Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Jonathan’s broad philosophy is embodied in three principles:

1. Everyone must be at the table
2. Everybody has to agree to a ceasefire but you can’t ask anyone to give up weapons until they are ready to
3. You can’t ask people to give up their dreams

At the heart of the conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike virtually all American politicians running for public office who express their position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, Jonathan’s views on the issue come from a deep, personal connection and experience.

Jonathan’s father was born in Palestine and fought in the Israeli underground. Jonathan lived in Israel for seven years, during which he was involved, as a teen-ager and young man, in the fledgling peace movement. He went through the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and one of his cousin’s was killed in the war and that cousin’s brother was wounded. Half of Jonathan’s family lives in Israel, some within a few miles of the West Bank border.

So, it is absolutely clear to Jonathan that only a two-state solution will end the violence that has taken so many Palestinian and Israeli lives--and bring stability and peace to the Middle East.

Jonathan unequivocally supports the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, consequently ending Israeli occupation of these areas because such a solution is the only way to ensure Israeli security. The current situation in Gaza is intolerable and unconscionable.

The final peace settlement has to accommodate Israel’s security requirements but it also has to ensure a viable, thriving, independent Palestinian State which has territorial contiguity and is not broken into cantons.

Jonathan also lived in Jerusalem and still remembers what a beautiful city it is. Its special nature, though, is the role it plays in the spiritual lives of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. A negotiated settlement must include a plan that allows Israelis and Palestinians to share the city because Palestinians make up one-third of the city’s residents and have historic and long-standing political, economic, and religious ties to the city. A Palestinian capital in Arab areas of Jerusalem will not threaten the city’s role as the capital of Israel.

Violence is not the answer for either side. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved via negotiated, non-violent means. Both peoples have suffered from the bloodshed. Yet, clear majorities of both peoples say they want a peaceful settlement of the conflict. A credible negotiating track, linked with a bi-lateral effort to ensure security and stop the violence, is the only path to a long-lasting settlement. “Credible” means that everyone must have a seat at the table.

Pakistan

The great danger in Pakistan is a drifting reliance on escalating military force, particularly unmanned drones, which are killing disproportionate numbers of civilians, even if occasionally they get lucky and also get a "bad guy". Jonathan believes that the result is to drive people, through anger at the civilian deaths, into the arms of anti-U.S. resistance forces, including the Taliban and others.

We must remember that our country embraced, funded, and armed the Taliban and related Islamist militants, including Osama bin Laden himself, in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s. Jonathan is concerned that our country is ignoring the impact on the Afghan people of such a flood of arms.

And, we seem to be starting the same process in Pakistan, and even more dangerous scenario because of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The only way to deal with Pakistan, and the neighboring Afghanistan, is by ending air strikes that are killing civilians, engage with the Pakistani government, civil society, tribal leaders, and the resistance forces.

Iran

Jonathan believes President Obama has taken an important step towards reducing the likelihood of a military strike against Iran by his statesmanlike declaration calling for "engagement" with Iran. We must endeavor, however, to begin such negotiations by holding back on threatening language that promises harsher sanctions if we don't get our way.

Negotiations need to be wide-ranging, open-ended, and based on respect for Iran's position in the world and in the region. The goal should be a “grand bargain” where everything of concern to both sides will be on the table—including Iran’s nuclear power program, relations with Hamas & Hezbollah, ending Iran’s threats towards Israel AND US threats of “regime change” or military assault, and a recognition of Iran’s role as a regional actor in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

Military strikes would be a disaster for our country because Iran will likely retaliate, leading to massive instability in the region, attacks on US troops in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and throughout the region, attacks on Israel, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz (through which 40% of the world's daily oil supply flows). Large numbers of Iranian civilians would die from strikes against nuclear power facilities because some Iranian nuclear power plants are in or near major cities (think Indian Point, New York).