[WCUSP] "On Israel, America and AIPAC" by George Soros

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

This is an important article by George Soros and its importance lies not so  
much in what he has written, since little of it is new, but the fact that he 
has  written it and the NY Review of Books has published it. In doing so, it 
helps to  keep the ongoing exposure of the Israel Lobby and its pernicious 
effects on,  literally, the future of the planet, on the front burner. 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20030#fnr4

Volume 54, Number 6 ·  April 12, 2007

On Israel, America and AIPAC

By George Soros

The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a  major 
policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous  
consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns  
the Israeli–Palestinian relationship. The Bush administration is actively  
supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian  unity 
government that includes Hamas, which the US State Department considers a  
terrorist organization. This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at 
 a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a 
conflagration  in the greater Middle East.

The United States and Israel seek to deal only with the president of  the 
Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hope that new elections would  deny 
Hamas the majority it now has in the Palestinian Legislative Council. This  is 
a hopeless strategy because Hamas has said it would boycott early elections,  
and even if their outcome would result in Hamas's exclusion from the 
government,  no peace agreement would hold without Hamas's support.

In the meantime Saudi Arabia is pursuing a different path. In a  February 
summit in Mecca between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal,  the Saudi 
government worked out an agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which have  been 
clashing violently, to form a national unity government. According to the  
Mecca accord, Hamas has agreed "to respect international resolutions and the  
agreements [with Israel] signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization,"  
including the Oslo Accords. According to press reports on March 15, the new  
government, like the present one, will be headed by Ismail Haniya, the Hamas  
prime minister, but Hamas will get nine of the government's twenty-four  
ministries, as well as an additional minister without portfolio; President Abbas  and 
his Fatah party will control six ministries, and independent  representatives—
some said to be under the control of Hamas or Fatah—and other  political 
factions will fill the nine remaining ministries.

The Saudi  government views this accord as the prelude to the offer of a 
peace settlement  with Israel, along the lines of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, 
a settlement to  be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, based 
on the 1967  borders and full recognition of Israel. The offer was meant to 
be elaborated by  Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab League meeting to be hosted 
by Saudi Arabia at  the end of March. But no progress is possible as long as 
the Bush administration  and the Ehud Olmert government persist in their current 
position of refusing to  recognize a unity government that includes Hamas. 
The recent meeting between  Condoleezza Rice, Abbas, and Olmert turned into an 
empty  formality.


Many of the causes of the current impasse go back to  Israeli Prime Minister 
Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip  unilaterally, without 
negotiating with the then-Fatah-controlled Palestinian  Authority. This 
strengthened the position of Hamas. In the run-up to the January  2006 Palestinian 
legislative elections, Sharon refused to lift a finger to help  Fatah's 
prospects. At the behest of the Quartet—the European Union, the United  States, 
Russia, and the United Nations—James Wolfensohn worked out a six-point  plan to 
assist the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip; among other things, it called  for 
facilitating traffic between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and opening a  port 
and an airport in the Gaza Strip. But not one of the six points was  
implemented. The Bush administration's official in charge, Elliot Abrams,  sabotaged 
the six-point plan from its inception. Partly as a consequence, Hamas  won the 
elections in an upset victory.



Then came the blunder I am  talking about. Israel, with the strong backing of 
the United States, refused to  recognize the democratically elected Hamas 
government and withheld payment of  the millions in taxes collected by the 
Israelis on its behalf. This caused great  economic hardship and undermined the 
ability of the government to function. But  it did not reduce popular support for 
Hamas among Palestinians, and it  reinforced the position of Islamic and other 
extremists who oppose negotiations  with Israel. The situation deteriorated 
to the point where Palestine no longer  had an authority with whom it would 
have been possible for Israel to  negotiate.


This was a blunder because Hamas is not monolithic. Its  inner structure is 
little known to outsiders but according to some reports it  has a military 
wing, largely directed from Damascus, which is beholden to its  Syrian and Iranian 
sponsors and a political wing which is more responsive to the  needs of the 
Palestinian population that elected it to power. If Israel had  accepted the 
results of the election, that might have strengthened the more  moderate 
political wing. Unfortunately the ideology of the "war on terror" does  not permit 
such subtle distinctions. Nevertheless, subsequent events provide  some ground 
for believing that Hamas has been divided between different  tendencies. It was 
not willing to go so far as to recognize the existence of  Israel but it was 
prepared to enter into a government of national unity which  would have abided 
by the existing agreements with Israel. No sooner was  agreement reached than 
the military wing engineered the kidnapping of an Israeli  soldier, Corporal 
Gilad Shalit, which had the effect of preventing such a  government from being 
formed by provoking a heavy-handed military response from  Israel. Hezbollah 
then used the opportunity to stage an incursion from Lebanon  across the 
internationally recognized border, kidnapping several more Israeli  soldiers. 
Despite a disproportionate response by Israel, Hezbollah was able to  stand its 
ground, thereby gaining the admiration of the Arab masses, whether  Sunni or Shia.


It was this dangerous state of affairs —including the  breakdown of 
government in Palestine and fighting between Fatah and Hamas—that  prompted the Saudi 
initiative, which holds out the prospect of a peace  settlement. Such a 
settlement would be very much in the interests of Israel and  the United States.
Defenders of the current policy would argue that Israel  cannot afford to 
negotiate from a position of weakness. But Israel's position is  unlikelyto 
improve as long as it pursues its present course of military  escalation. 
Fortunately Saudi Arabia, whose position is also precarious, has a  genuine interest in 
promoting a settlement based on two states. It would be  tragic to miss out 
on that prospect, which would mean both withdrawal from large  parts of the 
West Bank by the Israelis, so that a workable Palestinian state can  take power, 
and acceptance of Israel's existence by Hamas. The outlines of such  a 
settlement are quite well defined. The underlying concepts are not materially  
different from what they were during President Clinton's time.


The  most potent threat comes from Iran. Movement toward a settlement in 
Palestine  would be helpful in confronting that threat. But both Israel and the 
United  States seem to be frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a 
Palestinian  Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking point is Hamas's 
unwillingness to  recognize the existence of Israel; but that could be made a 
condition for an  eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations.[1]  



The current policy is not even questioned in the United States.  While other 
problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of  our 
policies toward Israel is very muted indeed. The debate in Israel about  Israeli 
policy is much more open and vigorous than in the United States. This is  all 
the more remarkable because Palestine is the issue that more than any other  
currently divides the United States from Europe. Some European governments,  
according to reports, would like to end the economic boycott of Hamas once a  
unity government is successfully established. But the US has said it would  not.


One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the  American 
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both  the 
Democratic and the Republican parties.[2] AIPAC's mission is to ensure  American 
support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It  became 
closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the  invasion 
of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US  
ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a  
Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the  
pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the  
requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking  
military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly  
exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel's existence, has  endangered 
it.


The Palestine problem does not have a purely military  solution. Military 
superiority is necessary for Israel's national security, but  it is not 
sufficient. The solution has to be political, as President Clinton  recognized. He 
exerted enormous energy to bring about a peace settlement and his  efforts were so 
successful that it took the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak  Rabin in 1995 
by an Israeli extremist to prevent an Israeli peace initiative  with Arafat 
from being implemented. Even after Ariel Sharon's walk on the Temple  Mount in 
September 2000 set off new violence, Clinton offered a peace deal  several 
months later that was rejected by Arafat but probably suggests the shape  of a 
future settlement.


President Bush has never tried. He has  adopted the misleading metaphor of 
the war on terror and allowed Ariel Sharon to  have his way. Sharon did not want 
a negotiated settlement. He came to realize  that the military occupation 
could not be maintained forever and withdrew from  Gaza, in part, it has been 
argued, to strengthen the Israeli position on the  West Bank. But unilateral 
withdrawal led to the current chain of events. The  Bush administration did not 
just passively acquiesce in the Sharon/ Olmert  government's policies; it 
actively encouraged them. AIPAC must bear its share of  responsibility for aiding 
and abetting policies such as Israel's heavy-handed  response to Hezbollah last 
summer and its insistence on treating Hamas only as a  terrorist organization.


The current policy of not seeking a political  solution but pursuing military 
escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly  speaking ten Palestinian 
lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly  dangerous point. After 
the Israel Defense Forces' retaliation against Lebanon's  road system, 
airport, and other infrastructure one must wonder what could be the  next step for 
the Israeli forces. Iran poses a more potent danger to Israel than  either Hamas 
or Hezbollah, which are Iran's clients. There is the growing danger  of a 
regional conflagration in which Israel and the US could well be on the  losing 
side. With the ability of Hezbollah to withstand the Israeli onslaught  and the 
rise of Iran as a prospective nuclear power, Israel's existence is more  
endangered than at any time since its birth.


Supporters of Israel  have good reason to question AIPAC's advocacy and they 
have begun to do so. But  instead of engaging in critical self-examination, 
AIPAC remains intransigent.  Recently, the pro-Israel lobby has gone on the 
offensive, accusing the so-called  progressive critics of Israel's policies of 
fomenting anti-Semitism and  endangering the very existence of the Jewish state.



The case  against those who disagree with Israel's current policy is spelled 
out in detail  by Alvin H. Rosenfeld in a pamphlet published by the American 
Jewish  Committee.[3] After reviewing the rise of new anti-Semitic currents,  
particularly in the Muslim world and Europe, Rosenfeld equates anti-Semitism  
with anti-Zionism and asserts that Jewish critics of Israeli policies reinforce 
 both. He acknowledges that criticism by itself is not anti-Semitic; indeed, 
he  writes, "the biblical prophets stood on the side of justice and were never 
 hesitant to denounce their people's behavior when they saw it deviating from 
the  standards of justice." But, he contends, "to condemn Israeli actions 
and, at the  same time, to forego any realistic historical and political 
frameworks that  might account for such actions" is not acceptable. The use of 
"exaggerated and  defamatory terms," he writes, renders Israel indistinguishable from 
the  "despised country regularly denounced by the most impassioned  
anti-Semites."
To call Israel a Nazi state...or to accuse it of South  African–style 
apartheid rule or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale  genocide goes well 
beyond legitimate criticism.
To talk about victims turning  into aggressors falls in his view in the same 
category.


To buttress  his case, Rosenfeld examines the writings of a number of 
critics. In particular,  he focuses on a collection of essays whose authors, in his 
own judgment, make  Noam Chomsky appear as an "almost conservative thinker," 
but the list also  includes Tony Judt, a distinguished historian, whose crime 
consists of  suggesting a possible binational solution for Israel, and Richard 
Cohen, a  Washington Post columnist, who wrote, among other things, that the 
"sanest  choice for Israel is to pull back to defensible—but hardly injurious—
borders"  and to get out "of most of the West Bank"—a policy often advocated in 
Israel  itself. Rosenfeld resorts, without any personal knowledge of the 
people he  attacks, to primitive accusations of self-hatred, lumping all these 
critics  together as people who are "proud to be ashamed to be Jews." He 
concludes that  "the cumulative effect of these hostile ideas, which have been moving 
steadily  from the margins to the mainstream of 'progressive' opinion, has 
been to  reenergize ugly ideas and aggressive passions long considered dormant, 
if not  dead," i.e., anti-Semitism.


Rosenfeld's argument suffers from at  least three elementary errors in 
reasoning. The first is guilt by association.  The fact that constructive critics of 
Israel say things that, when taken out of  context or paraphrased in 
provocative ways, can be made to sound similar to the  comments of anti-Semites does 
not make them anti-Semitic or supporters of  anti-Semitism in any way. Second, 
there is a lack of factual evidence. Are the  expressions used by the critics 
really "exaggerated and defamatory"? That  depends on the facts. What is the 
more appropriate term, "Israel's still  incomplete security fence" or "an 
Apartheid Wall?" That can be determined only  by considering the actual impact the 
wall is having on the lives of the  Palestinians, a subject ignored by 
Rosenfeld and AIPAC.


Third, the  professed respect for criticism is a sham when it is not 
permitted "to condemn  Israeli actions and, at the same time, to forego any realistic 
historical and  political frameworks that might account for such actions." As 
presented by  Rosenfeld, this formula implies that Israel's actions have to be 
justified,  right or wrong. The appeal to a "realistic framework" aims to 
rationalize the  Israeli position. Criticism ought to be considered on its merits 
and not by any  other yardstick. Suppressing criticism when it is deemed to 
be unpatriotic has  been immensely harmful both in the case of Israel and the 
United States. It has  allowed the Bush administration and the Sharon/ Olmert 
government to pursue  disastrous policies.



The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably  successful in suppressing 
criticism.[4] Politicians challenge it at their peril  because of the lobby's ability 
to influence political contributions. When Howard  Dean called for an 
evenhanded policy toward Israel in 2004, his chances of  getting the nomination were 
badly damaged (although it was his attempt, after  his defeat in Iowa, to shout 
above the crowd that sealed his fate). Academics  had their advancement 
blocked and think-tank experts their funding withdrawn  when they stepped too far 
out of line. Following his criticism of repressive  Israeli policy on the West 
Bank, former president Jimmy Carter has suffered the  loss of some of the 
financial backers of his center.


Anybody who  dares to dissent may be subjected to a campaign of personal 
vilification. I  speak from personal experience. Ever since I participated in a 
meeting  discussing the need for voicing alternative views, a torrent of 
slanders has  been released including the false accusation in The New Republic that I 
was a  "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel" at the age of thirteen when my 
father  arranged a false identity to save my life and I accompanied an official of 
the  Ministry of Agriculture, posing as his godson, when he was taking the 
inventory  of a Jewish estate.[5] 

AIPAC is protected not only by the fear of  personal retaliation but also by 
a genuine concern for the security and survival  of Israel. Both 
considerations have a solid foundation in reality. The same two  factors were at play in 
the United States after September 11 when President Bush  declared war on 
terror. For eighteen months thereafter it was considered  unpatriotic to criticize 
his policies. That is what allowed him to commit one of  the greatest blunders 
in American history, the invasion of Iraq. But at that  time the threat to our 
national security was greatly exaggerated by the Bush  administration. 
Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as  to warn that the 
threat would manifest itself in the form of a mushroom cloud.  In the case of 
Israel today the threat to national security, even national  survival, is much 
more real. Israel needs the support of the United States more  than ever. Is 
this the right time to expose AIPAC's heavy influence in American  politics? I 
believe this consideration holds back many people who are critical  of the way 
AIPAC conducts its business. While the other architects of the Bush  
administration's failed policies have been relentlessly exposed, AIPAC continues  to be 
surrounded by a wall of silence. 



I am not insensitive to  this argument. It has held me back from criticizing 
Israeli policies in the  past. I am not a Zionist, nor am I am a practicing 
Jew, but I have a great deal  of sympathy for my fellow Jews and a deep concern 
for the survival of Israel. I  did not want to provide fodder to the enemies 
of Israel. I rationalized my  position by saying that if I wanted to voice 
critical views, I ought to move to  Israel. But since there were many Israelis who 
held such views my voice was not  needed, and I had many other battles to 
fight.


But now I have to ask  the question: How did Israel become so endangered? I 
cannot exempt AIPAC from  its share of the responsibility. I am a fervent 
advocate of critical thinking. I  have supported dissidents in many countries. I 
took a stand against President  Bush when he said that those who don't support 
his policies are supporting the  terrorists. I cannot remain silent now when 
the pro-Israel lobby is one of the  last unexposed redoubts of this dogmatic way 
of thinking. I speak out with some  trepidation because I am exposing myself 
to further attacks that are likely to  render me less effective in pursuing 
many other causes in which I am engaged;  but dissidents I have supported have 
taken far greater risks.


I am  not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform 
of  AIPAC; but I must speak out in favor of the critical process that is at 
the  heart of our open society. I believe that a much-needed self-examination 
of  American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it 
can't  make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the  
Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have  
promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that  
promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a  
place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is  
largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian  
problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with  
Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in  
Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United  
States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed;  
but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian  
government that includes Hamas.


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.

Anticipating attacks, I should like to emphasize that I do not  subscribe to 
the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews  for 
anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's  
policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for  
anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are  
influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are  
influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent  views.
—March 15, 2007

Notes
[1] As the highly respected Israeli writer David Grossman,  whose son was 
killed fighting in Lebanon, commented on March 11, "In the present  situation any 
sort of dialogue between Israel and Palestinians is positive and  has the 
potential to change the state of mind of both societies."
[2] It is  not the only one. In a letter to the Jewish citizens in America, 
Jimmy Carter  wrote that "the overwhelming bias for Israel comes from 
Christians like me who  have been taught to honor and protect God's chosen people from 
among whom came  our own savior, Jesus Christ."
[3] Alvin H. Rosenfeld, "'Progressive' Jewish  Thought and the New 
Anti-Semitism" (American Jewish Committee, 2006).
[4] See  Michael Massing, "The Storm Over the Israel Lobby," The New York 
Review, June 8,  2006.
[5] See the article by Martin Peretz, "Tyran-a-Soros," The New  Republic, 
February 12, 2007.
 



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.