Aid for Israel: Put a Condom on it
A tasty little partisan spat is playing itself out in the Jewish media right now over who loves Israel more, the D’s or the R’s. The episode speaks volumes about how far AIPAC has positioned itself in the Republican camp, how deeply in denial the Democrats are of this fact, and how deliciously divorced from Israeli reality the American political debate is.
The story is about the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill voted on in the House last week. With the House back in the Democrat’s hands, language was included to amend what is known as the “Mexico City policy” and to again allow US funding for overseas groups, whose positions on women’s reproductive rights may include the promotion of contraception and the option of abortion. In opposing this clause, 164 GOP Members voted against the entire foreign aid bill. So, how did the rubber hit the road, in this case the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway? Well, in opposing the Bill, the GOP of course found itself voting against aid for Israel.
For a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the House, read the ever-reliable Lara Friedman’s of APN account here.
The aid to Israel, all $2.4 billion of it, is not in question. A formula without doubt will be found, but what happened next is what really speaks volumes. Nothing. Silence from AIPAC. The GOP explained its position. AIPAC chose not to score the vote, nor to in any way publicize any issue it might have with opposition to a women’s right to choose being a higher principle than aid to Israel for the Republican Congressional minority.
Democrats started falling over themselves with cries of foul play. Throughout their years in the wilderness of political opposition, the Dems have never been treated with such kid gloves by the, wait for it, non-partisan AIPAC. On a number of occasions “pro-Israel” Democrats had found themselves holding their noses, swallowing hard (temptation to make condom joke suppressed), and voting for Republican ForOps Bill to avoid incurring the wrath of the vote scorers. I am not sure which is more unfortunate, Democratic naiveté or the extent to which AIPAC has aligned itself with the Republican side.
Ron Kampeas, writing for the JTA puts it diplomatically, “AIPAC’s decisions to refrain from criticizing the GOP is likely to reinforce the view in some Democratic circles that the pro-Israel lobby has been favoring Republicans in recent years.” You don’t say! So the alliance with the neo-cons and the Christian right was not a heavy enough hint? Rapturous applause for Rev. John Hagee, compared to the boo’s aimed at Speaker Pelosi at this year’s AIPAC conference, meant nothing? Some Republicans were apparently even spinning the story to Haaretz correspondent, Shmuel Rosner, that Rep. Nita Lowey, who was behind the “Mexico City policy” amendment, only introduced it in order to trap the GOP, ignoring Lowey’s record of years of principled commitment to women’s reproductive rights.
I have on several occasions expressed my concern at the closeness of the relationship between AIPAC, the Christian right, and the neo-cons. I think it is unhealthy for American Middle East policy, unhelpful for Israel, and unpalatable for the Jewish community. Either AIPAC should undergo a radical rethink or the majority of the Jewish community that supports Israel, but that also supports progressive policies, peace, and the Democratic party, should find a new vehicle for expressing its opinions.
Of course people will say “But Israel should not be politicized or made a partisan issue.” Sure, the very basic issue of supporting Israel, or its relationship to the US, need not be questioned. But beyond that, the debate on Middle East policy, on what’s best for America (and by the way, for Israel), who to talk to, how much to promote peace, etc. should be discussed politically as these are political questions. The current Congressional approach, a continual race to prove who loves Israel more, hardly makes for mature or constructive policy. This is mainly because the love being expressed is of the – “I have no time for the real you, or what your problems may be, so I will simply shower you with toys, and thereby express my love for you.” This kind of love has done a great disservice to Israeli interests, and to American interests. As in any such situation, it is a love that encourages irresponsible behavior, the same kind of irresponsible behavior that would ban the provision of US funds to groups that encourage the use of condoms.
Brilliant, as usual, Daniel.
Question. If the bill including the aid for Israel had an unrelated provision that was anti-gay (the Dems equivalent issue to the GOP's anti-choice position), would the Dems vote "no" or "stand tall" for Aipac.
In a weird way, the GOP demonstrates principles here, utterly wrong principles but principles nevertheless.
But your main point is well-taken.
June 27, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC is not the Jewish community in the US; it was never elected by the community. Most Jews, about 80%+ are Democrats and this the factors that really counts. Leave the discussion of the elder of AIPAC to professional (Antisemites).
June 27, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the GOP demonstrates principles here . . . .
That presumes that the Congressional GOP is in AIPAC's pocket.
Is it not the case that Congressional GOP support for AIPAC goals (and/or Israel) is a mile wide and an inch deep? And that AIPAC has to treat Republicans with kid gloves?
Democratic politicians? Many agree whole heartedly with AIPAC and those who don't, many of whom represent Jewish constituencies and have to be constantly worried that their actions will displease AIPAC and that AIPAC will color them anti-semitic, aren't about to cross AIPAC. The GOP never has that worry; AIPAC can't reach its constituency which doesn't give a hoot about anti-semitism, anyway (Rapture? Armageddon for the Jews? Well now!).
AIPAC's very wise not to criticize the GOP.
June 27, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"deliciously" is not exactly what I would use here. Perhaps "tragically"?
June 27, 2007 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, to your convoluted way of thinking, the terrorist PA should get American tax dollars, without ever being held accountable for where that money actually goes, but our democratic ally Israel, should be cut off from receiving what actually amounts to loans for its national defense.
June 27, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole foreign aid thing is a pretty good example of how vulnerable our domestic political processes have become to foreign pressures and influence. I think the case could be made that certain other countries have gained de facto 'voting' rights in our legislative processes, through years of high-pressure, high-dollar incessant lobbying. The whole globalization trip is part of that song-and-dance, and it kind of explains why the UN was basically allowed to go to hell, because it became obsolete. Why go to the United Nations when you can go lean directly on the guy who's going to sign the appropriations bill, and who really gives a damn how much farther in debt the USA ends up going, as long as YOUR clients got what they needed? In one word, you can call it greed, which is a stepping-stone to corruption, which more and more seems like what's been allowed to go on in Washington for years, now.
Reform's going to be a bear, but to keep it fair and honest, there should be measures that are
concerned with more transparency on ALL public spending, including and especially foreign aid, so that these people with the bright idea of how they'd like to spend billions, if not trillions
of promissory scrip on fixing other countries' problems, Bernanke gone runaway basically, have some type of direct disincentive to their spending urges next time they go for the old Big Magic Neverending Checkbook.
One of the legacies of BushCo will be recorded as the systematic defeat of checks and balances in terms of Congress' authority and responsibility of fiduciary oversight. Iraq has basically proven he has the political power etc. to push Congress to do anything he wants them to. The lobbyists out there are direct
party and accessory to what's been allowed
to go on all this time, and as american
taxpayers/consumers/citizens
/production units get forcibly driven and dragged down the old socio-economic cattle chute, we may yet finally realize the day when your civil rights don't amount to a tinker's damn in the light of mega-billion globalization initiatives, and the Brave New World of the People's Republic of BushCo. Welcome to the 21st century, and good luck with that voting stuff! LOL
June 28, 2007 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something about the title of this essay awakened my pun gene (which doesn't sleep very soundly under the best of circumstances).
The above constitutes a warning
Good post, as usual.
aMike
June 28, 2007 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go back. Read slowly. Don't be afraid to take in all of the words.
June 28, 2007 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course people will say 'But Israel should not be politicized or made a partisan issue.' Sure, the very basic issue of supporting Israel, or its relationship to the US, need not be questioned."
Why not question it? Why not make it a partisan issue? Since when are things unchanging and without question in this world, especially in that part of the world? Whose interests are really being served by the US adventure in Iraq and saber-rattling towards Iran?
Seems to me that many times the threats "we" face in that region aren't so much threats we, the US face. What we, the US, want / need from this region is oil, and really not much else. The inhabitants are brainwashed by dictatorial regimes we support (because we want the oil) to argue and fight about religion and who owned what when. Wouldn't it be nice to one day wake up and not hear NPR report on what is happening in the Palestinian territories? Wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be nice to learn that the Sauds and Kuwaitis lent a hand rather than preached hate the West while controlling the oil cartel that reaps billions from the west.
It's really time we start asking some serious questions because the status quo is not working.
June 28, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is not that the Democratic Party is naive about AIPAC's complete entwining with the GOP. Many of us on the left are disturbed by the level of influence AIPAC has over American foreign policy; the relationship with many in the Democratic Party reflects skepticism among progressives that any one country's supporters should have such influence, often in diametric opposition to the best interests of the U.S.
Perhaps the real naivete is that members and supporters of AIPAC do not see themselves as partisan -- when they clearly act that way, and when they lean solidly towards one party in the U.S. and one party in Israel. The "non-partisan" label isn't AIPAC policy, in other words, merely a convention that allows them special tax status with the IRS -- and we're fully aware of it.
And perhaps another facet of naivete is that AIPAC believes they can continue to work as they have without notice by a critical mass of the American public, that their monied supporters can buy whatever they need of the U.S. (as in Joe Lieberman's seat) without any consideration for the larger needs of the American public, without any consideration for real, measurable results by American standards (like effective long-term cease fires and effective economic development in Palestine). We are already being bankrupted by ineffective military initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan; why should we support equally ineffective efforts by a foreign nation, while bankrupt?
At some point rational adults are going to have to step up and speak out clearly in the best interests of both the U.S. and Israel, demanding responsibility and accountability; business as usual is not working. But like dealing with too-long spoiled children, we're going to have to expect and deal with full-blown tantrums when discipline is demanded and applied. Maybe that's the ultimate bit of naivete on the part of both AIPAC and GOP alike -- they don't realize they have been holding this country and Israel hostage to their bratty demands.
Should have used a condom sooner.
June 28, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hector Wait -- "the debate on Middle East policy, on what’s best for America (and by the way, for Israel), who to talk to, how much to promote peace, etc. should be discussed politically as these are political questions", but “'Israel should not be politicized or made a partisan issue' . . . the very basic issue of supporting Israel, or its relationship to the US" -- these are NOT political questions? These questions should NOT "be discussed politically"? On what possible rational grounds? What kind of "questions" are they, if not "political" questions?
June 28, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
I can't figure out why they hate our values when even the US Congress has no earthly idea what those values are to begin with.
Steven Zunes trenchantly observes:
June 28, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Israeli politics in the early 90s I remember that the pro-settlement faction could slide their support from Likud to Labor as they saw fit, playing kingmaker with their small but fungible voting block in the Knesset.
AIPAC seems to be angling for a similar perch - agnostic in US domestic politics while pushing constantly for a firm pro-Israel (pro-Zionist?) position.
Fortunately the settlement lobby in Israel no longer seems to hold their kingmaking position, having aligned with Likud and its rightward partners against the "peacenik" parties. What the settlers have lost in Israel they seem intent to gain in the US, through AIPAC, and Mr. Levy makes a trenchant point when he observes:
AIPAC's realpolitik alignment with the Republican Party is anathema to the broader voting interests of Jewish Americans, who risk seeing Israel sold down the river the moment the pro-Israel lobby ceases to be of electoral importance to a Republican administration.
The immediate solution would be an active and financially empowered "Security through Peace" lobby, which might expose AIPAC for what they are: a minority of a minority of a minority, super-empowered by their single-issue focus and a warping weight on American foreign policy.
June 28, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
darosenthal,
Makes one wonder whatever became of the attempt from just several weeks ago....
Dovish Groups Mull Mega-Merger In Bid To Build Peace Powerhouse (Forward, 5/30/07)June 28, 2007 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
An admirable attempt, but having AIPAC constantly scoring the un-earned label of "Pro-Israel lobby" doesn't leave much oxygen for alternatives.
DOVEPAC: The anti-Israel alternative...
June 28, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you mentioned Hagee, as he is a nice example of how laziness and ignorance can be key factors in the functioning of politics.
Hagee is, among other things, strongly anti-Catholic. Once on his TV show he went into a long and detailed explanation "proving" that the Roman Catholic church is in fact the Whore of Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelation. In addition, he is part of the tradition in US evangelical Christianity that believes that the proper reason to support the state of Israel is because we are approaching the Apocalypse, at which time the Jews, in order to be saved, will finally accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (again, according to the Book of Revelation). In other words, Jews must eventually convert to Christianity or face eternal damnation. If AIPAC were to be known to the wider public as associating with someone who is both insanely anti-RC and supporting Israel only because he believes Jews will someday abandon their religion and accept his, it could be, let us say, deflationary.
Of course few AIPAC members will look closely at what Hagee says when he's not speaking directly to them. It would not be the first time that a certain amount of reciprocal ignorance helps keep a political alliance together.
June 28, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting but I fail to see what about this is either 'tasty' or 'delicious'. It strikes me as sad and vaguely ominous, because I doubt very much that any effective alternative to AIPAC will emerge in time to move U.S. middle east policy in a saner direction.
June 28, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC has about 100,000 members as opposed to say the 4 million members of the NRA. It is acceptable or those on the losing side in Israel and American anti-Semites to accuse AIPAC of all the traditional anti-Semitic canards. It has secret power that betrays the interests of America. AIPAC is not nearly as important as, Shmul Rosner of Haaretz.com, say that all the candidates running for President are favorable for Israel. This might be because Jews, not AIPAC, vote and give money in outsides percentages and that a large majority of Americans recognize that America and Israel are on the same side.
This anti-Israeli fanaticism of the Far Left is one of the many things that makes them irrelevant to the real political debates in America. I find interesting that no one at the Cafe ever says what they think is the real difference between the position of AIPAC, the majority of American Jews and the majority of Americans.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 28, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't LEL66 fundamentally correct about the views expressed here? The Palestinian Authority, Hamas should be given funds to do whatever they think is better, even if that is to buy weapons to kill each other, but Israel, Americas ally, is to that its money, largely military aid, is to be scrutinized to the last penny?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 28, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If having the likes of Hagee as a keynote speaker didn't wake up actual grassroots Jewish Americans to AIPAC's far-right nature, then I'm not sure what will.
I hope that Shmuel Rosner's wilful blindness about Christian Zionists, expressed in a column after Jerry Falwell's death, is not widely shared in this country, but I'm afraid it might be. To me it speaks volumes about the desperation of the right-wing corner into which the Israeli government has painted itself, with U.S. government encouragement:
So it all comes down to the question of practicality vs. perfection, necessity vs. desire. Do you take any support one is willing to give you, or do you pick and choose only those among your supporters with whom you agree on every little detail.
Apparently you take any support one is willing to give you. A most unwise path.
June 28, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have on several occasions expressed my concern at the closeness of the relationship between AIPAC, the Christian right, and the neo-cons. I think it is unhealthy for American Middle East policy, unhelpful for Israel, and unpalatable for the Jewish community
Oh, what a bunch sanctimonious crep! And where else would you go for support for a project like Israel? You go where the suckers are.
June 28, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. And "if the Democrats win, America loses."
June 28, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are real reasons behind the increasing perception among the professional activist "pro-Israel" community that the GOP represents more solid support for their agenda. Polling showing Democrats (and to a lesser extent Independents) are less likely than Republicans to support key issues is consistant. Another factor is the changing demographic of younger Jewish Americans who are becoming more and more assimilated and less inclined to identify themselves as a part of the Disapora.
Two recent incidents may also be indicative of why AIPAC et al prefer GOP control at the top. Both incidents involve Israelis requests/demands of the Pentagon.
1]David Bedein reports that during meetings between Pentagon officials and reps from the Israel Defense Ministry about proposed huge cash arms sales to the Saudis that include weapons (JDAMS and missiles?):
"Tempers between the two sides flared, prompting Israeli officials to threaten to mobilize AIPAC and causing American officials to bar Israel's return to the Joint Strike Fighter project until further notice."
Charles Levinson quotes what appears to be the orignal account from Maariv on his blog:
"Israeli officials disagreed on the response it should make to the US on this issue. Political officials said that a crisis should not be created with the Americans over this and that 'the security establishment should remember the hand that feeds it and the rope should not be pulled too tight with the Americans.' In reality, the opposite approach was taken:
Israel announced its firm opposition to the deal and threaten to employ the powerful Israeli lobby in Congress in order to thwart it. The Americans were angry. Washington has recently delayed Israel’s return to the Joint Strike Fighter project."
http://conflictblotter.com/2007/06/11/israel-us-disagreement/
According to the JP, the Israelis were "satisfied" with the results.
2] At the conclusion of an article about US aid to Israel, Shmuel Rosner and Aluff Benn report that :
"The prime minister asked U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for his assistance in expediting the handling of a number of IDF procurement requests meant to complete the replenishment of equipment and stores used during the Second Lebanon War.
Gates pointed out that though there is no problem with the requests in principle, there is an orderly procedure. However, Bush intervened and directed the defense secretary to expedite approval of the IDF's requests."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/873556.html
While it can certainly be argued that the current Congress would be happy to copy the Israeli menu of approved arms sales to the Saudis, there could be more doubt that a Democratic president would override his Sec Def's insistance on following established Pentagon procedures on providing weapons to foriegn governments.
(Why the Israelis are in such a rush is another topic related to the possibilities/probabilities of "defensive" wars looming on the horizon)
June 28, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Has AIPAC been conducting clandestine drug experiments??
June 28, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're both wrong. The post is about American domestic politics and the argument that AIPAC has a double standard for Democrats and Republicans. There's nothing about the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.
June 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our "democratic" ally murders people and steals their land.
June 28, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not permitted to question US aid to Israel. And if you question us aid to Israel, then by definition you're an anti-Semite.
Before the Mearsheimer-Walt paper made it OK to discuss the negative consequences of Israeli lobbying on US foreign policy, you weren't even allowed to use the term "pro-Israeli lobbyists" - and if you did dare use that phrase, you were classified as a kook.
June 28, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy Daniel Gree is very amusing. He keeps arguing that Israel's critics are an irrelevant minority but he hop all over TPM to combat the clear majority of TPM folk who are indeed critics of Israel.
In fact, the only issue Daniel Gree cares about is Israel and the wellbeing of Aipac.
Why does he live here? Between those damn "self-hating" Jews like me and the goyim (Daniel doesn't know any of THEM), he's got a serious persecution complex.
June 28, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is another topic, but an important one, especially when it's been kept quiet (like here) that Netanyahu is in town, strutting his stuff and having little tete-a-tetes with Clinton. The Forward article spouts out the usual benign diplomatic crap, but you can bet behind closed doors Netanyahu is asking Clinton how far she's prepared to go to take out Iran.
This blossoming relationship between Clinton and Netanyahu does not bode well, especially when AIPAC supporter and promoter Dennis Ross earlier this month alluded to what discussions were really going on behind the scenes:
June 28, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we start by cutting off all funding to the various parties? Sure we lose influence, but we really don't have that much to begin with. Israel is a fully grown country; they don't need daddy's allowance anymore. The PA is disfunctional and misuses anything we send them. We don't fund Hamas anyway. Let the Saudis buy jets from their oil revenues, alone. None of them are our "friends," and Israel is a very unreliable ally, at best. Let's save the money, leave them all to their own devices and let the chips fall where they may.
June 28, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey if we American taxpayers actually dare question sending our money to Israel, then how can Israel be expected to finance these sorts of things (link):
ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY, actions of ethnic cleansing were carried out. It was never ascertained who had given the orders. Clearly, they were transmitted orally. Over all of them hovered the spirit of Moshe Dayan.
Immediately after the fighting, the writer Amos Kenan came to me. He was in a state of shock, and told that me he had just witnessed the expulsion of thousands of inhabitants from three villages in the Latrun area. I asked him to sit down and write a report of what he had seen. It was a revolting document. I immediately drove to the village Imwass (perhaps the Biblical Emmaeus) and saw bulldozers leveling house after house. When I tried to take pictures, soldiers drove me away.
From there I hastened to the Knesset and distributed copies of the report to several ministers, including Begin and the Mapam ministers, as well as to the assistants of the Prime Minister. It did not help. The work was finished before anybody could intervene. Today, the "Canada Park" covers the site.
At that time, everybody still believed that Israel would be pressured to return the territories it had conquered. The Latrun villages were a kind of bulge in the Green Line, dominating the main road between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. For that reason, somebody decided to create a fait accompli that would remove the pressure to return this area...
Soon after, a soldier came to my office in an obvious state of nervous breakdown. He told me that every night refugees were trying to cross the Jordan in order to return home, and the order was to kill them on the spot, women and children included...
ON THE first day of the fighting, it was a defensive war. Dayan declared that we had no intention of conquest. Almost all Israelis thought so, too. A day after the fighting was over, it had become a war of expansion and annexation.
June 28, 2007 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink