing prospective changes to the resolution text based on Goldstone; in fact, they’re just discussing the letter, and anything beyond that is premature. My apologies to Weil.

The resolution — drafted by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.)  — which condemns Goldstone’s work in very harsh terms, is sure to generate controversy in Congress, within the Obama administration and among peace watchers.

Full text of the resolution after the jump.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 867

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose
unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report
of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in
multilateral fora.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 23, 2009

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and
Mr. ACKERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

________________________________

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose
unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report
of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in
multilateral fora.

Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council
passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding
mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against
violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and
January 18, 2009;

Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by
one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all
violations of international human rights law and International
Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . .
particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current
aggression’;

Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of
the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the
thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other
violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel,
that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;

Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before
joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing
atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on
January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s
actions `war crimes’;

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern
to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which
refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic
of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many
distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;

Whereas, on September 15, 2009, the `United Nations Fact Finding
Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ released its report;

Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated
determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked
civilians during Operation Cast Lead;

Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself,
admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the
problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and
second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding
officers `in the fog of war.’;

Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward,
Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding
Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to
the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of
law, there would have been nothing proven.’;

Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to
self-defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to
defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed
against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign
Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;

Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government
of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and
other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;

Whereas the report usually considered public statements made by
Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving
uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the `Gaza
authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas;

Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other
violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and
civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as
shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that
claim;

Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not
consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a
human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen,
against [the Israeli military]‘ specifically to `constitute evidence
that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives
against attack.’;

Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the
investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of
the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when
it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak
about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian
armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;

Whereas even though Israel is a vibrant democracy with a vigorous and
free press, the report of the `fact-finding mission’ erroneously
asserts that `actions of the Israeli government . . . have contributed
significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the
government and its actions . . . is not tolerated’;

Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations Human Rights
Council endorse its recommendations, implement them, review their
implementation, and refer the report to the United Nations Security
Council, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the
United Nations General Assembly for further action;

Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations Security Council–

(1) require the Government of Israel to launch further investigations
of its conduct during Operation Cast Lead and report back to the
Security Council within six months;

(2) simultaneously appoint an `independent committee of experts’ to
monitor and report on any domestic legal or other proceedings
undertaken by the Government of Israel within that six-month period;
and

(3) refer the case to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court after that six-month period;

Whereas the report recommended that the United Nations General
Assembly consider further action on the report and establish an escrow
fund, to be funded entirely by the State of Israel, to `pay adequate
compensation to Palestinians who have suffered loss and damage’ during
Operation Cast Lead;

Whereas the report ignored the issue of compensation to Israelis who
have been killed or wounded, or suffered other loss and damage, as a
result of years of past and continuing rocket and mortar attacks by
Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian
targets in southern Israel;

Whereas the report recommended `that States Parties to the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 start criminal investigations [of Operation Cast
Lead] in national courts, using universal jurisdiction’ and that
`following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and
prosecuted’;

Whereas the concept of `universal jurisdiction’ has frequently been
used in attempts to detain, charge, and prosecute Israeli and United
States officials and former officials in connection with unfounded
allegations of war crimes and has often unfairly impeded the travel of
those individuals;

Whereas the State of Israel, like many other free democracies, has an
independent judicial system with a robust investigatory capacity and
has already launched numerous investigations, many of which remain
ongoing, of Operation Cast Lead and individual incidents therein;

Whereas Libya and others have indicated that they intend to further
pursue consideration of the report and implementation of its
recommendations by the United Nations Security Council, the United
Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and
other multilateral fora;

Whereas the President instructed the United States Mission to the
United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva to vote
against resolution A-HRC-S-12-1, which endorsed the report and
condemned Israel, at the special session of the Human Rights Council
held on October 15-16, 2009;

Whereas, on September 30, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
described the mandate for the report as `one-sided’;

Whereas, on September 17, 2009, Ambassador Susan Rice, United States
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, expressed the United
States’ `very serious concern with the mandate’ and noted that the
United States views the mandate `as unbalanced, one-sided and
basically unacceptable’;

Whereas the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the
Gaza Conflict’ reflects the longstanding, historic bias at the United
Nations against the democratic, Jewish State of Israel;

Whereas the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the
Gaza Conflict’ is being exploited by Israel’s enemies to excuse the
actions of violent militant groups and their state sponsors, and to
justify isolation of and punitive measures against the democratic,
Jewish State of Israel;

Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council
voted 25-6 (with 11 states abstaining and 5 not voting) to adopt
resolution A-HRC-S-12-1, which endorsed the `Report of the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ and condemned
Israel, without mentioning Hamas, other such violent militant groups,
or their state sponsors; and

Whereas efforts to delegitimize the democratic State of Israel and
deny it the right to defend its citizens and its existence can be used
to delegitimize other democracies and deny them the same right: Now,
therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) considers the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission
on the Gaza Conflict’ to be irredeemably biased and unworthy of
further consideration or legitimacy;

(2) supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias
at the United Nations, its characterization of the `Report of the
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ as
`unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable’, and its opposition
to the resolution on the report;

(3) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to continue to
strongly and unequivocally oppose any endorsement of the `Report of
the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in
multilateral fora;

(4) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to strongly and
unequivocally oppose any further consideration of the `Report of the
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ and any
other measures stemming from this report in multilateral fora; and

(5) reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish State of Israel,
for Israel’s security and right to self-defense, and, specifically,
for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups
and their state sponsors.

Update, 7:52 a.m., Friday, Oct. 30: I should have seen that Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard posted link to the resolution last week, so apologies to him. Also, I’ve changed the headline to reflect that Goldstone also criticized Hamas.

National Security Adviser James Jones (WDCpix)

Granting recognition to a new American Jewish lobby group pressing for peace between Israel and the Arab world, ret. Gen. James Jones, President Obama’s national security adviser, said that resolving the 60-year conflict was the crisis that the Obama administration would prioritize if it could “solve any one problem.”

Jones sharpened the Obama administration’s conception of an end-state to the conflict during a keynote address to the first annual conference held by J Street, the year-old “pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby,” calling for a “secure, Jewish state of Israel” side by side with a “viable, contiguous state of Palestine” that “ends the occupation began in 1967 and unleashes the full potential of the Palestinian people.” No previous U.S. administration has emphasized the essentially Jewish character of Israel or the need for Palestinian territorial contiguity, both of which speak to deep-seated concerns of both sides in the conflict.

The formulation streamlines one unveiled by Obama at the United Nations General Assembly in September and was one Jones recently used in a keynote address to the American Task Force on Palestine, a Palestinian lobby group also seeking a two-state solution, on Oct. 16. And that reflects an emerging strategy of the Obama administration: to cultivate ties with groups within the American Jewish and Arab-American communities to support a two-state solution, at a time when few believe the prospects for peace look bright, to demonstrate both to a skittish Congress and to the international community that there is a robust American political constituency for ending the conflict. Calling himself “honored” to keynote the first J Street conference, Jones pledged founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former Clinton White House staffer, “You can be sure this administration will be represented at all future conferences.”

Image by: Matt Mahurin

J Street said it expected the attacks, as it emerged in April 2008 specifically to challenge the more traditional Israel lobby groups — referred by some in the American Jewish peace community as the “status quo lobby” — by providing a more explicitly vocal presence in the American Jewish community for peace. One of J Street’s founders, Daniel Levy, said he believed the presence of Jones and the retention of 148 members of Congress on the host committee show that it has attracted political strength in its year-long existence.

“The smear campaign” represents “business as usual” for many right-wing American Jewish organizations, said Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. “It represents a frustration that [J Street] has clearly gained traction, has a following and is going to keep growing. It has legitimacy with Israel, it has legitimacy with the American Jewish community, and it has legitimacy in the corridors of American political power” including with the Obama administration, “with the presence of Gen. Jones.”

The conference, held at the Grand Hyatt in downtown Washington, attracted 1,500 attendees from around the country and Israel. Speakers included current and former members of the Israeli parliament, including former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, Security-Service Chief Ami Ayalon, former Defense Minister Amir Peretz and former Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, all members of the peace camp in Israeli politics. J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said the gathering, which began Sunday night and ends Wednesday, “feels very historic” and might be “the largest gathering of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” in the United States to date.

Jones echoed J Street’s view of Israel’s interest in ending the conflict in his address. “I’m here to tell you, without equivocation, Israel’s security and peace in the Middle East are inseparable,” he said. He called on Israel and the Palestinians to “relaunch negotiations without pre-conditions,” urged Palestinian leaders to “combat incitement” against Israel” and urged Israeli leaders to “stop settlement growth [and] dismantle outposts” for settlement in the West Bank.

On diplomacy with Iran, an urgent concern for many in the American Jewish community, Jones said that in the wake of the revelation of Iran’s undisclosed nuclear facility at Qom, there was an emerging “consensus around the globe moving in our direction” that Iran must reassure the international community that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon or face internationally enforced penalties. “Nothing is off the table,” Jones said.

Another speaker, Robert Wexler, the Florida Democratic congressman who recently announced his resignation to direct a non-governmental organization seeking peace and Palestinian economic development, said it was “logical” that if Obama could make progress on nuclear diplomacy with Iran, a reassured Israeli leadership would “take greater risks for peace” with the Palestinians and the Arab world.

Calling it a “great honor” to address the J Street conference, Jones concluded by saying that by securing a lasting peace with the Palestinians — and thereby removing an excuse for radicalization in the region that threatens U.S. interests — “we will strengthen the unshakable bond between the U.S. and Israel that has endured for 60 years.”

J Street has been the target of a campaign of delegitimization from some of the more traditional Israel lobby groups, particularly the groups’ rightward flank, which hold that J Street’s pursuit of peace during a hawkish Netanyahu administration make it suspect or inauthentically pro-Israel. Twelve members of Congress cancelled their affiliation with the J Street host committee — leaving a mere rump of 148 members of Congress. “It feels very historic,” said Amy Spitalnick, a J Street spokeswoman, about the conference’s political credibility, backed by over 1,500 attendees. “It’s the largest gathering of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” to date.

“We solved the matter of the settlements with the Americans,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Israeli daily Haaretz cites Zapatero.

“I cannot say more than that. If you are interested in hearing more details, ask in Washington,” Netanyahu added.

Oh really? At the same time, the Arab side is already expressing concern that all this means the Obama administration team is moving too far in the Israeli direction. Marc Lynch tweets that an Arabic-language al-Jazeera report, citing Palestinian Authority sources, is putting out there that President Obama is “backing away” from a Palestinian state. I’m pretty skeptical of that, particularly since Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed last month that the administration will “never give up” seeking a “comprehensive peace agreement premised on the two-state solution.” But it’s hardly clear what the administration considers the details of that accord to be, or what comes first in its achievement — the agreements made at Annapolis in 2007; or Netanyahu’s Palestine-borders-and-economy-first preferences; or what? Perhaps this is a Palestinian attempt to use the media to kick the administration into gear; in any event, the newschannel reports an announcement to come on Friday.

Meanwhile, Jordanian King Abdullah II tells Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper that the two-state solution is “getting farther away,” and he’s surprised that Obama hadn’t made more progress by now:

“I’ve heard people in Washington talking about Iran, again Iran, always Iran,” Abdullah was quoted as saying. “But I insist on, and keep insisting on the Palestinian question: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most serious threat to the stability of the region and the Mediterranean.”