Not surprisingly, my recent column on an ugly 1988 experience with AIPAC, the Israeli government, and late New York Times columnist William Safire elicited some controversy. I knew it would.
There aren't that many first-person accounts of encounters with the lobby (for obvious reasons) so my recollections of how it went down on Capitol Hill fill a vacuum. Hopefully, there will be more such accounts as those of us who dealt with the lobby in the 1980s move into a position (career-wise or financially) where we feel free to talk and write about it without any fear of retribution.
If I were 35, there is no way that I would challenge an institution which has a long history of preventing its critics from advancing professionally. I am not that brave -- although the terrain is finally changing for the better thanks to the internet.
One problem in making analogies between the lobby today and in the '70s and '80s is that it was infinitely less aggressive and right-wing then than it is now. In my description of an event that took place in 1988, I refer to AIPAC's then-executive director, Thomas Dine.
Dine, who today is close to J Street, came to the lobby from Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential campaign. He had worked previously for several Democratic senators and, in his 20s, in the LBJ White House. By contrast, AIPAC's current executive director, Howard Kohr, is a conservative Republican who was hired largely because of his personal and political closeness to Newt Gingrich. In the Israeli context, Dine was Labor and Kohr is Likud.
Back then, the Palestinians had not yet recognized Israel, so AIPAC's argument that Israel had no negotiating partner was not totally unfounded. Today, 17 years after Israel and the PLO exchanged mutual recognition, the "no partner" claim is nothing but a device to avoid negotiations.
Not only that, but in several rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the two sides have come extremely close to an agreement, the essence of which was described by President Obama in two recent Middle East speeches. That is the exchange of the lands captured by Israel in 1967 for peace and normalization with the Palestinians -- with modifications and land swaps to reflect current realities. This is the so-called "two-state solution," which wasn't even discussed in the 1980s.
In other words, the entire Israeli-Palestinian landscape in 1988 was dramatically different then both in the region and here in Washington. And the AIPAC we know today had not even been born. (For instance, back then AIPAC never defended or even mentioned Israeli settlements, considering them an embarrassment. AIPAC lobbyists were told that, when asked, they should say that AIPAC had no position on settlements. Today it vehemently opposes any efforts to freeze them.)
In the 1980s, AIPAC's basic foreign policy position was that peace would come when the Palestinians recognized Israel. It stated that it would be at that point that negotiations based on United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 would ensue. And, as envisioned in those resolutions, land would be exchanged for peace.
That is why the hysterical reaction to Senator Levin's letter mildly chastising Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir for saying that 242 and 338 did not apply to the West Bank was so shocking.
In retrospect, it was a harbinger of the more militant AIPAC that was then struggling to be born. (A very right-wing board fired Dine in the early 1990s, having decided it wanted a Republican executive director. Dine was then appointed by President Clinton to run America's massive aid and restructuring programs for the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe.)
Nonetheless, it was the more moderate AIPAC that went off on Sen. Levin for having the temerity to call on Shamir to remain committed to UN Resolution 242. It was the more moderate AIPAC that organized threatening calls to Levin (and other senators who signed his letter) by outraged donors. It was the more moderate AIPAC that enlisted Israel's U.N. ambassador, Binyamin Netanyahu, to call New York Times columnist William Safire and urge him to threaten me. (Safire's call was no simple call by a reporter investigating a story; it was a call by a powerful media figure threatening a Jewish congressional staffer for not toeing the line.)
In a column in The New Republic, Jonathan Chait, an excellent domestic policy columnist, calls my account of what happened a "pulp novelization" of a story that really only demonstrates that AIPAC does not exert undue influence (or, at least, no more than the AARP and other lobbies). After all, Levin is still in the Senate. President Reagan supported Levin's effort. And even AIPAC's executive director, Tom Dine, secretly supported Levin's effort. (Of course, he was soon fired for being a dovish Democrat.) And I have certainly not been silenced (although I only began telling the unvarnished truth about AIPAC when I was safely immune to the lobby.)
So Chait has a point.
Except: One, AARP and every other power lobby one can name (including the NRA, PhRMA, AHIP and the Chamber of Commerce) advocate for U.S. interests, as it sees them. (The AARP represents tens of millions of Americans over age 50 and the NRA represents millions of American gun enthusiasts.) AIPAC, on the other hand, gets its direction from a foreign government. If the Israeli government decides it will give up, say, downtown Hebron, AIPAC will say the same almost immediately. It is as independent of the Israeli government as the U.S. Communist Party was independent of Moscow. (The only time this was not true was in the early 1990s when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin tried, and failed, to reduce AIPAC's influence).
Except: Two, members of Congress criticize these powerful lobbies all the time. And doing so does not make page one of the New York Times, while Levin's mild call on Shamir to support Israel's own official position did. Criticizing Israeli policies is, thanks to AIPAC, the "new third rail" of American politics, replacing Social Security and Medicare. (Both those programs are now attacked daily). AIPAC is the only lobby that both Democrats and Republics fear challenging.
Except: Three, in 1988, the Israeli occupation was still only (only!) 21 years old. Today, the occupied territories have been occupied for 44 years. In 1988, there were 63,600 West Bank settlers (not including East Jerusalem). Today there are 296,700 settlers in the West Bank and another 192,000 in East Jerusalem. In 1988, the issue dividing the two sides was Israel's right to secure borders; today, the issue is Israel's right to continue settling the West Bank and evicting Palestinians from Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers.
And: Four, AIPAC's effort to squelch Senate dissent succeeded. I remember one of AIPAC's top lobbyists telling me to thank Levin for the letter. "You'll see, MJ, after what Levin went through, no senator will ever pull that kind of thing again. You did us a favor," she said.
And, guess what? No senator has, not in 23 years.
There is no other lobby in Washington, not one, that has that kind of power. That was obvious when Prime Minister Netanyahu, a consistent opponent of U.S. policies, received a congressional reception worthy of the Second Coming. What I experienced in 1988 was nothing. Woe to the senator or Senate aide who even imagines such a thing today.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
You have no inkling about what I think, or not think, whether or not I consider Israelis people, and not Palestinians, or about the differences between you and me.
I am the offspring of immigrants, was an emigrant to the U.S. and am the offspring, moreover, of people displaced and moved for centuries. I do not see any good coming of repatriating, remigrating, en masse, of Palestinians, or any other people, forced to do so by outside forces, as would be the case for Palestinians. It is a different set of circumstances than the one which created Israel was for Israelis. To do it again, now, makes even less sense. Palestinians need jobs, to be able to exercise their professions, to have a right to become citizens where they live. That is what is needed when one migrates, remigrates, emigrates, whatever. One needs to be able to make a new life. Contined forced moving, as if they are chess pieces, does not work. Migration always involves loss of resources, money, friends, relationships, etc. It will be another giant step backwards for Palestinians.
Your observations about me, and other personal opinions, are based on nothing. We have not met.
Not the US Congress nor AIPAC will require you to prove otherwise.
But why is this lobby so strong for any to challenge? I may have an answer to that in my recent blog post, and you are more than welcome to read it for your consideration:
http://hubofmiddleeastpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/06/western-interests-in-middle-east.html
Two more points:
1. Since Israel is a REFUGE for Jewish people including (potentially) Jewish Americans, AIPAC is not entirely (exclusively) advocating for the interests of a foreign nation. Suppose (for example) that a medical procedure was available for people suffering from a particular illness. But it was only available in Switzerland. A USA lobby advocating US federal funding for that clinic might be characterized as representing a foreign nation because teh clinic might be Swiss owned. But such characterization would not be entirely accurate.
2. The above mentioned oil lobbies are not entirely (exclusively) representing the interests of the USA either. Part of their job is to support the actions of certain foreign oil producing nations.
Who will tire first of the injustice that Israel delivers to the Palestinians almost every day by killing, maiming, starving, impoverishing them? All the while giving terrorism a cause celebre'. and costing America and the world their blood
Expressing concerns for the mere existence of Israel and demonstrating a healthy--and much needed--cautious when listening to the Palestinians is not the incarnation of the devil.
Lobbies are the an essential part of the democratic political system.
Lobbyists, by definition, have their lobby's interests in mind. There is nothing "American" about lobbying for or against abortion, or gun rights, or tobacco or oil drilling.
AIPAC acts upon what it perceives as America's interests. You might disagree with the approach seeing America's interests linked to Israel's existence--you are allowed to be wrong--but your suggestions and wording echo dark times.
I am not sure I understood you correctly, do you argue that "Zionists," what ever that means, are contributing to churches and the media to support Israel?
Any illusions of conspiracies, are just sour grapes by a tiny minority whose opinions are simply extreme and unsupported by the concensus.
And hell, if campaign money could win over people's ideologies, you'd be living under president Ron Paul now.
...Channel 10 said Clinton refused the meeting because of her frustration with the Israeli government over the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying she holds Israel accountable.
Lieberman, who lives deep in the West Bank in an illegal Israeli settlement, is against an end to settlement construction, or a return of lands housing settlements to Palestinians under a peace deal
U.S. adults nearly four times as likely to side with Israelis as with Palestinians
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.
Present your survey, then :)
Since the Middle East is a basket case anyway, the best solution would be to simply airlift every Palestinian family into the United States, and give the Westbank and Gaza to Israel. It can be settled completely with people who like it better there than in Brooklyn. That would be a lot cheaper, easier, and less dangerous then the current situation.
Also, would you include airlifting all those not native to the Americas, and their offspring, back to where they came from? I know a few Arabs who would not like it, but, hey, moflard has *good solutions*. Airlifting all foreign Muslim out of Europe might also be an excellent idea.
Moflard's law. Man you have the right solution to all problems.
The best solution is to first integrate and assimilate Palestinians where they are, right now, allowing them to apply for citizenship, normalizing their lives, opportunities and situation, as well as normalizing their relationships with others with whom they share space. In Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, in Egypt. This already is taking place in Israel, and even more so in the U.S. and other countries where they now reside. The ONLY countries where they are being shunned and coralled, are ARAB Countries. Your *solution* is an idiotic one, as is the one Moflard suggests. It would be a *solution* imposed on Palestinians by others. No one, not their Arabic brethren, nor you, nor Moflard, or any others, asks the opinions of Palestinians. You, and Moflard, also *decide* for populations where Palestinians are to be *shipped to*, as if they are cargo, instead of human beings. And then you are fully convinced to be suggesting something *noble*, *relevant* and *solving a problem*. Palestinians must first have a voice in their own fate, and have elected leadership.
What you and Moflard are suggesting is forced displacement. You are both working hard, hand in hand with their oppressive ARAB brethren, to treat Palestinians like cattle, or cargo not human beings.
Fifth Avenue rocked today. Israeli Day Parade, also known as the Salute to Israel Parade, is an annual parade held in New York City each summer to celebrate the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. That's right! right here in the heart of the USA, Fifth Avenue Manhattan was all ablaze with songs and dances, school bands marching, carrying the flags of the US and Israel.
Am Israel Hai!
You are confusing our arguments to be anti-Israel. Far from it. Nobody, including myself denies the right of Israel to exist.
We are arguing for level playing field, end of occupation and apartheid. How can you argue with that?
For the time being, you have enjoyed a support born out of fear and intimidation. But the tide is turning. Which side of history do you want to be on?
and hasbarists say we don't have a partner to negotiate with?
AIPAC, acting based on the call of American society as a whole to take an active part in the affairs of the Republic, has been an effective organization.
It is puzzling why some would want such an organization that enables, legally, young men and women to participate in public policy in the US, to fail.
Is it possible the reason is the fact that Israel is the nation-state of a singled out people, the Jewish people...??
lol...did you get this from megaphone? where is the interest of USA here please enlighten us, we are shelving billions and somehow Israel is gracious enough to take this and do favor to us?
Give it up rosenberg, your rhetoric is old.
MJ has started a trend that it is ok to talk against tyranny and corruption without fear of reprisal. It is ok to criticize an out-of-control and perverted policy of a party that has hijacked an entire country, both here and there.
He will be supported as long as he speaks the truth. Your bully tactics are outdated and ineffective. At least amongst the real people of this country.
BTW- what's the deal with the bully thing? what are you 12?
Says a lot about who pays your wages.
What is just unthinkable is that it is all so in the open and us, the citizens of this country are either oblivious to it, indifferent or downright scared of touching that subject. Either way, the final responsibility falls on us, for we ARE THE PEOPLE that is mentioned in the constitution.
We, the people, can determine whether AIPAC elects our officials or we do, by supporting the elected official that speaks against tyranny and bully tactics in the ME. By re-electing them no matter how much money and intimidation is used by AIPAC.
Lat month demonstration in Congress was, is and will be one of darkest stains on American politics that will not be washed away for generations to come.