The Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), today called the premise of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict “deeply disturbing,” showing himself and his allies to be extremely out of the mainstream.

The vast majority of the questions that came up throughout the first round of questioning Chuck Hagel in his bid for Secretary of Defense related to Hagel’s stances on Israel and Iran, and his past statements on those issues. Many of those questions involved deliberate distortions of Hagel’s record. Inhofe started off the second round of questioning during the hearing with more of the same, but with the added twist of spurning the past decade of U.S. policy in solving the conflict.

“You made a statement that I strongly disagree with. You said that President Obama has been ‘the strongest Israel supporter since 1948′,” Inhofe said in the lead-off, continuing to criticize Obama for promoting the two-state solution:

INHOFE: But when you see statements coming out of the administration like “the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,” and they’ve come out with statements saying they believe that the borders with Israel and Palestine should be based on a 1967 border lines, these are statements that I think are very damaging. I can assure you that the leadership in Israel feels those statements are damaging.

Watch:

As Hagel attempted to tell Inhofe, the statements that the Ranking Member read off weren’t new or unique to the Obama administration, nor were they at all controversial. The U.S.’ adoption of the principle of two neighboring states as the final outcome of the conflict dates back to the first term of President George W. Bush. In a 2002 speech, Bush embraced the concept of an Israel and Palestine living peacefully side by side. The resulting “Road Map to Peace,” and several statements of support by the Quartet — composed of the European Union, Russia, United Nations, and U.S. — have been the basis for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians since.

The concept of “Land for Peace” goes back even further. As part of the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, in which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the United Nations passed Resolution 242 calling for a withdrawal of Israel to its previous borders. In exchange for this, Israel’s neighbors would declare end their hostility towards the state. That arrangement has yet to come into being but remain a crucial part of the negotiations between the parties. Complicating matters have been the increase of Israeli settlements, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the inability of the competing Palestinian factions to resolve their differences, causing a halt in talks.

All of this highlights just how far outside of the mainstream Hagel’s attackers are when it comes to Israel. Hagel, who has himself proven to be pro-Israel, would carry out the policies of President Obama once confirmed. Those policies have the backing of the international community and have been endorsed by such conservative stalwarts as the Heritage Foundation.

Former Republican senator Rick Santorum launched a campaign on Thursday to try to derail Chuck Hagel’s bid to become the next Secretary of Defense. Santorum — like many of his neocon allies — has problems with Hagel’s views on Iran and Israel. “[H]is confirmation would send a dangerous signal to Iran,” a fundraising letter from Santorum’s group Patriot Voices reads, adding that Hagel “disrespects” Israel.

The well-worn Hagel-hates-Israel-and-loves-Iran charges the neocons have been floating for a month now have been thoroughly discredited, so in the case of Santorum’s anti-Hagel campaign, it’s perhaps more beneficial to note the baseline point of view from where Santorum’s Hagel attacks are rooted. It’s Santorum who is out of the mainstream on these issues. Take a look:

IRAN

The bomb Iran “plan.” One year ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, Santorum said that if he became president, he’d demand that the Iranians open up all of their suspected nuclear program facilities or face “air strikes.” “You would order air strikes…?” host David Gregory asked. “Yes, that’s the plan,” Santorum replied.

Starting a war is preventing a war. This is how the Pennsylvania Republican justified his “plan” to attack Iran: “We’re trying to prevent a war.” He later said that bombing Iran won’t “start a war.”

Iran will use nuclear weapons. Santorum advanced the popular “martyr state myth” that Iran is incapable of engaging in diplomacy and hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons so it can actually use them. “They’re a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that — that the afterlife is better than this life” he said. “It is, in fact, an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon.”

Kill Iranian nuclear scientists? “[N]uclear scientists who work on that program…are enemy combatants similar to the Taliban and al-Qaeda,” Santorum said on the campaign trail in November, 2011.

Obama wants Iran to get nukes? Santorum floated a conspiracy theory that President Obama wanted allow Iran to get nuclear weapons in exchange for access to Iran’s oil.

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

One state solution? In November, 2011, Sanotrum said, “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians,” a position that effectively negates the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a plan that the mainstream in both the United States and Israel support.

Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Santorum attacked both Obama and Mitt Romney for refusing to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. The U.S. does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, a policy “that dates back to pre-1948, and has been followed by every U.S. Administration since, regardless of the President or party in the White House.” Officially doing so, as one top expert noted, “would be following Israel into abject isolation, and the United States into an weakened and marginal regional and global role.”

Americans don’t agree with Santorum’s positions on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinain conflict and as such, there’s no reason why they should give any credibility to his attacks on Hagel regarding these issues.

“Americans are broadly supportive of diplomacy as the most important tool in the U.S. national security toolbox, and exceedingly wary of more costly and unnecessary military interventions,” CAP’s Matt Duss wrote this week, adding, “The fact of the matter is, here in the future of 2013, it’s Hagel’s hawkish critics who are out of the mainstream.”

An Israeli think tank on Wednesday vigorously defended Chuck Hagel against right-wing smears that he is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and weak on Iran.

Molad, the Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, wrote in a report released today that Hagel’s nomination as the next Defense Secretary should not have anything to do with Israel, but the fact that Israel’s “self-anointed supporters” dragged the Jewish state into the debate, the group felt compelled to respond:

Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense is an internal American matter and, as such, should not involve Israel. In fact, the insertion of Israel into American political debates, often by its self-anointed supporters, does Israel a great disservice. Making it a partisan wedge or a hindrance on American interests harms Israel’s long-term interests. Having been dragged into the debate, Israelis deserve a truthful picture of Hagel’s views and his record, not the caricature painted by right-wing propagandists.

A candid inspection of the Senator’s record leaves no doubt about his support for Israel and his commitment to its security. Chuck Hagel is responsible, knowledgeable, and courageous when it comes to Middle East policy. Presenting his independence and refusal to toe the radical right’s party line as anti-Israel is demagoguery that serves neither the United States nor Israel.

The report pushes back, point-by-point, many of the neocons’ baseless charges against Hagel and concludes: “After examining his record on Israel, his credibility on national security, and his understanding of the region, we believe that those who have Israel’s real interest at heart should applaud his nomination for US Secretary of Defense.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday attacked former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, reportedly President Obama’s choice as the next Defense Secretary, calling him a “controversial pick” and suggesting that Hagel is out of the mainstream.

Graham’s evidence? He didn’t offer much in the way of specifics, of course. Rather, the South Carolina Republican claimed Hagel is “very antagonistic toward the state of Israel” (again, not saying how) and complained that Hagel said “you should directly negotiate with Iran” (we’re not sure why this is a bad thing. President Obama believes this as well) and that sanctions on Iran “won’t work.” Graham also cited the fact that Hagel has promoted talks with Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza. Watch the interview clip:

But is Hagel “antagonistic” toward Israel? Hardly. The Nebraska Republican has a history of strong support for Israel, as this blog recently noted. “At it’s core,” Hagel wrote in his book, America, Our Next Chapter, “there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel’s defense.”

But Graham is right. Hagel has supported negotiations with Iran. But so does President Obama and so do a majority of Americans. Hagel has indeed suggested that some sanctions on Iran are counterproductive but he has also supported sanctions on the Islamic Republic during his tenure in the Senate and in March, 2012, he said the U.S. should “keep ratcheting up the sanctions” and try to maintain the international coalition Obama has built against Iran. “Hagel’s positions [on Iran] may put him on the fringes of the Senate,” the Daily Beast’s Ali Gharib wrote last month, “but he’s firmly in the mainstream of expert opinion, from Israel to the Pentagon.”

And why does Graham attack Hagel for promoting talks with Hamas when Israel has negotiated with the terror group and high-level Israeli officials have said Israel should hold future talks? “People ask, why not talk with Hamas? There is nothing wrong, if you get a reply,” Israeli President Shimon Peres said last month. “We are willing to talk to Hamas, but they aren’t.” Moreover, former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy has for years advocated negotiating with Hamas.
Read more

A new poll by an Israeli newspaper has found that the majority of those surveyed support the creation of a Palestinian state but remain unconvinced that one is likely to come into existence.

Conducted by Israel Hayom, the poll asked 800 Israeli citizens whether they “support or oppose the idea of two states for two peoples, i.e. the creation of a Palestinian state independent from Israel.” Fifty-four percent of respondents were in favor of a Palestinian state, with only 38 percent opposed. The result in favor is down slightly from a survey published in December by Smith Research, which found that 62 percent of Israelis supported a two-state solution at the time.

Likewise, the new poll shows both concerns about the likelihood of a Palestinian state ever coming about and ambivalence towards the ever-expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In the case of the former, 54 percent of those polled believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is impossible. Support for settlements were almost exactly split in half, with 43 percent opposed and 43 percent in favor.

The split in the poll results may reflect the changing tone of Israeli politics. With a general election for the Knesset scheduled to take place in just a few weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Beitenu party remains set to take the plurality of seats in the new session. Right-wing parties are also due to hold the majority of seats over center and left-wing groups like the Labor and Liberal parties.

However, due to the coalition-making that is an ingrained part of Israeli political culture, Netanyahu may find himself pushed even further to the right on the issue of the West Bank. According to pre-election polling, pro-settlement party Jewish Home alone is poised to increase their allotment of the 120 seats in the Knesset from 3 to 14. Netanyahu’s Cabinet has already signed off on several controversial expansions of West Bank settlements, including the E1 section of the territory that may make a contiguous territory within the West Bank impossible for Palestine.

Furthering that trend would position Netanyahu and his future Cabinet for further scorn and condemnation from his allies around the world. The settlements also remain illegal in the eyes of international law and an obstacle in the path to a lasting peace deal, rendering the uncertainty of those surveyed valid.

Over the past few weeks, the Israeli government has received an enormous amount of criticism for its ramp-up of settlement projects in retaliation for the Palestinians’ successful effort to upgrade their status at the United Nations. It’s apparently gotten so serious that, at an Israeli Foreign Ministry conference last week, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor reportedly received a round of applause from his colleagues when he questioned the head of Israel’s National Security Council over the policy.

So it was a bit odd to read the Washington Post’s editorial today suggesting that criticism of the settlements is as much of a problem as the settlements themselves:

The criticism is appropriate, in the sense that such unilateral action by Israel, like the unilateral Palestinian initiative to seek statehood recognition in November from the U.N. General Assembly, serves to complicate the negotiations that are the only realistic route to a Middle East peace. But the reaction is also counterproductive because it reinforces two mistaken but widely held notions: that the settlements are the principal obstacle to a deal and that further construction will make a Palestinian state impossible. [...]

But it is also harmful, because it puts pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to make a “freeze” on the construction a condition for beginning peace talks. Mr. Abbas had hinted that he would finally drop that demand, which has prevented negotiations for most of the past four years, after the General Assembly’s statehood vote. If Security Council members are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood, they will press Mr. Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for intransigence — and cool their own overheated rhetoric.

There are a couple of seriously flawed moral equivalences on display here. First, let’s recognize that, the practical impact of the settlements on negotiations aside, there’s a strong international consensus that they are illegal. While people can disagree over the wisdom of Mahmoud Abbas’ decision to seek an upgrade in the Palestinians’ status at the U.N., there’s really no comparison between the Palestinians “unilaterally” seeking relief through international bodies and the Israelis unilaterally violating their commitments to those bodies.

Second, it’s quite true that settlements are not the only obstacle on the road to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Political divisions among Palestinians are also a serious problem. But it’s important to understand how continued settlement growth completely undermines moderate Palestinian leaders and empowers extremists who insist that the non-violent path is a dead end. “Each time he [Abbas] goes to the negotiating table, or appears to go to the negotiating table, he gets weaker,” Palestinian scholar Khaled Elgindy explained recently, “because he’s participating in a process that the vast majority of Palestinians consider to be a sham, they consider it to be a cover for ongoing settlement activity… [and] a way to perpetuate this occupation.” It shouldn’t be too hard to grasp why Abbas feels that he can’t re-enter negotiations in the absence of a settlement freeze, and the inability of some to do so speaks to an ongoing problem in U.S. media, wherein the limiting effects of Israeli domestic politics are granted enormous deference, while Palestinian domestic politics are barely recognized as existing at all.

As for the idea that criticizing settlements emboldens the Palestinians to hold out for a settlement freeze, I’d argue that the reverse is true: Downplaying the negative impact of settlements emboldens the Israelis to keep building them. (The Jerusalem Post has already posted its own editorial hailing the Washington Post’s editorial.) As Israeli settlement expert Danny Seidemann tweeted earlier today, “Ignoring [the] devastating impact of settlements on potential agreements is ‘Flat Earth Society’. [It's] taking the Zionist enterprise to [the] territorial cliff.” Today, the Washington Post helped push it a little further toward the edge.

(Photo: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

A bipartisan group of lawmakers are circulating a letter on Capitol Hill asking the White House to punish Palestinians for their successful statehood bid at the United Nations last month. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ed Royce (R-CA), Eliot Engel (D-CA), and Howard Berman (D-CA) have signed on to the letter imploring President Obama to shut down the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) office in Washington, D.C. and “call our Consul-General in Jerusalem home for consultations.” The letter, which is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, says to use “every means at our disposal to ensure that this General Assembly vote does not serve as a precedent for elevating the status of the PLO in other UN bodies or international forums.”

Ros-Lehtinen last month called for cutting aid to the Palestinian Authority in response to the statehood bid (a move that isn’t a very good idea). And a Senate amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last week would have done just that and also called on the U.S. to shut down the PLO’s diplomatic mission in the U.S.

CAP’s Matt Duss wrote that responses like these are mistaken and could potentially help groups like Hamas:

“U.S. policymakers and legislators should consider the words of several former Israeli officials who have come out in support of the Palestinian bid, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said in a recent interview that “the Palestinian request from the United Nations is congruent with the basic concept of the two-state solution. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose it.” Writing in Foreign Policy this week, former deputy Israeli defense minister Ephraim Sneh warned that efforts to punish [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and the Palestinian Authority over the U.N. bid — which would likely redound to the benefit of Abbas’ more hardline rivals in Hamas — “would be a shot not in the foot but in the liver — Israel’s.”

In the end, the Senate amendment did not make its way into the final Senate NDAA. Groups like J Street, who heavily opposed the amendment, celebrated the move, saying that closing the mission would be too extreme and is “usually reserved for instances in which the United States is responding to deadly acts committed against our country or citizens, or gross violations of human rights by the government in question.”

CAP’s Duss adds that “rather than punishing Mahmoud Abbas’s government for the U.N. effort, Congress should recognize the considerable work it has done in building institutions and creating security in the West Bank. Congress should also support the Obama administration in bringing Israelis and Palestinians back into a credible negotiating process, with clear terms of reference in which both sides are held accountable to their commitments.”

After Palestine was upgraded to a non-member observer state at the United Nations, members of both houses of Congress proposed legislation responding to the Palestinians’ U.N. statehood bid by cutting off American aid. However, cutting off aid would harm the prospects for peace and immiserate thousands of Palestinians.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) (who has done this before) was the first to call for defunding, followed shortly by two measures in the Senate. The proposals are essentially non-starters as they would also take away massive amounts of money from the U.N., a move Senate Democrats would most likely not allow to move forward.

A fourth proposal, amendment 3203 to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would only remove United States aid to the Palestinians in case any Palestinian authority brings a case at the International Criminal Court (a potential consequence of the U.N. upgrade). Regardless of whether or not one thinks the United States should seek to deter the Palestinians from going to the ICC, the blanket, automatic aid cutoff proposed in SA 3203 could have potentially devastating consequences. As CAP’s Matt Duss explains, diplomatic and financial support for the Palestinian Authority is a critical tool for bolstering the moderate Palestinian leadership vis-a-vis their hardline Hamas rivals:

U.S. policymakers and legislators should consider the words of several former Israeli officials who have come out in support of the Palestinian bid, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said in a recent interview that “the Palestinian request from the United Nations is congruent with the basic concept of the two-state solution. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose it.” Writing in Foreign Policy this week, former deputy Israeli defense minister Ephraim Sneh warned that efforts to punish Abbas and the Palestinian Authority over the U.N. bid — which would likely redound to the benefit of Abbas’ more hardline rivals in Hamas— “would be a shot not in the foot but in the liver — Israel’s.”

Threatening aid in retaliation for the widely popular U.N. bid would undermine the moderate leadership’s argument that diplomacy with Israel, and not force, is the best way to advance the Palestinian national cause. Passing SA 3203 would undermine America’s main goal in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — furthering a peace process towards a two-state solution.

It could also shatter the fragile Palestinian economy. Though Palestinian growth has averaged a massive 7.7 percent in recent years, that growth has been fueled by foreign economic assistance. Without foreign aid, the Palestinian Authority would be unable to pay for services and development projects, which is why the World Bank believes “it is imperative” that “donors maintain their support to the PA’s budget.” This situation is unfortunately likely to continue for the forseeable future, as the continued occupation makes sustainable, non-aid fueled growth difficult. Since the U.S. provides an enormous amount of non-military aid to the PA, and aid is already slowing down, further cuts could do serious harm to Palestinian economy, endangering both vulnerable Palestinians and the legitimacy of the moderate, economically-focused Fatah leadership.

Perhaps for these reasons, the White House is not supporting any sort of “punishment” for the Palestinian bid at the United Nations.