OPINION & EDITORIAL
Israel lobbyist finally has pro-peace peer
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Wasim Salman:
- China deserves to act in its best interests (April 16, 2008)
- Putting race into perspective (April 3, 2008)
- True democracies should not practice torture (March 12, 2008)
- American faith not going anywhere (February 27, 2008)
- Moral boundaries needed in research (February 13, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Middle East fence necessary (November 16, 2006)
- Socialists misread Israeli history (September 29, 2006)
- U.S. assistance a necessity for Israel (August 8, 2006)
- The resurfacing of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (April 23, 2003)
- Next year in Jerusalem (February 22, 2005)
Share This:
by Wasim Salman
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The United States and Israel have not always been on the best of terms. After its formation in 1948, Israel initially had a difficult time both establishing and maintaining a close relationship with the United States. The U.S. government sought to maintain its distance, because at the time, it was thought that any establishment of a close relationship with Israel would result in a type of questionable military alliance from which the United States would never be able to exit. This led to the sustainment of a neutral stance on Israel across various presidential administrations.
This neutrality ended with the conception of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee under the Eisenhower administration in 1953. Since then, the AIPAC has grown to become one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, consisting of approximately 100,000 members with a $100 million budget. Given that the AIPAC has guided and continues to guide America’s foreign policy concerning Israel and the Middle East, one must wonder if they are indeed acting in both Israel’s and America’s best interests.
The AIPAC supposedly works to create the best possible alliance and circumstances for Israel. Some of their stated achievements include “prohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with the Hamas-led PA,” “increasing military aid to Israel” and “condemning Iran” while “extending U.S.-backed loan guarantees to Israel.” Even though these are just a few examples of what the AIPAC has claimed to accomplish for Israel, none of this is beneficial and only undermines Israel’s security, stability and democracy.
By prohibiting American aid and contact with Hamas, the AIPAC is ensuring the Palestinian crisis will never be solved. If the United States were to donate and open resources to the Palestinians in Gaza who reside under Hamas, this would create internal pressure on the Hamas government to change its stance on both Israel and the United States.
By encouraging increased military aid to Israel, the AIPAC is encouraging violence, rather than reasonable security. By pushing the U.S. government to condemn Iran on various actions, the group is creating a dangerous tension between Israel, the United States and Iran that could break into another ridiculous and costly war. By extending U.S.-backed military loans, the AIPAC is, again, pushing for violence rather than the peace and security of Israel.
The AIPAC’s questionable agenda has led to the creation of a new Jewish lobbying organization called J Street. In a statement directed at the AIPAC, executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami said, “The term ‘pro-Israel’ has been hijacked by those who hold views that a majority of Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, oppose.”
Even though J Street is newly formed and has an initial budget of only $1.5 million, it is the best possible alternative to the AIPAC’s violent and ignorant agenda. J Street will lobby against the AIPAC in the hopes of allowing a broader discourse on Israeli peace and security. J Street supports a two-state solution in the area, demonstrated when Mr. Ben-Ami said, “The most pro-Israel thing any American politician or policy maker can do is help to bring about a two-state solution and a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and her neighbors.”
It is entirely reasonable for one to act in the perceived interest of one’s nation. However, without proper reflection on the future of such actions, what may seem most reasonable is usually not. The AIPAC may believe throwing more and more American weaponry into Israel will ensure its stability, but this only fuels aggression and hate. The AIPAC may believe that by forcing the United States to not commit any resources or time to the Palestinians in Gaza, it will further ensure Israel’s legitimacy.
Instead, the AIPAC defers peace and stability for Israel.
The AIPAC’s inane and dangerous agenda sacrifices both Israel and America’s integrity and interests. However, J Street is actually acting in both countries’ interests by seeking answers peacefully and promoting dialogue. It is evident that those behind the founding of J Street have taken their time and reflected properly on how best to support Israel. Through dialogue we can find peace, prosperity and security for all involved.
Wasim Salman (salman@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in international relations.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 2:15am):
While I am by no means a fan of AIPAC, why is it always Israel and America who are supposed to take the first step? If you saw the Hamas big wig's editorial in the WaPo a few weeks ago, he stated that for talks to even begin between Gaza and Israel, Israel must EVACUATE Jerusalem, among other things, while placing no preconditions upon Hamas.
Look, steps have to be made and the problem is on both sides, but for Israel to even consider a solution involving Hamas, Hamas needs to remove the goal of destruction of the state of Israel from its charter and recognize Israel's right to exist.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 8:24am):
Let's not kid ourselves, Wasim. J Street doesn't have enough money or connections to get anything done -- that's why you like them. And you hate AIPAC not because they promote some very dangerous policies (though they do), but because they have money, power, and connections, and actually do something to expose the threats posed by Israel's enemies.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 9:21am):
Tom Dine, the longtime executive director of AIPAC who now serves as a consultant for IPF, said it will take "a generation or two" for the group to serve as a genuine counterweight to AIPAC.
But Dine welcomed J Street and said it could be an important voice in Washington. "From my perspective, the more Americans, and the more American Jews, who participate in the political process, the better," he said this week.
Hannah Rosenthal, the former director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and a member of the J Street advisory council, conceded that developing a heavyweight political presence in Washington will "take time," but said she expects J Street will make its presence felt quickly.
She downplayed the "alternative AIPAC" notion featured in headlines about the new group.
"I’m an admirer of AIPAC; I give money to AIPAC," she said. "But we have to get past this idea that talking about peace is a kind of weakness. That's not what being pro-Israel is all about."
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a7821/News/National.html
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 9:24am):
Any chance Hamas will allow Israel to exist at all? How about Iran?
Israel is the only reliable ally the USA has in the Middle East.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 9:52am):
I have a dangerous agenda for you, its Hamas's, it says "WE WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL." But I guess that isn't a violent or dangerous agenda is it?
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 10:12am):
uhhh.... America and Israel didn't become major allies until 1967, after the 6 day war. French were Israelis first allies, from 1948 into the 60's, giving Israel jets and its nuclear reactor. For a little after the suez conflict the British were buddy buddy with Israel but this didn't last long. Israel then was allies with the US after 67 and up untill Carter. Carter cut many ties to Israel, this left Israel with no allies, and they out of practical needs and nothing more worked on weapon programs with South Africa (including nuclear weapons) and some South American countries. Regan came and the US and Israel became friends again.
Thus your base argument is undermined by facts from the start. AIPAC is likud like in its politics for the most part, but assuming its only warmongering is wrong. Only Jews are questioned for supporting what is viewed as their homeland, no one questions the Indian lobby (that got its start from the Israel lobby) for its activities in starting outsourcing to India and being Anti-Pakistan
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 11:51am):
Seriously? Again? Don't you have ANYTHING else to write about?
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 11:52am):
Just submit to Hamas blackmail and extortion, then they'll change?
Thanks but you can shove that offer up your Hamas-hole, Wasim.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 4:38pm):
This is an interesting piece. A lot of the posted criticism attacks the author for being supportive of Hamas's aim to destroy Israel, however, I don't see that anywhere in this article.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 5:12pm):
Thanks for bringing J Street into view. It serves as a remarkable example of reality and progressiveness within this markedly skewed country. It's nice to finally see a group standing up for human rights on both sides.
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:38pm):
Support for Hamas is support for Hamas's aim to destroy Israel, isn't it?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
