Aipac | Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Posts Tagged ‘aipac’

Swiss Public Radio Interview on American Jews and Israel, Aipac, and the Lobby

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Max Akermann, U.S. correspondent for Swiss public radio, interviewed me for a report he was preparing on the state of the American Jewish relationship with Israel in the run-up to the Aipac national policy conference. The segment talks also talks about J Street and other progressive developments in the American Jewish community. If you understand German, I recommend you give the four minute segment a listen (audiostream requires RealPlayer). I’m delighted to share the stage in this piece with Henry Siegman.

I hope I’m not sounding like a broken record when I point out that European media are far more interested in what progressive American Jews have to say about the Israeli-Arab conflict than American media, including Jewish media. I’ve been interviewed by Dutch, Swiss and Turkish reporters. Not once by a major American newspaper or NPR.

Tags: aipac, american-israel-public-affairs-committee, american-jews, israel-lobby, Max Akermann, swiss public radio
Posted in Mideast Peace | 9 Comments »

Henry Waxman Israel-Baits Jane Harman Opponent

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

Everyone knows about Joe McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s. Nowadays, the pro-Israel right in this country engages in Israel-baiting especially when it comes to electoral politics. Every two years the Republican Jewish Coalition gets some rich Jewish chump like Shelly Adelson to ante up a million or two to shrey from the rooftops that the Democrats are soft on Israel. The stunt works as well for them as Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme ended up working for him. Many of you will remember the RJC and its affiliated henchmen taking out ads in the Jewish press arguing that Barack Obama was anti-Israel because of an insufficient deference for some Aipac-touted position or other. We’ve come to expect it of the Republicans and the Israel lobby. It’s their MO.

But hearing Israel-baiting (the Jewish equivalent of red-baiting) from the heart of the Democratic Party is a new one on me. Knowing of M.J. Rosenberg’s distaste for Jane Harman and her slavish devotion to Aipac, I suggested that he look up Marcy Winograd’s progressive primary challenge against Harman. He replied, obliquely mentioning something atrocious Henry Waxman and Lynne Woolsey had pulled. It took me a while to find it, but I did.

Those of you who follow my blog regularly may remember that I’ve taken on Jane Harman several times over the years as one of Aipac’s most trusted Congressional flunkies. A few years ago she even enlisted Haim Saban to pressure Nancy Pelosi to name her chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman knew that Pelosi knew that if Saban wanted the former in that job he held an enormous financial sword over the House Speaker’s head since the wealthy Israeli-American was a major donor to the Party. For a federal official to ask anyone to intervene on her behalf with another federal official in this fashion is illegal and I thought she at least should’ve been indicted. A separate story came out that as part of an intelligence operation the FBI heard an Israeli agent of influence ask Harman to intercede for a favor.

Thanks to her personal wealth ($112-million and 3rd wealthiest Congress member), political sway and Israel lobby connections she managed to dodge the bullet–this time.

Now, Henry Waxman, the dean of the powerful California Congressional delegation has taken out after Marcy Winograd, Harman’s primary challenger with a crackerjack bit of Israel-baiting:

Recently, I came across as astounding speech by Marcy Winograd, who is running against our friend Jane Harman…Ms. Winograd’s views on Israel I find repugnant in the extreme.

What alarmed Waxman so much? The fact that Winograd is a progressive Jew who says, along with many other progressive Israelis I might add, that the time for a two-state solution has passed due to Israeli intransigence. The fact that Winograd opposes U.S. aid that supports Israeli “institutional racism.” The fact that she doesn’t want to be associated with “occupation or extermination.”

To be clear, my views aren’t the same as Winograd’s. I’m still hanging on to the possibility for a two-state solution though the prospects grow dimmer by the day. But I completely reject the notion that such views are “repugnant” or beyond the Jewish pale or whatever. In fact, we already have over 400 members of Congress who are clones of Waxman’s and Harman’s pro-Israel views. To have one member of Congress who refuses to toe the Aipac line would not undermine the republic.

Waxman fulminates further:

…The notion that a member of Congress could hold such views is alarming. Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that U.S. policy be based on rock-solid support for our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

In Winograd’s foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist. In Winograd’s vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights…Jane’s victory will represent a clear repudiation of these views…

I ask you to join me in showing maximum support for Jane…

This bit of hasbara is standard Aipac boilerplate. Waxman can probably recite it backwards and forwards and does so thrice a day just as Orthodox Jews recite their daily prayers. A few problems though: the only democracy in the Middle East leaves out Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, and…the Palestine Authority which duly elected Hamas in a democratic election. A bit of pro-Israel myopia seems to have crept into Waxman’s argument. And it seems to me that arguing that Palestinians don’t respect “democracy or human rights” ignores the fact that Israel has a few challenges on the human rights front itself. As for democracy, we can argue about the nature of Israeli democracy, but Hamas actually won a democratic election. So ignoring Palestinian democracy is at best a glaring omission.

Winograd has drafted her own response to Waxman here. It reads in part:

Like you, I am intimately aware of our Jewish history. On my mother’s side, my great-grandparents escaped the Russian Pogroms to make a better life for themselves in Europe. On my father’s side, my great-grandparents were killed in the Jewish Holocaust of Nazi Germany. Because of our collective experience with persecution, it behooves us to stand in opposition to persecution anywhere and everywhere, rather than sanctify reductionist state policies that cast all Jews as victims who can only thrive in a segregated society. Furthermore, we must stand in explicit opposition to the Israeli persecution of the Palestinians; the brutal blockade of Gaza, an act of war by international standards, denying children clean water, food, and medicine.

We are better than that…

To stop the suffering of the Palestinian people and to end the rocket attacks on Israelis near the border, I am ready and willing to accept a negotiated peace agreement that adheres to principles of justice and recognizes a two-state solution based on withdrawal of illegal settlements to the 1967 borders or a mutually-agreed exchange of territory.

To be fully candid, I think Winograd is in a tough spot here as a Congressional candidate. If you’ve endorsed a one-state solution you’ve potentially marginalized yourself among your Jewish constituency and other pro-Israel forces. I wish this wasn’t the case. But it is.

All that being said, I think times are changing and that Winograd should confront this slightly differently than she has. I think she should say look, no one in Congress gets to determine whether there will a one or two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president and secretary of state and the parties themselves will make those determinations. The main thing any member of Congress should stand for is dignity, respect and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. The main thing any member of Congress should oppose is any legislation that demeans or diminishes the rights of either Israelis or Palestinians.

Marcy Winograd hasn’t spent 30 years in the Beltway attending Aipac briefings and Israel junkets. She hasn’t been fed the standard Likud line as have Congressmembers Harman and Waxman which parrots back Israel right or wrong talking points. For all the time her opponent has been in Washington, Marcy’s actually been living with her middle-class Los Angeles family dealing with the travails of everyday folk as a teacher and community activist. She hasn’t had a chance to develop the polished vacuous statements churned out by the Waxman-Harman political machine.

But you know what–Marcy Winograd spoke from the heart in her All Saint’s Church speech out of a sense of pain as a Jew at the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians. And if that’s a hanging offense for Harman’s buddies at Aipac, so be it. Nothing she said in her speech can be remotely construed as hostile to Israeli Jews or Israel’s security. In addition, there are tens of thousands of Israelis who were shocked and scandalized, as she was, by the terrible suffering inflicted by the IDF on Gaza. So Congressman Waxman, if you smear Marcy Winograd for caring too much about Gazan suffering, you’re smearing those courageous Israelis who believe that what their government and armed forces did their was wrong regardless of the reason for doing so.

Maybe on their next Aipac junket, Harman and Waxman will visit more than the Knesset and meet with other leaders than Bibi and Shimon. Maybe they will meet with Israeli human rights NGOs like B’Tselem and Peace Now. Maybe, God forbid they’ll visit the West Bank and Gaza, as Congressmembers Baird and Ellison and Senator Kerry did last year. Maybe they’ll try to see how the other half lives in the Middle East. And then maybe they’ll understand that what Marcy Winograd believes isn’t so outrageous after all. In fact, she has nothing to apologize for. If anything, it is Harman and Waxman and their slavish relationship with Aipac who have some explaining to do.

Returing to Winograd’s letter above, it also contains a cogent denunciation of the inadequacies of Jane Harman and her betrayal of values that most members of the Democractic Party hold dear.

If you feel like me that Marcy Winograd is not treif and that she represents a true progressive voice that should be in Congress, I hope you’ll join me in supporting her in any way you can (but especially with a financial contribution).

Tags: aipac, haim saban, jane harman, marcy winograd, one state solution, two-state-solution
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 31 Comments »

Things You Never Knew about Aipac

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

If someone asked you what Aipac’s mission was you might say: lobbying for Israel; bringing politicians and journalists to Israel; promoting Israel’s interests in American society; strengthening Zionism among college students. But would you ever in your wildest dreams answer that one of Aipac’s missions was to side with Indian Hindu extremists in their holy war against Islam? I thought I knew about a lot about Aipac. But even I was bowled over when I read this from M.J. Rosenberg (he should know since he worked for the group for 10 years or more):

AIPAC actually works closely with Hindu religious parties in the Indian government to teach them how to lobby effectively on Kashmir and the rest of the Hindu nationalist agenda. In fact, the Israel lobby trained the Indians on how to lobby effectively.

This takes the chief Israel-lobby organization far afield from its supposed mandate to promote Israel’s interests in the U.S. How can you possibly argue that taking the side of Hindu nationalists in their fight against India’s Muslims and Pakistan is part of a pro-Israel agenda? Unless of course, the cause of Israel must now be yoked to any cause that slimes Muslims. Is that what Aipac’s neocon agenda has come down to? Jewish Jihad against Islam?

This 2002 Forward article fleshes out a lot of M.J.’s claim about the closeness of the Israel lobby to Hindus nationalists.

H/t to reader John Dickerson.

Tags: aipac, islamophobia, israel lobby alliance with hindu nationalists, jewish jihad
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 14 Comments »

J Street Supports Iran Sanctions

Friday, October 16th, 2009

This will be one of those posts I write periodically in which I oppose J Street. Howard Berman’s committee is marking up an Iran sanctions bill on October 28th and J Street has announced its support with this statement:

J Street supports the thoughtful and nuanced approach to Iran sanctions legislation articulated yesterday by Chairman Howard Berman.

We agree that it is a vital interest of the United States, Israel and the entire Middle East to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.

Further, we agree with the Chairman’s stated policy preferences for achieving that objective.

J Street’s first choice – as it is for President Obama and Chairman Berman- is to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomatic means. We too strongly support the Obama Administration’s efforts to engage Iran and hope for promising follow-through to the first round of talks in Geneva on October 1.

However, should engagement not produce the desired results, we too believe that the United States should seek hard-hitting multilateral sanctions through the United Nations Security Council. If that course of action proves impossible, then the U.S. should work to build the broadest possible international coalition to back such steps.

The imposition of unilateral sanctions, without UN approval or the support of allies, should be, as the Chairman himself says, a last resort.

J Street supports the Chairman’s intention to mark up the bill on October 28th and to give the President further time to pursue our preferred options.

I take issue with J Street’s claim that sanctioning Iran will have any impact whatsoever on the country. As Roger Cohen said last night on Charlie Rose, Iran has had years to figure out ways of getting around sanctions. Stopping the flow of refined petroleum into Iran not only will not harm Iran, it won’t work. If we honor a sanctions regime, our allies Russia and China will not and Iran will get everything it needs, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation and making us look foolish. In fact, Cohen noted that the only party in Iran which benefits from sanctions are the Revolutionary Guards who control the smuggling routes that bring embargoes products into the country. So if you want to support the hardline regime, sanctions are the best way to do so.

It should also be noted that sanctions are a path endorsed by the Israeli government as a first step toward a military attack (when they don’t work). Yesterday, Israel’s deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, noted Israel’s fondest wish would be regime change in Iran. So the Berman approach, while not intentional, could easily lead down a slippery slope toward the use of force.

I’m frankly shocked that J Street might be asking its supporters to lobby on behalf of an Iran sanctions bill on October 28th. If you were planning to participate in the lobbying day on the Hill I hope you’ll make known to J Street that you won’t cooperate with this part of its agenda. There are many useful issues to discuss with lawmakers when you meet with them. Among those, supporting Obama administration policy on Israel and the settlements and on diplomatic engagement with Iran. I suggest sticking to these issues and not roaming far afield into territory best left to Aipac (which also brought its members to Capitol Hill to lobby for Iranian sanctions during its national conference).

Clearly, under tremendous fire from the Israel lobby, J Street is eager to stake out safe pro-Israel territory so it can lay claim to the center of the political spectrum instead of the far left, with which the right-wing wishes to associate it. But we should be careful in such tactical approach not to fall into the bad habits of our political opponents like Aipac, which also support sanctions. We are different than they are. When we agree with Aipac it’s great to note that, but this shouldn’t be one of those rare times.

I note that Americans for Peace Now has taken a more principled position and opposes the bill. As J Street grows in strength and prepares to consolidate with Brit Tzedek while Israel Policy Forum faces severe financial problems, the divergence between J Street and APN proves why there should not be only one Jewish peace group in this country. If J Street can’t manage to take a progressive position on a particular issue we need a group like APN which can.

Tags: aipac, howard berman, iran sanctions, j street, roger-cohen, sanctions will not work
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 4 Comments »

Aipac Pressures Israeli Ambassador to Punish J Street

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Apparently, the Israeli embassy has moved slightly off its position rejecting an invitation from J Street to the ambassador to attend the group’s national conference later this month. Nathan Guttman reports in The Forward that “Jewish groups” have exerted great pressure on Michael Oren not to attend the event allegedly because J Street has “attacked” them. Of course, this is totally untrue and J Street’s opponents never present any evidence of specific individuals associated with the organization doing or saying anything in the way of attacking another Jewish group. Besides, it’s quite laughable for these groups to be so sullen towards the progressive Jewish lobby by claiming it doesn’t “play well with others.” In truth, it is the Israel lobby itself that feels its turf encroached on by the new kid on the block. It is they who don’t like the competition and want to shut the new guy out. It’s classic commercial behavior. Reminds me, in fact, of a N.Y. Times story of how NYC food vendors go out of their way to sabotage the competition when it attempts to encroach on their traditional selling locations.

I have learned through a reliable source that the lobbying against J Street is coming from none other than Aipac. It should surprise no one that this is the case. Josh Block, if you’re reading this, call me to deny this and I’ll be happy to print your denial. But I think most of the rest of us know different. This surreptitious behavior follows the Aipac M.O. They want to wound their perceived enemies but refuse to leave their fingerprints on the weapon.

[UPDATE: Josh Block must use Google Alert because I received an e mail from him like clockwork. It was not only a denial it was a very convincing, strenuously demonstrative denial:

What you write is an absolute, flat out lie. It can only be based in your or someone else's fantasy, or perhaps paranoia.

If you care at all about accuracy or choosing fact over fiction, you will take it down or remove any reference to AIPAC.

Aipac's denial is duly noted.]

Guttman quotes the embassy spokesperson relaying the Israeli government’s slightly more nuanced position toward the conference:

“We decided to move ahead in a measured and cautious way,” the spokesman said, adding that the embassy has yet to make a final decision on whether Oren will speak at the upcoming J Street conference.

One can only hope that petulance will not vanquish common sense on this matter. Oren and his boss, Bibi, don’t have to like J Street. But they have to accord them a minimal level of respect unless they want to brand themselves as ideological extremists before the entire American Jewish community. Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street is playing this very well having extended a respectful personal invitation to Oren both by letter and in the pages of the rightist Jerusalem Post. The ball’s in Oren’s court. I hope he doesn’t muff it. Letting Howard Kohr determine the Israeli government’s position toward J Street is preposterous. I hope it won’t happen.

Eric Alterman has an excellent op ed in today’s Times. The money quote is this:

Commentary’s Noah Pollak called J Street contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel; James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby; Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel. Perhaps, but it is at least equally plausible to view the intemperance of their language as evidence of panic. The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate appear to be numbered, and with good reason.

…So the paradox is that while American Jews remain committed liberals — they voted overwhelming for Barack Obama…— they fund and support a neoconservative-dominated lobby when it comes to the Middle East.

Jerry Haber and I will be hosting a progressive blogger session at the J Street conference on Monday, October 26th at 12:30PM. If you’d like to hear me, Jerry, Phil Weiss, Kung Fu Jew, Matt Duss, Helena Cobban, Ray Hanania and Laila el-Haddad talk on the issues facing Israel-Palestine bloggers, come by and join us. Our event is NOT officially sponsored by J Street nor is anything said by the bloggers endorsed by it. We are all independent.

Tags: aipac, howard kohr, israeli may appear at national conference, j street, jeremy-ben-ami, michael oren israel amabassador, nathan-guttman
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 6 Comments »

Israeli Diplomatic Offensive Sells Iranian Threat in U.S.

Friday, May 1st, 2009

That Israel’s government sees Iran and its nuclear program as an ominous threat to Israel’s existence is not news. That Israel makes this view known to American political leaders is also not news. But the extent of the campaign, its intrusiveness, and the forms it has taken might make people sit up and take notice.

Jeremy Issacharoff, Israel’s deputy chief of mission at the D.C. embassy, recently wrote a dire op-ed piece, Iran Must Be Stopped, for the Washington Times in which he advances the rather dubious notion of Iran as an aggressive regional power eager to dominate the region. Here is a sampling of his fevered prose:

Iran is placing itself in a position where it could severely impact the flow of global energy supplies and pursue a destabilizing, hegemonic role in the region.

This serves the readership of the Washington Times well though I’m not sure it will persuade anyone outside its orbit.

He attempts to argue that Iranian influence could prove decisive in Gaza in support of Hamas. In truth, while Iran clearly supports Hamas, the level of such support has been questioned by analysts. No doubt Iran has made attempts to support Hamas and will continue to do so. But how MUCH support this amounts to and of how much benefit it is to Hamas are open questions (though not to Issacharoff).

This essay is part of a media offensive to awaken America to the imminent threat Iran poses to the world.

How far Israel might be willing to go in pursuing its claims against Iran can be seen in this passage from Issacharoff:

Any overall strategy regarding Iran should be a combination of red-line diplomacy accompanied by an international determination to use other means should diplomacy fail.

In his column, the author makes clear that he believes diplomacy has not worked and doubts that it can. Thus, at the end of the day, only one option remains viable from Israel’s perspective: a military solution.

Israel predicts Iran will get a bomb sometime this year, which is wildly at variance with other intelligence estimates from this country and other sources.

Dennis Ross’ appointment is undoubtedly satisfying to the Iran hawks in Israel and elsewhere and it will ensure that Israel’s perspective will be felt in policy discussions.

On a different subject, Forbes Businesswire reports that the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy has filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Trade Representative revealing that a business group, the U.S. Bromine Alliance, accused Aipac and the Israeli government of being in possession of a secret U.S. government report containing privileged commercial secrets about production of a flame retardant chemical compound TBBPA. If Aipac will collude with the Israelis to steal commercial secrets why do we doubt that Steve Rosen would do the same regarding government documents about Iran policy with Larry Franklin’s help??

Tags: aipac, israel warns of iranian threat to u.s.
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 26 Comments »

Rep. Harman Conspires With ‘Israeli Agent’ to Aid Alleged Aipac Spies

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Sometimes I’m really jealous of Phil Weiss. Though we have a different take on lots of issues related to Jewish identity we often comment on the same or similar aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict. And often he gets there first, which is what a good journalist does.

This happened yesterday when he caught the amazing Congressional Quarterly expose of Rep. Jane Harman captured red-handed on an NSA wiretap colluding with an Israeli “agent” to get a reprieve for alleged Aipac spies, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen. The quid pro quo for Harman was the agent would arrange for powerful people to put in a good word for her with Nancy Pelosi in Harman’s campaign to become chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Though Harman vehemently denies the charges, it’s hard to argue with the supporting circumstantial evidence. In 2006, I reported that Haim Saban, a wealthy pro-Israel Democratic donor did precisely what Harman had requested from the Israeli agent. According to the N.Y. Times, he threatened to withdraw all financial support for Pelosi unless she named Harman chair of the committee. No wonder Pelosi didn’t take kindly to being swatted around.

She was so ticked off by the blitz that it backfired and she put Harman in a deep freeze. The latter never got the gold prize she’d sought. In addition, the NSA had informed Pelosi of the wiretap and its contents so the House Speaker probably already knew about Harman’s collusion; and it couldn’t have made her happy to say the least.

When the NSA presented the evidence to Justice there was a debate about whether to pursue an investigation against Harman. Ultimately, Alberto Gonzales decided not to do so. But the reason why is tantalizing. The N.Y. Times NSA warrantless wiretapping story was about the break and the Bushites needed every hand on deck. Gonzales knew (how?) that Harman could be expected to support the Administration position and indeed she did so. And Helena Cobban notes it was the very same NSA which she defended so vociferously which captured her perfidy. Ah, delicious irony!

So the question becomes: how did Gonzales know this? Did he or anyone associated with the administration contact Harman directly and ask for the NSA support as a quid pro quo for dropping the investigation?

The CQ story reveals another bombshell that will not make Bill Keller and N.Y. Times senior editors look very good. When the Times originally planned to publish the NSA wiretap story just before the 2004 election, guess which senior House Democrat lobbied them not to publish? You guessed it. So we must ask why in God’s name did the Time sit on this story for two entire years on the word of a compromised Aipac stooge like Harman? Bill Keller claims in today’s Times that she wasn’t a factor in his decision to delay publication:

“She did not speak to me,” Mr. Keller said, “and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision.”

Yet the fact that he did exactly as she suggested might lead one to believe otherwise.

The ironies and juiciness of this story are beyond measure. Though the NSA is claiming the wiretap which produced this material was authorized and not warrantless (can we believe anything they tell us anyway?), isn’t it ironic that the Patriot Act may’ve made a victim of a powerful member of the House intelligence establishment? I thought the NSA’s mission was to go after Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. Though Harman apparently wasn’t a target of the NSA investigation (apparently the Israeli agent was), isn’t it also ironic that an intelligence maven would get caught like this with her panties down. Shouldn’t someone like Harman have known better than to consort with Israeli agents of influence?

I haven’t heard any word on the identity of the Israeli “agent” who colluded with Harman. But I have one possible nominee. After Weissman and Rosen were arrested, an Israeli embassy official, Naor Gilon, beat a hasty retreat from these shores. It quickly became clear that Gilon was the person to whom Rosen and Weissman intended to give Larry Franklin’s purloined top secret documents. So could Gilon be the alleged agent? And isn’t it possible that NSA wiretapping of Gilon may’ve been what led the government to the Weissman/Rosen/Franklin spy nest?

Avigdor Lieberman–irony of ironies–has just named the very same Gilon as his number two at the foreign ministry. In Israel, if you successfully spy on the U.S. you’re rewarded with plum assignments and cabinet jobs. I’m fairly certain that this is also Lieberman’s way of tweaking Obama, saying “you think you’re going to isolate me? I’ll show you. I’ll make my right hand man someone who has made a fool out of your government.” It’s twisted, but knowing how Yvet thinks–entirely possible.

Ron Kampeas and others speculate, based on the original Time Magazine report on this story back in 2006, that Haim Saban may’ve been both the individual who lobbied Pelosi on Harman’s behalf AND that the suspected Israeli agent whom the NSA was wiretapping. Given that Saban is a U.S. citizen, I’m not sure why the NSA would be wiretapping him. Wouldn’t this be something the FBI should be doing since they’re the domestic intelligence agency? Unless Saban is being investigated for his collusion with Israeli agents to influence U.S. policy or steal government documents, etc.

Returning to Harman, let’s not forget that she is one the greatest beneficiaries of the largess of Aipac’s donor community and received more funding than almost any other House member from pro-Israel PACs. She is Aipac’s go-to gal on the Hill. A veritable pro-Israel martinet.

How does all this effect the Rosen Weissman trial, which was thought by many to have been on its last legs given the judge’s tough anti-government rulings? Perhaps it will give the judge pause. One can only hope. Those of us who know Aipac and what it’s capable of, understand that Rosen and Weissman were likely gaming the system in Israel’s favor. This is true of Aipac’s impact on almost everything it does.

M.J. Rosenberg speculates on the motivation for leaking this story now. He says that it may relate to the new Israeli rightist government and provide Obama with extra ammunition in his battle against it and the Israel lobby’s future rearguard attempts to derail U.S. Mideast peace efforts. I’m not sure, but anything’s possible.

Tags: aipac, haim saban, israeli dupe, jane harman, lobbying for reduced charges against steve rosen
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 16 Comments »

Palin’s Church: Israelis Killed by Terror ‘Judged for Unbelief’

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Sarah Palin has a Jewish problem. Hers is even worse than John Hagee’s. Despite his fire and brimstone vision of the End Times and concomitant deaths of Jewish unbelievers, at least he can say that he’s friendly with right-wing Jews due to his scorched earth philosophy about Israeli territorial concessions. Palin doesn’t even have that going for her.

Now, Politico’s Ben Smith reports that only two weeks ago Palin attended her local church to hear Jews for Jesus executive director David Brickner excoriate Jews for not accepting Him as their Lord and saviour:

Brickner’s mission has drawn wide criticism from the organised Jewish community, and the Anti-Defamation League accused them in a report of “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception”.

Brickner … described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who haven’t embraced Christianity.

“Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It’s very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment – you can’t miss it.”

I’m not going to make the same mistake anti-Obamaites made in attributing the Rev Jeremiah Wright’s views to Obama. She doesn’t necessarily believe that all Jews are going to rot in Hell for not accepting Jesus. But I think it’s entirely legitimate to ask what she was doing there while a speaker whom Jews view as anathema was expressing such ideas. And it’s appropriate to insist that she not participate in such forums in the future and that she dissociate herself from the views she heard that day. So far, not a peep from her. I guess that means it’s only a capital offense for Democrats to listen to racist, intolerant sermons in church. Republican evangelicals must have the Protestant equivalent of the papal indulgence to get themselves off the hook.

Palin is already “right with God.” Now she desperately wants to get right with Israel and the Jews. On Tuesday Palin, chaperoned by Joe Lieberman, had her first pro forma meeting with Aipac’s national board of directors at her Minneapolis hotel, where the campaign has sequestered her:

A campaign official … said it [the meeting] was geared towards putting the American Jewish community at ease over her understanding of US-Middle East relations.

“That’s obviously going to be an issue,” the aide said. “It’s not like being the senator from New York, obviously. But these aren’t issues that are off her radar.”

Palin … expressed her “heartfelt support for Israel” and spoke of the threats it faces from Iran and others, the campaign official said.

“We had a good productive discussion on the importance of the US-Israel relationship, and we were pleased that governor Palin expressed her deep, personal, and lifelong commitment to the safety and well-being of Israel,” Aipac spokesman Josh Block said. “Like Senator McCain, the vice-presidential nominee understands and believes in the special friendship between the two democracies and would work to expand and deepen the strategic partnership in a McCain/Palin administration.”

This is clearly boilerplate stuff. And you’ll notice that the story was fed to the press by spokespeople instead of the candidate herself. This is a further indication of nervousness on the campaign’s part in having Palin present her own views on the issue (if she has any).

Clearly, McCain’s people worry that Palin has as little understanding of Israel as she has of other major foreign policy issues. She’s never visited Israel. Her state contains a grand total of 6,000 Jews. It would be legitimate to question whether, at this point, she “gets” many issues of concern to the Jewish community. And her evangelical background isn’t going to persuade Jews otherwise. Davke l’hefech, as they say in Hebrew.

This is through no fault of her own. I wouldn’t expect a politician from Alaska to know her borsht from her bialy or her two-state solution from her Separation Wall. But the fault lies with McCain, who chose Palin without thinking through the impact this would have on his campaign in the Jewish community. Or perhaps he did make such a calculation and Jews were judged expendable compared to evangelicals. Either way, it doesn’t say much for McCain.

Tags: aipac, david brickner, jewish for jesus, palin church says jews judged for unbelief
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 12 Comments »