Archive
To Any of You Going to the AIPAC Policy Conference – Please Send Me a Report
I know that you will have an exciting time with lots of energy and hoopla. But I am very curious to hear about the tone and content of what transpires.
First, I would like to know whether Kerry’s diplomatic push is spoken of in a positive or negative manner. That is, whether U.S. getting the sides to the table is a good thing or not – NOT whether the chances of success are good. Not whether there is no partner, etc. That is, does AIPAC support diplomacy with regard to the Palestinians?
I am interested to hear how much support you hear for a two state solution. Again, not whether or not it is likely to come about right now – but whether it is a good idea or not that trying our hardest to work towards that goal or not. In that regard, do you hear anyone talking about the importance of coming up with some solution to the current Occupation? Do people think that the status quo can continue indefinitely? Or, annexation of Judea and Samaria into one Jewish state where the Palestinians have less rights than Jews? Annexation of Judea and Samaria where it’s one person, one vote? Or, again, Do you hear anyone talking about creative solutions, like saying that it might be a good idea to freeze construction in the West Bank temporarily to see whether this might force the Palestinians to ‘put up or shut up’?
Do you hear anyone talking about very real everyday facts on the ground in the West Bank? Like in East Jerusalem that Palestinians are being forced from their homes and replaced by Jews? Or, about Settler violence (so called “price tag” attacks) including burning of olive trees, torching of mosques, and even firing guns at Palestinians by both settlers and even IDF – with almost no legal recourse? Or the destruction of Bedouin structures (as flimsy as they may be) that are on their own land? These are facts which are written about in Israeli papers that should be discussed here as well. In the same way that the rocket firings from Gaza, or the buildup in arms by Hezbollah, or the fact that Hamas is going broke need to be discussed. (One excellent thing is there isn’t much to discuss about violence from the West Bank against Israelis because as I understand it, in the last two years, thank God, there has only been one killing of a Jew by an Arab from the West Bank. That is one too many – but frankly if you look into it, I believe that you will find that it is less than the number of Palestinians that have been killed by settlers and IDF during that same time period.)
Next, I am curious to know whether you hear support for diplomacy with Iran – and what the nature of the agreement is that they would support. I personally am a big supporter of keeping the military option on the table – but even more importantly, I believe that we need to push very hard to make this diplomatic effort work. Public criticism of the administration makes very little sense given that we are in negotiations at the moment. Doesn’t this type of rift show weakness, not strength? Although AIPAC finally backed off pushing the Senate Sanctions bill when the Republicans tried to force a vote (and they are still trying to force a vote by attaching the language to other bills), they essentially ignored Kerry’s specific call during Senate hearings for them to hold off on this bill until the talks had run their course. If sanctions were supposed to force the Iranians to the bargaining table, then they worked. It is time to support the negotiations and the negotiators. While I have heard the argument that the Senate sanctions bill will provide more leverage, that is not the Administration’s position. The move in the Senate appears to be more grandstanding than anything else – and particularly now that the Republicans are moving to call a vote. Wouldn’t it be more effective to work behind the scenes to make sure that the Administration drives a hard bargain?
Also, I would like to hear about the diplomatic proposals that are being discussed. Although it would best if Iran dismantled their entire program – no enrichment, no centrifuges, no missiles – realistically, they will never agree to this. It would be too much of a loss of face for them both internationally and domestically. Therefore, be aware that anyone proposing no enrichment is not seriously supporting a diplomatic agreement. They aren’t necessarily warmongers – but many do in fact know that the Iranians will never accept this, but it is their way of “supporting” diplomacy while knowing that their position has no chance of acceptance. Listen carefully to people. Some will say that Iran must be prevented from getting a nuclear . Others will say that it must be prevented from having a nuclear capability. This is a significant difference and you should listen closely for who says which. If they say capability, they are usually also saying that Iran must eliminate their entire nuclear program – which as I said above is totally unrealistic.
I am particularly interested to know how much talk there is about the consequences of possible military action – and what the speakers say about it. I haven’t seen the agenda, but I believe that there may indeed be some experts discussing this and I would be interested to know what their assessments are.
Finally, a little prognostication on my part. My bet is that every Congressman and Senator will say the following:
“Israel is our greatest ally”
“Israel shares our values”
“Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, the US and the entire world”
“Iran is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world” [What ever happened to Al Qaeda?]
“The military option must not be taken off the table” [A very true statement – but how many folks are willing to talk about the exact make up of the military action – and what the resulting risks and consequences might be. Are folks willing to risk Hezbollah raining down hundreds or thousands of rockets on Israel? The question needs to be discussed]
“Israel’s security is our number one priority”
“I love Israel [more than the next guy]”
Don’t get me wrong, these are all good things. Most of these are true statements. However, the answers are so pat, that they border on pandering – and most important, it is not good if this is the level of sophistication with which these people are going to be basing their votes on when it comes to legislation that has such serious consequences for the US, Israel and the entire world.
Looking forward to hearing about the Conference. Have a great trip and enjoy!
One Important Piece of Action You Can Take If You Believe In Putting The Brakes On The War Train To Iran
This weekend, beginning Sunday, we are about to witness one of the most dramatic shows of Jewish political force in the history of the United States. This is not some anti-Zionist rhetoric – it is simply a fact. AIPAC is going to have over 10,000 people in the DC Convention Center (myself included) at its Policy Conference [for live ‘fair and balanced’ tweets, check www.twitter/beyondzs] – and will have 30-50% of those attending going to lobby on Capitol Hill. Normally, I might say mazel tov – tanks G-t so many care about Israel. But right now, AIPAC is stridently promoting political moves here in the US to lay the groundwork for Israel (alone, or with US overt assistance) to take military action against Iran very shortly. I believe that they do this with good intention, but with flawed reasoning and almost negligent disregard for the outcomes. How can they do this without facing strong, forceful pushback?
- War is easy and its drums are seductive.
- F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty and doubt) cry out to the most base human emotions.
- The politics of our time rewards simplicity and machismo.
So, what is to be done? Here’s the sales pitch:
J Street is having its own Conference three weeks later – from March 24 – March 27. J Street’s position is nuanced and urges caution. Here is an excerpt:
“…Finally, like many American and Israeli security experts such as former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Ephraim Halevy, we believe that a military strike against Iran would be ill-advised. While unlikely to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear program, a military strike would have dire consequences and runs the risk of igniting a broader regional war. A preemptive attack could also strengthen the current regime in Iran and provide an excuse for it to redouble its nuclear efforts. We therefore oppose legislation authorizing, encouraging, or in other ways laying the groundwork for the use of military force against Iran.”
Further details can be found here: http://jstreet.org/policy/issues/iran/.
If you agree with this postion, you can take concrete action by attending the J Street Conference. Every single person who attends sends a critical counter message to Members of Congress and the President. By doing so, you will be standing up for intelligent debate here at home, for allowing the current round of sanctions time to work, and arguing for a new diplomatic “surge”.
Trust me, Congressmen and women can count – and they will. There will be a simple calculus taking place politically throughout Washington – they will stack up what they see as the constituency pushing for the “military option” versus the constituency that opposes immediate military action in favor of a calmer, more reasoned and examined approach. Any of you reading this who are part of the latter group – need to be in D.C. at the J Street Conference. Period.
I know that it is difficult for people to get away. I know that it is expensive in terms of both time and money (although there is financial assistance available). I know that we all have non-stop schedules. But (and I know that this may sound narcissistic and overly dramatic) I personally feel that we are at a time not unlike Dr. King’s March on Washington, not unlike Breaking Down the Berlin Wall, not unlike Tiananmen Square. That is, there are specific moments in time that actually do affect the course of history. Their outcomes revise the course of world history. They determine the trajectory of the future.
Is it hyperbole to put this moment in that context? Perhaps.
But consider the following:
We are talking about the prospect of America entering its Third War in a little over 10 years with potentially massive consequences in terms of death, destruction and economic upheaval for the U.S., Israel, Iran and the rest of the world. There can be very little doubt that military action against Iran is going to set a new trajectory for the Middle East – and quite possibly the entire world.
So, is that worth taking two-three days of our time? I do not ask this rhetorically nor do I question anyone’s answer to that question.
All that I am saying is that from my personal perspective, we are at a watershed moment for our country, for Israel, and for the world as a whole. We have a chance to do something to influence what direction our government takes. I urge you to join me at the J Street Conference in D.C. March 24-26 and to meet with your Member of Congress face-to-face on Tuesday, March 27. Tell her/him directly how you feel.
For anyone who reads this who would like more information on the Conference, you can find it here http://conference.jstreet.org/
For anyone who reads this who would like to consider going and might want more specific details – please contact me at beyondzerosum.gmail.com and let’s discuss.
For anyone who reads this and is so convinced that they want to sign up right away, please go here http://www.wynjade.com/jstreet12/
Follow BeyondZeroSum at www.twitter/beyondzs
For a thoughtful alternative approach to dealing with Iran, see Foreign Policy blog post: Using religion to restrain Iran’s nuclear program
Related articles
- Obama Says Military Option on Iran Not a ‘Bluff’ – New York Times (nytimes.com)
- Obama to Israel: ‘I don’t bluff’ (thehill.com)
Mid-East Peace? Here Is An Organization You Need To Know About: The Council for Peace and Security
Gen (Ret) Nati Sharoni - Wouldn't you listen to this General?
Who do you think would be most worried about whether or not Israel has defensible borders? Who would be most wary of trusting the Arabs? Who might you think would believe that maintaining the settlements, and particularly the outposts, should be a cornerstone of Israeli defense policy? The obvious answer would be: former IDF and security (Shin Bet, Mossad, etc.) officers, right? Think again.
Some of Israel’s most recognized and decorated soldiers, sailors, airforce personnel, security directors and staff have joined together with other prominent diplomats and academics to form the one thousand strong Council For Peace and Security. The Council describes itself as a “Non-Profit Organization of Experts on Peace and Security”. One of the statements in its website’s Profile sums up their point of view:
“It (the Council) considers the support of the Middle East Peace Process to be a necessary component of National Security.”
The Council’s current President, Gen (ret) Nati Sharoni, is going to be in Chicago speaking this Thursday (July 28) at a private home in the city. I urge you to come hear him. If you are interested – please email me directly at beyondzerosum@gmail.com.
To understand more about the Council, here are the Guiding Principles that all members must accept:
-
DELIBERATIONS ON SECURITY ISSUES MUST BE NON-POLITICAL
-
PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE
-
THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE
-
A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
-
JERUSALEM, THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL
-
A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
-
ISRAEL MUST REMOVE PROBLEMATIC SETTLEMENTS
-
ISRAEL MUST RESIST PROVOCATION
-
PEACE WITH SYRIA IS A STRATEGIC NECESSITY
-
THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
-
CONSCRIPTION FOR ALL
-
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES
The members of the Council are not wild-eyed, left-wing radicals whose views can be dismissed with the usual argument of naiveté. They are seasoned military and security thinkers who have come to the very rational conclusion that Israel’s long term security depends on achieving a two-state solution – as soon as possible. Disappointedly, I have never heard of the Council For Peace and Security in any of the Jewish circles that I am involved with in the United States.
To remedy that, J Street is sponsoring nine members to travel the country so that American Jews can listen to the conclusions of these military and security experts. It is particularly important because the conclusions they have arrived at are almost 180 degrees opposite from what Mr. Netanyahu’s government is espousing – along with the American Jewish organizations which believe that there should be “no daylight” between American Jews and the Israeli government. Personally, I think that it is irresponsible for American Jews not to listen to the point of view of these extremely experienced and battle-hardened military and strategic experts. Listening only to people who tell you what you want to hear is the easiest way to make tragically wrong decisions.
So, again, if you are available on Thursday night and would like to meet General (Ret) Sharoni (along with Col (Ret) Shaul Arieli), please send me an email at beyondzerosum@gmail.com – and feel free to pass the information along to others who might be interested.
Related articles
- Israeli ex-generals, diplomats press for U.S. role in peace talks (jta.org)
- Poll Shows Shift In American Jewry View Of Israel (lezgetreal.com)
- Guy Ziv: The Generals vs. Netanyahu (huffingtonpost.com)
Another Look at the Obama and Netanyahu Speeches Given In May
Back then, I published a parsing of the speeches given by the President and the Prime Minister. I believe it is worth republishing this comparison since some may have missed it because the topic may not have been clear from the title. Back then, I was upset at how both the MSM (main stream media) and Congress dealt with both the visit in general and more specifically, the speeches that were given. A close analysis of all four speeches shows that they both used virtually the same language in dealing with the topics, yet one would never know it from reading the press accounts or the sound bites of those in the Congress on both sides of the aisle. Additionally, it is worth viewing for yourself the press conference after Obama and Netanyahu’s meeting because you first need to hear what the President said and then listen to Bibi’s response. My take on it was that rather than Bibi “lecturing” Obama, Bibi simply went off into a soliloquy in which he presented his point of view, but wasn’t really addressing the President. It would have been nice if at least one journalist had expressed this take on the interchange – but I have yet to see one.
As for Netanyahu’s speeches, one would certainly have expected a warm welcome from the AIPAC attendees, but the love fest in Congress was over the top. Interestingly, on a recent conference call, I heard one Congresswoman characterize the speech as “masterfully written” because just reading the text clearly showed all of the applause points. As she said: “Who isn’t going to stand up for ‘mom and apple pie'”.
What follows is a topic by topic comparison of the language of the four speeches given in the five days surrounding the Israeli Prime Minister’s trip. These are all direct quotes.
1. Obama at the State Department, May 19
2. Obama at AIPAC, May 22
3. Netanyahu at AIPAC, May 23
4. Netanyahu before Congress, May 24
TOPIC |
OBAMA-STATE DEPT |
OBAMA-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-CONGRESS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borders |
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. |
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. |
|
|
Borders The Sequel |
|
By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation |
|
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But wemust also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be saidpublicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that endsthe conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. Theprecise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. |
Borders III |
|
It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. |
|
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. |
Enough with the Borders Already |
|
|
|
We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967. |
Palestinian Right of Return |
Open issue |
|
|
Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if theyso choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugeeproblem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. |
Jerusalem |
Open issue |
|
|
As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worshipfor all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided.Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is adifficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwilla solution can be found. |
Israel as a Jewish State |
|
Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. [Emphasis added] |
|
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I havedone. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and Isaid… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas tostand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
Self-Defense |
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat |
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. |
|
When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself. |
Security |
Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.[Emphasis added] |
Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. |
|
So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. |
Obama Admin Commitment to Israel |
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. |
|
Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’ssecurity. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented. Hespoke of that commitment in front of AIPAC. He spoke about it in twospeeches heard throughout the Arab world. And he has backed those wordswith deeds. |
|
Security Cooperation |
|
It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. |
He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented |
|
Advanced Technologies |
|
It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies |
|
|
Military $$ |
|
And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. |
I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president andCongress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel candefend itself by itself |
Thank you all, and thank you President Obama,for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic timesare tough. I deeply appreciate this. |
Iron Dome |
|
That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. … make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. |
I want to thank you all for supporting the IronDome missile defense system |
|
Agreement Must Be Between the Two Parties |
|
These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. |
|
|
Delegitimization |
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. |
You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”…No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. |
|
|
Hamas As a Partner |
Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. |
Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric. |
|
And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’sdestruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not onlycalls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever youfind them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden andpraised him as a holy warrior. |
Hamas-Fatah Unification |
the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel — how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. |
And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements |
|
|
Israel’s Right to Exist |
And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. |
|
|
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I havedone. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and Isaid… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas tostand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
Gilad Shalit |
|
And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. |
And you’ve joinedPresident Obama and me in denouncing Hamas and demanding that it release our captive soldier, Gilad Shalit |
|
New Proposals? |
|
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations.…By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation …If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. [Emphasis added] |
|
|
Palestinian intransigence |
|
|
|
So why has peace not beenachieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.…You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. |
Iran |
|
See below |
|
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East…This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. |
Obama’s Actions Against Iran |
|
You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. |
|
It is even worse because thereare many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’sterror proxies. But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America. President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important. |
Arab Teaching Hatred |
For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. |
|
|
They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to namepublic squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue toperpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by thedescendants of Palestinian refugees. |
Related articles
- Israel’s 1967 borders ‘indefensible’, Netanyahu tells Aipac (guardian.co.uk)
- “Former AIPAC Official Dodges Questions On Whether 1967 Borders Has Been US Policy For Years™” and related posts (wonkroom.thinkprogress.org)
– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Related articles
Former AIPAC-er Keith Weissman Talks About AIPAC’s Influence on U.S. Policy for PBS’ Frontline
Image via Wikipedia
In a just released interview by Robert Dreyfuss for Frontline’s Tehran Bureau, Keith Weissman talks about his stint at AIPAC. Weissman and fellow staffer Steve Rosen were indicted for espionage for allegedly passing documents to Israeli intelligence officers. These charges were eventually dropped – and the whole incident appears to be nothing more than the usual Inside The Beltway exchange of information that goes on 24 hours a day.
In the interview, Weissman paints a very flattering picture of himself and his influence within AIPAC. The most interesting details concern Iran – his personal point of view along with AIPAC’s:
The reason why I want to tell this story now is, we may be going down a path, helped along by the American Jewish community, and maybe even Israel, that is going to be worse even than the one we’re on now – some sort of military confrontation with Iran. That worries me. Because they will be able to blame [it] on the Jews, to a great extent,” says Weissman, who worked at AIPAC from 1993 until 2005, much of that time as the group’s deputy director of foreign policy. Though Weissman disagrees sharply with those who say that AIPAC played a critical role in pushing for the 2003 U.S. decision to invade Iraq, he believes a war with Iran — which he says “would be the stupidest thing I ever heard of” — might well be blamed on AIPAC’s leaders and their constituents. “What the Jews’ war will be is Iran,” he says. “Not Iraq.”:
Most of the rest of the information that he reveals isn’t necessary anything new – but does lend credence to what many observers have already presumed. One of the most interesting assertions is that following the Oslo peace process, AIPAC moved away from the Rabin government because they did not agree with his movement towards peace:
“Because of AIPAC, with the assistance of the right-wing in Israel, who — even though they weren’t the majority in Israel then — they’d come over and have very close contacts with AIPAC’s leaders, prominent financiers, and donors, in order to influence policy…. It was all because of the money that would go from the American Jewish community to politicians in the United States. The pro-Israel bloc in Congress has nothing to do with parties. It had to do with friendship and loyalty. I learned this over time. This is the secret of AIPAC’s power, its ability to fund campaigns. When people got together, they’d find ways, even if they’d given a ton of money to AIPAC, they’d still find ways to get money to candidates, Republican or Democrat.”
Though the advent of Oslo raised hopes among Israelis and Palestinians alike that a peace accord might work, inside AIPAC there was strong discontent with Oslo and its implications, and a lot of sympathy for hardliners in Israel, including Benjamin Netanyahu, the bitterest opponent of Oslo and its backers, including Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister. As M. J. Rosenberg, a former AIPAC official, has documented, AIPAC moved steadily to the right from the 1980s onward. According to Weissman, that happened mostly because the group’s biggest donors were right-wing American Jews who identified with Likud rather than the Labor Party and other liberal Israelis. Many of its donors and some its staff split from AIPAC during the Rabin-Oslo era to work with more right-wing groups such as the Zionist Organization of America, says Weissman. After Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist opposed to giving up the occupied territories, an increasingly right-leaning Israel and AIPAC moved more and more into sync. As Weissman tells the story:
“So Rabin is shot. I mean, he won Oslo in the Knesset by one vote! You could imagine that in America there was similar opposition [to Oslo]…. AIPAC had spent the last 15 years helping the Likud, so you’ve got people there that were sucking at the teat of Likud, that was how they viewed things. That’s why so many people left AIPAC. A lot of them went to join ZOA and a lot of them also contributed to the work of Daniel Pipes. When Rabin came in, they had taken their money and left, and there was a lot of turmoil. At the time, I remember, they’d send me around the country, to fundraisers, with a lot of older people, and I would be yelled and screamed at, ‘I can’t believe you’re doing this!’ Donors were leaving, taking the money, and that’s really their bread and butter, the lay leadership. AIPAC’s donors were very active in the organization. Very. They were major elements in making policy, in determining the agenda, who the leadership was.
[…]
“I tried my best to sell the peace process. But I tried to sell it in the context of what AIPAC was, that this was the way that Israel could become a permanent Middle East country. But the ideological war inside the Israel lobby, collectively, was extremely bitter — and very close, you know, the tally of votes was very close. I would argue that while most American Jews are probably center-left, the rich ones, the ones who give to organizations, the ones who are involved in politics, tend to be more to the right. Those are the ones who were close to the Israeli government when it was run by the Likud.”
Rabin, in his last years, was angry at AIPAC’s obstructionism, says Weissman. (According to M. J. Rosenberg, in New York Rabin met with liberal Jewish donors and asked them to help finance what become the Israel Policy Forum as a very small but not ineffective counterweight to AIPAC.)
“Because of AIPAC, with the assistance of the right-wing in Israel, who — even though they weren’t the majority in Israel then — they’d come over and have very close contacts with AIPAC’s leaders, prominent financiers, and donors, in order to influence policy…. It was all because of the money that would go from the American Jewish community to politicians in the United States. The pro-Israel bloc in Congress has nothing to do with parties. It had to do with friendship and loyalty. I learned this over time. This is the secret of AIPAC’s power, its ability to fund campaigns. When people got together, they’d find ways, even if they’d given a ton of money to AIPAC, they’d still find ways to get money to candidates, Republican or Democrat.”
Read the entire story: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/06/aipac-from-the-inside-1-isolating-iran.html
Related articles
- AIPAC’s Unrivalled Power (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
I Think That There Are Actually People Out There Trying To Paint President Obama As Anti-Israel!
SECRET MAP OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROPOSED BORDERS
Far be it from me to speculate what the motivations would be for people to want to mischaracterize the President’s positions and actions towards Israel, but it certainly appears that there are indeed folks out their who are claiming that, based upon the speeches which Mr. Obama made over the past week, he is the most “Anti-Israel President ” ever. (Shockingly, some of these comments have even been heard from those who are normally fair and balanced). What is even more upsetting is that if I am wrong (which I am known to be occasionally) and those people are correct in saying that he is insidiously anti-Israel, we have a bigger problem. Because that would mean, since their veiwpoints are so closely tied as you will see, that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be the most anti-Israel Prime Minister that Israel has ever had! And somebody had better wake up the Israelis ASAP so that they can drum this guy out of office because things are tough enough without having their country run by an imposter who is clearly as anti-Israel as this Obama no-goodnik.
Why do I say this, you might ask? Because I have actually gone through the transcripts of the four speeches given since last Thursday and discovered something that really is surprising. When you strip away the audiences and all those standing ovations, when you look at the texts of these speeches, not only are each of their positions virtually identical, but they even use almost exactly the same themes. And, everyone talks about the importance of there being “no daylight” between the US and Israel, and I’ve got to tell you, when I compare the differences between Barrack and Bibi’s positions, I am surely not being blinded by the light.
Although a lot was made of the “1967 borders” issue, anyone who listened to the speech or even read the transcript had to understand that “1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps” was all part of a single phrase which should never have been parsed out separately. Also, as the President said in his speech to AIPAC, anyone who has spent any time at all following the current status of the peace process knows that virutally everyone agrees that any agreement will almost certainly involve just that: 1967 borders plus swaps. And when you actually read the details of what Bibi and Barrack both said about this, they really didn’t disagree.
As to the Right of Return and Jerusalem, granted Obama did not agree with Bibi. On the other hand, he didn’t disagree either. What he was doing, it is clear, was trying to bring the parties together using the two issues that various reports (including Bernard Avishai’s NYT Magazine article about Olmert and Abbas negotiations) indicated they were close on: Borders and Security. The idea was that if they could show some progress on these issues, it could build trust and goodwill before moving on to the even more intransigent issues.
So, my only conclusion, as difficult as it is for me to believe, is that there are actually people out there that want to misrepresent Obama’s stand towards Israel. And, heaven forbid, they may even be doing it for political purposes!
Finally, I believe so strongly that the content spoken by Obama and Netanyahu is almost exactly the same (with the partial exception of the Right of Return & Jerusalem issues as stated above), that I challenge anyone out there to prove me wrong. If you can come up with some valid evidence using direct language from these speeches showing me where I have missed significant disagreements, then I have a crisp $100 bill here that I am prepared to give to Magen David Adom. Let me know. I’m up for the challenge. Either way, it’s win-win. Kind of like a peace agreement might be…
Below is a topic-by-topic comparison of selections from the four speeches:
1. Obama at the State Department, May 19
4. Netanyahu before Congress, May 24
|
TOPIC |
OBAMA-STATE DEPT |
OBAMA-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-AIPAC |
NETANYAHU-CONGRESS |
| Borders | The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. | The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. | ||
| Borders The Sequel | By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation | The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. |
||
| Borders III | It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. | This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. | ||
| Enough with the Borders Already | We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967. | |||
| Palestinian Right of Return | Open issue | Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. |
||
| Jerusalem | Open issue | As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found. |
||
| Israel as a Jewish State | Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. [Emphasis added] | My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
||
| Self-Defense | As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat | As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. | When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself. | |
| Security | Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.[Emphasis added] | Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. | So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. | |
| Obama Admin Commitment to Israel | As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. | Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented. He spoke of that commitment in front of AIPAC. He spoke about it in two speeches heard throughout the Arab world. And he has backed those words with deeds. |
||
| Security Cooperation | It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. | He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented | ||
| Advanced Technologies | It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies | |||
| Military $$ | And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. | I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president and Congress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel can defend itself by itself |
Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this. |
|
| Iron Dome | That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. … make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. | I want to thank you all for supporting the Iron Dome missile defense system |
||
| Agreement Must Be Between the Two Parties | These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. | |||
| Delegitimization | For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. | You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”…No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. | ||
| Hamas As a Partner | Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. | Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric. | And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. |
|
| Hamas-Fatah Unification | the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel — how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. | And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements | ||
| Israel’s Right to Exist | And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. | My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.” |
||
| Gilad Shalit | And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. | And you’ve joined President Obama and me in denouncing Hamas and demanding that it release our captive soldier, Gilad Shalit |
||
| New Proposals? | There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations.…By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation …If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. [Emphasis added] | |||
| Palestinian intransigence | So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.…You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. |
|||
| Iran | See below | A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East…This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. | ||
| Obama’s Actions Against Iran | You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. | It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies. But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America. President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important. |
||
| Arab Teaching Hatred | For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. | They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. |
Related articles
- Israel’s 1967 borders ‘indefensible’, Netanyahu tells Aipac (guardian.co.uk)
- “Former AIPAC Official Dodges Questions On Whether 1967 Borders Has Been US Policy ‘For Years’” and related posts (wonkroom.thinkprogress.org)
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 3 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
“And if not now, when?”
Hillel ends his admonition with an imperative: The time is now. And so it is for Israelis and Americans who truly want to preserve Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. Although it has been said for years that the window of opportunity is closing, like the boy who cried wolf, this time it is really true.
Map of Israel and Territories
There are three major trends in the Middle East which underscore why it is so critical to move boldly and swiftly towards peace. The first is the Arab Spring. Everybody loves democratic uprisings – when they first begin. However, they do not always end up quite the way we hope. The very nature of grass-roots rebellions is that they tend to be short on organization, which opens them up to co-option as things move from the emotional frenzy of demonstrations in the streets to the reality of picking up the garbage in the streets. In Egypt, which is probably the best example of successful regime change, the final outcome is indeed still open to question. But the response of the Israelis seems to be that of delay. In March, we spoke with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky who had just come back from Israel bearing the message from Israelis leaders that “Now is not the time for action. We need to let things settle down.” While there is some logic in that point of view, the counter argument carries a lot of weight as well. That is, it might make better sense to get an agreement moving farther along (including the support of other world nations) before things blow up around or in the Palestinian territories. In other words, it seems just as likely that spontaneous developments in the region will actually give the Israelis less control at the negotiating table than they have now.
The second factor is the movement towards a unified government that Fatah and Hamas have taken. This took everyone by surprise (by all accounts, Mahmoud Abbas included) and as a result it is not totally clear whether the arrangement will work out or what the results will be if it does. But what is clear from the reaction of the Israeli and American governments is that everyone on this side of the table is scared to death. Although the excuse is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, it seems that the real fear is that no one really understands Hamas’ motivations or its ability to politically control and organize its factions. I am not sure why people are reacting with such repulsion. It seems to me that we should take the advice of that old Texan, LBJ, on this one: “It’s much better to have him (LBJ referring to J. Edgar Hoover) inside the tent pissing out, than having him outside pissing in.” It would certainly be much easier to assess what Hamas is thinking if we met with them rather than to simply turn our backs – which is what both the Israelis and Americans are doing. A former Israeli General once said to me: Never turn your back on a Arab (which by the way, was not said with malice or derision, but simply as honest
advice). So why turn your backs on Hamas? Additionally, the current position gives Fatah nowhere to turn. Simply saying “it’s Israel or Hamas” makes good political rhetoric, but if you think about it, it actually gives additional power to Hamas because they know that Abbas does not have enough political support to reject Hamas at this point in time – so the Israelis haven’t given him a real choice. Under normal circumstances, it might be best to wait to see what happens between these two factions. However, there is a third
factor that overrides this: September.
The Palestinians have slowly and methodically been paving the way to go to the UN in September to seek recognition as a nation of the world. The resolution will first go to
UN Flag
the Security Council where the US will be able to veto it. However, it will then move to the General Assembly for a vote of all of the nations. It is quite likely that they will be able to
get the votes needed to pass the resolution as there are already over 100 countries that have recognized the Palestinian Authority. One Israeli official has been quoted as calling the possibility of UN ratification a “train wreck”, and rightfully so. If Palestine is recognized as a sovereign nation, it totally changes the legal relationship with Israel according to accepted international law. And while many American and Israeli spokesmen have minimized the validity of the vote and its potential impact, that seems to be the naïve point of view.
So, the Arab Spring, the Fatah-Hamas détente, and most importantly, the anticipated Palestinian quest for statehood at the UN, all underscore the fact that time is closing in on Israel’s opportunities to control their own fate. But instead of urgency, what we hear loudest from the American Jewish community is denial. American Jews can stonewall and contend that the Israelis cannot possibly deal with terrorists (although let’s recall that the PLO was the foremost terrorist group in the world at one time) and that there is no one to make a deal with, and that the world is delegitimizing Israel, and that that old UN is once again being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. We can do that. But that doesn’t stop the clock towards UN declaration of a Palestinian state from ticking. Why do we want to put the fate of Israel and Palestine in the hands of the UN? If we don’t act now to do everything we can to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to the table, we may well leave setting the terms of the agreement to others.
Instead of continually reciting all of the obstacles to peace, we American Jews should do all we can to urge Israel to engage with the Palestinians. And soon. Instead of a wholesale rejection of Hamas, why not be creative? Find some clever way of giving Hamas an out that will allow them to save face with their own people, while providing some assurance to the Israelis that they are moderating. For example, while some in Hamas have maintained their hateful rhetoric, Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal has already indicated his openness to accepting an agreement under certain circumstances. Why shouldn’t Israel use these statements to open the door – even if it’s just a crack?
This is just an example, but if you examine the information being distributed and promoted by the Major American Jewish Organizations, most of it consists of reasons why peace cannot be accomplished. It lists all of the obstacles to peace. Underlying all of this is an unstated (or sometimes stated) assumption that Israel has too much to risk by making peace. But there are two problems with that. First, it fails to recognize that
it is no longer 1948. The relative powers in the region are very different than they were back then. As Hillary Clinton said last year at the AIPAC Policy Conference, the real dangers to Israel lie in demography, ideology, and technology – not from conventional military attack. And secondly, it fails to recognize the very real risks of doing nothing. More former Israeli political and military leaders than you can count have emphasized that the status quo is simply unsustainable.
So, my hope is that my fellow AIPAC members and the rest of the mainstream American Jewish community will go beyond the same old platitudes that give all the reasons that peace is not possible and instead, urge the Israeli government and our elected leaders to make definitive, substantive steps towards peace. It is time to be bold and brave. We Jews are strong enough, we are tough enough, and we are smart enough to cut a deal with the Palestinians that, if well thought out, implemented and monitored, can bring better lives to everyone in the region.
The time is now.
Related articles
- Netanyahu to Outline Peace Plan to Congress (abcnews.go.com)
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 2 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
“And if I am only for myself, then what am I?”
The second phrase of Rabbi Hillel‘s aphorism implores us to attend to the other. In this context we might also give attention to what is perhaps Rabbi Hillel’s most famous quote. As the Gentile stood on one foot, Hillel summed up the Torah:
The Gentile
“What is hateful to thyself do not do to another. That is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary.” This is one of the most clear-cut and direct definitions of Jewish Values that one can find (and with a better pedigree than the kishke test) and one that should be appropriately applied to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people – no matter whether there is a peace agreement or not.
In this context, one of the biggest issues being addressed by AIPAC, the Jewish Federations, and other major Jewish organizations is the “delegitimization” campaign against Israel. There certainly are people who are purposefully trying to weaken or even destroy Israel by making it a persona non grata among the nations of the world. But there are others who raise very legitimate questions about Israeli government and military policies. It is time for the Major American Jewish Organizations to recognize the difference between those who seek to purposely delegitimize Israel as a strategy and those who honestly and objectively are concerned with the treatment of the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs and whether this treatment lives up to the standards enumerated in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment. Currently, virtually any criticism of the Israeli government or military is labeled as “delegitimization”, and any issues raised are blindly dismissed by these American Jewish groups. Presumably, the argument is that admitting any wrong-doing simply provides ammunition to Israel’s enemies. The opposite is actually true. Failing to criticize any Israel policy at all or refusing to recognize obvious, documented incidents only destroys the credibility of the anti-delegitimization campaigns. In essence, the Major American Jewish Organizations are delegitimizing their own campaigns against delegitimization!
A simple example: The day-to-day treatment of the Palestinians as they try to travel through the checkpoints.
Scene from a Checkpoint
I have seen with my own eyes the disrespectful, disdainful, and humiliating way the Palestinians are treated. It is wrong – plain and simple. My very first experience crossing into Bethlehem was to witness a nineteen year-old border guard leaning back in his chair in the glass enclosed control booth, talking on his cell phone and simply ignoring an old Palestinian woman trying to show her passport to get into Jerusalem. It was a very light day and she was the only one in line at that time. We watched as she waved and waved her papers to no avail. The guard continued to ignore her. Finally, after she banged on the glass, he simply waved her along with a sneer of impatience and contempt. Not the end of the world, one might say. Perhaps. But again, I use a simple criterion: How would I feel if it was my bubbe being treated this way? Outraged. And I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t feel the same way.
Sure, this example doesn’t rise anywhere close to a human rights abuse. But it does illustrate an important point: as concerning as the impact of this type of behavior is on the Palestinians involved, the effect on Israeli youth may be even worse when viewed through the prism of Jewish values. The attitude displayed by this young man (and this was not the only incident like this that we observed) shows a callous disregard for the very humanness of the other. This sector of the Israeli military has gone from being brave defenders of Israel’s very existence to being masters over the day-to-day lives of others
who are powerless. As Peter Beinart pointed out several weeks ago when he spoke at Northwestern University, you measure the nature of a people not by how they treat others when they are in a position of weakness, but rather when they are in a position of power. Israel is taking young eighteen and nineteen year-olds and putting them in positions where they are lording it over men and women two and three times their age. These young people are allowed to treat the Palestinians with disrespect and contempt. And either through neglect or purpose, there appears to be little supervision or questioning of these attitudes and actions. A whole generation is growing up with attitudes that would make our bubbes cringe. This is the insidious part of the current situation: the fact is that when a society is in the position of controlling another people it morally rots from the inside (more posts on this to come). It is time for American Jewish organizations to make realistic, open and candid analyses of Israel’s policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. They should then state publicly the very real abuses they will almost certainly find. And finally, openly engage with the Israeli government and military to change or eliminate objectionable behaviors. To do otherwise calls into question the veracity and integrity of their anti-delegitimization campaigns, but more importantly allows a moral cancer to fester within Israeli society.
While addressing these issues should be done as soon as possible, there are even more pressing needs that require immediate attention as will be seen when we examine the third phrase of Hillel’s admonition.
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 1 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
This statement of simple eloquence seems to be an appropriate guide to how we, as American Jews, should approach the Israel-Palestinian conflict:
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”
There is a very visceral connection to Israel for Jews around the world that begins with our historical, Biblical lineage. And whether you are a believer in the divine covenant or a cultural Jew – whether a Jew by matrilineal descent or a Jew by choice – whether an ardent Zionist or an indifferent secularist – there seems to be an intangible link to the land of the matriarchs and patriarchs. There is also a connection created by the sweat and blood of the early Zionists who really did make the desert bloom.
But what is really at the heart of the American Jewish relationship to Israel is the desire and the need to protect its very existence. The number one goal is to protect and preserve Israel as it is envisioned in its Declaration of Establishment: as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people.
The need for a safe haven for Jews is self-evident to even the most skeptical observer in light of the 2,000 years of the Diaspora culminating in Hitler’s attempt at the Final Solution which was met by apparent indifference from much of the world. Although some in the world try to deny the Holocaust, that very denial amply proves the point of the need to preemptively prevent another holocaust by maintaining the state open to all Jews without question. And while some in the West, particularly those of the younger generation, forget or dismiss the reality of anti-Semitism, new currents of this age-old sentiment have been bubbling closer to the surface in dangerous ways. Though most American young people cannot conceive of a return to the explicit anti-Semitism that existed until the last generation or so, history tells a different story. Although we can hope that the trend will not continue to grow, it would be naive to blithely believe that it won’t.
So, even today, the need for a refuge remains very real.
But, the most prominent message (that often drowns out all others) of AIPAC, the Federations, and many other Major American Jewish Organizations is that danger lurks around every corner: Terrorists waiting to blow themselves up killing innocent women and children; missiles amassed at Israel’s border – now with the capability to strike at the heart of Israel’s civilian population; the specter of a nuclear Iran looming ever closer. Unfortunately, they are right. There are very, very real treacherous enemies that will not rest until every “Zionist” is driven into the sea. However, the message conveyed by the Jewish organizations is usually simplistic and absolute. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranians represent the devil incarnate – evil and implacable with the sole goal of wiping Israel off the map. The message preserves the images from 1948 of Israel surrounded by hostile armies ready to cross the border at any moment. The tone is of tense fear often cloaked in the language of righteousness and the an absolutist version of history. Again, it is certainly true that there are a significant number of jihadists in these groups who fit this definition – but it doesn’t take much digging to find examples of the voices of moderation in each of these groups. Ironically, the monolithic characterization actually works to Israel’s detriment.
First, ignoring the moderate voices has the effect of strengthening the more radical elements. Examples of some moderation include the Green Movement and current inter-governmental turmoil in Iran, the voice of Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal
saying that he will conditionally accept an agreement with Israel, and the recognition that both Hezbollah and Hamas have social and political arms which provide necessary services to their populations. Not recognizing these moderate elements only supports the radicals’ contention that the Israeli and American governments are blindly seeking to destroy the Muslim world. It is hard to see how widening the gap between Islam and the West does not increase the influence of the radical Jihadists.
More importantly, simplistic characterizations lead to a dangerously poor understanding of the complexity of one’s enemy, Israel’s geo-strategic situation, and therefore the best ways to avoid attacks as well as the most effective ways to defend against them should they occur. Tactics will always change as facts on the ground change. For example, in a recent conference call, Major General (Ret) Natan Sharoni, a member of the Council for Peace and Security, pointed out (in response to the criticism that President Obama has taken with regard to his explicit public endorsement of setting the borders based upon the 1967 borderswith land swaps) that the importance of “defensible borders” has diminished significantly. The concept of “defensible borders” is really based on a misunderstanding of the current state of military technology and military tactics. What he said was that we no longer have huge armies massed on the border of Israel. In 1948, Israel was threatened by standing armies from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. But today, neither Iran nor Iraq have expeditionary forces. Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel, and Syria cannot and will not act alone. The inveterate framing of the military threat as that of conventional armies attacking across physical borders is now highly unlikely. Instead, General Sharoni points out that the military threat now comes from 1.Terrorism, and 2.Missiles. Neither of these threats is particularly mitigated by borders per se. In addition, although he did not mention this factor, the logistical
capabilities of 2011 including helicopters, cellular and satellite communication, and naval capabilities, make the military advantage of cutting off Israel’s North and South quite a bit less critical than it was in 1948. And while military strategists and tacticians can certainly debate these assertions, it is precisely the benefit of debate which the mainstream Jewish organizations need to recognize and embrace. Rehashing the old naïve and simplistic phrases that we constantly hear from AIPAC, the ADL, the AJC, et al, prevent a
realistic assessment of the military threats facing Israel.
But there is an even more insidious danger to the Jewish People that arises from the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that is the transformation of the State of Israel into a country whose values are no longer representative or even recognizable as “Jewish”. That is to say, Jewish values as expressed in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment: “[Israel] will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” It seems impossible to see how many recent actions and proposals of the current Knesset meet these criteria. I use a simple litmus test to determine whether or not Israel’s actions reflect my personal Jewish values. It is not the legal definition of whether Israel’s actions fit the letter of international law. It is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself (of course, it does). It is not whether some world leader denounces Israeli actions. No, my test is simple. It is called the kishkes test. When I read the newspaper, listen to the news, or see something on TV, do I cringe and feel a deep sense of shame in the pit of my gut – my kishkes? If so, then there is something inherently wrong with the action. Ironically, one of the unshakable demands of the current Israeli government is that the Palestinians unequivocally recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”. By my way of thinking, we need to be even more concerned that Israel recognize itself as a Jewish state in accordance with its Declaration of Establishment.
Hillel’s admonition to be “for myself” rings true in every one of the above contexts with regard to how American Jews should relate to Israel. But Hillel also posits that it is not sufficient to think only of one’s self.
- President Obama’s Middle East Speech Rattles Israelis, Palestinians Alike (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Related articles
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
beyondzerosum 