Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 1998, Pages 51-52

Neve's Notes: An Israeli Sojourner Along the American Way

"Pro-Israel Lobbies" in U.S. Urging Agenda Inimical to Israel, Whose Future Lies in a Peaceful Solution

By Neve Gordon

A few months ago, I attended a friend's confirmation ceremony which celebrated his return to Judaism. During a cordial conversation, the rabbi told me that each time I write a column which criticizes Israel's policies toward Palestinians or its Arab neighbors, members of the congregation phone him in protest.

"I tell them to talk to you," he said, and then noted that many members feel that while criticism of Israel is permissible when done in Israel, here in the U.S. it feeds "anti-Semitism."

The problem with this position, as the rabbi probably knows, is not only that it stifles healthy criticism, but that it is morally hollow. It carries weight only from a realpolitik standpoint, and even then only from within an "us-versus-them" mentality, which situates me, an Israeli, with "them."

Tragically, many of the Jewish organizations in the U.S. have embraced this approach, abandoning the rich prophetic vision—vocal irreverence to an unjust establishment—so fundamental to the Jewish heritage. The ethical vacuity of these organizations explains the lack of vision of the so-called pro-Israel lobbies, which in the final analysis are urging an agenda inimical to Israel's interests. These lobbies have yet to realize that Israel's future lies in a peaceful solution in the Middle East.

Let's leave aside those individuals who sway internal Israeli politics from abroad, like the Floridian Irving Moskowitz who has invested 20 million bingo dollars in right-wing political candidates, a number of fanatical religious organizations, and the purchase of Palestinian land. Instead let's take a glimpse at a number of Jewish organizations active in the United States.

Consider, first, the media watch organization called Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME). This organization is very critical of mainstream media coverage, contending that it is anti-Israel.

Do the mainstream media really have an anti-Israeli bias? According to Jewish Power, J. J. Goldberg's book on the Jewish establishment in the U.S., Jews "make up one-fourth or more of the writers, editors, and producers in America's 'elite media.'" Thus, it would be hard to claim that the Jewish voice isn't heard.

Moreover, one could reasonably argue that the real test of the media's treatment of Israel is determined by the extent to which it allows discussion concerning U.S. foreign aid to Israel. Edward Herman, professor emeritus of finance at the University of Pennsylvania, points out that this is particularly relevant at a time of U.S. budget cuts.

No Questions Asked

The fact that even during fiscal debates the media don't raise questions about the annual $3 billion foreign aid package transferred to Israel is revealing. Herman considers this to be a sign of determined support for Israel, not to mention media complicity with the State Department and pro-Israel lobby.

FLAME, like other Jewish organizations, maintains an oath of silence concerning such information, while vocally objecting to criticism of Israel, regardless. Claiming that the public deserves a factual and objective perspective concerning the Middle East, FLAME publishes "explanatory ads" in numerous newspapers around the country.

Ads which recently appeared in liberal papers such as The Nation and Mother Jones testify to FLAME's mendacious stance. According to one ad, the "Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs threaten at every hitch in the 'peace process' to break it off or to resort to bloody violence."

This lie, which is anti-Semitic propaganda in the true sense of the word and by no means conducive to any form of mutual coexistence, is considered, by some sort of distorted logic, to be a pro-Israel utterance. FLAME, as anyone who reads its ads can see, is hostile to peace.

Also opposing the peace process is the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest Jewish organization in the United States. It has been co-opted by Likud supporters and currently is led by Morton Klein. During Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit to the Middle East, ZOA placed full-page ads in The New York Times—at an average cost of $70,000—which convey a message of thinly veiled racist hostility toward Palestinians. Why hasn't ZOA's malicious portrayal of Palestinians been criticized in the public sphere by the Jewish community?

ZOA claims to have 50,000 members throughout the U.S. participating in educational activities and public affairs programs. Simultaneously it supports pro-Israel legislation on Capitol Hill. "Pro-Israel" must be understood from within Klein's tribal, xenophobic frame of mind. He sees the Middle East conflict as a zero-sum game, a conclusion that did not change in Oslo's aftermath.

Following the September 1993 Yitzhak Rabin-Yasser Arafat handshake, a combined effort led to the creation of an international fund which was to support the fledgling Palestinian Authority. Aware of the dilapidated infrastructure in the occupied territories, Israeli politicians realized that the new authority would have to invest billions of dollars in order to create a sustainable economy. Rabin recognized that poverty can lead to unrest and therefore asked other countries to contribute. Forty-three countries pledged $2 billion, of which one-fourth was to come from the U.S.

Since ZOA's leadership tends to conceptualize the situation along strict, binary, us-versus-them lines, they opposed this effort and lobbied Congress in an attempt to prevent the transfer of U.S. funds. Consequently, on July 29, 1994, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and Alabama Democratic Sen. Richard Shelby managed to insert an amendment which hindered the transfer of money to the Palestinian Authority.

Realizing that the amendment complicated the delicate process of creating peace the Clinton administration opposed it, but to no avail. Subsequently, Senator Specter became co-chair of the ZOA-initiated Peace Accord Monitoring Group (PAM) in the U.S. Senate. Specter, one should note, has received $298,623 from the so-called pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) since 1980, and Shelby has received $135,825 from them since 1984.

PACs became part of the political scene in 1974 when Congress enacted campaign finance reforms which limited organized donations to $10,000 per candidate—a $5,000 primary election donation and another $5,000 during the general election campaign. According to J.J. Goldberg, PACs proliferated around the country, from 608 in 1974 to 4,681 in 1990. The total amount donated by PACs to congressional campaigns increased during the same period from $12.5 million in 1974 to $150.5 million in 1990. PACs may represent corporations, trade unions, or specific interest groups such as feminist organizations, environmentalists and the pro-Israel lobby.

Most pro-Israel PACs hide their identity by choosing names that do not reflect their goals—Americans for Better Citizenship is one such example. In 1990, some 95 pro-Israel PACs gave a total of $4,948,934 to congressional candidates, while PACs opposed to gun control gave a mere $914,000, and those on both sides of the abortion issue gave $747,000. Goldberg notes that although the majority of Jews vote for Democratic candidates, by 1996 "Jewish PAC money was going to Republicans over Democrats by a six-to-four margin."

Many of the pro-Israel PACs are connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a "middle-of-the-road" Jewish organization with an annual budget of about $15 million, five or six registered lobbyists and a staff of around 150 people. As with other lobbying groups, AIPAC's major objective is to pressure members of Congress to vote according to its recommendations, helping to re-elect incumbents who have a "good" voting record, while "punishing" those who don't by funding an electable opponent.

The Wall Street Journal reported that many of the PACs "which draw money from Jewish donors and operate under obscure-sounding names—are operated by AIPAC officials or people who hold seats on AIPAC's two major policymaking bodies." Richard Curtiss, author of Stealth PACs and editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, claims that in 1988, like-minded pro-Israel PACs donated more than $5.4 million to 477 candidates for Congress. "Three candidates each received more than $200,000 from pro-Israel PACs," Curtiss says, "and four other candidates received more than $100,000, 10 to 20 times more than candidates are permitted by law to accept from any single special interest PAC." Goldberg agrees that the distribution of funds of many of the so-called pro-Israel PACs is coordinated by AIPAC, thus enabling the pro-Israel lobby to wield much greater influence than any narrow-issue interest group.

Changing of the Guard

Following the 1992 changing of the guard in both the White House and the Israeli Knesset, AIPAC elected a Democrat, Steven Grossman, to lead the organization. Goldberg argues that despite the change of leadership in AIPAC, it is still controlled by the gang-of-four—Larry Weinberg, Robert Asher, Edward Levy and Mayar "Bubba" Mitchell, all of whom were past presidents of the organization. These four, Goldberg adds, oppose the Oslo agreement, and lobby Congress against the peace accord "and the American initiatives that were meant to back it up." Goldberg also points out that when "Grossman convened the officers' group to discuss how AIPAC could block the obstructionists, the four simply over-ruled him." In other words, Grossman was silenced because he believes that peace in the Middle East entails territorial concessions by Israel and self-determination for Palestinians.

Now that Netanyahu is in control, tensions within AIPAC seem to have evaporated. In an Aug. 25, 1997 editorial entitled "AIPAC Speaks Out on Peace" which appeared in AIPAC's Near East Report, one reads that the protracted deadlock in the peace process has unjustly generated American pressure on Israel. In a self-righteous tone the editorial points out that Israel has "withdrawn from most of Hebron; not built any new settlements; and committed itself not to expand the municipal boundaries of existing settlements." "Nonetheless," it continues a few sentences later, "virtually no attention has been paid to these important Israeli initiatives, which could serve as a foundation for future progress in the peace process. Rather than considering ways to pressure Israel, the administration ought to continue insisting that the Palestinian Authority stop using terrorism as a bargaining chip, and should focus the negotiations on the serious ideas Israel has developed."

Disregarding the crafty rhetoric about the Palestinian Authority's use of terrorism as a bargaining chip, and the attempt to stifle any criticism of, or pressure on, Israel, AIPAC just isn't up-to-date on the facts. The Foundation for Middle East Peace reports that under the rubric of "natural growth," Israel's settlement policies continue. Nine thousand Israelis moved to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during 1996, according to Israel's Ministry of the Interior. Statistics compiled by the U.S. government and reported in Israel's daily Ha'aretz on May 20 show that there are no less than 9,000 housing units—able to accommodate 40,000 new settlers—on the planning maps of Israeli authorities. This figure does not include new housing in East Jerusalem, like the 6,500 units now under construction at Har Homa. Is there any reason AIPAC should be allowed to get away with fabrications that seriously endanger the peace process and threaten Israel's future?

Fortunately, not all Jewish groups have chosen this destructive, short-sighted path. Harold Shapiro, of the Education Fund for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace, tells me that a number of progressive groups are getting together to fight back. These groups, including Americans for Peace Now and Givat Haviva, have created an ad hoc lobbying group called Beit Shalom, meaning house of peace. "We want to provide an alternative voice," Shapiro says, "a voice that challenges the right-wing Jewish organizations and Israel insofar as they deviate from the road to peace."

With a long-term view of the future, these progressive organizations are not hesitant to criticize Israel's settlement policy, its use of torture, and the provocative opening of the Jerusalem tunnel last year. They believe the Palestinians also deserve political freedom, and therefore they favor a two-state solution. Precisely now, when Israel is led from crisis to crisis by a "serial bungler," Shapiro's conscientious position should gain wider audience.