Just in case the definition of the Jewish right-wing is in question, the Zionist Organization of America is cause for pause. Ami Eden’s JTA blogging of their annual dinner fills in their basic understanding of Annapolis:
The ZOAâ€™s base is a mixture of secular and Orthodox right-wing Zionists, who can come together on at least one point: their belief that Arabs are murderous Jew-haters who will be motivated, not mollified, by Israeli and American appeasement. There were loud cheers when [Mort] Klein insisted that peace could only be achieved after the Arab side was dealt a decisive military defeat and when he said that Jerusalem was more important than peace â€” that no deal would be acceptable, even if it were to bring peace. [emphases added]
The fear of trustworthiness on Israel’s neighbors is a legitimate fear, let’s not discount that one bit. But it’s not reasonable as a political platform and certainly shows a pathetic understanding of Middle East dynamics, demographics and opinion.
Interestingly enough, AIPAC took indirect heat for not standing up for Israel’s sovereignty over disputed territories enough, which goes to show not how centrist AIPAC is, but how far extreme the ZOA thinks. U.S. Representative Weiner (D-NY) took a veiled swipe at them from the ZOA stump:
There is no organization in Washington, no organization at the grassroots that is more in keeping with making sure that Israel stays strong and our relationship stays solid than ZOA. Without fear of contradiction Iâ€™ll say this: more so than even that better known organization that does some very very important work.
Gag. It is no surprise that when Israel proceeds with actions the right detests (such as talking with Arabs) they cease in their assertion of supporting Israel “no matter what” and take aim at Olmert, like the Republican Jewish Caucus is doing presently.
AIPAC, unwilling to be left behind although weaker on it’s version of obstructionism, is sponsoring a resolution in Congress which parrots long-standing positions about the need for Fatah’s party platform to change, which is a moot point, being not an point of contention between the right and the left, but simply serves to flag-wave and saber-rattle amidst right-wing constituents. (AIPAC doesn’t want to be accused of laying off it’s own talking points by it’s own members.) Arguing that either Fatah or Hamas change their charter before being worthy of negotiations is like claiming Israel can’t negotiate until it defines it’s own borders and picks a constitution. Which is an interesting idea, I’m surprised the ZOA, the RJC and AIPAC haven’t tried it already…