Why AIPAC's Israel monopoly deserves to come to an end
Bruce Abramson is a politically conservative former lawyer colleague of mine. Jeff Ballabon is currently best-known as the man behind the Iron Dome Alliance, which is seeking to undo AIPAC's 'accomplishment' in making sure that the 2012 Republican platform was no more pro-Israel than the same year's Democratic platform. Jeff is a long-time pro-Israel activist with whom I am occasionally in touch (and who follows me on Twitter).
Bruce and Jeff have written a lengthy piece in which they demonstrate that AIPAC, the big 'pro-Israel' lobby, has lost its monopoly on pro-Israel lobbying. In the course of their article, you will understand why that's probably the best thing that has happened to US-Israel relations in a long time.
By eschewing policy innovation while occupying the entire field,
AIPAC has imposed upon pro-Israel activism the same sclerosis that
monopolists commonly impose upon the markets they dominate. In Israel’s
case, that sclerosis is both misplaced and dangerous. Israel is a small
state surrounded by enemies seeking her destruction and the genocide of
her citizens. As a foreign government dependent on the United States,
Israeli diplomacy compels conciliatory statements about American policy
and leadership. American activists are under no compulsion to believe
such statements. To the contrary, American supporters add maximum value
when championing the tough truths that diplomacy puts beyond Israel’s
reach.
Yet rather than pushing to expand Israel’s political playing field,
AIPAC has instead filtered Israel’s necessary diplomatic risk-aversion
through the partisan and policy preferences of its own membership. To
pick but one example, numerous American Jewish leaders, including
prominent members of the Conference of Presidents, have recognized that
American energy independence would weaken OPEC’s hold over American
policy and thus serve Israel’s interests. Rather than taking a
leadership role on the issue, however, AIPAC demurred, explaining: “We
knew as American Jews we couldn’t touch environmental issues and have
any credibility with our community. American Jews don’t want to destroy
Alaska to import a few barrels less from Angola.”
A political monopolist
who avoids alliances for reasons unrelated to its mission necessarily
weakens that mission—in AIPAC’s case, lobbying in Israel’s best
interests.
In classic monopolist form, AIPAC protects its market by playing to
avoid losing rather than to win. A pro-Israel lobby that played to win
would articulate basic, immutable principles for which it would
fight—and it would count among its “friends” only those elected
officials who supported these positions even when politically
inconvenient. Such a lobby would pressure Israel’s neighbors to work
with Israel while removing pressure on Israel to take risks that
compromise its security, and it would stop pushing to reward Arab
incitement and terror with a PLO-led state. Above all, a pro-Israel
lobby playing to win would innovate on policy, promoting truths and
ideas that run counter to conventional wisdom—even if such innovations
remain minority positions for the years that lobbyists often need to
assemble winning coalitions.
Anti-Israel forces understand the strategic imperative of policy
innovation, and they are rarely bashful about pushing ideas whose
absurdity is apparent to all people of good faith. Yasser Arafat first
fabricated Temple Denial from whole cloth in 2000, but within the past
year the New York Times has detailed the “controversy”
surrounding Jewish “claims” to the Temple Mount, and UNESCO has declared
the Kotel a Muslim holy site. BDS, which grew out of the United
Nations’ rabidly anti-Semitic Durbin Conference in 2001, began in
earnest with a coalition of radical fringe NGOs in 2005. By 2015,
allegations of Israeli apartheid and genocide had come to dominate
discourse among American academics and European parliamentarians.
Or consider the course of the so-called “Two-State Solution,” once a
policy innovation of the far left but now conventional wisdom. In 1980,
Jimmy Carter—hardly an Israel advocate—opposed as destabilizing the
emergence of an Arab state wedged into disputed territories that Israel
had liberated in 1967. Yitzchak Rabin, martyred in 1995 for his dovish
politics, never wavered from his opposition to a Palestinian state. In
1998, five years into the Oslo process, Hillary Clinton publicly implied
support for an independent Palestine; her husband’s White House issued
an official repudiation. Yet AIPAC now doggedly promotes “a negotiated
two-state solution—a Jewish state of Israel living alongside a
demilitarized Palestinian state.”
The erosion of Israel’s reputation and diplomatic standing among
Western governments—and in particular, among Western parties to the left
of center—should provide fertile ground for policy innovation. Who
objects to the canard that Israel is an occupier? Who lobbies the White
House to recognize an undivided Jerusalem—within its full current
municipal boundaries—as Israel’s capital? Who takes to task every
politician who differentiates the anti-Israel terror of Hamas, Fatah,
and Hezbollah from the world’s other instances of Islamist terror? Who
challenges the calls for “balance” in confronting the terrorist
mini-state of Gaza that are oddly absent from any discussion of other
terrorist safe havens? Who emphasizes the connection between
anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? Who pushes American politicians to
revisit the Oslo agreement—particularly following Mahmoud Abbas’s
unilateral withdrawal from its terms during his 2015 speech to the U.N.
General Assembly?
To each of these questions, the answer is “not AIPAC.” In typical
monopolist fashion, AIPAC does more than underinvest in policy
innovation: It objects to policy innovations that might imperil its
monopoly. That objection traps pro-Israel activism behind a
lowest-common-denominator bipartisan strategy in an increasingly
partisan world.
...
Unsurprisingly, those taking these divergent worldviews also see
Israel very differently. To a progressive, even one with no inherent
animus toward Jews, Israel mirrors the worst of America—an oppressor
state occupying the territory of an indigenous people, practicing
apartheid policies, demonstrating contempt for the international
community, and seeking to play by a unique set of rules. To a
conservative, the situation is just as clear. Israel possesses all of
the right cultural norms and values, stands allied against America’s
enemies, and places itself on the front lines of a civilizational
battle. Israel holds itself to exceptional standards of humanity and
decency despite the constant threats to its existence and widespread
opprobrium. Support for Israel is thus a logical and consistent part of
the conservative worldview, while an outlier among progressives.
The elections of 2006 through 2010 solidified the resorting of the
parties by worldview, and furthered their divergent views of Israel.
Hillary Clinton’s hawkish Senate record cost her the 2008 Democratic
nomination. Foreign-policy realists boasting impeccable Republican
pedigrees—from James Baker and Brent Scowcroft to Colin Powell and Chuck
Hagel—suddenly found warmer receptions on the left than on the right.
Tony Blair, leader of the maturing European left in the 1990s,
discovered that Republicans were his most receptive American audience.
In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders galvanized young Democrats behind positions
overtly hostile to Israel. Sanders was also the only presidential
candidate who skipped AIPAC’s 2016 Policy Conference; his submitted
comments parroted much of the standard progressive anti-Israel
rhetoric—and earned widespread praise from the left, including J Street.
AIPAC’s strategic bipartisanship inevitably dismays both those who
view Israel through the progressive lens and those who view it through
the conservative lens. In the face of the post-9/11 transformation of
the American foreign policy debate, AIPAC remains rigidly dedicated to
blind bipartisanship, doing little to educate or inform its members that
most of them are trapped in an increasingly progressive Democratic
Party boasting an increasingly powerful anti-Israel caucus. Polls show a
partisan split on the issue of Israel v. Palestinians of 83R-48D, with
pro-Israel Democrats now representing a minority of their party. That 35
percent gap makes Israel one of the most extreme partisan issues in the
current political climate, not remotely a matter of bipartisan
consensus.
***
J Street studied its market well before launching. Its founders
understood that AIPAC could not help but alienate the large numbers of
Jewish Americans who consider themselves Progressives but harbor some
affinity for Israel. The rival organization built upon AIPAC’s
unyielding dogma that there is no difference between the parties to
insist that the anti-Israel policies gaining salience among Democrats
represent the true pro-Israel positions. By redefining Zionism as
something close to its opposite, J Street gives American Jews a license
to remain proudly progressive and frees Democrats to be increasingly
adverse while still maintaining they are pro-Israel. To J Street’s
supporters, Israel’s true interests at any given point in time are
precisely those that the left says they are—thereby eliminating any
potential dilemmas arising from a divergence of Israel’s interests from
those of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. Furthermore, by
providing consistent visible Jewish support for President Obama’s
foreign-policy agenda, J Street has already conferred value upon both
its members and the Democratic politicians who need their support.
The Obama policy agenda that enabled J Street’s rise caught AIPAC
sleeping. For the first six-plus Obama years, nearly every policy or
pronouncement touching upon Israel produced a predictable sequence: J
Street emerged as an early, enthusiastic supporter, lauding the
president’s boldness and urging him to move in an even more progressive
direction. AIPAC noted both positives and negatives in the president’s
moves, studied their implications from all angles, and eventually
announced cautious, grudging support. As late as December 2013, amid
widespread alarm triggered at the Obama Administration’s dealings with
Iran, AIPAC called a special meeting of the Conference of Presidents to
demand that Jewish groups stop criticizing the president. AIPAC
Executive Director Howard Kohr declared at that meeting that AIPAC and
Obama share the “same goals” and have only “a difference of strategy”—an
assertion that AIPAC ought now regret.
Finally, in year seven, Israel’s government took an unprecedented
step to preempt AIPAC. In 2014, AIPAC had been willing to support the
president’s call to end sanctions on Iran as a step toward easing
negotiations. When it came to assessing the package that the Obama team
negotiated in 2015, however, Israel’s prime minister delivered a bold
and controversial speech to Congress that forced AIPAC’s hand. AIPAC had
little choice but to agree publicly with the Israeli consensus that the
deal represented an existential threat. For the first time in many
years, AIPAC appeared to launch a full-throated campaign to defeat a
Democratic administration priority—though it simultaneously offered
counter-productive (if not overtly cynical) reassurances that it would
exact no price from “friends” who supported the deal.
In 2016, AIPAC continues to monopolize the field of activists eager
to provide policy support for Israel, while J Street provides a useful
outlet for those unwilling to abandon progressive policy priorities
while maintaining or manipulating a pro-Israel self-image. Another
clearly visible market niche, however, remains unfilled: activists
adopting the conservative worldview unsatisfied with the compromises
inherent in bipartisan policy formulations.
The arrival of a partisan pro-Israel group to AIPAC’s right will
dethrone the Israel monopolist but not destroy it. AIPAC has invested
decades in developing a powerful brand, exceptional connections, a
demonstrated ability to work across the aisle, and unrivaled lists of
donors and grassroots supporters. Furthermore, AIPAC’s flagship
product—the foreign aid bill—is likely to become increasingly important
as fallout from the Iran deal triggers a regional arms race. Whether
broadly appropriate or not, to the degree that AIPAC can retain its
bipartisan relationships, it can help ensure continued military aid to
Israel regardless of the configuration of power in Washington.
In addition, though few cast it in such terms, AIPAC plays two other
critical roles: It serves as a Jewish pride organization and as a safe
space for Truman Democrats. Its annual Policy Conference provides Jewish
pro-Israel activists with a brief respite from pervasive anti-Semitism
and anti-Zionism. And AIPAC’s membership may represent the largest
remaining group of hawkish Democrats—voters who reject progressive
foreign policy even as they support other parts of the progressive
agenda. By providing a forum for such voters, AIPAC fills a niche
critical to American national security—as well as to the State of
Israel. Voters who place primacy on the ascendance of progressive
cultural mores and/or economic distribution, while still favoring a
strong national defense, deserve a forum in which they can speak
comfortably. AIPAC appears to be the only prominent organization filling
that need. Without such a forum, Democratic approaches to this
traditionally bipartisan belief will range from cavalier to
disdainful—much to the detriment of national security.
The pro-Israel community should push AIPAC to reposition itself with a
clear eye on contemporary reality. AIPAC can best serve the pro-Israel
cause by redeploying its formidable assets to help pro-Israel,
national-security-conscious Democrats defeat the anti-Israel
progressives ascendant in their party—certainly the most effective way
to ensure continued bipartisan support for Israel. New organizations
promoting policy innovation and adaptive political strategies must also
enter the pro-Israel market, however, to address challenges, push
policies, and forge alliances on behalf of Israel that run counter to
AIPAC’s strategic approach and the preferences of its members. AIPAC’s
directors and customers—i.e., the Jewish community’s leading
philanthropists and the grassroots activists who genuinely want to
protect Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship—should accept nothing
less.
AIPAC tries to blame Netanyahu for Iran deal's passage
With President Hussein Obama being credited with killing the so-called 'Israel lobby,' AIPAC, its most visible component, is blaming Prime Minister Netanyahu for the apparent passage of the President's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
“Netanyahu’s speech in Congress made the Iranian issue a partisan one,”
the AIPAC official told Israel’s Walla news. “As soon as he insisted on
going ahead with this move, which was perceived as a Republican maneuver
against the president, we lost a significant part of the Democratic
party, without which it was impossible to block the agreement,” said the
official, who asked not to be named.
AIPAC is disavowing the anonymous official.
AIPAC’s spokesman Marshall Wittmann dissociated the organization from
the remarks. “The comments by the purported ‘AIPAC official’ to Walla
News about the prime minister do not represent or reflect the views of
our organization and were not authorized by us,” he told The Times of
Israel. Ahead of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, he also noted, AIPAC
made plain it firmly supported the prime minister’s address. “AIPAC
welcomes the prime minister’s speech to Congress and we believe that
this is a very important address,” Wittmann said at the time.
“We have been actively encouraging senators and representatives to
attend and we have received an overwhelmingly positive response from
both sides of the aisle.”
It's no secret that AIPAC opposed the speech and that a number of Democratic members of Congress (the Times of Israel puts it at 50) did not show up for Netanyahu's speech. But that's not what made this a partisan issue. President Hussein Obama railroads the Democrats in Congress as if they were part of a parliamentary coalition voting in no-confidence votes, and he has made Netanyahu and Israel a target since the day he took office. It's Obama who has turned the US-Israel relationship into a partisan one, not Netanyahu.
Netanyahu can also be credited for the fact that two thirds of the American people oppose the sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran, regardless of what their Leftist dominated media is telling them. It will be interesting to see whether that opposition translates into trouble at the polls for the Democrats in 2016. Here's Elliott Abrams.
Netanyahu has always seen the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program as existential for Israel. In that case, how could he not
try to change the political calculus in the United States? Should he
have pulled his punches, said less, made this a smaller issue—not tried,
that is, to win the argument?
Actually, Netanyahu has won the argument:
most Americans are highly skeptical of the Iran deal and don’t like it,
and it will be disapproved in both houses of Congress. In the last
months opinion has shifted against the deal, and he can take some credit
for that. But his critics don’t blame him for losing, they blame him
for trying--damaging Israel’s relations with the United States and its
own credibility.
As to relations with the United States, there are
no polls suggesting any damage at all. Americans don’t appear to blame
an Israeli prime minister who argues about his country’s security.
Israeli political enemies of Netanyahu talk all the time about this
being the worst crisis ever in U.S.-Israel relations, which is nonsense.
They appear to have forgotten Suez in 1956, or the argument over Saudi
AWACS in 1981, or the denial of loan guarantees in 1992, for example.
So what are we talking about here? We are talking about damaging relations with the Obama administration.
To that argument there are two answers. First, it’s
a diminishing problem, because we are already in the election season.
At worst, Netanyahu risked another year of bad relations with Obama to
fight for his country’s security. Hard to call that a bad decision.
Second, it is also hard to believe that relations with Obama will
actually be worsened—only because they are already so bad. The personal
chemistry between the two men is awful, and has been from 2009. That
won’t change. And Obama’s policies in the Middle East and toward Israel—explained in full in Michael Oren’s memoir of his years as Israel’s ambassador in Washington during the Obama first term, Ally—have been harmful to Israel from day one, and those policies won’t change either.
Moreover, AIPAC bet all its cards on the Corker-Cardin bill which reversed the treaty process by requiring that only 34 Senators vote in favor of the sellout rather than 67. Yes, I know, the Supreme Court would not get involved anyway if Obama insisted it's not a treaty. But that argument would have lacked credibility if it were not for the Senate affirming that to be the case. Abrams also sees a possible redemption of AIPAC in the future.
Third, what AIPAC has lost or gained in reputation cannot yet be judged.
The campaign against Obama’s Iran deal has substantially delegitimized
the deal. If the next president abandons the Iran agreement, AIPAC can
take a good deal of credit. If the United States acts in the next year
or two to tighten the agreement with new demands on Iran, or increases
sanctions on Iran, AIPAC can take a good deal of credit. If members of
Congress who should have known better but voted with Obama are defeated
in the 2016 elections, AIPAC will very likely be given a good deal of
credit. The argument that a losing fight undermines and weakens AIPAC
was heard way back in 1981 when the organization opposed selling those
AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. It lost that fight and the planes were
sold—but U.S.-Israel relations prospered and AIPAC grew stronger.
Well, yeah. But unless the next President carries an R as his party affiliation, it doesn't appear likely that the deal will be abandoned.
In any event, blaming Netanyahu for the deal's passage is wrong-headed. Netanyahu had no choice but to behave as he did. Those who are blaming him are from the opposition parties and they are trying to unseat him. Most Israelis - including the opposition parties - agree that the deal is a bad deal.
When Chuck Schumer came out against the Iran sellout on Thursday night, I considered the possibility that he had coordinated with New York's Junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and with the Obama White House, so that Gillibrand would come out in favor so that the White House would have one New York vote, and Schumer could protect his Senate seat by coming out against. I should have known better.
The Obama White House - and the entire Left wing of the Democratic party (the so-called 'progressives') have gone to war against Chuck Schumer. The tweets embedded above are the least of it. For example, the Left-leaning Jewish Tablet Magazine has all but called out the Obama administration for being anti-Semitic(more at Memeorandum).
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out
about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and
retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a
political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator
Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple.
Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal
are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests
of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and
prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights
Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening
new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too
much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and
its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and
“lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a
direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.
It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white
power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten
so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the
administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
Schumer's announcement has also brought Stephen Walt's anti-Semitism out of the woodwork.
Schumer has also said that he will vote to override an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal. That means that Schumer's fallout with the 'progressives' may be permanent.
Credo Action is not alone. Dylan Williams, the political director of J Street, a Jewish group campaigning for the Iran deal, tweeted last night, "Seeing lots of Democratic heavy-hitters noting that, unlike the #IranDeal, there are alternatives to Chuck Schumer."
Steve
Rabinowitz, a Democratic communications consultant who works with
Jewish organizations, told me Friday that Schumer was in a "lose-lose
situation." At the same time, Rabinowitz speculated that Schumer could
turn it into a win-win and retain progressive support to be Democratic
leader in the Senate if he voted against the deal initially but didn't
press his colleagues to do so, and then voted against overriding an
Obama veto of the resolution of disapproval.
"Now we just have to
see if he really whips his colleagues, I hope not, and if there is a
veto override vote, what he does," Rabinowitz told me. "If he doesn't
whip his colleagues, and he votes with the president after a veto, then
he will have a way to have it almost both ways. I am disappointed, but I
get it. I get all these members and Jews going the other way, it bums
me out, but I get it."
Based on what his staff told me Friday,
however, that's not the plan: Schumer will stand against the deal no
matter what. The question now for New York's senior senator is whether
progressive Democrats who support the Iran nuclear agreement will go the
other way on Schumer's candidacy to lead his party in the Senate after
Harry Reid retires.
Schumer may have blown his chance to be party leader in the Senate (even that is doubtful, because the vote will be one of his Senate colleagues and I haven't heard any of them attacking him). But his apparently principled stand will likely mean he will keep his Senate seat.
Obama and Kerry blame Israel for hemorraghing Jewish support
The Obama administration is blaming Israel for blistering criticism that has been leveled at it by American Jews.
The Obama administration is worried that Israel is riling up American
Jews, according to a report in the Israeli press. The allegations are
detailed in a story headlined, "'US perceives Israel as encouraging
anti-Obama backlash among Jews,'" which appears in the Jerusalem Post.
The Post report reads, "A US official close to President Barack Obama
and Secretary of State John Kerry said both men are disturbed over what
is being perceived in their inner circle as 'Jewish activism in
Congress' that they think is being encouraged by the Israeli government,
Israel Radio reported on Thursday.
"The official has informed Israeli government figures that the
president and secretary of state are disappointed over repeated attacks
made against them by leading members of the Jewish community in the US.
"According to Israel Radio, Israeli diplomats and foreign officers
have warned against this trend. According to officials based in foreign
missions, the Israeli government is increasingly being viewed as fanning
the flames among American Jews by encouraging them to promote the
official government position while making no room for opposing
viewpoints."
Joe L, who sent me this story, says that the Obama administration's outrage is misplaced.
Rather than address the legitimate concerns being expressed, the
government is outraged ... outraged ... at groups opposing their inane
policies.
On the plus side, the wave building against them for the 2014 elections
looks like its going to make the 2010 shellacking look like a minor hand
slap.
But the whining of anonymous Obama administration officials to the Israeli media is just the tip of the iceberg. Thursday's Haaretz features an op-ed from none other than Peter Beinart with the outrageous title The only 'leader’ who speaks for American Jews on Iran is Barack Obama. Really? Barack HUSSEIN Obama represents American Jews???? Fortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, so unless you're actually foolish enough to pay for Haaretz, you'd have to look hard to find a free copy available, but this little blurb below the banner ought to give some indication of where the op-ed is heading:
Most American Jews support Obama’s policies on Iran - so in whose name are their so-called 'leaders’ sabotaging his nuclear diplomacy?
Obama setting Israel up to be scapegoat for Syria failure
Is President Obama setting Israel up to be the scapegoat for the failure of his Syria policy? Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, September 3.
The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to
back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel.
Right. The reason the administration is so intent on lobbing a few
cruise missiles at Syria is to protect Israel. Secretary of State Kerry
said:
“I think the stakes of upholding the international standard of behavior
that has been in place since 1925, after World War I, that only Adolf
Hitler and Saddam Hussein have breached that in time of war since then,
and now Assad joins them, I think to contemplate that the Congress of
the United States would turn its back on Israel, on Jordan, on Turkey,
on our allies in the region, turn its back on innocent Syrian people who
have been slaughtered by this gas and those who yet may be subject to
an attack, … I can’t contemplate that the Congress would turn its back
on all of that responsibility and the fact that we would have in fact
granted impunity to a ruthless dictator to continue to gas his people,”
Kerry told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace.
Well, of course it is critical that we go through the process of
explaining to congress. But each day that goes by, Major, this case is
getting stronger. I mean, today I'm at liberty to tell that you we now
have samples back from first responders in east Damascus. Those samples
of hair and blood have been tested, and they have reported positive for
signatures of sarin. So we are now getting a stronger case each day, and
I think that makes even more compelling that the congress of the United
States be counted with the president in this effort so that Israel,
Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, all of our friend and allies in the region,
will know that the United States is acting in concert in a way that
really sends a powerful message about our credibility, about our
intentions to uphold international norms, and that will have an impact
on other decisions down the road. And I'm very explicit about it with
respect to Iran and North Korea or others. The credibility of the United
States is on the line here. And I believe the congress will do the
right thing.
That's the pitch? Kerry, who is so worried about Israel's future
that he's focused, laser-like, on negotiations with the Palestinian
Authority, while Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Iraq are burning, now
makes the case that if patriotism isn't enough to motivate legislators
to support the President, then fidelity to Israel should motivate them.
Such sensitivity and subtlety in messaging!
https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/374459435344601088
I'm not just inferring something from the secretary of state's words. This is the messaging coming from the White House. The New York Times reports:
“I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back
on this moment,” Mr. Kerry said on the NBC News program “Meet The
Press.” “The challenge of Iran, the challenges of the region, the
challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally, Israel,
helping to shore up Jordan — all of these things are very, very powerful
interests and I believe Congress will pass it.”
One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified
discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political
Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its
allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable
of enforcing this red line” — against catastrophic use of chemical
weapons — “we’re in trouble.”
Israeli officials have been concerned by Mr. Obama’s decision, but have
been mostly restrained in their public comments. Mr. Kerry talked on
Sunday with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
The AIPAC paragraph is kind of baffling, but it seems that the
administration is complaining that even though it's acting in Israel's
interests, those ungrateful folks at AIPAC aren't supporting them. (If
there's one positive in this story, it's that President Obama didn't
enlist "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J-Street to do his campaigning. They may
support him, but they have no substantial support in the real pro-Israel
community. What a backhanded insult!)
https://twitter.com/michaelphirsh/status/374251930224062464
Similarly, Politico reports, Israel Lobby Silent on Syria:
The Israel lobby, including the high-profile American Israel Public
Affairs Committee and other Jewish groups, isn’t pushing for
intervention even as evidence emerged this week that the Assad regime
used chemical weapons against its citizens.
The silence could be a problem for Obama, since the Jewish groups are
connected across the political spectrum, wielding influence from the far
right to liberal Democrats on issues critical to the Middle East —
especially when it comes to the use of military force.
And while Obama has been willing to strike a foreign country without
Congress’s approval — as he did in Libya — this time he not only faces a
reluctant Congress, but a vocal chorus of Republican and Democratic
lawmakers publicly advocating against entanglement.
The article notes a reason for the reticence. Pro-Israel activists were
strongly associated with the war in Iraq and many in the mainstream
media blamed the pro-Israel crowd for encouraging the war. (Left
unmentioned is that Israeli leadership was skeptical about the war.
Then, as now, it was more concerned with Iran.)
https://twitter.com/AlMonitor/status/374434228294807553
Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner of the New York Times similarly report Obama’s Syria Decision Greeted Silently by Israel. The article notes that Israel is officially keeping silent about Syria. Perhaps the best quote in the article is here:
“The only thing that is clear is that Israel will take the heat either
way,” a senior Israeli government official said, speaking on the
condition of anonymity because of Mr. Netanyahu’s directive. “If we
remain on the sidelines, it will be seen as defiant criticism of
President Obama. And if we don’t, it will be seen as interference. There
is nothing we can do to come out clean.”
Exactly. Given two articles in the New York Times and one in Politico
asking why Israel and pro-Israel groups are quiet, one would have to
think that these stenographers have gotten the message from the
administration that it is unhappy that Israel isn't showing proper
appreciation for its efforts.
But, of course, I don't think that President Obama really wanted to act against Syria, but his administration is cynically setting up Israel to be blamed for his own failure.
Why am I convinced of this? Because last week it was reported Israel, after confirming that the Assad regime was guilty, that was pushing for an American response. In fact the New York Times published an op-ed by Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea that insisted:
President Obama is moving slowly and cautiously toward some form of
military action. He is not trigger-happy. Looking at the tough choices
he has to make at home and abroad, it seems to me a reasonable approach.
Other leaders, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,
criticize him, directly or indirectly, for being too cautious. Since
none of them is willing or capable to take this decision, they should be
more humble.
Last week, official Israel was too aggressive in demanding action; now, apparently, it's not supportive enough. What's changed?
(I'm using the New York Times for this analysis. Other reports suggest that Israel is indeed pushing the President. More recently, the New York Times reported that Israel's President Shimon Peres spoke out in support of President Obama; the point of the article was to contrast Peres' support with Netanyahu's reticence.)
https://twitter.com/sethacohen33/status/374533869539958784
What has changed, is the President's decision to seek Congressional
approval before striking Syria. According to David Horovitz, Israel's leadership was appalled by the President's change of heart.
Though dutifully silent in public, Jerusalem has quickly internalized
the damage already done — by the sight of an uncertain president, all
too plainly wary of grappling with a regime that has gradually escalated
its use of poison gas to mass murder its own people; a regime,
moreover, that can do relatively little damage to the United States, and
whose threats Israel’s leadership and most of its people were taking in
their stride.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any
eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory
in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led
the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them
attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.
If Israel were to be vocal it would be by this irresponsible and very public change of heart.
Really what Israel does or doesn't do isn't so important. What is important is what an official Syrian newspaper reported (via memeorandum):
A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama's
decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action
against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat."
Indeed, anyone who read this account
of how President Obama changed his mind about consulting Congress would
reach the same conclusion: the administration has no intention of
attacking Syria.
Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional
vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had
the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of
State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only
hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a
murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429
people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with
Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said. ...
The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed
Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration's
strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters
here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world
speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."
All that's needed now is a scapegoat. With the aid of his allies in the media, President Obama is deftly preparing one.
The 'Israel lobby' really is being flushed down the toilet. Chuck Hagel was confirmed as Secretary of Defense and Iran is likely to go nuclear. What happened? Why has AIPAC (which to many is the embodiment of the Israel lobby suddenly gone wobbly? Lee Smith explains.
For the past two months, those invested in
the Israel-U.S. relationship have been fixated on whether or not Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel would fundamentally alter U.S. policy toward
Israel. In addition to his revealing statements about Jews, the former
senator from Nebraska voted against sanctioning Iran and against
designating the Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.
Yet AIPAC has remained totally mum. The group says
it focuses its energies on matters of policy rather than personnel. If
it campaigned against Hagel, where would it stop? The organization would
potentially have to take a position on every Cabinet nominee. Meantime,
in the absence of AIPAC, other pro-Israel organizations have come out
publicly against Hagel, like the Emergency Committee for Israel. For
taking the lead on this issue, they have been labeled partisans, while AIPAC has preserved its bipartisan status.
But it’s not clear how much that label matters when a very
influential segment of the Democratic party has made it plain that
supporting Israel isn’t a top priority. I’m not just referring to the
delegates who booed pro-Israel changes to the party platform on the
floor of the convention in Charlotte last summer. I’m talking about the
White House.
Pro-Israel Obama supporters on the Hill and in the press keep trying
to make the case that in spite of how it might look on the surface, the
administration cares deeply about the U.S.-Israel relationship. They
point to the success
of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense batteries as evidence that
the security and military cooperation between the United States and
Israel has reached unprecedented highs under Obama’s stewardship. But
politics is mostly about how things look. And if the administration
really cared that much about Israel, it wouldn’t nominate a secretary of
defense who referred to defenders of the U.S.-Israel relationship as
“the Jewish lobby.”
***
The paradox is that by giving personnel a pass, AIPAC has lost the
policy debate. Policy is made by people who believe in certain ideas,
principles, and even fantasies. What Hagel seems to have learned from
his tours of combat in Vietnam is that it is a fantasy to imagine that
you can bomb a country into submitting to the will of the United States.
Presumably, this is why he also opposed the war in Iraq. The problem is
that deconstructing such a fantasy does not necessarily leave you with
reality. In Hagel’s case it has left him only with an equally dangerous
fantasy: that instead of waging war, it is possible to reach an
accommodation, if not an amicable understanding, with nations that have
clearly identified themselves as adversaries.
Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik argues that, contrary to Chuck Hagel's claims, the real Israel lobby is not the Jews. It's the American people.
This devotion to Israel’s well-being was made most manifest to me when I
was privileged to deliver an invocation at the Republican National
Convention last August. In my prayer, I spoke of the American belief
that our liberties were the gift of God, and that in enunciating this
principle America had been called to serve as a “beacon of freedom to
the world, and an ally of free countries like the State of Israel, an
island of liberty, democracy, and hope.” The audience, composed almost
entirely of non-Jews, broke into applause at these words, an unusual
reaction to an invocation. Most overwhelming was the warm reaction I
received from the delegates throughout the day, thanking me for my
prayer, and expressing their concern for, and blessings on, Israel.
This expression of love for Israel was not, as is often
unfairly suggested, founded on apocalyptic expectations, but rather on
the conviction that Israel is indeed an island of liberty in a region
that is an ocean of hostility to America and the American idea. As such,
Israel’s endurance represents a triumph of the American vision—a vision
that was, in part, inspired by the Bible, the book bequeathed to the
world by Ancient Israel. The depth of this American conviction was most
eloquently expressed not in a rabbinic invocation, but rather in a
speech made by a non-Jewish former governor of Texas, who never served
as a senator from Israel, but did spend eight years as president of the
United States:
The alliance between our governments is
unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any
treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of
the Book, the ties of the soul. . . . In spite of the violence, in
defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the
heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four
corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on
a love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human
dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. And you have fought
valiantly for freedom.
These words were spoken by President George W. Bush in
celebration of the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding. If someone had
lived his entire life in Israel and never met an American, he might
have been surprised by the profound love for the Jewish state expressed
by this non-Jewish president. Yet Americans understand that the
president was giving voice not only to his own views but also to those
of so many other citizens of the United States. It is because of these
Americans that the United States has stood steadfastly with Israel. If
anyone ought to understand this, it is a certain former “United States
senator”—and a Nebraskan, representiing Middle America, no less.
The Weekly Standard posts a devastating letter from Senator David Vitter (R-La) to Chuck Hagel. You can bet that many of these questions will come up at Hagel's confirmation hearing on Tuesday (Hat Tip: Noah P).
With regard to Iran, you told the Lincoln Journal
Star just two weeks ago that you “have not supported unilateral
sanctions because, when it is us alone, they don’t work and they just
isolate the United States.” You continued that, “United Nations
sanctions are working. When we just decree something, that doesn’t
work.” One week later, your letter to Senator Boxer makes no mention of
your previously expressed beliefs that unilateral sanctions do not
work, that they isolate the United States, or that United Nations
sanctions are working. Instead, you suggest in your letter that further
unilateral sanctions against Iran “may be necessary.”
I am concerned that in a span of just a few days,
your views on Iran sanctions appear to have changed three times – first
opposing Iran sanctions altogether, then opposing just unilateral
sanctions, and now supporting all sanctions.
Retracting your positions based solely upon public
criticism of your record raises serious questions on issues that are
critical to national defense. If you now claim to support unilateral
sanctions, why did you vote against renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act in 2001; why did you refuse to cosponsor the Iran Counter
Proliferation Act in 2007; why did you vote against the Comprehensive
Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) in 2008; and
why you put a hold on CISADA in 2008 after it cleared the Senate
Banking Committee over your opposition?
Furthermore, I am concerned by a subtle but
critically important statement you made to Senator Boxer – that further
sanctions may be needed because of Iran’s “rejection of diplomatic
overtures,” rather than because of Iran’s continued enrichment
activities in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The implication of this statement is that if the Iranians merely agreed
to sit down and talk, you would no longer support sanctions. Senator,
the objective of our policy should not be talks – the objective should
be a complete halt to all Iranian enrichment activities. Why do you
believe sanctions should only be tied to “Iran’s continued rejection of
diplomatic overtures” and not to the status of its nuclear program?
Separately on Iran, I am struck by what is missing
in your letter to Senator Boxer – that being any comment regarding the
need for a credible military threat to deter Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapons capability. During a visit to Pakistan in 2006, you
declared that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not
a viable, feasible, responsible option.” This puts you at odds with 77
Senators who signed a letter to President Obama last month, urging him
to reiterate his “readiness to take military action against Iran if it
continues its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon.” I am concerned that
your stance sends a clear signal of weakness to the Iranian regime at a
time when we cannot afford such signals.
You have also failed to address many other concerns
regarding your record and past statements related to Iran. Your
opposition to designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a
terrorist entity – at a time when the Guard was murdering American
soldiers in Iraq – appears indefensible. Furthermore, your past
statements, including in 2007 when you said, “Continued hostile
relations between the United States and Iran will have the effect of
isolating the United States,” and in 2008 when you wrote that,
“America’s refusal to recognize Iran’s status as a legitimate power does
not decrease Iran’s influence, but rather increases it,” leaves the
impression that your view toward Iran is out-of-step with mainstream
America and current U.S. strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon.
With regard to Hezbollah and Israel’s 2006 Lebanon
War, I am concerned by your attempt to paper over your record. In July
2006, almost immediately after the Israeli military began to respond to
Hezbollah’s kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers, you called on
President Bush to demand an immediate ceasefire. At the time you said,
“This madness must stop” and you accused Israel of “the systematic
destruction of an American friend – the country and people of Lebanon.”
You continued on to accuse Israel of carrying out a “sickening
slaughter” in Lebanon and said that the U.S. relationship with Israel
“need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim
relationships.” In my view, your attempt in your letter to Senator
Boxer to present your views during that period as resembling support of
Israel, in any way, is difficult to comprehend. I would rather you just
issue an apology.
In your letter, you imply that you have been
unequivocal in your belief that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
However, I remain concerned that while you have given speeches directed
toward Hezbollah’s actions, you failed to do so in your official
capacity while a U.S. Senator. One example is your refusal to sign a
letter urging the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization. Also, your letter to Senator Boxer fails to include the
necessary statement that you believe that the European Union should do
so today. Both the House and Senate have spoken with wide
bipartisanship on this critical issue. I remain hopeful you will
address these questions in the days ahead.
Finally, I am concerned by the way you attempt to
explain your much-reported comments regarding a “Jewish lobby” and your
oath to the United States Constitution rather than to Israel. As a
non-Jewish Senator who strongly supports the State of Israel, let me
assure you that my support is rooted in the shared values of our two
democracies. Let me further assure you that as a supporter of Israel
who took the oath of office, I am offended by the suggestion that my
support of Israel is somehow contrary to my Constitutional oath.
But more importantly, given the past weeks of back
and forth, I do not believe you fully understand why your comments were
so offensive to Jews and Gentiles alike. Your comments do not get any
better if you merely substitute “Israel lobby” for “Jewish lobby.” Your
statements clearly suggested the existence of a Jewish or Israel lobby
that “intimidates” American leaders into supporting a foreign
government’s interests over our own. Whether they were intentional or
not, your public comments echoed centuries-old anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories of influence in government and dual loyalty. Therefore, I urge
you to publicly apologize for the totality of your comments.
Senator Hagel, I ask that prior to your Senate
Armed Services hearing scheduled for January 31, 2012, you provide
clear, written answers to the following:
Read it all. And note that every question is connected to Israel and/or to the Iranian nuclear threat. There are many more objections to Hagel that could be raised (Iraq for starters).
Ranking Republican on Armed Services Committee to vote against Hagel
Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has announced that he will vote against Chuck Hagel's nomination to be US Secretary of Defense (Hat Tip: Noah P).
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), incoming Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today met with former Senator Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense.Following the meeting, Inhofe released the following statement:
“Chuck Hagel is a good person, and it was a pleasure to serve with him in the United States Senate.I am so very appreciative of the sacrifices he and his brother made to serve this country during the Vietnam War.We had a very cordial meeting today in which we discussed his nomination.
“Unfortunately, as I told him during our meeting today, we are simply too philosophically opposed on the issues for me to support his nomination.
“One of my biggest concerns is avoiding Obama’s sequestration that, as Secretary Panetta has said, would be devastating to our military.However, Senator Hagel’s comments have not demonstrated that same level of concern about the pending defense cuts.
“Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement.At a time when North Korea is threatening our allies with their nuclear capabilities and Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, the security of our own nation and that of our allies requires us to be vigilant with our own nuclear weapons and defense systems.This administration has already put us in a more vulnerable position by drastically cutting our nuclear defense budget and eliminating our Third Site missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.
“On Iran and Israel, Senator Hagel’s record concerns me as well.In 2000, he was one of just four senators who refused to sign a letter affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel.In 2001 he was one of just two Senators who voted against extending the sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization.Given the current tension in the Middle East that is largely being instigated by the Iranian regime, I am concerned with Senator Hagel’s views.
“Although we are opposed on issues, we are still friends.This is one of those rare times when policy differences don’t stand in the way of personal relationships.”
Reports from a number of sources indicate that key members of the American Jewish community have been informed by the White House that President Hussein Obama intends on Monday to nominate anti-Semite Chuck Hagel to be US Secretary of Defense. However, in a Saturday night interview with Jewish talk show host Zev Brenner, Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice President of the Conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group that represents 50 of
America’s largest Jewish organizations, and one of the people most likely to be called, said he had not been called and that he was not aware of anyone else that had been. Nevertheless, Hoenlein expects the nomination to move ahead.
Let's go to the videotape to hear the interview. More after the interview.
Note the swipe at Tom Friedman....Do you think the White House encouraged Friedman to write that column for Hagel?
If Hagel is going to be defeated, it looks like it's going to be up to the bloggers again.
Sorry but I don't agree. There is an awfullot of evidence aside from Miller's interview with Hagel. But get a load of the next segment. This is the American Left.
White House refuses to condemn Hagel's 'Jewish lobby' comments
I hope that the 70% of the 'Jewish lobby' that voted to reelect President Hussein Obama, and to have insinuations made about its lack of loyalty to the United States for the next four years, is pleased with itself.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to criticize comments
about “the Jewish lobby” made former Sen. Chuck Hagel, an adviser to
President Obama and candidate for Defense Secretary.
“We’ve been through this before with Ambassador Rice where there
is an effort to go after somebody,” Carney said. “Senator Hagel fought
and bled for his country, he served his country well, and he was an
excellent senator.”
Carney was being asked about a couple of statements by Hagel,
such as the remark that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people
up here” and the declaration “I’m a United States Senator, not an
Israeli Senator.” Carney refused to comment on those remarks, even
though the reporter suggested he might want to given Hagel’s role as an
adviser to Obama, quite apart from his potential nomination to lead the
Defense Department.
I hope all you card-carrying members of the 'Jewish lobby' are ready for four more years like this.
Judging by Tom Friedman's reaction, Americans must be seeing Mitt Romney as having been resoundingly successful during his trip to Israel. As you read Friedman's column, you can see that he's just seething that Romney may actually pull votes away from the anti-Israel Barack Hussein Obama. It's almost as if Republicans are not allowed to compete for pro-Israel votes in Friedman's book. And perhaps, they're not.
The observation is this: Much of what is wrong with the U.S.-Israel relationship today can be found in that Romney trip. In recent years, the Republican Party has decided to make Israel a wedge issue. In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to “out-pro-Israel” the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel. This arms race has pulled the Democratic Party to the right on the Middle East and has basically forced the Obama team to shut down the peace process and drop any demands that Israel freeze settlements. This, in turn, has created a culture in Washington where State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are “an obstacle to peace” — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel.
Add on top of that, the increasing role of money in U.S. politics and the importance of single donors who can write megachecks to “super PACs” — and the fact that the main Israel lobby, Aipac, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are “pro” and which are “anti-Israel” and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not — and you have a situation in which there are almost no brakes, no red lights, around Israel coming from America anymore. No wonder settlers now boast on op-ed pages that the game is over, they’ve won, the West Bank will remain with Israel forever — and they don’t care what absorbing all of its Palestinians will mean for Israel’s future as a Jewish democracy.
Hey Tom - it wasn't the Republicans who decided to make Israel a wedge issue. Support for Israel used to be bipartisan until the Democratic party fell under the control of the Radical Left and the split between Democrats and Republicans who support Israel reached crisis stage.
As to megachecks and super PAC's, we should all be reminded that a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama was the first candidate to turn down the McCain-Feingold money and spend a billion dollars on a campaign. If Friedman has complaints, they should be addressed to Obama, who killed public financing of Presidential campaigns four years ago.
I should also note that the two paragraphs quoted above could have been written by Stephen Walt. Walt's delusions also include AIPAC as a 'feared arbiter' of who is and who is not pro-Israel.
There's one small problem: Barack Hussein Obama is clearly not pro-Israel.
Elder of Ziyon picks up on one of Gordis's lines to suggest a "tweet" to promote a true understanding of Israel and its history.
Challah Hu Akbar picked up on a line stated by Beinart, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I agree with Challah's friend who's quoted. Israel's critics, like Beinart, often mis-characterize statements and events in order to create a framework for criticizing Israel.
This is kind of astonishing. This shouldn't be a debate at all. Beinart represents a fringe viewpoint in America generally and the Jewish community specifically. If he hadn't taken an anti-Israel stand, no one would pay attention to him. But it's been a good career move for Beinart. He got a book deal and gets to edit columns (mostly) devoted to bashing Israel at the Daily Beast.
According to BookScan, the respected service that tabulates point-of-sales purchases of books at stores around the nation, Beinart’s much-hyped effort is a flop. Reliable sources tell us that BookScan, which is believed to capture the figures that represent about 60 percent of the book buying in the nation, has tabulated that as of this week Beinart had only sold 2,845 copies of The Crisis of Zionism. Because books that sell thousands more than that number are considered by publishers to be busts, Beinart’s ballyhooed cri-de-coeur must be considered a colossal flop. And considering that Beinart is believed to have received an advance of several hundred thousand dollars for it, one imagines that the brass at Times Books — the partnership between Henry Holt and the New York Times that published Crisis — are kicking themselves for being duped into believing the market for post-Zionist carping extended beyond the tiny group of people who will buy anything that takes a dim view of Israel. Crisis’s current Amazon rating is 2,530. That might not be considered embarrassing for a run-of-the-mill non-fiction book. But it’s a terrible ranking for a book whose author has been feted on broadcast and cable networks in the kind of public relations blitz orchestrated by his publisher normally reserved for a blockbuster.
If I wrote a book and benefited from the level of promotion that Peter Beinart enjoys, I probably could sell 2,845 copies too!
Emanuele Ottolenghi quotes a strong argument against the demographic argument made by Beinart (and many other critics of Israel.)
Demographic developments undoubtedly are a source of long-term Israeli anxiety. But they are not the type of immediate threat that spurs risky political decisions. Moreover, the binary choice Palestinians, Americans, and even some Israelis posit—either a negotiated two-state outcome or the impossibility of a Jewish, democratic state—assumes dramatic and irreversible changes that Israel would not be able to counter. Yet Israel possesses a variety of potential responses. Already, by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, former prime minister Ariel Sharon transformed the numbers game, effectively removing 1.5 million Palestinians from the Israeli equation. The current or a future government could unilaterally conduct further territorial withdrawals from the West Bank, allowing, as in the case of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s West Bank government, or compelling, as happened in Gaza, large numbers of Palestinians to rule themselves and mitigating the demographic peril. The options, in other words, are not necessarily limited to a two-state solution, an apartheid regime, or the end of the Jewish state.
The insidious Israel Lobby has struck again. It somehow managed to infiltrate the United Methodist Church and convince the Methodists, by an overwhelming 2-to-1 margin, to vote against ending investments in companies involved in Israel’s enforcement of its control of the occupied territories. According to the New York Times, the Methodists’ decision follows similar repudiations by the Lutherans and Episcopalians.
One might have expected the Times to emphasize the lopsided nature of the vote and consider what it might say about the way Israel is perceived by American Christians. Instead, it buried any mention of the 2-to-1 margin until the penultimate paragraph, after devoting considerable ink to a wider discussion of the BDS (boycott/divestment/sanction) movement. The movement, we should add, has been remarkably unsuccessful.
Even the margin was reported in the context of the BDS movement:
In two separate votes, divestment was defeated by a 2-to-1 ratio. Susanne Hoder, a Methodist from Rhode Island and a spokeswoman for a group for divestment, the United Methodist Kairos Response, said: “Though we did not get the decision we hoped for, we have succeeded in raising awareness about the persecution of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. We have awakened the conscience of the churches and pointed out the inconsistency between our words and our actions.” Ms. Hoder said that four geographic regions, or “annual conferences,” of the Methodist Church — Northern Illinois, California Pacific, New York and West Ohio — had already voted to pull out their own investments. “We expect that more United Methodist conferences will do this,” she said.
Prisoner complaints, Rudoren writes, also are aimed at Israel's use of renewable periods of administrative detention without actual trial. But this is a tactic not unknown in the West, including the United States, when resort to full trials would jeopardize valuable intelligence sources inside terrorist camps. In the meantime, the prisoners in Israeli jails have access to their own lawyers and to reviews by Israeli courts. In fact, as Rudoren eventually acknowledges, two hunger strikers just appeared before the Israeli Supreme Court to challenge their detentions. So much for how Israel treats prison inmates. And what about all those non-violent tactics embraced by the Palestinians? Again, readers have to wait until they get to the jump page to find that 300 women marched in Ramallah, chanting "Down with the olive branch, long live the rifle." Not exactly a call to non-violence. But Palestinian sins are regularly forgiven in the pages of the New York Times. And what about the extent of this new, supposedly "non-violent" movement spawned by the hunger strikers? Again, readers have to slog through lots of hype and puffery before Rudoren admits that "so far, the solidarity demonstrations have been small."
In other words, this is not a news article but a work of political propaganda that could have been produced by a Palestinian public relations firm or an American Jewish group that acts as a Palestinian public relations firm. The purpose of this article is not to report or explain what is happening but to elicit sympathy and support for — shall I say it? well, it happens to be true — terrorist murderers or would-be murderers who were foiled despite their best efforts. Let me again add that there is nothing “liberal” or “conservative” about these facts. Nothing at all. Pretending otherwise is another propagandistic thought-control effort to get people to deny reality in the guise of opposing horrible right-wingers. It comes from the type of people who can ignore the persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, the Gaza Strip, and other places in the Middle East while fabricating and highlighting claims that Israel is making Palestinian Christians flee.
4) An observation The three items above show a disturbing trend among a certain segment of the intellectual and journalistic elite in this country. Regardless of their shallowness or shabbiness criticisms and condemnations of Israel are taken as a sign of one's moral seriousness and sophistication. When the critic, like Peter Beinart, claims to be a Zionist the argument is prized even more.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
