Wrong. When the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia met on 14 February to discuss “Next Steps in the Middle East Peace Process,” chairman Gary Ackerman decided to invite only people whose entire careers have been devoted to working for Israeli interests, and in some cases Likudnik-fascist interests. Here’s the guest list.
1. Martin Indyk, an Australian-American whose Middle East career began working for AIPAC before he went off to found the “AIPAC lite” think tank WINEP, and now heads the Brooking Institute’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy (named after ultra-Zionist Egyptian-born Israeli millionaire Haim Saban, one of the largest political donors in the US). He was then brought in as one of the Clinton administration’s Middle East hands, and alongside Dennis Ross and others devoted his years in administration to lobbying the Israeli view from inside US government, including as the US ambassador to Israel (surely the reverse?) where his cavalier treatment of classified info got his security clearance revoked. This means he’s the “moderate” in this line up — the good cop — even though he was part of the policy machinery in the 1990s that did not raise an eyebrow as the Israelis massively increased their settlements in the Occupied Territories. In his speech, he favors the “take it slowly” approach and is all excited about building alliances between Israel and Arab states.
2. David Makovsky, an Israeli-American who is Director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at WINEP (one of several Middle East centered think tanks with a strong pro-Israel bias that passes off as “moderate” because it is not JINSA or MEF), a former journalist and editor of the right-wing Jerusalem Post (he was also diplomatic correspondent for Haaretz) and a major advocate of Israel’s wall. His brother Michael, a card-carrying neocon, worked with Douglas Feith at the infamous “Office of Special Plans” and his other brother Alan actually works for the House International Relations Committee (i.e. the host of the event.) His speech takes the typical line of Israeli apologists and focuses on Hamas’ recognition of Israel rather than Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestine and reiterates the misleading Dennis Ross version of Camp David debunked by Robert Malley and others.
3. Last but certainly not least, Daniel Pipes. It’s a fundamental mistake to think that Pipes, who occupies an “extremist” position in the world of pro-Israel advocacy, is really that different from the two above. Pipes of course is a rather shrill advocate of Israel, much less subtle than those above. He is also behind the Campus Watch project that seeks to undermine US academia when it is not pro-Israeli, and a former head of the Middle East Forum, a refuge of second-rate rabidly anti-Arab pundits, wonks, and academics whose purpose seems to be to make places like WINEP and the Saban Center look “fair and balanced.” Here’s an excerpt from his testimony:
Which Side Should Win?
Like all outsiders to the conflict, Americans face a stark choice: endorse the Palestinian goal of eliminating Israel or endorse the Israeli goal of winning its neighbors’ acceptance.
To state the choice makes clear that there is no choice – the first is offensive in intent; the second defensive. No decent person can endorse the Palestinians’ goal of eliminating their neighbor; along with every president since Harry S Truman, and every congressional resolution and vote since then, the 110th Congress must continue to stand with Israel in its drive to win acceptance.
Not only is this an obvious moral choice, but Israel’s win is actually the Palestinians’ as well. Israel’s success in crushing the Palestinians’ will to fight would actually be the best thing that ever happened to them. Compelling Palestinians finally to give up on their foul irredentist dream would liberate them to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture. Palestinians need to experience the certitude of defeat to become a normal people – one where parents stop celebrating their children becoming suicide terrorists, where something matters beyond the evil obsession of anti-Zionist rejectionism. There is no shortcut.U.S. Policy
Americans especially need to understand Israel’s predicament and help it win its war, for the U.S. government has a vital role in this theater. My analysis implies a radically different approach for the Bush administration and for this congress. On the negative side, Palestinians must understand that benefits will flow only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then – no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.
On the positive side, the administration should work with Israel, the Arab states, and others to induce the Palestinians to accept Israel’s existence by convincing them the gig is up, they have lost. This means impressing on the Israeli government the need not just to defend itself but to take steps to demonstrate to Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause. That requires not episodic shows of force (such as the war against Hizbullah last summer) but a sustained and systematic effort to alter a bellicose mentality.
Also, given that Israel’s enemies — the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran — are also America’s enemies and that Israel has a significant role in the U.S.-led “war on terror,” an Israeli victory would greatly help its U.S. ally. In smaller ways, too, tougher Israeli tactics would help. Jerusalem should be encouraged not to engage in prisoner exchanges with terrorist groups, not to allow Hizbullah to re-arm in southern Lebanon or Fatah or Hamas in Gaza, and not to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank (which would effectively turn over the region to Hamas terrorists and threaten Hashemite rule in Jordan).
Diplomacy aiming to shut down the Arab-Israeli conflict is premature until Palestinians give up their hideous anti-Zionist obsession. When that moment arrives, negotiations can re-open with the issues of the 1990s – borders, resources, armaments, sanctities, residential rights – taken up anew. But that moment is years or decades away. In the meantime, a war needs to be won.
I know some readers might not agree with my depiction of these three “experts” — I personally think “moderates” such as Indyk are much more damaging to the US than clowns like Pipes. But I believe it is reasonable to say that all three are people whose professional lives have been in large part devoted to advancing Israeli interests and who represent only one side of the conflict. That they should be the only experts to testify in what is one of the key issues in US foreign policy is an outrage and telling of how one-sided the debate over Israel and Palestine has become in Washington. It’s meant to be the US Congress, not the freaking Knesset.
Also read:
Subcommittee hosts anti-Palestinian threesome – Michael Brown for Electronic Intifada
They probably have more reasoned debates in the Knesset. The Pipes testimony is a hoot – he’d probably accuse Avigdor Lieberman of being too soft on the Palestinians.
Check out this related article:
http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5596
Not to take responsibility off the shoulders of elected members of the American people, but most of these guests are invited by the aids to the congressmen. I have met some of these “faceless” aids who single-handedly choose who to invite to testify on panels. Many of these assistants are the kind of vehement pro-Israel supporters that proudly waive the flag of Zion down K- Street and Independence Avenue in Washington DC during power lunches where a spice tuna roll for appetizer is at least $12.
Yet they have never stepped foot in Gaza for fear of their own shadow and conveniently enough choose to live outside of Israel in the easy comfort of Georgetown and Chevy Chase.
I am not suprised at all by their choice of speakers because it is simply a reflection of their choice of double-standards and blindsightedness in their own lives.
“A good ol’ American”: true enough, but those folks have landed in those positions for a reason. I’ve spoken with plenty of folks from the hill with reasonable heads on their shoulders who recognize Israel is far from angelic, yet they will frankly admit they have no choice but to self-censor lest piles and piles of money get them or their bosses promptly un-elected in the next round. There is only one unforgiveable sin in American politics, and it is being less rabidly Israeli right-wing than the Likud (and even going as far “left” as some Likud positions can sometimes be dicey in Washington). Congressmen filling their staffs with these pro-Israel nutzos who don’t even accurately reflect the diversity of the American Jewish community’s views is a natural by-product.
Even most of Congress realizes how laughable the speaker’s list was. But keep in mind the committee holding the hearing was chaired by Gary Ackerman, a NY Democrat who is an AIPAC supporter down the line.
And also keep in mind that there are American Jewish peace groups like Brit Tzedek, Peace Now, & Israel Policy Forum who are increasing in strength day by day. They are making sure that members of Congress realize that not all American Jews believe that this is a balanced panel.
Take a look at http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/02/16/israel-policy-forum-takes-battle-for-israel-palestine-peace-to-capitol-hill/“ rel=”nofollow”>this link to read more about IPF’s work lobbying for a negotiated solution to the I-P conflict & M.J. Rosenberg’s denunciation of the hearing.
Thanks for this, Richard, that’s refreshing.
Who would any of you suggest as a good candidate to speak before to Congress for a non-“nutso” opinion? (In your list, it would be super helpful, for me at least, to keep off people who think Israel has no right to exist, or who veil their opinion that Israel has no right to exist with things like support for a bi-national state.)
The only dispassionate voice I ever see about Israel v. Palestinians is the Economist, (outside its book reviews), which even to my sensitive pro-Israeli ears seems able to criticize Israel without causing grief, because their underlying position is not rooting for Israel’s end. Most criticism I see — “balanced” criticism, of course — comes from people who think Israel is not legitimate to begin with and whose ideal is no Israel at all. Some balance.
In the end Pipes’s one statement rings right, even if the rest of what he says leans rather to the nutty side: Israel, whatever else it does, fundamentally fights for survival. The Arab world, with the Palestinians as its spear head, fights for Israel’s end. A very Israel-centric view, (lumping the Palestinians with the other Arabs like that, I mean) but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid. And given that framing — valid framing — American reaction is not so skewed.
Personally I think Israel ought to talk to the Palestinians in earnest, because it’ll probably mitigate Hamas while not weakening Israel. Probably. Probably isn’t the most comforting word in the world, though, and the Palestinian leaderships do their people no favor with their rhetoric, actions. If Hamas gave up on Israel’s destruction Ismail Haniya might’ve had a conference in the Rose Garden, by now.
I recall during the vilification of S. Hussein due to Iraq having violated 17 UN security Council resolutions the absence of any reporting to the effect that Israel has 19 they ignored.
It should be noted but never is that our own Department of State recognizes Israel as a Tier 2 country in regards to human rrights abuses “for its failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking, namely the conditions of involuntary servitude allegedly facing thousands of foreign migrant workers”
And this from the CIA: “Current situation: Israel is a destination country for low-skilled workers from Eastern Europe and Asia who migrate voluntarily for contract labor in the construction, agriculture, and health care industries, some of whom are subsequently subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude; many labor recruitment agencies in source countries and in Israel require workers to pay large up-front fees that often lead to debt bondage and vulnerability to forced labor; Israel is also a destination country for women trafficked from Eastern Europe for the purpose of sexual exploitation.” (as of Dec. 16, 2006)
Israel is becoming a mponey laundering center.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/02/16/02
An On The Media interview with the editor of the Forward, on whether or not “the Jews” squelch debate on Israel in the US. I think it’s related-enough to this thread to put it here, though it doesn’t deal at all with Congress or the imbalance Issandr alleges. It also touches upon the Polish Consulate “affair”, Jimmy Carter’s vilely titled book, and on how criticism of Israel in the US compares with criticism in Israel itself. The clip is ~12 minutes long.