GUEST COMMENTARY: Critiquing the Critics of AIPAC

GUEST COMMENTARY

Debunking AIPAC Conspiracy Theories
By Steve Sheffey

Some Americans love conspiracy theories—mob involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, a cover-up of evidence of extra-terrestrial visitors by the Air Force, and the belief the fluoridation is an attempt to poison the water supply are but a few of the theories that appeal to the fringe of the population that refuses to see things as they are, but instead imagines sinister forces pulling strings behind a curtain.

Most of these theories are benign or easily refuted. Paul, after all, is not dead. But a new theory making the rounds is more disturbing. After nearly 60 years of virtually uninterrupted bi-partisan support, some people are alleging that America’s strong alliance with Israel is not the result of geopolitical and moral considerations, but rather the result of undue influence exerted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobby formed in 1954 to advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship based on the shared values of America and Israel and on Israel’s strategic importance to the United States.

Conspiracy theories are appealing because they help believers understand what they cannot rationally explain. Congressional support for the positions AIPAC advocates is overwhelming in both parties, which creates a problem for certain far-left Democrats and far-right Republicans. They wonder how such a broad consensus on a policy they see as so wrong could exist. They are concerned that politicians who they agree with on other issues see Israel so differently from them. The answer: it can only be the result of some powerful, shadowy force that is intimidating them through fear of being labeled anti-Semitic and with the lure of money in exchange for votes.

One would expect anti-Semites to be critical of AIPAC, but that does not mean that all critics of AIPAC’s influence are necessarily anti-Semitic. However, the similarities between criticism of AIPAC’s influence and classic anti-Semitic canards regarding Jewish influence are hard to ignore. This new conspiracy theory is really not so new. In classic anti-Semitic thinking, a small group of Jews in the host country use their money to influence the government to do not what is in the government’s best interests, but to do what is in the best interests of a supposed worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

As Kenneth Stern has noted,

Historically, Jews have not fared well around conspiracy theories. Such ideas fuel anti-Semitism. The myths that Jews killed Christ, or poisoned wells, or killed Christian children to bake matzo, or "made up" the Holocaust, or plot to control the world, do not succeed each other; rather, the list of anti-Semitic canards gets longer. The militia movement today believes in the conspiracy theory of the Protocols, even if some call it something else and never mention Jews. From the perspective of history, we know that this is the type of climate in which anti-Semitism can grow. (Kenneth Stern (1997): A Force upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate. University of Oklahoma Press. p.247)  (quoted in Wikipedia)

Some critics of AIPAC suggest that the policies that AIPAC supports are either good for Israel but not the United States or good for neither Israel nor the United States. The question then becomes why those policies enjoy such strong support in Congress. The one possibility these critics refuse to consider is that they, the critics, might be wrong. Since that possibility is unimaginable to them, the only other possibility is that Congress, or at least part of Congress (the part that the particular critic otherwise identifies with; e.g., Democrats for the far left, Republicans for the far right) is being manipulated by AIPAC.

Jews are less than 3% of the U.S. population and even AIPAC’s critics concede that AIPAC does not speak for all Jews. To suggest that a group representing such a small constituency has a strangle-hold on Congress is not only a classic example of conspiracy theory at its finest, but manages at the same time to suggest that the members of the Congress and the voters who elected them have been duped by a conspiracy that only these brilliant dissenters can see.

Indeed, it is telling that instead of debating the positions AIPAC takes on their merits, critics of AIPAC choose to attack the messenger instead of the message. This probably is a wise tactical decision, since the real reason AIPAC is successful is that facts and logic support its positions.

However, AIPAC’s critics claim that AIPAC positions cannot be attacked because those who oppose AIPAC are labeled anti-Semites. One of the lessons many minority groups have learned is that bigotry must be exposed. Some criticism of Israel truly is anti-Semitic and must be labeled as such. But much criticism of Israel, however misguided, is clearly fair game for debate and is labeled anti-Semitic by no one. Members of Congress who oppose AIPAC policies are not branded as anti-Semitic, and a fear that one runs the risk of being called an anti-Semite merely by opposing AIPAC says more about the inner demons of some AIPAC critics than objective reality.

AIPAC’s critics turn legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism on their head to suggest that they are bravely standing up to those uppity Jews who see anti-Semitism everywhere, playing a rhetorical game in which they bring up anti-Semitism so that they can then assert that they are not anti-Semitic without even waiting to see what the real reaction will be. And if what they say really is anti-Semitic, then they can sidestep the argument by saying that being called for their anti-Semitism merely confirms their prediction.

Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is a good example. Much of what Carter says in the book is very biased against Israel, and the book is rife with factual errors, all of which, oddly enough, weigh against Israel (one would think that a book with so many errors would, if only by chance, happen to have at least one error that was favorable to Israel, but that does not seem to be the case). Does that mean that Carter is an anti-Semite? Not necessarily. But the use of the word “apartheid” in the title is another story.

Using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel is anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent. It is one thing to criticize Israel, but another to deny that Jews have a right to a state of their own. The purpose of the infamous UN “Zionism is racism” resolution was to deny Israel’s legitimacy. A racist state should not exist, and if Zionism is racism (Zionism being the political expression in Israel of the Jewish right to self-determination), then Israel does not deserve to exist. Similarly, an apartheid state is by definition racist and should not exist. If Israel is an apartheid state, then it should not exist. It has been well-documented elsewhere that the situation in Israel is nothing like apartheid, and is unfair not only to Israel, but to the blacks who suffered so long and so unjustly in South Africa. For critics of Israel to say that they use the word “apartheid” simply to make a point reveals either dishonesty or an insensitivity that has no place in rational discourse.

Similarly, comparing the actions of Israel to the Nazis is also anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent. Any state that resembles Nazi Germany does not deserve to exist. Comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany also betray a stunning insensitivity to Israel and the Jewish people. Charges of dual loyalty also smack of anti-Semitism. The accusation is that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America, raising the specter of the international Jew manipulating countries for his own interests. Here too, critics of AIPAC reveal their own inability to comprehend that it is possible, just possible, that the vast majority of Congress in both parties and every administration since Truman’s got it right: Shared values and strategic interests naturally lead to a policies that are good for Israel and America.

Martin Luther King, Jr. summed it up well during an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death. When King was asked a hostile question about Israel, he responded “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism.” (as reported in a January 21, 2002 op-ed by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) in the San Francisco Chronicle.)

All Americans have the right to lobby for the causes they believe in. When critics of AIPAC attack the pro-Israel lobby, they are criticizing literally thousands of Americans who volunteer their time to petition their elected leaders on issues that are important to them.  Americans who lobbied against the Vietnam War, Americans who lobbied against the racist government of South Africa, Americans who lobbied on behalf of Soviet Jewry, and Americans who today lobby against the war in Iraq are part of the same tradition.

In this age of divisiveness and polarity, we should be proud that support for Israel is bi-partisan. It is possible that the vast majority of members of Congress in both parties are wrong about Israel, but it is an insult to Congress, the voters who elected them, and our democratic process to suggest that this consensus is not the result of reason, but the result of a Jewish lobby that subverts the will of Congress and the voters.

The recent book by Jimmy Carter, the study by Walt-Mearsheimer, and the numerous articles critical of AIPAC that appear weekly are proof that no one is stifling debate on this issue. Yes, the claims of Carter and Walt-Mearsheimer were quickly debunked, but strong criticism is what free and open debate is all about. The volume of criticism leveled at Carter and Walt-Mearsheimer was not an attempt to silence them, but was rather an attempt to respond and set the record straight. Attempts to mischaracterize vibrant debate as attempts to smear or silence someone betray a lack of understanding of democracy’s fundamental foundations. The current controversy about AIPAC is itself proof that no one is being silenced. Of course, to a conspiricist, the lack of evidence for a conspiracy is further proof that the conspiracy is effective.

What is particularly disturbing about the current criticism of AIPAC is that whereas this was once the sole province of the far right, some on the far left have joined their extremist brethren on the other side. What Pat Buchanan said in 2004 is now being echoed by his leftist counterparts:

"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity." (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/buchanan_own_words/buchanan_intro.asp)

It came as no surprise that David Duke endorsed the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, but the recent attacks from the far left ring hollow, especially considering that notable progressive Democrats such as Tom Harkin and Nancy Pelosi have long been strong supporters of Israel and of AIPAC’s agenda. They understand that Israel is an oasis of human rights in an Arab desert of oppression. No country in the Middle East gives women, gays, and other minorities anywhere near the freedom and respect that they enjoy in Israel. Israel is not perfect; no country is. But true progressives recognize that American sympathy properly belongs to Israel, not those whose goal is to eradicate the world’s only Jewish state. They see that the measures Israel takes, some of which do cause hardship to Arab Palestinians, are the result—not the cause—of terrorism.

Others on the far left point to what they perceive is a rightward tilt by AIPAC. AIPAC supports policies that enhance the U.S.-Israel relationship, not one political viewpoint or another. With a center-right party in power in Israel and a Republican president, it is natural that U.S.-Israel relations should gravitate in that direction, just as it was natural that they gravitated in the other direction when Clinton and Ehud Barak was in power. To be effective, AIPAC must work with those in power.

Some critics of AIPAC will respond to this article by saying “but I never use words like ‘apartheid’ or ‘Nazi’ or ‘dual loyalty’ in my criticism of AIPAC, nor do I allege anything improper or un-American about AIPAC’s activities. How dare you accuse me of being anti-Semitic. I just think they are pushing American policy in the wrong direction.”  Let me be very clear: Not all criticism of Israel or AIPAC is anti-Semitic, but it does not therefore follow that no criticism of Israel or AIPAC is anti-Semitic. It is very possible to take positions critical of Israel that are not anti-Semitic. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than simply not being anti-Semitic. Many people have managed to be biased and unfair without resorting to anti-Semitism.

If the test of good policy were whether such a policy is supported by an organized group, nearly every policy would fail the test. America’s pro-Israel policy is not bad for America because AIPAC supports it. Anyone who disagrees with American policy on Israel ought to define exactly what policy is at issue and explain why he or she disagrees on the merits, instead of branding it wrong simply because AIPAC supports it. Whether strong support for Israel is the best policy is certainly a subject for legitimate debate, but an idea does not become wrong based on who advocates for it. If that were the case, then David Duke’s endorsement of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper and Pat Buchanan’s long-standing enmity toward AIPAC would have long ago resolved the AIPAC question.

In addition, critics of AIPAC, if they expect to be taken seriously, must not ascribe to AIPAC positions AIPAC does not take. AIPAC does not take positions on everything. AIPAC is not for or against the war in Iraq. Yes, there are AIPAC members in favor of war with Iraq, but there are also AIPAC members opposed to war with Iraq. Yes, AIPAC invited Vice President Cheney and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, two supporters of the troop surge, to its March 2007 Policy Conference, but it also invited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who oppose the war. Indeed, Reid directly rebutted Cheney’s remarks in favor of the war when he addressed the Conference. And he is still alive to tell the tale.

AIPAC is a lobby. Lobbies build coalitions. This means working with people with whom one might not agree on other issues. That is how legislation gets passed and is how democracies function. Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows, and when legislation passes by the overwhelming margins with support in both parties that is typical of pro-Israel legislation, one will naturally find legislators voting in favor with whom one disagrees on other issues. That’s math, not conspiracy.

Some so-called leftists feel it is their obligation to speak for the Palestinians. It is a proud Jewish tradition to look out for the “other.” But the “other” is not always right. Amalek was the “other” too. America’s pro-Israel foreign policy is based on the fact that as long as the Arab Palestinians see the destruction of Israel as their goal, it is essential that the U.S. not be even-handed, but stand firmly with Israel. True peace will come not from making concessions to terrorists, but from an acknowledgment by the Arabs of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and from a sincere attempt to live peacefully with Israel. That is the principle that animates AIPAC and resonates in the halls of Congress and among the American people.

Critics of AIPAC allege that despite a membership of over 100,000 volunteers, and despite the votes in Congress that overwhelmingly support its positions, it is somehow not representative. In actuality, the critics of AIPAC seem to be the ones on whom the burden of proof should be to show that they represent anyone but themselves and a vocal group of conspiracy theorists who cannot even see other points of view, and so must invent fictions to explain what is inexplicable in their narrow view. Perhaps that is the reason they do not have, and never will have, a lobby that can match AIPAC in credibility and integrity.

Steve Sheffey is an NJDC Activist

 

 

Comments

[Edward]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
;)