Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Is the Israel Lobby getting weaker?
Several people have recently asked me if the Obama administration's tough line towards Israel's settlements and its insistence on a two-state solution invalidates the arguments that John Mearsheimer and I made about the political influence of the "Israel lobby." Not surprisingly, a few critics have made similar points in print. For what it's worth, I think Obama's approach is largely consistent with the views we set forth in the book, and certainly with our overall aim in writing it.
To review: in our book we argued that U.S. Middle East policy in recent decades has been strongly influenced by a loose coalition of individuals and groups which we termed the "Israel lobby." We pointed out that the lobby did not "control" U.S. Middle East policy (though it was a powerful influence), and we emphasized that the various groups that made up this loose coalition didn't agree on everything (such as the merits of a two-state solution). All of them have sought to encourage a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel, however, and all to maintain nearly-unconditional U.S. support. Absent their influence, we argued, U.S. policy in the region would be substantially (though not entirely) different.
Like plenty of other interest groups in the United States, the Israel lobby worked in legitimate ways within the American political system and successfully acted to shape public discourse about Israel in ways they believed would reinforce the special relationship. As a result, the entire subject had become something of a taboo issue, especially for anyone seeking a prominent career in American politics or in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Finally, we saw this situation as increasingly harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike, and argued that a more normal relationship would be better for both countries. In particular, we hoped that a more open discussion of these issues would lead to a revision in U.S. policy, and that more moderate and sensible groups within the "pro-Israel" community would become more influential. We even expressed the hope that the more hardline groups might reconsider their policy positions. In short, our main concern was not the existence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby; it was the fact that the most influential groups within that "loose coalition" were advocating policies that were harmful to the U.S. and Israel alike.
This basic portrait of the lobby's activities and influence fit the historical record up through the 2008 Presidential election. What has happened since? After pandering to the lobby during the campaign (just as all major candidates do) and remaining studiously silent during the Chas. Freeman debacle, President Obama has taken several recent steps that signal a different approach. He has appointed a Middle East envoy (George Mitchell) with a reputation for evenhandedness. Obama wasn't available to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu during the AIPAC policy conference, so Netanyahu had to delay his trip. Obama has already spoken in one Muslim country (Turkey) and is about to give a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo, after first stopping off in Saudi Arabia, and isn't touching down in Israel on this tour.
Most importantly, he and other administration officials -- including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- have forcefully reiterated the Administration’s commitment to a genuine two-state solution and its opposition to Israel's settlements policy, including the fig leaf of "natural growth." That position was recently echoed by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, which suggests that Obama's team has been quietly lining up EU support for their position. Special envoy Mitchell reportedly drove that point home in his recent meeting with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, and there’s no question that Israeli leaders are feeling the heat. And Obama himself has emphasized that "part of being a good friend is being honest," suggesting that he understands the pitfalls of unconditional U.S. support.
Do all these steps mean the lobby has lost all its power, and that our book was all wrong? Not hardly.
Let's start by recognizing that all Obama has done so far is lay down some rhetorical markers. That's not a trivial step, especially since he and his aides have used unusually direct language and haven’t waffled in the face of initial Israeli protests. If nothing else, these declarations make it harder for Obama to backtrack later on and mark a clear departure from Bush’s (failed) approach. But Obama has yet to put any real pressure on Israel, and he certainly hasn’t tried to make U.S. support (still over $3 billion/year) conditional on Israeli compliance. And the main bone of contention right now is simply whether Israel is willing to stop expanding settlements; we haven't even gotten to all the steps that will be necessary to make a viable Palestinian state possible.
Furthermore, we pointed out in our book that the lobby exerted more influence in Congress than on the Executive Branch, and we noted that several past Presidents (e.g., Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) had been able to put limited pressure on Israel in recent decades. So mild Presidential pressure on Israel is hardly unprecedented. In the meantime, the situation on the Hill hasn't changed very much: a recent AIPAC-sponsored "Dear Colleague" letter telling Obama to privately coordinate his Mideast diplomacy with Israel (and proposing various conditions on the Palestinians) garnered 76 signatures in the Senate and 329 in the House. And there are signs that Israel's supporters on the Hill are beginning to mobilize in more direct ways.
Nonetheless, there are also signs that AIPAC's control on the Hill may be diminishing too, Richard Silverstein has pointed out that two prominent progressive Democrats -- Barney Frank (D-MA) and Robert Filner (D-CA)--did not sign the AIPAC letter, and recent meetings between Netanyahu and several congressmen (including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee) included sharp exchanges over Israel’s settlements policy. Most of the signatures on those two AIPAC letters were probably pro forma anyway, and they don’t seem to have had the chilling effect that AIPAC-sponsored missives had in previous eras. Thus far, Congressional pressure on Obama seems intended to moderate the Administration’s positions, but not derail its efforts entirely.
So where does this leave our arguments about the lobby's profound influence?
First, our main goal in writing our book was to encourage a more open discussion of this issue. We were describing the situation as it existed up through 2007 (when we finished the book), but we believed that if the taboo were challenged and a more open discourse emerged, more and more Americans would realize that the "status quo" lobby (e.g, AIPAC, the Christian Zionists, the neoconservatives, and groups like the Zionist Organization of America) were advocating policies that were bad for the United States and also bad for Israel itself. The good news is that a more open discussion has emerged in recent years, as illustrated by Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by numerous commentators in the blogosphere like Ezra Klein, Phil Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Silverstein, Matt Yglesias, and others, and by clear-eyed columnists such as Roger Cohen. Jon Stewart's Daily Show has done its part too, with some pointed commentary on Gaza and at least one wickedly satirical look at AIPAC itself.
Second, partly because of this more open discourse, more and more people -- including Americans who care strongly about Israel's well-being -- have begun to realize that failure to achieve a two-state solution is jeopardizing Israel’s long-term future. As we wrote in our book and as I’ve blogged about before, the only alternatives to a two-state solution are the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians, the creation of a binational democracy, or some form of apartheid. That is why Ehud Olmert eventually came around to the two-state solution, and people who used to reject the idea of pressure have begun to see the light. Even Martin Indyk is starting to sound a little bit like us. In other words, what it means to be "pro-Israel" is being redefined, thereby creating space for Obama to move toward a more sensible U.S. policy.
Third, events in the region have reinforced this growing sense that a different course of action is needed. The 2006 war in Lebanon and the recent carnage in Gaza have underscored the futility of trying to solve these problems by force alone and cast doubt in Israel's efforts to portray itself as the eternal victim. More and more people are aware of the long-term demographic trends, and they also know that the Arab League has offered to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel once the Palestinians have a viable state of their own. Some people also realize that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remove an arrow from Iran’s quiver and make it easier to mobilize a united front against Iran should that become necessary. Of course, the election of the most right-wing government in Israel's history (and the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister) hasn’t made it any easier for defenders of the status quo either.
Fourth, the behavior of some of Israel’s most fervent defenders may have helped open eyes and ears as well. In particular, the reflexive tendency to smear and marginalize critics of the "special relationship" by accusing them of being either anti-semites or "self-hating" Jews has become a self-discrediting enterprise, because the charge keeps getting directed at people for whom it is so obviously false. Condemning neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers is a worthy enterprise, but smearing respected individuals such as Carter, Desmond Tutu, Tony Kushner, Tony Judt, or others is transparently bogus and intended solely to stifle intelligent discourse on a vital subject. And when defenders of any cause have to stoop to such tactics, it reveals that they are defending an increasingly weak case.
Finally, we argued in the conclusion of our book, part of the solution here was the emergence of a different sort of pro-Israel lobby, one that might be equally influential but in the service of smarter policies. There are encouraging signs on this front, and the increased prominence of groups such as J Street, the Israel Policy Forum, or Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are encouraging developments. There is no reason why groups like AIPAC cannot evolve too, and begin to use their considerable political acumen in the service of a more far-sighted approach.
People who think that the Israel lobby is some sort of secret Jewish conspiracy probably also believe that its influence could never be countered and that the groups within it are irredeemable. That is the essence of conspiracy theories -- and especially anti-Semitic ones--they impute dark and magical powers to some secret organization or cabal and portray it as evil, all-powerful, unchanging, and unstoppable. By contrast, those of us who see the lobby as a typical interest group engaged in the normal rough-and-tumble of democratic politics have recognized that its considerable influence (which no one seriously denies) could be mitigated or modified over time, especially once it became clear that the policies promoted by its most powerful components were in fact harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike. We wrote our book to contribute to that process, and while realists should probably never be too optimistic -- and especially about the Middle East -- it's hard for me not to see the recent turn in U.S. policy as encouraging. Now let's see what Obama says in Cairo.
MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
I've said it before but it is
I've said it before but it is worth restating:
"The Lobby" is a construct that is defined by Walt's own positions and opinions. Namely, if Walt disagrees with those positions, then they come from "the Lobby".
Absolutely nothing distinguishes the tactics that Walt uses from those he decries.
A number of things here:
1) In Walt's opinion harmful to the US and Israel. As Walt himself admits, members of "the Lobby" think their opinions are in the best interests of the US.
2) Presumably there are named members of "the Lobby" who don't advocate these purportedly harmful policies. What is the purpose in defining those members of the "loose coalition" as "the Lobby", if the main concern was the positions and not "the Lobby" itself?
3) Walt focuses his energies on attacking his ideological opponents rather than making the case for his own positions. This statement makes that clear. If his "main concern" is the above referenced positions, why spend so much effort trying to delegitimize "the Lobby" rather than addressing the positions? (The Chas Freeman episode is a great case in point - if one only read Walt, one would think Freeman's main qualification was the people who opposed him.) He takes the route he does because he realizes that a lot of his positions, while they sound reasonable, do not resonate with the majority of Americans and don't really stand up to examination. Incidently, this is the main reason why "the Lobby" is so successful.
"Occupied territories"-some facts
THE MYTH OF “OCCUPIED” TERRITORIES
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jun01/shusteff2.htm
By Boris Shusteff
One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term “occupied territories.” The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to International Law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.
On the contrary, in modern times, the only existing enforceable document.- actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the Territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations “recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and established “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” [Article 6 of the Mandate “encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land,” including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).]
There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. [Article 25 only allowed to “postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."].
With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that “nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:
“In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights” (1)***.
If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish State thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.
Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the “occupied” territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations. Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why, from Iraq, the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body, while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.
On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs’ position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-’Arabi, gave an explanation of this “paradox.” She was asked, “What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?” She answered:
“I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter.”
To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-’Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following:
“There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation. The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter… This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions...NONE of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”
Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of International Law FOR THE JEWS IT IS NOT AN OCCUPIED LAND!..
This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, “What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?” Baker replied, “They’re CLEARLY disputed territories. That’s what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories.”
All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on “occupied” territories. If one wants, one may call them “disputed” territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of International Law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.
And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of EXACTLY the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well!. It is time to stop labeling them “occupied”.
NOTE:
(1)***. Abba Eban. Voice of Israel. Horizon Press, New York, 1957.
============
Boris Shusteff is a research associate for the “Freeman Center for Strategic Studies”.
Response to Stern and the Boris Shusteff piece
I was about halfway through writing this exact piece when I found it on Wikipedia too, albeit briefer than my original post:
"In 2000 the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier, separating Israel and several of its settlements, as well as a significant number of Palestinians, from the remainder of the West Bank. In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the barrier violates international law [yes, the same international law which Shusteff believes does not apply]. In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967. The court also held that the normative provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation are applicable [i.e. the Israeli Supreme Court, unlike Shusteff, recognizes the relevance of international law to the occupied territories]. The Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 were both cited."
What's the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel, as a signatory, is obligated to recognize? The Fourth Convention explicitly forbids the settlement of civilians in areas conquered by the military.
Good thing Shusteff isn't a member of the Israeli Supreme Court; he obviously knows nothing about international law.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
- MMR
Walt's position(s)
Walt's at least partial tone of sweet reasonableness seems to me to be a far cry from his original paper, which was widely criticized by other reputable academics for its polemical and somewhat conspiratorial tone and many factual errors. It also contained paranoid elements of suppression of opinions like his (yet he received continuing world-wide publicity), and presented his dramatically flawed view of US interests.
Contributions to US interests:
Depite Walt's attempt to sell the idea of US interests with minimal evidence and considerable special pleading (suppression of material facts), hard evidence of US interests comes from the following:
A. Economists have repeatedly and incontrovertibly demonstrated that world oil prices fluctuated in response to demand, particularly in Western Europe, and not geopolitical considerations. This writer repeatedly demonstrated that in his analytic work as Chief Economist of Atlantic Richfield, an international oil company. The work of Prof. Dermot Gately of NYU is also relevant here. Thus the notion that it is in US interest to sacrifice the Israelis (even in part) for Arab oil is completely specious.
B. Israel's contribution to US interests is massive, including the modern digital computer and Intel's latest chips, science and technology, medicine and pharmaceuticals, agricultural technology, art and music. The world's greatest classical soloists include such Israelis as Pinchas Zukerman, Daniel Barenboim, and of course Itzhak Perlman, all of whom contribute extensively to the American musical and music teaching scene.
In contrast.the Arabs, and in particular the non-Israeli Arab "Palestinians" have given the US none of the above, but instead terror, murder, and kidnapping. How soon we forget the Achille Lauro, the marines in Lebanon, the extensive persecution of Christians, etc. This is a negative contribution to US interest.
In passing I note that the Jews were as much "Palestinians" as the Arabs: they have drained the swamps, built Tel Aviv from nothing, and for recent centuries always have been a majority in Jerusalem. The appropriation of the name "Palestine" is yet another Arab confidence trick to imply a false history and a false entitlement.
Perhaps Walt thinks pandering to murderers is more in the US interest than cures for disease. Most Americans disagree. In fact, his position, reduced to its core elements, seems to me to be nothing short of delusional.
Finally, how can there be a "loose coalition" when many of the members never talk to each other, and arrive at their positions independently. That phraseology is another attempt by Walt to save a bankrupt position, which seems to be that if many organizations independently arrive at similar positions, do not coordinate, but disagree with Walt, they are collectively a "lobby" or "loose coalition" and something to be resisted as somehow not in the US interest. In short, Walt's position is that of an anti-democratic elitist.
So Israel "gave" computers to
So Israel "gave" computer technology to the US and we should be thankful?
LOL!
So the Palestinians have only
So the Palestinians have only given us terror, murder, and kidnapping? How soon YOU forget the Hagana, Irgun, Stern Gang, etc... Israel was founded with the assistance of Zionist terrorists.
Terror
Hagana was the Israeli army and did not practice terror. Irgun and the Stern Gang directed their actions against occupying troops and officials and when caught were hanged for their troubles. None used missiles and bombs indiscriminately against women and children at scale. The last 2, in particular were independent pre-state groups which both the mandatory government and later the Israeli government acted against in the strongest manner.
In contrast, the elected government of Gaza, Hamas, not only aids such terror, but is sworn to destroy Israel.
If the objective of Hamas were to get the Israelis out of Gaza, as it was the Jews objective to get the British out of Palestine, then Hamas has that result. Yet they persist in terror against women and children.
The Haganah was actively
The Haganah was actively involved in terrorism, focusing mainly on sabotaging British possessions (bombing railways and bases) and freeing interned illegal immigrants. The Haganah only distanced itself from "extremist" groups like the Irgun and the Stern Gang after the King David Hotel bombing, which the Haganah directed Menachem Begin as head of the Irgun to carry out.
The Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel and the subsequent loss of 91 innocent lives sure sounds like indiscriminate killing to me. If these attacks did not constitute terrorism and indiscriminate killing then I'm curious why the World Zionist Congress condemned the group in 1946 for it's policy of shedding innocent blood.
The eventual Israeli government did not act against these groups as you assert. Members of Irgun were actively absorbed into the IDF in 1948.
In 2008 Hamas offered to accept a two-state solution and a 10 year truce with Israel in return for the Palestinian right to return to land taken from them. Unsurprisingly, Israel has yet to respond to the offer.
Careless with the facts . . .
Stephen M. Walt wrote of President Obama:
"After pandering to the lobby during the campaign (just as all major candidates do)"
In May 2008, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview with then-candidate Obama, including:
"JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?
BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.
* * *
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article."
Earlier, during the Ohio primary, Obama said the following to a Jewish audience in Cleveland:
"This is where I get to be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about."
Stephen Walt is too
Stephen Walt is too optimistic. From a historical point of view I think the issue of the Israel Lobby is going to get uglier. I guess what i am trying to say is, from a historic point of view the real problem for the Jews would come from lands where they are perceived as enjoying too much influence such as America. It always ends up ugly and I don't see how America will rid itself of this problem.
I am a Koranist so i debate and argue with Sunnis all the time. There is a similarity between Sunni Islam and Judaism that is striking. Anyways i believe its going to get uglier.
Walt was right about one thing, the discourse is DEFINENTLY changing and there is now a greater awareness of the nature and reasons for the special relationship between the US and Israel. The Israel lobby is out! I think 9-11, the Neocons, Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter, Charles Freeman and finally Jane Harman has changed the nature of the debate and this has gone some what mainstream. However that will not let the Lobby go away. Things will get ugly in a decade or two. History repeats itself.
In case you are wondering what on Earth is a Koranist well we reject the oral traditions that dominate Sunni and Shia Islam. The oral traditions were compiled centuries after Muhammad's death and basically abrogated many of the Koran's teachings. Very similar to the role the Talmud plays in Judaism. Thats why I know this will get ugly.
I therefore do not share Walt's small optimism. It will get ugly. The Israel Lobby is but a small part of the overall strategy of Jewish activism. Like the Sunni Islamist they basically believe Western societies are flawed and need to be "Islamicized" except they are not good in hiding the agenda like the Jewish activists are. There is no cabal since it comes natural just like there is no Islamist cabal but there are shared goals among the Islamists based on shared religious traditions and there are shared goals among the Jewish activists based on shared ethnic interests.
Anyways this is beyond the scope of this blog but I do hope what Walt is saying is truly happening but just because there is more debate and awareness about the Lobby's ills that does not mean it will ceast to exist or cease to wield it's influence and I think the issue is much larger than Walt thinks. It will get ugly. History repeats itself.
The Jews have too much influence
You don't understand America. There are not "the Jews" and everyone else; we are all citizens entitled to petition our government under the Constitution. It is the job of the government to decide how to respond to such petitions, taking account of the views of its citizens. Ultimately, US national interest is defined by the citizenry as limited by the Constitution and the law, not by Prof. Walt or some other expert. Walt can argue, debate, be refuted, be criticized; all are his rights. He has, however, no right to prevail.
In the case of Israel, those engaged in supportive policy advocacy in large numbers extend to millions of Christian Americans, who far outnumber Jewish Americans.
As to "they are not good in hiding the agenda like the Jewish activists are" that is simple paranoid antisemitism and expoaes the entire post for what it is.
The Lobby touts its own power
The mere fact that one can now openly speak of the Israeli Lobby, and "establishment" outlets like FP can talk about it without being labelled an Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist, is an improvment. Not so long ago, we weren't supposed to even acknowledge the Lobby's existence. I believe it was Sy Kenan -- AIPAC founder -- who said that lobbies are like nightflowers that thrive in the dark. Well, that veil has been lifted.
Yes, the Lobby is functioning like any other except that this particular Lobby has for too long enjoyed a monopoly, with no real challengers to balance them out. And, to say that it does not exist is ridiculous since AIPAC official Steven Rosen has boasted that he can have 70 Senators sign his dinner napkin in an hour. Now, tell me again about how the don't exist.
PS: "Conspiracies" are pretty normal in politics.
The "lobby?
It is simply false that AIPAC and those who agree with it have no opposition. There are those in the Jewish community who support "J Street" and other dovish lobbies. For years the Reform Jewish movement has taken a dovish position. Although polemically and falsely self-styled as "pro-peace", they don't prevail; despite being well funded by such as George Soros, they are widely seen to be unrepresentative, and Congress knows this.
LOL!
This is the most ridiculous post ever. So the only opposition to AIPAC you can think of is J Street (which is another pro-Israeli lobby, albeit with some minor differences in tactics) ??? LOL! Way to Balance out AIPAC! Not.
J Street
There is a big difference between AIPAC and others who advocate a strong approach to the conflict, and j Street and others who advocate a dovish approach. That is a distinction within the American mainstream. If you think that is a difference in tactics, then you must include the vast majority of Americans who support Israel as part of the so-called Israel lobby. If that is so, then there is no "lobby"; it is the expressed will of the American people, and it is the few who reject Israel who are the outliers and thus the "lobby" inimical to US interests as defined by the citizenry.
Economics and the Art of Controversy
In John Kenneth Galbraith's Harvard paper, published in book form in 1955 and thereafter and still available via Amazon, "Economics and the Art of Controversy" he argues that when one party to a dispute goes public, he has already lost, since he thinks his views won't prevail in continued private negotiations or legal process. Galbraith cites many examples from the public, policy, labor, and other arenas.
Over the years I have found that Galbraith's advice in this paper is spot on. Applying it to Israeli settlement policy, I note that the US Administration, as Walt observes, has unusually gone public at both Presidential and Secretary of State levels. If Galbraith applies, this suggests that the US administration has already lost the argument.
Is a two-state solution in the offing?
The realist in me suggests that the two-state solution isn't going to happen. It used to be (and perhaps rightly so) that lack of progress in this direction could be laid at the feet of the Palestinians; more recently, it appears the Israeli right, in conjunction with the settler movement and others who believe that it is the manifest destiny of Israelis of Jewish descent to rule all of Palestine, appear to be the larger obstacle to the two-state solution. These groups appear to have waxed in recent years, at the cost of more liberal Israeli groups who have espoused a more generous and encompassing Israeli state. With Likud and associated right-wing groups gaining in power, I have doubts that a viable two-state solution will be actively considered by any future Israeli government, at least for the foreseeable future.
If this scenario is in our near future, then I suspect that Americans of Jewish descent are going to have a harder time of it. This group has been and will be torn between the obvious injustice of the situation and a latent longing to support a just Israel. Some will refuse to see the other side of Israeli society, much as many post WWII Germans could not comprehend that Germany would engage in holocaust atrocities on the scale that did occurred (and simply refused to believe it). Others will cling to some small hope that a humanitarian catastrophe can be averted. And yet others will reflexively support Israel regardless of the reality (rationalizations are easy). If there exists a "conspiracy" as such, it will be by this latter group to white-wash Israeli actions to the greatest extent possible.
But if the two-state solution are not going anywhere and negotiations are simple a pretext for preserving the status quo, as I suspect they are, then how will the Obama administration react? If the Obama administration continues its hard-nose tactic toward the current Israeli government, then my prediction is that the reflexive Israel supporters in the congress and senate will soon step forward to apply pressure on the Obama administration to loosen up. This pressure will ultimately prevail and some face-saving measure will be found to walk back Obama's hard stance on the two-state solution. So ultimately, I predict, Obama will not be deflected by Israeli leaders, but by the congress of the United States. Meanwhile, a more desperate Palestinian society will press more suicidal attacks on Israeli cities which will draw deadly responses from the IDF and more chest-thumping justifications by politicians. In other word, only a true catastrophe of huge dimensions will change the status quo.
Manifest destiny
It is simply false demonization to assert that the Israeli right believes in ruling all of Palestine. First of all, much of Palestine was given to Jordan. Second of all, Judea and Samaria as an Arab state was refused by the Palestinians and accepted by the Israelis at the founding of the State of Israel. Third of all the Israelis left Gaza, and only intervene when terrorists fire rockets and murder civilians, since the "government" of Gaza has no interest in preventing these illegal acts. The moment terror from Gaza stops, Israeli intervention will stop and borders will become more porous to economic activity.
As to Israelis of Jewish descent, Arabs have a substantial bloc in the parliament and far more than many smaller Jewish parties, hold the swing vote on many issues. It is those of Arab descent who are right-wing Islamists that believe in ruling the world, not the Israelis of either Jewish or Arab descent. The Israelis want to live in peace; the Arabs want to conquer. It is no accident that Moses is usually depicted holding the tablets of the ethical basis for mankind, while Mohammed is usually depicted holding crossed swords.
Finally, settlements in the West Bank are perfectly legal, and are designed to provide security for Israel, protect Jerusalem as a single city (which has always had a Jewish majority in the last several centuries) and prevent a new Arab state from cutting Israel into a northern and southern portion. Beyond that, Israeli prime ministers of the right, including Netanyahu have repeatedly said that they have no interest in governing the Palestinians, and Abbas just said that he was content with the present situation.
It used to be (and perhaps
Not so. That it appears so is a triumph for the Walts and Arab lobby, but that doesn't make is so and I feel pretty certain the pendulum will swing back on that.
The Palestinians can't even talk to each other, won't agree to a single concession, and the only person who appears somewhat amenable to a two-state solution, Abbas, is basically powerless to enforce a deal while at the same time refusing to back away from demands that are non-starters for Israel (ie, the so-called right of return and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state).
On the other side of the coin, you have Israel which already made a huge concession when they gave back Gaza and got nothing in return but an incessant rocket barrage. Even in light of that, if the Palestinians indicated they were ready to come to the table, either the Isreali government would too, or the people would vote in another one. A large majority of the Israeli public does support a two state solution, they just don't support more unilateral concessions in light of what has already transpired.
I think Sternlight's comment
I think Sternlight's comment suggets to me why It's going to get ugly. 10 years ago nobody even knew what is the Israel Lobby. Sternlight would have been one of those who would deny its existence and attack anyone who would even suggets that there is any kind of unique Jewish activism of any sort in Washington. Now its out. 10 years from now Jewish activism will also be out. Then what is Sternlight going to do and say?
We know what the Islamist's agenda is. They don't hide it, to turn Europe and America to a predominantly Sunni society through converts and Islamic propagation and da'wa activities. Whether they will succeed or not is something else. And if not, at least to create Islamic enclaves across Europe where that community lobbies on behalf of the Muslim world and utilize European wealth and resources to assist Muslim nations economically and politically and assist militarily Muslim national resistance movements like Palestine and Kashmir and Chechniya. Hence the dual loyalty. European individualism and secularism opened the door for them and without a strong European Christian identification Islamists operated there freely. 9-11 blew it in their faces.
I am glad CAIR and the UK based MPAC plummeted. But it only did so because the American and European media exposed them and took the advice of many secular and liberal Sunnis who were not able to counter them becuae they are Sunnis like them and grilled these organization. I am glad the US government and the UK government distanced itself from these organizations and began to deal with non Islamist Muslim organizations. But being Sunnis and unable to justify individualism and secularism from a Sunni perspective these organizations remain weak as they are in many Muslim countries.
I think any Jewish organization that tries to counter AIPAC or the ADL and other national Jewish organizations will always remain weak. The triumph of Rabbinic Judaism has made any Jewish organziation that is non hyper-ethnic weak and without appeal. And the entrenchment of Jewish activists in the mainstream US media and the elite educational institutions of the US has made any scenario like that that happened to CAIR and MPAC unlikely to happen with them. Their goal is a multi-cultural, open immigration, liberal and secular America with a weak European and Christian identity. LIke the Islamist enjoy the freedoms afforded to them in Western societies but do not allow these freedoms in predominantly Muslim societies, Jewish activists do not want a multi-cultural, open immigration, secular and liberal Israel with a weak Jewish and Judaic identity as they want for America.
This is a very sensitive topic and a complicated one but I see it getting ugly. Sunnis and Talmudic Judaism are very similar in many ways, and why not? They are after all cousins. One is just smarter than the other. Ha,ha,ha!
Be positive by all means, Stephen, but,
Rather than comment on all your points, one through four and your final comments, let me just say that I admire immensely your optimism and hopeful expectations on the coming visit by Barak Obama to the Muslim world and certainly, it can do no harm.
However, your confidence in the development of a "different sort or pro-Israel lobby" one that which differs from what we have been used to in the past, is looking for a rainbow, in my respectful opinion.
You see groups such as AIPAC as legitimate organisations that use acceptable means to influence. The majority of people, however, see such groups as not having either the ability or the interest in changing any aspect of their very successful past campaigns. Where these are particularly insidious has been in the manipulation of the Senate and the House in so many ways, many of which that border on illegal, certainly, in the very least, immoral.
Unlike you, I believe the phrase ‘controlling’ Middle East Foreign Policy is the honest description of these activities and quite possibily encompassing the close advisors to the President and Secretary of State.
Many people have stressed in the past that a Senate and House captive to the 'fear' vote, greatly honed over the years like a first class marketing campaign (but with many more dollars) and which is being duplicated throughout the world, will never change. It is this single factor, the incapacity of Jewish people (US domiciled or otherwise) to see how they are aggravating those who believe in their existence but dislike intensely the things they have done to maintain, no, expand greatly their presence in illegal settlements and which they continue to do to this day. They have created an apartheid environment, all of their making.
They have had 60 years to come to grips with their 'cross', the holocaust and they have used every dirty trick imaginable to rub the world's nose in that era in Germany's past and they have tried to make the whole world pay for this in one way or another, to carry the same responsibility. The world does not share that guilt but Israel is yet to absorb that single important fact. They have been very successful and it is this success that they will never accept as ending, in one of the cleverest programs ever seen, the product being sold was guilt.
But their wisdom is blind if they cannot see that they need now to make people accept and like them, support them because they want to, not because they are able to exert influences, engage in moral bribery and distribute financial graft for those who are able to eventually vote for a resolution.....in their favour.
It does seem as though Israel is the most disliked country in the world.
Have they ever wondered why?
So even though one would like to be able to share the optimism of a learned Professor, closer than most to the subject, the manipulative success enjoyed for decades has created a mindset that is unchangeable.
A lobby group requires the ability to be passionate, dedicated and informed as to public opinion and, as a result, to be realistic.
The latter is beyond the capability of such lobby groups, sadly.
Rearranging the deck chairs
Prof. Walt's discussion is over the Obama administration's recent pronouncements on the settlements. We essentially agree but he's more polite and erudite about it than I.
In my view this is a lot of heat without much light. Big wow! The US is finally getting tough on the Israelis - woo hoo! What amounts to a simple reiteration of long standing US policy vis a vis the illegal Israel colonies (sorry, can't call them settlements - too dignified - lets call a spade an effing shovel) in the West Bank to generate this kind of twittering (not the electronic kind - the old fashioned OMG did you hear what he said cocktail party kind) just shows how low the bar has sunk. This is pitiful. The notion that the Obama administration is getting all steely eyed is nonsense. Look, the Israeli power structure of Labor/Kadima/Likud are no more interested in peace than Phillip Morris is interested in getting out of the tobacco business. The status quo is too profitable and besides making tons of money at US taxpayer expense the goal is to completely cleanse Eretz Israel of non-Jews leaving a democracy for one religious group. Tell me how that is so much different than Iran?
It started in '48 with the official stated policy of Ben-Gurion and the Zionists to cleanse the land of Palestinians (mainly Muslim and Christians while enlisting the Druze for inside assistance) and everything that has occurred since has been in the furtherance of that goal. Witness the current cleansing of East Jerusalem and the presence of 300,000 rabid fundamentalists in the West Bank. I'll believe that the administration is finally getting tough on these right wing war criminals when we withhold a couple billion dollars of the several billion we ship over there each year. Now that would get people's attention.
And while we're at it lets get tough on our own right wing war criminals.
Still I must admit its better than GWB - which is about the same thing as saying its better than nothing.
I have a question and perhaps Prof. Walt can answer it. Why do otherwise perfectly liberal Jewish Americans who voted for Obama and give to causes like Greenpeace, the ACLU, drive a Prius, support a woman's right to choose etc. do a 180 degree disconnect and support an Israeli power structure dedicated to ethnic cleansing and other horrible human rights abuses? It seems when it comes to Israel suddenly American Jews (of course I generalize there are some progressive Jews even in this sphere) lose all semblance of liberalism? Cognitive dissonance? Is the Zionist myth that powerful?
I have a question and perhaps
I have a question and perhaps Prof. Walt can answer it. Why do otherwise perfectly liberal Jewish Americans who voted for Obama and give to causes like Greenpeace, the ACLU, drive a Prius, support a woman's right to choose etc. do a 180 degree disconnect and support an Israeli power structure dedicated to ethnic cleansing and other horrible human rights abuses?
Increasingly they do not, and that's a big part of the current shift.
In the old days, they thought that israel was surrounded by hostile dangerous arabs who would kill all the israelis unless stopped by superior force. In that circumstance it seemed that a few minor human rights abuses were allowable. But the last credible attack on israel was in 1973, and in the years that israel was definitely top dog the problems of israeli behavior kept getting bigger.
It hasn't helped that israel has largely turned its back on american jews. Large numbers of american jews find that according to israel they aren't jewish unless they can document their ancestry back to specific Orthodox female-line ancestors. It's harder to support israel as a haven for the jews when israel tells them they don't count as jewish. Etc.
But israelis regard US support as a survival issue. Without the US influence, israel might be under sanctions -- maybe full embargo -- in just a few years. So they must do something to restore that support.
The best way to get support is to look like they're in danger of losing a war with strong neighbors, particularly a war that is not their own fault. That brings back the 1967 attitudes. Who could they fight? Syria is not nearly strong enough. Iraq is a basket case. Iran is too far away. It has to be egypt plus egyptian allies. Egypt would have to get re-armed somehow or they wouldn't be a credible threat either.
I don't see how israel can get into war with egypt and look severely threatened, and have it look like it isn't their fault. But that's what they need to accomplish. Maybe a secret egyptian nuclear program, and egypt actually tests a nuke? That would be a start....
Ridiculous
There really is no such thing as an Israel Lobby - just an advocacy coalition on the issues touching Israelo-American policy.
The people at AIPAC, can go many ways - what they wont do is let someone else call the shots without their participation. AIPAC has rarely been against or for specific policies, its been mostly about the process.
It's all too easy to let our oil companies and multinationals who adhere to racist GCC anti-Jewish (not anti-Isreali, they are anti-Jewish!!) trade policies dominate US foreign policy.
You can thank your lucky stars AIPAC and other groups exist to balance that trend.
There is no one to defeat here, no one to fight.
Some basic facts: 1. The
Some basic facts:
1. The reason there is no Palestinian State is not settlements; it is that the Palestinians have refused it repeatedly, in hopes of destroying Israel as a Jewish State.
2. It is false that pro-Israel lobbies weren't well known in the past. AIPAC, in particular, was in the papers all the time. Once they got publicly crosswise to the Secretary of Defense, Cap Weinberger, about flying injured US troops to Germany and not Israel, which was much closer. I wrote to Weinberger, whom I knew slightly, and he replied with a satisfactory technical explanation which he typed himself and hand signed. I forwarded it to AIPAC but they simply ignored it.
3. Oil companies differ. One of the largest, Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) had a significant number of Jewish executives, of which I was one, and overtly fought against antisemitism. The most famous case was when a major Saudi contractor wanted to give several million dollars to the Aspen Institute for a Middle East studies program on the condition that no Israeli scholars participate. When discovered by ARCO's non-Jewish President, who was also on the Aspen Board, he called an emergency Board meeting and the gift was refused. The scandal made the front page of the NY Times the next morning. On another occasion the company's foundation gave a significant contribution to an Israeli reconciliation foundation when approached by them. Finally, with respect to all US oil companies, compliance with the Arab boycott of Israel is illegal under US law, and they obey the law.
Oil company executives make decisions just the way they teach at the Harvard Business School. Of course they aren't hostile to their major suppliers; Armand Hammer was notorious for being close to the Soviets and often served US interests on matters between those countries, while encouraging Soviet economic development. Let's also not forget that it is many years since US oil companies got kicked out of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. and now the relationship is a buyer-seller one, not a geopolitical interest one. The sellers need the buyers as much as the reverse, as demand shifts with the economy from a sellers' to a buyers' market and back. Oil prices are driven by demand, not geopolitics.
There is one exception; when the US goes to war, demand for petroleum from the military rises substantially, allowing for price rises if the economies are strong at the same time. In other words, we do it to ourselves, just as we do with gas guzzling cars, etc. As a corollary, if you believe in economic determinism, the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other large oil producers would love to see us continue being pinned down in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. They make hundreds of millions in higher oil prices from it. From a US interest point of view, peace is not just moral, it is a terrific buy.
As a result, the entire
Professor, I still don't understand how this is possible in a democratic State. Isn't there something wrong in the structure which allows such anomalies? I mean how can you be sure that there aren't or will not be similar leakage in the system today IL tomorrow I don't know what will be able to cut you out from a prominent career in American State institutions just because you are running contra to a Lobby's expectations;->>
Professor, I think you don't dare to tell us the whole truth how this is possible, that is why people fall back to conspiracy theories.
Professor, you are suggesting a Fascist Deep State structure, even if you do not name it as such yet.
And I say this is inevitable with State structure because it is a Monopoly. But I appreciate your not been stuck with Imagined State and realistically observe the IL behind her as the Real State. In Turkey a similar structure is developed called Ergenekon. In Turkey to save the State they try to expose Ergenekon using legal means - if you believe it;-> I see your efforts here parallel to that, but not yet developed enough to be handed over to legal institution of the State to take care of (save) herself. Believe me even that develops to legal stage it won't bring you peace of mind as a realist, because it is just part of stating game and you are quite at home with State, I mean for you there is nothing wrong with State, but something wrong with the IL. I don't agree with you on that point and I clearly expressed and express that there is nothing wrong with the IL but the State is useless - and you know that, even if you don't admit it explicitly. I figured this out from the contradiction you posed in this posting of yours.
Thank you.
Grand Sen~or.
The israeli lobby is running
The israeli lobby is running scared, as is obvious from the panicky responses here.
They're still to strong to lose much, but as their actions get more visible, each round they get weaker.
The israeli lobby is running
Dream on J.Thomas;-))
Lobbies like that transparent pirate organisations. they don't show a face, so you cannot figure out if they are scared or running. But you may bet on that they are getting re-organised to protect their transparency;->>
My Dear J.Thomas, those guys are very intelligent people and they know the workings of the State much better than you, Professor and Obama, so to argue with them saying:
is simply stupid. But of course this doesn't mean that you have no way to argue with them intelligently. I have given some clues and examples how to argue with those guys realistically. It is also not wise to act before sweeping the ground with your arguments and leave no room for any counter argument.
Grand Sen~or.
I could be wrong. But look
I could be wrong. But look how panicked the zionist trolls are here. They repeat all their traditional messages over and over whether anybody responds or not.
There isn't any israeli lobby!
And anyway the israeli lobby has a right to campaign for whatever we want.
And without us to oppose them the oil lobby would get what they want.
And anyway the palestinians are bloodthirsty savages who can never accept peace.
And we can't negotiate when there's nobody to negotiate with.
Judea and samaria belong to israel, always have, always will. God gave them to israel. And israel conquered them in 1967.
There isn't any palestine. There never was. Send the palestinians to jordan and rename that palestine.
Israel made the terrible sacrifice of letting palestinians run their own entirely free nation in gaza, and for no reason they shot missiles into israel. They'll never agree to peace.
Anyway, iran is the big threat. They might get nukes, that's more important than anything that happens in israel. We have to stop the iranian nukes and the only way to stop them is with military force. Iran is a deadly enemy to the USA. They support Hezbollah which fights israel, and they support hamas which fights israel. All the arabs are scared that their enemy iran might get nukes but they aren't scared that their friend israel has nukes. We'd do all the arabs a big favor if we attack iran, and they'd love us for it.
Hey, anybody who wants israel to negotiate is an antisemite. You can't negotiate with terrorists, it's all a plot to destroy israel.
And on and on.
They might not be scared but they sure sound scared.
There isn't any israeli
even Professor agrees with them on that issue;->>
For his arguments Professor assumes an IL and he admits that it is their right to campaign whatever the will as the US citezens. Professor also admits that he has no legal case but he has a political argument that what the assumed IL is doing is neither in the national interest of Israel nor the US. But Professor admits that none can sue them for being politically oriented not to the national interest of the US, for it is just a political stand, but he doesn't mind calling them un-american for their stand which means in reality nothing but name calling;->>
With such loose arguments you guys already lost the game - if you ask me;->>Next thing they could do is telling you "How would you know what is in our national interest as jews, you are not even jew!" you guys have no case talking like that and they know it. If you step a bit further they may prove that you are anti-sionist and then you find yourselves in the hands of the legal institutions which they also know the workings of them much, much better then yourselves. I wouldn't try that;->>
I'll tell you what;-> forget it! nobody is going to get two state there. There even one State is not a solution why bother to double it - to make States worse;->>
Look My Dear J.Thomas, you heard what I said on this subject before and you gave the best response I would expect, so try to develop your arguments from that starting point, who knows you may get better results;-))
What I am trying to say is;-> You don't know how to talk to your own people. You think you can treat those guys like you had treated Waco or like you have been treating Amish, tough luck Guys! Tough luck! and best of luck to you;->>
Grand Sen~or.
In response to Grand
In response to Grand Senor,
Walt is not Arab or Muslim so he can't talk the same way as Jews do about Israel. Its not a secret that pro-Israel activist are nervous about Arab and Muslim political participation precisely because the Arabs and Muslims can justify their anti-Israel stance by the virtue of sharing an identity with the Palestinians. They can also use the arguments of shared religious traditions with Christianity by focussing on Mary and Jesus, both Koranic figures. Its not that difficult. All they need is secular organizations that reasonates with many Americans and entrench themselves in the US media and elite educational institutions and dominate any discourse regarding the Middle East and use the Islamophobia card to stiffle criticism. They can also hire African Americans and Anglo-Americans as spokespeople. Its not that difficult. However being predominantly Sunnis, or Shias, they have a much harder time justifying a secular agenda given Sunnism is religous centric. Judaism being ethnocentric was able to promote a secular and liberal agenda. A person can even be an atheist and still a jew but a Sunni can not be both a sunni muslim and an atheist at the same time.
However the fact that Judaism has become very ethno-centric runs at odds with American cultural which is highly individualistic. There are many people in the internet that are talking about other angles regarding Jewish activism. They are growing in both numbers and influence.
I want to answer Frank of America's question because it will be the discourse of the future.
The reason that everything seems to crumble when it comes to Jewish causes is because for the same reason that Muslims seem to remain silent when fellow Muslims are slaughtering Muslims in Darfur but go ga-ga when some DANE(notice the capital letters) draws a few crtical cartoons about Muhammad. Its called tribalism.
Let me ask you a question.
What do Americans know about sectarianism?
What do Americans know about tribalism?
What do Americans know about a deep attachment to history?
What do Americans know about a religious tradition dominated by oral traditions? A religious tradition deeply legalistic, ritualistic and ingrained in their identity?
So how can Frank of America understand that?
Yet this is what Muslims and Jews share, in fact Jews more than Muslims. There is so much you can pretend, sooner or later people will realize that you are putting a front. This front did not show its face through the Lobby, but showed itself in American movies, classrooms, Tv's and Churches.
I will give you an advise. Next time a Muslim comes to you with the Koran in his hand, ask him if this is his only religious literary source he takes his religion from. When he gives an answer, study that and you will know how he thinks. And if a Jew comes to you in Church or in PBS or the History Channel with the Old Testament in his hand, ask him if that is the only source for Judaism. When he answers you, look at the other source and you will have your answer. The answer Frank of America is wondering. Reading the Koran or the Old Testament till you drop will teach you nothing about Judaism or Islam.
Ask me, I debate these things everyday with both Sunnis and Jews. Sunnis still have not learned the hiding game since they have no experience in the West like the Jews have. But they are cousins and think very similar in many ways.
There is nothing called Judeo-Christian. Nobody talks this language in Israel. And there is nothing called "Islam respects and recognizes Jesus and Mary". In fact Sunnis loved Jesus so much, they abrogated him.
Anyone, I mean anyone, who tells us he follows a religious scripture AND something else. Read that something else.
I am a Koranist and I follow the Koran to its teeth and nothing else. Yet most Muslims from the Shia or Sunni perspective do not consider me a Muslim. And there have been fatwas issued by Sunni authorities declaring Koranists as apostates and the Azhar institute of Egypt, who Obama recently praised, recently went further and said Koranists should be persecuted by the Egyptian state for apostasy. So what are you to them? Yet they will always come to you in interfaith meetings with only the Koran in their hands.
Think about that.
In response to Grand Senor,I
I guess you meant "Grand Sen~or", but sorry I didn't get/dig the response;->
You say:
then why don't you respond Professor's postings as a Koranist, whatever that means. Professor is the one who has an opinion displayer on this Blog. I have no opinion to criticize, that is why your response to Grand Sen~or falls short to reach Grand Sen~or;->>
BTW, I can understand why you don't call yourself "muslim", but "Koranist" is not a concept of the Koran that you can identify yourself with, therefore for the Koran readers (that includes yourself) you are a Mitt Man;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Professor, the hanging the
Professor, the hanging the Star of David that high on the photo reminds me one of those Vampire Movies (how about Nosferatu of Herzog & Kinski;-)) where at the peak of the plot the guy hold a shining cross towards the villain, I don't know why Mate;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Professor, the hanging the
Professor, the hanging the Star of David that high on the photo reminds me one of those Vampire Movies (how about Nosferatu of Herzog & Kinski;-)) where at the peak of the plot the guy hold a shining cross towards the villain, I don't know why Mate;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Hmmm, and I wonder where the star of David came from.