|
Peter Miller
What were Commissioner Fritz and Senator Merkley thinking?
|
What one Israeli leader says about AIPAC:
“But when I see so many of my colleagues and friends making and trying to portray and to lead American Jewry into a single-issue Jewry — Israel and that’s it, no domestic coalitions, no minorities, no responsibility for other social and universalistic affairs—I’m concerned about it, very much so. And when I look at some of the AIPAC’s, OK, activities, I have a feeling that sometimes we’re having three political entities: the United States of America, the sovereign state of Israel, and the independent state of AIPAC, which has its own policy, whatever it is, not working for the best interests of Israel, according to the way I understand it and Yitzhak Rabin understood it, and not according to the best interests of the United States of America. This is a kind of a filter which filters only darkness through it, rather than light through it. And I would like to see the alternative American Jewry, which is expressed through the liberalism and humanism and civil rights and a total commitment toward peace, as the one which expresses me.” (Avraham Burg, former Speaker of Israeli Knesset, as quoted on Democracy Now, Feb. 12, 2009.) |
Last month’s Alliance covered the protest outside the Portland AIPAC “community dinner” in late March. This article will discuss what went on inside.
To review, on March 29th, 2009, Portland witnessed another yearly banquet for the powerful “pro-Israel” lobby American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. It was held at the Mittleman Jewish Community Center and hosted a wide range of Oregon politicians, primarily Democrats. And what did the speakers at this event tout? A fake peace process for the Palestinians and belligerence towards Iran. In particular, the keynoter Peter Beinart focused on how the new Obama and Netanyahu governments were positioning to handle Iran’s nuclear program.
The usual parade of Oregon politicians and community leaders came to the event. By the comments from the podium, their attendance is seen as commitment to Israel. Steven Bloom, event co-chair pronounced:
“[At] tonight’s event we have Oregon’s largest gathering of pro-Israel supporters who, by their very presence in this room, have shown their commitment to an unwavering U.S.-Israel relationship. . . . This overwhelming display of support from every level of government, in our congregations, and our communities, and friends from other countries, from Jews and non-Jews, Democrats and Republicans, is a testament to the bi-partisan and far reaching dedication to Israel’s safety and security and America’s support for Israel.”
Who Attended?
Among the attendees were Governor Kulongoski, Secretary of State Kate Brown, Attorney General John Kroger, US Senator Jeff Merkley, Oregon Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin, Oregon Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli, other Oregon state senators and representatives, Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, Democratic Party of Oregon Chairwoman Meredith Wood Smith, and the student body presidents of the three major state universities. (Representatives Blumenauer, Wu, and Schrader choose not to attend, but sent staff members.) It was a clear illustration of the AIPAC strategy to lobby for support from the lowest to highest levels of government. Many of the politicians did not like the prospect of facing 80-100 protestors outside and were apparently transported to the event bypassing the main entrance. Attorney General John Kroger was spotted parking his car on a street away from the center and walking to the event via a side route.
The presence of Democrats from the U.S. Congress is particularly significant, as AIPAC has made no secret of the importance of Congressional support. As reported last year in the Alliance and in Willamette Week, Merkley’s one-sided support of Israel led to controversy in his race for the Senate. After being welcomed as a great friend of Israel, his dinner remarks highlight once again a no-holds-barred “support:
“I’ve been with Israel when I was a student. I’ve been concerned about Israel’s security [during] every facet of my life. I look forward to being with you all as a partner, a friend of Israel, an advocate for Israel’s security in the years ahead.”
Speeches Were Made
The themes of the keynote speech and other speakers focused on Iran and spelled out other key points about the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Last year, the rockets from Gaza were mentioned time and again. This time discussion about Gaza was more subdued, no doubt because Israel’s devastating attack on Gaza in December and January resulted in charges of human rights violations and war crimes against Israel from many human rights organizations. This time, the Palestinians were almost not even present in the discussion except as grist for new policy formulations.
In his talk, Peter Beinart, an editor at the New Republic, gave the framework for AIPAC’s work in the coming months: dealing with the threat of Iran. He portrayed Obama and Netanyahu as two characters in a movie who, though they dislike each other intensely, are thrown together on a quest to “get the bad guy,” meaning Iran. In perhaps the most frightening statement of the evening, Beinart remarked that Netanyahu’s main purpose will be to do everything he can “to prepare for the day when he goes to the oval office and tells Obama that Israel has to take military action against Iran.”
As for the Israel-Palestine issue, Beinart predicts a fake U.S. peace effort in order to garner support for tough sanctions against Iran. His statement is worth quoting at length:
“I think that the Administration’s view toward the Palestinian situation is mostly going to be to try and keep it quiet…[When Obama works with the Sunni Arab countries or Europe, he will hear] ‘What we need you [Obama] to do as the price for being able to get another round of sanctions is at least the perception of movement on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, we need there to be some Israeli-Palestinian process, even though we are realists [and] we don’t believe it will get anywhere.’…And so the Obama Administration thinks they need to be actively engaged in the Israel-Palestinian peace process--not necessarily because they believe they can pull off a final settlement--but because they need it in the coalition against Iran, and because they need to prevent things in the Palestinian Territories from actually getting worse.”
Note that “preventing things from getting worse” does not mean improving the humanitarian or human rights situation in the Palestinian occupied territories; it does not mean stopping settlement construction or home demolition; it does not mean negotiating in good faith with Fatah and Abbas. It is all about taking actions against Hamas and creating the mere perception of a peace process. In downplaying the right wing turn of Israel’s government, AIPAC and others also ignore the real danger to peace posed by Israel’s new foreign minister, the racist Avigdor Lieberman who openly advocates ethnic cleansing. J Street, a new Jewish lobby organization created as an alternative to AIPAC, stated that Lieberman’s views were “contrary to both our democratic and our Jewish values.”
Rabbi Kenneth Brodkin addressed a theme familiar to Palestinian human rights activists, anti-Semitism. He attempted to equate all criticism of Israel under the umbrella of anti-Zionism and then equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism while raising longstanding Jewish fears:
“[Within] each and every generation, there are forces that rise up against us with the hope of annihilating us ... Outdated forms of anti-Semitism have passed away, but only to be traded in for newer, in vogue models of hatred and discrimination. The central form of opposition to the Jewish people in our generation is a movement that is known as anti-Zionism. This movement singles out Israel from the family of nations, and it denies Israel something which it does not deny any other nation, the right to exist.”
As may well be obvious to Alliance readers, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same. Zionism is a political and social movement and to be anti-Zionist is to be a critic of what Zionism stands for: in this case the belief that Israeli Jews have special and exclusive rights denied to their Palestinian brothers and sisters.
The speakers bemoaned the rising opposition to AIPAC’s agenda and increasing criticism of Israel. One great example given was the result of a Georgetown University debate on “The Future of the U.S.-Israel relationship”, with the debate subtitled “Should the U.S. get tough on Israel?” Israel hardliners Alan Dershowitz (a promoter of torture in the U.S.) and Dore Gold faced off against Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, and Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli Knesset. The outcome of the debate was a vote by the Georgetown students who voted 63 percent in favor of a tougher policy toward Israel and 37 percent against. For AIPAC, this is a terrifying prospect, and can be shown by their recruitment of college leaders for this Portland banquet.
An Analysis Reveals Much
Israel’s security was mentioned in a vacuum at the event--missing were key issues whose resolution is essential for Israel ever to be secure: How will Palestinians and Israeli Jews share the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean? What steps need to be taken to make this possible? When will Palestinians have equal rights and sovereignty over their own land? None of these were discussed.
As usual, AIPAC’s basic formulation for Israel’s dealing with its neighbors was a zero sum game: Israel has to win, their neighbors have to lose, Israel’s security is only purchased through the ability to carry out decisive military action and requires the absolute support of the United States. International actors such as the U.N. and human rights organizations are against Israel and must be combated and ignored. Attempts to apply international law to Israel’s behavior are simply portrayed as anti-Semitic attempts to single Israel out. Conveniently ignoring successful peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, Israel was portrayed as living in a sea of hostile Muslims.
“There are 23 Arab state and 57 Muslim nations and there is one Jewish state.... Only one country supports Israel: The United States of America,” stated Zack Brodner, Pacific NW Regional Director of AIPAC.
AIPAC’s whole approach is a dead end, morally and practically. As Israeli activist Jeff Halper notes, the Palestinians are the gatekeepers to Israel’s acceptance into the Middle East. Until the issues with the Palestinians are resolved in a just manner, Israel will have to continue to see itself as “America’s Aircraft Carrier.” Supporting Israeli Jews and Palestinians is all about supporting an honest process that will lead to a resolution of the conflict, preventing either side from violating international norms of behavior, and preventing either side from creating facts on the ground that will make a future peace impossible. What is so awesomely disappointing about this spectacle is the wholehearted support shown to this right-wing organization by Oregon’s politicians and how far from the principles of human rights and justice they are willing to go.
Peter Miller is president of local Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights (AUPHR, www.auphr.com). He also is on the board of national U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
|
