Post by earl on Jun 10, 2008 14:35:56 GMT
When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee recently he got a big hand when he denounced Iran, but less of a one when he mentioned "difficult decisions" that will have to be made for peace with the Palestinians. Some Israelis wonder if American Jewish organizations may be a bit behind Israel's own evolving views on territorial compromises.
The American Jewish Committee's Larry Lowenthal says that "certain Jewish leaders who reject territorial compromise in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict do not reflect the mainstream Jewish organizational positions. All support, explicitly or implicitly, a two-state solution." But would that include compromises on Jerusalem that Palestinians insist upon, and that Olmert's aides say might be necessary? Barack Obama received a thunderous ovation at Aipac when he seemed to be tougher on Jerusalem than the Israeli government.
Olmert, now clinging to his political life amid corruption charges, has claimed that some American supporters of Israel have spent a lot of money trying to overthrow his government precisely because he favors territorial compromises.
Olmert is currently under investigation for accepting bribes - or campaign contributions, depending on your view - from the American businessman Morris Talansky. Some Israelis point out that the gifts were made when Olmert was a reliable opponent of territorial compromises, and say that the whistle blowing came after his change of heart.
Whatever the resolution of this case, Talansky's efforts have caused bitter resentment in some Israeli quarters. Gideon Levy, in the newspaper Haaretz, wrote that American donations to West Bank settlements have done "direct and considerable" damage to Israel's peace interests. It is time, Levy argued, to say to Talansky-style contributors, "stop 'contributing' to advance your interests and views, some of which are at times delusionary, and extremely dangerous to the future of the country you're supposedly trying to protect."
The Israeli writer Uri Avnery wrote of "the chutzpah" of Americans "sending billions for the establishment of settlements ... which are there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war; a war that threatens our future, not theirs."
Aipac is the most formidable foreign policy lobbying group in the United States, as evidenced by the desire of all the presidential candidates to address its meeting. One can argue whether the lobby has too much influence over American foreign policy, but it is but one of many groups working hard to bend American foreign policy one way or another.
"What Aipac wants," Michael Massing once wrote in the New York Review of Books, is "a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses, enfeebled Palestinians, and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States. Aipac is skeptical of negotiations and peace accords, along with the efforts by Israeli doves, the Palestinians, and Americans to promote them."
Jeffrey Goldberg recently wrote in The New York Times of "Israel's 'American Problem,"' saying that "what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state - publicly, continuously and vociferously - to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state."
"Right on," said a Jewish-American leader, who requested anonymity. "American Jewish organizations are not facing the facts, but I can say nothing publicly." They may support a two-state solution in principle, but whether major Jewish organizations, not to mention the pro-Israel Christian right, would support a policy that pressures Israel is another matter.
Other diasporas have lagged behind the curve, late to adjust to changing circumstances. Some Irish-Americans, brought up with an anti-British grudge, were slow to recognize that Britain and Ireland were working together to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Today, Irish-Americans in this city regularly dine at the British consul's table and invest money in Northern Ireland, where once they might have declined both.
Israeli politicians have been saying that, unless the problem of the occupied territories is resolved, Israel is in mortal danger. But they are not sure all their well-wishers in America are in sync.
The American Jewish Committee's Larry Lowenthal says that "certain Jewish leaders who reject territorial compromise in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict do not reflect the mainstream Jewish organizational positions. All support, explicitly or implicitly, a two-state solution." But would that include compromises on Jerusalem that Palestinians insist upon, and that Olmert's aides say might be necessary? Barack Obama received a thunderous ovation at Aipac when he seemed to be tougher on Jerusalem than the Israeli government.
Olmert, now clinging to his political life amid corruption charges, has claimed that some American supporters of Israel have spent a lot of money trying to overthrow his government precisely because he favors territorial compromises.
Olmert is currently under investigation for accepting bribes - or campaign contributions, depending on your view - from the American businessman Morris Talansky. Some Israelis point out that the gifts were made when Olmert was a reliable opponent of territorial compromises, and say that the whistle blowing came after his change of heart.
Whatever the resolution of this case, Talansky's efforts have caused bitter resentment in some Israeli quarters. Gideon Levy, in the newspaper Haaretz, wrote that American donations to West Bank settlements have done "direct and considerable" damage to Israel's peace interests. It is time, Levy argued, to say to Talansky-style contributors, "stop 'contributing' to advance your interests and views, some of which are at times delusionary, and extremely dangerous to the future of the country you're supposedly trying to protect."
The Israeli writer Uri Avnery wrote of "the chutzpah" of Americans "sending billions for the establishment of settlements ... which are there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war; a war that threatens our future, not theirs."
Aipac is the most formidable foreign policy lobbying group in the United States, as evidenced by the desire of all the presidential candidates to address its meeting. One can argue whether the lobby has too much influence over American foreign policy, but it is but one of many groups working hard to bend American foreign policy one way or another.
"What Aipac wants," Michael Massing once wrote in the New York Review of Books, is "a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses, enfeebled Palestinians, and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States. Aipac is skeptical of negotiations and peace accords, along with the efforts by Israeli doves, the Palestinians, and Americans to promote them."
Jeffrey Goldberg recently wrote in The New York Times of "Israel's 'American Problem,"' saying that "what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state - publicly, continuously and vociferously - to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state."
"Right on," said a Jewish-American leader, who requested anonymity. "American Jewish organizations are not facing the facts, but I can say nothing publicly." They may support a two-state solution in principle, but whether major Jewish organizations, not to mention the pro-Israel Christian right, would support a policy that pressures Israel is another matter.
Other diasporas have lagged behind the curve, late to adjust to changing circumstances. Some Irish-Americans, brought up with an anti-British grudge, were slow to recognize that Britain and Ireland were working together to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Today, Irish-Americans in this city regularly dine at the British consul's table and invest money in Northern Ireland, where once they might have declined both.
Israeli politicians have been saying that, unless the problem of the occupied territories is resolved, Israel is in mortal danger. But they are not sure all their well-wishers in America are in sync.
