David Harris heads the American Jewish Committee, and in between conducting its affairs, he likes to blog. A lot. Much of what he has to say is well written. Much of what he has to say is topical. Much of what he says is red meat to battle hardened pro-Israel troops.

His latest blog is written in response to concerns he and the Anti-Defamation League share over the issue of civility and bipartisanship among groups, like  The Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), that claim their primary focus is supporting Israel. ECI  published  an ad that seemed to position support for Israel as a Republican versus Democratic battle. In ECI’s view, conservatives (read Republicans) are the real Israel supporters.

No, check that.

In ECI’s view, positioning Republicans as the defenders of Israel is good for Republican politics and Israel is just a convenient vehicle to use to accomplish their purpose. That approach is one that gives Harris and  Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, a severe case of shpilkes. As it should.

The last thing the traditional Jewish organizational supporters of Israel want, and this also  includes AIPAC , is to wage a battle where Israel becomes a partisan pinata.  In their view, that ultimately weakens overall support for Israel.

But ECI’s founders, Bill Kristol and Gary Bauer,  have a history of engaging in tactical fights whose overarching goal is  to help the many conservatives and conservative causes they support.  Bring on the  controversy. The more publicity the better. If positioning Democrats as anti-Israel is good for conservatives, then that’s a winning Republican platform that must be pursued.

Harris doesn’t want ECI’s voice to get any louder. So Harris’ blog touches on his bipartisanship concerns and what he sees as the U.S’s strong support of Israel, but he avoids directly implicating ECI, lest ECI use AJC’s “attack” to continue efforts that Harris wants to stop.

Harris’ theme is correct.  His tactical  approach is not. The main tactic that Jewish organizations  (such as AJC, ADL, and AIPAC)  should  adopt  is to start advocating for Israel to act as if it understands that peace  with the Palestinians is an Israeli vital interest — not simply a favor to the Palestinians. The goal of bipartisan support and more world-wide support, including U.S. support, is best ensured by taking the Palestinian issue off of the table. And that support is increasingly threatened  by Israel taking more aggressive action to engage in  “we’ll-show-you” settlement building than to reach an agreement  with the Palestinians.

U.S. support is not guaranteed simply because of Congressional lobbying/fundraising/pressure tactics conducted by various pro-Israel organizations, and it is not threatened by legitimate disagreements about Israeli policies or actions.  Disagreement can be healthy and helpful as long as the motives are pure. ECI’s are not. Harris would be wise to clarify the distinction between legitimate disagreements among those advocating on behalf of Israel and the motives of ECI.

Fundamentally, however,  the U.S. must continue to believe that its strategic interests are met by strongly supporting Israel. Yes, there is still that values connection we all hear about: Israel is the region’s only democracy and its people share many of our best attributes and beliefs. It also doesn’t hurt that its spokespeople seem to speak in less accented English than the Palestinian spokespeople. (While that shouldn’t matter, it’s Sales 101: People like to buy from people who are like them.) But the values connection only goes so far.

America’s serious economic issues are one concern. While that may threaten some of Israel’s three billion dollar funding,   that’s only one aspect of American support, and it is one that Israel has the capability to manage.

It is the geopolitical changes taking place that  should be the real focus.  If the U.S. can get more of what it wants in the Middle East region from Turkey,  and slowly continues to back off of its key global role, as best demonstrated by  leading from the rear in Libya, withdrawing from Iraq, and announcing plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, why would it be logical to assume that  in 2015 or 2020 the U.S. will continue to remain aligned with Israel to the extent it is now?

Iran  is a present day threat to Israel and the entire Middle East region if their nuclear program can’t be controlled. AJC, ADL, and AIPAC regularly hammer that point. There is no substantive disagreement other than, perhaps, in how  to respond to that threat.  However, the policies of  the current Israeli coalition government  also represent a threat to Israel’s survival as both a  Jewish and democratic country. This is an increasingly common view not only among American Jewish supporters, but also among Israelis.
The growing  economic, religious and political issues inside Israel combined with an increasing disconnect between Israel and its Jewish Diaspora are a real long-term danger. Those  issues must be strongly and regularly  addressed    by  our mainstream Jewish organizations (and on a bipartisan basis) or they will  ultimately fail  in their  mission.
While  key security officials within Israel and the United States feel we still have diplomatic levers to pull with Iran to prevent them acting against Israel (and  Iran must also consider the ramifications of an attack that would also  kill  and injure many Arabs and Palestinians),  there is growing concern about whether we have any diplomatic levers to pull with the present  Israeli government that will cause them to change course. AIPAC, AJC, and the ADL can play a role in helping that process occur.
ECI’s role is to get conservatives and Republicans elected. What they are now doing is certainly  disingenuous, if not dangerous, and pro-Israel supporters who back ECI are doing Israel no favors.
The  ADL, AJC and AIPAC  can no longer remain on the sidelines, afraid that substantive disagreement with the Israeli government is  harmful. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tit for tat tactical games — if the Palestinians keep going to the U.N., we’ll build more settlements — may appease his coalition members, but they only  highlight his leadership failures as well as  his apparent preference for feckless tactics over cogent strategies.
Israel’s future strength  is best ensured  by accelerating steps to achieve the Quartet’s — European Union, U.N., U.S. and Russia — recommended  borders and security solution.
That can act as the first step toward a near term final agreement, one that not only will allow AJC, ADL and AIPAC to have fewer battles to fight with ECI, but will  help cement a resolution of the Israeli and Palestinian geopolitical soap opera. The AJC, ADL and AIPAC can have a more expansive role to play in getting Israel to the finish line. They just need to choose to take their parts.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: