July 27, 2007

James D. Besser

With skepticism about President Bush's new Mideast peace initiative at flood
tide, leaders of the Jewish left are quietly ramping up outreach to 2008
presidential contenders they hope will be more willing to engage in active
peacemaking in the region.

An official with one Jewish pro-peace process group called it a "mindset
shift. Officially, we're still hopeful President Bush meant what he said
last week. But we've heard these words many times before and we'd be stupid
not to be shifting a lot of our attention to what comes next."

Groups like Americans for Peace Now (APN), the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) and
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are offering position papers to the campaigns in both
parties, making personal contacts and in some cases urging their grassroots
members to get involved in races as activists and givers.

But the left isn't alone in planning for the post-Bush environment. Groups
on the right are also reaching out to the campaigns, although their focus is
different.

"We have had meetings with some of the candidates," said Morton Klein,
president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). "We don't make it
public because we don't want to make it seem like we are endorsing anybody,
but we are promoting two issues: you can't get peace unless you end the
culture that promotes the hatred of Jews, Christians and Americans; and we
are far from a time when we can even discuss a Palestinian state."

A major part of ZOA's political focus, Klein said, is pressing candidates
across the political spectrum to flesh out the broad pro-Israel
pronouncements that are de rigueur in national campaigns with detailed
statements about their Mideast views -- statements that groups like ZOA could
limit their Mideast involvement if elected.

Officially, groups like APN and IPF welcomed last week's Bush administration
initiative, which included a call for an international conference in the
fall, added financial support to boost Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas and a call for Israel to take additional steps to reinforce
Palestinian moderates.

But the administration quickly hinted that the proposal was something less
than an outline for all-out administration engagement. A day after President
Bush's speech on the issue, the White House office of public liaison emailed
Jewish leaders copies of a Wall Street Journal op-ed by historian Michael
Oren arguing that that the "new" initiative was perfectly consistent with
longstanding Bush administration policy.

Despite upbeat public pronouncements, most pro-peace process analysts
agreed.

"It's déjà vu; we've seen all this before," said Judith Kipper, Middle East
adviser for the Council on Foreign Relations. "There is no indication of any
real push by the administration."

That poses a quandary for Jewish peace groups. With a year and a half left
in the Bush presidency and the potential for new conflict running high in
the region, they can't afford to give up on the administration. At the same
time, there is no real expectation of significant progress on the peace
front.

"I don't have much optimism about the next 18 months," said M.J. Rosenberg,
director of IPF's Washington Policy Center. "I think, however, that it is
the job of those of us who believe that Israel's security--not to mention
morality and U.S. interests -- demands an end to the occupation, to keep
pushing and building so that we are ready for the 44th president. Like every
other interest group in Washington, we understand that time has pretty much
run out for this administration."

IPF will continue pressing for a more active administration role in
peacemaking, other IPF officials said, but they are also turning their
attention to the next administration--and the next Congress.

IPF, said its president, Seymour Reich, will try to "create a favorable
environment in the next Congress in anticipation of a new president" by
working with both incumbents and likely challengers.

Americans for Peace Now is following a similar course -- publicly urging the
administration to follow through on last week's promises with sustained
diplomacy and avoid more "hit and run diplomacy," but quietly reaching out
to the political figures who may shape Mideast policy after January 2009.

A core part of the APN strategy: disseminating data from a recent poll
showing that a strong majority of American Jews favor candidates who promise
to "take an active role in the peace process."

Brit Tzedek v'Shalom is "encouraging our people to go to the campaigns and
ask tough questions about what the candidates will do to increase U.S.
diplomatic engagement," said Diane Balser, the group's advocacy director.
"We are making plans to meet with all the [presidential] campaigns we can,
in both parties, to brief them on our positions. And we are urging our
people at the grass roots level to get into campaigns."

But dovish groups face a major obstacle: the widespread fear among
candidates of getting caught in pro-Israel controversy.

"All the candidates see the dangers of appearing too dovish," said Gilbert
Kahn, a Kean University political scientist. "There's very little to be
gained for candidates to take an aggressive, left-wing approach."

Groups on the Jewish right, he said, have a built-in advantage at this stage
of the presidential contest: the desire of most major candidates to avoid
even the faintest hint of conflict with pro-Israel groups.

Kahn said groups like the Zionist Organization of America are starting to
exploit that advantage by pressing candidates from both parties to flesh out
their broad pro-Israel pronouncements with details--such as promises not to
talk to Hamas--that may make it awkward for them to change direction if they
are elected.

ZOA's Mort Klein said his group is already pursuing that strategy by
pressing candidates to create "baselines" with explicit statements about
Mideast policy.

While groups on the left are shifting their focus to the next
administration, their leaders admit that with the region more volatile than
ever, they can't afford to write off the rest of the Bush administration.

"It's a real danger when people start thinking that way," said Mara Rudman,
adviser to the group Middle East Progress and a national security official
in the Clinton administration. "I've heard talk about that in the past few
months; people tend to go in that direction at the end of any
administration, and the trend may be particularly strong in this one, given
its unwillingness to take a comprehensive approach to the issue. But you
can't write off 18 months."

While President Bush has resisted pressure for more aggressive U.S.
peacemaking, "there are people inside this administration who are serious
about it; I would not write off the whole administration," she said. "The
question is, can they get it done? That remains an open question, and our
job is to help force the question and work with the people who are committed
to progress."