For Pro-Israel Blather, Price Isn't Right

(And I also posted here.)

Over at The Hill, Repug Georgia U.S. House Rep Tom Price tells us the following (here)…

In just over a week, the Obama Administration has successfully called into question the United States’ unwavering commitment to the people of Israel and further progress in the Middle East peace process. The Administration began with an inappropriate response to Israel’s announced plan to construct new homes in Jerusalem – claiming the White House was 'insulted' by Israel’s timing on the announcement. The President determined this was reason enough to condemn our strongest ally in the Middle East. That was followed by an unprecedented cold-shoulder for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Here the media was shut out and the two leaders had what has been reported as a less than cordial exchange.

Being honest and straightforward with our allies is an important part of international diplomacy. But delegitimizing Israel through a series of public rebukes will only strain the US-Israeli relationship which significantly undermines the peace process.

(Oh, and before I forget, I thought this was an interesting little item involving Price.)

In a strange way, I’m happy that Price concocted this dreck because it gives me an excuse to mention this New York Times column on Sunday from Tom Friedman, who I otherwise would pillory except for the fact that I thought he made some good points…

In the last decade, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — for Israel — has gone from being a necessity to a hobby. And in the last decade, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — for America — has gone from being a hobby to a necessity. Therein lies the problem.

…

(As) Newsweek’s Dan Ephron wrote in the Jan. 11, 2010, issue: “An improved security situation, a feeling that acceptance by Arabs no longer matters much, and a growing disaffection from politics generally have, for many Israelis, called into question the basic calculus that has driven the peace process. Instead of pining for peace, they’re now asking: who needs it? ... Tourism hit a 10-year high in 2008. Astonishingly, the I.M.F. projected recently that Israel’s G.D.P. will grow faster in 2010 than that of most other developed countries. In short, Israelis are enjoying a peace dividend without a peace agreement.”

Now, in the same time period, America went from having only a small symbolic number of soldiers in the Middle East to running two wars there — in Iraq and Afghanistan — as well as a global struggle against violent Muslim extremists. With U.S. soldiers literally walking the Arab street — and, therefore, more in need than ever of Muslim good will to protect themselves and defeat Muslim extremists — Israeli-Palestinian peace has gone from being a post-cold-war hobby of U.S. diplomats to being a necessity.

And I would argue that this is the case primarily because of AIPAC (water wet, sky blue I know); this Antiwar.com post by Justin Raimondo includes the following from the blogger Billmon:

“While the marriage may look like perfect conjugal bliss from the Washington end, the Jerusalem end has a different point of view – and always will. The Israelis understand, even if their American patrons do not, that they live in another country, one with its own national interests, its own strategic ambitions and its own enemies, none of which necessarily overlap with America’s.

“They don’t even make much of an attempt to hide it, as this writer for David Horowitz’s Frontpage (to Israel what the Daily Worker once was to the Soviet Union) makes clear: ‘A more independent Israel is determined to make its own mark on the world – questioning U.S. authority more frequently in order to establish its own autonomous relations with other countries.’

“A good idea. It’s just a shame our own political lap dogs and their media water carriers won’t do likewise.”

When it comes to “making its own mark in the world,” I think this post, featuring some truly revolting historical revisionism about Israel’s latest incursion into Palestine from PM “Bibi” Netanyahu, tells you exactly what they think of U.S. perceptions, along with those of the rest of the world (again, not ceding the moral high ground to the Palestinians completely here either – also, here is an example of just how long a reach the “Israel lobby” has).

Also concerning AIPAC, it should be noted that they recently held their annual conference in Washington on March 21^st, as noted in this story, including the following:

(Attorney and Philadelphia delegate Len) Feldman observed that “being a strong Zionist is not tied to being Jewish. Clarence Jones, an African American, and one of Rev. Martin Luther King's speechwriters said, Rev. King was a Zionist based on morality.”

In response, I give you the following here from Ira Chernus, professor of religious studies at Boulder, CO (and that would be a negative in response to the King claim, just to let you know).

Also, Crooks and Liars notes here (in comments) of AIPAC’s involvement with Freedom’s Watch, the happily-now-defunct outfit that helped whip public opinion into supporting Dubya’s Mesopotamian catastrophe as well as punish those who opposed them (and let’s not forget the prominent role played by this guy). Finally, this post from profmarcus citing Professor Juan Cole gives us a map in four parts that tells the story of Israel’s conquest more dramatically than any words I could conjure up here or elsewhere.

Returning to Tom Price of Georgia, I have to say I agree with him when he says that “being honest and straightforward with our allies is an important part of international diplomacy.” And that’s all the more reason why AIPAC should be called out, and the state of Israel, given their prosperity while our country tries to spackle our economy back together, should get financially cut off at the knees by our government (here).