AIPAC’s “Only Israel matters” approach is filled with perils
JVL Introduction
“Aipac has defended its backing of extremists on the grounds that support for Israel is more important that other issues.” This should be shocking but if your only concern is support for Israel, this is where you end up – backing white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and even insurrectionist Republicans.
Last week Donald Trump said “No president has done more for Israel than I have. Somewhat surprisingly, however, our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S….those living in Israel, though, are a different story – highest approval rating in the world, could easily be PM! U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel. Before it is too late,” (See eg in Ha’aretz) There has been criticism from mainstream Jewish zionist organisations in the US , although not, apparently for conflating Jews and Israel (something that arguably even falls foul of the IHRA non legally binding working definition of antisemitism).
What about the safety of Jewish people’s in the USA or across the world, let alone concern about the rights of the Palestinian people or of those people oppressed by those same “extremists”? But is this power or desperation as the tide IS turning in favour of justice for Palestinians?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The US’s largest pro-Israel lobby group is backing dozens of racists, homophobes and election deniers running for Congress next month because they have pledged to defend Israel against stiffening criticism of its oppression of the Palestinians.
The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has justified endorsing Republicans with extremist views, including members of Congress with ties to white supremacist groups and representatives who attempted to block Joe Biden’s election victory, on the grounds that the singular issue of support for Israel trumps other considerations.
But Aipac’s support for rightwing politicians has privately embarrassed some Democrats also endorsed by the powerful group and drawn accusations from more moderate pro-Israel organisations that it is attempting to stifle legitimate criticism of hardline Israeli policies.
Logan Bayroff, a spokesman for J Street, a group campaigning for Washington to take a stronger stand to end the occupation of Palestinian territories, accused Aipac of attempting to impose a narrow definition of what it is to be pro-Israel amid shifting views in Democratic ranks.
“Their actions have made clear that they view pro-Israel, pro-peace progressive Democrats as threats – and Trumpist Republicans as allies. That worldview could not be more out of touch with the vast majority of American Jews,” he said.
“Aipac may hope to silence and intimidate political leaders who believe that settlement expansion, endless conflict and permanent occupation are harmful to Israel, the Palestinian people and US interests. Ultimately, however, these common-sense views are too popular, widespread and important to be suppressed, and will continue to gain strength within American politics and among the American Jewish community.”
Aipac’s backing of extreme rightwing Republicans follows its $27m advertising campaign during the Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who spoke up for Palestinian rights, mostly with attacks over issues that had nothing to do with Israel.
The campaign is part of push by more hawkish pro-Israel groups to shore up support in Congress in the face of rising advocacy for the Palestinian cause within the Democratic party and erosion of approval for Israeli actions among American Jews, particularly younger people.
Earlier this year, the Israeli foreign ministry director general, Alon Ushpiz, said protecting bipartisan support for the Jewish state in the US was at the top of a list of Israel’s diplomatic priorities amid wider government concern about the impact of a series of international human rights reports that it is practicing a form of apartheid over the Palestinians.
Among those candidates endorsed by Aipac is the New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist whose home town newspaper criticised her for “despicable” advertising and “hateful rhetoric” that promoted the racist and antisemitic “great replacement theory”, claiming the US is being flooded with immigrants to outvote white people. The Times Union accused Stefanik of “fear-based political tactics”.
Another candidate backed by Aipac, the Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry, pushed the same theory when he told a foreign affairs committee meeting “native-born” Americans are being replaced in order “to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation”.
Aipac has also endorsed other candidates who have associated with QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory. Among them are the Georgia congressman Buddy Carter, who attended a QAnon-linked rally claiming links between Democrats and child sex rings, and a Florida congresswoman, Kat Cammack, who appeared on QAnon-related channels including Patriots’ Soapbox.
Other Republicans backed by Aipac have appeared on Patriots’ Soapbox. They include the Utah congressman Burgess Owens, who has promoted claims by the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website, including anti-migrant diatribes and false claims of election rigging. Owens distributed an Infowars article that smeared the bereaved Muslim father of a US soldier by pushing an unfounded suggestion that his legal work helped the 9/11 hijackers enter the US.
Aipac has endorsed Rick Allen, a Georgia congressman who refused to debate a fellow Republican at an Islamic community centre, calling it a “suspect venue”.
The hawkish lobby group is also backing candidates known for anti-LGBTQ+ views. They include Mark Green, a Tennessee congressman who once said “transgender is a disease”, as well as members of Congress who denounced the supreme court ruling making marriage equality a right.
Aipac’s approved list includes Steve Scalise, who opposed the end of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in the military, and Randy Weber, who broke down in tears as he begged God to forgive the US for the supreme court judgement.
“Father, oh Father, please forgive us,” he pleaded.
Aipac support for far-right and homophobic candidates flies in the face of its routine defence of Israel as a liberal democracy surrounded by authoritarian Arab regimes.
Pro-Israel groups routinely deflect criticism of what Israel’s leading human rights group, B’Tselem, called its “regime of Jewish supremacy” over Palestinians, systematic discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens and the recent “nation-state” law that places Jewish identity over democracy, by emphasising Israel’s democratic credentials.
Aipac has consistently pushed the message that Israel is “the only LGBTQ+-friendly country in the Middle East”.
Last year, during one of Israel’s periodic assaults on Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinians, the lobby group again resorted to what has become known as “pink washing” when it tweeted: “Do you support LGBTQ+ rights? Hamas doesn’t. Hamas discriminates against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.”
Aipac caused upset among its supporters earlier this year when it endorsed more than 100 Republican members of Congress who refused to certify Biden’s 2020 election victory. The list again includes Scott, who voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to officers who defended the Capitol on January 6.
Richard Haass, a former US diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the endorsement of politicians who “undermine democracy” as “morally bankrupt and short-sighted”. The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsement of election deniers as a “sad mistake” .
Aipac has defended its backing of extremists on the grounds that support for Israel is more important that other issues.
“This is no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends,” the group said in a message to supporters earlier this year.
“The one thing that guarantees Israel’s ability to defend itself is the enduring support of the United States. When we launched our political action committee last year, we decided that we would base decisions about political contributions on only one thing: whether a political candidate supports the US-Israel relationship. Not on any other issue – just this one.”
Although some Democrats have faced calls to reject Aipac’s endorsement, a senior staffer for one member of Congress said they were not prepared to get into a public confrontation with the lobby group.
“Aipac is now an embarrassment but frankly it’s too powerful to go up against,” the staffer said. “We don’t need them pouring money in against us so we hold off on the public criticisms. But that doesn’t mean to say there are not some serious policy differences, particularly on Iran.”
Aipac is not alone.
The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) was founded three years ago to bolster support for Israel within the party after polls showed younger supporters increasingly wanted to see Washington take a stronger stand in favour of the Palestinians.
Differences within the party were thrown into sharp relief recently when a row blew up over comments by the Palestinian American congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who said there was a contradiction between backing policies that oppress Palestinians and claiming to be progressive.
“I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel’s apartheid government,” she told an Americans for Justice in Palestine conference.
Although Tlaib’s comments were directed at Israeli government actions, she was denounced by fellow Democrats who accused her of questioning Israel’s right to exist. They included Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee backed by Aipac and the DMFI.
“The outrageous progressive litmus test on Israel by Rashida Tlaib is nothing short of antisemitic. Proud progressives do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Suggesting otherwise is shameful and dangerous. Divisive rhetoric does not lead to peace,” she tweeted.
Americans for Peace Now, a sister organisation to Israel’s Peace Now movement, backed Tlaib.
“No part of what [Tlaib] said is antisemitic. Weaponizing accusations of antisemitism cheapens the real fight against antisemitism and does nothing to make Jews safer,” it said.
Aipac responded to questions about its support of extremist candidates by saying their views on issues other than Israel were not relevant.
“Our sole factor for supporting Democratic and Republican candidates is their support for strengthening the US-Israel relationship,” said a spokesman, Marshall Wittmann.
“Indeed, our political action committee has supported scores of pro-Israel progressive candidates including over half of the Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus and almost half of the Progressive Caucus. Our political involvement has shown that it is entirely consistent with progressive politics to support America’s alliance with our democratic ally, Israel.”
There is nothing unZionist in what Aipac is doing in backing racist, including anti-Semitic, homophobic and lets be blunt, outright fascist candidates, regardless of the effect on American Jewry. And incidentally the Zionist Organisation of America, which is the oldest Zionist group in America, has gone one further and put people like Bannon and Gorka on its platforms.
The position of Zionism in relation to the Jewish diaspora was set out repeatedly by David Ben Gurion.
In January 1933 Ben Gurion warned that ‘Zionism… is not primarily engaged in saving individuals’ and that if there was ‘a conflict of interest between saving individual Jews and the good of the Zionist enterprise, we shall say the enterprise comes first.’
As he explained ‘all the significant steps in the progress of Zionism were always related to the intensification of Jewish distress.’
You can find both these quotes in Shabtai Teveth’s official biography p.855.
Zionism, when not calling for the winding of Jewish ‘exile’ saw the role of the Jewish diaspora as supporting, without question, the Jewish state. There is no higher goal in Zionism than the achievement of a Jewish state. The diaspora is there to be exploited and used, almost in a colonial manner.
Antisemitism is only important when it involves criticism of Israel. Genuine antisemitism is not the business of Zionism which after all was founded on the basis that it was inherent in all gentiles and could not be fought.
Aipac are being consistent Zionists. J-Street and others unfortunately have a poor grasp of the fundamentals of Zionism and are mistaken in their view that a healthy thriving diaspora can coexist with a Jewish state. As Avi gdor Lieberman told French Jews in the aftermath of the murder of 4 Jews in the Hypercache supermarket in 2015
‘‘This isn’t your country, this isn’t your land. Leave France and come to Israel’.
‘
Can’t fault Tony’s analysis.
Whether it is Nazis, South African Fascists or US variants, the collaboration between Zionists and racists have been well documented.
It is worth repeating that Israel Knesset member Yitzhak Pindrus has called for the killings of those in mixed-marriages. And as JvL has noted, Israel’s ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely is also a vociferous opponent of mixed-marriages.
She may well not give a t*ss what UK citizens get up to. But it is indicative of how corrupt our media are that she is not scrutinised on her loathsome opinions, despite something like 2% of the UK population being the off-spring of mixed-ethnic-relationships.
This article clearly illustrates the danger of supporting a candidate or party solely on the basis of one issue.
Does it have any counterpart in this country?
Yes, look at the GMB and its advocacy of certain policies because of the question of jobs.
It seems that any policy can be justified in terms of jobs. And this short-sighted mindset puts us all in danger and that includes GMB members.
I would very much like to think that there are people in the GMB who are against fracking and nuclear weapons because of the dangers they create. Let us hope that they will make their voices heard because, at present, the GMB simply does not care.
Here is a recent article that sets out the dangers which the GMB is only too happy to ignore:
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/welfare-not-weapons-the-tuc-vote-for-more-arms-spending-is-deeply-mistaken/
Can’t fault Tony’s analysis.
Whether it is Nazis, South African Fascists or US variants, the collaboration between Zionists and racists have been well documented.
I would suggest on this theme Chris McGreal’s well sourced article “Brothers in arms – Israel’s secret pact with Pretoria” &
Leni Brunner’s “Zionism in the age of Dictators”
It is worth repeating that Israel Knesset member Yitzhak Pindrus has called for the killings of those in mixed-marriages (Middleeasteye, Middleeastmonitor, Palestininan Chronicle).
And as JvL has noted, Israel’s ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely is also a vociferous opponent of mixed-marriages (“Israel must reconsider its choice of UK ambassador”).
She possibly may well not give a t*ss what UK citizens get up to. But it is indicative of how corrupt our media are that she is not scrutinised on her loathsome opinions, despite something like 2% of the UK population being the off-spring of mixed-ethnic-relationships.
1. If Zionism is about founding a mono-cultural Jewish colonial settler state on other people’s land / territory / country with all means possible (including – through time – the (ultimately) wholesale forced transfer of the indigenous population of that land by all means possible), one could argue, that Zionism is as much about Jew-Supremacism, as White-Supremacism is for entertaining and realising the objective, to cleans by all means possible “the West” from all the people, that do not fit into their racially inspired definition of who is entitled to enter and/or stay in their self-proclaimed mono-cultural communities.
2. In that sense Zionists (all over the world) who do apply to the above definition of Zionism, do not differ principally from the very people and organisations who belong to the (USA and elsewhere) radical extreme-right, that AIPAC declared to be acceptable to (continue to) do (geo-) political business with in order to realise / save the colonial Zionist project in the ME.
3. If Zionism does indeed comply with the above definition, one could add that a Zionist state cannot be otherwise, then a state that is definitively not able to successfully apply for the status of a democratic state.
4. That very conclusion might already have been reached, when one does consider the Jewish identity and culture as (necessarily) being exclusively religiously based, since people claiming to be from ancient Jewish descent – and “thus are allowed to “repossess” “their ancestral country” – apparently are merely descendants from Jewish proselytes and have been proven a few years ago already (Zoossmann-Diskin et al) not to be in the possession of “the (suggested / supposed) Jewish gene”.
5. From that conclusion on, one (by the way) also has to conclude, that the often applied notions in this context – like the “historic Diaspora” (and subsequent “Aliyah”) of “the Jewish People” – notions often referred to by Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians alike, to justify the violent settler colonial Zionist project in the ME, never ever can be accepted as a free-ticket to annex Palestine.