by masthead · Sunday, June 15th, 2008
Guest post by David Albert, Ph.D.
As I was catching up with last week’s New York Times, I came across an article that appeared in last Sunday’s (June 8th) NY Times entitled “Six Points to Remember for Your AIPAC Speech”:
I’ve never seen anything quite like it in the NY Times or really any other mainstream American media. This article is essentially mocking the way in which both McCain and Obama spoke to AIPAC’s National Policy Conference 2 weeks ago and essentially told them practically everything that wanted to hear with little (Obama) or no (McCain) criticism of Israeli behavior. The phenomenon is not new. Politicians have been appearing at AIPAC’s Policy Conference and kissing up to them since the 1980s. I’ve analyzed the rhetoric that they used extensively in my dissertation which includes many examples of similar quotes to the type spoken by the Presidential candidates.
However, what is new here is that not only is this phenomenon being reported in the mainstream media, but it is being mocked by it. First by the leading Jewish comedian in the country, Jon Stewart, on June 5th Daily Show and then a few days later by the Jewish-owned New York Times - the most prestigious and respected paper in the country - especially for American Jews and especially around Israel. Although I don’t know when the Times began preparing this article, I actually think that Jon Stewart’s routine may have given the NY Times “permission” to mock AIPAC. This sort of criticism was not happening a few years ago. This suggeststo me that something fundamental has happening in the U.S. over the last few years. The media has begun to look more critically at AIPAC for the first time really. AIPAC has begun to lose some of its power to intimidate its critics. Why? I think there are several reasons. First, there is the role of Brit Tzedek, Americans for Peace Now, and J Street in creating an alternative Jewish voice that challenges AIPAC as the consens pro-Israel Jewish voice. Second, the AIPAC spy scandal has at least slightly undermined AIPAC’s claim that they always promote America’s best interest which they claim are always synonmous with America’s national interest. Third, President Carter’s book and recent efforts to engage Hamas have punctured AIPAC slightly.
This is criticism coming from a Nobel Peace-prizing winning former President and elder statesman and that has never happened before. Fourth, the Mearsheimer/Walt article/book/debate has given critics a well-respected academic voice to challenge AIPAC’s strategic claims. The book did not introduce anything new in academic terms (scholars had been saying what they said for decades!), but it brought the academic debate to public awareness in a way that that it had never happened before. The combination of all these events has begun to pierce AIPAC’s shield of invulnerability.
AIPAC remains the dominant powerhouse force on these issues without a doubt. Their policy conference brought 7000 of their activists to Capitol Hill 2 weeks ago. The fact that McCain and Obama (and Pelosi, Reid, Boenher, McConnell, Condi Rice and H. Clinton) spoke there as they did proves that AIPAC power is still extremely strong. But, they are no longer unquestionable and unchallengable. The politicians are perhaps running a bit behind the media and activists in realizing this. Machiavelli wrote long ago about the power of being feared. They can now be mocked which suggests to me that they are no longer feared as much as they were before. The media doesn’t fear being labeled “anti-Semitic” as much as they used to for challenging AIPAC. This is a small, but powerful sign that we are making progress - but we have a long way to go. My suspicion is that we will see when we visit DC next week that AIPAC is a little more vulnerable than it has been in the past.
David Albert teaches at Austin Community College and University of Texas - University Extension in Austin, TX. Â He recently presented on his doctoral dissertation topic — “60 Years of Defining and Redefining Israel’s Strategic Value to the U.S.” — at the Association for Israel Studies Conference at NYU. He is a national board member and Treasurer of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom.
by feygele · Monday, March 31st, 2008
The government of Israel is partnering with Jewish community organizations in Toronto to improve Israel’s image and to get Canadians thinking of the country outside “the narrow prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”Ido Aharoni, founder of the ministry’s Brand Israel concept said the ministry has conducted market research over the past few years that showed “Israel is viewed solely through the narrow prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict… Israel’s personality is 90 per cent dominated by conflict-related images and some religious connotations,” he said. “Those of us who know the brand intimately are disturbed by the divergence of brand and the perception.”
Federation spokesperson Howard English said his organization and other federated communities across the country are committed to supporting the branding initiative and mobilizing the Jewish community behind the effort. [source]
From my temporary station in the US, I heard the same spin coming from an AIPAC sponsored-speaker this weekend. Yes, there’s war, the speaker acknowledged, but why aren’t we praising Israel’s contribution to technology, alternative power sources, and films? (”Such a small fraction of a percentage of the world speaks our language, but yet our films win awards at all of the film festivals! Everyone should be seeing our films!”) Why is this the wrong approach? Why does this idea of rebranding, marketing Israel as “more than violence!” irk me? Because Israel’s military policies and human rights abuses should not be ignored just because some Israelis are also really good at developing computer chips. If anything, as the Jewish nation, Israel should be held to higher standards than secular nations, or nations of other religions.
And what about the other issue: not all Jews share the same views (ideologically, politically, religiously) of Israel. And yet Federations are supposed to (at least in theory), represent and support all Jews. If Canada’s Federations follow suit, as English suggests, won’t we just continue to further alienate those among us who already feel out of place in our communities? Any time a national organisation, or network of organisations, makes a statement saying “All of Us will do X, Y, and Z,” it makes me nervous - and makes me realise just how far removed those organisations are from the communities and people they’re supposed to be serving.
by Kung Fu Jew · Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Somebody squealed. The “J Street” project, America’s first progressive Israel PAC, was supposed to be launched next month, but the Jewish Week breaks the story that indeed, forces of the American Jewish community are organizing to kick the right-wing stranglehold on Congress in the knees.
Having been to DC in legislators’ offices for various causes and in particular Israel, it’s disgusting how the Hill functions. Most legislators don’t make decisions on Israel — they defer to the Jewish Congresspeople. Who in turn defer to Jewish money. In exchange, a Jewish legislator votes according to those other reps on their issues. As a result, issues with single-constituent lobbies (i.e. almost nobody lobbies on Israel except the Jews) get their way, which means a donor in New York can easily influence a legislator from Arizona on an issue with little or no Arizonan constituency. Lastly, Bills are rarely written by legislators but by the lobbies, who pitch them to friendly lawmakers, and then whip other legislators into line. Lobbies invent faux grassroots groups and think tanks to support their interests (case in point: CMIP, a publisher of repudiated research on Palestinian textbook hate speech).
And it’s sad that real votes (local constituents calling, phoning and visiting) are only an expression of money, as in how many votes can you organize for your issue with the money you have? For comparison, AIPAC is on the Hill four times a year; ZOA brought 300 people to their last advocacy conference; the JCPA (although far from the worst) represents 125 organizations of the American Jewish community’s old guard yearly. Despite all that, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom was founded in 2002 to put Jewish votes behind pro-peace legislation and has brought to Washington a new knowledge (and a few slim victories) that the Jewish community is diverse — and that the old guard poorly speaks for the average Joseph. BTVS just announced it’s annual leadership conference and advocacy visit to the Hill, June 21-24, which you should join.
But sadly, American democracy is more coin-operated that hand-crank. More »
by aaronf · Wednesday, January 9th, 2008
A delegation of Columbia University professors is planning a trip to Tehran to apologize to Ahmadinejad. The Israel Lobby authors say we need “candid but civil” dialogue about the ME. This could be a fine example of that.
by Kung Fu Jew · Monday, January 7th, 2008
My cell phone rings. It is an unidentified number. Shit. Suspecting it’s the ex, I hit ignore. Checking voicemail minutes later, it’s (and I shit you not) a 20-year senior member of the Israeli parliament, asking to meet me. Flattered of course I was, but humored also. Because of the many progressive Israel entanglements in which I find myself these days, it’s not surprising that an aide in the office of Meretz MK Ran Cohen thought I might be able to offer him political and financial assistance as he prepares to run for chairmanship of the Meretz party primaries on March 18th. No doubt he was surprised when a 24-year-old showed up with nothing along those lines to offer. Regardless, escort he did let me to a coffeeshop gathering of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom activists in NYC where this interview was taken.
This interview was approximately a month ago and is all the more relevant now that party chairman Yossi Beilin announced he was not going to run for reelection and endorsed Hiam Oron.
MK Ran Cohen dreams of reclaiming the social justice agenda which Meretz has lost to Beilin’s focus on the peace process and thereby regaining the 5 seats Meretz has steadily lost over the past 10 years. Meretz has lost on average one seat a year, primarily in support from low-income Russians and immigrants as it became a one-trick peace pony. As The Economist said delicately, Beilin “ran it [Meretz] into the ground. His own defence, that other parties had appropriated Meretz’s peace agenda, is only partly true; he neglected its other core issues such as social justice and civil rights.” Cohen talks briefly here about all the issues of the day — Annapolis, the future of Kadima, and his party — and his hopes for Meretz.
KFJ: Is it important that Annapolis is happening?
RC: The answer is clearly yes, for two reasons. Even though I’m not so optimistic either. Ehud Olmert is not going to make comprehensive peace without a reasonable solution to Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. But the only way to open roads to continued negotiations are meetings like Annapolis.
The other reason: every minute without negotiations equals a minute with less violence. Terrorists won’t wait. Hamas will burn [incite] the situation. Hamas is sensitive to the demands of the Palestinian people; without hope among the people, Hamas will send bombers to fill the vaccuum. Dialogue is the best way to prevent violence.
More »
by Kung Fu Jew · Monday, November 26th, 2007
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 ZOA’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 — 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 I’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…
by Kol Ra'ash Gadol · Monday, September 10th, 2007
Ok, I grant you, I’m a little behind in posting this; 
last Tuesday, I was listening to NPR on my way to a doctor’s appointment, and since recently someone commented on one of my other posts how nice Jewschool has been since Mobius and his self-hating self was gone (although thankfully, he wasn’t and proceeded to prove it by commenting himself) and with him apparently all dissent in favor of sweetness and light and imbecility, I feel very fortunate to have caught this pair of interviews on Fresh Air (here’s the other). These two interviews are those of Stephen Walt of the infamous Walt and Mearsheimer, commenting on their book The Israel Lobby, and Abe Foxman, being interviewed on his rebuttal of their book in his book, The Deadliest Lies.
Now before I begin, I have to admit that I have read neither of the books in question, neither Walt and Mearsheimer’s, nor Foxman’s (which I should do, and will), and so I have to grant that how incredibly reasonable and even-handed Walt came off, and how frothing and foolish Foxman sounded, could simply be, for either, or both, of them, a matter of presentation or an artifact of the medium, or a coincidence of a bad (or good) confluence of the type of questions they were asked.
But I don’t think so. Walt was interviewed first, which in theory (assuming the interviews were actually in real time) ought to mean that Foxman should have heard what he said and been able to respond to it. But in truth, there wasn’t really all that much to respond to. Oh, I could certainly wish that W&M knew more about the various organizations in the Jewish community opposed to the policies of the Israel right or wrong no criticism crowd. But it was clear that he had heard of them. And, on the other hand, Walt certainly made it clear that he was aware that the organizations that support the “pro-Israel lobby” (*quotes, because I understand that those so called, are not necessarily those who are bringing about results beneficial to Israel) don’t actually represent the majority of Jews in the USA. He said so outright. He was also clear that although there are certainly Jews in the political allies of the so-called Israel lobby, Jews are not the only ones who are pushing for the policies which he is analyzing as problematic (and which many , many Jews have also called on for analysis, too) -and he names names, off the top of his head, of non-Jews and some non-Jewish organizations who fall into that category, as well. So the charge of antisemitism is hard to make stick, especially when he also noted that there is nothing wrong with lobbying-that Greeks and Poles and Irish, and Airline pilots and teachers all do it, and that it’s a part of our political system and perfectly okay, but that that is also why it is so essentially important that no one be above the possibility of analysis and critique. If whenever one questions any policy decision, for any reason, one is labeled as an anti-Semite, that can be no good for anyone in a free society.
Walt also stated, correctly, that anyone trying to make hay out of the connection between the neo-cons and the Jews was off in left field, given that Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general population, making any accusation of Jews responsibility for the war completely absurd. In fact, his main point seemed to be that, although they believe themselves to be acting for the benefit of BOTH the USA and Israel, this group of conservatives that he is calling the Israel lobby are quite likely not doing any favors for either.
More »
by Kung Fu Jew · Friday, August 24th, 2007
 Foxman under fire in Haaretz by an editor at Moment magazine:
Foxman has particularly distinguished himself by indulging in spineless acts of rhetorical ambiguity, declaring that “this is not an issue where we take a position one way or the other. This is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” This from a man who rightfully claims that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial amounts to an attempt to destroy Jewish identity! This from the leader of an organization that has rightfully called on the world not to avert its eyes from the genocide underway in Sudan’s Darfur region! (One wonders what Foxman would do if Khartoum were on friendly terms with Jerusalem.)Â
A shout out to Jewcy.com for leading the charge on that one, full battery listed here. Meanwhile, AIPAC is taking hits at Huffington Post:
All the good that they had done for Israel in their early days has now been offset by the power they have established in the D.C. community. As with any powerful lobby, there is a tendency for such groups to bully their way through the Congress to achieve its goal. And AIPAC is no worse or better than the NRA and other such self-interest groups. While AIPAC is primarily a Jewish organization, I am aware that most liberal Jews hate what they are doing and the tactics that they are using. Since over 70% of American Jews are liberal, I believe that AIPAC is not representing the views of most of the Jewish community.
I want to point out that progressive or unaffiliated or alternative opinion Jews have as much responsibility for the right-wing stranglehold over “mainstream” Jewish life as right-wing fatheads themselves — for ceding the space to them. Hopefully, as I’ve watched the number of AIPAC sorties increase in the Jewish press over the past three years (ten years ago, I’m told, this was just unheard of in Jewish press), this cessation is giving way to more and more progressive voices breaking into communal space. The birth of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and JVP attest to one side of the equation of a particular Israel debate where the dissatisfied are picking up clubs, whereas the pickup of once-controversial firebrands by the institutional voices signals an acknowledgment from inside that the calculus of communal opinion is changing. (We hope.)
Jewschool was given the option to fade away upon the retirement of our founding editor, but all of us felt that our voice — particularly a religiously-progressive, politically-progressive, socially-progressive voice — is vastly important to the vibrancy of the Jewish community, to the boat rockin’ that needs be done for it’s sake. More so than any so-called attack on the right wing, which is just a metaphor that I’m using here, but an attack on the hesitations we alternative thinkers have on engaging with mainstream institutions, with playing with the big boys, and balancing the impact of right-wing fatheads like Foxman can have upon the future of Jewish life.
The assault is on. Shabbat shalom.
by Ruby K · Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
(note: an interesting point from a friend who passed it on- RK)
One of the most courageous and talented journalists in America today is Nicholas Kristof. He has traveled from the brothels of Cambodia (to rescue child-prostitutes) to the refugee camps of Darfur (to report on genocide) often at great personal risk. On March 18, 2007 he took what may be seen as his greatest professional risk. Namely, he took on the Israel Lobby in his column Talking About Israel.
Read it with a deep sigh of relief, because Kristof is a powerful ally to Palestinians and Israelis seeking peace. This is in part a result of his deep and widely respected humanism. But it’s also because over the past few years, his concern for Darfurian victims of genocide in the Sudan was championed by an impressive array of American Jewish leaders. Select quotes include these gems:
“There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans…†regarding Israel.
“American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves.â€
“American politicians just don’t get it.â€
“Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long-term security….â€
“… [S]ecurity for Israel will emerge only from a peace agreement.…â€
“…[L]et’s be better friends—and stop biting our tongues.â€
Never mind that these views are practically the consensus among journalists, diplomats, scholars and most American Jews; what matters is that our political elites behave as though they were the captive of a small yet powerful special interest group. An interest group that shrewdly manipulates reasonable concerns regarding terrorism, Israel’s survival and anti-Semitism to silence, smear and defame any opposition.
Democratic Party activists are gearing up for a wonderfully open primary race. While no one expects über-war supporter and AIPAC cheerleader Hillary Clinton to evolve - nor would anyone believe it - there is still room for pressuring other worthy candidates, such as John Edwards and Barak Obama. Some of us have been thinking about such a campaign for some time, but now it’s official. Thank you, Nicholas Kristoff, for kicking it off. Let’s hold our leaders - esp. the Democratic nominees for the Presidency - accountable on the Israel debate.
Join us in saying thank you to Nicholas Kristoff and demanding a real conversation on US policy towards Israel.
by Mobius · Tuesday, March 20th, 2007
Salon reports,
[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.
Best line: “This group no more represents ‘the Jews’ than the Shining Path represents ‘the Peruvians.’”
Full story.
by Mobius · Monday, March 19th, 2007
In the NY Times Review of Books, Geroge Soros writes,
AIPAC is protected not only by the fear of personal retaliation but also by a genuine concern for the security and survival of Israel. Both considerations have a solid foundation in reality. The same two factors were at play in the United States after September 11 when President Bush declared war on terror. For eighteen months thereafter it was considered unpatriotic to criticize his policies. That is what allowed him to commit one of the greatest blunders in American history, the invasion of Iraq. But at that time the threat to our national security was greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as to warn that the threat would manifest itself in the form of a mushroom cloud. In the case of Israel today the threat to national security, even national survival, is much more real. Israel needs the support of the United States more than ever. Is this the right time to expose AIPAC’s heavy influence in American politics? I believe this consideration holds back many people who are critical of the way AIPAC conducts its business. While the other architects of the Bush administration’s failed policies have been relentlessly exposed, AIPAC continues to be surrounded by a wall of silence.
I am not insensitive to this argument. It has held me back from criticizing Israeli policies in the past. I am not a Zionist, nor am I am a practicing Jew, but I have a great deal of sympathy for my fellow Jews and a deep concern for the survival of Israel. I did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of Israel. I rationalized my position by saying that if I wanted to voice critical views, I ought to move to Israel. But since there were many Israelis who held such views my voice was not needed, and I had many other battles to fight.
But now I have to ask the question: How did Israel become so endangered? I cannot exempt AIPAC from its share of the responsibility.
Read on…
by Mobius · Saturday, March 17th, 2007
- “On March 13, the same day House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said he had removed the Iran provision from the draft war spending measure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., quietly promised Appropriations Committee Democrats that she would soon bring the measure up as a stand-alone bill, said James P. Moran, D-Va., who attended the meeting in Pelosi’s suite.”
- “Taming Leviathan”: The Economist chimes in on the divide between liberal American Jews and AIPAC.
- Sarah Posner @ The American Prospect: “In anticipation of Hagee’s appearance at AIPAC’s conference, there has been much discussion about whether Hagee is actually an anti-Semite who blames Jews for the Holocaust yet anticipates their conversion at the Second Coming — and another debate over whether it’s actually good for Israel or the world’s Jews when groups like AIPAC ally themselves with him. But judging from the crowd’s reaction, and that of delegates I spoke with afterwards, none of that mattered. Like other Jewish leaders I’ve talked to about Hagee, the attitude is simply that Israel has very few friends, and it needs all the friends it can get. If Hagee is willing to mobilize hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of conservative Christians to the cause, then they’re willing to overlook his eagerness for the Second Coming (when we’ll all become Christians), because it’s just a silly fantasy that won’t come to pass, anyway.”
- “Defense lawyers and media organizations are objecting to what they say is a government effort to bar the public from the upcoming trial of two pro-Israel lobbyists charged with violating U.S. espionage laws.”
- Cenk Uygur @ HuffPo: “If they represented what was in Israel’s best interest, why on God’s green earth would they have lobbied for the Iraq War? All that war has done is destabilize the region, created more Sunni and Shiite extremists - both of whom hate Israel, and strengthened Iran. The Iraq War has been an utter disaster for Israel. And yet the so-called Israeli lobby lobbied for it. Now, they are doing the same with Iran. And if you thought the Iraq War turned out badly for Israel, wait till you get a load of the Iran War.”
- Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict (JAIPAC): “Most experts predict that an assault on Iran will produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists’ hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.”
