 |
| Steven J. Rosen |
There’s [an] elephant in the room in this AIPAC conference, and this elephant is American policy in the region. In one session after another one hears criticism of American inaction, American hesitation, American lack of coherence. The criticism is at times subtler, and at times more direct, but it’s almost always there.
AIPAC logo.
|
"for days after the election the Likud refused to speak to the Jewish Home. They boycotted us… we expected to be a natural partner and to be the first to enter the Netanyahu government." The message he claims he got was, "the religious Zionist party won’t enter the coalition, at any price."
The Turkish prime minister has expressed his anger with Israeli policies in blunt terms at international forums in the past, most notably at Davos in 2009. He stormed off the stage at the end of a heated discussion of Israel’s Gaza offensive, after telling President Shimon Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.”
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.
Due to the inability of the prosecution so far to come up with a means of presenting its case that passes both constitutional and judicial muster, the case against two former AIPAC officials is likely to be postponed from its initial June 4 trial date.
Part of the prosecution's problem seems to be whether the classified information in question is actually damaging to national security.
[Hat tip: Larwyn]
Technorati Tag: AIPAC.
SOROS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Eli Lake writes about the reaction of the Democratic Party to George Soros' essay about AIPAC.
There seems to be a drift towards CAIR by major Democrat players like Conyers and Pelosi, countered by a perceived need felt by Democrats to publicly reiterate their support for Israel and rejection of the "Israel Lobby" accusation--wiggle room for the Democrats may be shrinking.
Technorati Tag: Soros and AIPAC and Democrats.
On this, John Hood notes:Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel 's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.
The opposite is the case. One of the myths propagated by the enemies of Israel is that there is an all-powerful Zionist conspiracy. That is a false accusation. Nevertheless, that AIPAC has been so successful in suppressing criticism has lent some credence to such false beliefs. Demolishing the wall of silence that has protected AIPAC would help lay them to rest. A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it.
So, accusing the "pro-Israel lobby" of pervasive and nefarious influence over American politics and universities, and using the accusations to bludgeon AIPAC and politicians it supports, would prove to the world that Zionism isn't all-powerful and thus combat anti-Semitism? Wow.George Soros is so hell-bent on going after AIPAC, he does not care what he has to say or do to get it done.
The September meeting — and other related meetings — focused on how best to press the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration to back greater U.S. engagement toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to better represent American Jews who don’t buy into AIPAC’s often hawkish policies.This is the same Soros who was criticized in 2003 at a conference on funding for Israel, when he said Israel was partially responsible for the increased anti-Semitism in Europe because of its strong response to Palestinian terrorism during the intifada.
David Elcott, the executive director of the Israel Policy Forum, Debra DeLee, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now; Mara Rudman, a Clinton-era member of the National Security Council and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank; Daniel Levy, a former adviser to dovish Israeli politician Yossi Beilin who now works at the New America Foundation, another Washington think tank; M.J. Rosenberg, director of IPF’s Washington office; Jeremy Rabinovitz, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), a congresswoman who often backs positions taken by the dovish pro-Israel groups; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, and his deputy, Mark Pelavin; and representatives of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, another dovish, pro-Israel advocacy group.Apparently, part of the impetus for the project is the result of the success of three of the above groups--IPF, APN and Brit Tzedek--in killing the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which would have cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority until it renounced terrorism and recognizes Israel.
...the three dovish groups surprised many members of Congress with the vehemence of their response; Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said that calls opposing the legislation outpaced those in support by a 3-1 margin.Additionally, working behind the scenes, the dovish lobbyists helped moderate the Senate version of the act considerably, working in exceptions for assistance to Mahmoud Abbas, the relatively moderate P.A. president, allowing President Bush greater power to waive the sanctions and removing language that would have severely restricted aid to nongovernmental organizations working with the Palestinians.
The differences between the Senate and House versions ultimately were irreconcilable, and the bill never landed on Bush’s desk for signing.
By all appearances, an new advocacy group with such a philosophy behind it has the potential for creating all kinds of sparks as it would go head-to-head against AIPAC, although one of the organizers behind the idea denies it:
One of the organizers of the initiative insisted that the effort was not meant to replace or confront AIPAC.
“It’s kind of like GM and Ford,” said the organizer, who asked not to be identified because the effort was still in the planning stages.
“We put out a model of a product and go into the marketplace of ideas and compete. We are a group of people who are looking for the best way to ensure Israel’s survival and future,” said the organizer, describing the initiative’s aims as favoring a two-state solution and greater U.S. engagement.
“We’re going into existence because this product is not being offered right now. We want to make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice.”
If it is being suggested that the idea of a two-state solution "is not being offered right now," that is somewhat naive. If the purpose of the group will be to "make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice," the question arises if the problem really is that the point of view needs a clear and loud voice here in the US--or in Gaza and the West Bank.
Now is the time for the Olmert government to forthrightly announce that the new lobby is not pro-Israel, but rather anti-Israel.In any case, the halls of Washington are going to be getting a little bit more crowded--and not only because of the possible appearance of a 2nd pro-Israel advocacy group. Let's not forget about the Arab lobby:
Even if the government does no such thing, Israel’s citizens have a responsibility to explain to the organized American Jewish community and to its umbrella organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, that we, the citizens of the largest Jewish community in the world, view these groups as anti-Zionist. Israeli citizens should request an explanation for the inclusion of some of these groups in pro-Israel umbrella organizations like the Conference of Presidents when their goal is to weaken Israel, to weaken Israel’s alliance with the US and to strengthen Israel’s enemies.
The Arab lobby in Washington was a major factor behind American pressure on Israel to change its policy of keeping American Arabs out of Judea and Samaria, the London Telegraph reported. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice objected to the policy, claiming it could drive 35,000 Arabs with American citizenship from their homes.Maybe George Soros and his friends could promote the creation of a dovish pro-Arab advocacy group?
"A vigorous advocacy campaign by Palestinian-Americans in the United States, echoing the kind usually associated with Washington's pro-Israel groups, is credited with getting the U.S. to pressure Israel," the newspaper stated.
Technorati Tag: Israel and George Soros and AIPAC.
