Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    As Bush s unbalanced Mideast policies careen from disaster to disaster, people who don t toe the AIPAC line are beginning to speak out. Can American Jews
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 7, 2007
      As Bush's unbalanced Mideast policies careen from disaster to
      disaster, people who don't toe the AIPAC line are beginning to speak out.

      Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?
      By Gary Kamiya

      Last week, a familiar Washington ritual took place: Leading American
      politicians from both parties lined up at the annual policy conference
      of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to vie with each other
      over who could pledge the most undying fealty to Israel. As usual,
      much of Congress showed up -- half of the members of the U.S. Senate
      and more than half of the House, including figures like Hillary
      Clinton and Barack Obama, along with Vice President Dick Cheney.

      It was a typical AIPAC parallel-universe extravaganza, marred only by
      partisan rifts that have begun to appear over Iraq. (Even some of the
      AIPAC crowd, who overwhelmingly supported the war at the outset, have
      begun to realize that it has been a disaster for both the United
      States and Israel.) Cheney got a standing ovation, Israeli Prime
      Minister Ehud Olmert said via a video link that winning the war in
      Iraq was important for Israel, Nancy Pelosi was booed for criticizing
      the war, a fire-breathing Christian dispensationalist who believes
      that war on Iran will bring about the Rapture and the Second Coming
      was rapturously greeted, and Barack Obama took heat for having the
      audacity to mention the suffering of the Palestinians.

      But AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer
      American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of
      conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language
      from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to
      get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.

      The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost
      unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively
      in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush
      administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward
      Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still
      cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line.

      The fact that AIPAC, which is ranked as the second-most powerful lobby
      in the country (trailing only AARP, but ahead of the NRA) virtually
      dictates U.S. policy in the Mideast has long been one of those surreal
      facts of Washington life that politicians discuss only when they get
      near retirement -- if then. In 2004, Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings had
      the bad taste to reveal this inconvenient truth when he said, "You
      can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around
      here." Michael Massing, who has done exemplary reporting on AIPAC for
      the New York Review of Books, quoted a congressional staffer as
      saying, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300
      members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." In unguarded
      moments, even top AIPAC figures have confirmed such claims. The New
      Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg quoted Steven Rosen, AIPAC's former
      foreign-policy director who is now awaiting trial on charges of
      passing top-secret Pentagon information to Israel, as saying, "You see
      this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of
      seventy senators on this napkin."

      Until 9/11 and the Iraq war, this state of affairs was of little
      concern to anyone except those passionately interested in the Middle
      East -- a small group that has never included more than a tiny
      minority of Americans, Jews or non-Jews. If the pro-Israel lobby
      wielded enormous power over America's Mideast policies, so what?
      America's Mideast policies were always reliably pro-Israel anyway, for
      a variety of reasons, including many that had nothing to do with
      lobbying by American Jews. And the stakes didn't seem that big.

      But in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war, that all changed
      dramatically. 9/11, and the Bush administration's response to it, made
      it inescapably clear that America's Mideast policies affect everyone
      in the country: They are literally a matter of life and death. The
      Bush administration's neoconservative Mideast policy is essentially
      indistinguishable from AIPAC's. And so it is no longer possible to
      ignore it -- even though it is a notoriously touchy and divisive subject.

      The touchiest aspect of all is the role played by pro-Israel
      neoconservatives in laying the groundwork for the Iraq war. Much of
      the media has been loath to go near this, for obvious and in some ways
      honorable reasons: It feels a little like "blame the Jews." But that
      taboo has faded as it has become clearer that "the Jews" are not the
      ones being blamed for helping pave the way to war, but a group of
      powerful neoconservatives, some but not all of them Jewish, who
      subscribe to the hard-right views of Israel's Likud Party. This group
      no more represents "the Jews" than the Shining Path represents "the

      Logic and forthrightness has traditionally taken a back seat to
      timorous self-censorship when it comes to discussing these matters.
      But in addition to the war debate, several other watershed events have
      helped erode the taboo against discussing the power of the Israel
      lobby. The most important were the publications of John Mearsheimer
      and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby," and Jimmy Carter's "Palestine:
      Peace Not Apartheid." The overwrought reaction to Mearsheimer and
      Walt's piece, ironically, only supported its thesis. Similarly, the
      opprobrium heaped on Carter only succeeded in making it clear how
      little room there is for open discussion of these issues in America.

      For all these reasons, a powerful spotlight has been turned on the
      pro-Israel lobby. And there are signs that increasing numbers of
      Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, are willing to openly question
      whether it is in America's national interest for AIPAC, whose
      positions are well to the right of those held by most American Jews,
      to wield such disproportionate power over America's Mideast policies.

      As a group, American Jews continue to be staunchly liberal. A new poll
      shows that 77 percent of American Jews now think that the Iraq war was
      a mistake, compared with 52 percent of all Americans. (Jewish support
      for the war has collapsed: A poll taken a month before the war showed
      that 56 percent of Jews supported it, somewhat below the national
      average at that time.) Eighty-seven percent of Jews voted Democratic
      in 2006. And although data here is murkier, polls also show that most
      American Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are
      to the left of AIPAC's.

      What all this adds up to is that for liberal or moderate American Jews
      who don't support Bush's war in Iraq or his "war on terror" and who
      are willing to look at Israel warts and all, the fact that AIPAC has
      anointed itself as the de facto spokesmen for American Jews is
      becoming more and more unacceptable. And increasing numbers of them
      are beginning to speak out.

      One of the most trenchant commentators is Philip Weiss, a regular
      contributor to the Nation. Weiss' blog, MondoWeiss, offers informed
      and passionate discussions of what he calls "delicate and
      controversial matters surrounding American Jewish identity and
      Israel." He routinely skewers attempts by mainstream Jewish
      organizations and pundits to lay down the law on what is acceptable
      discourse. This means being willing to look at off-limits subjects
      like "dual loyalty." When the American Jewish Committee, a powerful
      advocacy group that shares AIPAC'S line, issued a reactionary response
      to the Mearsheimer-Walt piece and the Carter book, accusing Jewish
      intellectuals who didn't toe the party line on Israel of being
      "self-haters," Weiss pointed out that the heavy-handed attempt had
      backfired -- instead of silencing dissenting voices, the AJC piece
      revealed for all to see the "anti-intellectual, vicious, omerta
      practices of the Jewish leadership."

      Other widely read writers who have been outspoken on formerly taboo
      subjects include Matthew Yglesias of the American Prospect and Glenn
      Greenwald of Salon. Both Greenwald and Yglesias, for example,
      punctured a classic attempt by the Jewish establishment to smear Gen.
      Wesley Clark, who, saying that he feared that Bush might be preparing
      to attack Iran, added, "The Jewish community is divided but there is
      so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the
      office seekers." Clark was immediately -- and predictably -- accused
      of being anti-Semitic for referring to "the New York money people" and
      implying they wanted war with Iran. But as both Yglesias and Greenwald
      pointed out, everything Clark said was demonstrably true. Adding
      insult to injury, Greenwald proved it was true by citing such
      right-wing, pro-Israel media sources as the New York Sun and the New
      York Post.

      Of course, a few blogs, articles and organizations do not necessarily
      a movement make -- certainly not one capable of standing up to a
      deep-pocketed powerhouse like AIPAC. But there are other signs that
      the hegemony of AIPAC and its ilk is weakening. Last year liberal
      Jewish groups like Americans for Peace Now, Jewish Alliance for
      Justice and Peace, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and
      the Israel Policy Forum succeeded in handing AIPAC a legislative
      defeat, persuading Congress to gut a harsh AIPAC-supported bill that
      would have cut off all aid to the Palestinian people. These groups
      still have only a fraction of AIPAC's clout and money. But as Gregory
      Levey noted in Salon, there has been talk of a new lobby, possibly
      bankrolled by billionaire George Soros, which would compete with
      AIPAC. If such a group comes into existence -- and it's much too soon
      to say that it will -- the entire playing field would be changed.

      How long AIPAC will hold sway depends on how long it can convince
      politicians that it speaks for American Jews. It doesn't, but only
      American Jews can prove that. American politicians are not going to
      stop paying homage to AIPAC until there's an alternative -- and only
      Jews can provide it. Are liberal Jews really beginning to turn speak
      out against AIPAC? And if not, why not?

      To try to get some answers, I called M.J. Rosenberg, the director of
      policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a Washington-based
      liberal counterpart to AIPAC that advocates muscular U.S. support for
      a two-state solution in Palestine. Rosenberg worked for AIPAC between
      1982 and 1986, but broke with the group when he became disenchanted
      with its hard-line response to the Oslo peace process.

      I asked Rosenberg how AIPAC has been able to maintain its power.

      "Although they [AIPAC] don't represent anything like a majority of
      American Jews, they may represent a majority of those who are most
      interested in Israel," Rosenberg said. "American Jews who care about
      Israel and other things are more likely to be supporters of the IPF
      kind of approach. I think Jews who care only about Israel are closer
      to the AIPAC position. In our politics today, single-issue voters and
      donors tend to have clout out of all proportion to their numbers.
      That's nothing new. My father used to tell me that in the 1930s when
      you had any kind of a meeting of liberals, the Communists always
      prevailed because they were the most single-minded -- everybody else
      would go home. Things go to extremes. And that would apply to the
      right-to-life movement and the gun movement as well. We always claim
      we're the majority -- we are, but we have a soft majority. And they've
      got a hard minority."

      Why weren't more American Jews with moderate views on the Middle East
      stepping forward to challenge AIPAC and its hawkish policies? I asked
      Rosenberg. Was it because they were afraid of being morally
      blackmailed -- facing the predictable accusations of being self-hating
      Jews, disloyal to Israel, collaborationist "kapos," and so on?

      "I think the number of people in that group is relatively small,"
      Rosenberg said. "I think the much larger number are people who are
      absolutely indifferent. And therefore they're not susceptible to moral
      blackmail because they will never hear what AIPAC or the IPF or any of
      the Israel organizations say. I don't know what percentage it is, but
      my guess is that no more than 40 percent of American Jews think about
      Israel in any way, shape or form. Most of them live their lives, like
      most people do. So we're fighting over people who think about it at
      all, and as I said the single-issue ones tend to be more with AIPAC
      for now. We're trying to get the rest. But I do think that as time
      goes on, with more and more young people, that moral blackmail thing
      doesn't work anymore."

      Rosenberg said that long-term demographic trends were working against
      AIPAC and its fear tactics. The AIPAC leadership, which he described
      as a "true believer [on Israel] crowd with money," is "a much older
      crowd," he said. "Their children and grandchildren don't have those
      views. As we get further from World War II, it's harder to scare young
      people into support for Israel. They will support Israel if they
      believe in Israel and if Israel appeals to them. But those scare
      tactics, 'write checks because there's going to be another Holocaust'
      -- that's doesn't work with the under-60 crowd. The people who
      demonstrated against the Vietnam war in the '60s, they're just not
      going to buy into the 'Hitler is coming' stuff. They're just too smart
      for that. I've got kids in their 20s -- the idea of telling them that
      America could be a dangerous place for them? They would laugh in my
      face. That's ridiculous."

      Rosenberg also pointed out that "Israel's popularity with American
      Jews has gone down since 1977, when Begin became prime minister. The
      way Israel was sold, the Leon Uris Israel, was the Israel of the
      kibbutz, this socialist paradise. And that's totally changed now. A
      lot of the glow is really gone, which makes me sad, because I'm very
      involved with Israel and I care a lot about Israel."

      Rosenberg said that one of the best things American Jews can do to
      educate themselves about Israel is to read the Israeli press, which
      routinely prints pieces far more harshly critical of Israel than
      anything found in the American media. "If people who don't follow the
      situation closely started to read the Israeli press, started to read
      Haaretz, they'd realize how much debate there is there, and how many
      people feel terribly about what's happened to the Palestinians, and
      how many people are determined to break out of this situation,"
      Rosenberg said. "And they'd realize that Israelis in general feel that
      the rhetoric of American Jewish organizations is about as outdated as
      the last century. It says nothing to Israelis. They laugh at that kind
      of rhetoric. If American Jews saw what the debate is like there, that
      would make Israel more popular. The more knowledge, the better.
      American Jews would see that the kind of liberal humanitarian views
      they have on issues here are perfectly legitimate in Israel, and
      perfectly common in Israel, even though in the mainstream American
      Jewish organizations they're considered off-center."

      Rosenberg compared American Jews' evolving attitudes to Israel to the
      achievements of the civil rights movement. "Look, 25 years ago you
      couldn't even talk about the Palestinians. I mean, Golda Meir said
      there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Now there's not a single
      major Jewish organization except the far-right organizations that does
      not give at least nominal support to the two-state solution. So it's
      moving. It's kind of like the civil rights movement in this country.
      It's not perfect, but you see the change. I would say that 90 percent
      of American Jews understand that there's going to be a Palestinian
      state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
      That's what most Israelis know is going to be the future. So that's

      Liberal American Jews are in a difficult situation, with powerful and
      understandable emotional crosscurrents pulling them both ways. If they
      are liberal, antiwar, anti-Bush Democrats, willing to look critically
      at Israel, you'd think they might be willing to speak out against
      AIPAC. But why should they? Like most other Americans, most Jews are
      probably sick of Israel's endless conflict with the Palestinians,
      don't know much about it, and aren't that interested in learning more.
      Everyone knows that holding strong opinions about the
      Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a surefire ticket to painful arguments
      -- in this case, possibly within one's own family. Much easier just to
      let AIPAC be in charge of speaking for Jews on Israel and be done with it.

      American Jews may not be as susceptible as they once were to the old
      fear-and-guilt approach, as Rosenberg suggests, but for many Israel
      remains something of an untouchable subject. They may not support it
      100 percent, maybe not even 50 percent, but they're still not ready to
      do anything to undercut a group like AIPAC that does. For some, this
      is simply a reflection of a more or less ardent Zionism. For others,
      the reasons can be subtler. For Jews who have little attachment to
      their religion or their cultural traditions, supporting Israel --
      which for many, unfortunately, means actively or passively supporting
      AIPAC's position on Israel -- may be a way of demonstrating that they
      haven't completely abandoned their heritage. The internalized
      second-class status of being in the diaspora, too, may play a role:
      "Who am I in New York City to say anything against a guy in the West
      Bank facing suicide bombers?" As Haaretz's diplomatic correspondent
      and my longtime Salon colleague Aluf Benn once told me, "For American
      Jews, Israel is a cause. We Israelis don't see it that way."

      We find ourselves in a very strange situation. America's Mideast
      policies are in thrall to a powerful Washington lobby that is only
      able to hold power because it has not been challenged by the people it
      presumes to speak for. But if enough American Jews were to stand up
      and say "not in my name," they could have a decisive impact on
      America's disastrous Mideast policies.

      Gary Kamiya is a writer at large for Salon.
      Related Stories



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.