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

The brave Congressional ‘nays’ on HR 4681

I’ve written quite a lot here about my differences with Aipac. One of my bones of contention with them is that they play for keeps and they play dirty. It’s hard-ball all the way and if you’re not sufficiently pro-Israel–watch out.

Now The Forward provides us with a perfect example of Aipac’s worst ‘take no prisoners’ style. Many of you know that the House recently passed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (HR 4681), a horrible wrap on the knuckles to both the Bush Administration and Hamas to guarantee that the former never backslides on its opposition to negotiating with the latter. The measure finally passed overwhelmingly. But I’m pleased to say that 37 members (mostly Democrats) voted “No.”

The fact that it wasn’t a unanimous vote didn’t sit well with the bullies at Aipac. So they decided to make an example of Rep. Betty McCollum (D, MN):

McCollum says that, in a recent phone conversation with her chief of staff, an Aipac representative accused the congresswoman of supporting terrorists because she voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 in committee…

As part of Aipac’s lobbying blitz, right after the International Relations Committee passed the measure in a 36-2 vote, Amy Rotenberg, an active member of the organization from Minneapolis, called McCollum’s chief of staff, Bill Harper. Aipac sources said that the purpose of the April 7 call was to express disappointment over the congresswoman’s vote against the bill. According to Harper, Rotenberg said that “on behalf of herself, the Jewish community, Aipac, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum’s support for terrorists will not be tolerated.”

McCollum immediately wrote the following letter to Howard Kohr, Aipac’s executive director:

“Until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization, I must inform you that Aipac representatives are not welcome in my offices for meetings with my staff.”

Rep. Betty McCollum demands Aipac apology

Apparently, Kohr somehow mollified her enough that she agreed to meet with him before receiving the apology. Even after meeting him, she still hadn’t received one:

Rep. McCollum…and Howard Kohr…held a meeting Wednesday night that was brokered by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat. McCollum was said to have agreed to work with Aipac to resolve her current conflict with the organization, in light of the good relationship she has had with the pro-Israel lobby in the past. It is not clear yet whether the congresswoman still insists on a formal, written apology — her office was not available for comment Wednesday — but according to sources familiar with her conversation with Kohr, she is willing to seek a way to “move forward.”

It should be noted that Ackerman is usually a sure-vote for Aipac and indeed he supported HR 4681. But most pointedly, he objected strongly to the tactics used against his colleague calling them: “reminiscent of the Taliban.”

It sounds like from the passage above that perhaps McCollum caved to Aipac (though one can hardly know what went on in the meeting). But can you blame her, really? As Walt and Mearsheimer noted in their essay, The Israel Lobby, Aipac makes a point of taking down those who don’t show fealty and obeisance. No doubt, if she hadn’t decided to play ball once again she would’ve face a serious primary challenge by a well-financed Aipac-funded opponent. And there’s a better than even chance that Aipac might’ve whupped her in the next election.

But I still applaud her for getting pissed as hell at this brutish behavior that is so common for the pro-Israel group. Who knows, maybe Aipac will even issue some mealy-mouthed statement that acknowledges they overstepped the bounds of civil discourse. But I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were Betty McCollum.

The pro-Israel lobby ought to realize that even bullies can go the way of the dodo bird when they’ve outlived their usefulness:

Congressional staffers said that the controversy is reverberating on the Hill because Aipac officials have a reputation of being overly aggressive in their lobbying style. “Many members of Congress are sick and tired of Aipac’s bullying and heavy-handed tactics,” said a senior congressional staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

To be fair to Enforcer Rotenberg, she has a different spin on what she said to McCollum’s chief of staff in their phone conversation:

In a letter to McCollum and in a conversation with the Forward last week, Rotenberg, an attorney who specializes in media law and is active in Minnesota Democratic politics, flatly denied Harper’s account, describing it as a “serious distortion of the discussion.” Rotenberg contends that McCollum’s chief of staff asked if the Aipac activist was accusing the congresswoman of supporting terrorists. In response, Rotenberg said, she replied that she was not, adding that the vote would have to speak for itself.

Does her explanation sound credible to you? What’s more, rather than taking a deep breath and considering what she’s saying, Rotenberg again decides to go for the jugular in further criticizing McCollum for her response to the incident:

“Congresswoman McCollum is using the power of her office to try to deflect criticism of her voting record by disparaging a private citizen in the media.”

If I were Howard Kohr, I’d put a muzzle on that woman till things can be smoothed over and I’d keep her as far away from the other thirty-seven opponents of the bill as possible. Though knowing Aipac, she’ll receive a Volunteer of Year award for her efforts.

I’d like to think that those 37 opponents of HR 4681 might form the nucleus of a reasonable House caucus regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clearly, Aipac is under threat on many fronts these days. The fact that both Brit Tzedek, Israel Policy Forum, and Americans for Peace Now went head to head with them on this issue and caused the bill to stall for three months indicates that Aipac is a little the worse for wear. It’s like Desperate Housewives this past season in the sense that the magic’s worn off a touch and the ratings are down because sharp newcomers are eating into the audience.

I also want to personally thank Jim McDermott, my representative, for opposing this bill.

What’s especially odd about Aipac’s tactics against McCollum is that the Senate bill is nowhere near as draconian as the House’s; many observers feel that the Senate bill will never make it to the floor because senators dislike the House version so much they don’t even want to get into a conference committee to try to arrive at a consensus version. The Forward tones this down in its appraisal, but not by much:

A senior Senate staffer told the Forward last week that once the bill passes the House, Senate leaders will work hard to soften the version that will end up in the bicameral conference committee. The staffer said that Senate leaders view the House bill as “insanely irresponsible.”

The Bush Administration too does not want the Senate bill out of committee. So this is essentially an academic exercise with no relation to reality, political or otherwise. In other words, it is–like previous Aipac-supported bills attempting to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem–an opportunity for Aipac to flex political muscle without having any serious impact in the real world. Welcome to Aipac’s world!

In this sordid episode, it seems Aipac is ripping a page from the David Horowitz playbook. If you read this blog, you’ll know that Stanford University Mideast specialist Joel Beinin is suing Horowitz for picturing him on the cover of a propaganda pamphlet he published, Campus Support for Terrorism. Beinin’s crime? He’s a little too independent of the hardline pro-Israel line and is actually willing to criticize it for its policies against the Palestinians. Isn’t it interesting how Aipac embraces the tactics of the ultimate right-wing sleazemonger, David Horowitz. In actuality, Horowitz has probably learned a thing of two from Aipac.

The original source for the Forward’s story was an article by Michael Massing in the NY Review of Books. Massing’s essay covers far more than this incident. In fact, it’s an even better primer about the internal workings of Aipac than the Walt-Mearsheimer piece. Massing also takes on the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organization–another group whose extreme pro-Israel policies and tactics deserve to see the critical light of day–along with the hardline pro-Israel think tanks that populate Washington DC. I highly recommend it.

I applaud my progressive Zionist ‘comrade,’ M.J. Rosenberg for stating publicly his views of Aipac in Massing’s article. M.J. worked for Aipac for twenty years and knows whereof he speaks. He is now a senior staff member of the Israel Policy Forum. Kol hakavod l’cha!

All I can say is thank God for American Friends of Peace Now (and Brit Tzedek and Israel Policy Forum). They’re leading the charge against The Palestinian Anti Terrorism Act of 2006 ((HR 4681), a piece of draconian anti-Palestinian legislation that would further erode the already miserable quality of life for average Palestinians. It will tie Pres. Bush’s hands if he wishes to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. It will prohibit paying the salaries of the 160,000 Palestinians who work for the Palestinian Authority, effectively starving them if not to death, then to a state of perpetual want.

According to the Jerusalem Post, all three Jewish groups are directly taking on the behemoth of American Jewish organizations, Aipac, which is the 800 lb. gorilla behind this legislation. Aipac distributed an FAQ memo in the run up to the legislative vote on the bill, which contained specious arguments and erroneous interpretations of its language. Aipac would have you believe that the bill isn’t intended to penalize Palestinians for voting for Hamas in the last election. Even if you give the group the benefit of the doubt (which you shouldn’t) and say they don’t INTEND to penalize them, the net effect of the legislation will be to do precisely that. And thank God, APN issued an immediate rebuttal refuting Aipac’s distortions point by point. The group organized messages of opposition sent to 300 members of Congress in only 12 hours! Now that’s organizing.

Gazan dialysis patient awaits treatment (photo: George Azar/NYT)

Over 50% of Gazans live below the international poverty standard of $2 a day. The Australian Broadcasting Corp. says Israel Radio reports four Gaza hospital deaths already because kidney dialysis treatments have been reduced by one-third due to running out of necessary medicines, supplies and equipment. Imagine what’s to come once the crisis deepens. Here’s what one dialysis patient had to say to a NY Times reporter:

In the dialysis ward of Shifa Hospital, Ahmed Shabat, 51, sits in fraying clothes. He must come every other day. “This is my work,” he says, then shows the swollen veins on his arms caused by a lack of mineral supplements normally provided. “What is the relationship between humanitarian and political aims here?” he asked. “The United States is the mother of democracy. What is political about salaries to teachers and nurses? Please,” he said, “please don’t mix humanitarian help with politics. Please separate the two.”

Malnutrition is rampant. IDF shelling is incessant. And Aipac proposes ratcheting up the pressure even further with this poison pill of a bill. Someone should tell these people that our Jewish God is one of mercy, not of blind justice. And besides, what’s just (or merciful) about the bill or the Israeli punishment policy it represents?

The world already sees America as a heartless bully due to our militaristic forays into the Mideast. Is this legislation the face we really need to show the world? That we would willingly stand by while Palestinians drop dead in the streets and hospitals from conditions that would be easily curable in any modern society? Do we want to stand by while Israel and Aipac turn the screws ever tighter on an already debilitated people and society?

PLEASE, write your Congressmember asking that he or she opposes HR 4681. It is bad for America. It is bad for the Palestinians. It is even bad for Israel because it will draw us farther from a reasonable solution to the conflict. This bill is a worrisome distraction from the real issues confronting the parties–their need to sit down face to face and negotiate for peace. In other words, it’s a big fat waste of time for our elected representatives.

UPDATE: APN reports that Congress has delayed action on the bill, a victory for forces opposing it. This gives Congress further opportunity to amend the bill and make it more consonant with the milder Senate version.

Leonard Fein, founder of Moment Magazine, is bucking the AIPAC juggernaut in calling its signature legislative proposal, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 4681), “a piece of meddlesome foolishness.” He published More Pro-Israel Than Israel in The Forward:

They may be all smiles here, but Condi can’t be happy with Ros-Lehtinen’s draconian Palestinian Anti-Terrorism bill (photo: House.gov)

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Lantos offer a bill that…could be a poster-child for knee-jerk reaction…

What they have offered, and what at least 70 of their colleagues have by now endorsed, is a draconian measure that would forbid any and all contact between the American government and Hamas — and similarly, between the United States and any Palestinian government in which any member of Hamas has any part at all. According to the language of the bill, for example, if the Palestinian Authority were to employ a postman who is a member of Hamas, any and all relationship between any American government agency and the P.A. would have to cease…

The bill…is a piece of meddlesome foolishness, but it’s exactly the sort of thing that most members of Congress are reluctant to oppose for fear of seeming “anti-Israel.” That’s been the case in Congress for many years now, and the result has done Israel no service at all.

To be fair, not all those who support such bills do so out of fear. Some do it out of love, be it a love of Israel or a love of posturing. But fear predominates, and the proximate source of that fear is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which typically chooses to be the enforcer of precisely that kind of crude pro-Israelism.

I like that phrase “crude pro-Israelism.” I’ve never known how to distinguish between doves like me who are “pro-Israel” and right-wing security hawks who are “pro-Israel.” Fein gives me a good way to distinguish between them.

I’ve already written about the bill here in my blog and its AIPAC pedigree. Fein goes on to discuss the bill’s role in AIPAC’s legislative agenda:

…The Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos bill is…the fulcrum of this year’s annual Aipac conference and it will be the major agenda item as Aipac’s delegates move from their conference to Capitol Hill to lobby their representatives.

Those who follow the news out of Israel closely may raise an eyebrow or two over this, since we now have…an authoritative [Israeli] voice…calling into question the notion that the way to make progress…is to ignore…subtle changes in [Hamas] policy and behavior that may develop in the weeks and months ahead. I refer to the voice of the acting prime minister of Israel…

Ehud Olmert is now on record as saying that Hamas does not pose a strategic threat to Israel. He has said that Israel will be resolute, tough in its dealings with a P.A…but that at the same time it will remain open to signs of change.

And we have also Amir Peretz, Labor’s candidate for Israel’s top job, who said after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo last week, “We must not push the Palestinians into the arms of the extremists.” He called for Israel to establish a “moderate axis” of countries intent on strengthening the moderate forces in the P.A.

What this means is that AIPAC is carving out a U.S. policy towards the Palestinians that is even more draconian than Ehud Olmert’s. His policy in itself is pretty merciless. So you can imagine what a more merciless policy would look like. Fein points out that the AIPAC bill places conditions that Israel did not impose on former enemies during peace negotiations:

It demands, for example, that the P.A. “publicly acknowledge[s] Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state,” a condition that was not part of the Oslo agreements between Israel and the PLO nor of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. To demand that before there can be talks, before there can even be contacts, the P.A. must endorse Zionism is to engage in make-believe, even farce. It is a recipe for stalemate.

While Fein has no use for the Hamas that engaged in terror bombings against Israel, he reserves the possibility that the organization might change in such a way as to eventually become a partner worthy of negotiation:

Hamas includes fundamentalist clerics and may well include pragmatists also. No one knows what the outcome will be if the clerics and the pragmatists move in separate directions. Does not wisdom dictate that some doors be kept open, or at least ajar, for contacts with those in the Hamas camp who seem amenable to meaningful conversation?

…That is what Ros-Lehtinen and Lantos, with Aipac’s full support, would prohibit the United States from doing. And that’s pro-Israel?

To the 70 sponsors of this foul bill I say–do you want to score political points and curry favor with the AIPAC fat cats who’ll bankroll your campaigns while destroying the possibility for peace in the Mideast; or do you want to lay back and let Condi Rice do the reasonably good job she’s been doing acting as an honest broker between both sides for the past 6-12 months? And if your answer is you prefer grandstanding and scoring points, know that some of the blood that will be shed in the coming months and years in the Mideast may be upon your head. I say: please don’t tinker while the Mideast burns. If you can’t do something constructive then sit on your asses and do nothing. It’s a far sight better than this crummy bill.