Israel Lobby

The Toughest job in Washington: Explaining U.S. policy toward Israel

I had to feel sorry for State Department spokesperson Marie Harf trying to explain U.S. reaction toward Israel’s in-your-face announcement of thousands of new housing units on the West Bank on the eve of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. The U.S. expressed its “serious concerns” and labeled the settlements “illegitimate” — at the same time claiming that Israel was negotiating in good faith.

In the first 20 minutes of this video Herf does her best to dodge the difficult questions and promises to get more information on issues like whether the U.S. considers settlements since 1967 illegitimate or just the recent ones.

The good news is that the atmosphere of the briefing was definitely hostile to Israel and to U.S. complicity in the ongoing dispossession of the Palestinians. Matthew Lee of the Associated Press was particularly incisive in his questioning.  Another reporter, Rosalind Jordan of Al Jazeera mentioned proposed train lines between Israeli settlements that would be closed to the Palestinians.

When you have talk of train lines being brought through to connect one settlement with another and not allowing people who live in between to board them, it… makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to say to their side you have to be patient, we’re trying to make this work– (see Philip Weiss, “Palestinians have to suck it up for segregated train lines and 4000 new settlements –reporters grill State Dep’t

Apartheid by any other name, but not at all the first example of Israeli apartheid. Read more

All you need to know about the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

The Israelis and Palestinians are meeting in Washington, DC with the purpose of establishing a framework for peace talks. Martin Indyk, who has a long history as an operative for the Israel Lobby, will represent the Obama Administration. The following is from an interview with Josh  Ruebner, the national advocacy director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, as reported by Mondoweiss.

It’s definitely a step backwards for the Obama administration. When the Obama administration came to office in 2009, they appointed former Senate majority leader George Mitchell as special envoy for Middle East peace. And that was widely seen as revolutionary within the circle of analysts who look at “peace process” issues, because Mitchell has been the only key figure involved in the “peace process” for the last two decades who doesn’t come from that kind of a background, like Indyk, like Ross, like Aaron David Miller, who are very much part and parcel of the Israel lobby–and who, when they’re not in office, then shuttle back to pro-Israel think tanks. So it was seen as very revolutionary, and in fact the Israel lobby came out very strongly against Mitchell, saying, “we don’t want someone who’s even handed. Even handed is bad. We need to be pro-Israel.”

The problem throughout these past two decades, has been that the United States has acted, in the words of Aaron David Miller, who was a former peace process player and a very high-ranking one at that, that the United States functions as “Israel’s lawyers.”

And if you look at the published memoirs of people like Dennis Ross, who has been a key peace process participant for the last two decades, if you look at what was revealed through WikiLeaks and through the Palestine Papers, which was thousands of documents from inside the Palestinian negotiating team that were leaked to Al Jazeera a couple of years ago, what you’ll find is a very coherent and very straightforward strategy that the United States has pursued regardless of who is the president of the United States. And that is to work with Israel, to try to mold proposals that are to Israel’s benefit, and then to try to ram these proposals down the throat of the Palestinians, and to blame them when they don’t accept them, when they don’t even come close to meeting standards of international law, human rights, and come nowhere close to fulfilling Palestinian self-determination. …

So the fact that Mitchell was seen as unencumbered with this ideological baggage of belonging to these pro-Israel lobbying institutions was seen as a negative in their eyes. So the fact that Obama would consider appointing Indyk to head up this “peace process” in the second term, is really, really a huge step backwards. And you know, I’ll say even though Mitchell was considered to be more even-handed in his approach, actually again, if you look at the Palestine Papers, look at WikiLeaks, and this is something I detail in my book coming up, you’ll see how Mitchell did the exact same thing as a lot of the other pro-Israel peace process officials, and that is twist the arms of the Palestinians into accepting Israeli proposals.

So if Obama thinks that Martin Indyk could do a better job where George Mitchell couldn’t, he’s sadly mistaken, and he’s sadly mistaken if he believes that he can keep appointing individuals from these very pro-Israel ideological perspectives to somehow bring about a just and lasting peace. It’s not going to work. It hasn’t worked in the past, it won’t work in the future. And it really brings to mind Einstein’s definition of insanity. The United States keeps doing the exact same thing over and over again, and somehow expects that it’s going to lead to a different result, and it’s not. It’s only been leading to more Israeli colonization of Palestinian land, which many people would argue is really the point of having a “peace process”–it seems as if Israelis and Palestinians are negotiating towards a peace agreement, that takes a lot of pressure off of Israel, and allows them to continue colonization.

Philip Weiss on Samantha Power

Samantha Power’s nomination as UN Ambassador is not going over well with some in the Israel Lobby. The JTA reports that the hardline Zionist Organization of America is opposed to her. As a neophyte in championing human rights, Power made the mistake of applying the logic of intervention on behalf of human rights to Israel. In response to a question of “what she would do if ‘one party or another” seemed ready to commit genocide. At the time [2002], Israelis and Palestinians were mired in the second intifada.”

“It seems to me at this stage, and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there, you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line,” she said. That meant taking the billions of dollars “serving Israel’s military” and investing it instead in the state of Palestine and a “mammoth protection force.” Power also noted that taking such a step “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.”

What?? Jews have power? And they use it to compromise the rights of the Palestinians? And you’re suggesting funding a military force to protect the Palestinians from the Israelis? Perish the thought. Read more

SNL spoof of Hagel hearings pulled

It’s often said that ridicule is a very potent weapon. Hollywood routinely makes fun of Whites with politically incorrect attitudes. Norman Lear’s Archie Bunker comes to mind, as well as the depiction of neo-Nazis in The Blues Brothers (1980) which I happened upon recently.  But that’s just scratching the surface.

The ridiculous fealty of U.S. politicians to the  Israel Lobby would be a rich vein to mine, and that’s exactly what Saturday Night Live did, in a sketch written by Jim Downey. A video of the dress rehearsal of the skit managed to get out.

The Republicans competition over who loves Israel the most is delicious, and the Lindsay Graham character can’t conceive of the possibility that U.S. interests could differ from Israel’s. Read more

Hagel Wisely Caves in to the Israel Lobby

The viciousness of the Hagel hearings is really amazing, especially the questioning of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Ted Cruz. Graham and Cruz especially were being good soldiers of the Israel Lobby. The exchange that really revealed the power of the Lobby was when Graham asked Hagel to

“name one person, in your opinion, who’s intimidated by the Israel lobby in the United States Senate.”

“I don’t know,” Hagel ultimately conceded.

Graham continued his interrogation, asking Hagel to, “Name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby?”

“I have already stated that I regret the terminology,” Hagel protested.

“But you said back then, it makes us do dumb things,” Graham pressed. “You can’t name one senator intimidated, now give me one example of the dumb things that we’re pressured to do up here.”

“Well, I can’t give you an example,” Hagel admitted.

Obviously Hagel  was intimidated. There was no way he would name names, even though it’s common knowledge that anyone actively opposing the Israel Lobby should be prepared to see his opponent in the next election run a very well-funded operation. More importantly, Hagel would never be so bold as to name the war in Iraq as Exhibit A for a “dumb thing” that the Senate (including Hagel) was stampeded into by the Israel Lobby, its megaphone in the media,  and its operatives in the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Feith, Shulsky; see here, p. 40ff) supplying false intelligence to the hopelessly naive President Bush. Such things are still completely off the table in polite conversation.  Read more

Obama versus the Israel Lobby, Act 2

Jim Lobe reports that senior White House officials have leaked information that Chuck Hagel “was likely” to be the Obama Administration’s nominee for Secretary of Defense when Leon Panetta leaves. What’s not surprising is that the neocons have gone into full-on attack mode, including charges of anti-Semitism. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens complains because Hagel once said “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people [in Congress].” Read more

Maureen Dowd on Slithering Neocons: Why Isn’t the ADL Outraged?

Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column dripping with what is routinely labeled “anti-Semitism” by the ADL and other guardians of political correctness  (“Neocons Slither Back“). Most commentators (see here) focused on her claim that Dan Senor is Mitt Romney’s guru on all things related to Israel. Jeffrey Goldberg weighs in:

Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews. (Later, Hounshell wrote, “(A)mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK.”)

This sinister stereotype became a major theme in the discussion of the Iraq war, when critics charged that Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, among other Jewish neoconservatives, were actually in charge of Bush Administration foreign policy. This charge relegated George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley and the other Christians who actually set policy to the status of puppets.

Of course, no one would say there was anything sinister about saying that Karl Rove had inordinate influence on Bush on domestic issues. It’s only a problem when a Jew is said to have influence; the implicit (ridiculous) theory is that no Jew could ever have a strong influence on a president, especially on issues related to Jewish ethnic interests—prototypically Israel. As usual, the actual facts are irrelevant. Simply saying that a Jew has such influence crosses the line—even though Dowd never mentions that Senor is a Jew. Read more