The Republicans Heart Netanyahu; Who Loses and Who Gains in the Growing Rift Between Bibi and Obama?

By Eric Alterman

When a group of student radicals took over the Columbia University administration building in 1968, they issued a series of demands having to do with university policies. The administration wisely ignored these demands, however, because it understood that, in actuality, they were not terribly relevant to the problem it had on its hands. As radical student leader Mark Rudd had explained even then, these were mere excuses for the group’s violent power grab. The Columbia rebellion was about “racism and imperialism,” not “dorm rules or democratizing university governance or any of that bullshit,” Rudd explained. “The issue is not the issue.”

Rudd’s admission is useful to recall whenever a debate is sparked among American Jews about the wisdom of pursuing peace with the Palestinians. The “issue,” whatever it may appear to be at the moment, is never really the issue. The underlying question beneath all of these arguments can, as it happens, be stated quite simply: “Do you think Israel should be encouraged to make concessions for peace or not?” While most American Jews do support such concessions, they remain extremely nervous about opposing the Israeli government, even when encouraged to do so by Israelis themselves. This gives the leaders of professional Jewish organizations — whose politics are much closer to Republican conservatives than are those of the community they profess to represent — a relatively free ride when it comes to attacking liberals and cozying up to the right wing.

And so when Israel has a hawkish government — one that has views inconsistent with the vast majority of those of American Jews — it nevertheless appears to enjoy a degree of support from the community that is actually, in many respects, a mirage, but one that many journalists and politicos mistake for the real thing.

This dynamic was on display when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington to address a joint session of Congress. The trip had nothing to do with advancing either of its ostensible goals: moving forward the peace process and strengthening Israeli security. Rather it was a straightforward deal between right-wingers in both countries to advance their own short-term political goals at the expense of the interests of both nations.

MORE...

http://forward.com/articles/138463/

Isanyahoo!!

Can't stand that POS.

establishment - both in the the DC political sense and the Jewish political elite. As a result, when he speaks of the debate, within the Jewish community, what he hears and what I hear completely do not match.

My congregation is on the liberal end of Judaism, but it is located in one of the most affluent areas in the country - something that would, if anything, make people more likely to be Republican. My husband and I do participate in many of the activities and are reasonably active members.

A group up people over 55 that we belong to invited both AIPAC and Jstreet to separate events (AIPAC would NOT agree to a debate, which would have been fantastic. There were some people before hand not sure that inviting J street was ok. However, the overall reaction of the JStrret's netroots guy speaking to us was extremely positive. There was agreement when he presents the results of a study that over 60% of American Jews agreed with the J Street position that a two state solution was the best for the world and Israel. The discussion between people in the synagogue and the J Street guy were open, polite and friendly.

A few months later, the AIPAC people came and it was the opposite - a complete and unmitigated disaster. From the statt, they were angry when after they did their canned intro, they were asked AIPAC's position on a two state solution. Their answer was they were "non-prescriptive", they just supported Israel. When pushed by a guy who pointed out that J Street had discussed their position and the reasons behind it, they became outright hostile. One woman then spoke of a JStreet request that the Treasury investigate "pro Israel" groups, while ignoring CAIR. I vaguely remembered that the "pro Israel" groups were actually groups sending money to support illegal settlements, so I asked specifically why they asked for the investigation and questioned if the group was sending money for reasons contrary to US policy. (Afterwards, I emailed everyone I remembered as there a link showing they funded settlements that ISRAEL declared illegal.)

The questions asked and comments of my fellow congregants were such that the AIPAC people left in a hiff, leaving behind the sign in sheet they started! Note that this was a group of Jewish mostly senior citizens.

The fact is that most Jews I know agreed with me, when I said that I think we should support Israel just like we do our own country - dissenting when we think the government is wrong.

In 2004, there were MANY stories written that the strong stance of Bush and his neo-cons were garner more a much larger percent of Jewish votes. In reality, the percent of Jews voting for the Democrat has been remarkably consistent since the mid 1990s. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
(Of interest is that it actually is higher now than in the 1970s and 1980s.

It is sad that pundits tend to ignore this and pay too much attention to AIPAC. Now, I was told that AIPAC was "nonperscriptive", but that is not true. They had no problem criticizing Rabin. AIPAC is allied to Likud.