[Peace-discuss] A Rabbi Denounces AIPAC

[Robert Naiman]

 *'Israel Lobby' bad for Israel, the U.S. *

BY RABBI BRUCE WARSHAL



http://www.stljewishlight.com/commentaries/286061544108230.php<http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=127379550&url_num=9&url=http://www.stljewishlight.com/commentaries/286061544108230.php>

May 10, 2006

Oh my God, someone has publicly outed the "Israel Lobby." For those readers
who do not closely follow the machinations in academia, let me explain. John
Walt, the academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and
John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have
written a blistering critique of the Jewish lobby, focusing primarily on
AIPAC.

Their main complaint is that "the thrust of US policy in the region (the
Middle East) derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially
the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'." There is much with which to disagree
in the paper, including their assertion that Israel is not a vital strategic
asset (there are many generals who would challenge that assertion). But
there is also much truth, if we would only be honest with ourselves.

The usual suspects have jumped on the bandwagon, not merely to criticize but
to condemn the paper in vitriolic words. Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat who
represents the Bronx, declared it "anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist drivel."
This is somewhat ironic since one of the complaints of Walt and Mearsheimer
is that anyone who criticizes Israel is automatically labeled anti-Semitic.
The ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz accused the authors of cribbing from neo-Nazi
Web sites, which was a sophisticated way of tarnishing them as anti-Semites
without using the phrase. The right-wing New York Sun called it a "scandal"
and warned that if Harvard is not careful, "the Kennedy School will become
known as Bir Zeit on the Charles."

The Forward was most responsible. Before writing an extensive critical
analysis of the paper it acknowledged that "the authors are not fringe
gadflies but two of America's most respected foreign-affairs theorists. ...
Though it's tempting, they can't be dismissed as cranks outside the
mainstream. They are the mainstream."

I agree with Walt and Mearsheimer that AIPAC controls our American
government policy toward Israel. But in their paper the two political
scientists point out that, "In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no
different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other
ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their
Christian allies attempting to sway US policy; the Lobby's activities are
not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion."

Coming from South Florida, I am acutely aware that our government policy
toward Cuba is dictated by the Cuban Lobby. Why else would we have such an
absurd opposition to Castro? If we can make peace with Red China and the
"evil empire" of the Soviet Union, why do we continue an embargo against an
obscure Communist island, if it were not for domestic political pressure? So
it is with the Jewish domestic lobby. My complaint is that the
self-appointed Jewish leaders who control AIPAC and other positions of power
within the Jewish community do not represent the best interests of Jews,
Israel or the United States in the long run.

Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right-wing, rich Jewish
neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one
merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when
Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500
delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a
minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48
rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein
pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of
American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of
the mainstream of Jewish thought.

At the same conference, preceding the recent Israeli elections, these
delegates were addressed by Ehud Olmert (Kadima), Amir Peretz (Labor) and
Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) by video link from Israel. Olmert and Peretz
received polite applause. The AIPAC delegates cheered enthusiastically for
Netanyahu, especially when he presented his hard line that was
overwhelmingly rejected by the Israeli electorate. Once a great
organization, today AIPAC does not even represent the feelings of the
average Israeli, let alone the average American Jew.

This American Jewish neo-conservatism is unhealthy not only for America but
for Israel as well. A prime example: The Israeli press reports that Israel
is trying to find a way to deal with the Palestinians while not dealing with
Hamas. Official public statements aside, they realize that they cannot cut
off all contacts with the Palestinians and that the world cannot discontinue
financial help; otherwise Israel will find a million starving Palestinians
on its border, and this will not lead to peace or security for Israel.
Privately, the Israeli government was against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism
Act (the Ross-Lehtinen-Lantos bill) which recently passed the House of
Representatives. It would cut off all American contacts with the Palestinian
Authority, even with its president Mahmoud Abbas, who is a moderate seeking
peace. Despite Israel's private reservations, AIPAC not only pushed this
bill, it was instrumental in writing it. Even though the AIPAC candidate
lost in Israel, he won in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hopefully, the
Senate and the White House will correct this.

Beware that you are reading treasonable material. If you "out" the Israeli
lobby and you are Gentile, you're branded an anti-Semite; if you are Jewish,
you're obviously a self-hating Jew. The Jewish establishment abides no
criticism of Israel. You don't agree with me? Take this example: Last month
a pro-Palestinian play entitled My Name is Rachel Corrie was to open at the
New York Theatre Workshop, a "progressive" company on East Fourth Street.
The play is based on the writings of a young British girl who was crushed to
death by an Israeli bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of
Palestinian homes in Gaza two years ago. Although the play was widely
praised in London last year, it never opened in New York. The theater
producers spoke to the ADL and other Jewish leaders, including big-money
Jews on its board, and that was the end of that. But, of course, we don't
"censor" discussion concerning Israel. We just politely give our opinions
and the voice of the other side disappears.

Another example: 400 rabbis, including myself, signed a letter sponsored by
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom that appeared in the Forward this past month. It was a
mildly liberal statement that proclaimed that "we are deeply troubled by the
recent victory of Hamas," but went on to urge "indirect assistance to the
Palestinian people via NGO's, with the appropriate conditions to ensure that
it does not reach the hands of terrorists." Pretty mild stuff. Yet pulpit
rabbis across this country who signed the letter have reported a concerted
effort to silence them. The letter has been branded a "piece of
back-stabbing abandonment of the Jews of Israel." Synagogue boards have been
pressured to silence their rabbis by that loose coalition called the "Israel
Lobby."

Just another example of the Jewish establishment stifling any discussion of
Israel that does not conform to the neo-conservative tenets of AIPAC and its
cohorts. Beware of these self-appointed guardians of Israel and Jewish
values. In the end they will destroy everything that makes Judaism a
compassionate religion, and if in their zeal they do not destroy Israel,
they certainly will not make it more secure.


-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060522/b317c8c0/attachment.html