[WCUSP] "AIPAC's Hold"

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

"But the Congress, if anything, is urging the Administration on and  
criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the  Israeli-Arab 
conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish  groups, 
like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability  to 
succeed in American politics."  Henry Siegman  
Despite the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, to judge from the actions of the  
Palestine solidarity and anti-war movements, taking on AIPAC publicly is still  
largely a taboo subject. This article describes the essential fact: the  Israel 
lobby has hijacked the American political system and until it is  taken on and 
exposed by those who purport to support Palestinian rights and  oppose Israeli 
and US policy in the Middle East, the situation there will not  only not 
change, it will get worse. It is all very well to blame Bush and  Israel, but the 
escalating attacks in Lebanon and Gaza are the price that the  peoples of both 
countries are paying for the refusal of the movement and its  spokespersons to 
take on the lobby to this point. 

This article can be found on the web at  
_http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold_ 
(http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold)    
AIPAC's Hold
by ARI BERMAN  
[posted online on July 29, 2006]   
In early March, the American Israel Public  Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held 
its forty-seventh annual conference in  Washington. AIPAC's executive director 
spent twenty-seven minutes reading the  "roll call" of dignitaries present at 
the gala dinner, which included a majority  of the Senate and a quarter of the 
House, along with dozens of Administration  officials.  
As this event illustrates, it's impossible to  talk about Congress's 
relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the  American Jewish community's 
most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional  reaction to Hezbollah's 
attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of  Lebanon provide the latest 
example of why.  
On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a  nonbinding resolution 
"condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors  and supporting Israel's 
exercise of its right to self-defense." After House  majority leader John Boehner 
removed language from the bill urging "all sides to  protect innocent civilian 
life and infrastructure," the House version passed by  a landslide, 410 to 8. 
 
AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it  had written it. "They 
[Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former  Carter Administration 
National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who  addressed the House Democratic 
Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare  one."  
AIPAC is the leading player in what is  sometimes referred to as "The Israel 
Lobby"--a coalition that includes major  Jewish groups, neoconservative 
intellectuals and Christian Zionists. With its  impressive contacts among Hill 
staffers, influential grassroots supporters and  deep connections to wealthy 
donors, AIPAC is the lobby's key emissary to  Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has 
become greater than just another lobby;  its work has made unconditional 
support for Israel an accepted cost of doing  business inside the halls of 
Congress. AIPAC's interest, Israel's interest and  America's interest are today 
perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the  same. Christian conservatives 
increasingly aligned with AIPAC demand unwavering  support for Israel from 
their Republican leaders. (In mid-July, 3,000-plus  evangelicals came to town for 
the first annual "Christian United for Israel"  summit.) And Democrats are 
equally concerned about alienating Jewish voters and  Jewish donors--long a 
cornerstone of their party. Some in Congress are deeply  uncomfortable with AIPAC's 
militant worldview and heavyhanded tactics, but most  dare not say so 
publicly.  
"The Bush Administration is bad enough in  tolerating measures they would not 
accept anywhere else but Israel," says Henry  Siegman, the former head of the 
American Jewish Congress and a Middle East  expert at the Council on Foreign 
Relations. "But the Congress, if anything, is  urging the Administration on 
and criticizing them even at their most  accommodating. When it comes to the 
Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate  are so influenced by organized Jewish 
groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of  Israel is to deny oneself the 
ability to succeed in American  politics."  
There are a few internationalist Republicans  in the Senate and progressive 
Democrats in the House who occasionally dissent.  Representative Dennis 
Kucinich and twenty-three co-sponsors have offered a  resolution calling for an 
immediate cease-fire and a return to multiparty  diplomacy between the United 
States and regional powers, with no preconditions.  But even the resolution's 
supporters admit it isn't likely to go anywhere.  Another bill introduced by 
several Arab-American lawmakers that stressed the  need to minimize civilian 
casualties on both sides was "politically swept under  the rug," according to 
Representative Nick Rahall, a Lebanese-American Democrat  from West Virginia who 
voted against the House resolution. Dovish  American-Israeli groups, such as 
Americans for Peace Now, have largely stayed  out of the fight.  
The latest hawkish Congressional activity is  primarily intended to show 
voters and potential donors that elected officials  are unwavering friends of 
Israel and enemies of terrorism. "It's just for home  consumption," said 
Representative Charlie Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat  who signed on to 
Kucinich's resolution. "We don't have the support of countries  that support us! What 
the hell are we going to do, bomb Iran? Bomb Syria?" His  colleagues, said 
Rahall, "were trying to out-AIPAC AIPAC."  
Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond  Israel to include a broader 
policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle  East. Congressmen sent a 
flurry of "dear colleague" letters to one another,  hoping to pressure the 
Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and  Iran, Hezbollah's two main 
state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross  addressed a packed 
AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one  aide present, Ross told 
the room: "This is all about Syria and Iran...we  shouldn't be condemning 
Israel now." Said Representative Robert Andrews, a  Democrat from New Jersey and 
co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week  hosted an official from 
the Israeli embassy: "I concur completely with that  approach."  
Democrats, as they did during the Dubai ports  scandal, used the crisis to 
score a few cheap, easy political points against the  Bush Administration. The 
new prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, found  himself engulfed in a 
Congressional firestorm after he denounced Israel's  attacks on Lebanon as an act 
of "aggression." Democratic Congressional Campaign  Committee chair Rahm 
Emanuel, who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf  War, called on Maliki to 
cancel his planned address before Congress. Asked  Senator Chuck Schumer, who 
skipped Maliki's July 26 speech: "Which side is he on  when it comes to the war 
on terror?" Howard Dean one upped his colleagues,  labeling Maliki an 
"anti-Semite" during a speech in Palm Beach,  Florida.  
Ironically, during the 2004 campaign Dean  called on the United States to be 
an "evenhanded" broker in the Middle East.  That position enraged party 
leaders such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi,  who signed a letter attacking 
his remarks. "It was designed to send a message:  No one ever does this again," 
says M.J. Rosenberg of the center-left Israel  Policy Forum. "And no one has. 
The only safe thing to say is: I support Israel."  In April a representative 
from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum's vote  against a draconian 
bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority  "support for 
terrorists."  
Not surprisingly, most in Congress see far  more harm than reward in getting 
in the Israeli lobby's way. "There remains a  perception of power and fear 
that AIPAC can undo you," says James Zogby,  president of the Arab American 
Institute. He points to the defeats of  Representative Paul Findley and Senator 
Charles Percy in the 1980s and  Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl 
Hilliard in 2002, when AIPAC steered  large donors to their opponents. Even if 
AIPAC's make-you-or-break-you  reputation is largely a myth, in an election year 
that perception is potent.  Thirty-six pro-Israel PACs gave $3.14 million to 
candidates in the 2004 election  cycle. Rahall said his opponent for re-election 
issued his first press release  of the campaign after Rahall voted against the 
House resolution. "Everybody knew  what would happen if they didn't vote yes," 
he says.  
AIPAC continues to enjoy deep bipartisan  backing inside Congress even after 
two top AIPAC officials were indicted a year  ago for allegedly accepting and 
passing on confidential national security  secrets from a Defense Department 
analyst. "The US and Israel share a lot of  basic common values. The vast 
majority of the American people not only support  Israel's actions against 
Hezbollah but also the fundamental US-Israel  relationship, and the bipartisan support 
in Congress reflects that," says AIPAC  spokesman Josh Block. Rosenberg, 
himself a former AIPAC staffer, puts it another  way: "This is the one issue on 
which liberals are permitted, even expected, by  donors to be mindless hawks."  
By blindly following AIPAC, Congress  reinforces a hard-line consensus: 
Criticizing Israeli actions, even in the best  of faith, is anti-Israel and 
possibly anti-Semitic; enthusiastically backing  whatever military action Israel 
undertakes is the only acceptable  stance.  
Recent Gallup polls show that half of  Americans support Israel's military 
campaign, yet 65 percent believe the United  States should not take sides in the 
conflict. But it's hard to imagine any  Congress, or subsequent 
Administration, returning to the role of honest broker.  What the region needs now, 
according to Brzezinski, is an American leader brave  enough to say: "Either I make 
policy on the Middle East or AIPAC makes policy on  the Middle East." One can 
always dream. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20060731/3b6bbb82/attachment.html