02-15-2019, 06:14 PM
Rather than start a new thread: How (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/15/how-and-how-not-to-talk-about-the-israel-lobby/
... Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries, and the vicious killings at a Pittsburgh synagogue last year remind us that it remains a threat today. Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust, but it’s important to recognize (as Omar has acknowledged learning recently) that the history of anti-Semitism and its current expression are more widespread than that particular horror.
Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros or when Republican politicians use similar themes in campaigns and fail to denounce anti-Semitic chants at political rallies.
But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Bigotry and violence must be firmly rejected, but vigilance to prevent a resurgence of anti-Semitism should not be used as a political weapon to silence honest discourse now . . . .
First, what groups such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Christians United for Israel, the Zionist Organization of America, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and various other groups are doing, and what wealthy individuals such as Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson have done for years, is normal political activity and wholly in line with the interest group basis of U.S. politics.
Second, these groups and individuals are not a unified monolith, and there is no central leadership that directs their activities.
Third, the Israel lobby is defined not by its members’ religion or ethnicity but by its political agenda—i.e., working to promote staunch U.S. support for Israel. To be sure, this includes American Jews who are ardent in their support of Israel, but some Americans who strongly favor unconditional support for Israel—notably Christian evangelicals—are not Jewish. Moreover, there are many people in the U.S. Jewish community who are critical of Israel and its policies. For this reason, using terms such as “Jewish lobby” to talk about pro-Israel groups is both inaccurate and inevitably conjures up dangerous stereotypes.
Fourth, like other interest groups, the Israel lobby uses a variety of strategies to accomplish its goals. Some of its influence comes from campaign contributions to political parties or politicians (although AIPAC does not do this), some from direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, some from public outreach (op-eds, books, position papers, media appearances, etc.), and some from the role that pro-Israel individuals may play in the U.S. government itself. Once again, such influence is no different from the influence that oil or pharmaceutical companies gain . . . .
Lastly, no interest group gets its way all of the time. The Israel lobby doesn’t control every aspect of U.S. Middle East policy, just as the NRA doesn’t control every aspect of gun control and health insurers didn’t get everything they wanted with Obamacare. But no one who has worked on foreign-policy issues in Washington or studied them with any objectivity would deny that AIPAC and related groups have considerable clout (which AIPAC brags about on its website), and policymakers remain sensitive to the lobby’s concerns, as any number of former officials have testified. But words matter, and using words such as “control” conjures up creepy and inaccurate images of shadowy puppet masters pulling strings.
Given all that, Omar’s tweets were both unfortunate and careless, and they stemmed from ignorance that she has subsequently acknowledged. But I do not believe they are evidence of anti-Semitism, and I don’t think it is helpful to respond to them with alarmist accusations and demands for her resignation. For starters, Twitter was the wrong medium: There’s simply no way to address the complexities of these issues in 140 (or even 280) characters. Second, her suggestion that AIPAC gives money to congressional candidates was factually incorrect. AIPAC engages in lots of face-to-face lobbying, runs a big annual conference, does grassroots work in local districts, sponsors congressional trips to Israel, and provides guidance to pro-Israel groups and individuals about candidates’ views on U.S.-Israel relations, but it doesn’t donate to congressional campaigns. If you’re going to wade into this minefield, it’s important to get your facts right.
But here’s the kicker: Though Omar deserved to be educated about the unfortunate manner and content of her critique, she would still have been pilloried even if she had been more sensitive to the history of anti-Semitism and offered a nuanced and well-documented argument. Why? Because being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby’s activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel’s actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.
(I mentioned Stephan Walt in an earlier post as co-author of The Israel Lobby. )
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/15/how-and-how-not-to-talk-about-the-israel-lobby/
... Let’s start with some obvious but vital points. Anti-Semitism has a long and loathsome history dating back centuries, and the vicious killings at a Pittsburgh synagogue last year remind us that it remains a threat today. Anti-Semites have fanned the flames with bizarre conspiracy theories about secret cabals (e.g., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and sinister claims about the influence of “Jewish money,” along with divisive accusations of national disloyalty (as in the notorious Dreyfus affair in France). Such hateful beliefs and tropes have had fatal consequences, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust, but it’s important to recognize (as Omar has acknowledged learning recently) that the history of anti-Semitism and its current expression are more widespread than that particular horror.
Given all that, Jews are understandably alarmed and angry when similar ideas or tropes are invoked today. Indeed, everyone should be. We should all be outraged when a world leader such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban directs classic anti-Semitic accusations at someone like George Soros or when Republican politicians use similar themes in campaigns and fail to denounce anti-Semitic chants at political rallies.
But at the same time, we need to be able to talk openly and calmly about all the forces that shape U.S. politics today, including groups like AIPAC and related organizations that seek to influence U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Bigotry and violence must be firmly rejected, but vigilance to prevent a resurgence of anti-Semitism should not be used as a political weapon to silence honest discourse now . . . .
First, what groups such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Christians United for Israel, the Zionist Organization of America, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and various other groups are doing, and what wealthy individuals such as Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson have done for years, is normal political activity and wholly in line with the interest group basis of U.S. politics.
Second, these groups and individuals are not a unified monolith, and there is no central leadership that directs their activities.
Third, the Israel lobby is defined not by its members’ religion or ethnicity but by its political agenda—i.e., working to promote staunch U.S. support for Israel. To be sure, this includes American Jews who are ardent in their support of Israel, but some Americans who strongly favor unconditional support for Israel—notably Christian evangelicals—are not Jewish. Moreover, there are many people in the U.S. Jewish community who are critical of Israel and its policies. For this reason, using terms such as “Jewish lobby” to talk about pro-Israel groups is both inaccurate and inevitably conjures up dangerous stereotypes.
Fourth, like other interest groups, the Israel lobby uses a variety of strategies to accomplish its goals. Some of its influence comes from campaign contributions to political parties or politicians (although AIPAC does not do this), some from direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, some from public outreach (op-eds, books, position papers, media appearances, etc.), and some from the role that pro-Israel individuals may play in the U.S. government itself. Once again, such influence is no different from the influence that oil or pharmaceutical companies gain . . . .
Lastly, no interest group gets its way all of the time. The Israel lobby doesn’t control every aspect of U.S. Middle East policy, just as the NRA doesn’t control every aspect of gun control and health insurers didn’t get everything they wanted with Obamacare. But no one who has worked on foreign-policy issues in Washington or studied them with any objectivity would deny that AIPAC and related groups have considerable clout (which AIPAC brags about on its website), and policymakers remain sensitive to the lobby’s concerns, as any number of former officials have testified. But words matter, and using words such as “control” conjures up creepy and inaccurate images of shadowy puppet masters pulling strings.
Given all that, Omar’s tweets were both unfortunate and careless, and they stemmed from ignorance that she has subsequently acknowledged. But I do not believe they are evidence of anti-Semitism, and I don’t think it is helpful to respond to them with alarmist accusations and demands for her resignation. For starters, Twitter was the wrong medium: There’s simply no way to address the complexities of these issues in 140 (or even 280) characters. Second, her suggestion that AIPAC gives money to congressional candidates was factually incorrect. AIPAC engages in lots of face-to-face lobbying, runs a big annual conference, does grassroots work in local districts, sponsors congressional trips to Israel, and provides guidance to pro-Israel groups and individuals about candidates’ views on U.S.-Israel relations, but it doesn’t donate to congressional campaigns. If you’re going to wade into this minefield, it’s important to get your facts right.
But here’s the kicker: Though Omar deserved to be educated about the unfortunate manner and content of her critique, she would still have been pilloried even if she had been more sensitive to the history of anti-Semitism and offered a nuanced and well-documented argument. Why? Because being aware of, sensitive to, and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism and offering an informed, factual picture of the lobby’s activities affords little or no protection to anyone who is critical of Israel’s actions, is concerned about the one-sided nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and disagrees with the policy positions that groups like AIPAC endorse.
(I mentioned Stephan Walt in an earlier post as co-author of The Israel Lobby. )
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
