Matthew M. Hausman
During his recent visit to the White House, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu informed President Obama that Israel would not endorse a Palestinian state or put a blanket freeze on “settlements.” The Prime Minister was not as obsequious as his predecessor in lauding the Saudi initiative, or in assenting in advance to further Israeli concessions despite the Palestinians’ abject failure to honor any obligations under the Road Map, minimal though they were. Mr. Obama clearly wanted more from Netanyahu before travelling to Cairo to make a major policy address in which he attempted, among other, things ingratiate himself to the Arab-Muslim world and adopted the Arab narrative linking the creation of Israel to the Holocaust. The knee-jerk reaction of many American Jews was to label Mr. Netanyahu a far right extremist.
In referring to Mr. Netanyahu’s government as right wing, American critics misstate his personal history and his political evolution. It is certainly true that Netanyahu is not a dove and is not willing to engage in further negotiations and concessions that will endanger Israel at a critical point in her history. And it is likewise true that he is vocal in his criticism of the Palestinians’ refusal to fulfill even their de minis obligations to cease engaging in incitement, to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and to disavow terrorism. But these positions do not make him a far right extremist, and don’t even place him at the same end of the political spectrum as Avigdor Lieberman. Rather, they put him squarely in the Israeli mainstream.
If anything, Bibi’s refusal to grovel offers a sobering counterbalance to the prior willingness of Olmert, Livni and Kadima to agree to the establishment of a hostile state, to give credence to a mendacious national narrative that contradicts Jewish history, and to ignore the continuing Arab refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist or her character as a Jewish state.
American Jewish liberals routinely call for dialogue with the Palestinians out of some twisted concept of fairness. However, they are blind to the rejectionism that permeates the Arab street and Islamic thought, and their instincts are colored by an insipid ideology that on some level accepts the canard that Israel is a colonial power. Just as Mr. Obama travels the world apologizing for American arrogance, these voices blame Israel for the dysfunction in the Arab world. Moreover, in the spirit of “dialogue” they tolerate those who denounce Zionism as an ideology tinged with bigotry and racism, while refusing to criticize Arab antisemitism. These voices have lost sight of the Israeli electorate’s clear rejection of unrequited dialogue as naïve, dangerous and untenable.
Still, when Israelis have the temerity to question the wisdom of a two-state solution, reject the demand to cease building “settlements” in historically Jewish areas, or refuse to make further concessions in the absence of any reciprocity, liberals label them “right wingers” in order to marginalize them and influence Jewish America to reject them. Most American Jews are liberal Democrats and have a natural revulsion to anything deemed “right wing,” regardless of whether the label fits. This behavioral response is deeply ingrained, and begs the question whether it is an expression of deeply held (albeit misguided) beliefs, or simply a perverse ghetto mentality that restrains Jews from freely lobbying for their own interests.
Much has been written lately about J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the growing chorus that claims to be pro-Israel while incongruously lending credence to those who seek her destruction. But what of the stalwart organizations that for so long have been identified with strong advocacy of the Israeli position and Jewish interests? What of AIPAC and the ADL? Sadly, these organizations have become creaky and meek, and seem addled when attempting to confront the leftist tide that has hijacked much of the political discourse regarding Israel.
Despite its long history of service and advocacy, AIPAC shocked many of its boosters when it abandoned Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, the AIPAC lobbyists who were indicted on trumped up charges of espionage for passing along to Israel information given to them by government contacts with whom they routinely dialogued. The information involved Israeli security issues, and passing it to lobbyists was the manner in which such information had always been disseminated in the past. However, AIPAC’s response was to repudiate both men, fire them, and refuse to pay for their legal defense. The politically motivated indictments were finally dropped and all charges dismissed, and yet AIPAC still failed to do the right thing.
Equally disturbing was the organization’s seeming nod to the Jewish left by its recent endorsement of a two-state solution, despite the plethora of objective polls showing that the majority of Arabs in the Middle East do not support such a solution or even recognize Israel’s right to exist. AIPAC’s apparent acquiescence to the Obama Administration’s policy line and the embrace of a fantasy solution with little basis in fact represents a significant departure from its historical position.
The ADL has fared no better in the world of Israel advocacy as demonstrated by its recent repudiation of Geert Wilders, a committed free speech advocate and one of the only true friends that Israel has in any European government. Mr. Wilders is the Dutch parliamentarian who was prevented from entering Britain last February by the British Home Secretary, who slandered Mr. Wilders as “a danger to public order.” Although Mr. Wilders had been invited by Lord Malcolm Pearson to address the House of Lords, he was vilified by the Home Office for the release of his movie “Fitna,” in which he drew obvious connections between Quranic-inspired Islamic fanaticism and Islamic terrorism and intolerance.
Mr. Wilders spoke in Florida last month, and his presentation was by all accounts thoughtful and analytical. In condemning Mr. Wilders for truthfully identifying Islamic totalitarianism and intolerance as impediments to honest discourse and lasting peace, the ADL gave no import to his remarks concerning Islamic fanaticism, the doctrinal hatred of “nonbelievers,” and the scriptural basis of the Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel. That Mr. Wilders was pilloried by the likes of CAIR should surprise nobody; but his condemnation by the ADL should give us all pause. In that the ADL excoriated him largely by mischaracterizing his remarks, one could reasonably question whether it was influenced perhaps by the blanket criticisms of groups such as CAIR, whose anti-Israel and antisemitic credentials should render any of their statements suspect.
Mr. Wilders was introduced in Florida by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman who, upon learning of the ADL’s ill-informed missive, attempted to contact its Florida Regional Director to provide an accurate account of the event and the contents of Mr. Wilders’ presentation. Although quick to condemn what it seems not to have heard correctly, the ADL has been slow to follow up since being informed that its rebuke did not accurately reflect Mr. Wilder’s actual words. As of this writing, the organization has not responded to Rabbi Hausman’s attempt to provide a record or offer to discuss Mr. Wilders’ comments.
What Israel and her supporters need is unwavering institutional support that recognizes the importance of consistent policy. Unfortunately, AIPAC and the ADL have demonstrated a failure of resolve and loss of doctrinal focus, perhaps borne of an attempt to remain “relevant” to the constituency that is under the sway of the left-wing advocacy groups that are drawing so much media attention. In contrast, the Zionist Organization of America has been unwavering in its support and firm in its focus and understanding of the cultural, religious and political factors militating against a two-state solution. It also seems to realize the danger of equivocation and vacillation.
In addressing AIPAC’s ridiculous congressional lobbying effort in support of a two-state solution, Morton Klein of the ZOA in a May 6th press release stated:
ZOA . . . opposes this move by AIPAC because supporting or promoting a Palestinian Arab state under prevailing conditions is seriously mistaken and because AIPAC is thereby supporting a major policy affecting Israel’s vital interests despite the fact that the Israeli government has not supported such a policy.
In calling for its constituency to lobby Congress in favor of a two-state solution, AIPAC clearly validates the blathering of J Street, which routinely claims that the majority of Jews support such a scenario. In contrast, the ZOA’s vision has remained clear, buoyed by the knowledge that the majority of American Jews polled in fact do not support a two-state solution at this time, and furthermore reject ceding any portion of Jerusalem. The ZOA is likewise aware that the majority of Arabs polled also reject a two- solution or any permanent peace with Israel.
The ZOA has also taken a more realistic view of where Jewish loyalties should lie with respect to the few friends Israel has among the Europeans. In a press release earlier this year, the ZOA had this to say about Geert Wilders:
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has announced its strong support for Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who is being criminally prosecuted in Holland for producing the short film “Fitna,” which documents the dangers of radical Islam. . .
Wilders is also a steadfast friend of Israel, and has visited the Jewish State more than 40 times in his adult life. . .
This statement is a far cry from the ADL’s facile condemnation of Mr. Wilders and its shameful failure to clarify or correct its statements.
This behavior demonstrates that these organizations are too concerned about what Israel’s detractors think, and it belittles those who care for Israel’s safety and have a firm grasp of Jewish history. That AIPAC and the ADL seem to be reacting defensively and apologetically should not be countenanced by the Jewish community.
It is unacceptable to advocate the creation of a Palestinian state while ignoring the continuing expressions of contempt and malice for Israel, the refusal to disavow terrorism, and the continuing repudiation of Israel as a Jewish state. Moreover, it defies logic to criticize friends of Israel who rightly identify intellectual tyranny and chide her enemies.
In light of the Obama Administration’s pandering to the Arab world and its refusal to deal effectively with Iran, Israel has reached a critical juncture in its relationship with the United States. The organizational failure to lobby effectively at this time is unconscionable. The Administration’s attempt to force Israel to accept the creation of a hostile Palestinian state and ignore her own security needs clearly shows a shift in American policy and allegiance. It should not be permitted to claim the support of our organizations because of their apparent failure of resolve and moral capitulation. Mr. Netanyahu is aware of the shift in American loyalty. So is the ZOA. It’s time for AIPAC and ADL to clear their heads and acknowledge the same. It would be a travesty of justice for American Jews to sit idly by and watch Israel be irreparably harmed and then claim after the fact that they didn’t know what was happening.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=14005#more-14005
No comments:
Post a Comment