It is more than ironic that at the very moment when the US is pressing Arab States to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel (including measures like: opening airspace to Israeli overflights, exchange of commercial offices, and issuing visas for business and cultural exchange), the government of Israel has taken new measures to further restrict the rights of American citizens visiting Israel and the Occupied Palestinian lands.

According to an August, 14 2009 Department of State "Travel Warning", "In June 2009, the Israeli government began selectively limiting certain travelers to either the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, or to Israel and Jerusalem."

As described by an advocacy group working on these issues, here's how the new policy works. "Israeli border officials have begun using a new entry permit stamped with the words "Palestinian Authority only." In addition, some foreign nationals have been issued 'Israel only' permits or have been required to sign a statement which commits them not to enter the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled areas of the West Bank under penalty of legal action."

In response to questioning about these Israeli practices at State Department briefings, official spokespersons have responded that "we have let the Government of Israel know that these restrictions unfairly impact Palestinian and Arab American travelers and are not acceptable", and have added, on other occasions, that the U.S. "regrets"
and "disagrees" with these measures.

Having worked on issues relating to Israel's treatment of Arab Americans for over three decades now, I must say "not good enough."

I have received harrowing accounts of the impact of these Israeli policies:

* an American family with four children trapped in Gaza and unable to leave;

* other Americans who are in the West Bank, having entered through the Allenby Bridge, but because they hold non-refundable airline tickets de... [Read More]

When Benyamin Netanyahu last came to Washington as Prime Minister of Israel the setting was quite different. Back then, President Bill Clinton was distracted, beset by scandals that culminated in his impeachment. Republicans, who had formed a partnership with Netanyahu’s Likud party in opposition to both Clinton and the Labor Party-led Oslo Peace Process, were in control of both houses of Congress. And while many American Jews were uncomfortable with Netanyahu’s anti-peace posture, there were only faint voices heard in opposition to his policies.

What a difference a decade can make.

In 2009, Netanyahu met a US President who had won election by a handsome margin, and whose victory helped his party expand their control over both the Senate and the House of Representatives. A popular President, Obama has wind in his sails, and has demonstrated both the vision and commitment to make real change on many issues—including the Middle East.

At their White House press briefing last week, Netanyahu may have been stubborn, but Obama, too, held his ground. Addressing his remarks directly to the cameras, the US President lectured Netanyahu about the steps that must be taken: “all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations they previously agreed to,” “settlements have to be stopped,” “if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water…if the border closures are so tight it is impossible for reconstruction or humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for [the] peace track to move forward,” and much more.

But it wasn’t only a new and tougher President that Netanyahu ran into last week, it was also a very different Jewish community. A recent poll of American Jews commissioned by J Street, the Jewish pro-peace lobby, found that substantial majorities of American Jews (in the 70% range) support President Obama and support a two-state solution that includes a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem ... [Read More]

By Dr. James Zogby
Posted on Tuesday May 26, 2009

When Benyamin Netanyahu last came to Washington as Prime Minister of Israel the setting was quite different. Back then, President Bill Clinton was distracted, beset by scandals that culminated in his impeachment. Republicans, who had formed a partnership with Netanyahu’s Likud party in opposition to both Clinton and the Labor Party-led Oslo Peace Process, were in control of both houses of Congress. And while many American Jews were uncomfortable with Netanyahu’s anti-peace posture, there were only faint voices heard in opposition to his policies.

What a difference a decade can make.

In 2009, Netanyahu met a US President who had won election by a handsome margin, and whose victory helped his party expand their control over both the Senate and the House of Representatives. A popular President, Obama has wind in his sails, and has demonstrated both the vision and commitment to make real change on many issues—including the Middle East.

At their White House press briefing last week, Netanyahu may have been stubborn, but Obama, too, held his ground. Addressing his remarks directly to the cameras, the US President lectured Netanyahu about the steps that must be taken: “all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations they previously agreed to,” “settlements have to be stopped,” “if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water…if the border closures are so tight it is impossible for reconstruction or humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for [the] peace track to move forward,” and much more.

But it wasn’t only a new and tougher President that Netanyahu ran into last week, it was also a very different Jewish community. A recent poll of American Jews commissioned by J Street, the Jewish pro-peace lobby, found that substantial majorities of American Jews... [Read More]

In the days leading up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first visit to Washington, a mini-drama, of sorts, has been playing out.

The Obama Administration has made clear its intention to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is pressing the Israeli Prime Minister to accept this formula for peace. But because this is an outcome that Netanyahu has, up until now, been loathe to accept, he is using the time leading up to his first visit to Washington, to maneuver for position. It will be a steep hill for him to climb, because the Administration, has been sending repeated signals indicating its concern.

Secretary of State Clinton, for example, has been critical of Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and of home demolition in East Jerusalem. According to reports, she was deeply troubled by conditions she witnessed on the West Bank (the wall, checkpoints, and choking of Palestinian communities). In congressional testimony, she echoed the Administration’s view that U.S. assistance to the Palestinians should continue in the advent of a unity government, with the proviso that the individual members of that government respect the Quartet conditions. And she cleverly turned the tables on Netanyahu, who had been insisting on an “Iran First” approach, when she told a congressional hearing that “ for Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-à-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand.”

For his part, Rahm Emmanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff, has also been quite clear. Last month, in comments to Yedioth Ahronoth, Emmanuel said that “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”

This week, in r... [Read More]

Washington Watch

Archives

First Impressions Count

By Dr. James Zogby
Posted on Monday May 4, 2009

One hundred days do not make a Presidency. But that didn’t stop the media circus that unfolded last week. Major networks and newspapers designed “one hundred day logos,” created “scorecards,” and devoted unending coverage to an evaluation of the President’s performance.

The White House continued to insist that the one hundredth day was a day like any other. Nevertheless, determined not to let the story spin out of control, the President held a prime time news conference, ensuring that the White House stamp would be on the stories of the day.

In a sense, the White House was right. The first three months of a Presidency do not provide enough data to predict the long term success or failure of an Administration. But like any other artificially imposed metric, the one hundred day measure (which has been used since the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933), can be useful, if for no other reason than to allow an early assessment of performance, ascertaining patterns of behavior, organization, and style of governance. Like other first impressions, it may prove wrong, but it sets a tone, and, rightly or wrongly, influences later judgments.

During the long 2008 campaign, we learned a great deal about Barack Obama. He set a determined course of action, and with a discipline, unmatched by his initially better known and more experienced rivals, he won. He appeared unflappable, even in the face of unexpected challenges that threatened to derail his candidacy.

He promised to tackle big problems making major changes, leaving no challenge unmet. Recall how during the early days of the financial crisis, when faced with the collapse of the nation’s lending institutions, John McCain suspended his campaign, announcing he was returning to Washington in an effort to impact Congress’ handling of t... [Read More]

By Dr. James Zogby

Posted on Sunday April 26, 2009

The American electorate is deeply divided on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views on the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the U.S. ought to play.

This is the most startling finding of a Zogby International interactive survey conducted in April, 2009, for the Doha Debates, a BBC-TV program emanating from Doha, Qatar. The survey engaged 4,230 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.

The survey found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts U.S. interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state.

Overall, the survey established that, while favorable attitudes toward Israel remain strong, pluralities of Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to “get tough” with Israel on settlements, and “steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians.”

These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate.

Attitudes toward U.S.-Israeli Relations

Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But, are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the U.S.? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the U.S. is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same.... [Read More]

 In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court decision ending the 2000 election, my brother, John Zogby, polled Democrats and Republicans, asking each whether or not they would respect the outcome of the contest and view as “legitimate” the presidency of either George W. Bush or Al Gore. Two-thirds of Democrats said that, despite their misgivings about the process, they would still respect the outcome and see Bush as the “legitimate” president. Less than one-third of Republicans said that they would respect Gore as “legitimate.”

Based on this finding, John expressed concern, at the time, that should Gore be declared the winner, Republicans would mount a rather strident opposition, doing their best to obstruct his presidency.

In any case, the Supreme Court ruled in Bush’s favor and Gore, ever the statesman, conceded, urging his supporters to unify the country. And so, despite hard feelings about the way the GOP had hounded Bill Clinton, almost derailing his presidency with endless investigations and an impeachment, and the ugliness and heat of the post-election drama, Democrats accepted the Bush presidency. While not supporting his entire agenda, some Democrats even gave Bush the votes he needed to pass controversial legislation on taxes, education, prescription drug reform, and then the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq.

After ten years as the dominant force in Congress, Republicans lost control of both houses in the 2006 election. And then, in 2008, their eight-year hold on the White House came to an end. Barack Obama’s victory, unlike the contests of 2000 and 2004, was neither close nor controversial. It was decisive. Nevertheless, it appears from their behavior, Republicans simply refuse to accept the fact that they have lost the White House and Congress. Their rhetoric is harsh and unyielding. In Congress, they have largely voted as a bloc against the new President’s agenda. More troubling, still, has been the degree to which extremist “n... [Read More]