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

Thanks to reader Ann for pointing out a penetrating Salon article, The Other Israel Lobby, which describes progress made in forming a counter-AIPAC D.C. lobbying group of Jewish peace groups. The project has variously been called the “Soros Initiative” though the old man himself wisely wishes to avoid having himself and the organization conflated in the minds of the public. It would only give the fledging group more difficulty gaining traction by allowing the detractors to focus their fire on Soros himself rather than the substance of the group’s ideas.

The author, Gregory Levey, is a former speechwriter for Ehud Olmert and the Israeli UN Mission. He sat in a privileged position of power allowing him access both to Israeli and American Jewish politics. Which makes his analysis all the more striking. Levey notes that AIPAC’s power is beginning to wane. He suggests that if the new lobbying effort gets off the ground, AIPAC’s hegemony would be further weakened:

…Most American Jews, and many other American supporters of Israel, do not see eye-to-eye on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the most hawkish, knee-jerk Israel supporters in the U.S. government — even if their presumed leadership, represented by AIPAC, often appears to do so. Moreover, AIPAC’s influence in Washington may soon begin to decline, as a powerful new alliance of left-leaning friends of Israel has begun to emerge, with the express aim of reshaping U.S. strategy on the region’s most intractable problem.

Levey continues by noting AIPAC’s recent defeat in Congress on the Palestinian Anti-Terror Bill which it moved heaven and earth to pass:

AIPAC suffered a relatively small but symbolic defeat this past year — one that may prove to have been a turning point. Earlier in the year, AIPAC put all its muscle behind a congressional bill called the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which even some pro-Israel observers called “draconian.” Going beyond even the Bush administration’s own hard-line stance on the Hamas-led Palestinian government, it would have essentially cut off all American contact with any element of the Palestinian leadership, and hampered the U.S. government’s ability to strengthen Palestinian moderates.

A group of small, left-leaning Jewish lobby groups, including the Israel Policy Forum, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace [Levey refers to Brit Tzedek] and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, banded together to battle AIPAC on the issue, and in the end were successful. A watered-down version of the bill was passed, with what they saw as the problematic language stripped away. An AIPAC official recently told me that AIPAC was satisfied with the softer bill’s passage — but it is quite clear that the incident represented a defeat for the organization.

It was, in fact, an impressive demonstration of what political cooperation and grass-roots advocacy can do. However, for these groups to replicate that success on a larger scale and with more of a substantive effect on U.S. foreign policy, there is a key missing element: real money.

Levey gets into the meat of his story by describing not only Soros’ involvement, but progress made to date in raising funds for the potential new group:

That is where billionaire financier George Soros may come in, along with a group of other left-leaning philanthropists, many of them Jewish. In the relatively close-knit Middle East lobbying community, it is something of an open secret that this past September, Morton Halperin, who served in both the Nixon and Clinton administrations and is now director of U.S. advocacy for Soros’ Open Society Institute, met with a group of lobbyists, political strategists and former politicians who are seeking to create a new well-funded, well-organized, left-leaning Israel lobby, as an alternative to AIPAC.

Several key figures in this group had been active in the effort to quash the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, and include Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former advisor to President Clinton, and Daniel Levy, a former special advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington.

…In late October, Soros himself attended a follow-up meeting, along with liquor magnates Edgar and Charles Bronfman, former Democratic Rep. Mel Levine and others. The idea — by this point labeled the “Soros Initiative” — now began to gain traction and substance, with large sums of money being pledged by several parties. Several people involved have told me that there is now almost enough money firmly on the table to launch the new organization — an eight-figure dollar amount, they say, and that’s just for starters. Several people have told me that there is already work in progress to establish the organization’s core structure and operations.

Having been involved in countless Jewish peace groups over the past 40 years or so, I maintained a guarded optimism about this project grounded in a certain degree of skepticism that it could ever get off the ground. But when I hear that $10-million or more has been pledged to this effort, I know it is serious and not just a flash in the pan.

You knew there would have to be some snarky comments from AIPAC about this new development and sure enough Levey provides them:

An AIPAC insider repeatedly stressed to me that one reason this new group will never be able to compete with AIPAC is because AIPAC is bipartisan, while what he called the “Soros connection” shows that the new group will not be.

I have to laugh when AIPAC supporters try to pass that one off on the rest of us. AIPAC is bipartisan. Really. I guess it’s bipartisan if you concede that pro-war Democrats like Joe Lieberman are AIPAC darlings. Let’s take one issue as an example. AIPAC wants a good little war with Iran. They may not have come out and said it in any policy statement. But you’d have to be deaf and blind not to realize that they’re one of the pressure groups leading the charge in favor of bombing Iran. Democrats are none too happy with this notion. So how is AIPAC bipartisan if the only support it gets for dropping the big one on Iran is from neocons and their Republican friends with a few pro-war Dems thrown in to spice it up a bit?

The snark continues:

The AIPAC insider said that he believes the “Soros Initiative” is little more than a fundraising drive to raise money for some impoverished organizations that “have to define themselves in opposition to something.”

“Impoverished.” Isn’t that an interesting comment coming from an activist for an organization with a $70 million operating budget. I guess the $2-million annual budget of Israel Policy Forum does pale in comparison. But guess what? A $2-million organization gave a $70 million organization one helluva bloody nose during the legislative battle I described above.

Besides, if the pro-peace lobbying group gets off the ground it will likely either subsume the other smaller peace groups helping to found it; or it will leave them aside as it grows into an independent entity. The goal of the initiative is not merely to make IPF an $3 million organization. The goal is to grow the Israeli-Palestinian peace lobby exponentially. It is not meant to make a few “impoverished” groups less impoverished. It is meant to challenge AIPAC’s false claim to represent all of American Jewry when it comes to Israel. That’s a big and worthy ambition.

There is, of course, disagreement among the founders about the approach they should take to AIPAC:

…A contentious issue…is exactly how much the new organization would allow itself to be seen as being in direct opposition to AIPAC. At least four of the players involved have told me that they intend to be an “alternative,” but not an “opposition.” Still, one of those present at the early meetings said that he sees his organization as “the anti-AIPAC.” Levy, meanwhile, said simply that if “there are differences in policy, those will be expressed in one group advocating one thing and another advocating another thing.” This would at least be an improvement, he said, over the past, when Israeli leaders who honestly sought to make peace “pulled their hair out because of the lack of support from the Jewish community in the United States.”

David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center, and a power player in the national Jewish leadership and one of those involved in planning the new group, is petrified of crossing swords with AIPAC. Every time anyone says anything along these lines Saperstein is heard to say: “Shah, shtill!” Nevertheless, it would be entirely unrealistic and unfortunate for anyone associated with this effort to believe that AIPAC and the new lobby will coexist peacefully and harmoniously. If they do, it will mean that there is something very wrong.

Shmuel Rosner has been the journalist who’s spilled the most ink covering the new initiative to create a dovish Jewish lobbying counterpart to Aipac. While he’s provided some light on the issue, much of what’s he’s written has been drivel. Take this characterization of Brit Tzedek, one of the groups participating in the effort:

…There is another problem that the leftist lobby will face: It is located to the left of AIPAC - but also to the left of most of the American (and of course the Israeli) public. Brit Tzedek Veshalom (the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace), for example, is an idealistic, almost revolutionary movement that is succeeding in attracting an increasing flow of young Jews to its ranks. It has the enchantment of youth and a kind of Beatnik-style promise for a rosy future. But make no mistake: its identification with the leftist streams in America, with Soros, will make things difficult for it in its contacts with Congress, certainly in cases when it is under Republican control. It will also have difficulty, undoubtedly, in contacts with the Israeli government. It is doubtful whether this bothers Soros.

Let’s examine that passage more closely. Is Brit Tzedek to the left of the American or Israeli public? Not at all. Brit Tzedek supports an end to West Bank settlements. So do American Jews. It opposes the Occupation. So does a majority of American Jews. Brit Tzedek supports an independent Palestinian state. So do the vast majority of American Jews. Brit Tzedek supports peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. So do the vast majority of American Jews. So, Mr. Know-It-All Rosner, how is Brit Tzedek to the left of the American public?

And as for his comment that BT is an “idealistic, almost revolutionary movement,” the first adjective is true in a sense. But BT is also quite a pragmatic movement. There are issues on which it will NOT take a position. It will not take a position advocating that the U.S. or Israel negotiate with Hamas (even though the majority of American Jews AND Israelis favor this policy). Though to be clear it opposes Aipac-sponsored legislation to criminalize contact with Hamas. And as for calling BT “almost revolutionary,” this is poppycock. What’s so revolutionary about it? In fact, in some of its efforts like Congressional lobbying it is mirroring Aipac itself. What’s so revolutionary about that?

Rosner’s incredulousness about Brit Tzedek is annoying in the extreme:

It has the enchantment of youth and a kind of Beatnik-style promise for a rosy future.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I’m 54 years old and a member of BT. I know many members of the local Seattle chapter. Hardly a youth among us. What the hell is he talking about? And as for the “Beatnik-style promise of a rosy future”–doesn’t anybody edit this guy? As I wrote above, BT’s campaigns are quite pragmatic. Witness its ultimately successful lobbying effort (in league with Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now) against the Palestine Anti-Terror Bill. This was the first time that American Jewish groups stood up in Congress and said No to a cherished Aipac bill. It was a slap in the face to the group; and to Congress it was a slap heard round the world–or at least round its halls. We’re not talking rose-colored glasses here. BT is no hippie gathering of peace and loveniks. On the contrary, we’re mostly activists dedicated to this issue for decades. We’re hardened to disappointment and tragedy. But we go on nevertheless because we believe in peace and what it can do for both warring parties.

Again, Rosner’s contention that BT will have trouble getting traction in Congress because of its so-called “leftist” views is belied by its success a few months ago as I wrote above. All this Rosner nattering is mere Aipac talking points dressed up to look like journalism. Actually, Rosner has probably tidied up the prose a bit since Aipac’s views of BT must be R-rated knowing how those folks deal with their perceived enemies.

As for BT having no influence in a Republican Congress…well, it looks like we might just have a more hospitable Congress than that come November if current polling results are borne out at the ballot box.

And finally, in another piece he wrote about the new lobbying project, Rosner again shows that rather than having his finger on the pulse of American Jewry, he has it squarely up his own rectum:

I stated that the American Jews are dovish - which is true - but didn’t differentiate between their general dovishness and their views on Israel. Some readers protested, saying I should have, and they are right. Surveys show that the views of American Jews are much more mainstream on Israel than they are on internal social issues. AJC’s annual surveys have shown in the past that American Jews usually support the Israeli government’s approach by a 3-1 margin or more.

What he really means to say is that American Jewish LEADERS (like Howard Kohr, Abe Foxman, David Harris and Malcom Hoenlein) are hawkish advocates for Israeli government policy. And in reality when government policy isn’t sufficiently hawkish–as during the Gaza withdrawal–some of those leaders distanced themselves even from Israeli policy. American Jews however, are quite dovish in their views of the conflict. And it is simply false to say that they wholeheartedly support Israeli government policy. Yes, they support Israel the nation. But do they support expanding settlements? No. Do they support the U.S. and Israeli government campaign to isolate and punish Hamas? No, in fact they favor negotiating with Hamas as does the Israeli people. And while American Jews may’ve supported Israel’s efforts to attack Hezbollah and retrieve its hostages, it definitely does not support the punitive war against Lebanon which followed. All of the attitudes I’ve laid out here are borne out by numerous polls, many of which have been linked and discussed here.

Rosner is simply not a credible source when it comes to characterizing the reality of American Jewish discourse regarding Israel. Sure, he can tell you what Aipac or the other fuddy-duddy Jewish groups are thinking. But he can’t tell you what George Soros or Israel Policy Forum or Brit Tzedek is thinking because he doesn’t understand their viewpoint at all. It’s like we’re on the moon and he’s looking at us through a telescope–upside down.

Finally, Rosner ought to look at a Haaretz poll that accompanies his articles on the new group. To the question: “Is it time to form American-Jewish lobby for peace?” Fully 64% of 596 respondents say “Yes.” Before he damns the effort with the faintest of praise as he has done, Rosner ought to take a look at what his own readers are telling him.