AIPAC and leadership of so called "mainstream" Jewish organizations (AJC, JF, ADL, and all the other of alphabet soup) are pushing for sanctions and confrontation with Iran and since Congress and the white house are Israeli occupied territories, US foreign policy is moving in that direction.
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article published by The Economist:
Taming Leviathan
From The Economist print edition
These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby
THIS week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of "the lobby". The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears.
They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol Hill-Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senate-as well as the vice-president (who called his talk "The United States and Israel: United We Stand") and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions. . . .
The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the "soundest" on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place. . . .
Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest-run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat-even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.
Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years-there are probably about 3.5m of them-and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.
But so far their performance has been unimpressive. . . .
An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people-politicians and policymakers as well as academics-to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as "acting increasingly on behalf of Israel". Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could "be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state". Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a "sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed".
The biggest challenge facing AIPAC is how to deal with this changing climate. Its members have been admirably honest about their mission in life. They boast about passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year. But they are too willing to close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias when people ask whether this is a good thing. America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle East-and AIPAC needs to take a positive role in that debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics.
Actions:
Tell Your Senators: Iraqis need Aid, not War
http://dev.epic-usa.org/index.cfm/page/memberhome/action/action/campaignid/10
AND Tell Congress: Oppose Any Attack on Iran or Covert Military Actions There
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ufpj/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3414
[Hat tip: Mazin Qumsiyeh]
{ 6 } Comments
The Zionists are the crux of the problem.
The Jews and the Palestinians just want to work together.
Olmert is a Zionist. Take lands and keep them!
There will never be a settlement till Israel denounces the occupation of Palestein and the theft of their lands.
The right to return is a small matter compared to the theft and torture of the Palestinians.
In an other view. The right to return should be reviewed because these were the lands stolen in 1948.
As salaam alaikum.
Just surfed in again — seeing what's what is Palestine.
You might remember me. Canadian Muslim writer. Come by insha'Allah if you have some time to read.
Ma'as salaama,
nuh ibn
"The right to return is a small matter compared to the theft and torture of the Palestinians.
In an other view. The right to return should be reviewed because these were the lands stolen in 1948."
Interestingly enough, even some of the fanatic settlers now know how it feels like to be thrown out of their homes by force and their houses destroyed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6501907.stm
Sadly enough, nobody thinks that this has happened 60 years ago, on a much larger scale.
Hey great post Haitham,
I agree with the piece and just wanted to say more people should read the economist (with cynical eyes of course). I don't agree with everything the magazine says but it does fact check and is taking on a more anti-Zionist, peace in Palestine message everyday. Just a quick thought at work, now back to orders after hearings. *Groan*
"It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people-politicians and policymakers as well as academics-to ask hard questions about America’s relationship with Israel."
As if by magic. Like it stopped raining and the sun came out all of a sudden. Fck that. A lot of good people worked their asses off day and night getting the real information out to people so that the academics and former presidents could come out of their bunkers. Thanks to the big rainmakers for doing the right thing, but I think we all know who did the real work.
Hi Haitham,
First of all — very interesting blog. Much respect.
Next, I'd just like to note my pleasant surprise that the Economist in fact published this piece, and that I think it was smart of you to highlight it. I myself lost ancestors to the Holocaust — but I'm also keenly aware of the fact that lingering western guilt, and subsequent Jewish ascendancy, has had a rather stifling effect on free and open debate vis-a-vis American policymakers' blind commitment to right-wing Zionism. Washington is a complex, internecine web of money, power and contacts. None of us outsiders can truly understand how it works without spending time in its very bowels. However, the power of close-minded lobbies like AIPAC does seem starkly apparent. It's worth talking about — openly.
Peace. -J