|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 7, 2006 / 16 Mar-Cheshvan, 5767 Before you pull that election lever … By Jeff Ballabon
Yes, there are differences between the Dems and GOPers when it comes to the Holy Land. Significant ones Last week, AIPAC finally weighed in, not on behalf of Israel, but on behalf of Democrats, issuing a statement to support the NJDC's improbable claim that there is no discernable difference between the two parties when it comes to this one, apparently uncontroversial, well-settled issue: Middle East policy. Since it is obvious to even the least politically-minded that what to do about the Middle East is a matter of serious contention and that there must be some difference between the parties, why would AIPAC make such a patently absurd public statement? For that matter, why on this one issue don't the Democrats themselves try to argue that they are better than Republicans, rather than just "as good as?" The reality is that nobody in Washington seriously doubts which party is better for Israel. Confronted with the obvious superiority of Republican inclinations on Israel, however, AIPAC's fundraising base would evaporate, so AIPAC constructed the argument of bipartisanship "for Israel's sake." On issues like school choice, gay marriage and abortion (which polling shows are far more significant to them than Israel) however, AIPAC's base has no hesitation in fighting for Democratic control of Congress. AIPAC's bipartisanship fetish is thus an expedient to sustain its own base in the face of Democratic hostility to Israel, often at the cost of Israel’s interests. Here's an example from the recent Hezbollah war of AIPAC putting Democrats before Israel. Embedded in a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article challenging the credibility of Walt and Mearsheimer, authors of the controversial “The Israel Lobby” report, is the following: Mearsheimer also said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was the "driving force" behind efforts in Congress to remove language from pro-Israel war resolutions that called on all sides to preserve civilian life. In fact, JTA has established that the initiative was purely Republican and had nothing to do with AIPAC. Some pro-Israel lobbyists told JTA they found the partisan dustup on the issue distasteful. The context: During the conflict, Israel was confronted by customarily corrupt treatment by the media, the UN and others of Israel's defensive response as morally indistinguishable from Hezbollah's attacks. Democrats, leader Nancy Pelosi among them, insisted on language that made it appear as though Congress also equated Israel's actions and intentions with Hezbollah's. Republicans balked, refusing to treat Israel like terrorists. In this dispute, one would expect any "pro-Israel" lobby to align with the Republican position. Not AIPAC. Too "distasteful." The appalling truth is that for years Republicans on the Hill, Christian Zionists and hawkish groups like the Zionist Organization of America actually have being restrained in their support for Israel by AIPAC's tepid Democrat-friendly agenda. Israel has endured a major terror war recently ratified in the landslide election of Hamas as representing the unified will of Palestinian Arabs. During the same period, war-on-terror hawks have been in control of the House, the Senate and the White House and champing at the bit to quash the Palestinian terror culture and infrastructure. In this context, AIPAC’s agenda of foreign aid and toothless resolutions criticizing hugely unpopular regimes like Iran and Syria are demonstrably less a robust pro-Israel platform than what they really represent: a minimalist agenda crafted to allow even Democrats to achieve certified "100% pro-Israel" voting records so that millions of dollars keeps flowing through AIPAC, directly and indirectly. If this sounds cynical, then consider: all interest groups would like to achieve bipartisan support of their issue. So isn't it striking that literally the only one issue in Washington on which the major lobby insists that party control doesn't matter is Israel? Does anybody doubt that unions prefer Democratic congresses or that pro-lifers want Republicans? Bipartisanship is valuable up to the point where you have to sacrifice your issue in order to achieve bipartisanship. AIPAC's anomalous neutrality and its lavish support of legislators with radically different agendas not only promotes the treacherous pretense that Democrats are as good for Israel's survival as Republicans, it also guts the phrase "pro-Israel" of any real meaning in terms of US policy. Before the last election, Israeli polls showed Israelis overwhelmingly preferring Bush to Kerry. Israeli papers reported that the Israeli government had a conspicuous preference for Bush. As the JTA reported in May 2004, however, AIPAC has touted this election as a "win-win" proposition, noting Bush's strong support for Israel and Kerry's 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate. Bush and Kerry "win-win?" Republicans and Democrats indistinguishable? It would be funny if Jews weren't being killed.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
PoliticalMavens.com contributor Jeff Ballabon, CEO of Ballabon Group LLC, was a Republican US Senate staffer. He has been listed as one of the "50 Most Influential Jews in America." Let him know what you think by clicking here.
© 2006, Jeff Ballabon
| ||||||||||
