On the 41st anniversary of (Israel’s) occupation, more than 2000 peace activists from several organizations marched on Saturday (June 7, 2008) through the center of Tel-Aviv, shouting: “Peace -Yes! Occupation – No!” In the first row (above picture): the “Gush Shalom” flags joining the flags of the two states, Israel and Palestine.
Not many of us here in the USA heard about it.
Gush Shalom (roughly translated as “The Peace Bloc”) also announced this debate inside Israel: IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY GOOD OR BAD FOR ISRAEL?. JOHN MEARSHEIMER (University of Chicago) and STEPHEN WALT (Harvard University), the authors of “THE ISRAEL LOBBY,” which created a storm in the United States will present their case on Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 8pm, at the BET SOKOLOV Press Club, 4 Kaplan Street, Tel-Aviv.
The lectures will be in English with simultaneous translation into Hebrew. Hopefully, they will be video taped and available to Americans.
This announcement coincided with Uri Avnery’s response to Barak Obama’s appearance before the AIPAC convention, only one day after his nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Uri Avnery, who is founder of Gush Shalom, was not particularly happy with what he heard and what he called, “Obama’s obeisance” to AIPAC.
This view from the pen of Uri Avnery, leaves one asking: will Obama be good or bad for Israel (reprinted by permission)?
No, I Can’t!
June 7, 2008
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world’s capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby (sic)can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance – and do so with fervor – to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel’s security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah – an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan “Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity”. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future – if and when he is elected president.
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were “pilgrims”, the Zionists immigrants called themselves “olim” – short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a “promised land”, believing themselves to be God’s chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as “pioneers”, who make the wilderness bloom, a “people without land in a land without people”. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: “Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.”
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: “No, I can’t!”
So is Obama bad for Middle East peace? If elected, it may be even worse because there is always the specter of 2012 and reelection, the need to court the Israel Lobby once again, and once again, there will be no peace in the Middle East, and the crux of American foreign policy will continue to reflect the wishes of the Israel Lobby. Let’s see if the Mearshirmer and Walt debate will help. Certainly, the Obama candidacy isn’t helpful thus far at least.
Thanks for the diary, shergald. The Obama campaign has sinced explained away his AIPAC comment by saying that the status of Jerusalem will have to be worked out between Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators. Unfortunately, his comment has the risk of giving hardliners a free pass — much as Bush’s comments about Israel being able to keep the major settlement blocks encouraged Sharon to solidify Israel’s holdings there.
Avnery should know better. Despite apparent assertions to the contrary, there’s still no Jewish Lobby.
“there’s still no Jewish Lobby?”
I would suppose that the parade of politicians genuflecting before AIPAC (correction, the Israel lobby) every year constitutes nothing more than a casual meeting of like minded individuals. Those minds would include Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Rev. Hagee, all mixing in for the purpose of dictating American foreign policy. And that would include Iraq, Afganistan, and Iran, and whomever is of interest of Israel.
Give us a break, please.
Give us a break?!!
Are you saying that AIPAC represents Jewish interests? AIPAC represents AIPAC’s far right interests and nothing beyond that. If you believe that AIPAC represents the interests of the fragmented Jewish “community”, you are quite sadly mistaken. There is no Jewish lobby. To lump all Jews into AIPAC does the community a great disservice. Wasn’t it your own post that set forth the details of an opposing organization only a few short weeks ago? Would that be a Jewish lobby also, or yet another group with its own interests to pursue?
I believe it was YOU who used the term, Jewish Lobby, whereas the article as well as my introduction make clear that AIPAC is the Israel Lobby.
And the Israel Lobby is definitely a representative of the Right Wing Zionists, Likudniks and the like.
And yes, I often express the views of the Israeli and American Jewish Left.
Avnery used that term, I merely blockquoted it. Read it above in his own words.
PS: That might have been a slip on Avnery’s part, but for the most part his article got it correctly by referencing the Israel Lobby.
Although through most of the article Avnery used the term, “Israel Lobby,” at one point, he used “Jewish Lobby.” Since Avnery is a Jewish Israeli, I hope that no one is going to argue that his usage stems from his being an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. I think that it it best to assume it is a mistake on his part, best remedied by putting [sic] after “Jewish Lobby.”
Yes, and the Mafia represents all Italians, right?
No discussion of the Saudi lobby that keeps our energy policy in their pocket? Wanna complain about them and call them the “Muslim Lobby?”
You lose many when you say “Jewish Lobby.” Maybe you mean the National Jewish Democratic Council? I happen to belong to them and they happen to be pro-peace and anti-Iraq war. Are you implying that I somehow am not “Jewish enough” if I don’t support AIPAC? Are you implying that everyone who belongs to AIPAC is Jewish? Don’t forget those fanatical Christian end-of-days idiots who want me to move to Israel so their savior can come back (after which I will have to convert or be damned) are a part of AIPAC. You imply they are more Jewish than I am.
Seriously. It is goddamned messed up to consider it okay to refer to a “Jewish lobby.” It is inacurate, insensitive and shows a serious ignorance of history.
Avnery slipped up and used the term, “Jewish Lobby,” but his many references to the “Israel Lobby” and “AIPAC” make clear what he meant.
And as far as influence is concerned, AIPAC is perhaps second only to the NRA. Yet while Republican leaders may speak before the NRA at times, no other lobby is like AIPAC in drawing government leaders to its annual conference including the Vice President, Speaker of the House, party leaders from the Senate, numerous senators and congresspersons, and our presidential candidates. AIPAC is not a PAC, but allegedly controls over 120 PACs, which wield a lot of power in terms of political contributions. AIPAC has also been known to single out candidates like McKinney of Georgia for termination, and succeed. The cartoon above posted by Mattes tells all with respect to attitudes toward AIPAC during presidential elections.
AIPAC’s problem is not that it is successful in representing Israel, but that it represents extreme right wing Israeli politics, Likud brand politics, to be specific, and that success includes influencing American foreign policy toward other nations like Iraq and Iran. AIPAC may not actually represent Israel’s best interests, certainly not America’s best interests. It represents the interests of right wing Zionist extremists.
Fine. I agree with many of your points. But your very comments indicates that it is NOT the Jewish OR EVEN ISRAEL lobby. One could call it the Likud lobby, perhaps. That could well be more productive even, as well as more acurate. The majority of Israelis I personally know (and I know many) hate Likud and disagree with the Bush/Likud ideology. So it is wrong to talk of a Jewish Lobby or an Israel lobby when discussing AIPAC. The purpose of referring to it as either the Jewish or Israel lobby is to villify either Jews or Israel. Calling it the Likud lobby focuses specifically on what is really wrong with AIPAC, rather than implying, intentionally or no, that the problem is with Jews or Israel as a whole rather than Likud policy.
I also would suggest that you are underestimating the influence of the oil lobby which dominates our foreign policy more than AIPAC does and which in turn is dominated by the Saudis…who are also personal friends of several of our top “leaders.” Honestly, until I hear pretty much the same condemnation of that lobby, which keeps our cities polluted, our economy in thrall and our trade deficit far in the red, I am not so interested in the influence of AIPAC. In terms of the negative influence on our nation, the Saudi royal family is far, far worse than AIPAC.
Again, you are making too much of Avnery’s reference, but also going on to create another implication, putting words in my mouth. Get off this theme. It is unwarranted.
Your point about the oil lobby should be taken seriously because I have no doubt that Cheney-Bush were motivated by it, among other things. Perhaps it is just the case that representatives of Big Oil have not been public with their positions. At the least, I have never heard an oil company CEO urging that the US attack Iran. You should therefore support your own contentions minimally with some analysis concerning oil’s greater influence.
Whether AIPAC is Likud driven or not, it does represent itself as the Israel Lobby. Calling it the Likud Lobby is one thing, but when we hear American politicians talking generically, it is hard claim they are only discussing Likud politics. The truth is they believe that they are discussing Israel’s interests, and nothing more.
In this regard, it is interesting that Bush’s latest efforts to achieve peace in Israel-Palestine is anti-Likud, in spite of the administration being pro-Likud (whatever Sharon wanted) for the previous seven years.
No!
Words matter. Particularly when those words represent actual real people. If your goal is to villify Israel and/or Jews, then fine. But if your goal is to fight the Likud/AIPAC agenda, then that is a whole other thing entirely and casual misuse of words seriously compromises that message.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what AIPAC thinks it represents. Most Isralis and most Jews disagree. Yet they get lumped all the time in with AIPAC as if we are all just one big conspiracy.
And we are now trolls for saying so. Check those ratings.
The settler movements controls our Israeli policies and the Israeli government since 1967.
AIPAC lobbies for Israel, it does not matter what it’s called.
Gee, that means we are all Republicans right now since the Republicans dominate American policy.
And the Settlers sure didn’t dictate policy when the Sinai was given back. The Settlers sure didn’t dictate policy when the entire Gaza was given back. Your satements ignore two major periods when diplomatic negotiations led to settlers being kicked off the land they had settled on, to their considerable outcry. It is absolutely false to say that the settlers have dominated since 1967. Perhaps too much, but by no means completely or through the whole period.
And as you know, every time Israelis gave an inch their leaders suffer.
At the latest AIPAC meeting no one clapped when the two-state solution was mentioned by Rice and Olmert, but when stopping Iran or when Haggee was speaking there were loud applauds.
And now that Olmert is going along with Rice to carve a peace plan, he is being charged with a crime. Just a way to stop the peace negotiations.
Many articles have been written in Israeli newspapers about the power of the settlers.
And why are Americans allowed to send money to confiscate Palestinian land to this day?
The saudi family has given us cheap oil for years.
The energy speculation ala enron is what is driving oil prices. Goldman Sachs.
As the saying goes, “I look forward to your diary”.
If you are interested in the role of the Saudi Oil Lobby, you are welcome to diary on it. You are not welcome to derail someone else’s diary with complaints that they have failed to write on your pet subject.
You say:
But shergald didn’t say “Jewish Lobby,” Avnery, an Israeli Jew, did. Your whole comment is based on either a failure of reading comprehension or a trollish diary derailment.
I saw part of the O’bama’s speech live. It was disheartening. I kept thinking of the poor Palestinians who were or would be hearing his words. It was pure pander. I expected some amount of balance even considering his audience. He did say: “Israel isn’t perfect.” Wow no shit. Its the first time I have been truly disappointed in Senator O’bama.
Me too. I don’t know whether his purpose was to get the Hamas endorsement off his back, but he definitely went too far. As Rusty Pipes above indicated, Obama has done some backtracking since his speech.
on Obama & Israel
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944
Raimondo often gets it, as this indicates…
An solo Israeli attack against Iran has been argued. Israel’s distance from Iran (unless the US provides refueling capability) discourages. Also, the prospect of retaliation from Iran, which has medium ballistic missiles, that could flatten Israeli cities, poses a deterrant. No question that Israel wants the US to do the dirty deed, and false propaganda like the Iranian Republican Guard being a terrorist organization, or that Iran is supplying IEDs to Iraq terrorist groups, is just not selling well. Who can believe the Cheney-Bush administration any more? Certainly not Americans.
But this alone: the prospect of $8 gasoline resulting from a strike against Iran, is enough to deter the administration (and McCain’s chances in November). It would also shift public opinion against Israel.
So Israel has to grin and bear it: it will not be the only nuclear power in the Middle East in the future. Perhaps that prospect alone will convince Israel to resolve the one issue that motivates the Iranians as well as other Arab countries: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While we don’t get the news, Israel’s attempt to annex the West Bank into a Greater Israel is seen everyday on Arabic TV, along with the deaths of numerous Palestinians that it entails.
Israel must not be allowed to drag the US into the abyss with it. We wait for Obama to take office in January, and the start of a new American foreign policy.
Uprated some comments due to ratings abuse.
Disagreement is not reason for a troll rating.
especially without a rationale. this is a sensitive topic and has, to date, been dealt with in a courteous manner here. l hope the spirit of that debate continues.
me, too, and yes.
I had intended to make a comment on the political reality of Obama’s stance regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations, which, considering the political climate, is understandable and not necessarily indicative of how he’ll govern, but the “there is no Israel lobby” comments left me flabbergasted.
The are many aspects to the Israel lobby. I’m more than willing to acknowledge that there is often confusion between Pro-Israel Jewish-Americans lobbying (sometimes informally) Congress and official efforts representing Israel’s government. There are also Jewish political contributers to both parties, such as the “Jewish Coalition” members who have influence on the Republican party [see link and excerpt].
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewant
ed=all&oref=slogin
And, of course, a huge source of political influence consists of the neocon’s influence on the US government, which scarcely requires explanation.
On the Democratic side, I’m aware of some fairly extensive influence, which is hardly surprising since Jewish-Americans vote Democratically in overwhelming proportions (second only to blacks).
The intermingling of these groups along with the intent of their actions gives some room to arguing for a distinction between official lobbying efforts and ordinary political participation, but it’s a distinction without a difference.
It would be accurate to say that the informal and formal efforts combined give the Israel Lobby an extraordinary amount of control over US foreign policy and our electoral politics. Defining the Israel Lobby in rigidly compartmentalized terms confuses the issue somewhat. It’s quite fair to insist on definitions that don’t haphazardly lump non-aligned interests together, but it can be quite disingenuous since the level of influence is still quite large when disaggregated.
I’ve found some of the commentators on this topic quite insightful in many past posts, which makes the “there is no Israel Lobby” comment all the more curious.
My interest in agnatology leads me to suspect that the “there is no Israel Lobby” comment is part of a disinformation campaign (perhaps informal). It’s not simply a normative statement to say “there is no Israel Lobby,” since it can be measured by metrics such as lobbying contributions to members of Congress, such as those listed below. One may argue for the right to lobby or for Americans to participate in the political process, but the contention that there is no lobby is simply false.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/candidates-appear-at-aipac.html
Martin Indyk of the Saban Institute, a proIsrael think tank, would seem to be the most prominent exponent of the “there is no Israel Lobby” position, and he has participated in debates with Mearsheimer and Walt pushing this notion.