According to an August 29 piece by Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, there now is clear evidence that Walt and Mearsheimer, authors of the controversial "Israel Lobby" report, are motivated by anti-Semitism. Let me start by saying that I don't doubt the ill will of the authors of that study. But what is striking to me about Kampeas' piece is that it contains damning evidence not only against Walt and Mearsheimer, but, perhaps unintentionally, against their target, AIPAC.
Hawks in both Israel and the US, including many Likudniks and Republicans, Israeli prime ministers like Yitzchak Shamir and US organizations like ZOA, have long been frustrated by AIPAC's left-leaning pressure. Built on a base of predominantly secular Jewish Democrats, AIPAC consistently maintains that it pursues an agenda built on the policies of whatever Israeli government happens to be governing. Not only is that not always the case, but it ignores the reality that in a hostile world, Israel is very much a client country of the US and, by far the most powerful "pro-Israel" lobby, AIPAC limits the parameters of Israeli decision-making in the first place by agreeing to pursue only policies its left-leaning base will tolerate.
Among the pressures exerted on - and therefore by - AIPAC is the pursuit of bipartisanship. The question, however, is whether AIPAC's bipartisanship fetish is a means to ensure Israel's best interests, or a self-serving effort to maintain its hold on its base, a significant percentage of which would stop supporting any organization or cause perceived as even remotely leaning towards the Republicans.
Kampeas' article illustrates how this played out in practical terms in the recent conflict in Lebanon:
In this dispute, one would expect the major "pro-Israel" lobby to side with the Republicans. Instead, AIPAC sacrificed Israel's interest on the altar of bipartisanship. Siding with Republicans was, according to these lobbyists, too "distasteful."
The disconcerting truth: everyone in Washington knows the Republicans are, as a caucus, far more concerned with Israel's safety and survival than the Democrats. This reflects their respective ideologies, as well as their bases' loyalties. At the height of the recent Hizbullah-Israel conflict, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll revealed that 54% of Democrats advocated that the United States adopt a more neutral, less pro-Israel stance, as opposed to only 29% of Republicans. 64% of Republicans felt the Israeli response to Hizbullah was justified, as opposed to only 29% of Democrats. Yet, for decades, AIPAC has perpetrated the myth of bipartisanship, because it is a lobby dominated by secular, Jewish liberals - dyed-in-the wool Democrats, for whom endless abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action and fighting school choice is a far more compelling agenda than Israel.
Does AIPAC perform any valuable services? Certainly. AIPAC's main agenda item is foreign aid (a comfortably bipartisan issue), which it promotes tirelessly. Without the enormous sums of money AIPAC directs, there would be almost no Democratic support even for foreign aid. But talk to Republicans on the Hill, who are actually being restrained in their support for Israel by AIPAC's agenda. With conservative Republicans in control of both chambers and the White House, foreign aid and toothless resolutions criticizing hugely unpopular regimes like Iran, Syria and Libya seem less like a robust pro-Israel agenda than what they really represent: an attempt to create a minimalist agenda that will allow Democrats to achieve certified "pro-Israel" records and justify the millions AIPAC raises and directs. True, AIPAC tethers Democrats who otherwise would be active enemies; but it also tethers Republicans who want to give Israel far more leeway to pursue its own safety and security.
If this sounds cynical, then consider: all interest groups would like to achieve bipartisan support for their issue. But isn't it striking that the only issue in Washington on which the major lobby proclaims that party control doesn't matter is Israel? There are pro-business Democrats and pro-union Republicans. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. But does anybody doubt that unions are better off under Democratic Congresses and that pro-lifers want Republicans? When it comes to Israel, however, AIPAC is utterly neutral, promulgating a doctrine of bipartisanship above all, and the pretense that Democrats are as good for Israel as Republicans.
Israel is in crisis. We are nearing an election in which many observers believe the House could be lost to the Democrats. The differences in attitudes towards the Middle East among leadership are stark. Yet, AIPAC is making no effort to keep the House Republican.
As the JTA reported in similar circumstances, in May 2004, "AIPAC has touted this [George Bush-John Kerry] election as a 'win-win' proposition, noting Bush's strong support for Israel and Kerry's 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate."
Bush and Kerry "win-win?" Boehner and Pelosi "win-win?" For AIPAC's purposes, perhaps, but certainly not for Israel.
Hawks in both Israel and the US, including many Likudniks and Republicans, Israeli prime ministers like Yitzchak Shamir and US organizations like ZOA, have long been frustrated by AIPAC's left-leaning pressure. Built on a base of predominantly secular Jewish Democrats, AIPAC consistently maintains that it pursues an agenda built on the policies of whatever Israeli government happens to be governing. Not only is that not always the case, but it ignores the reality that in a hostile world, Israel is very much a client country of the US and, by far the most powerful "pro-Israel" lobby, AIPAC limits the parameters of Israeli decision-making in the first place by agreeing to pursue only policies its left-leaning base will tolerate.
Among the pressures exerted on - and therefore by - AIPAC is the pursuit of bipartisanship. The question, however, is whether AIPAC's bipartisanship fetish is a means to ensure Israel's best interests, or a self-serving effort to maintain its hold on its base, a significant percentage of which would stop supporting any organization or cause perceived as even remotely leaning towards the Republicans.
Kampeas' article illustrates how this played out in practical terms in the recent conflict in Lebanon:
Mearsheimer also said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was the "driving force" behind efforts in Congress to remove language from pro-Israel war resolutions that called on all sides to preserve civilian life.Get it? One of the great injustices decried by Israel's friends was the moral corruption of media and governments who treated Israel's defense of its citizens as indistinguishable from terrorist Hizbullah's attacks targeting civilians. Certain Democrats, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi among them, insisted on language that made it appear as though the US Congress equated Israel's actions and intentions with Hizbullah's. Republicans, on the other hand, refused to treat Israel like terrorists.
In fact, JTA has established that the initiative was purely Republican and had nothing to do with AIPAC. Some pro-Israel lobbyists told JTA they found the partisan dustup on the issue distasteful.
In this dispute, one would expect the major "pro-Israel" lobby to side with the Republicans. Instead, AIPAC sacrificed Israel's interest on the altar of bipartisanship. Siding with Republicans was, according to these lobbyists, too "distasteful."
The disconcerting truth: everyone in Washington knows the Republicans are, as a caucus, far more concerned with Israel's safety and survival than the Democrats. This reflects their respective ideologies, as well as their bases' loyalties. At the height of the recent Hizbullah-Israel conflict, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll revealed that 54% of Democrats advocated that the United States adopt a more neutral, less pro-Israel stance, as opposed to only 29% of Republicans. 64% of Republicans felt the Israeli response to Hizbullah was justified, as opposed to only 29% of Democrats. Yet, for decades, AIPAC has perpetrated the myth of bipartisanship, because it is a lobby dominated by secular, Jewish liberals - dyed-in-the wool Democrats, for whom endless abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action and fighting school choice is a far more compelling agenda than Israel.
Does AIPAC perform any valuable services? Certainly. AIPAC's main agenda item is foreign aid (a comfortably bipartisan issue), which it promotes tirelessly. Without the enormous sums of money AIPAC directs, there would be almost no Democratic support even for foreign aid. But talk to Republicans on the Hill, who are actually being restrained in their support for Israel by AIPAC's agenda. With conservative Republicans in control of both chambers and the White House, foreign aid and toothless resolutions criticizing hugely unpopular regimes like Iran, Syria and Libya seem less like a robust pro-Israel agenda than what they really represent: an attempt to create a minimalist agenda that will allow Democrats to achieve certified "pro-Israel" records and justify the millions AIPAC raises and directs. True, AIPAC tethers Democrats who otherwise would be active enemies; but it also tethers Republicans who want to give Israel far more leeway to pursue its own safety and security.
If this sounds cynical, then consider: all interest groups would like to achieve bipartisan support for their issue. But isn't it striking that the only issue in Washington on which the major lobby proclaims that party control doesn't matter is Israel? There are pro-business Democrats and pro-union Republicans. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. But does anybody doubt that unions are better off under Democratic Congresses and that pro-lifers want Republicans? When it comes to Israel, however, AIPAC is utterly neutral, promulgating a doctrine of bipartisanship above all, and the pretense that Democrats are as good for Israel as Republicans.
Israel is in crisis. We are nearing an election in which many observers believe the House could be lost to the Democrats. The differences in attitudes towards the Middle East among leadership are stark. Yet, AIPAC is making no effort to keep the House Republican.
As the JTA reported in similar circumstances, in May 2004, "AIPAC has touted this [George Bush-John Kerry] election as a 'win-win' proposition, noting Bush's strong support for Israel and Kerry's 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate."
Bush and Kerry "win-win?" Boehner and Pelosi "win-win?" For AIPAC's purposes, perhaps, but certainly not for Israel.