Coverage from the Financial Times to The Economist suggests that
Aipac's power over the Middle East debate is fading
THE ISRAEL LOBBY IS RAPIDLY LOSING SUPPORT
The power of the Israel lobby in the United States is indisputable.
Two decades ago, I witnessed it personally when covering an election
for the Senate in South Dakota, where the Jewish population is
virtually nonexistent. In this remote corner of the country, a Senator
of Arab-American descent found himself under assault in television
commercials because of a vote he had cast against the supply of
equipment for advanced F-16 fighter aircraft to Israel. James
Abourezk, now an ex-senator, learned to his peril that you take on the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), one of Washington's
most effective lobby groups, at your peril.
Yet there is growing evidence that the power of Aipac which has just
held its annual gathering in Washington DC may not be as
overwhelming as it once was.
Criticism of Israel has become more fashionable. Jimmy Carter's book,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has sold a remarkable 200,000 copies
and recently won a surprisingly favourable review from Joseph
Lelyveld, a former executive editor of the New York Times, in the New
York Review of Books.
An essay by American academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
claiming that the Israel lobby threatened America's security interests
caused a furor last year when it was published in the London Review of
Aipac may still have political pull and financial muscle, but its
overwhelming domination of the debate about the future of the Middle
East seems to be fading. Even the "Lexington" column in The Economist
questioned Aipac's power.
In the Financial Times, writer Graham Bowley chose Tony Judt, a
leading British-born historian of Europe, for the weekly "Lunch with
the FT" feature.
Judt is increasingly lauded in the media as a dissident on the Middle
East, whom the American Israel lobby failed to silence.
As the FT writer reported, Judt has drawn the ire of Jewish groups in
America for unexceptional suggestions that the Jewish lobby influences
US policy towards Israel and shuts down debate. But the hostility
almost certainly dates back to a piece in the New York Review of Books
where Judt made the case for a "one state" solution to the
In the interview, Judt recounts how he and his family received death
threats and how he found himself ostracised by the American Jewish
establishment for allegedly seeking the abolition of the Jewish state.
But as a young man, the child of middleclass Jewish parents, he tells
the FT, he volunteered to go to Israel in June 1967 to work as a
translator and drive captured Syrian tanks.
He adds that "Israel exists" and the "only question is what kind of
state it will be in future years, what kind of laws is it going to
have for first- and second-class citizens."
For views like these, he argues, he has lost close friends, including
Leon Wieseltier, the influential literary editor of the liberal
political magazine The New Republic, for which Judt used to write.
Certainly on a superficial level, the power of the pro-Israel lobby,
as experienced by Judt, is as strong as ever. At the Aipac meeting,
more than 6,000 enthusiastic delegates turned up to hear from the top
people on Capitol Hill. The Economist notes that they could admire
their work: Jewish numbers in Congress are at record levels, with 30
in the House of Representatives (out of 435 members) and 13 out of 100
members of the Senate. The magazine, which has a large readership in
the US, notes there are now more Jews on Capitol Hill than
Episcopalians, the American adherents to Anglicanism.
So why does the magazine claim that Jewish power is not what it once
was? The association of Aipac with support for the Iraq war, which is
increasingly unpopular, had encouraged critics to publicly question
America's alliance with Israel. Two retired members of Congress, Paul
Findley and James Abourezk, have formed the Council for the National
Interest, which bills itself as an anti-Aipac group.
Then there is the growing number of Arab- Americans in the US. Turmoil
in the Middle East, since the first intifada, provoked heavy
emigration from the West Bank to the rustbelt states of Ohio and
Michigan, where more than 3.5 million Arabs now reside.
The Arab-Americans are creating their own pale versions of Aipac,
including the Arab American Institute and the Council on
So far, The Economist reports, they have been ineffectual, donating
just $788,968 to favoured Congressional candidates against the
astonishing $56.8 million raised by Aipac and other pro-Israel groups.
But an even bigger threat looms from more liberal Jewish groups, who
find their voice through publications like Tikkun. The more prominent
of these include the Religious Action Centre for Reform Judaism,
Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum. They claim
responsibility, for example, for watering down Aipac legislation which
would have forbidden American contact with the current
Hamas-sympathising Palestinian leadership.
The majority of Americans may still be philo-Jewish. But the tide of
media opinion, particularly among the intellectual chattering classes,
could be turning.
[NOTE: While AIPAC and the ADL are laying low lately due to public
criticism of their anti-American and un-American activities, the
Israeli pressure on American public officials and organizations
remains strong through other Zionist organizations like the JCRC, AJC,
and CJP, who participate in "Interfaith" activities to manipulate
policy within Christian and Muslim organizations and institutions,
thus by-passing democratic discussion with the general public. -WVNS]
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: