Mideast Peace Pulse

IPF Letter in The New York Times

Israel Policy Forum — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:09:39 -0400

To the Editor:

Re “Peace Without Partners,” by Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher (Op-Ed, April 24):

It is sobering yet productive that three distinguished Israelis are generating ideas despite the unfortunate but realistic conclusion that “a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now.”

Too many advocates of the two-state solution have given up altogether. Others have moved to the left-wing fringe, mistakenly convinced that the current deadlock can be overcome only through coercive pressure tactics.

The writers have instead moved to the center, offering a measured, pragmatic proposal that recognizes — but does not become paralyzed by — the obstacles to a peace agreement.

The two-state solution remains the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Keeping it alive in today’s political environment will require ideas like these that pursue what is possible, not what is ideal.

DAVID A. HALPERIN
Exec. Director, Israel Policy Forum
New York, April 24, 2012

In Meeting, A Chance for A Regional Approach

The Pulse — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:41:31 -0500

Today, President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after weeks of speculation about how the two countries will address the threat of Iran potentially obtaining nuclear weapons, and with little expectation for progress on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. However, the Iranian threat – coupled with the historic changes of governments across the Middle East – could actually serve as a strategic opportunity for these leaders to address Iran while advancing regional democratic efforts alongside Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In the United States, the upcoming presidential elections will keep domestic legislation from moving forward. But while domestic efforts are made fruitless by uncooperative political agendas, the Obama administration still can act with relatively greater liberty in the international arena. And on the Iranian question, neither the Obama administration – nor Israel – can afford to ignore the issue until after the U.S. presidential election.

Actively addressing the threat means mobilizing an international community that has acknowledged the issue, but has been reluctant to act. Still, the dangers of a nuclear Iran are now beginning to be understood, even by nations like Russia and China. The creation of a regional nuclear arms race, and an emboldened Iran serving as an ideological pillar of fundamentalist Islam, would have lasting consequences on the nascent democratic movements that sprouted across the region just one year ago. Already Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have indicated their intention to acquire nuclear arms if Iran will obtains one. Stalling to act could fatally endanger democratization in the region and tarnish the legacies of all leaders who enabled such developments, whether Arab, Israeli or American.

If Iran succeeds in becoming a nuclear-armed regional power, it would be a colossal setback for the U.S., Israel and the Sunni world, whose ever-present and centuries-long feud with Shi’ah Islam cannot be understated.

Recent actions taken by the often-confrontational Arab League indicate a significant – and encouraging – change of mindset. The Arab League’s unprecedentedly bold maneuvers in Libya, Yemen and Syria suggest that this body could be utilized in new and creative ways.

While the Arab Peace Initiative has been all but forgotten, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu should use their meeting to begin to develop a dialogue regarding ways to encourage this motivated Arab League to re-endorse the initiative as part of an incentive package of democratization assistance and strategic measures aimed at security assurances against an emboldened Iran.

Prime Minister Netanyahu primary concern is the threat from Iran. Israel’s ability to militarily prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon appears limited. But Netanyahu’s personal conviction to address the threat leads us to believe that he would do everything he can to find a solution to eliminate it.

Meanwhile, for President Obama to garner the kind of international support necessary to institute the kind of measures that could impede Iran’s development of nuclear weapons – including from the Sunni Arab world – he must begin to deliver some form of progress on Arab-Israeli peace.

This past summer Netanyahu turned down Obama’s proposal for a border agreement with the Palestinians. But with expectations reduced on the Palestinian question, now could be an opportune moment to privately reintroduce an improved – and more politically practical – border arrangement linked to the Arab Peace Initiative, calling for delayed implementation for as much as sixty months. This agreement would be largely based on the understandings achieved by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the fall of 2008, as revealed by document leaks to Al Jazeera. Such a formulation would enable Israelis and Palestinians time to deal with their own political realities while injecting life into a regionally-oriented effort.

The Obama Administration should encourage Congress to assist this effort by providing an unequivocal declaration of support for Israel and US Arab allies should Iran act with military force against either. Perhaps most importantly, such a step would signal that the United States and Israel are approaching the region in a holistically strategic manner.

Expectations are high for the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu when it comes to the Iranian question, but low when it comes to the Palestinian question. But confronting the former effectively requires finding a mechanism to address the latter. This meeting presents an occasion for the American and Israeli leaders to develop a well-executed and coordinated international policy. The fear of the consequences of a nuclear Iran in the region should serve as a catalyst to mobilize the region, not to paralyze it.

-- David Avital is Board Member of the Israel Policy Forum (IPF).
-- David A. Halperin is the Program Director and Interim Executive Director of IPF

The Right Balance on Iran

Israel Policy Forum — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:22:24 -0500

Israel Policy Forum applauds President Barack Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security outlined in his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

President Obama stated that “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment,” and that “I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.” In doing so, the President not only sent an important, tough message to Iran, but also a reassuring one to Israel.

That reassurance is critical for the United States and Israel to build on the close security and military cooperation they share in addressing the unprecedented threat to Israel’s existence posed by an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian threat is a complex one in which no options should be unavailable to US or Israeli policymakers. In this regard, President Obama struck the right balance. We at IPF agree that “we all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.” The use of force clearly must be a last resort. However, an effective “carrot and stick” approach requires mobilizing the international community in a concerted diplomatic effort while maintaining the commitment to Israel - and the world community - to pursue a credible military option in a timely fashion should the diplomatic effort fail.

It also requires close US-Israeli cooperation behind closed doors — not in the media with the kind of loose talk of war that has too-often characterized the discussion of this issue in recent weeks and months.

Neither Israelis nor Americans want war. But citizens of both countries expect their leaders to recognize the urgency of this issue and to address it with the kind of vigilance and prudence required to ensure their security. We must support efforts to push for a concerted, international diplomatic effort. We hope it will succeed. But we must be fully prepared to support the taking of military actions should those efforts fail.

Alon Pinkas: On Iran and the Obama-Netanyahu Summit

Israel Policy Forum — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:37:21 -0500

Steven L. Spiegel: We want to talk today about the upcoming Netanyahu Obama meeting. Let’s start it off. It seems to me this is a big deal, especially given the situation in Iran and in American politics. What do you think planners are talking about?

Alon Pinkas: Well, that’s a good question because this meeting has been labeled as a crucial meeting and some people went as far as to call it a showdown. That goes to the heart of whatever differences there seem to be on questions of policy and timing of policy toward Iran. Now I think that both gentleman, both leaders, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are walking into this meeting wishing it did not take place on the one hand, but on the other hand they understand that in terms of the timing his meeting has to take place because there seems to be one major rift. That is the U.S. seems to be unequivocally cautious and clearly against an Israeli strike, a military strike, against Iran at this point. On the other hand, Israel is exuding an aura – or at least emitting an aura or an impression – that a strike may be inevitable because sanction probably will not work and that Israel should go at it with or without the US. The meeting may very well take the shape and form of a President asking the Prime Minister “what exactly do you have on your mind?”, and the Prime Minister asking the President “what do you want me to say?, I am not clear on your policy.” This has all the ingredients of misunderstandings and a less than positive meeting, that’s one way it could go.

Let’s first talk about Netanyahu and then Obama. When Israel attacked Osirak, the Iraqi nuclear installation, and then in 2007, the Syrian installation, there was complete silence—it came out of the blue. In fact, the Bush administration had leaked that Israelis had done it and Israelis were quiet. Now, the Israelis have talked and talked and talked. Therefore, if Netanyahu’s policy is to get the world to increase sanctions, be tougher and get the US to do more on a covert level, the policy has been brilliant. But if the policy is to develop a background and basis for an attack, it has backfired, as all the talk has made most of the world even more opposed to an Israeli attack. What is going on here between Netanyahu and Obama?

I agree with both premises that you presented, and will add another. That is that there is a good chance, we will never know for sure – until memoirs come out in 10-15 or 20 years or documents indeed come out in 40 years – but there is a chance that at some level Israel has threatened attacks so much and has exhausted the concept of deterrence so much that Israel will be forced to attack because the absence or the lack of an absence of refraining from an attack is not going to be a good thing, meaning that Israel never meant to attack but was kind of “wag the dog” into an attack, so to speak.

Now you take these three premises, and you are trying to simplify what looks to be an extraordinary complex situation, but you are not doing it in context– the much broader context – which is that Netanyahu and Obama do not have a good working relationship. And this goes back essentially to their first meeting in May of 2009, and to the issue which is outside the domain of our conversation, but is nonetheless important to understand the issues in its context, it goes to the heart of the issue of expanding settlements and the level of mistrust and distrust that has developed between those two leaders, which makes negotiations/discussions/cooperation on Iran difficult because there is a sense on both sides that the other side doesn’t get it. It seems President Obama does not trust Mr. Netanyahu, and Mr. Netanyahu thinks that President Obama is not tough enough, which leads me to your premises.

If indeed Israel was pressuring the world in a way that says, “ya know guys if you don’t impose sanctions, we will have to attack, and an attack is something a) we don’t want to do and b) you don’t want us to go ahead with,” and that the world under the leadership of Obama imposes quite tough –not the toughest possible – but tough sanctions, and Israel should have quietly applauded it. Instead, the moment those sanctions were applied, especially the European Union sanctions, once they were announced the first reaction from Israel was ‘”hey guys this is not going to work, and this is an exercise in futility and the window of opportunity for a military strike is closing.” And then Mr. Barak – the Defense Minister Ehud Barak – came up with a term that has permeated the discussion called “a zone of immunity,” meaning that the Iranians are capable of stashing or hiding enriched uranium and rods and centrifuges in a mountain site near the city of Qom, called Fordo. In a way, that makes it impenetrable to Israeli munitions. So Barak’s point was by the time these sanctions could conceivably work, which would be the next fall, the fall of 2012, it’ll be too late to attack. Add to that the fact that by the fall of 2012 you have presidential elections in the US, and you can’t seriously discuss Israeli and American options while ignoring or dismissing the importance of those elections.

So you look at these premises and you are saying this is extraordinarily complicated and it is doubtful whether one meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama is going to sort it out or clarify it, although I have to say that to the people reading or listening to our discussion what they will see the moment of the hours in the aftermath of that meeting, they’re going to read and going to see and get the impression that there was an extraordinarily warm meeting with broad understandings that Iran cannot be a nuclear power. Other than that, it is going to be all about disagreement.

This is so complicated that one has to wonder really what’s going on. Because the Israelis it seems to me can’t hope to succeed with a strike without American backing afterward. Israel is not dealing with just one installation but a complex series of them buried deep underground, so that you would need follow up by the United States, either a blockade, backing certainly diplomatically, some kind of guarantees for Israel to prevent some forms of retaliation to deter or decrease the possibility for the Iranians to respond. If the US and Israel are at odds, than the whole idea of an attack is diminished isn’t it?

Yes. And it is diminished but not necessarily impossible or improbable, and let me explain or elaborate what I mean by that. One of the things that makes this scenario, this entire issue complex, is that we’re dealing with should Israel or should not Israel attack Iran? Let’s assume that we resolve that Israel should attack, for lack of any better option, because Israel views and perceives Iran as an existential threat, and it is the responsibility of the prime minister and the defense minister. Then let’s take that to the next phase—what would the Iranian reaction be? Now, the Iranian reaction may suck, may involve – involuntarily – the US in this conflict in a way that Israel did not intend it to be. You do what you do, where the effectiveness could be 60 percent or 70 in terms of how much of the Iranian nuclear program you can destroy and incapacitate. Let’s say it is 50, 60, 70, even 80 percent. The Iranian reaction may involve the US. So, an American president who did not want to go into a war with Iran, who just got America extricated from an unpopular war in Iraq, would not be willing to commit to another war unless there is a) wide legitimacy in the US and b) an international coalition. But maybe because of Israel’s action, becomes an involuntary accomplice to this war and involuntarily sucked into this war.

So that’s one thing Israeli decision makers need to bear in mind. Second, obviously is what happens inside the Middle East. What the Iranian reaction is going to be like? How it will affect Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Hamas in Gaza? How this affects Iran’s most loyal ally in the Middle East, which is Syria. And, how this is going to play out in the energy market, i.e. oil prices, i.e. energy prices? Or to reduce it to a simple line: How much are you going to pay for a gallon of gas in 4 or 5 months? So this is extraordinarily complex.

On the other hand, Steve, I have to say, that if you’re an Israeli prime minister, it’s not that complex, really.

If you think that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, if you think America is wrong by willing to allow the Iranians to become a threshold nuclear power, as long as they do not possess nuclear weapons, which in Israel is the conventional wisdom about the American policy; And if you think that Iran even being a nuclear threshold state constitutes an imminent, clear, present, existential danger to the State of Israel – it is your duty, it is your responsibility, it is incumbent upon you, to leave all considerations aside and do what you have to do, and let the chips fall where the chips fall. That’s the easy way out, but it’s nonetheless a logic that guides some people in Israel.

Let’s talk about Obama. I think it’s very clear that the administration is opposed to this action, feels the sanctions have a much better chance to work, and don’t agree with this “zone of immunity” notion and are quite angry at Barak about it. And, indeed want to wait certainly until after the election as they feel that there are signs of unhappiness in Iran, the sanctions are working, and therefore there is a better chance that finally after all these years there is a non-military policy that has a good chance of working. It is at just this very moment that the Israelis are creating this crisis correctly or incorrectly. So, if you’re Obama, how do you feel about Netanyahu?

If you’re Obama you first and foremost try to appease him. You try to ameliorate his fears you tell him the US, as I, President Obama have said repeatedly the “US will not allow and will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Time is still on our side and time is needed and required for the sanctions to work. And the sanctions are working.” And I would present to Mr. Netanyahu with proof that sanctions are working. To which Mr. Netanyahu is going to come up with a very valid point. He will say most probably that even if sanctions work they take their toll on the Iranian currency on the Iranian economy and the Iranian consumer and business. However, it will not deter this regime, the Ayatollah regime, from continuing to develop a nuclear program. And then Obama will say “No it will not. But Mr. Prime Minister I will force them to come to the negotiating table, where I can with the help of France and Germany and Britain can conceivably in the context of negotiations, even the Russians and Chinese – although that is less likely but conceivably it’s doable – I can convince them to subject their program to international supervision.”

To which Netanyahu will respond: “Mr. President, you know that this is nonsense. They are con-men; they are lying. Their art is deceit. There is no way around this. They will do whatever they can, and by pushing them to the corner, you are actually forcing them to expedite this program.”

At that point, this is where this discussion becomes a showdown and it goes to the beginning of our conversation where I said – guesstimated rather – that this is not going to be a pleasant discussion. Although it’s not going to be personal, it’s substantive. The President will have to say to Mr. Netanyahu: “Look I have made my position clear. The US will not stand for a nuclear Iran. Iran is not a nuclear power yet. Time is still on our side. I cannot tell you, I cannot dictate to you, or prevent you from doing what you think is the right thing to do. No one is going to believe me that I knew nothing of it, but I am telling you that we are against this. And while we will not condemn you, we will not lend you our support, I am asking you to give this a little more time. “

Now, the important point to understand here, is that the President feels, and this goes to domestic politics in Israel, the President feels – he may be right or he may be wrong – that Mr. Netanyahu is closer to his position than meets the eye while the more trigger-happy, excuse me for the expression, of the two is Mr. Barak, the defense minister. And there is a good chance that Mr. Netanyahu would welcome President Obama pressuring him into saying “let’s give it some more time.” But that of course is me speculating, I don’t know.

It could end in a complete standstill. At which President Obama will tell is aides, and they may or may not leak this to the media at some point, that “I have made my positions clear but if the Israelis want to do what they feel they need to do than who am I to stop them?” That’s also a possibility. It’s bad for the America’s ability to project power, if it cannot reign in its closest ally, than who can it reign in? But that’s life.

Yes, but at the same time Netanyahu’s arguments are not necessarily valid either. American intelligence believes that Iran has not even made a decision yet whether to go nuclear, but they have made the decision to have the capability to go nuclear. The president can argue that the Israelis are only making it more likely that Iran will decide to go nuclear, and can also argue with considerable validity that Americans might not interfere with Israel. But without American backing afterward the consequences of an attack are more dire and the benefits are more diminished. So, they could go back and forth on this. On the American side, they have to have something to offer Netanyahu so that he can go home with something and is also reinforced in not attacking. You can’t only offer sticks, you have to offer a carrot.

Now one thing might be that bunker-busting bombs, which are not necessarily as capable as people had thought, will be improved. And that with American-Israeli cooperation, at the proper time Israel would receive the enhanced bunker-busting bombs. Obama has a history of giving Israel advanced weaponry without the kind of hesitation that his predecessors have employed.

Another possible carrot – and I want to ask you how others might react to these – is to propose that a special working group of top aides be created on this issue alone— a special US-Israeli working group that would work in close coordination hereon-in on Iranian policy. This has disadvantages and advantages for both sides. So that might be a step that if they could walk out of the office and announce this new working group that might assuage Israeli hawks in some manner, shape or form, and also prevent an attack this spring, as so many have rumored. What do you think of this notion of offering Israel something that embraces it and stops it at the same time?

Well, you make a lot of valid points. Not sure I can answer them one by one, but I’ll try to make a narrative of it. President Obama is on solid ground when he says that security cooperation between Israel and the United States during his presidency and under his leadership has reached unprecedented heights in terms of quality and quantity. This is not divulging state secrets; this is me quoting Defense Minister Ehud Barak. So, President Obama cannot and should not be blamed either by his political detractors or by hawks of wavering on Israel’s security. Having said that, setting up a working group is always a good idea. However, I don’t know that its necessarily needed, because if you look at the traffic between Jerusalem and Washington on this issue in the last two months. Or, if you figuratively look at the frequent flyer mileage earned by American officials and Israeli officials flying back and forth just on that issue, we are talking about millions of miles. Meaning— a working group is always a good idea but people are going to read through it and think you are doing this to just win – or waste – time.

You’re talking about carrots and sticks here. There is very little in terms of carrots that the president can offer. And that touches on an issue that you alluded to at the outset but we didn’t expand on. That is I don’t remember a possible military attack in history that has been so much discussed. You can’t imagine that Pearl Harbor would be discussed in the Japanese press or that the invasion of Normandy in the British or American press at the level or the amount of details as the Israeli attack on Iran.

Neither Pearl Harbor nor Normandy would have succeeded with so much talk.

Of course not, no attack would have succeeded, even the invasion of Grenada would not have succeeded for that matter. However, we’re not looking at a strategic surprise but something that is more tactical. The more we talk about this, the less effective it will be and the more dangerous it could be, because you are essentially showing your cards. And this is essentially a poker game. That is why when you say President Obama can and should present carrots to Prime Minister Netanyahu, not just sticks. You are essentially saying this needs to be kept inside the oval office. Because if it becomes public, what’s the point? Because if it becomes public, the President himself will be heavily criticized for it, and he is setting or establishing red-lines that he may not want, and setting timetables that he may not be able or willing to meet. And that seriously and severely constricts his maneuvering room, especially in an election year.

Which leads us to another point: Is Mr. Netanyahu enjoying – I don’t mean enjoying in the sense of joyous – but enjoying the benefit of Mr. Obama being put in a tough position on this?

Given their relationship, which I referred to earlier which is speculative, my answer would probably be, he’s not suffering from it.

The last big points in this discussion are the Republican presidential candidates and the upcoming election. Gingrich and Santorum have come out in support of an attack on the nuclear forces of Iran. It appears if a Republican Administration were to come to power, it would be more sympathetic to a strike. The conventional wisdom is that Israel’s striking before the election would make it tougher for Obama to stop it than after, should he win reelection. There is certainly a policy difference between the positions of Obama and the Republican candidates. Does this encourage Israel to attack? Is it one more factor encouraging Israel to attack or discouraging Israel to attack at this moment?

Well, naturally this is what the Republican candidates are trying to do. They are trying to portray the president as hesitant and unsure and wavering on a foreign policy issue that concerns a major ally. Having said that, there is nothing easier in the world than making promises as a candidate, and there is nothing more difficult than making that pledge a policy when you actually become a president. Everyone knows that – everyone who has been to the White House as a president knows that whatever the Republicans are saying now is unlikely to become policy once they are in the Oval Office come January, if they make it there. I think, though, that the issue remains on the table that Obama is forcing Israel to refrain from an attack. It necessarily exposes him to criticism from the Republicans that he is supposedly weak on a major foreign policy issue. I think that is not the case. I think the Republicans should be more cautious before attacking him – I don’t want to get into American politics – but you cannot advocate an attack on Iran and lower gas prices at the same time and look in the mirror and think you are a serious guy, because you are not.

It may be that thanks to the Republican race, Obama’s rising standing, that he may be able to take any criticism that he is against an immediate attack.

I don’t think he is going to come out against. The people who have come out against didn’t speak on his behalf – the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Chairman of the Joint Chief Staff Adm. Dempsey, the National Security Advisor Tom Donilon all spoke against, but it wasn’t the President himself. And you can expect at the AIPAC policy conference the president to be extraordinary tough on Iran and not to say he is against an attack but that sanctions are working and diplomacy should be exhausted.

He will not be caught in an election year saying he is against an Israeli attack.

What makes this thing so complex, unclear and murky, is that almost every argument has some truth in it. It is true that the sanctions are working. It is true that the Iranian economy is suffering significantly. It is also true that the nuclear program has not halted or slowed down as a result of these sanctions. What remains to be seen is whether or not President Obama is capable of mustering enough international support and enough domestic legitimacy to impose even further sanctions, which short of war could still affect the price of oil, but of course that is speculative.

Antony J. Blinken Speaks to IPF (VIDEO)

Israel Policy Forum — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:58:18 -0500

Antony J. Blinken currently serves as Deputy Assistant to the President and as National Security Advisor to the Vice President. He spoke on Monday, February 27th to an Israel Policy Forum audience in New York City.

As Prepared for Delivery

Antony Blinken
Remarks to the Israel Policy Forum

New York City
Monday, February 27, 2012

Let me start by saying to everyone in this room: thank you.

Thank you for the work you do every day, through the Israel Policy Forum, to promote the unshakeable bond between the United States and the State of Israel.

Founded nearly two decades ago with the blessing of a great hero—Yitzhak Rabin—IPF has made extraordinary contributions to peace and security by mobilizing leaders in both countries—inside and outside of government—to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and address some of the defining policy challenges of our time.

The work that you do strengthens America’s foreign policy. And it is critical to the security of Israel. Never has this cause been more important. And that’s what I would like to talk about today, from the perspective of the Obama-Biden administration.

For more than 60 years since Israel's founding—during periods of war and peace, calm and crisis—U.S. administrations of all stripes have worked to safeguard Israel's security.

But I would maintain that no administration – and no President – has done as much as President Obama with Israel… and for Israel’s security.

Last fall, President Obama's personal intervention helped avert catastrophe when a violent mob stormed the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

Afterward, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the president:

"I requested his assistance at a decisive—I would even say fateful—moment. He said he would do everything possible, and this is what he did. He activated all of the United States' means and influence—which are certainly considerable. I believe we owe him a special debt of gratitude."

That influence was but one vivid manifestation of our administration's iron-clad commitment to Israel's security, a commitment that has led to a level of cooperation that Mr. Netanyahu himself has rightly called "unprecedented."

That commitment starts with President Obama’s profound understanding of Israel’s predicament.

Here’s how the President put it this September, speaking to the countries of the world at the United Nations General Assembly:

“Let us be honest with ourselves. Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off the map.”

When it comes to Israel’s security and maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, our actions speak loudest of all.

Since coming to office, we have launched the most comprehensive and meaningful strategic and operational consultations… across all levels of our governments… in the history of this relationship.

These interactions, from our heads-of-state on down, are what averted tragedy in Cairo—and they only exist between the closest of allies.

In October 2009, our nations' armed forces conducted their largest ever joint military exercise, Juniper Cobra. It involved 1000 personnel on each side. It tested the inter-operability and effectiveness of our air defense systems.

In 2010, nearly 200 senior-level Department of Defense officials visited Israel, and similar numbers of senior Israeli officials visited the U.S.

Last year, despite tough fiscal times, President Obama secured full funding for Israel in our 2011 budget, including more than $3 billion in military assistance—the most ever. For next year’s budget, we’ve requested an additional $25 million.

And on top of last year’s historic commitment, we added $205 million to help produce Iron Dome.

This short-range rocket defense system has been a godsend for besieged communities along Israel's border with Gaza, and it has now been installed in the north, along the Lebanon border, as well.

Already it has intercepted dozens of rockets and shells that might otherwise have struck homes, schools or hospitals. It is providing some peace of mind for people, like the residents of Sderot whom President Obama visited in 2008, living every day in the line of fire.

To guard against more distant, but also more dangerous threats, we have worked with Israel on the Arrow weapons system, to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. This is one of the most advanced missile defense systems in existence… and Israel is the only country in the world to field the complete system.

We’ve also worked with Israel on David's Sling, a defense system for shorter-range missiles, like those possessed by Hezbollah.

And we have collaborated on a powerful radar system linked to U.S. early warning satellites that could buy Israel valuable time in the event of a missile attack.

We know that Israel sees the threat posed by Iran as existential. And make no mistake: An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose a direct and serious threat to the security of the U.S. as well.

That is why President Obama is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We have backed up that commitment by building an unprecedented coalition to impose the most far-reaching sanctions Iran has ever faced.

As a result, Iran finds itself increasingly isolated from the international community.

It finds it harder than ever to acquire materials for its nuclear and weapons programs and to conduct transactions in dollars and euros.

It is unable to access about 70 percent of its foreign currency reserves.

It has struggled to buy refined petroleum and the goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector.

Already close to $60 billion in Iranian energy-related projects have been put on hold or shut down.

World-leading companies are deciding to stop doing business there, including:

Shell;

Total;

ENI;

Statoil;

Repsol;

Lukoil;

Kia;

Toyota;

Siemens;

And the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms such as GE, Honeywell and Caterpillar, among many others.

Most recently, the Administration worked with Congress to make sanctionable a host of transactions involving the Central Bank of Iran.

And we are now working with partners to implement this new law in a way that maximizes the pressure on the Iranian regime.

The regime is feeling the pressure. You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s what Iran’s President, Mr. Ahmadinejad, said about sanctions to Iran’s parliament late last year:

“The West has imposed the most extensive and dastardly sanctions ever… Every day, all our banking and trade activities and our agreements are being monitored and blocked. This is the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history…”

The purpose of this pressure is not punishment. It is to convince Iran that the price to be paid for pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is too high… and the time is now to make good on its commitments to the international community.

Standing up for Israel's security also means remaining ever vigilant against attempts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena.

As President Obama has said, including in the speech he gave in Cairo, Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

That is why we stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself after the Goldstone Report on the 2009 Gaza War was issued.

That is why we refuse to attend events that endorse or commemorate the flawed 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which outrageously singled out Israel for criticism.

And that is why we are working literally around the clock and around the world to try to prevent steps taken at the U.N. or its agencies from further isolating Israel or undermining efforts to reach a secure, negotiated peace with the Palestinians.

As you know, in large part because of our commitment to Israel’s security, the President has made peace between the Israelis and Palestinians a priority from his earliest days in office. And the need for peace has never been more urgent.

Last May, the President presented a vision for a lasting peace involving two states for two people:

-- Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people;

-- And the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.

The Quartet has been working with the parties since then… and Jordan recently hosted exploratory talks in Amman. There simply is no substitute for direct talks.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. You know the recent steps toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

Our policy on Hamas has not changed. Any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly renounce violence… recognize Israel… and accept previous agreements and obligations between the parties.

Our administration is justifiably proud of this record. And we are confident that none of our predecessors has done more for Israel's security than we have.

That does not mean we will always see eye to eye on everything.

Even the closest of allies disagree – just as Israelis do amongst themselves -- and when we do, we make our views clear. That is a sign of our mutual respect and of a relationship robust and mature enough to overcome our differences.

What could actually harm U.S.-Israeli relations, and the security of the Jewish state, is subjecting either to the vagaries of partisan politics or turning them into election-year talking points.

IPF is committed to the idea that debate need not descend into division—particularly when our shared interests are so profound.

You are dedicated to the principal that, and I quote:

“While debate and discussion are helpful, the current divisiveness in the American Jewish community and in Washington on the issues of the US-Israel relationship and our shared pursuit of peace, are not.”

I couldn’t agree more.

This is not about stifling discussion, disagreement or dissent.

It is about a simple proposition: when it comes to discussing U.S. policy toward Israel in our political arena, by all means we should question each other’s judgments – but not each other’s motives.

For generations, Israel has been a bastion of bipartisan consensus. The stakes are too high—for us, and for Israel—to let that change now.

Now, I’m anxious to hear your comments and questions. Thanks for everything you do. And thanks for listening.

As Prepared for Delivery

Antony Blinken

Remarks to the Israel Policy Forum

New York City

Monday, February 27, 2012