 |
       |
 |
JVP News Roundup, August 19, 2007 Over and over, it is repeated, in sources often much more reliable than this one, that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the very top most powerful lobbying groups in the US. Denying this is simply burying one's head in the sand. The question has always been to what extent to AIPAC's views influence American foreign policy.It is interesting to look at the other lobbyists listed, those from the AARP, NRA and PhRMA, lobbyists for elderly people, gun proponents and the pharmaceutical industry. The first two often succeed, but their success rate in legislation is not nearly as good as the drug industry or AIPAC. That is because of the quality of their political opposition. This speaks to the controversial article, soon to be a book, by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt. While we would argue that Mearsheimer and Walt overstate their case (see the in-depth article by Mitchell Plitnick and Chris Toensing here), their basic thesis is that AIPAC and the groups they work with succeed because they work the American system very well and they have virtually no significant opposition on Capitol Hill. Those who argue for the existence of an "Arab Lobby" simply do not know the reality in Washington. Saudi Arabia, and other countries, as well as the oil industry certainly do have significant lobbying forces, but they do not expend energy on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Mearsheimer and Walt have made a case, one that is open to criticism. That it contains echoes of familiar anti-Semitic myths is unfortunate, but is also unavoidable--the subject matter, lobbying, is, by definition, the attempt to influence policy. That AIPAC does this effectively is beyond dispute. If one disagrees with AIPAC's goals, then one feels that AIPAC is pressuring the US in a bad direction for the sake of Israel (which is not the same as saying that AIPAC does not believe its goals are good for US interests). And that harkens back to anti-Semitic myths. But if Jewish groups are going to play hardball politics, then they are trying to influence policy, and there's nothing wrong with that. And that's all Mearsheimer and Walt are saying. This is obviously an important debate to have. It centers a round a major foreign policy issue with deep implications for Americans. Moreover, if one does believe that Mearsheimer and Walt are spreading anti-Semitism, then they should be confronted in the light of day. Instead, there is constant pressure to prevent public discussion of their views. That, folks, is what is going to foment anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in a way the most hateful Judeophobe never could. Check out JVP's dynamic blog, Muzzlewatch,for more on this and similar efforts to stifle debate on both sides. One eternal battlefield in the public mind regarding Israel-Palestine is the media. In that light, there is some encouraging news in this study by the University of Maryland's International Center for Media and the Public Agenda. They find that, though the coverage of the war last summer between Israel and Hezbollah left a lot to be desired, it was more fair and thorough than what many of us have come to expect from Middle East reporting. Israel-Palestine relations Hamas has once again declared its willingness to talk with the West. Conspicuously missing from this statement, printed as an op-ed in the Guardian (UK) is any hint of willingness to talk to Israel, which likely means such a statement won't change the status quo. Still, voices calling for dialogue are being raised in diplomatic circles. This report from the House of Commons in Britain is a devastating critique of British Middle East policy and strongly advocates for a shift toward diplomacy and away from violence and other punitive methods. Israel has returned civilian law enforcement in the major Palestinian population centers designated Area B under the Oslo Accords to the Palestinian Authority. As with many aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations, this is a double-edged sword. While it is always welcome when Palestinians can regain some measure of self-reliance, dignity and autonomy, the other side of an arrangement such as this one is that it makes maintaining the occupation that much easier on Israel. As the occupying power, it is ultimately Israel's responsibility to provide security for people under its rule until such time as they are no longer the ultimate power in the West Bank. Shifting responsibility for criminal law enforcement away from israel simply removes an unwanted burden from them as the occupying power. Still, one has to see this as an overall positive for the Palestinians. On a more unambiguously positive note, Japan has sparked a project to develop and industrial-agricultural region in the Jordan Valley which will be put together as a cooperative project between the PA, Israel and Jordan. the idea is to provide a piece of a sustainable and growing Palestinian economy. This is a welcome idea and more of this sort of thing will be necessary if the Palestinians are ever to achieve true independence. Much more than humanitarian aid, which, while obviously needed, also increases Palestinian dependence on others, this sort of investment is one that offers promise for the future. It is also an example of the positive role constructive engagement with Israel can play, as this is an outgrowth of improved ties between Israel and Japan. On August 16, Israel, saying it had received specific warnings about an attack at the crossing used to bring fuel in for a major Gaza power plant, closed down the Nahal Oz crossing, forcing the closure of the power plant and depriving some 25% of Gaza of electricity. But even after Israel agreed to open the crossing, the EU would not agree to continue paying for the fuel, leaving the people affected without electricity for an indefinite period. It is worth noting that an AP report about this bore the headline "Palestinian Company Cuts Off Gaza Power." In all, this incident is another powerful reminder of how much Israel controls the Palestinian infrastructure. It is a key reason why complete separation between the two peoples is not a viable option. NOTE: Just before this message was sent, Israel announced it would resume the fuel shipment to Gaza. No mention is made in the article of the EU, so presumably the payment issue has been worked out. In the Palestinian Territories Fatah Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that armed militias are an obstacle to a Palestinian state. While this is certainly true, it will mean little if Fayyad, Mahmoud Abbas and their government cannot provide an alternative for the Palestinian people. Cooperative projects meant to stimulate economic growth are part of it, but the gestures Israel has offered (amnesty to fighters willing to pledge not to attack Israel, the freeing of a small percentage of the prisoners Israel holds) are not significantly impacting Palestinian lives on the West Bank. The promised removal of roadblocks would help, but this is a promise that has been made and broken many times. Real action, meaning the permanent removal (not simply repositioning) of roadblocks, the removal of settlements, beginning with the removal of the so-called "outposts" that Israel promised to remove years ago, would be a material improvement in Palestinians' day to day lives. Anything less is mere posturing. Hamas has acted to disarm the clan that was responsible for the kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston. It is somewhat ironic, because this is the kind of decisive action against rogue groups in the territories that the PA generally shied away from, fearing backlash and growing violence. It is clear that Hamas is establishing order, though it is less clear if they are doing it with sheer force, as seems to be the case, or through the rule of law, which seems to be largely absent. This report details the aftermath of Hamas' sacking of the Fatah-affiliated former attorney general in Gaza. Fatah for its part is continuing to pursue Hamas in the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas continues to publicly refuse dialogue, although, as reported in earlier JVP roundups, word is that behind-the-scenes discussions have been going on. Abbas this week dismissed civil servants in the West Bank associated with Hamas. In Israel In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Queen says to her son, Prince Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" to describe her disbelief of declarations made by a character in a play she is watching. One gets a similar feeling hearing the constant repetition of the mantra "we do not want to go to war" coming endlessly out of both Jerusalem and Damascus. Both sides keep saying it, and both sides are building up defenses in case the other attacks. Both sides are also probably sincere in their desire to avoid war. The trouble is, all the posturing, paranoia and defensive buildups, combined with the probable desire of the United States for an Israeli attack on their "Axis of Evil" neighbor, means the situation is a powder keg and one carelessly tossed ember could set it off. As reported in an earlier JVP roundup, Israel is moving to strengthen its ties with India. While this report is based on an article form the notoriously unreliable DEBKAfile (which recently sparked a panic in New York by falsely reporting a terrorist threat there which local authorities took seriously) it is likely to be true. It would only be the latest in growing cooperation between the two countries, a cooperation that will become much more important to Israel as British support seems to be dwindling. According to this report, British arms sales to Israel have fallen by 75% since 2005 and by one third in the past year. The reason is logical--that they will be used to sustain the occupation and will cause the region to become more unstable. Indeed, Israel has encountered similar problems with other European countries. In the United States Rudy Giuliani seems to want to out-Bush George W. He essentially declared his opposition to a Palestinian state, saying the Palestinians must "earn it". People active in promoting Israel-Palestine peace often claim there is essentially no difference between different American presidents. While it's true that a basic tilt toward Israel runs consistently through various American administrations, there are big differences between different presidents. We have seen, all too painfully, how much damage a president with as poor a policy as George W. Bush can do over the last seven years. Giuliani is indicating he will be even worse. American Lutherans are considering a boycott of products manufactured in Israeli settlements. Absurdly, this is being reported as being a boycott of Israel. Boycotts of settlement products have been around (however ineffectively) for a long time. In fact, the European Union is supposed to exclude products from settlements from preferential tariff treatment that Israeli and Palestinian exports enjoy. Israeli peace groups have pushed settlement boycotts for years. It is the worst sort of misleading propaganda to equate such an action with a blanket boycott of Israel. Finally, the US' case against a charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, that it accuses of sending funds to Hamas took a major hit as an Israeli agent, whose identity was kept secret, was forced to admit on the stand that none of the groups the charity supported appeared on the US' list of terrorist groups. Moreover, other connected charities in Europe had been cleared of similar charges. In the end, though, even if it turns out the government has no case,as it appears it does not, the damage is already done as the Holy Land Foundation has already been forced to close its doors because of the accusations. Another triumph for due process, apparently. More seriously, this is another example of the total abandonment of what are purported to be American principles of justice in the age of hysteria over terrorism and the concomitant fear of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
|
