The Jewish Vote on Tuesday
Yesterday a reporter called me to ask if I would analyze the effect that the issue of Israel has had on the campaign. I said it had none. The Middle East in general was a huge issue but that was Iraq, not Israel. I said that there was not a single campaign for the House and Senate in which American support for Israel played a part.
This is not unusual. Critics of the pro-Israel lobby often accuse Jewish activists of defeating Members of Congress who deviate from the “pro-Israel line.”
As far as I know, it has never happened. I know of a few Members of Congress who say that they lost because the lobby targeted them but, in every single case, there were far more significant reasons for their loss, ranging from sheer political ineptitude to Congressional reapportionment that eroded their respective bases to a general shift from one party to another.
So why is it conventional wisdom that the pro-Israel lobby can defeat people it doesn’t like? Two reasons. One is that losing candidates like to blame someone other than themselves for their loss. And, two, certain pro-Israel activists and PAC directors claim that they defeated this or that politician as evidence of their clout.
For these activists -- as well as for some anti-Israel activists and some disappointed politicians -- promoting the myth that the “lobby” has the power to target candidates and drive them from office is very convenient. But it is a myth nevertheless. The case of Rep. Jim Moran of Northern Virginia (suburban Washington, DC) is a case in point. There can be no doubt that he was targeted because of a statement which was interpreted as blaming the pro-Israel lobby for the Iraq war.
An attractive Jewish candidate was enlisted to run against him in a district with a sizable Jewish population. The issue of Moran’s alleged anti-Semitism was raised over and over again. Moran, however, apologized, pointed to his long record of support for Israel and other issues of concern to Jews and won a landslide victory.
The other two cases in which pro-Israel activists are supposed to have defeated Members of Congress were those of Earl Hilliard (D-AL) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).
Both of these Representatives were in serious political trouble long before pro-Israel PACs decided to back their opponents primarily because Congressional reapportionment had eliminated their respective bases. They were not defeated by the Jewish community, not by a long shot. They were defeated by voters who considered each to be ineffective legislators and not up to the job.
One of the reasons Israel is rarely an issue in House and Senate campaigns is that Congress only considers one significant piece of legislation relating to Israel every year. That is the Israel aid package which is itself part of the overall foreign aid bill.
As late as 1973 (just prior to the Yom Kippur War), US aid to Israel amounted to just $481 million. Following the catastrophic Yom Kippur War, President Nixon requested $2.2 billion for Israel to cover the war’s costs.
The aid package has remained the same size ever since. Actually, it has shrunk. Last year Congress supplied Israel with $2.5 billion which, inflation adjusted, is far less than in 1973.
And the aid package is no longer controversial. Last year 32 House members voted against it and just one Senator. Even those opponents voted “no” not out of anger at or disdain for Israel but because they objected to other aspects of the bill.
Although the foreign aid vote is the only significant vote relating to Israel, there are numerous resolutions and other pieces of legislation that come up from time to time. The resolutions are invariably non-binding and are offered as a way for House and Senate members to demonstrate commitment to Israel. They usually can be summed up like this: “Israel, good. Arabs, bad.”
The point of these resolutions is not to thwart peace but to score political points. Not much should be read into them. By the same token, Members of Congress who say they have to be more hawkish than the Likud party to avoid being “targeted” are exaggerating. They may choose to avoid helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace but they certainly won’t lose their seats if they try.
The pro-Israel community has have every right to pat itself on the back for preserving the aid package. But it shouldn’t stop there. Now that Israel’s support in Congress is universal, and the critical aid package sails through without controversy, it is time to get Congress engaged in the battle to help Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace.
Preserving the status quo is no great accomplishment because the status quo has been a disaster (remember the Lebanon war and the Al Aksa intifada that took thousands of lives). Congress needs to help advance an end to the sixty year old conflict that imperils Israel’s survival and costs thousands of lives on both sides.
For Israel, that is what friends are for. The last thing Israel needs is for its supposed friends to use it as a political football, scoring partisan points while Israel’s position continues to erode.
Remember that the next time someone tells you that Senator So-and-So is a “great friend of Israel” and offers as evidence ritualistic statements of “support” that are meaningless and accomplish absolutely nothing.
Instead, ask what the Senator (or Member of Congress) has actually done to promote peace and security for Israel and its neighbors. Has he or she encouraged the President to become personally involved in the diplomatic process? Has he or she encouraged Israel and the Palestinians to come to terms on such issues as mutual recognition, ending terrorism and all forms of violence, and illegal settlement activity? Or has he or she limited their involvement to co-sponsoring one-sided and often downright silly resolutions?
If the latter is the case, as it usually is, that Senator or Representative is not helping Israel at all. Without peace, Israel is not going to survive. Members of Congress who simply sit back and watch Israelis and Palestinians kill each other, while doing nothing to stop it are no friends of either people. And they should not be allowed to portray themselves as such.
A reader may understand you to mean that Israel is agnostic about US policy in Iraq (and was in 2002/2003). To be clear, you are not saying that Israel couldn't care less either way about decisions such as authorizing the invasion of Iraq, continuing the occupation today and issues such as the recent congressional tightening of US unilateral sanctions against Iran.
You are saying that the US has such a pro-Israel orientation that individual congresspeople and even individual lobbying groups and the aggregate of those lobbying groups don't really matter. For the most part I agree with that.
Most congresspeople would lose their seats if an opponent is sufficiently funded. In all cases it would be possible to say the loss is the congressperson's fault.
On the other hand, without the money directed against McKinney primarily by self-identified supporters of Israel, she would not have lost. If she had been perfect, she would have won despite that, but in this specific case the money definitely mattered.
November 3, 2006 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points on this.
I doubt that anyone would say they are not interested in promoting peace and security for Israel and its neighbors. The dispute is over what is the best way to do that. There are those that want a return to the discredited Oslo process, but they have very little support in Israel. And there are those who say the Palestinians must be crushed so that they understand they are well and truly defeated. But that policy (which, contrary to the views of many, is NOT the current policy) doesn't really command majority support either. Thus the reason that the policy is adrift at this point is that first, there are no good options. There's a reasonable argument to be made that as bad as things are now, the status quo is the least bad option. Opening up peace talks with a weak, ineffectual Palestinian Authority that winks at terrorism is likely to encourage the view that violence works and Israel has given up the fight. Cracking down even harder is unlikely to promote this sense of defeat that hawks talk about. Israel doesn't have the stomach to do a Russian-style flattening of Palestinian cities and of course it would be morally wrong in any case. But in addition, the divisions in Israeli public opinion make bold action politically perilous. Doing nothing is the easiest option.
This needs to be understood in the context of what Israel's friends should be doing. It seems to be taken for granted by a lot of people that just a bit of engagement by the American President can nudge the Israelis on a particular path. While it may be true that if the US convened a big peace conference, all parties would show up. But without the consensus on the part of the Israeli electorate for concessions, such a peace conference would surely go nowhere. Those like MJ Rosenberg that keep pushing the idea of American pressure on Israel to negotiate never seem to take this into account.
If we're looking for what we as Americans can do to promote peace, I think we should start with the Arabs, not the Israelis. In particular, I think it would be worthwhile to promote peace between Israel and other Arab governments. Long term, if the Arab world outside the Palestinians makes peace with Israel, the Palestinians will eventually realize that they cannot win by destroying Israel. Only when that happens will any resembling peace be possible.
November 3, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the classic cases many point to are Representative Paul Findley (R) of Illinois, and Senator Charles Percy, also of Illinois. They date back a bit, but tend to be the names that come to mind. Both of course were Moderate to Progressive Republicans. The other example -- though not of an elected official at the time -- is the campaign against Andrew Young when he was UN Ambassador during the Carter Administration, and who informally talked with PLO delegates at a UN Reception, and lost his job as a result of the flap over that. Percy, in particular, was in the Rockefeller faction of the Republican Party, and was being considered as a potential Presidential Candidate. (In fact I think his daughter is Jay Rockefeller's wife). Andrew Young has written fairly extensively about his experience in his biography, and I think he has a fair analysis of the process he endured. He understands it as essentially a line drawing exercise -- the Camp David Agreements among Sadat, Began and Carter did invision talks about the status of the West Bank beginning after disengagement from Egypt -- talks that would have involved the PLO, and Young interpreted the flap over his quite public conversation at a reception as a bit of rough rejectionism.
November 3, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, in the fantasy world you live in, Israel has all the time in the world. Keep mouthing those propaganda points and watch as Israel grows more vulnerable every day.
Open your eyes or is it possible that you just don't give a damn whether there is an Israel around for your kids and theirs.
Pathetic nonsense.
November 3, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, in the fantasy world you live in, Israel has all the time in the world. Keep mouthing those propaganda points and watch as Israel grows more vulnerable every day.
Open your eyes or is it possible that you just don't give a damn whether there is an Israel around for your kids and theirs.
Pathetic nonsense.
November 3, 2006 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest American efforts to promote peace consist of arming and training the appropriate Palestinians in order to facilitate a civil war with Hamas.
The Israelis have to approve the plan and are diplomatically giving a nod to the notion in order to keep things smooth in the run-up to Olmert's upcoming US visit with Bush, etc. It's assumed that once the visit is over, the notion will be dropped. Olmert isn't so stupid as to go ahead with something that already has the right in coniption fits.
Another peace promoter, John Negroponte, suggested to the Egyptions that they approve an American-led force of "peacekeepers" to patrol the border with Gaza. He aslo thinks the CIA could be involved. For some reason, the Egyptians didn't go for it.
Anywho, the meetings between Olmert and Bush aren't expected to center around the I/P issues. As with the real agenda of Negroponte's visits to the Israeli intel community, it's all about Iran.
November 3, 2006 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll overlook the puerile I'm-more-pro-Israel-than-you-are crack and focus on the substance of this post, such as it is.
You seem to assume that any "peace" Israel makes is somehow going to appease the forces that are angling for its destruction. Yet you never spell out how that's supposed to happen. Let's take Iran. Is it your position that Iran will no longer be interested in destroying Israel if Israel signs a peace treaty with the Palestinians?
To state the question is to answer it. Those committed to Israel's destruction will remain so committed regardless of any peace treaty or any concession that Israel could conceivably make. In fact, if the Lebanon and Gaza experiences are anything to go by, there's a good chance that such concessions will embolden Israel's enemies, not appease them.
I agree with you that the current situation is not good. I agree that if present trends continue, the danger level for Israel is increasing. The primary way Israel's existence is threatened is by its enemies obtaining nukes. But the idea that those trends will be disrupted through some phony treaty with an impotent powerless Palestinian Authority - a treaty that would almost certainly be flouted by radical groups the minute it's signed - is so absurd that I can't believe you still cling to it.
This is not an excuse for doing nothing. But the key to peace and reduced tensions lies in what goes on in Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo and other Arab capitals. The more we can influence that, the better off we'll be.
November 3, 2006 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Long term, if the Arab world outside the Palestinians makes peace with Israel, the Palestinians will eventually realize that they cannot win by destroying Israel. Only when that happens will any resembling peace be possible."
Are there Israelis who think that they are winning by destroying Palestinians? "Several militants killed a day keep danger away". Why a freeze on the construction of new settlements, or dismantling settlements that are illegal according to Israeli definitions have to wait for "Arab world outside the Palestinians ..." etc.
In any case, the formulation is empirically proven to be bullshit. One theory was that Iraq was a vocal supporter of Intifada and by removing Sadam Palestinians will be forced to see etc. Did not happen. What happened was that Abbas became the head of PA and Israel did not abate repressions in the territories one whit and ... surprise ... Abbas's faction lost in popularity!
Lets face it: Israeli politics are increasingly dominated by irrational paranoia, and we understand them, except for disagreement as the whether this paranoia is irrational. Why Palestinians who live under much more profound stress should not experience even more profound frustration and paranoia?
We should also face the fact that "forces arrayed to destroy Israel" are in no way naturally aligned, unless we force them to. E.g. by forcing Syria to rely on Iranian support by classifying them as "axis of evil" etc. But if we, and Israel, do not alter our policies, indeed, one day an adequately armed aliance will extend from Persian Gulf to Golan. It could even happen within 5 years.
Some Israeli strategists, after much though, figured that the problem can be solved by a direct conflict between Iran and USA. Israeli agents were making appropriate presentations on programs like 60 Minutes etc. War in Iraq was supposed to be a preliminary step (with the extra salutatory effect of changing the expectations of Palestinians).
Clearly, in the short run, Israel controls situation very well, peace or not peace. But the attempts of power play solutions that would improve further its position, attacks on Iraq and on Iran by proxy, were not successful. Some serious attemps at peace do not seem so naive anymore (as opposed to putting genies back into their bottles etc.)
November 3, 2006 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a great many people in Beirut and in Lebanese towns that would disagree with that. There's about 1500 that would disagree but are kind of dead. And there's a quarter million land mines and another quarter million cluster bomblet scattered around southern Lebanon to prove Brad wrong.
Ah, but why bother. Let's just admit that Brad just has a different perspective on this matter than ordinary moral human beings.
ROTFL!!! Coming from Brad? ROTFL.
November 3, 2006 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no. Brad's moral fever is over. He's back to calling for genocide and russian style bombing again.
It was too good too last.
November 3, 2006 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who doubts that we are in Iraq because it suits Israel has only to read Benjamin Netayahu's 1996 campaign speech, "Clean Break, Securing the Realm", written by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
It states...."Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. ......Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites (Jordon's royal family) in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon."
Netanyahu did not get elected, but no matter. Guess who the primary authors of this paper were? None other than Bush and Cheney's Israel-First neocon buds, Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense, and David Wumser, Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser for Middle East Affairs. Remember them? They were the architects for our invasion of Iraq. They have all exited stage left, their job was done with the invasion of Iraq. What happened to them? Wumser was implicated in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press, Feith "retired" following the arrest and conviction of his assistant, Larry Franklin. Seems the FBI caught Franklin passing classified information about Iraq and Iran to AIPAC, the Israeli's D.C. lobby. Perle took up profiteering from the war in Iraq, and writing the occasional piece accusing Bush of being chicken for not riding down on Iran. Guess our expenditure of $400 billion dollars and 3000 American lives in Iraq isn't enough...the Realm hasn't been secured.
We did not send in enough troops to secure Iraq, but that may have been no accident. It's just as well that Iraq splits apart, Israel has many operatives working among the Kurds, and hey, the Kurds have lots of oil.
November 3, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Rosenberg,
Who is living in a fantasy world and needs to open their eyes? Not Brad, but you.
Right now Olmert is the only guy who can prevent Bibi and his cohorts from exterminating all of Gaza and Ramallah/Nablus the moment they take power. Your friend the dysfunctional dovish Peretz wouldn't get 10% of the vote and you know it, if Israel were to have elections in the next six months. What exactly would you have Bush and the new Congress do--condition aid on Israel accepting Hamas rule over more of the West Bank? That's a really great way to undermine Olmert and Peres , and whether you like them or not, right now they are what passes for moderation today in Israel. Israel would never accept your kind of pressure, and thank G-d it ain't gonna happpen in D.C. either from Congress or Bush.
We are still strong enough to prevent misguided people like you from influencing anybody in Congress besides Kaptur, Dingell, Ellison if he wins, and the other handful of Arabists on the Hill.
Tell me, who on (hopefully) Speaker Pelosi's staff or the Democratic staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee agrees with you about pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions to terrorists.
Is your buddy, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, willing to lead the charge for putting the screws to Israel? Ha!
Get real, Mister, open your eyes.
Yours quite sincerely,
Sage
November 4, 2006 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a conundrum. Proliferation of technology, demographics and Time are not on Israel's side. This much all agree. The dispute between Arabs and Israelis has become a blood libel primarily (and this is merely my opinion on this) because of a maximalist strategy on the part of Israel from early on. True, Palestinians and others might have harboured maximalist strategies (destruction of Israel), but for them, it is/was more in tune with realism than for Israel.
I don't believe that it was in the best interests of Israel to have gone down the path of maximalism, but that is history. Perhaps Israel had no choice due to its obligations to force majeure. Therein lies the conundrum for Israel in my view.
p.s. If Israel had gone down the path of trying to blend into the neighborhood early on, I believe it could have achived the elimination of Arab maximalism and we would be in an entirely different situation. But the same thing can be said of the entire US policy in the Middle East.
November 4, 2006 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink