AIPAC Conference: Who Are These People? Me For One

MJ Rosenberg wants to know "who exactly are these people attending the AIPAC conference?" He then goes on to label attendees at the conference as fringe and implies that AIPAC members only love America because of its friendship with Israel. For someone that purports to be an open-minded progressive, his post is both slanderous and disgusting.

You want to know who was at the conference, Mr. Rosenberg? I was at the AIPAC conference. I've worked in Democratic and progressive politics for over a decade. I also worked at AIPAC many years ago. I worked for Bernie Sanders, the most progressive member of the United States Congress. I helped launch an organization committed to supporting state legislators as they tried to pass progressive legislation in states across the county. And I've worked to elect progressive candidates in dozens of races all across the county. I've earned my progressive stripes. I am also a proud member of AIPAC - and I'm not alone. AIPAC members are progressives, moderates, conservatives and everything in between.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-barkin/aipac-conference-who-are_b_510409.html

Are you a member/donor to Electronic Intifada?

There's nothing offensive about asking you that question, and it's something I've wondered about because of the way you so vigorously defend AIPAC despite the fact that it holds hardline views that no moderate would be able to honestly support.

move the right wing members back to the center.

N.T.

Sadly, their voices are generally drowned out by the right-wingers who outnumber them in AIPAC these days.

I'm not an expert on AIPAC, but my impression was that the official position of AIPAC was very much that pressure should be placed on the Palestinians to accept the settlements rather than on Israel to remove or even freeze them - are there members who dissent from that?

washington — Breaking rank with most Jewish organizations, America’s largest synagogue movement is calling on Israel to declare a moratorium on new building in East Jerusalem, following the latest dispute over plans to build 1,600 new housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, called for the move on a March 18 with rabbis and URJ board members.

“I see no reason why Israel should renounce her claim to all of Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital, or her right to build anywhere within Jerusalem’s borders. But there are many reasons why Israel should consider a temporary moratorium on all such building,” Yoffie said, adding that such a move could strengthen ties with the U.S. and would potentially help Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

http://www.forward.com/articles/126743/

I would list Rabbi Yoffie as one prominent example.

Edit to add: Although I would imagine you do not consider his opinions to be particularly left-wing.

That's what the person you posted a link to is supporting...

Obama called for a settlement freeze.

Yoffie called for a settlement freeze.

See the similarity in positions?

The man he portrayed as holding left-wing views on the issue of settlements admitted himself that he supports Israel being able to build where it wants and believes that all of Jerusalem should belong to Israel. The reason he wanted a temporary settlement freeze isn't because he's opposed to settlements, but because he is concerned about damage to the relationship with the US..

btw, I've seen members of Hamas claim to support a two-state solution. Using yr logic, we should ignore everything else they say and totally ignore their motives for stating a support of a two-state solution and insist that their positions are similar to Obama's because he supports a two-state solution?

Look at the statements issued by Congress with respect to the comments made about Jerusalem.

Here is what he said when he spoke at J Street:

What I would hope to see is an Israeli Prime Minister who will look these settlers in the eye and say: you will have to leave your homes because the settlement map contradicts any conceivable two-state solution map.

http://blogs.rj.org/reform/2009/10/rabbi-yoffie-speaks-at-first-n.html

If you don't think that is a left-wing position in the US, you don't know the US very well.

(I realize you aren't American so that might be part of the reason for the lack of understanding)

Edit to Add: Here in DU-land, virtually all Democrats in Congress would not qualify as left-wing with respect to I/P by most posters.

It's a revolting and extremist view and there is no way anyone who claims to be a moderate could argue otherwise...

He is opposed to settlements elsewhere in the West Bank.

btw, could you answer the question you were asked upthread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=306942&mesg_id=307074

(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.—

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and
(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

This passed the Senate with 93 votes. The Nay votes were primarily Republicans.

It passed the House by a vote of 374-37.

It would be the death nell of any chance the US could either be or be seen to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians.

I would also quibble with "remain" rather than "become" - currently the rights of Arab citizens of Jerusalem to live there are severely restricted.

President Clinton took no action, thereby allowing it to enter into force on November 8, 1995 without his signature.

Each president since Clinton has used a waiver to postpone its implementation.

It's just that yr arguing very strenuosly in support of AIPAC and those that do, so it'd be good if you could clarify yr stance in yr own words on what you think should happen when it comes to East Jerusalem...

3. Jerusalem:

* The parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.
* The Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty.
* The parties will commit to safeguarding the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city.
* The parties view the Old City as one whole enjoying a unique character. Movement within the Old City shall be free and unimpeded subject to the provisions of this article and rules and regulations pertaining to the various holy sites.
* There shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on al-Haram al-Sharif / the Temple Mount, unless approved by the two parties.
* A visible color-coding scheme shall be used in the Old City to denote the sovereign areas of the respective Parties.
* Palestinian Jerusalemites who currently are permanent residents of Israel shall lose this status upon the transfer of authority to Palestine of those areas in which they reside.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary

That text puts it better than anything I could write in my own words.

Thats not the view of the person you've posted a link to and claimed had a left-wing stance on Jerusalem. I'm rather surprised that someone like you who claims to support Jerusalem being a shared capital exerts so much time and energy putting up arguments against those who believe that Jerusalem should be a shared capital...

I am much further left than Yoffe (and Obama) in my own personal views on the matter.

Seeing as how Yoffe's views on East Jerusalem aren't moderate, left-wing, or the same as Obama's, that's not much of an endoresement there...

Obama's views or anyone elses positions. Yoffe's views are certainly moderate, mainstream liberal, the view of many on the left and similar to Obama's. Many times within certain groups there are differing and even oposing opinions on issues, who are you to say which are acceptable and which are not. It seems the only absolutist positions are yours and others who say what is acceptable and what is not.

It takes just a bit of common sense to realise that views that are absolutist and believe that one side has the right to all of Jerusalem are not moderate views. It doesn't matter if they're supporters of Israel or the Palestinians, such views are extremist...

Anyway, now you've sorted me out, I've now decided that seeing it's very moderate to believe one side has the right to all of Jerusalem, I've decided that I support the Palestinians having all of Jersualem! Thanks! (I hate that I feel the need to put a sarcasm disclaimer on that comment)

btw, I'd be interested to know what yr personal opinion is on East Jerusalem. Do you think that Israel has a right to build where it wants there, and that it's some eternally undivided capital of Israel? Do you believe that Jerusalem should become a shared capital of both Israel and a future Palestinian state?

Your perception that he is not a left-winger is just not something that is shared by the members of the reality-based community in the United States.

Do you not consider J Street to be a left-wing organization?

My perception is that his stance on East Jerusalem is not-left wing. As I'm unfamiliar with any of his other views on anything politically, I would never make a judgement on anything else apart from what he's said about East Jerusalem. Anyway, I hope that was an honest mistake on yr part, and if so I accept yr apology :)

Also, I find it a bit rude of you to refuse to answer questions yr asked, yet continue to ask 'questions'. I'll answer any questions you ask me after you pay me the courtesy of answering the question you were asked upthread...

I explained my position on Jerusalem in response to your question by citing the Geneva Initiative.

There is no question from you on this thread that I have not answered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=306942&mesg_id=307074

Are you a member of AIPAC?

I gave my answer on another thread where they asked me the same question.

It can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x306943

A simple yes or no will suffice...

22. I am their Vice President in charge of Internet Message Board Postings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x306943#307012

But, to be honest, I'm only in it for the money. They pay a very handsome salary.

I'm finding the clumsy sarcasm and evasiveness rather childish. I don't really understand what yr reluctance is when it comes to giving an honest answer to the question you've been asked. I know a serious answer one way or the other would help me understand yr attitudes about AIPAC...

So, are you a member of AIPAC?

We all have our quirks.

You repeatedly do it and it's very silly, Oberliner. I'm very sure I've told you why I say yr rather than your, so why do you keep on asking? Especially when you refuse to answer questions I ask you that are related to the conflict and aren't some strange grammar police thing...

My apologies for getting you so cranky by asking if yr a member of AIPAC or not. If I'd known you were so sensitive, I'd have never have asked!

When a bill passes both House and Senate and is presented to the President to sign he has basically 3 options. Sign it into law, veto it or dont sign it and let it sit where it becomes law after 10 days just as if he signed it. Clinton did not sign it and hence it passed into law. Every subsequent President has not refused to sign it as it is already law. What the bill does give the President the option to do is to defer moving the embassy.

And possibly show some basic courtesy and answer the question that you were asked?

Thus it was a direct response to the claim that you made about where moderates stand with respect to Jerusalem.

Have you seen the statements by people like Barbara Boxer about the recent incident?

Is she not a moderate?

She co-sponsored the legislation I cited.

Please don't waste my time asking questions when you refuse to answer the question I asked you...

or reference as a measure of reasonableness.

Which is what Obama has called for.

I'm absolutely positive that Obama doesn't support a temporary settlement freeze for the same reasons as that guy you brought up as an example of a left-wing AIPAC person...

I don't think Obama has made such a proposal publicly, has he?

There's no way any rational person could defend an absolutist and extremist stance such as that...

Right-Wingers would say no.

Left-Wingers would say yes.

Yoffe and Obama both take the left-wing position.

Yoffe has also stated that he believes Israel should "compromise in a fundamental way on Jerusalem" as part of a peace agreement.

He and Obama have essentially the same position on this topic - that Israel should freeze building, get to the negotiating table, and work out a deal that will include a compromise agreement with respect to Jerusalem.

You posted a link to what the man said where he said he supports construction in East Jerusalem and wants East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. That is NOT the view of the Obama administration at all...

If a peace agreement becomes a real, viable possibility, Israel will likely be prepared and willing to compromise in a fundamental way on Jerusalem. We saw this a decade ago when Israelis, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, faced the very real possibility of peace in the near future and were willing to make far-reaching concessions. If peace were truly to become possible, we would expect this to happen again -- but first, peace talks must begin.

We do not know if the talks that are soon to begin will generate positive momentum toward peace, but the governments of the United States and Israel have expressed hope that they will. Surely no opportunity to move toward an enduring settlement must be squandered. I hope that the government of Israel will see the declaration of a temporary moratorium on building in East Jerusalem as a means of seizing the initiative, deepening her ties with America, rallying her allies around the world, and challenging the Palestinians and Arab world to come forward with confidence-building steps of their own.

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/03/19/1011231/top-reform-rabbi-freeze-building-in-east-jerusalem

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process — not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as president of the United States.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

If anything, Obama's position seems more hard-line than Yoffe's.

Obama does NOT support Israel being able to build where it wants in East Jerusalem, nor does he believe that it's the undivided capital of Israel. The other guy, on the other hand, beleives both things...

Just to make it clear, even though you claim that you support Jerusalem being a shared capital, anyone who supports Israel building wherever it likes in East Jerusalem or who thinks that Israel should have all of Jerusalem, is NOT a moderate on the issue at all...

Because I would prefer not to re-enact it on this board.

People can read the statements from Obama and from Yoffe and determine for themselves how similar their positions are on this topic.

They can also decide whether they think he is a left-winger or a moderate or neither.

As I wrote in an edit when I brought him up originally, I would not be surprised that some folks on this board would not consider his positions to be particularly left-wing.

As far as right-left goes here in the US, on this topic he falls on the left in the US. The right doesn't think there should be a freeze whereas the left does.

But you can write "no he doesn't" in your response and we can play out the argument sketch if you'd prefer.

You haven't provided any evidence at all that Obama supports Israel building wherever they like in East Jerusalem. Feel free to provide links to where Obama does that....

On the topic of East Jerusalem, Yoffe supporting Israel building wherever it wants in Jerusalem does not make him a moderate. Since when has moderate been used to embracwe views that are absolutist like that? Do you also consider those who think all of Jerusalem to be Palestinian to be moderate as well? Or does that only extend to those who think Israel should have all of it?

Feel free to continue to write "yes, he does" in yr response and we can play out the argument sketch if you'd prefer...

He does not say that he "supports Israel building wherever it wants in Jerusalem" but rather he says that he sees no reason why Israel should renounce its right to do so.

In addition, he says that Israel should freeze building in East Jerusalem right and start negotiating with the Palestinians.

He also says that during those negotiations Israel should be ready to make serious compromises with respect to Jerusalem.

Obama met with Yoffie several times during the campaign and certainly appeared to be on the same page with respect to these issues.

Their meeting was highlighted on the Obama "Smearbusters" website:

Reform Jewish leader supports President Obama on Israel

Among other things:

And he (Yoffie) reaffirmed the support of the Reform Movement for the Obama “administration’s views on halting settlement construction.”

http://www.obamasmearbusters.com/support/reform-jewish-leader-supports-president-obama-on-israel

Or do you honestly think that if someone says 'I see no reason why Palestinians should stop firing rockets into Israel' that they're not supporting the firing of rockets into Israel?

btw, you didn't answer the questions I asked you. Could you do so now?

They were:

On the topic of East Jerusalem, Yoffe supporting Israel building wherever it wants in Jerusalem does not make him a moderate. Since when has moderate been used to embracwe views that are absolutist like that? Do you also consider those who think all of Jerusalem to be Palestinian to be moderate as well? Or does that only extend to those who think Israel should have all of it?

How about:

"I do not think Palestinians should have to renounce their right to violent resistance."

and

"I support Palestinians using violent resistance."

Are those statements equivalent to you?

I cannot answer your listed questions because I do not agree with the premise that precedes them.

If you don't have the courtesy to answer questions I ask you, please refrain from turning round and asking me any...

Yoffie says that he sees no reason why Jerusalem should not remain undivided as Israel's eternal capital.

Obama has called for a negotiated solution to the final status of Jerusalem.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

You are welcome to join me under the bus, oberliner! Lotsa people down here already!

People do that. But that is neither here nor there. You claimed Yoffie was an example of a "left wing position", which is laughable on its face. Supporting Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem is not a left wing position.

What is the "left-wing" position exactly?

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."


The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

But Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) later said on behalf of the Obama campaign that Obama's comment to CNN should not be seen as backtracking or even an amendment. He said Obama was clarifying that he has long believed it is up to the parties involved to determine the status of Jerusalem.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060601590.html

Your thoughts on his "clarification" ?

I personally think back when he said it that it was a wishy-washy and insipid 'clarification', which is why I put the dit-dits round the word 'clarification'. But surely arguing that because he said something a few years ago, it means he stands by it now isn't much of an agument?

Believing that Israel should be able to build wherever it likes in territory that's occupied and that Israel should have all of Jerusalem isn't the view of a moderate. It's an absolutist viewpoint and no different or any less wrong than those Palestinians who think all of Jerusalem should belong to the Palestinians. If Obama were to hold such a view on Jerusalem I'd lose all respect for him...

I think that both Obama and Yoffi agree that a moratorium on building in E. Jerusalem would be a positive step at this time, and both have urged Israel to do so.

The right-wing in the US would not agree with this suggestion, whereas the left-wing in the US would.

Why sit there and ignore that the motivation of Yoffi isn't out of opposition to the settlements (and you posted a link to him saying he supports the construction of settlements), but due to not wanting to damage the relationship with the US?

Plus Its Internal Strategy Document For This Week

MJ RosenbergSenior Fellow Media Matters Action Network
Posted: March 20, 2010 09:10 AM

And there is AIPAC's secret memo on its strategy with Congress this week. h/t American For Peace Now and Lara Friedman, its analyst extraordinaire.

I understand what is going on at AIPAC right now. I know it because I volunteered there for a year back in the 1970's and then had a senior job there in the 1980's. I left for a better job. But I left on great terms. My then-boss, Tom Dine, the Executive Director is a good friend and took me with him when he left AIPAC for the Clinton Administration.

But times and people change. So do institutions. Back then AIPAC was less rigid. Yes, it rarely, if ever, deviated from the Israeli line. But, one, the Israeli line was not as hard right as it is today. And both AIPAC and even rightwing Israeli prime ministers (like Menachem Begin) tried to avoid conflicts with American administrations.

When I worked at AIPAC the first time, its founder and executive director, I.L. Kenen, told me this: "My worst fear is that a President of the United States will get on television and say to the American people, 'I have made the following request to the Israeli government.' He then describes it and says that Israel's refusal to accept it would harm US interests. At that point, the Israeli government would fold and so would AIPAC."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/my-life-with-aipac-what-t_b_506933.html

before Obama, and his message is important. For anyone who is watching this play out, it would be great if people would support Obama
via, writing their local newspapers, and especially keeping their elected officals aware that we want them to support Obama and the U.S. position.

You probably have already seen this, but just in case, you haven't. I thought the letters asking for the issue with Israel to be handled
privately, were especially interesting.

Updated March 24, 2010
Congressional Statements and Letters Reaffirming the
U.S.–Israel Relationship

http://www.aipac.org/AIPAC_events/MOC_Statements_on_Defusing_Tension.pdf


And then there is this one, which is incredible to me.

AIPAC head refutes ‘dangerous’ view on U.S.-Israel ties
March 22, 2010
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/22/1011294/aipac-head-refutes-dangerous-view-on-us-israel-ties

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Dershowitz lays into J Street in AIPAC conference dust-up

Last update - 00:36 23/03/2010

Israel lobbyists face off as commentator accuses group of dividing the Jewish community

Rival Israel activists locked horns at Monday's AIPAC conference in Washington as leading pro-Israel commentator Alan Dershowitz launched a blistering attack on pro-peace group J Street.

J Street representative Hadar Susskind was in the middle of an interview with Haaretz when Dershowitz let fly with a verbal onslaught against the group, which has openly criticized the Israeli government over its West Bank settlement policy.

Dershowitz accused J Street of dividing the Jewish community.


"I reject J Street because it spends more time criticizing Israel than supporting it," he said. "They shouldn't call themselves pro-Israel.

The combative Harvard law professor said that he too opposed settlements. But, he said, "I make the 80 percent case for Israel."

He added: "It's a shame that J Street has set itself up as an independent lobby."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158133.html

If you're trying to figure out why J Street, the left-wing pro-Israel group, came into existence, just take a look at the schedule for this week's AIPAC conference, at the Washington Convention Center. The list of speakers, apart from the usual suspects (Bibi, Hillary, and the like) includes analysts and advocates from such organizations as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, CAMERA, and so on -- the full range of conservative-leaning think tanks. It is true that the convention includes a few analysts not associated with Republican Party views on the Middle East -- Wendy Chamberlin from the Middle East Institute, Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress -- but these two are talking about Pakistan, which is not a core issue of the Middle East conflict. And the estimable Ghaith al-Omari, of the American Task Force on Palestine, will be there, on a panel called "Prognosticating Peace," which is described in the program guide as follows:

Since becoming Israel's prime minister last year, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly declared his desire to reach peace with the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to enter into direct talks with Netanyahu until Israel meets a series of preconditions. What, then, is the future of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Have fun, Ghaith!

I am not writing this in order to knock such speakers as Robert Kagan, Andrea Levin, Elliott Abrams, Dan Senor (who just wrote a great book about Israel) Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, and Alan Dershowitz. I agree with much of what many of these people have to say about the Middle East (and it is true that from time to time I myself have been accused of being a bloody-minded neocon!) But the dearth of speakers who approach the most contentious issues of the Middle East from a left-Zionist perspective is noticeable. Most American Jews voted for Obama; most American Jews are liberal; and most American Jews understand the difference between the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and the theological, political and economic needs of the small minority of Israelis who have settled the West Bank. So would it hurt to bring in speakers from the Meretz Party, from the kibbutz movement, from the New Israel Fund, from the Reform Movement, so that the AIPAC attendees could hear for themselves the views of Zionists who disagree with the policies of Israel's right-wing parties?

Yes, I suppose it would hurt. AIPAC is interested mainly in presenting an oversimplified vision of the Middle East to its members. If this wasn't the case, why would the conference feature this session:

POLITICS & ACTIVISM - Media Matters: Is Israel Treated Unfairly in the Press?
With the international media scrutinizing Israel's every move, the country faces enormous challenges in telling its true story to the world. Learn from four top communications specialists about Israel's place in the eye of the international media.

Featuring
Mr. Josh Block
Spokesman, AIPAC
Mr. Jonathan Carey
Founder and Executive Director, BlueStar
Ms. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
Founder and President, The Israel Project
Ms. Andrea Levin
Executive Director, CAMERA

What was the question? Is Israel being treated unfairly in the press? Let me prognosticate here and suggest that this panel will, after much thought and deliberation, reach the conclusion that, yes, Israel is being treated unfairly in the press. Josh Block is a great guy, but really, wouldn't it be more interesting to listen to, say, three Jerusalem bureau chiefs of three international media organizations talking about how they do their jobs, than to a line-up of people who are paid to tell you that Israel has never done anything wrong (including during Joe Biden's recent trip).

J Street sometimes makes me crazy, but let me just this: It owns a big tent, bigger than AIPAC's. After all, J Street did invite Michael Oren to speak at its convention.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/the-problem-with-the-aipac-conference/37732/

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm a "self-hating Jew." Of course, by AIPAC's standards the assimilated Theodor Herzl, who founded Zionism, was another SHJ. But, I'm not going to focus on the implications of being a SHJ, one who has been involved with supporting Israel for 40 years.

I want to look at these 8000 AIPAC activists who were in town this week. These people make me pray that my neighbors aren't watching C-SPAN. Or, at least, that they know that AIPAC represents American Jews the way Pat Robertson represents American Christians.

Who are these people?

Who are these Jews who cheer madly for Eric Cantor before they go utterly nuts cheering Prime Minister Netanyahu who proceeded to give a speech totally sticking it to the United States?

I don't know who these people are because nobody I know would go near an AIPAC meeting.

I'm a fairly traditional Jew (my wife was born in a Displaced Persons camp after WW2) and we get weepy over Mount Rushmore and a good Obama speech not some illegal settlement in the West Bank. Our kids keep tabs of how many of the 50 states they can visit. My father thought western Pennsylvania was his homeland. (Although, he sure loved Tel Aviv when I took him there).

And for us the Holocaust is something real, not a political slogan to be brandished against candidates whenever or wherever. Or to be used by organizations in direct mail fundraising campaigns.

My wife's parents, Holocaust survivors, loved Israel but not the way they loved the United States after they chose this country over Israel. And they always wanted to see Israel at peace. They also resented American Jews who seemed only to discover the Holocaust after the Six Day War when it could be used as a political tool. Nobody helped them out when they came to this country, long before the Holocaust became fashionable and a political weapon to be cited ad nauseam by the Netanyahus and hacks in the US Congress.

AIPAC people are a weird subset among American Jews. 80% of us voted for Obama and probably 90% of us would feel our gorge rising at the mere sight of Cantor or Joe Lieberman. But not AIPAC.

Also, as Jews -- and unlike AIPAC -- we identify with Palestinian suffering and not just Jewish pain. And we understand that right now, and especially since the Gaza war, it has been Palestinians who have done almost all of the suffering and not Jews.

And we understand, as AIPAC refuses to, that the status quo will end Israel's existence as an independent Jewish state -- no matter how much they kiss up to John Boehner and Eric Cantor. And that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton are Israel's real friends precisely because, at long last, they seem to be trying to change the deadly status quo.

So why are we the way we are? And why is the AIPAC fringe like it is? I'll tell you one thing. It is not primarily because we are better Americans. It is because we are better Jews, even better Zionists. They are...something else. They are simply AIPAC.

****

Note: the organizational types are now trying to focus attention on the PA's utterly stupid and offensive naming of a square in Israel after a terrorist. No matter, that the grave of Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Muslim at prayer in 1994, is a shrine. Or that, according to polls, some 30% of Israelis are sympathetic to Yigal Amir for killing Rabin. What hypocrisy!


http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/23/aipac_leaves_town_but_who_are_these_people/