Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘george-soros’

AIPAC Blows Smoke…Again

Wednesday, January 24th, 2007

Gidon Remba, president of the Chicago Peace Now chapter, provides a cogent analysis of the negative role AIPAC is playing in hindering possible negotiations between Syria and Israel. In this critique he alludes to a column he wrote in November in Haaretz that spoke to the new Soros Initiative to create a progressive American Jewish lobbying alternative to AIPAC. But what interests me is AIPAC’s response to this column penned by the group’s Israel director; because it contains all the wonderful ‘smoke and mirrors’ rhetoric the group uses to prettify and obfuscate its true mission and the tactics used to accomplish its goals:

Rather than seeking to impose its own agenda or beliefs, AIPAC works with the elected leaders of both nations, regardless of their political party. In Washington, our work is not only with the administration, but with both parties in the House and Senate – regardless of which party controls those houses. AIPAC is a consensus organization and the diverse makeup of its membership is a welcome sign to American lawmakers that we represent the consensus view in the American pro-Israel community.

Oh, no. AIPAC surely doesn’t “impose its own agenda or beliefs” on anyone. Tell that to those legislators who’ve bucked AIPAC and seen political action committee dollars flying into the coffers of their primary or general election opponents. Tell that to Betty McCollum who was accused by a local Minneapolis AIPAC layperson of supporting terrorism because she opposed the group’s Palestine Anti-Terror Bill. And if AIPAC “works with elected leaders…regardless of their political party” can she explain why one of AIPAC’s most beloved retired directors spearheaded an ad campaign by the Republican Jewish Coalition to discredit Democrats as being anti-Israel?

“AIPAC is a consensus organization?” Since when? Unless, that is you consider a Likud nationalist political analysis of Israeli politics to be the “consensus” position. “Diverse membership?” Really? Let’s consider the political outlook of AIPAC. It’s true there are members of various political stripes. But everything that matters regarding AIPAC is directed by the lay leadership and staff. And these individuals–while they may spring from a variety of Jewish groups like AJC or ADL–their politics is invariably rightist when it comes to Israel.

How about this distortion: “we represent the consensus view in the American pro-Israel community.” Not true. AIPAC’s views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are in direct contradiction of the views of the majority of American Jews as proven by public opinion surveys. The majority of American Jews are willing to see a Palestinian state NOW. Not AIPAC, though they’ll mouth some platitudes about how they’d like to see one one of these days. The majority of American Jews are prepared to say good riddance to most of the West Bank settlements. Not so AIPAC. The majority of American Jews are opposed to military action against Iran. Not so AIPAC. I could go on and on. So don’t you believe the mendacious nonsense which their leaders pass off as Torah l’Moshe MiSinai (“Torah according to Moses on Sinai”).

Alas, there’s more:

AIPAC has always understood its appropriate role, which is not to advance a prescriptive agenda. It is the voters in Israel and the United States who decide which governments to elect and what policies to follow. AIPAC’s mandate is not to pressure the Israeli government to follow a particular course.

AIPAC has NEVER understood its appropriate role. It has never understood that there are many views both within Israel and the American Jewish community about how to approach the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Instead of embracing the diversity it claims to represent it ALWAYS represents a narrow nationalist perspective. It has always advanced a prescriptive agenda. Why else would it be urging the Administration to bomb Iran? And let’s look at the military option there. Is that a “consensus” position either in the U.S. or among American Jews? Certainly not. Is it even a consensus position among Israelis? Arguably, there is more support for it in Israel but I’d hesitate to say even there it is a majority or consensus position. No, AIPAC is a powerhouse of neocon (U.S.)/nationalist (Israel) ideology.

Now comes the real smoke up your you know what:

AIPAC has also supported both House and Senate versions of legislation that would block all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until its Hamas-controlled government meets the standards set by the international community – to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

There are also provisions in the legislation which create a carve-out for certain kinds of assistance to Fatah leader and PA Chairman Mohammed Abbas. This was a complex piece of legislation authored by Congressional leaders for a complex period in Palestinian-Israeli relations.

AIPAC did not just “support” the Palestine Anti-Terror Bill she refers to here. The group WROTE the legislation for Pete’s sake! Singer acknowledges it is a “complex piece of legislation.” But what she’s really concealing is that as originally written it wasn’t complex at all. It was a draconian piece of legislation which would’ve criminalized any type of U.S. contact with any Palestinian entity which could broadly be construed as having any affiliation whatsoever with Hamas. It became “complex” because it was essentially entirely rewritten due to the extraordinary lobbying effort by Jewish progressive groups who succeeded in watering down key provisions of the bill. To top it all off, when Bush signed the bill he essentially announced that he would observe those parts of the legislation with which he agreed and ignore everything else. What a hollow AIPAC victory that was!

AIPAC will continue in its fundamental mission to ensure that…the two allies continue to stand together against common threats and work together to seek paths for a comprehensive and a secure peace.

I get the “standing together against common threats.” That means that AIPAC will continue to advocate extremist-hostile positions against Israel’s neighbors. But how does she have the chutzpah to claim AIPAC will “seek paths for a comprehensive and secure peace?” What has AIPAC ever done to advocate peace? And please don’t give me the pablum about accepting the creation of a Palestinian state because neither AIPAC nor Israel has done anything substantive to really further such a goal. Really, name a single thing the group has ever done for peace. I’m waiting…just as I thought. Because there isn’t any.

Let’s just take a recent development for an example. Akiva Eldar of Haaretz broke the amazing story of a second track diplomatic initiative between Israeli and Syrian representatives which essentially mapped out a full peace agreement between the parties. Of course, Olmert ditched the effort at the crucial moment when it was “put up or shut up.” But what did AIPAC do to support such an initiative? Not only have they done nothing. They’ve done everything they can to oppose it (pdf file). Why? First, because the initiative is opposed by the official Israeli government (which has in turn blamed its unwillingness to talk on the Bush-Cheney cone of silence against Syria). Second, because AIPAC doesn’t trust Syria as far as it could throw it. Third, because AIPAC’s Israeli political counterparts in Likud are screaming bloody murder at the idea that Israel might withdraw from the Golan.

Ultimately, what it all boils down to is that neither AIPAC nor the Israeli right believe in territorial concessions to either the Syrians or Palestinians. Because settling with Syria would require returning the Golan, AIPAC is dead set against it. So again, don’t you believe the version of AIPAC’s political agenda peddled for public consumption. Rather, examine what the organization does or doesn’t do.

Remba has some pertinent advice for President Bush which he will certainly refuse to take:

I call on the President not only to permit Israel to test the waters with Syria through a secret back-channel, but to send American mediators to such meetings to maximize the chances of their success.

That would be nice. But I think I diverge slightly from Remba in that I see Olmert’s casting blame on the U.S. for stymieing the Syria-Israel initiative as being self-serving. For Olmert, the U.S. serves as a convenient excuse allowing him to take a position he preferred to take all along.

Remba closes with a bit of incisive criticism of American Jewry’s willingness to allow the AIPACs to be their voice in this debate:

…There’s the stifling burden of inaction to which we subject Israel daily:…the failure of American Jews to speak up—as American citizens, if not as Jews who are deeply concerned for Israel’s well-being—about what’s best for the national security of the United States and its allies, especially Israel; the timorousness and apathy of so many American Jews who have yet to express their solidarity with the forces of progress and peace in Israel itself, even within the Israeli government. We, the American Jewish community, have massively constrained Israel’s freedom by the many dangerous choices we have let our communal leaders, and our government, make in the Middle East. Citizenship doesn’t end at the voting booth.

Hat tip to the Brit Tzedek Newsdigest list. If you’re looking for a terrific daily summary of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this is one of the best.

Dovish American Jews Raise Millions for New Lobby to Counter AIPAC

Saturday, January 13th, 2007

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.

New Dovish Jewish Coalition to Raise Millions with Soros’ Support

Sunday, November 26th, 2006

The Forward reports that the new dovish American Jewish Mideast peace coalition announced in the Jewish press last month has continued developing apace. George Soros himself attended a meeting held last month indicating his deepening interest in the concept:

Planners of a new pro-peace Jewish lobbying initiative say they are considering an initial, two-phase strategy, entailing fundraising for existing peace groups in its first stage and launching a new action initiative in the second stage.

The group aims to raise millions of dollars in the coming months to fund existing groups working toward a two-state solution for Israeli-Palestinian peace…

Activists from several Jewish peace groups met in New York on October 25 with potential donors and their representatives to discuss their needs. Among the participants at this meeting were Soros himself, who in the past has refrained from contributing to Jewish groups, and Alan Solomont, a prominent community activist and Democratic Party fundraiser who has long supported Middle East peace initiatives.

To further indicate the seriousness of the efforts, two well-connected Jewish political operatives have taken on the lead coordinator roles:

Two Washington professionals emerged from the meeting as active coordinators who will take charge of raising funds and preparing a blueprint for further actions. One, Morton Halperin, who held foreign policy posts in the Nixon and Clinton administrations, now serves as director of American advocacy for the Open Society Institute, which was founded by George Soros. The other, Jeremy Ben-Ami, is senior vice president of Fenton Communications and served as an adviser to President Clinton.

Halperin and Ben-Ami have held a series of meetings in recent months with Jewish groups and individuals known to be supporters of the two-state solution. The main question raised in these meetings, participants said, has been whether to form a new group that will conduct its own lobbying operations, or work with existing groups and concentrate on channeling funds to these organizations.

“There is a lot of work being done and a lot of interest in the idea,” Ben-Ami told the Forward. “We will have to see in the next few months if this enthusiasm can be translated into contributions and practical measures.”

I also like the ambitiousness of the fundraising effort:

…Participants in [an organizational planning] meeting insist that it is only a matter of time before the group comes up with a set of recommendations for practical action. The main goal now is to raise some $10 million to $15 million, described by participants as “venture capital” for investment in pro-peace groups. The goal, according to one of the activists, is to “significantly raise” the level of donations that existing peace groups are receiving and upgrade them into the spectrum of the millions of dollars.

Having been deeply involved in numerous Jewish peace groups over the decades (and having worked for one or two), I can attest to the utter poverty conditions under which they did their work. Everything is hand to mouth. And sometimes the amateurish results attested to this. But I think the three groups which are spearheading this effort have got their act together despite operating on a shoestring budget (currently at least).

For these groups to get such an infusion of cash and energy from these fundraising efforts would revolutionize the Jewish peace movement, allowing it to play on almost equal terms to the big boys like Aipac and the ADL.

Unfortunately, some of the folks behind this effort still are maintaining the fiction that the new group will get on like a house afire with Aipac:

Several participants in one of the first meetings, held in mid-September, were said to be offended by media reports that the new initiative will in some way compete with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the best-known pro-Israel lobbying organization. Organizers sought to emphasize that regardless of the new group’s final shape, it will work side by side with Aipac and should not be seen as a competition to the long-established lobbying organization.

As I’ve written here before: who are they kiddin’? Peace Now, Brit Tzedek and Israel Policy Forum united to clean Aipac’s clock a few months ago during the lobbying campaign to pass the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act. Again, as I’ve written here–if this new group does NOT take on Aipac in similar ways, then there is virtually no reason for it to exist. Though if someone wants to maintain this fiction in the group’s initial startup phase so as not to begin organizing on a confrontational note, then that’s OK by me.

With today’s news of a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians, this new lobbying effort is needed more desperately than ever. We must push the Bush Administration to engage as an honest broker in the negotiation process. Aipac isn’t going to be pushing for this. Someone in our community must do this and do it forcefully and with sufficient funding to really make a difference. We must tell the American people and this president that Jews want peace–a 2 state solution, an end to violence, and mutual recognition–and that we will support any president who can get us there.

Saperstein Attempts to Dampen Dovish Jewish Lobbying Effort to Counter Aipac

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

JTA and Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz have been reporting about a nascent Jewish effort to organize a dovish lobbying counterpart to Aipac. Each of them got key parts of the story wrong. I’m not sure whether their errors are due to their own prejudices against the effort or misinformation provided to them by their sources.

I have a confidential source who attended the initial meeting and provides some interesting background about the politics and other bickering that accompanied this worthy effort. My source tells me that the JTA report’s inference that George Soros has already committed to the effort (Soros to support dovish Jews seeking an alternative to AIPAC?) is premature. The fact that Mort Halperin, Soros’ chief aide attended the meeting implies great interest, but nothing more than that.

Most of the individuals and groups represented at the meeting are “very strong” on the notion that they must confront Aipac in some way as part of their effort. But David Saperstein, representing the Reform movement at the meeting, is absolutely petrified at this notion and will do everything possible to stop it. My source colorfully notes that he’s about as willing to criticize Aipac as Ahmedimejad would the Prophet. This person says about Saperstein:

He will do everything he can to weaken this effort. His liberalism ends where Israel is concerned, always has.

I believe that either Saperstein or someone representing his views has fed information to Kampeas and Rosner, some of it wrong. Contrary to what the former reports:

There were a number of representatives at that meeting who have directly challenged what they believe is AIPAC’s hawkishness. Others at the meeting said confronting AIPAC would be counterproductive.

Subsequently, those participants who favored a more direct confrontation with AIPAC dropped away, though it was unclear whether they were disinvited or simply chose not to continue participating.

No groups have fallen away from the effort; and certainly not groups who were in favor of confronting Aipac. I believe that Saperstein or whoever the source is is trying to trumpet their efforts to moderate the anti-Aipac tone of the participants. And if Rosner is right that David Elcott of Israel Policy Forum has written to Aipac’s Howard Kohr to reassure him that the group is no threat to the latter group, then one of the former’s motivations must be to mollify the Sapersteins of the Jewish world. The ones who swear an oath to liberalism every day, but leave those principles at the door when it comes to Israel.

What is welcome news is that my source doesn’t feel that Saperstein has “veto power” over the group’s agenda or existence. The key as far as that’s concerned is probably Soros. Is he in or is he out? My source says he hasn’t yet weighed in which would prove Rosner’s take on the matter correct.

And finally, the source says that after attending the meeting he doesn’t have high hopes for the project. Which is all the pity. What the American Jewish community and U.S. Mideast policy need more than almost anything else is a counterweight to Aipac’s noxious uber-Israel propaganda. So many similar efforts in the past which started out as exciting visions in the minds of their organizers ended up fizzling after a week or month or year. It would be a shame if this was yet another example of fizzle. The disaster that is currently afflicting that corner of the Mideast is so potentially catastrophic that someone of Soros’ stature and capacity must weigh in. Soros is a man of principle who cares about whether the world goes up in flames. There is no more likely powder keg to set off such a conflagration than our little part of the Mideast.

So if Soros, Halperin or anyone from the Open Society Institute reads this, here is one peace activist who’s been dedicated to this issue for 40 years. Please do what you can to help. Israel and its Arab neighbors will eventually be grateful. And if you’re a Reform Jew, you might want to write to your national Reform leadership and tell them to get on the peace bandwagon instead of trying to weigh it down with objections.

There is one clear hindrance to Soros’ engagement. He surely sees how reviled other prominent academic and political figures are by the ultra-Israel crowd. He reads about Tony Judt’s disinvitation to speak at the Polish consulate. He reads about Juan Cole’s disinvitation to teach at Yale. He knows that Walt and Mearsheimer have essentially given up on the possibility of academic advancement within their fields due to their controversial essay. While I am certain Soros has thick enough skin to take such abuse (as he’s experienced it many times before both in business and his political efforts), who in their right mind would want to face the level of abuse that the pro-Israel warriors will mount against him. It’s not something he would relish, but it will happen nonetheless.

For anyone who threatens Aipac’s hegemony will be treated harshly not just by Aipac, but by other pro-Israel groups like the ADL, American Jewish Committee and Conference of Presidents. They’ll dig up dirt on him. They’ll ask how he survived the Holocaust while his fellow Hungarian Jews perished. They’ll impugn his Jewishness. They’ll call him anti-Israel and anti-Zionist (that’s already happened). They’ll question his patriotism. It won’t be pretty.

Backers of Dovish American Jewish Initiative Deny Opposing Aipac

Friday, October 13th, 2006

When JTA yesterday ran a story about an initiative backed by George Soros (or not yet backed if you believe Rosner’s reports below) and other powerful dovish American Jewish leaders, it noted that one of the purposes of the initiative would be to present a progressive counter to Aipac. All of this seems perfectly reasonable to any reasonable American Jew. But the 900 lb. gorilla Goliath has taken notice of little David standing beneath him and he’s roared his annoyance. As a result, it’s humorous to see the erstwhile progressives scurrying like ants to backtrack. No, they don’t oppose Aipac. Aipac is a useful Jewish organization, etc., etc.

Jewish organizational officials who have participated in the meetings said JTA’s characterization of their aim in a story earlier this week, as an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was wrong…

Those currently leading the effort say they’re happy to work with AIPAC.

“My involvement is that Mort Halperin’s an old friend,” said Mel Levine, a former U.S. Democratic congressman who is now a high-powered West Coast lawyer. “Mort asked me to go to an initial exploratory meeting about a pro-Israel advocacy organization that would focus on a two-state solution, that would focus on Israel and was not in competition with anyone else.”

That did not usurp AIPAC’S role of advocating for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, Levine said.

“It is possible to have a value in other groups communicating different themes,” he said.

A statement from the Israel Policy Forum said the idea was to explore common ground, not expand on differences.

IPF “engaged in these very preliminary discussions in order to seek commonality with other American pro-Israel groups and individuals who share IPF’s conviction that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state living alongside one another in peace and security — best serves the interests of Israel, stability in the Middle East and American foreign policy,” it said.

Shmuel Rosner, who should be writing for the Jerusalem Post instead of Haaretz, publishes a story today in which the group’s organizers adopt a strikingly more abject attitude to Aipac. Since Rosner is a journalistic advocate of an Aipac-like approach to Israel, one has to take what he writes with a grain of salt. In addition, a few items he mentions seem to contradict JTA, which had the original story. But it’s an interesting take nonetheless, which shows how much deference even those Jews who take issue with Aipac feel the have to exhibit towards it:

Yesterday, David Elcott of the IFP called Howard Khor [sic], executive director of AIPAC, and promised that he would not support any initiative whose purpose is to challenge AIPAC.

Khor is certain that the damage has already been done: Presenting AIPAC as an organization that does not represent the overall Jewish community necessarily unermines [sic] its power.

Either way, nine of those involved in the initiative were interviewed by Haaretz yesterday, most anonymously, and all adopted the same stance: We do not oppose AIPAC, but want to act alongside it and further a cause we consider important – namely, encouraging a growing U.S. involvement in finding a solution to the conflict.

Someone ought to tell Haaretz’s Washington D.C. correspondent who spends a great deal of time covering Aipac that Howard Kohr does not spell his name “Khor.”

The organizers are careful to distinguish their goals from attacking Aipac. They say they aim to influence U.S. policy toward greater engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They claim there’s more than enough room for two groups with slightly overlapping, but not inimical missions. While some of this is no doubt true, to me it seems like a sop to the rightist group’s supporters. Those involved with the new group may rightly be saying: “if we have to face off against Aipac, let’s not do it now. Let’s wait and do it on our terms and when the stakes are high enough to warrant it.” If they are thinking that then I grant some validity to such a perspective.

But Elcott’s protestations to the contrary, this new initiative, if it gets off the ground, must challenge Aipac’s hegemony over U.S. Israel policy. There is simply no way around that. By its very nature, Aipac sucks up all the air in the room and demands that you acknowledge it as American Jewry’s sole and singular voice on this matter. Any other well-funded, well-organized alternative will be seen as inimical to Aipac’s interests. And it will be. It must be if it is to really represent an alternative. And if it’s founders do not want it to represent an alternative there is simply no reason for it to exist. We already have namby pamby national Jewish organizations whose positions on Israel are milder than Aipac’s, but no threat to it like American Jewish Committee. Why would we need another milquetoast Jewish group like it when it comes to Israel policy? We wouldn’t.

And did you ever hear such whining in the passage above by Kohr (“Presenting AIPAC as an organization that does not represent the overall Jewish community necessarily unermines [sic] its power.”) The idea that Aipac represents “the overall Jewish community” is a delusion in the minds of Aipac’s true believers. And such hegemonic statements only prove many of Mearsheimer-Walt’s criticisms regarding the group to have been right on the money.

And at least one of the organizers of the group who spoke anonymously seems to “get,” even if obliquely, the need to take on Aipac:

We put out a model of a product and go into the marketplace of ideas and compete. We are a group of people who are looking for the best way to ensure Israel’s survival and future,” said one organizer, who asked not to be identified. “We’re going into existence because this product is not being offered right now. We want to make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice.”

I never write about Rosner’s hidebound, parochial views of the Israeli-Arab conflict since they shed almost no light that is useful in my opinion. And his characterization of Aipac here illustrates my point perfectly:

The real fuss surrounding the new group stems from the perceived challenge it poses to AIPAC…the prominent pro-Israel lobby group whose character is perceived by some of its more dovish members as being overly on the right...

It is fair to say that American Jewry leans toward the dovish end of the political spectrum. It can also be said, and to a great extent proved, that AIPAC does not always rush to represent this dominant dovish sentiment. Many are angered by this omission, but others agree that this is not enough to undermine an institution whose existence and success they consider important.

Notice, Rosner cannot bear to come right out and say that Aipac IS a rightist organization so he raises the issue in as non-threatening way as he can: “[a] group whose character is perceived by some…as being overly on the right.” And the statement “Aipac does to always rush to represent this dominant dovish sentiment” wreaks of understatement. Aipac NEVER represents this dovish sentiment. The group doesn’t have a dovish bone in its body. There may be dovish American Jews who are members or even leaders of Aipac, but they will never represent the prevailing political views of the group. The group is hawkish to the bone. It fetes wingnuts like Michael Ledeen and John Bolton at its annual conferences. It advocates war with Iran.

If this new group doesn’t take on these noxious positions that are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of American Jews, then it should not exist. I have confidence that if such a group does come into existence it will take on these issues and Aipac. But the fact that Elcott and the other organizers have had to do this delicate minuet to prove their fealty to Aipac proves yet again that Mearsheimer and Walt were not far wrong in their characterization of the stranglehold which Aipac has on the American Jewish community when it comes to Israel.

Finally, Rosner’s take on Soros’ involvement contradicts both of JTA’s stories which claim that Soros and his chief political strategist, Morton Halperin, are key leaders of the initiative. Also, Rosner’s “take” on Soros’ views about Israel are laughably hysterical:

The most intriguing donor whose assistance the group will try to solicit is financier George Soros, who will meet them later this month. A Soros aide, Morton Halperin, took part in the group’s meeting.

So far, Soros has only promised to meet, and it is not clear whether his views on Israel will not prove to be an obstacle. Some consider Soros anti-Zionist, and in the past, he has accused Israel’s policies of fomenting anti-Semitism in Europe.

Rosner appears to believe in the “litmus test” approach to Israel activism. You may be able to get away with critcizing Israel. But you must do it in a delicate, and never combative way. So the idea that Israel’s recalcitrance in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has raised the temperature to a boiling point in Muslim communities around the globe and perhaps ignited extremist terror in places like Europe–this type of statement makes you anti-Zionist in Rosner’s world. You notice Rosner didn’t say HE considered Soros anti-Zionist. He used that journalist’s tired crutch: “some consider Soros anti-Zionist.” Who is “some?” No doubt, the very Aipac staffers and leadership that are charting the progress of this potentially threatening new organization with suspicion. I’ve got news for Rosner. Soros’ views on Israel WILL NOT prove to be a problem (except to Aipac). I just heard Soros last night on Charlie Rose and his comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict are completely consonant with my own and probably 60%+ of American Jewry.

But certainly Soros’ views make Rosner and his friends in Aipac very nervous. And as this project gets going Aipac will not let a moment go by without reminding the world of Soros’ alleged perfidy toward Israel. They did the same thing to Cynthia McKinney and many others. It will be harder, however, to impeach George Soros’ character and Jewishness, but they will try using information like this. But I think he has some pretty good credentials to combat such attacks.