By Matthew M. Hausman
When Hillary Clinton addressed AIPAC’s 2010 annual convention, she had the perfect opportunity to show that the United States still stands with Israel despite the manufactured crisis over Ramat Shlomo. She could have done so by conceding that Jerusalem neighborhoods are not “settlements” and were always excluded from the temporary building freeze. She also could have recognized Israel’s many concessions for peace and declared that the U.S. would no longer tolerate the Palestinian Authority’s antisemitic incitement and support for terrorism.
Instead, she glossed over the PA’s lack of commitment to real peace, equated Israeli civilian deaths with those of terrorists and the Arab civilians they put at risk, and subtly gave voice to Mr. Obama’s revisionist canards. But even more disturbing than her distortions were the applause and standing ovation she received from many of the convention delegates.
Clinton’s performance should have surprised no one. As Secretary of State with marching orders from her President, she was merely articulating Mr. Obama’s anti-Israel agenda despite her fuzzy claims of support. Obama’s true feelings regarding Israel were apparent from the early days of his campaign based on his personal, political and philosophical allegiances to the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Despite these troubling relationships, Obama kept a reasonably low profile on controversial Mideast issues during the campaign, and he was aided by liberal Jews who shamelessly vouched for his mythical pro-Israel and philo-semitic bona fides.
After his inauguration, Obama was swift to show his true colors, beginning with his solicitation of the Arab-Muslim world, his adoption of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his enabling of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He never missed an opportunity to blame Israel for sabotaging the peace process, but never faulted the PA or even Hamas for continuing to call for Israel’s destruction or engaging in terrorism. Whenever his disdain for Israel became too obvious to ignore he would trot out Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, or proxies from J Street, to savage his critics and paint them as reactionaries. Not once did he recognize that only Israel had complied with its obligations under the moribund Oslo Process or the Roadmap.
This dynamic is sadly reminiscent of the Second World War, when Roosevelt used Jewish political allies, such as Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish Committee, to discredit Jews who publicized the Holocaust as it unfolded and criticized the administration for failing to act. Among their targets were the Bergson Group, the Aggudat Ha-Rabbonim, and all those who refused to be silenced by secular Jewish political elites who were more interested in being good New Dealers than in helping their own people in Europe. Although history has not judged Roosevelt’s political lackeys very kindly, their dubious acts in the name of progressive politics are being replayed today as Mr. Obama seeks to throw Israel to the wolves.
It was maddening to watch as convention delegates applauded, exuded warm emotion, and then rose to their feet as Clinton spouted nonsense. Without a trace of embarrassment, Clinton condemned Hamas, not Fatah, for dedicating a town square in Ramallah to a Fatah terrorist who killed dozens of Israeli civilians. Clinton knows, of course, that Ramallah is located in the Fatah-controlled “West Bank” – not Gaza – and that Fatah was honoring one of its own for an act of terror it had sponsored. But Clinton’s deception was consistent with Obama’s policy of portraying the PA as a moderate entity worthy of a state. With a nod and a wink, Obama and his foreign policy stooges ignore that Fatah remains a terrorist organization that continues to engage in anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement and whose charter still calls for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of her people.
In addition to whitewashing the Palestinian Authority, Clinton misrepresented the Administration’s supposed commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran. However, in light of Obama’s record of appeasement and his abject failure to impose any meaningful sanctions, Clinton’s statements were simply preposterous. On her watch as Secretary of State, Iran has increased to at least 8,000 the number of working nuclear centrifuges and has expanded its satellite and missile delivery capabilities. AIPAC’s members are not rubes – they are truly committed advocates for Israel. So how could they applaud such babble?
Only after the fact did AIPAC offer any criticism of Clinton’s revisionist utterances. But the time for meaningful rebuke passed the moment she left the room. Her public excoriation of Netanyahu over Jerusalem construction was rewarded with photos of an enthusiastic reception by Jews who are supposed to know better, but who instead politely listened to her absurd statements. What AIPAC should have done was have a representative stand up immediately and address Clinton’s remarks point-by-point, and then have her reactions recorded on videotape. The organization’s strategists should have anticipated Clinton’s disingenuous performance in light of her disgraceful comments during the Ramat Shlomo “crisis” the week before. Clearly, the delegates should neither have applauded her misrepresentations nor risen to their feet.
Clinton’s remarks insulted the intelligence of anybody with a historical sense of the Mideast conflict. And as an organization committed to Jewish political self-awareness, AIPAC should have immediately challenged Mrs. Clinton. Instead, the response of its delegates gave the appearance of organizational tolerance, even if all they intended was civility and tact. Politeness, however, did not require an enthusiastic response or warm embrace. That J Street may have endorsed Clinton’s remarks is not surprising because it deals in deception and revisionism; but AIPAC should be counted on to behave more responsibly. By not challenging Clinton’s remarks at the time she made them, AIPAC missed a critical opportunity to articulate the growing discomfort of the Jewish mainstream regarding Obama’s treatment of Israel.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the organization wilted in the face of the Obama mystique. When Candidate Obama addressed the convention in 2008, AIPAC did not make issue of his associations with antisemitic zealots such as Wright and Farrakhan. He bamboozled that convention by solemnly pledging that Jerusalem would forever remain the indivisible capital of Israel, only to repudiate his own words within a day. Nevertheless, Rahm Emanuel received a warm reception when he addressed the convention the following year. Moreover, AIPAC formally endorsed the two-state concept even though the PA’s continuing antisemitic incitement, support for terrorism and calls for the destruction of Israel clearly show that the Palestinians have no desire for such a resolution.
Some of AIPAC’s critics argue that it should become more right-wing, but its political orientation per se is not the issue. Rather, since the 2008 presidential campaign AIPAC has seemed more concerned with not offending critics or making waves than in asserting strong positions that may not be politically popular among liberals and Democrats. But by offering only tentative criticism of Mr. Obama’s treatment of Israel, the organization has failed to fully address a turn in American foreign policy that is detrimental to the continuity of the Jewish State. Thus, the issue is not whether AIPAC should turn to the right, but whether it should cast off the apparent Diaspora mentality that seems to be taking hold. Although many Jews are loath to be seen as ethnocentric, they need to wake up and recognize that the Arabs and their political allies have no problem being chauvinistic and demonizing all who disagree with them.
Historically, AIPAC has a strong record of advocacy and has long been an effective and respected lobbying organization. However, its responses to the Administration’s recent treatment of Israel – as illustrated by the reaction to Clinton’s speech – have been far too deferential. Instead of showing polite restraint, the organization needs to speak more bluntly when Israel is unfairly threatened and bullied. It can start by recognizing that the Obama Administration is charting a course that bodes ill for Israel’s survival, and by challenging the Administration’s representatives whenever they engage in dissimulation.
Civil stupidity.
Comment by RandyTexas — April 4, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
AIPAC undoubtedly had either the text or the summary of Clinton’s remarks and thus determined in advance what their response would be to her address once she had delivered it.
AIPAC knowing full well that the media, that had uncritically reported on Obama’s insulting behaviour towards Netanyahu and Israel, would be reporting on the reaction to Clinton’s address.
AIPAC had a choice. They could react like deer in the headlights, sit on their hands and not applaud what they knew would be Obama’s further swipes at Netanyayhu and Israel, delivered this time with a fist gloved in velvet. That would have doubtless put the rift between not only Obama and Israel in even a harsher spotlight, but risked drawing media attention to a growing rift between Obama and Jewish Americans. Given that the media are still protective of Obama, the risk was to cast American Jews in a negative light.
Alternatively, AIPAC could warmly welcome Clinton, while as a lobby out of the glare of the media spotlight, try to thereafter move Obama and his administration away from the course Obama had chosen to pressure Israel further.
That AIPAC officials have since been critical of Clinton’s remarks, suggests that they had decided that the time and place to exercise whatever influence they could to ameliorate the increasing tensions between Obama and Israel and indeed, the U.S. Jewish community was not when Clinton delivered her address to AIPAC.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 4, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 4, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 4, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 4, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 4, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 4, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 5, 2010 @ 4:21 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 5, 2010 @ 4:25 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — April 5, 2010 @ 4:28 am
These e-mails Ted received from AIPAC people make it even more clear that we must support alternative groups like ZStreet and ZOA. AIPAC is only concerned with going along to get along.
The dumbest e-mail of all. If the Obama administration were concerned about human rights they’d be focusing on the human rights violations in muslim countries instead of focusing its ire on the only free country in the region. For example where is the administration’s outrage that a wiccan in saudi arabia has been sentenced to death? Where is their concern for the plight of the Coptic Christians of Egypt, where was their outrage at the massacre of Christians in Nigeria and I could go on. There’s far too many atrocities in the muslim world to point out in this post.
Comment by Laura — April 5, 2010 @ 7:28 am
I agree with Laurale! but not just give our written and even vocal support to those or any other organization deemed to be pro Israel and pro Jewish. We need to attack all those mainstream Jewish organizations and their leadership showing them for what they are: Enemies or at the least useful idiots to our enemies.
You might lose some readership or you might gain some?
Comment by yamit82 — April 5, 2010 @ 9:08 am