Typical. (0.00 / 0)

How often do progressive Jews get told that we have no right to criticize Israel's actions because we're not there.  Then the moment Israel does something they don't like that whole line predictably goes out the window.

Points to AIPAC for at least being consistent in always siding with the Israeli government.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:34:55 AM UTC

Not totally accurate (0.00 / 0)

AIPAC was not so gung-ho in support of the government of israe when Labor was in charge, esp. under Ehud Barak.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 00:12:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

welcome. but not TOO surprising (4.00 / 4)

I think that what's going on is that AIPAC, for all its real power to line people up when it wants and its relative unanimity (in the wrong direction) of late, still isn't a monolith and its showing again. As I've noted before here, while the line coming out of its DC operation and other big-shots and loudmouth voices has been overly hawkish and pro-Bush, that hasn't changed its status (and formal/founding mission-- I went to college with someone whose grandmother helped start AIPAC) as the theoretical "big tent" for the spectrum of people who identify as "supporting and strengthening the US-Israel relationship."

AIPAC's policy in theory is set by an advisory group of orgs that represents everyone from Americans for Peace Now-- which of course has often clashed with AIPAC and increasingly been more vocal in doing so the last few years-- to the Zionist Organization of America, the uber-pro-settler/anti-negotiations wingnut group that Adelson is also a prominent funder of. Also its worth noting that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which AIPAC initially spun-off and still relies on, is run by Dennis Ross; the rejectionists and hawks like Adelson can't stand Ross both for his role as the lead negotiator of Oslo under both Bush I and Clinton, and for some of the nuanced views and dialogue he and WINEP have put forth. (Ross incidentally, while not on anyone's payroll and offering his advice to any candidate will take it, has become somewhat of an informal advisor to Barack Obama).

The more left-leaning groups have of course started backing away and talking about forming a counter-weight-- not an anti-AIPAC but something that might go up against it if needed-- and they're starting to get traction. Between them and Democrats speaking up more and more with daylight from the hawkish line AIPAC has taken (Hillary Clinton is a partial exception unfortunately) and independent efforts gaining traction (the letter being debated here was initiated by Gary Ackerman, a liberal Jewish Democrat usually quite friendly to AIPAC, and Charles Boustany, a conservative Louisiana Republican of Lebanese heritage), this sort of thing was inevitable. So within AIPAC you get some convergence of people with more pro-peace leanings speaking up more (and more successfully), outside pressure and events, and the sense that the administration's feeble efforts here are maybe even needed. (Note that the sense of wanting to rally around the administration is what ultimately led to AIPAC supporting the Iraq war, not any preset agenda or even a full adoption of the neoconservative agenda, though the neocons within its orbit definitely pushed it).

To their credit, the left-leaning groups like APN, Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v' Shalom and now the Union of Reform Judaism (which represents more American Jews than  any other organization) aren't merely accepting AIPAC's tacit support here. They're asking for more actual effort behind it, and in turn the Adelsons-- who have always been hypocrites on not standing with Israel when it does things they don't approve of or see as weak-- are going nuts. They probably see a parallel to the 1990's, when the hawks initially won out and undercut Rabin, but when Clinton forged ahead anyway the doves (including Steve Grossman, later chair of the DNC and of Howard Dean's presidential cmapaign) got their wind back. Expect more of this to play out if things keep going as they are, and particularly if a Democrat wins the White House and steps up diplomatic efforts. The push and pull is quite fascinating, particularly as one who saw it up close a bit from the periphery before becoming disillusioned with most of the players here in general.

---

by: sip1983 @ Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:14:04 AM UTC

Well, ONE thing's for certain: (0.00 / 0)

I won't be staying at the fucking Venetian ever again!

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:14:02 AM UTC

from what I can gather.... (4.00 / 1)

I didnt read the entire article but from what I can tel this fella Adelson, whom I happen to be familiar with and am not too fond of for a completely separate reason, and other ultra-right Zionist power brokers and organizations are pissed of that Israel is considering dividing Jerusalem, or perhaps more accurately they are considering letting the Palestinians share control of some parts of it.

I bet its mostly about this:

[quote]A senior government official says Israel is prepared to relinquish parts of Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement. But as Robert Berger reports from the VOA's Jerusalem bureau, there is opposition to the plan in the Cabinet and Palestinians say it is not enough.

Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon says the Israeli government would support a division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians. [/quote]

As I'm sure most of you are aware, the argument over whether half of Jerusalem should be divided and given to the Palestinians seems to be a major deal-breaker, for both sides.

The ultra-right wing Zionist are very much against any proposal that would give back parts of Jerusalem even more than they are against giving back the West Bank or Gaza.

I personally doubt there is ever even going to be a chance for a lasting peace agreement unless Israel caves on this issue.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 10:35:24 AM UTC

forgot about that (0.00 / 0)

Good addition-- it somehow skipped my mind that a lot of this sniping also started when Olmert (himself the former mayor of Jerusalem) talked the other month about concessions re: Jerusalem definitely being on the table.  Adelson and co. are simply not cool with that, even though it mirrors what was offerred at Camp David and was in the Clinton parameters (both of which his crowd hated).

The funny thing is, everyone throws around a lot of rhetoric here about not wanting to see Jerusalem "divided," but direct partition isn't probably what would come of it. That would be an insane situation and one that neither side would accept. What's on the table is figuring out a viable way to have Jerusalem be a capital for both nations and an internationally-accessible city-- undivided but sectioned/shared. There are lots of very problematic kinks to work out in that process, enough to legitimately trip things up, but Adelson et. al. are just objecting to plain old realism.

---

by: sip1983 @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:24:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

You realize Sheldon Adelson is the guy behind Freedoms Watch. He's their lead funder.

The rich necons have controlled AIPAC for to long. The Reform Jews (Of which I am one) need to take back AIPAC or start a new less necon lobby.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 17:37:32 PM UTC

Not really fair (4.00 / 2)

I (also a Reform Jew) know TONS of AIPAC supporters that would sooner spit on a Neocon than call him/herself one. One of the (few) progressive assumptions about Washington that is NOT true is the idea that the Neocons, and specifically their invasion of Iraq, are all about Israel. In fact, I've heard repeatedly from people who should know that Israel weighed in repeatedly and forcibly AGAINST the invasion before Andy Card "rolled that product out." And for good reason (they know from occupation). In truth, the only connection between the Neocons and Israel is that fact that some of the Neocons are Jewish. But that's also an exaggeration. It's only a few of them, albeit prominent ones.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:43:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

true but misses point (0.00 / 0)

I pretty much agree with everything you have to say, particularly about most actual AIPAC members or especially generic supporters' politics and the warning against the Iraq War provided by many Israeli experts and military insiders. But I think the frustration here wasn't directed at them, but at the positioning AIPAC institutionally has taken on during the last 6 years or so (and in periods of hawkish control in the past), and rightly so to an extent.

Now, there are a number of factors why that's the case, only some of them directly tied to the influence of neocons and other uber-hawkish people. Those factos are grist for a longer conversation and things that too many fail to take into account (ahem, Professor Mearsheimer and Walt). But its still a reality that all too often, there's been a disconnect between AIPAC's most vocal positions and supporters and progressive Jews, including those who define themselves as pro-Israel and pro-peace (and not in the "pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-peace" way most identified with Tikkun).

That's changing as a result of realpolitik, Bush fatigue, genuine desire to be supportive of diplomacy and efforts at getting a real peace process going somehow, and pressure from within the community. But there are still factors that necessitate keeping a keen eye open.

---

by: sip1983 @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 20:23:51 PM UTC

whoops (0.00 / 0)

This was meant to be in response to ColoDem's comment, NOT Matt's post.

---

by: sip1983 @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 20:26:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]