On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md. The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms. On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition. Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances. Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon. Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table. Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran." ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics. Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem." That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas. To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come. These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders. To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind. The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Read More...
By: Zeina Ashrawi Hutchison
Date: 25/06/2008
×
Denied the Right to Go Home
(Hanan Ashrawi’s daughter telling her story) I am Palestinian - born and raised - and my Palestinian roots go back centuries. No one can change that even if they tell me that Jerusalem , my birth place, is not Palestine , even if they tell me that Palestine doesn't exist, even if they take away all my papers and deny me entry to my own home, even if they humiliate me and take away my rights. I AM PALESTINIAN. Name: Zeina Emile Sam'an Ashrawi; Date of Birth: July 30, 1981; Ethnicity: Arab. This is what was written on my Jerusalem ID card. An ID card to a Palestinian is much more than just a piece of paper; it is my only legal documented relationship to Palestine . Born in Jerusalem , I was given a Jerusalem ID card (the blue ID), an Israeli Travel Document and a Jordanian Passport stamped Palestinian (I have no legal rights in Jordan ). I do not have an Israeli Passport, a Palestinian Passport or an American Passport. Here is my story: I came to the United States as a 17 year old to finish high school in Pennsylvania and went on to college and graduate school and subsequently got married and we are currently living in Northern Virginia. I have gone home every year at least once to see my parents, my family and my friends and to renew my Travel Document as I was only able to extend its validity once a year from Washington DC . My father and I would stand in line at the Israeli Ministry of Interior in Jerusalem , along with many other Palestinians, from 4:30 in the morning to try our luck at making it through the revolving metal doors of the Ministry before noon – when the Ministry closed its doors - to try and renew the Travel Document. We did that year after year. As a people living under an occupation, being faced with constant humiliation by an occupier was the norm but we did what we had to do to insure our identity was not stolen from us. In August of 2007 I went to the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC to try and extend my travel document and get the usual "Returning Resident" VISA that the Israelis issue to Palestinians holding an Israeli Travel Document. After watching a few Americans and others being told that their visas would be ready in a couple of weeks my turn came. I walked up to the bulletproof glass window shielding the lady working behind it and under a massive picture of the Dome of the Rock and the Walls of Jerusalem that hangs on the wall in the Israeli consulate, I handed her my papers through a little slot at the bottom of the window. "Shalom" she said with a smile. "Hi" I responded, apprehensive and scared. As soon as she saw my Travel Document her demeanor immediately changed. The smile was no longer there and there was very little small talk between us, as usual. After sifting through the paperwork I gave her she said: "where is your American Passport?" I explained to her that I did not have one and that my only Travel Document is the one she has in her hands. She was quiet for a few seconds and then said: "you don't have an American Passport?" suspicious that I was hiding information from her. "No!" I said. She was quiet for a little longer and then said: "Well, I am not sure we'll be able to extend your Travel Document." I felt the blood rushing to my head as this is my only means to get home! I asked her what she meant by that and she went on to tell me that since I had been living in the US and because I had a Green Card they would not extend my Travel Document. After taking a deep breath to try and control my temper I explained to her that a Green Card is not a Passport and I cannot use it to travel outside the US. My voice was shaky and I was getting more and more upset (and a mini shouting match ensued) so I asked her to explain to me what I needed to do. She told me to leave my paperwork and we would see what happens. A couple of weeks later I received a phone call from the lady telling me that she was able to extended my Travel Document but I would no longer be getting the "Returning Resident" VISA. Instead, I was given a 3 month tourist VISA. Initially I was happy to hear that the Travel Document was extended but then I realized that she said "tourist VISA". Why am I getting a tourist VISA to go home? Not wanting to argue with her about the 3 month VISA at the time so as not to jeopardize the extension of my Travel Document, I simply put that bit of information on the back burner and went on to explain to her that I wasn't going home in the next 3 months. She instructed me to come back and apply for another VISA when I did intend on going. She didn't add much and just told me that it was ready for pick-up. So I went to the Embassy and got my Travel Document and the tourist VISA that was stamped in it. My husband, my son and I were planning on going home to Palestine this summer. So a month before we were set to leave (July 8, 2008) I went to the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, papers in hand, to ask 2 for a VISA to go home. I, again, stood in line and watched others get VISAs to go to my home. When my turn came I walked up to the window; "Shalom" she said with a smile on her face, "Hi" I replied. I slipped the paperwork in the little slot under the bulletproof glass and waited for the usual reaction. I told her that I needed a returning resident VISA to go home. She took the paperwork and I gave her a check for the amount she requested and left the Embassy without incident. A few days ago I got a phone call from Dina at the Israeli Embassy telling me that she needed the expiration date of my Jordanian Passport and my Green Card. I had given them all the paperwork they needed time and time again and I thought it was a good way on their part to waste time so that I didn't get my VISA in time. Regardless, I called over and over again only to get their voice mail. I left a message with the information they needed but kept called every 10 minutes hoping to speak to someone to make sure that they received the information in an effort to expedite the tedious process. I finally got a hold of someone. I told her that I wanted to make sure they received the information I left on their voice mail and that I wanted to make sure that my paperwork was in order. She said, after consulting with someone in the background (I assume it was Dina), that I needed to fax copies of both my Jordanian Passport and my Green Card and that giving them the information over the phone wasn't acceptable. So I immediately made copies and faxed them to Dina. A few hours later my cell phone rang. "Zeina?" she said. "Yes" I replied, knowing exactly who it was and immediately asked her if she received the fax I sent. She said: "ehhh, I was not looking at your file when you called earlier but your Visa was denied and your ID and Travel Document are no longer valid." "Excuse me?" I said in disbelief. "Sorry, I cannot give you a visa and your ID and Travel Document are no longer valid. This decision came from Israel not from me." I cannot describe the feeling I got in the pit of my stomach. "Why?" I asked and Dina went on to tell me that it was because I had a Green Card. I tried to reason with Dina and to explain to her that they could not do that as this is my only means of travel home and that I wanted to see my parents, but to no avail. Dina held her ground and told me that I wouldn't be given the VISA and then said: "Let the Americans give you a Travel Document". I have always been a strong person and not one to show weakness but at that moment I lost all control and started crying while Dina was on the other end of the line holding my only legal documents linking me to my home. I began to plead with her to try and get the VISA and not revoke my documents; "put yourself in my shoes, what would you do? You want to go see your family and someone is telling you that you can't! What would you do? Forget that you're Israeli and that I'm Palestinian and think about this for a minute!" "Sorry" she said," I know but I can't do anything, the decision came from Israel ". I tried to explain to her over and over again that I could not travel without my Travel Document and that they could not do that - knowing that they could, and they had! This has been happening to many Palestinians who have a Jerusalem ID card. The Israeli government has been practicing and perfecting the art of ethnic cleansing since 1948 right under the nose of the world and no one has the power or the guts to do anything about it. Where else in the world does one have to beg to go to one's own home? Where else in the world does one have to give up their identity for the sole reason of living somewhere else for a period of time? Imagine if an American living in Spain for a few years wanted to go home only to be told by the American government that their American Passport was revoked and that they wouldn't be able to come back! If I were a Jew living anywhere around the world and had no ties to the area and had never set foot there, I would have the right to go any time I wanted and get an Israeli Passport. In fact, the Israelis encourage that. I however, am not Jewish but I was born and raised there, my parents, family and friends still live there and I cannot go back! I am neither a criminal nor a threat to one of the most powerful countries in the world, yet I am alienated and expelled from my own home. As it stands right now, I will be unable to go home - I am one of many.
By: Dana Shalash for MIFTAH
Date: 26/10/2006
×
Ramadan Ended! Now What?
So today is the third day of Eid Al Fitr that all Muslims worldwide celebrate right after the culmination of the month of Ramadan. Not sure if it’s only me, but Ramadan seems to have lost its glory. Years ago when I was a child, people’s attitudes towards both Ramadan and Eid (festival) were way different than now. Maybe I have grown up to the extent that I see in them nothing but the mere fact that few arrogant relatives come for a visit for a couple of minutes, and everyone just sucks them up. It has been a gloomy day in deed. Being self-centered often times, I thought that my own family never enjoyed the Ramadan that other people celebrate. But the night prior to the Eid, I went for a drive to Ramallah with my uncle and three sisters, we toured around Al Manara and the mall a bit, and felt the legendary atmosphere. People were happy. That hit me; I am not accustomed to seeing them vividly preoccupied with the preparation for the big “day.” So I came back home and wrote to all my contacts wishing them a Happy Eid and expressed my astonishment and satisfaction to see promising smiles in the crowded streets of Ramallah. But the sad part was that I knew it was merely fleeting moments and that those smiles would be wiped off soon. Not only have my fears become true, but I was blind. Yes, blind. Or may be I just chose not to see it. May be I wanted to believe that we are actually happy. Would I miss Ramadan? NO. Not really. It has been made hell this year. While Ramadan is believed to be the holy month during which people get closer to Allah by fasting from food and drink all day long and focus on their faith instead, I am not pretty sure this was the case with us Palestinians. It was only a drug. Ramadan numbed our pain. We could handle both the Israeli and Palestinian political, economic, and security pressure knowing that the day of salvation was approaching; the Eid. But after the three days elapsed, then what? Now thousands of Palestinians are waiting for the next phase. It has been seven months now. Seven months, and thousands of the PA employees have not received their salaries. And two months elapsed with millions of students deprived form their right of education. I have three sisters and two brothers who do nothing but stay at home. They have not attended school from the very beginning of this term. It is both sad and frustrating that they have to “do the time” and pay a high price. Reading the news headlines on the first days of Eid is not healthy at all. It lessens the effect of the drug, and one starts to get sober. Sounds funny in deed, but that was the case. Few minutes ago, I surfed some of the blogs and came across few Iraqi bloggers writing on both Ramadan and Eid. If the titles did not mention “in Iraq,” I swear I could never tell the difference between Iraq and Palestine. The hunger, misery, constant killing, and lack of security are all Palestinian symptoms. I am speechless now; I can hardly verbalize the so many conflicting thoughts. Heaven knows how things would be like next Ramadan, but I would not speculate it already. It is not time to worry about it now, other issues are on stake; food, money, and education. Until then, there are a lot of things to sort out. By: Margo Sabella
Date: 27/07/2006
×
Children will Judge
Yesterday, I realized that I believe in love at first sight. Not the romantic kind, rather the sense of connecting with another human being without ever having to say a word. Indeed, the person I was so enthralled with last night was a five-month-old girl, who smiled at me and then hid her face in shyness. Those few moments of interacting with this baby lifted my spirits, but it also made me reflect in sadness about the fact that many children in this current conflict are robbed of their joy and their childhood. I often contemplate how mature Palestinian children seem. Sure, they play the childhood games that we all played in our day, but there is wisdom in their words that is eerily sobering. Their age defines them as children, but if you have a conversation with a Palestinian child, you will realize how much awareness she has of the world around her, of suffering in the next village, in Gaza, in Lebanon. She is a child that has empathy and understands that life, by nature, is wrought with all sorts of difficulties. A Palestinian child knows better; life is not as it is depicted in cartoons, where those who die are miraculously resurrected not once, but several times, where injuries are healed instantaneously, where death is a joke and life is a series of slapstick moments. A Palestinian child escapes into imagination, but she is never far removed from the reality of children and adults alike being indiscriminately shot outside her window, in her classroom, at the local bakery. Who would have thought that normal things, simply walking down the street to grab a falafel sandwich, could result in your untimely death? Perhaps the Israeli army mistook the falafel stand for a bomb-making factory, or an ammunition shop? Make no mistake about it; the Israeli military have made too many “mistakes” that there is obviously a pattern there, wouldn’t you think? A child that is robbed of the sense of security, therefore, is a child that is mature beyond her years. She knows that the bullets and the tank shells do not discriminate. Her father can shield her from the neighbor’s vicious dog, from the crazy drivers, he will hold her hand to cross the street, but he will not be able to capture a bullet in his hand like the mythological superheroes in blockbuster movies out this summer in theatres near you. He might be able to take the bullet for her though. But once gone, who will be her protective shield against the harsh reality of life that goes on in what seems the periphery of the conflict? And who will be there to share some of her joyous milestones; graduation, marriage, the birth of a child? Hers is a joy that is always overshadowed by a greater sorrow. Is it fair that 31 Palestinian children have died in a 31-day period? A child-a-day; is that the new Israeli army mantra? Khaled was just a one-year-old, Aya was seven, Sabreen was only three. What lost potential, what lost promise – who knows what Khaled would have grown up to be? An astronaut? A veterinarian? A philosopher? What about Aya; she could have become a fashion designer, a teacher, a mother. By what right has this promise been so violently plucked and trampled upon cruelly and without a moment’s hesitation on the part of the Israeli soldier, who heartlessly unleashed a fiery rain of bullets and shells on a neighborhood as if he is in a simulated video game and those who die are fictitious and unreal? Perhaps that is what he is made to believe, otherwise, who in clear consciousness is so willing to pull the trigger and with one spray of bullets destroy life, potential and rob joy? If you can see the smiling face of your own child, then how do you go out and unquestioningly take the life of others? If you value life, then how do you live with the burden of knowing that you have taken it so unjustifiably? Perhaps that is your perpetual punishment; the judgment of a child scorned is the harshest of them all.
By the Same Author
Date: 18/12/2007
×
The Right Wing's Jerusalem Gambit
On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md. The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms. On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition. Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances. Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon. Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table. Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran." ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics. Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem." That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas. To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come. These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders. To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind. The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Date: 11/10/2007
×
Israel's Rising Right Wing
One of this year's nominees for Israeli TV's "Man of the Year in Politics" award doesn't speak Hebrew. He has vast wealth and a shady past. He was once a circus worker. He isn't even a politician, at least not yet. But over the past several years Arcadi Gaydamak, an enigmatic Russian-Israeli billionaire, has managed to become a widely influential figure in Israel. And he is now at the center of a right-wing political alliance -- featuring Israeli über-hawk Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu -- that could dramatically influence the country's direction. If the rising alliance takes power in the next election, it could push Israel toward military confrontations with Iran, Syria or Hezbollah, while extinguishing any remaining flickers of hope in Israel's peace camp regarding the Palestinians. Gaydamak has recently been consolidating his influence as a power broker in Israeli politics. He has used his wealth to gain popularity through social and business initiatives, while deftly exploiting the widespread perception of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government as corrupt and incompetent, particularly during last year's disastrous war in Lebanon. With his financial capital and cunning political tactics, Gaydamak is like a cross between George Soros and Karl Rove, with a streak of Russian oligarchy at his core. In a country full of colorful political characters, he may be the most colorful. Gaydamak is wanted in France for illegal arms dealing. He is alleged to have ties, through his former arms-dealing partner, to Halliburton and to corporations that donated to President George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. He has Russian, Israeli, French and Canadian citizenship, as well as a diplomatic passport from Angola, on which he reportedly travels in order to avoid arrest. He owns a Jerusalem soccer team with a notoriously racist, anti-Arab fan base. And he is said to be planning a run for mayor of Jerusalem. But it is in Israeli national politics where Gaydamak may now be a powerful -- and, some say, dangerous -- force. Along with his new Social Justice Party, formed in July, Gaydamak has allied himself with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and former prime minister. To this alliance Gaydamak brings his rapidly increasing popularity, especially among Israel's influential Russian population, a growing grass-roots political network, and billions of dollars. Netanyahu brings his credibility as a former prime minister, hawkish bona fides, and resurgent popularity both inside Israel and across the Atlantic, where he enjoys strong support among Washington war hawks and many delegates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. The goal of this emerging alliance is to make Netanyahu prime minister once again, which would give Gaydamak direct access to the uppermost echelons of Israeli power. Not only does the alliance have the potential to unseat the centrist leadership governing Israel and replace it with one much further to the right -- precisely at a time when Israel may be on the brink of war with Iran -- but some observers believe it poses a threat to Israeli democracy itself. Back in February, Gaydamak openly cast himself as an Israeli kingmaker. He announced that he would back Netanyahu's bid to regain office, declaring, "Any politician that I will support will be the prime minister." And he may be right, riding a soaring popularity that he has in some ways literally purchased. For example, in 2005 Gaydamak bought Beitar Jerusalem, a wildly popular soccer team, which also happens to have a core of Jewish nationalist fans who regularly chant "Death to Arabs!" at the team's games. During the Israeli war against Hezbollah last year, when the country's leadership was in chaos and the citizenry felt abandoned and vulnerable, Gaydamak stepped in and fashioned himself as a savior. He opened his coffers and set up a tent city on a Mediterranean beach for Israelis fleeing towns in the country's embattled north. To the south, residents of the Israeli town of Sderot near the Gaza Strip came under constant bombardment by Palestinian rockets, and the Israeli government was not coming to their aid in any substantive way. Gaydamak bused hundreds of Sderot residents to another tent city he had built in a park in Tel Aviv, complete with a stage for entertainment and a mini-amusement park for children. If the government was not going to protect and aid its citizens, Gaydamak seemed to be saying, he himself would. In doing so, he helped make the Olmert government appear impotent to many Israelis, earning the sitting prime minister's ire, and further establishing himself as a political force to be reckoned with. In August, Gaydamak clashed openly with a parliamentary committee that took issue with his actions during the war, accusing him of acting entirely for political reasons. This year, as his own popularity has continued to rise, Gaydamak has toned down his explicit backing of Netanyahu, but it is still widely believed that he will lend his support to a Netanyahu prime ministerial bid in exchange for greater power. To his proponents, Gaydamak is simply the natural result of an Israeli establishment that is so wrapped up in corruption and cronyism that it is unable to care for its citizens, let alone advance a peace process with its neighbors or focus on crucial foreign policy problems. Gaydamak is, in this line of thinking, a positive phenomenon, a practical person in a place desperately in need of practical solutions. But some Israeli analysts and governments officials have a darker view. One senior Israeli official, who has served at the highest levels of the policy-making apparatus, told me that he sees the rise of Gaydamak as the terrible byproduct of an already bad situation. "There is a sense among some people," he said, "that democracy just didn't work for us, and we should be like the rest of the Middle East -- that we tried democracy and failed. But Gaydamak is something else. He's an oligarch. Don't forget that a lot of his supporters are Russians. They're not really familiar with democracy." Gaydamak has been quietly building a network of activists across Israel and choosing candidates to represent his party in upcoming elections at all levels. He will personally determine his party's platform, with each candidate meeting the approval of his closest aides. Although he has alluded to running for mayor of Jerusalem, Gaydamak seeks to pull strings in national politics, without putting himself in a vulnerable forward position on his party's ticket. Some observers have labeled Gaydamak as antidemocratic for this, as well as for his actions abroad. For example, in 2005, for reasons that remain murky, Gaydamak purchased Russia's Moscow News, fired some senior journalists, and changed the paper's mandate to a firmly pro-government one, appointing a pro-Putin journalist as editor in chief. This was widely viewed as hostile to free speech and raised questions about Gaydamak's possible ties to the Kremlin. Within Israel, according to the senior Israeli official, Gaydamak is preying on a sense among the Israeli population that the way Israeli democracy functions has left large groups disenfranchised and the country as a whole vulnerable to outside attack. And Netanyahu, as a political leader who has long exploited vulnerability and fear to obtain and wield power, may be Gaydamak's perfect complement. Just two years ago, when former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon left Likud to found the Kadima Party, he took many Likud parliamentarians and much of the party's cachet with him. Netanyahu had to make do with the remnants, a has-been exiled to the political wilderness. But now his fortunes are rising again, with Gaydamak's support and the winds of Israeli political insecurity at his back. In the wake of the Israeli military's failure to defeat Hezbollah last summer, and the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the hopefulness of the Sharon government is long gone. And many in Israel are now anxiously looking rightward again, back at the Likud, and to Netanyahu himself. There are even recent reports that several members of Olmert's own party have been receptive to feelers from Netanyahu, who might be trying to lure Olmert supporters back to Likud. Among the general Israeli populace, Netanyahu enjoys the highest poll ratings of any politician, and many point to him as the next prime minister. That would be a welcome development for Israel's most hawkish proponents in the United States. Netanyahu is a favorite among those in Washington promoting hard-line Israeli policies, including a bellicose policy toward Iran. In March, while in town for the annual AIPAC conference in Washington, Netanyahu met privately with Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House, where they reportedly discussed stepping up pressure on Iran, with an eye toward military options. One American defense industry lobbyist with strong ties to Israel told me around then that he thought Netanyahu was "absolutely awesome," and that many of his colleagues were equally staunch supporters. Another Washington lobbyist involved in Middle East affairs told me recently that although AIPAC officially declines to endorse one Israeli politician over another, some of its activists "certainly do." Indeed, when I reported for Salon from the AIPAC conference, many AIPAC delegates were outspoken fans of Netanyahu. Dozens of them told me that he was their preferred Israeli leader, and although Netanyahu wasn't officially on the program of events for the conference, when word went around that he would be doing a closed-door briefing for select delegates, it set off a vigorous scramble to gain access to him. AIPAC is careful not to overtly interfere in Israeli politics, but it is quite clear to even a casual observer that Netanyahu's sensibilities are closely aligned with those of many in the organization, and that much of its membership would like to see Netanyahu running Israel. But not everyone feels that way in Israel, where Netanyahu is known not only as a fierce hawk but also as an unabashed opportunist. Although Israeli politics can be a blood sport, Netanyahu has drawn criticism, like Gaydamak, for maneuvers seen by some as antidemocratic. In 2005, Netanyahu used the planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a pretense to attempt a putsch against then-Prime Minister Sharon and install himself as prime minister. At the time, one official in the prime minister's office told me that if Netanyahu succeeded he was considering resigning from the office, as were some of his colleagues. "The problem," the official said, "is not only that Netanyahu is right wing but that he is also reckless." Indeed, some of Netanyahu's statements and actions have been explosive, even by the standards of Israeli politics. Back in 2003 he drew sharp criticism -- and, from certain segments of the Israeli electorate, great praise -- for saying that the nation's own population of Arab-Israeli citizens represented a "demographic threat." More recently, referring to the nuclear standoff with Iran, he has repeatedly said that "we're in 1939," referring to the imminent aggression of Hitler's Germany, and he has all but stated outright that an American or Israeli attack on Iran will soon be warranted. When Netanyahu was prime minister from 1996 to 1999, his coalition shared power with more moderate Israeli factions, which constrained him from pursuing the more extreme elements of his agenda. His alliance with Gaydamak, however, may obviate the need for that sort of compromise, because of both Gaydamak's money and rising political support. The timing of the next Israeli elections is uncertain, but with a weak Olmert government and a volatile political landscape, they could be called as early as next year. A new ruling coalition is formed when the leader of the party with the most seats in the Knesset is able to assemble a grouping of parties with seats totaling more than 60. A recent poll showed that Gaydamak's Social Justice Party would win eight seats in an election, only two fewer than the ruling Kadima Party would now win. Netanyahu's Likud Party is consistently polling at 20 seats or better. Gaydamak's and Netanyahu's parties taken together, with 28 or more seats, would be an almost unbeatable bloc. (When Kadima took power in 2006, it had 29 seats.) A few other parties would then be needed to form a ruling coalition, which would likely be in the Gaydamak-Netanyahu alliance's grasp: Many in Israel's religious parties are fans of Netanyahu, and they would bring their seats over to him. He would also draw support from right-wing secular leaders such as the ultra-hawkish Avigdor Lieberman, a former chief of staff for Netanyahu, who heads the openly racist party Yisrael Beiteinu. Lieberman has called for the "transfer" of some of Israel's Arab citizens out of the country, has suggested bombing Palestinians' civilian infrastructure in the occupied territories, and has even argued openly for bombing Tehran. If such additional elements were to join forces with Gaydamak and Netanyahu, it could create the most right-wing Israeli government in decades. Netanyahu's apparent willingness to ally himself with powerful fringe figures like Gaydamak was perhaps predictable. A former senior Israeli official, who served in various capacities in the government for more than 20 years and interacted with Netanyahu on numerous occasions, told me some time ago that she had no doubt that Netanyahu would happily work with whoever could help him gain and keep power. "He doesn't have any real principles," she said. A former Netanyahu aide echoed this sentiment: "The only thing that's important to him is becoming prime minister, whatever the sacrifice." If Netanyahu succeeds with Gaydamak in his corner, that sacrifice may include wider regional war and perhaps even the erosion of democracy in Israel.
Date: 04/07/2007
×
Israel's Olmert Rises from the Rubble
For weeks now the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been trying to assess exactly what Hamas' takeover of Gaza and the ensuing chaos mean for Israel. This is just the latest difficulty in the prime minister's rocky tenure. Since he took over for Ariel Sharon in January 2006, there have been the election of the militant Hamas government, a total breakdown in the peace process, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, a barrage of rocket attacks on Israeli cities, rising tensions with Iran, and last summer's disastrous war with the Hezbollah, for which Olmert was later brutally criticized by a government commission. His detractors emphasize that Olmert failed to secure the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers and crush Hezbollah, and that he has failed to make any progress toward an agreement with the Palestinians. The Israeli public appears to have overwhelmingly lost faith in his leadership; a recent poll showed his public approval rating at a mere 3 percent, absurdly low even in Israeli politics. It's not surprising, then, that foreign and Israeli observers have been predicting the imminent demise of the Olmert government for some time now, and it may indeed seem that he is hanging on to power by the thinnest of threads. But if you're waiting for Ehud Olmert to slip off into the night, don't hold your breath. Despite his abysmal approval ratings and the multitude of fingers pointed at him, Olmert may in fact be in the strongest position he has been in for more than a year. Drawing on lessons learned from his predecessor, Sharon, Olmert is one of the shrewdest political operators in Israeli politics, and it appears that he has managed to lock down his position in the prime minister's office until at least next year -- which, on the Israeli political timescale, is an eternity. Overshadowed by the awful mess in Gaza is the recent transfusion of new life into the government. On June 18, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was appointed defense minister, providing a shot of adrenaline to the Olmert government by deflating criticism that it lacks the security credentials so crucial in Israeli politics. Neither Olmert nor his former defense minister, Amir Peretz, have a military background, and bringing in Barak -- the former chief of staff of the military, and the most decorated officer in the history of Israel -- adds badly needed military know-how and a sense of gravitas to Olmert's administration. In addition, the two Ehuds are old friends, a stark difference from Olmert's relationship with the ousted Peretz, who was also savaged by critics in the wake of last summer's war. According to officials in the prime minister's office and elsewhere in the government with whom I have recently spoken, Olmert and Peretz would go for days without conversing with each other. When the two most important figures in the administration behave in this manner, it only underscores why the Israeli public has little trust in its current leadership. But with Barak as defense minister, the cohesion and confidence needed to deal with threats such as Iran or the Gaza situation are much more credibly in place. Barak's appointment is not the only political development providing renewed vigor to Olmert's grip on power. On July 15, Shimon Peres will become Israel's new president -- a largely symbolic role, but one with much visibility. Peres is another Olmert friend, also hailing from the Kadima Party to which Olmert belongs, and Peres' election to the presidency has been seen as a victory for the prime minister. Because of the respect Peres commands among leaders around the world -- if far less so among the Israeli public itself -- he will likely serve as a global emissary for Olmert, helping to foster support for Olmert's diplomatic policies in the capital cities of Europe, the United States, and even in the Arab world. In reflecting on the twin victories of Barak and Peres, more than one Israeli commentator has referred to this as the dawning of a "second Olmert government." This leadership shuffle also serves to thwart some of Olmert's political rivals from capitalizing on his lack of popular support. As a sort of grand foreign minister, Peres will clip the wings of the actual foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who hopes to replace Olmert and has already called for his resignation. And by appointing Barak, Olmert has managed to sideline his arch-rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud Party who has been hoping to overcome Olmert on a hard-line security platform. Olmert has also managed to deflate criticism from the far right by including the hard-line Yisrael Beiteinu Party in his ragtag coalition. In essence, Olmert has managed to clear any serious near-term political challengers from the field. Most analysts agree that the developments in Gaza are ominous for Israel and the region in the longer term, but from a cynical point of view, even the Hamas takeover there has been something of a boon to Olmert's position. With Hamas ruling despotically over what appears to be a miniature failed state, it is easier for Olmert to throw up his hands and say that it is impossible at present to negotiate with the Palestinians. This allows him to resist American and international pressure to move toward an agreement. Although Condoleezza Rice's State Department has again been gently pushing him to make some concessions, the current situation allows Olmert implicitly to align himself with the intransigent views of Vice President Dick Cheney, which lets Olmert avoid upsetting his right-wing Israeli political allies by engaging in any potentially risky diplomatic initiatives. Olmert may be taking some cues from the example of his wily mentor, Ariel Sharon, who was a master at political maneuvering and holding on to power. Whereas Olmert came into office with grand pronouncements about new policies and spoke to the media frequently to explain them, the tone of his leadership lately has shifted to a more Sharon-like ambiguity. He is less readily available to the media than before and far more prone to making cryptic statements, such as the mixed signals he has been giving regarding the possibility of peace talks with Syria. It is harder to know what he is thinking and what he is planning to do -- and thus harder for his rivals to unseat him. Even his handy assembly of an ideologically diverse coalition and crafty maneuvering to block the aspirations of his opponents are lessons learned in the shadow of Sharon. To be sure, this could all change tomorrow. Such is the nature of the Middle East and of Israeli politics in particular. Another war with Hezbollah could erupt, as could a war with Syria -- which some analysts are predicting in the near future, and which could be even more earth-shattering and calamitous. In addition, there is the possibility of an Israeli or American strike on Iran over its nuclear program, which would potentially roil the whole region. A new political explosion in Israel could also disrupt Olmert's momentum. Toward the end of this year, for instance, the commission tasked with investigating the conduct of last summer's war will release its final report. It is hard to imagine, however, that it will be much more scathing than the interim report already issued, which heaped blame on the prime minister -- and from which he was able to walk away relatively unhurt. Ironically, what may be more problematic for Olmert will be Defense Minister Barak's reaction to the report. Barak has made no secret of his own desire to eventually regain the premiership, and although he is an Olmert ally at the moment, the release of the report could easily spark the beginning of his own campaign to unseat his friend and take his place. Right now Barak is a tremendous asset to Olmert, but in the long term his presence and power are a ticking bomb. Israeli politics is a blood sport, and friendship only goes so far. In spite of these potential pitfalls, Olmert has positioned himself to survive at least until 2008 and potentially even for another year. That may not seem a long time, but in the ever-shifting sands of the Israeli political arena it is a significant chunk of time. Whether any of this is actually good for Israel, for the Palestinians, or for American interests in the region is a question for another day. But for the moment, everything's coming up Olmert.
Date: 20/03/2007
×
Inside America's Powerful Israel Lobby
At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week in Washington, a conservative Christian couple from eastern Tennessee told me that their son had decided to join the Israeli army. It was one of many surreal moments during the three-day gathering hosted by AIPAC, the lobbying group devoted to ensuring close U.S.-Israel ties that remains extraordinarily influential in Washington. "We just love God, and we just love Israel," the couple beamed, when I asked why they had come to the conference. Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere, just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. And this year's conference saw record attendance: more than 6,000 people, coming from every state in the country and exceeding last year's crowd of around 5,000. Many of them were American Jews, of course, but the evangelical Christian community also made a strong showing. For those feeling apocalyptic about the turmoil in the Middle East, pastor John Hagee was there to greet them. Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, Hagee got one of the most enthusiastic receptions. "The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!" Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday. The electrified crowd -- most of it Jewish -- roared in support, pounding on the tables. Hagee went on to declare the United Nations a "political brothel" and asserted that Israel must never give up land. He agreed with Israeli writer Dore Gold that granting part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be "tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban." And, after rebuking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he led the crowd in a chant of "Israel lives!" urging them to "shout it from the mountaintops!" During Hagee's oratory, an AIPAC delegate sitting near me said, "I'm going to vote for him instead of McCain." AIPAC, whose own literature notes that it has been described by the New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel," has been highly successful in building strong relationships with both U.S. political parties. This year's conference was attended by everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and other 2008 presidential contenders), as well as former CIA director James Woolsey. Leaders from Congress were there, as were numerous officials from the State Department and White House. On Monday morning, Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause for familiar speech lines, such as his assertion that the "only option" against terrorists is to "go on the offensive." Many rank-and-file members of AIPAC seemed to be spoiling for military action against Iran -- "We have to do to them what we did to Saddam," one delegate told me -- but AIPAC's leadership remained strikingly circumspect about it. No AIPAC leaders mentioned war with Iran in the speeches, receptions or panel discussions I attended, and very few of the prominent outside speakers did either. At times this put them at odds with the grass-roots delegates; Marvin Feuer, AIPAC's director of policy and government affairs, was verbally attacked by a conference attendee as "weak" when he downplayed military options against Iran during a Q&A session. But AIPAC leaders are pushing for a different kind of offensive against Iran: a new program of sanctions much harsher than any prior one imposed through the United Nations. The plan, which one panelist called a "quiet campaign" to strike at Iran on the financial battlefield, would include increased pressures on foreign allies who do business with Iran, a U.S.-wide campaign of divestment, and other measures intended to put crippling economic pressure on the Islamic republic. Sarah Steelman, the state treasurer of Missouri, described how she has worked to restrict the state's investments in companies that do business with Iran, and urged AIPAC members to lobby their own state governments to institute similar policies. Steven Perles, a lawyer, explained how it was possible to tie up the assets of the Iranian government and financial institutions by engaging them in lawsuits for their funding of terrorist groups. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for some time been pushing for such efforts, and in a closed-door briefing during the conference he said that they could prove fatal to Iran: "Fewer and fewer companies will enter Iran. More and more will leave. Investment dollars and the technology it buys will dry up. The lifeline of a hated regime will be cut, its future imperiled." In addition to the many panels at the conference, which often felt akin to pep rallies, delegates also attended "lobbying labs," where AIPAC staff schooled them on how to effectively persuade their congressional representatives to follow AIPAC policies. These sessions were not open to the media, nor even mentioned on the schedule of events distributed to members of the press. But AIPAC leaders repeatedly urged delegates to attend them. And on Tuesday, the organization deployed its army of lobbyists to push for new sanctions against Iran, which are contained in a new bill called the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives -- approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying. The AIPAC activists were aided in their mission by some members of Congress themselves, who advised them how to reach out to their colleagues. "Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation," said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the AIPAC lobbyists "help make sure that we don't forget." Nita Lowey, a Democratic representative from New York, said the best strategy toward that goal was to keep pointing out to lawmakers that the relationship with Israel "is in the U.S. interest." "I don't sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff," Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. "They're like daily phone calls," she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement. Displays of bipartisan support filled the conference. Even if Democrats and Republicans bicker on every other issue, AIPAC leaders seemed constantly eager to stress that one thing on which the parties can come together is unswerving devotion to Israel. Tuesday morning, just before the AIPAC activists got ready to descend on Capitol Hill with their talking points in hand, for example, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner each addressed the delegates, assuring them of a staunch commitment to Israel's security. At one point, when Pelosi took the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration's surge plan, she was booed by some of the assembled delegates. Boehner, meanwhile, got a standing ovation, after saying, "Who does not believe that failure in Iraq is not a direct threat to the state of Israel? The consequences of failure in Iraq are so ominous for the United States you can't even begin to think about it." The closing gala dinner on Monday night was attended by a who's who of Washington's A-list. At that event, AIPAC's executive members -- accompanied by music that was fit for a Hollywood superhero movie -- read what they excitedly referred to as "the roll call" of those in attendance. It took 13 minutes and included the bulk of Congress, as well as high-ranking officials from the White House, the State Department and the National Security Council. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- addressing the crowd via teleconference from Jerusalem -- waded into America's debate over Iraq in a manner that the Israeli leadership has avoided until now. He openly urged AIPAC delegates to push Congress to support the Bush administration's current strategy in Iraq. In the few days since, Olmert has been sharply criticized by the Israeli press and other members of his own government. (Many in Israel believe that it is inappropriate for an Israeli head of state to try to overtly influence an American debate.) Much focus was on who will next sit in the Oval Office. Before and after the dinner, the presidential candidates and their colleagues from Congress schmoozed with the AIPAC delegates. Circulating through the crowd, Joe Biden made sure his presence was registered. "Hi, I'm Joe Biden!" he said repeatedly, adding several times, "I've been hanging out with AIPAC for years!" When one European journalist saw the throng around Biden, he ran over, asking nobody in particular, "Is that Hillary?" A few moments later, he emerged looking disappointed. "No," he said, in all seriousness, "I don't know who that is, but I think it might be Charlton Heston." Following the dinner, Clinton and Obama held competing dessert receptions in the conference center -- in rooms about 25 yards apart -- both eager to highlight their pro-Israel credentials. Debates ensued over which one to attend. "I can't decide," one AIPAC delegate said. "I'd really like to see Obama in person, but Hillary is better for Israel." About 1,000 people attended Obama's event, but so many attended Clinton's that they spilled out into the hallway. In their effort to maintain their image of bipartisanship, AIPAC's leadership is remaining firmly on the sidelines in looking ahead to the 2008 elections. On the surface, at least, they are maintaining the position that all the candidates will be equally good for Israel. When I inquired about Barack Obama and the oft-raised notion that he lacks foreign policy experience, AIPAC's spokesperson, Josh Block, quickly brushed this concern aside, saying that Obama "has a strong record from his time in the Senate." There were those at the conference, however, who had made it their mission to make sure other delegates knew that Obama had recently said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" at a recent event in Iowa -- a statement that served to anger some AIPAC delegates. Particularly striking, though, was the predominant attitude at the conference about the administration still in office. During the opening night's events, large video screens behind the speaker's podium showed a chronological slide show of U.S. presidents and their Israeli prime minister contemporaries, and when the display eventually reached George W. Bush, the room erupted into applause -- far more applause than the crowd had given for Reagan, Kennedy or even Truman. And when Cheney first appeared on the stage on Monday morning, the crowd immediately rose to its feet and filled the room with loud applause, which continued intermittently through his predictably hawkish speech. It seemed a remarkable contrast to the currently dismal public opinion polls regarding Bush and Cheney. As one delegate standing nearby commented during the vice president's speech, "This has got to be the last crowd that still greets him this way."
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|