.
March 25, 2007
SouthAmerica: It is interesting The Economist magazine choice of a title for an article on their magazine about the Jewish lobby â âLeviathanâ.
The Christian interpretation of âLeviathanâ is often considered to be a âdemonâ or natural monster associated with âSatan or the Devilâ.
Some biblical scholars considered âLeviathanâ to represent the pre-existent forces of chaos.
***
Regarding the actual article The Economist said that today the Jewish lobby in the United States can count with the help of - ââ¦The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate.â
From all the people I have seen on television for a long time âZbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviserâ is the one person that has the best understanding of what is happening in Iraq, and the Middle East. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a better understanding, and he has grasped the severity of the sectarian civil war in Iraq - he has a much better understanding than the entire gang of the Bush administration put together.
***************
âTaming Leviathanâ
Mar 17th 2007
The Economist - print edition
These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby
This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of âthe lobbyâ. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears.
They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol HillâNancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senateâas well as the vice-president (who called his talk âThe United States and Israel: United We Standâ) and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions.
The display of muscle was almost equalled by the display of unnerving efficiency. There were booths for âcongressional check-inâ, booths for âdelegate banquet troubleshootingâ, and booths full of helpful young people.
The only discordant note was sounded by a group of a dozen protestersâOrthodox Jews in beards, side-curls and heavy black coatsâholding up signs saying âStop AIPACâ, âTorah forbids Jews dictating foreign policyâ, and âJudaism rejects the state of Israelâ.
The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the âsoundestâ on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.
Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interestârun by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democratâeven bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.
Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for yearsâthere are probably about 3.5m of themâand who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.
But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups.
AIPAC's ace in the hole is the idea that it represents Jewish interests in a country that is generally philo-Semitic.
But liberal Jewish groups retort that it represents only a sliver of Jewish opinion. A number of more liberal groups have started to use their political muscleâgroups such as the Religious Action Centre of Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum. These groups scored a significant victory over AIPAC by persuading Congress to water down a particularly uncompromising bit of legislation, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act, which would have prevented any American contact with the Palestinian leadership. This accomplishment led to a flurry of speculation that George Soros might try to institutionalise this successful alliance by creating a liberal version of AIPAC.
It has yet to materialise. And it is doubtful whether Mr Soros, a left-wing Democrat who has little sympathy with Israel, would be the best patron for such an organisation. But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.
Dissenting voices
An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious peopleâpoliticians and policymakers as well as academicsâto ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's?
Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as âacting increasingly on behalf of Israelâ.
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could âbe no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian stateâ. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a âsense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressedâ.
The biggest challenge facing AIPAC is how to deal with this changing climate. Its members have been admirably honest about their mission in life. They boast about passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year. But they are too willing to close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias when people ask whether this is a good thing.
America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle Eastâand AIPAC needs to take a positive role in that debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics.
.
