AIPAC is having a bad week. Sort of.
George Soros' piece on the lobbying group is accurately devastating. (He must have been reading some of my recent posts!) He begins his piece:
The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns the Israeli–Palestinian relationship.
Soros continues with a detailed analysis of the recent foreign policy blunders by both the U.S. and of Israel. He clearly demonstrates the damage such mistakes has done - with the result being a more fragile, less secure future for Israel than ever.
The current policy is not even questioned in the United States. While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed. ... This is all the more remarkable because Palestine is the issue that more than any other currently divides the United States from Europe. ..
One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties.
Like Kristof in his recent op-ed, Soros underscores how dangerous the lack of debate has become for Israel, and then asks:
How did Israel become so endangered? I cannot exempt AIPAC from its share of the responsibility.. While the other architects of the Bush administration's failed policies have been relentlessly exposed, AIPAC continues to be surrounded by a wall of silence...
One reason, he believes, is because just as an American who criticizes the decision to invade Iraq is called anti-patriotic, so too is one who criticizes Israel is called anti Israel or anti-Semitic.
Soros concludes with what might seem to be an obvious, uncontroversial solution: that thoughtful, liberal American Jews must find a way to restrain and rebuild AIPAC.
Thus in the last couple of days there have two very critical, prominent pieces strongly critical of AIPAC. The reason that this can only be called a "sort of" bad week for AIPAC has been the quiet reaction to these pieces, which can only be called muted, or perhaps muzzled.
Kristof's piece in the Times seems to have created a somewhat bigger stir. There were lots of comments on his blog, and today's paper printed four letters to the editor. (If you need to understand how AIPAC does it, be sure to read the accidentally honest fourth letter, where the method for dealing with those who are critical of Israel is detailed: "Most of those political figures who have used such language...backtracked once reminded, by the force of public condemnation, that such comparisons are unacceptable."
Memeorandum's link to Soros' piece had only two links. One agreed with Soros' analysis, but was angry that he was not going to play the knight on a white horse and solve the problem himself. (Soros' contention that he is "not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC" works for me.) The other link contained an entirely predictable attack, with all the requisite ranting comments, on what an evil, utter fool Soros is. It's really an awful post - first outlining horrible crimes committed by Palestinians, as if this were an argument against trying to find a path to peace. Proof for her is the Palestinian attempt to rearm, because "A group intent on a peace agreement has no need to arm itself and train its troops." She never responds to a single of Soros' argument.
The relative silence in response to these two pieces (and of course my blog posts) is curious.Is it a sign that criticizing AIPAC, and Israeli policies, are now acceptable parts of our common discussion? Or is it a sign of just how powerful AIPAC is?
Comments