AIPAC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

This essay from Ari Bussel initially rubbed me completely the wrong way. In fact I could not believe this was something coming from the keyboard of Ari Bussel. The essay begins with intense criticism for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) followed by heaps of praise for J Street. If you can stomach the seeming praise of a Leftist Jewish organization that tells people it is pro-Israel while simultaneously supporting policies that will destroy Israel, you will discover this is a good read.

JRH 4/3/12

*********************************

AIPAC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 4/3/2012 10:44 AM

I am an educated, affluent, liberal American.  I am a Democrat, and yes—I am Jewish.  AIPAC, the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill, does not speak for me.  It does not represent my values.  AIPAC’s positions are not my own, its voice is not my voice. The words they speak do not resonate with me. I hear them, but I do not identify with their core beliefs.

Those at AIPAC say:  “Congress has been a bedrock of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship by supporting aid, helping stop Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and reinforcing American policy that peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations.”

We say:  I am a Zionist, and I deeply care about Israel.  For Israel to survive, it has to be a democracy with Jewish character.  Israel should be much like the United States, a country that was founded on Christian principles and allows every person to flourish. 

The Jewish Lobby has kidnapped center stage and is focused on Iran, promulgating fears of a Second Holocaust.  In the background, the song and dance routine is familiar:  “U.S. aid commitment to Israel is vital.”  “Aid enables Israel to confront emerging threats.”  “Robust foreign aid helps promote American values and interests.” 

Behind AIPAC’s “Enhance U.S.-Israel Security Cooperation,” one can almost hear the war drums beating, getting louder with every passing minute:  “We must attack, we must pre-empt, Iran is an existential threat.  We have no option but to act.  The U.S. has to enable Israel and pay for these (mis)deeds – for our own sake!?”

We believe: For the sake of Israel, America and the whole world, we must do everything possible to bring about Peace in the Middle East, and the real obstacle for peace is Israel’s Occupation.  It makes Israel become what it is not, an Apartheid state.  It makes Israelis do horrible things that stand contrary to our very being as Jews.

We allege: The Occupation corrupts.  Israel faces the danger of becoming what the Nazis were.  At all costs, we must make sure this does not happen.  We cannot afford to have the world point the finger at us and say:  You are the new Nazis!

I must now ask, “Who will protect Israel from itself?  Who will speak for American Jewry?”

It is believed by many that J Street has gained immense momentum as a grassroots organization that aspires for (and inspires) Peace in the Middle East.  It is the true “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” organization, although Peace Now (and its American counter-part, Americans for Peace Now) is the true think-tank that will help usher in the desired and so badly needed peace.

Doesn’t AIPAC see that those recently gathered in Doha, Qatar, for the International Conference on Jerusalem were filled with awe of the daring courage Jews of America now show as they support J Street?

They – the self-anointed “loudspeaker” of the Jewish people in America – say (with worried apprehension) that all Jews must sing from the same sheet, we say not.  The fact that each of us sings a different tune is a sign of a healthy society, of strength from within.  Remember, AIPAC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.  The world needs to know there are other, more rational and constructive voices.  The world needs to hear our voices as well.

We say: Israel must cease all settlement activities and end the Occupation immediately.  Israel must withdraw from Occupied Territories if it ever wants to usher in peace and live in tranquility with its neighbors.

There are alternatives to AIPAC, for even the staffers on Capitol Hill resent being bullied and pushed around by the Israeli lobby.  They often do not know where to turn for real facts, to ask questions that bother them.  It is vital our voice is heard, more important than ever to announce that AIPAC is not the only Jewish voice.

For instance, AIPAC says—supposedly on behalf of the American Jewish community—we have to go to war with Iran, adding, “Listen to what the Iranians themselves say, calling to ‘Wipe Israel off the Map!’ Jews during WWII were not much different, but the world has forgotten.”

APN says, “We need more time and diplomacy.  There are tremendous sanctions in place.  It is time to bring serious diplomacy to our aid.  The international community is working together toward that end.”



For Netanyahu, mentioning Iran is equal to mentioning the Holocaust.  His recent speech at AIPAC was all about the Holocaust.  He lives under a genuine existential fear of another Holocaust.  We at J Street and APN do not share his fear as describing or emanating from today’s reality.

And thus we truly believe we have the advantage over the other side:  “We are right!” Our positions and policy recommendations are clear, reasoned, sophisticated and based on analysis and not slogans.  The facts support our argument.  We only need to package them so they look useful and present them at the right time. Ours is the speech that should be heard, not AIPAC.

Our message to President Obama is “start preparing now for reengaging” (assuming you are re-elected).  We do not have the luxury of slow re-engagement.  We must hit the metal while it is seething hot.  We know you cannot publicly answer us now, for fear you will be maligned even further by the extreme-Right.  But we anticipate a plan is already in place, waiting to be executed.

We are waiting for the Presidential elections, and if things continue the way they are today, President Obama will be back in the White House for a Second Tour-de-Force.  He won the Noble Peace Prize once.  Imagine what he can achieve well into his second presidency!

This is the rhetoric I hear from J Street and its counterparts.

J Street urges the President to prepare now, formulate his plan now, and show his wrath immediately when the second term starts.  This sounds very worrisome to some.

It sounds as if an American Jewish contingency is the mouthpiece for Israel’s enemies.  “Occupation.  Settlements as the root-cause of all evil in the Middle East.  Israel’s eagerness to go to war.  The American Jewish “Not Speaking for Me!” Lobby is war-mongering.”  Not a single thing that Israel does which is positive, exemplary, deserving of one’s attention.

Is anyone surprised that there are voices that tell us that 9/11 was a Mossad-orchestrated event?  That the 2nd Persian Gulf War was fought by a US President FOR ISRAEL’S SAKE!?  That Israel is the only OBSTACLE FOR PEACE!?
  Or that there are many who today take it a step further, turning words into action, boycotting Israeli goods and services, institutions and companies, calling to divest and sanction Israel?

Does AIPAC truly speak for the Jewish people, or do we live in a new era, where a grass movement like J Street is the answer, the horn, and the hammer? 

I just hope the President will not use a Jewish-made hammer to hit Israel into a place from which it will be unable to move, that this hammer that supposedly speaks for “us” will not be the hammer that nails the coffin on Israel’s short existence as a modern democratic country.

###

This article, other than its ending (the conclusions are all my own), was inspired by the words of Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now, based in part on a presentation she recently gave in Los Angeles.  She is not alone.  A leading commentator in the American version of Yedi’ot, Israel’s leading daily newspaper, constantly voices similar if not identical opinions.

_________________________________

The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover and Israelis often ignore.

This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

Zager and Bussel can be heard on live radio in conversation on the program “Conversations Eye to Eye between Norma and Ari.”

© “Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel,” March 2012

Contact:  bussel@me.com

First Published Mar 6, 2012

To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

Bill Kristol takes a historical look of the analogous similarities between nuclear-arming Iran v. USA, Israel and the appeasers of Europe to Hitler’s Germany v. an appeaser Europe roughly led by France and Britain.

JRH 3/27/10
________________________
To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

By William Kristol
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15
Washington Post

In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as "unacceptable." But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it."

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

What is becoming increasingly clear, from the Clinton speech and from the overall behavior of her administration -- and for that matter from the action or, rather, inaction of the "international community" -- is that we are all moving toward accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Consider Clinton's speech.

The secretary of state devoted six paragraphs out of 52 to Iran.

She began by acknowledging that "for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat" than the prospect of the current Iranian regime with nuclear arms.

She explained how threatening such a prospect would be to Israel, the region and the world, culminating in the cascade of "unacceptables."

She then briefly defended the Obama administration's decision to try engagement, acknowledged (basically) that engagement had failed, but claimed that at least "[t]he world has seen that it is Iran, not the United States, responsible for the impasse." She noted that "with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of its obligations under the nonproliferation regime and an unjustified expansion of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concerns about Iran's intentions."

And what are the newly perceptive and ever more deeply concerned nations of the world doing about Iran? "There is a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure Iran's leaders to change course." What kind of pressure? New U.N. Security Council resolutions with "sanctions that will bite."

Now, these won't be quite the "crippling" sanctions Clinton promised last year -- but they'll be biting ones. (Then we learned, late in the week, that the sanctions were being adjusted so they wouldn't bite too much -- so as to get the "international community" on board.) Of course, three Security Council resolutions seeking to pressure Iran's leaders were passed during the Bush administration, before the great international awakening brought about by President Obama's engagement policy. Clinton had to acknowledge that "it is taking time to produce these new sanctions." But she maintained that "time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts." And she reiterated that "we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons."

Notice what Clinton conspicuously failed to mention as part of that "commitment" -- another word, by the way, about whose unhappy diplomatic history Raymond Aron would undoubtedly have had mordant comments. What the secretary of state did not say is that all options are on the table. What she did not say is that force remains a last but credible resort against this regime's nuclear plans. What she did not say is that we would try to help the opposition change who "Iran's leaders" are.

So: Nothing about regime change. Nothing about the possible use of force. Just broadly supported "sanctions that will bite," but not too much.

Then Clinton turned -- one can almost hear the sigh of relief -- to other issues, because, after all, "Iran is not the only threat on the horizon. Israel is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history." And we were off into the maze of the peace process, the settlements, and other ephemera and trivialities.

The Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute the dominant threat to the security of Israel and to the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East. While presidents Bush and Obama have proclaimed that this Iranian regime obtaining nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, they have done nothing effective to stop it. Now we are also apparently pressuring Israel not to act to stop Iran from getting nuclear arms.

Is it so hard to remember what happens when liberal democracies accept the unacceptable? Is it too much to hope that, for the government of the United States in 2010, accepting the unacceptable should be unacceptable?
__________________________

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company