I’m writing from Washington, D.C., where I have just attended AIPAC’s Executive Committee meeting, as Ameinu’s and your representative. We were very probably the sole voice of progressive Zionism at this meeting which was attended by many major AIPAC activist/donors from around the country. Our presence helped insure that some AIPAC activists heard different perspectives to which they were not exposed by AIPAC’s leadership. The meeting, which focused on AIPAC’s support for new legislation to ratchet up economic sanctions on Iran, was addressed by 30 freshman members of Congress, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, other prominent senators and Congress-folk, and by Israeli Ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor.
While AIPAC professed its undying belief that “the United States must exhaust every economic, diplomatic and political tool to persuade the Iranian government to end its nuclear program,” in fact the organization has completely failed to support any political, security or economic incentives which, when combined with sanctions, might create a real opportunity for the pragmatists in the Iranian leadership to reach an accommodation with the U.S. and chart a way out of the nuclear crisis. AIPAC claims that its sanctions-only policy is meant to avoid war with Iran, ending the Iranian nuclear program through non-military means. But the lobby’s tack, which has been mirrored by other umbrella Jewish bodies, would withhold many of the most effective non-military tools which proved successful with North Korea. These include the offer of future commercial ties and normalization of diplomatic relations if Iran reaches a satisfactory resolution with the international community on the nuclear issue and ends support for terrorism against Israel and (the U.S.) while supporting efforts to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with a two-state solution–as Iran proposed to the Bush Administration several years ago to no avail.
The two-day meeting, which culminated in lobbying sessions with members of Congress, opened moments after President Bush made a major speech on Palestinian-Israeli peace. Bush spelled out his (and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s) strategy of attempting to revive peace talks with the new Fatah Palestinian government under President Mahmoud Abbas and freshly appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank, while continuing to isolate and pressure Hamas in Gaza. AIPAC has endorsed the new Bush strategy, instructing its activists to “urge members [of Congress] to support the new Palestinian government with proper congressional oversight, and to call on the new government to combat terrorism and fight corruption.”
AIPAC insisted that “US support for the new government should be conditioned on its continued rejection of Hamas and clear understanding that it will not seek an accommodation with a terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction.” These conditions, which reflect the Bush Administration’s position, set the U.S. against its moderate Arab allies—especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt—who are encouraging Fatah and Hamas to reconcile and reconstitute a national unity government. A policy built on fomenting civil war between Fatah and Hamas insures that Hamas has every incentive to do its utmost to act as the great spoiler.
While the new Bush-Olmert peace gambit has drawn support from various quarters both in the US and in Israel, many critics have expressed strong skepticism over its viability. Indeed, many fear that its flaws are so grave it may well make the patient even more violently ill than before. Lest anyone doubt the Orwellian core of this Bush “peace initiative,” Ha’aretz’s Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner report (7/20/2007) that the Bush Administration “does not want a reconciliation” between Fatah and Hamas. “It wants a confrontation. It wants a decisive victory.” That strategy worked out well for Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon and the U.S. against Iraqi insurgents (and the U.S. against the Viet Cong, and the French against the Algerian FLN), so we can rest assured it will work just fine here as well.
We offer here a guide to the perplexed to Bush’s speech and the new Palestinian-Israeli peace initiative, highlighting the most thoughtful and cogent responses, both pro and con. The guide offers short takes from a wide array of Israeli and American figures.
Meanwhile AIPAC leadership enthusiastically endorsed the March 2007 AIPAC National Policy Conference speech of Rev. John Hagee of the fundamentalist right-wing Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which brought some 4,000 members this week from around the country to lobby on the Hill in support of Israel the day after AIPAC. I’m sure it was entirely coincidental that three of AIPAC’s four lobbying agenda items were identical to CUFI’s, and that the lobbying days were back to back. AIPAC leadership is happy to ally with CUFI on Iran sanctions, US aid to Israel and putting more teeth into UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to enable international forces to better stanch arms smuggling in Lebanon.
But AIPAC leaders prefer to ignore the fact that Hagee and CUFI are implacably opposed to a two-state solution and any territorial compromise, whether with Mahmoud Abbas or with the Messiah himself. They also choose to overlook Hagee’s continued calls for a preemptive US war with Iran. (For the most recent such call, see Nathan Guttman, “Pro-Israel Christians Mobilize in DC,” Forward, July 18, 2007. For my earlier more in-depth indictment of AIPAC from March 2007, see “AIPAC Hijack: With Friends Like These…” Please see also my critique of the negative role AIPAC sometimes plays in Washington, published in Ha’aretz in November 2006, “Wanted: A Moderate Pro-Israel Lobby” (as reprinted on my blog, Tough Dove Israel), and my rejoinder to AIPAC, which attacked my Ha’aretz piece, published in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle under the title “Look Who’s Pressuring Israel.”)
Finally, the plight of the over 1,500 refugees from Sudan currently in Israel, including some from Darfur, and the government’s razing of Bedouin homes, are two of the moral challenges facing Israel right now. Ameinu calls on the Israeli government and the world community to grant asylum to the refugees (see this week’s Ameinu statement). This week also features a testimonial from Ameinu Policy and Advocacy Chair Judith R. Gelman, who visited the unrecognized Bedouin village of Um El Hiran three days after the destruction of dozens of homes. Ameinu Immediate Past President Jeffry Mallow explains how academics can fight the British boycott of Israeli universities by becoming affiliated with them.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these pieces, and on the many other contributions to our site,and invite you to use the Talkback feature on every article to join the conversation.
B’shalom,
Doni
(Gidon) Doni Remba
Executive Director
Ameinu: Liberal Values, Progressive Israel
executive@ameinu.net
