The Times Says the Israel Lobby Doesn't Go Back to Truman. What About Wilson?
Though, rest assured, the Times is careful to dismiss Walt and Mearsheimer's paper on "The Israel Lobby" as an antisemitic canard:
Former Israeli ambassadors to Washington like Mr. Rabinovich, Mr. Arens and Mr. Shoval all scoff at the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, which echoes criticisms of Jewish influence as far back as the presidency of Harry S. Truman.
Wait—why stop at Truman? Pro-Israel forces in the U.S. have played a crucial role in the life of the settlement and state, going back to the Wilson administration. Saying so doesn't make you an Israel critic. It might even make you a dispassionate scholar:
1.Albert Lindemann (of UC Santa Barbara) in his book on antisemitism, Esau's Tears:
Leading State Department professionals came to resent bitterly what they considered a Jewish power so great that It was able to contravene completely the established role of the State Department. A most striking case in point was the meeting in Washington, D.C., in May 1917 between [British foreign secretary] Balfour and Justice Brandeis [lately appointed the first Jew among the Supremes]. Although he was close to President Wilson, Brandeis had no official authority to speak on foreign relations. Nevertheless, he communicated to Balfour a strong American support for the ideas of Zionism. Historian Peter Grose has commented that "as an illustration of back-channel diplomacy at its most effective, the Balfour-Brandeis meeting was exceptional. A Foreign Minister seeking understanding on a delicate political issue turned not to his official opposite number, the Secretary of State, or even to the other foreign policy advisers known to be close to the president." [Grose, Israel in the mind of America] Of course Balfour had every right, even obligation, to seek out spokesmen for American Jewry on such an issue. What is remarkable is that State Department officials, including the secretary of state, were totally ignored...
2. Melvin Urofsky and David W. Levy [of Virginia Commonwealth U. and Oklahoma U], in The Family Letters of Louis D. Brandeis:
Following the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, American Zionists pleaded with President Wilson formally to endorse the pledge that there would be a Jewish homeland in Palestine after the war. The State Department, however, adamantly opposed this request, pointing out to Wilson that the United States was not at war with the Ottoman Empire. Wilson finally decided to yield to Jewish requests and, without consulting the State Department, addressed a Jewish New Year's greeting to the Jewish people through [Reform rabbi] Stephen Wise, dated 31 August 1918. In the letter Wilson approved the Zionist program..."
The fascination here is the extent to which the Balfour declaration of 1917 in England, granting a homeland to Jews in Palestine, and Wilson's affirmation of it a year later, grew out of the only thing Jews had going for them then: access to power of highly-successful men of wealth or learning. In England it was the great chemist Chaim Weizmann. Here it was men like Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter (later to be appointed the third Jewish Supreme Court Justice) and Jacob Schiff, the N.Y. banker.
As for Truman, in 1948, C.L. Sulzberger of the Times met with David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, and the P.M. stated the need for an Israel lobby: The purpose of Israel is to "bring here all those Jews in the world who wish to come. That calls for a partnership between Israel and outside organizations, and all the Jews of the world must help."
Call it a good thing or a bad thing, call it influence, help, a back-channel, requests, or a lobby. Call it anything you like; just don't pretend that it is a fantasy.
yes, we were so fucking powerful back in the Roosevelt to Wilson era that 6 million of us, a THIRD of world Jewry mangaged to get incinerated. The British blocked Jewish immigration into the Palestine mandate from the moment that Allenby entered Jerusalem. But, little Phil I guess you know best. OK, you've cracked the case, we run it all, we know all, and there is not a thing that happens in the world that we're not behind. We all get the information packet at our Bar Mitzvahs, Did you lose yours asshole.
Overstating Jewish Power
Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 27, 2006, at 1:47 PM ET
It's slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don't understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either.
The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original.
Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work
Breckenridge Long, the state department official in charge of visas under Roosevelt sat on his hands and actively discouraged the filling of immigration quotas that were allowed. Now unfortunetely little Phil your family must have been in the US already because the thought of your grandparents, who produced a "vontz" such has yourself at the mercy of the Germans is too ironic to contemplate. But what the hell PHil they were emabarassing yids, not like yourself, erudite, at ease with the world, and oh so much better than the rest of us, the unwashed masses I suppose.
"Call it a good thing or a bad thing, call it influence, help, a back-channel, requests, or a lobby."
How about calling it "a violation of the Logan Act?"
Seems to fit.
By not enforcing FARA and the Logan Act, the US opens itself to all sorts of policy crimes and Israeli lobby shenanigans.
Well, this is awkward.
I hate it that there's one particular lobby in washington that can't even be named. It's also quite tiring that anyone who questions the nation of Israel is immediately painted as a conspiratorial nutjob or worse. Wha'ts more, I find the internecine battles and "race-traitor" implications ridiculous.
A nerve has been touched, but it certainly isn't a nerve healthy people ought to posess.
Letters to the Editor
Ensuring strong U.S-Israel ties
Regarding "Wanted: A moderate pro-Israel lobby," November 17
This recent op-ed in Haaretz demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of what the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is and how we fulfill our mission to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel.
People who live in Israel understand all too well the seriousness of the threats facing this country. We also know that the support and friendship of the United States is critical to the ongoing strength and security of the Jewish state.
The strength of AIPAC is firmly rooted in the fact that U.S. support for Israel transcends party politics, in fact it is one of the few issues that does so in a very divided political world in Washington. An overwhelming majority of Americans supports a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and believes that this relationship is one of a small number of issues that finds both Republicans and Democrats in complete agreement.
Rather than seeking to impose its own agenda or beliefs, AIPAC works with the elected leaders of both nations, regardless of their political party. In Washington, our work is not only with the administration, but with both parties in the House and Senate - regardless of which party controls those houses. AIPAC is a consensus organization and the diverse makeup of its membership is a welcome sign to American lawmakers that we represent the consensus view in the American pro-Israel community.
AIPAC has always understood its appropriate role, which is not to advance a prescriptive agenda. It is the voters in Israel and the United States who decide which governments to elect and what policies to follow. AIPAC's mandate is not to pressure the Israeli government to follow a particular course. Its agenda is to ensure the continuation of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and to seek ways to make the bond even stronger.
During times of crisis AIPAC's role is more important than ever. During Israel's recent war in Lebanon, Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution (by a vote of 410-8) in support of Israel's right to self-defense against aggression from Hezbollah. AIPAC has also supported both House and Senate versions of legislation that would block all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until its Hamas-controlled government meets the standards set by the international community - to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.
The author of the op-ed chose not to include in his article that there are also provisions in the legislation which create a carve-out for certain kinds of assistance to Fatah leader and PA Chairman Mohammed Abbas. This was a complex piece of legislation authored by Congressional leaders for a complex period in Palestinian-Israeli relations.
AIPAC will continue in its fundamental mission to work with the elected leaders in both countries to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship remains strong, so that the two allies continue to stand together against common threats and work together to seek paths for a comprehensive and a secure peace.
Wendy Singer
Director, AIPAC Israel Office
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/792778.html