www.hirhome.com

What is AIPAC for?
Does the so-called 'Jewish Lobby' produce pro-Israeli US foreign policy, or the opposite?

Historical and Investigative Research, 5 May 2005
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/aipac.htm
________________________________________________________

Introduction

AIPAC is the acronym for the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. The AIPAC website describes that the purpose of the organization is to develop a close relationship with the people who indirectly influence and directly make US policy towards Israel.

“Activists work closely with AIPAC’s professional staff, people drawn from the top echelons of government, diplomacy, academia and politics. AIPAC lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC policy experts each day review hundreds of periodicals, journals, speeches and reports and meet regularly with the most innovative foreign policy thinkers in order to track and analyze events and trends.”[1]

AIPAC also says that it works to develop a grass roots effort that supplies rank-and-file activists with the best information. In this way, they can motivate the constituency to exert pressure to affect US policy towards Israel.

“Professionals in AIPAC’s regional offices reach out to activists in hundreds of communities each year from Missoula, Montana, to Miami, Florida. Whether meeting in a neighbor’s living room, attending a ballroom gala or participating in an AIPAC conference in Washington, AIPAC activists receive the most up-to-date analyses of Middle East issues and American politics. For more than two decades, AIPAC’s Political Leadership Development Program has educated and trained young leaders in pro-Israel advocacy, and encouraged them to become politically active. Students involved with AIPAC learn how to effectively advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, bring their Members of Congress to campus, promote voter registration, work on political campaigns, and build relationships with other student leaders.”

It looks impressive. AIPAC is practically taking credit for US policy towards Israel. And indeed, if AIPAC were to state that it does not have an effect on US foreign policy it would be confessing to the utter futility of the multifarious, high-level and, one guesses, expensive activities it lists above. According to AIPAC, the effect it has on US foreign policy is to make it pro-Israel.

This article will take a skeptical look at that claim.

Last year, “AIPAC held its largest-ever national summit from October 24-25, drawing a bipartisan group of political leaders to address more than 800 members in Hollywood, Florida.”[2] This summit provides a useful way of gauging whether AIPAC has anything to do with producing pro-Israel US policies.

At this event, Condoleeza Rice gave a speech, but not before being introduced by the AIPAC president Bernice Manocherian as someone with “a passion for and a mastery of the complex issues which face Israel and for shaping American policy in the Middle East,” and also thanked by the same “for the kindness that you have shown to me and for the steadfast friendship and support that you have demonstrated to our community over the years.”[3] Bernice Manocherian said some other dramatic things, too, forcing Condoleeza Rice to begin her own remarks with: “Well, thank you so much for that very warm welcome, and Bernice, thank you for that extraordinary introduction. I’ll never forget it. Thank you.”

Condoleeza Rice defended the US’s offensive and pre-emptive strategy in the ‘war on terror’ to AIPAC applause. She said:

“…unless we change the circumstances that produced this ideology of hatred and hopelessness so great that it causes people to fly planes into buildings and to strap suicide bombs on their bodies, our children and our grandchildren will still be fighting this war decades from now.”

Rice was making a direct linkage between the 9-11 terrorist attacks on US soil and the daily routine of suicide bombings launched against innocent Israeli civilians. The implication, of course, is that the US and Israel have a common enemy, Islamist terrorism, and therefore that the US and Israel are allies, and moreover that the US offensive strategy in the ‘war on terror’ is one where the US would like to see the Palestinian Arab terrorists defeated as much as the US wants to see Al-Qaeda defeated. Her remarks above earned her a bout of applause from this largest-ever AIPAC audience.

Condoleeza Rice talked the very tough, take-no-prisoners talk that has become the staple of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“State sponsors of terror have a choice: abandon their support of terror or face the consequences. The Taliban made the wrong choice and paid the price… The result of these efforts is plain. The terrorists’ world is growing smaller. The places where they can operate with impunity are becoming fewer and fewer, and we will not rest until there is no safe place for terrorists to hide.”

This got more applause.

After defending her own policy in Iraq as one where the US was supposedly bringing freedom and democracy to that country, she explained that,

“This forward strategy of freedom is also at the heart of the president’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. President Bush is the first American president to support the creation of a Palestinian state. As a committed friend of Israel, he views a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state as being in the best interest of both Palestinians and Israelis. But he is also the first American president to say clearly that the nature of any Palestinian state is as important as its borders. A Palestinian state must have a just and democratic government that serves the true interests of the Palestinian people and that is a true partner for Israel in peace.

Creating such a government is the right role. It’s the only role to realizing the president’s vision of two states; Israel and Palestine living side by side. A Palestinian state will never be achieved through terrorism. Israel will not permit it and the United States of America will not permit it.”

Once again, applause.

Let me now point out a few problems with all this.

First, antisemites everywhere push the argument that US foreign policy is the fault of ‘the Jews,’ something that a lot of good but woefully misinformed people believe. I have thoroughly refuted this belief in my chronological summary of US foreign policy towards the Jewish people and state, which goes from the 1930s to the year 2005, where I show that US foreign policy is in fact radically anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, and has been consistently so from the very beginning.[4] But the fact remains, many people believe the accusation that US foreign policy is supposedly pro-Jewish because ‘the Jews’ supposedly have enormous influence in the US government. And the same people tend to disagree intensely with the conduct of US geopolitical strategy after 9-11. In other words, a lot of people blame ‘the Jews’ -- or, more politely, Israel -- for US foreign policy that they hate. Given that, when AIPAC -- the supposedly pro-Israel lobby -- applauds Rice’s linkage of the US’s current geopolitical strategy with Israel’s response to its terrorist enemies, they give antisemites everywhere an opportunity to push the absurd argument that US imperialism is somehow the fault of Israel, which in turn helps turn large numbers of people against the Jewish state.

So whatever the intent of AIPAC’s applause here, the effect is to make things worse for Israel. AIPAC would better serve the state of Israel if it didn’t invite Condoleeza Rice to speak at all, something that should be obvious to any organization that is supposedly spending large sums of money studying the manner in which to help Israel, as AIPAC claims to do.

Another problem with the above is that Condoleeza Rice explicitly defends US policy in Israel by stating that it has the same goals as US policy in Iraq. Anybody who cares about the Jewish state, after taking even a quick look at Iraq, ought to shudder. But the AIPAC audience applauded.

Finally, here is what is most incredible: Condoleeza Rice states that, “President Bush is the first American president to support the creation of a Palestinian state.” This is simply false, and any organization boasting loudly that its research and lobbying is meant to produce pro-Israeli US foreign policy must know this. But this AIPAC audience applauded.

Below I will correct at length this obliteration of US foreign policy history by the US foreign minister. Once it sinks in how venerable and consistent the US push to create a PLO state has been, it will be dramatically obvious the degree to which AIPAC's boast that it produces pro-Israeli US foreign policy is a fiction.

I will also dwell a bit on the spectacular contradiction: Condoleeza Rice states that US foreign policy is supposedly meant to eliminate “this ideology of hatred…so great that it causes people…to strap suicide bombs on their bodies,” and yet she also tells us that the US wants to create a state next to Israel where the government will be the same terrorists who teach “this ideology of hatred” to Arab children from the tender age of 5: the PLO.[5] Not content with that, Condoleeza Rice sells this to her AIPAC as a pro-Israeli policy. This is worth dwelling on as well.

Done with all that, I will return to the question of AIPAC’s applause and ask seriously: Why in the world did this largest-ever AIPAC audience applaud Condoleeza Rice’s statements?
________________________________________________________

Jimmy Carter was first
________________________________________________________

George W. Bush was not the first president to support the creation of a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, run by the PLO. It was Jimmy Carter, in 1977, who first supported this idea in public.

As I have documented elsewhere, the UN had a strategy to demonize Israel and make the PLO appear respectable.[6] This worked beautifully, so that by 1977 a young West Bank Palestinian interviewed by Newsweek could say: “Unlike ten years ago, we now have the sympathy of the entire world.”[7] The world’s political climate having thus shifted to the degree necessary, US president Jimmy Carter, choosing his moment carefully, declared publicly his support for a “Palestinian homeland.” This is what the New York Times reported on May 13, 1977:

“[Congress] watches, with a mixture of admiration and doubt, Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reassure the Israelis while trying to get them back to the pre-1967 borders with a new Palestinian ‘homeland’ on their flank.”[8]

In what universe does it make sense for the most important newspaper to say that stripping Israel from territory it won defending itself from an attempted extermination, and giving this territory to terrorists pledged to the self-same extermination, is a policy deserving admiration? In an antisemitic universe. And what is even more ‘admirable,’ according to the New York Times, is how skillfully Carter was pulling this incredible stunt. Read the quote again and see if you disagree with me.

It is certainly of some interest that US president Jimmy Carter came out in favor of a PLO state (what ‘Palestinian homeland’ has always meant) before the PLO ever supported the idea. In fact, before the US president’s announcement of his support for a ‘Palestinian homeland’ the PLO had been the staunchest opponent of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza! This is worth a short detour.

Consider this note from 1969:

“… recent rejection by Al Fatah representative of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan West Bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian National Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept political settlement.”[9]

Al Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO - it calls all the shots. The Palestinian National Council is the legislative body of the PLO. Thus, what we have above is a total rejection by the PLO, in 1969, of a PLO state in the West Bank. Why?

The answer to that question will be found in the PLO Charter - or perhaps I should say charters (plural) as there have been two. The first charter dates from 1964, and in article 24 it states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.[10]

The PLO went out of its way, as you can see above, to state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not “Palestinian” lands, (2) belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and (3) were of no interest to the PLO. In 1968, however, the PLO Charter was rewritten and this is the charter that remains current to this day. This second charter states the following in its first two articles:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.[11]

The boundaries of the territory called “Palestine” during the British Mandate included the West Bank and Gaza, plus the rest of present day Israel.[12] This means that in the 1968 Charter, the PLO did now begin claiming the West Bank and Gaza as “Palestinian” lands. Why the abrupt 180-degree reversal? Because the year before, in 1967, after the surrounding Arab states had provoked a war with the goal of exterminating the Israeli Jews, the Israelis had emerged victorious, and had captured the West Bank and Gaza.

What this means is that there is no such thing as a fixed “Palestinian land” as far as the PLO is concerned; there is just land that Jews live on. Since the Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, these territories -- which the PLO had explicitly maintained it was not interested in -- suddenly became of great interest to the PLO and were called by them for the first time “Palestinian.” This is easily explained, because the PLO’s purpose is to exterminate the Israeli Jews, which should not be surprising to those who know that Yasser Arfat was mentored by a leader of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, members of whose organization created Arafat's -- and now Mahmoud Abbas's -- outfit: Al Fatah.[12a] as specified most explicitly in the PLO Charter. Article 15 of the 1968 PLO charter says that the PLO means to “liquidate the Zionist…presence” (the very kind of language that the German Nazis used) and article 9 states that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”[13] In other words, wherever Jews live in the Middle East, the PLO will claim that this is “Palestinian” land that has to be liberated exclusively by wiping out the Jews. There will be no real negotiations. The reason the PLO was at first reluctant to join the call for a PLO state is that the tactical and temporary abandonment of a policy to kill all the Jews in the Middle East was a bitter pill to swallow for an organization that was in a big hurry to complete the extermination that is its ecstatic mission and goal.

None of this, of course, was a secret to US President Jimmy Carter, and neither was it a secret that the Arab states, since 1969, had been pushing for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza. So this is the context in which Jimmy Carter announced his support for a “Palestinian homeland” in 1977. In other words, the US president simply had to know that his statement would be interpreted as support for a PLO state. To leave no doubt, the PLO, less than a week after the announcement by the US President, followed suit and declared itself for the first time in support of a West Bank PLO state.

“PLO spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres Carter’s concept of Palestinian homeland as important contribution to ‘just and durable’ peace in Middle East…  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip…”[14]

Of course, this did not mean that the PLO was abandoning its goal of destroying Israel. It meant only that, following the US president’s lead, it was shifting tactics, as reported in another wire of the same day [emphasis mine, below]:

“PLO has reportedly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of independent Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement. …PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel’s existence.”[15]

How come the US president and the PLO leadership appeared so coordinated, announcing their new positions within a week of each other? Were they working together through the secret back channel that the New York times reported existed between the CIA and the PLO despite an explicit agreement the US had with Israel not to do this?[16] It appears so, because only two months later it was reported that the Carter administration and the PLO were “involved in secret high-level contacts.”[17]

One week after that:

“Reports in the state-controlled Egyptian news media said the Americans [my emphasis] were suggesting that the Palestinians form a government in exile as one way of making themselves eligible for [the] Geneva [peace conference]. The argument, the reports said, was that the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] cannot now be invited because it does not represent a state.”[18]

The purpose of the Geneva peace conference was to talk about the creation of a Palestinian state. Clearly, Jimmy Carter’s administration wanted this to be a PLO state.

The above resoundingly refutes Condoleeza Rice’s absurd claim that “President [George W.] Bush is the first American president to support the creation of a Palestinian state.” Jimmy Carter beat him to the punch.

But Condoleeza Rice is even more off-base than this, because President Bush Jr. is not even the second president to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
________________________________________________________

Ronald Reagan was second
________________________________________________________

In 1981 Reagan decided to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, over and above a massive secret buildup of Saudi Arabia begun by his predecessor Jimmy Carter, and which made Saudi Arabia

“ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world [and] one of the most heavily armed countries in the world.”[19]

When Jewish supporters of Reagan met with him in 1981, concerned that the Reagan administration had become frankly antisemitic,

“…The White House adviser…said Reagan assured his Jewish supporters that ‘the only path to peace we’re following is the Camp David process,’ and not either peace initiatives proposed by Saudi Arabia or Europeans.

Reagan had raised some Jewish concerns by praising what he called implicit recognition of Israel in the plan advanced by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi plan calls for establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and peace between countries in the region. The plan never mentions Israel.

The Europeans have questioned whether any settlement can be reached without active PLO participation.”[20]

So Reagan, first, endorsed a Saudi ‘peace’ plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state “with its capital in East Jerusalem,” and which didn’t recognize Israel’s actual existence, let alone recognize its right to exist.

Then, Reagan said that, no, the Saudi plan would not be followed, and neither would he pay any attention to the Europeans, who were calling for a PLO state. Instead, the “Camp David process” would be his policy.

But the “Camp David process” was Jimmy Carter’s policy, and it called for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the creation of a self-governing Palestinian Arab authority, and, after three years, “negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza.”[21] Since Carter had pushed very hard for including the PLO in the Geneva ‘peace’ conference, it is obvious that this strategy, which looks and sounds exactly like what the Oslo process later became, and what the Roadmap also is, was meant to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.

But Reagan had some cover because, only a month earlier, American businessman Edgar Bronfman Jr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, had written an editorial in the New York Times in which he:

1)  argued for an American role in a Middle East peace process;

2)  spoke about “genuine Palestinian needs”;

3)  presented the Arabs as genuinely wanting peace, supposedly; and

4)  advised the Israeli prime minister to accept the Arabs’ preconditions and to find “an acceptable solution for the Palestinians.” “Mr. Begin...,” Bronfman explained, “must be prepared to go further than endorsing the idea of Palestinian autonomy.”[22]

More than autonomy: in other words, a Palestinian state! Bronfman was certainly not doing Israel any favors.

Bronfman has been quite prominent in the American halls of power, and has been trotted out more than once by American presidents in support of their anti-Israeli policies, giving a supposedly ‘Jewish’ stamp on the same. This is true as a general rule: only Jews who go out of their way to attack Israel (openly or not so openly) have any real influence in Washington. Now why might that be?

Not content with the above, in September 1982, Edgar Bronfman, from his perch as President of the World Jewish Congress, publicly endorsed Ronald Reagan’s plan for Middle East peace. Reagan was using Bronfman as a ‘Jewish diplomat’ to speak for Israel, and American newspapers dutifully carried the headline “Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan.”[23]

The Israelis were not amused. A Washington Post article with the headline “Israel Rebuffs Reagan” stated that

“the [Likud] Israeli government [led by Menachem Begin]...unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative.”[24]

And what was Bronfman endorsing? The same article explains that

“Reagan’s proposals of last week, which called for a freeze on new and existing settlements while efforts are made to revive the Camp David autonomy talks…

The Camp David peace accords call for an interim, five-year period of autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza during which the final status of the territories is to be negotiated.”

Again, the Camp David accords had been engineered by Jimmy Carter, who was trying to create a PLO state. That’s what the "final status" negotiations following Palestinian “autonomy” were to be for.

I should note that even as US President Ronald Reagan was pressing for a Palestinian state run by the PLO, these terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians from their bases in Lebanon. This became such a problem that the Israeli army had to invade southern Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO. This attempt would have succeeded if not for the fact that the Reagan administration sent the US Air Force, with the French military, to pluck the PLO from its besieged position and deposit it safely in Tunis.[25]

The above demonstrates that not only did Jimmy Carter beat George W. Bush in the race to support a PLO state, but so did Ronald Reagan. And yet we are not done with the corrections to Condoleeza Rice’s historical absurdities.
________________________________________________________

George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton, came in third
and fourth
________________________________________________________

These two US presidents also supported a PLO state before George W. Bush ever did. Their very recent presidencies appear also to have faded completely from the remarkably short-term memories of the AIPAC audience members who applauded Condoleeza Rice’s nonsense.

And yet it was in 1989, under President Bush Sr., that the Defense Department, then headed by Dick Cheney, commissioned a study by the Rand Corporation entitled “The West Bank of Israel: Point of No Return?” This study “concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state.”[26]

It was of course James Baker III, acting for President George Bush Sr., who then twisted Israel’s arm so that it would participate in the Madrid ‘peace’ talks, which were the prelude to the Oslo ‘peace’ process, the purpose of which was to bring the PLO back from exile for the eventual formation of a PLO state. You see, the PLO was finding it very difficult to kill Israelis from Tunis, so once again the United States government stepped in to assist this antisemitic and terrorist organization, whose goal is the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[27]

The famous signature that jump-started the Oslo Process had for backdrop Bill Clinton’s Washington DC, and he proudly posed for the moment. So it cannot be argued that Bill Clinton did not support the creation of a PLO state, given that the Oslo process -- under the watchful eyes of Bill Clinton -- created a PLO proto-state already, and given that Bill Clinton exerted himself to the limit with Ehud Barak in the effort to create a bona-fide PLO state. Arafat refused such a state because he wanted to see the Israeli Jews exterminated in his lifetime, and the failure of the Clinton-Barak-Arafat negotiations at Camp David was used by Arafat as one of the excuses to start the quite bloody Second Intifada, a bit later.[28]
________________________________________________________

Back to Condoleeza Rice
________________________________________________________

Here again is the quote from Condoleeza Rice that got us started.

“This forward strategy of freedom is also at the heart of the president’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. President Bush is the first American president to support the creation of a Palestinian state. As a committed friend of Israel, he views a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state as being in the best interest of both Palestinians and Israelis. But he is also the first American president to say clearly that the nature of any Palestinian state is as important as its borders. A Palestinian state must have a just and democratic government that serves the true interests of the Palestinian people and that is a true partner for Israel in peace.

Creating such a government is the right role. It’s the only role to realizing the president’s vision of two states; Israel and Palestine living side by side. A Palestinian state will never be achieved through terrorism. Israel will not permit it and the United States of America will not permit it.”

It is simply incredible that the US Secretary of State, in charge of US foreign policy, can so brazenly state precisely the opposite of what US foreign policy has been, pretending that George W. Bush is the first president of the United States to support a Palestinian state. It is even more incredible that she should characterize George W. Bush’s policy, which is to create a state run by the PLO, an antisemitic terrorist organization with genocidal goals, and moreover one that violently oppresses the West Bank and Gaza Arabs,[29] as one consistent with the president's supposed insistence that “A Palestinian state must have a just and democratic government that serves the true interests of the Palestinian people and that is a true partner for Israel in peace.”

Adding sauce to her dish, Rice stated that “A Palestinian state will never be achieved through terrorism. Israel will not permit it and the United States of America will not permit it.” That was in 2004, but in the present year 2005, with Condoleeza Rice presiding as US Secretary of State, the administration of George W. Bush is pushing for Ariel Sharon’s planned withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria, which is giving the terrorist PLO land for a Palestinian state as a reward for the terrorist violence of the Second Intifada!

And Bush does not consider that quite enough. Consider this April 12, 2005, article from The Independent, a British daily:

“Anxious to maintain the momentum towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, President George Bush has pointedly urged Ariel Sharon to halt an expansion of a key Jewish settlement on the West Bank, bitterly opposed by the Palestinians.

Hosting the Israeli Prime Minister at his Texas ranch, Mr Bush backed Mr Sharon’s plan to dismantle the 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza. But, in an unmistakable reference to the Maale Adumim settlement, close to Jerusalem where Israel plans to build 3,650 homes, the President told reporters that he asked Mr Sharon “not to undertake any activity that contravenes the road map or prejudices final status obligations”. The summit - Mr Sharon’s first visit to the President’s ranch in Texas - came at an especially delicate moment, amid renewed violence in Gaza that threatens a two-month ceasefire, and mounting domestic protest on the Israeli right against the dismantling of settlements there in July and August.”[30]

Notice how The Independent says that “Mr Bush backed Mr Sharon’s plan to dismantle the 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza.” This newspaper clearly wants you to think that this is Mr. Bush being pro-Israeli because the next sentence begins with ‘but’: “But…the President…asked Mr Sharon ‘not to undertake any activity that contravenes the road map or prejudices final status obligations.’” In this way the impression is created of a President Bush who, on the one hand, supports the Israelis but who, on the other hand, is tough on the Israelis. Absurd. Both of President Bush’s policy positions are radically anti-Israeli -- but especially the first, the one that is sold as pro. It is enough to make one wonder if people pay any attention to what they read.

The most incredible thing here, however, is that not only does Bush want the settlers out of Gaza, but in fact he demands this even though the Palestinian Arab terrorists are even now shooting at the Israelis:

“Mr Sharon’s first visit to the President’s ranch in Texas came at an especially delicate moment, amid renewed violence in Gaza that threatens a two-month ceasefire.”

This is a reference to the fact that “over the weekend Palestinians fired more than 80 mortars and several Kassam rockets at settlements and into southern Israel,” as explained in the Jerusalem Post.[31] The same Jerusalem Post article reports the amazing Israeli official reaction to the violence the Gaza settlers are being forced to endure even as their own government prepares to kick them out of their homes:

“Israel has decided to give Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas ‘a chance’ to bring shooting by terrorist groups under control despite the fact that the PA is not upholding its Sharm e-Sheikh commitments Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday.”

These are Israeli patriots? Perhaps the Israeli government will soon itself start gunning down Jewish civilians and get it all over with. Ariel Sharon is certainly talking that way.

“The tension, the atmosphere in Israel looks like the eve of the civil war,” Mr Sharon told NBC television before he met Mr Bush. “All my life I was defending Jews, now for the first time I’m taking steps to protect me from Jews,” he said.[32]

Notice that the Israeli prime minister is attacking, on American TV, those Israeli Jews who want to defend the State of Israel. And he is trying to give Mahmoud Abbas his own state, even though, as I have documented, Mahmoud Abbas gave the order for the 25 February attack that murdered some innocent Israelis and wounded about sixty, and which attack broke the ceasefire.[33]

But let us return to the largest-ever AIPAC audience, whose members just a few months ago applauded Condoleeza Rice’s statements. There are only two ways to explain their behavior:

1)  They are woefully misinformed about the real goals of the PLO, they do not understand what the US government is doing, and they have remarkably short memories about what past US presidencies have been like; or

2)  They are not really interested in producing pro-Israeli US policy.

The first possibility may be reasonable for the laypeople in the AIPAC audience, though it is nevertheless cause for considerable alarm. But whether the first possibility is reasonable for the AIPAC leadership can be gauged by reminding ourselves what AIPAC is supposed to be doing. For that, I quote AIPAC again, talking about itself:

“Activists work closely with AIPAC’s professional staff, people drawn from the top echelons of government, diplomacy, academia and politics. AIPAC lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC policy experts each day review hundreds of periodicals, journals, speeches and reports and meet regularly with the most innovative foreign policy thinkers in order to track and analyze events and trends.”

Is it possible that AIPAC is spending all that money and time learning about the Arab-Israeli conflict and still they can applaud Condoleeza Rice when she asserts the monumental absurdity that George W. Bush is supposedly the first US president to support a Palestinian state? Is it possible that, after all that research, these AIPAC leaders can applaud Condoleeza Rice’s claim that Bush Jr.’s efforts to create, before his second term expires,[34] a PLO state -- led by the terrorist and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas -- constitute a pro-Israel policy?

It is possible.

M.J. Rosenberg happens to be “former editor of AIPAC’s Near East Report.”[35] The Jerusalem Post article that relays that information is authored by the same Rosenberg, and it contains his argument that the Gaza withdrawal makes sense, and that the Israelis should trust Mahmoud Abbas, the author of the 25 February attack against innocent Israelis:

“Fortunately Sharon is taking his first big step. But it cannot be the last. At their meeting in Texas I hope President Bush told Sharon that once the Gaza withdrawal is finished implementation of the road map in all its parts must begin.”

If AIPAC is pro-Israel, then -- we are entitled to ask -- what would an anti-Israel organization do?

www.hirhome.com