|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Israel / Palestine |
|
Playing Ethnic Politics At Ground Zero |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sam Smith
(No verified email address) |
17 Mar 2003
|
|
A study by Belief Net found that only Jewish groups and the South Baptist Convention supported the military approach and every other major domination listed opposed it. True, the Southern Baptists were unequivocally in favor of war while the Jewish groups - Orthodox Union, Union Of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform), and United Synagogue Of Conservative Judaism - wanted to exhaust other alternatives first, but every other religion Belief Net checked opposed the war... |
One of the reasons Rep. Jim Moran thinks Jewish leaders are powerful is because the ones he sees are. Jews outside of Washington - like gun-owners, doctors, and Chamber of Commerce members outside of Washington - don't have a strong sense of just how precisely their "community" is defined daily by capital lobbyists.
There is no doubt - if one considers the 'Jewish community' as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and various large Jewish campaign contributors - that Rep. Moran was quite correct in saying that they could have a significant effect on the course of our policy in the Middle East. For example, it took only three days for them to have a significant effect on the course of Rep. Moran's career, getting his cowardly colleagues to force out of his House leadership position. Earlier, they helped to have a similar effect on Rep Cynthia McKinney, who went down to defeat thanks in part to an influx of pro-Israel money.
The fact that this Washington leadership may not accurately reflect the diversity of its national constituency is not uniquely a Jewish problem; it is part of the displacement of democracy from the consensus of the many to the will of a select few that is speeding the decline of the Republic. And never have the selected been fewer than under the present Bush.
In talking about all this, politicians and the media use two different approaches. One is the sanitized patois of ethnic sensitivity as in this from the perpetually predictable Eleanor Clift: "Moran apologized, but the historical echoes that he awakened are so antithetical to what Democrats claim to stand for that he might as well bid goodbye to his political career."
But in the same article in which he quotes Clift, Greg Pierce of the Washington Times also writes, "One political analyst said he counseled two Democratic presidential campaigns to call for Moran's resignation. 'It would be a cheap way to reassure Jewish voters,' he said. 'I don't understand why they haven't done it yet.'"
In other words, what is considered anti-Semitic when stated at a town meetings, becomes in another context just your standard keen political analysis.
When you look at the facts rather than the Washington rhetoric, you find that Moran was even more right than it appeared at first. A study by Belief Net found that only Jewish groups and the South Baptist Convention supported the military approach and every other major domination listed opposed it. True, the Southern Baptists were unequivocally in favor of war while the Jewish groups - Orthodox Union, Union Of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform), and United Synagogue Of Conservative Judaism - wanted to exhaust other alternatives first, but every other religion Belief Net checked opposed the war including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Episcopal Church, Greek Orthodox Church in America, Mormons - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Presbyterian Church (USA), Quakers - American Friends Service Committee, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The Catholics weren't included but the Pope has taken a clear stand against the war.
So why go to such efforts to deliberately conceal and prevaricate concerning the role of key Jewish organizations in supporting the Iraq invasion?
Part of the answer can be found in none other than the hypocritically outraged Washington Post, in an article written by its White House correspondent, Dana Milbank, last November:
"A group of U.S. political consultants has sent pro-Israel leaders a memo urging them to keep quiet while the Bush administration pursues a possible war with Iraq. The six-page memo was sent by the Israel Project, a group funded by American Jewish organizations and individual donors. Its authors said the main audience was American Jewish leaders, but much of the memo's language is directed toward Israelis. The memo reflects a concern that involvement by Israel in a U.S.-Iraq confrontation could hurt Israel's standing in American public opinion and undermine international support for a hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. . .
"The Iraq memo was issued in the past few weeks and labeled 'confidential property of the Israel Project,' which is led by Democratic consultant Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi with help from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican pollsters Neil Newhouse and Frank Luntz. Several of the consultants have advised Israeli politicians, and the group aired a pro-Israel ad earlier this year. 'If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash,' said the memo, titled 'Talking About Iraq.'
"It added: 'You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.' In particular, the memo urged Israelis to pipe down about the possibility of Israel responding to an Iraqi attack. 'Such certainty may be Israeli policy, but asserting it publicly and so overtly will not sit well with a majority of Americans because it suggests a pre-determined outcome rather than a measured approach,' it said."
This is not the first time this strategy has been tried. For example, in January 1991, David Rogers of the Wall Street Journal wrote:
"When Congress debated going to war with Iraq, the pro-Israel lobby stayed in the background - but not out of the fight. Leaders of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee now acknowledge it worked in tandem with the Bush administration to win passage of a resolution authorizing the president to commit U.S. troops to combat. The behind-the-scenes campaign avoided Aipac's customary high profile in the Capitol and relied instead on activists-calling sometimes from Israel itself-to contact lawmakers and build on public endorsements by major Jewish organizations. "Yes, we were active." says Aipac director Thomas Dine. "These are the great issues of our time, If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice. . . "
"Rarely have the stakes been higher-or has a case of money and ethnic politics been more sensitive and complex. The debate revealed a deep ambivalence among Jewish lawmakers over what course to follow, pitting their generally liberal instincts against their support of Israel. Friends and families were divided. And even as some pro-Israel advocates urged a more aggressive stance, there was concern that the lobby risked damaging Israel's longer term interests if the issue became too identified with Jewish or pro-Israel polities.
". . . Aipac took pains to disguise its role, and there was quiet relief that the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel. "It isn't such a bad idea that we were split," says one Jewish lawmaker. . .
"Pro-Israel PACs have poured money into campaigns for Southern Democrats not immediately identified with their cause. For example, the Alabama delegation voted in a bloc with Mr. Bush in both the House and Senate. At first glance, this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro military character of the state. But pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats there in recent years."
It is hard to imagine such a frank description of ethnic politics today. Thus it is not surprising that few know that the aforementioned Thomas Dines, then executive director of AIPAC and now head of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty - is a member of the advisory committee of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
The Post, which didn't mentioned Dines' involvement in plotting the seizure of Iraq, described the new organization as "modeled on a successful lobbying campaign to expand the NATO alliance."
In fact, the last time the Post even mentioned AIPAC was back in August before the Iraq invasion plot took full shape. So you have to look elsewhere to find out what the Jewish leadership has been up to. For example, the Jerusalem Post reported last October:
"After weeks of debate and consideration, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents 52 Jewish national groups, announced its support for US military action against Iraq "as a last resort." In a statement released Saturday, the Conference of Presidents announced that all of its member groups "support President [George W.] Bush and the Congress in their efforts to gain unequivocal Iraqi compliance with the obligation to divest itself of weapons of mass destruction and the means to develop such weapons." The statement also endorsed the Bush administration's "efforts to enlist the United Nations and international cooperation to secure Iraqi compliance, including the use of force as a last resort."
The chairman of the group, Mortimer Zuckerman went a bit further, declaring that the failure to attack Iraq would "ruin American credibility in the Muslim world."
In its news release, the conference of presidents said:
"Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Chairman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a statement today 'reflecting the consensus of the member organizations of the Conference of Presidents,' in which they declare support for "President Bush and the Congress in their efforts to gain unequivocal Iraqi compliance with the obligation to divest itself of weapons of mass destruction and the means to develop such weapons. Iraq must conform to the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the other standards which President Bush has specified. Such disarmament must not be hindered by Iraqi attempts to continue the pattern of obfuscation and other means of non-compliance.' The statement of the Jewish leaders continues, 'We support the efforts to enlist the United Nations and international cooperation to secure Iraqi compliance, including the use of force as a last resort.'"
Now let us imagine that the 52 Jewish organizations had instead reached a consensus that invading Iraq was illegal, unwise, unconstitutional, and an act of reckless endangerment against the whole world. Would that have influenced American policy? Of course it would.
The irony of all this is that it is primarily worth writing about because the Democratic House leadership, the Washington Post, the White House and some Jewish organizations have lied and tried to pretend it isn't so, not to mention viciously libeling a congress member who wouldn't go along with the gag. At a time when the Post is urging its readers to stock up on several days' food and buy gas masks because of the possible consequences of the internationally criminal policies it so vigorously supports, we should no longer have time or tolerance for such cynical games. If you want to die for your own faith, fine, but you have no right to take the rest of the world with you.
The danger of the dishonest debate about the Middle East was well described by Joan Didion in a recent New York Review of Books, quoted by Bill and Kathleen Christison in Counterpunch:
"[We need to] demystify the question of why we have become unable to discuss our relationship with the current government of Israel. Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of course has a history.
"This open question, and its history, are discussed rationally and with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Where the question is not discussed rationally, where in fact the question is rarely discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic, is in New York and Washington and in those academic venues where the attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken hold. The president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current government of Israel could be construed as 'anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.'
"The very question of the US relationship with Israel, in other words, has come to be seen as unraisable, potentially lethal, the conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover. We wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind baffles of invective and counter-invective. Many opinions are expressed. Few are allowed to develop. Even fewer change."
What we are facing is, in major part, a religious war in which bin Laden, Bush and Sharon comprise a triptych of theological terror that is putting everyone at great risk. They are each involved in a vicious heresy, falsely defining their own immoral, sadistic ambitions as their religion's moral faith. This is no time for politeness, politics or silence. And while Jews are far from alone in needing to call their leadership back to sanity, neither are they exempt. |
See also:
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm
|
Comments
|
New Scrutiny Of Role Of Religion In Bush's Policies |
by Jane Lampman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Mar 2003
|
The president's rhetoric worries even some evangelicals
President Bush has never been shy about injecting his faith into the public arena - his campaign remark that Jesus Christ was his "favorite political philosopher" was an early signal. But his rising use of religious language and imagery in recent months, especially with regard to the US role in the world, has stirred concern both at home and abroad.
In this year's State of the Union address, for example, Bush quoted an evangelical hymn that refers to the power of Christ. "'There's power, wonder-working power,' in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people," he said.
Now, some critics are wondering whether the influence of Bush's evangelical faith goes beyond public rhetoric to shape his foreign policy regarding Iraq and the Middle East.
With public speculation in full swing, the Christian Century last week insisted that "the American people have a right to know how the president's faith is informing his public policies, not least his design on Iraq."
No one presumes to know how another's personal faith plays out in public life, and the president's spokesman insists that Mr. Bush makes his decisions as a "secular leader."
Not all evangelicals are pleased
Yet among those who share his evangelical Christianity, the satisfaction of having a born-again believer in the White House doesn't necessarily preclude an uneasiness with some of his rhetoric and policies.
Forty evangelical leaders, for instance, wrote the president last summer seeking an "evenhanded US policy" toward Israel and the Palestinians and rejecting "the way some have distorted biblical passages as their rationale for uncritical support" for Israel. Some evangelical groups are close allies of the Sharon government and work in the US to build support.
Still, the infusion of religious conviction into presidential speeches warms many hearts. To one of his most vocal supporters, Bush is simply using the language of American civil religion.
"George Bush is standing squarely in a tradition as old as the country," says Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "Lincoln's Second Inaugural address is like a sermon. The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with rights and appeals to God for the success of the Revolutionary cause."
As for the president's frequent remarks on the US leading the fight of good against evil in the world, he adds, "Saddam Hussein is evil, and compared to him we are pure and good."
Others applaud Bush's clarity in a time of national crisis. "He has reintroduced into the culture the language of morality and moral distinctions," says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif.
Lessons from past presidents
Yet Dr. Mouw worries about explicitly Christian phraseology that Jews and Muslims hear in the light of their own histories. And he sees lessons in how two other presidents communicated their convictions.
Jimmy Carter, for instance, carefully avoided using Christian language in public. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, regularly used the language of Scripture, yet invoked the will of God not for one side or the other in war, but to call everyone to humility, repentance, and reconciliation.
"We may have to go to war in Iraq," Mouw says, but "we are at a place internationally where, if the president does want to use the language of religion, he might do better to admit some of our mistakes. What if he actually asked forgiveness on behalf of a nation that in the past supported Saddam Hussein?"
Some express concern, too, about Bush's tendency to demonize the enemy, whether it be Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or the nations of the "axis of evil."
"Demonization can produce hatred, and all of a sudden, we're heading toward a battle of civilizations" when we don't have to be, says Robert Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement, a think tank on religious freedom in St. Davids, Pa.
The Gospel, some evangelicals are quick to note, teaches that the line separating good and evil runs not between nations, but inside every human heart.
Although Bush consistently speaks well of Islam, some Americans worry his religious language makes it easier to connect him and US policy - in the eyes of the world's Muslims - to evangelical preachers who call Islam "an evil religion."
And more are beginning to question how the evangelicalism of Bush, key aides such as Condoleezza Rice, and his political constituency might play a role in Middle East policy.
According to evangelicals, the vast majority of them are very supportive of Israel for religious reasons. "The president certainly knows that and may be influenced by the same things," Mouw says.
Roots of evangelical support for Israel
But the reasons aren't those usually portrayed by the media. "The idea that evangelicals support Israel because they want to hasten the Second Coming is absolute nonsense," says Dr. Land. "No human being can do anything to hasten or retard that."
Evangelical support rests, Land explains, on God's biblical promise to give the land of Israel to the Jews forever, and on God's statement that he will "bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews."
That statement holds considerable power among some evangelicals. "There's a strong tendency toward uncritical support of Israel and that verse gets thrown at us whenever we are critical of some policy," says Mouw, one of the leaders to sign the letter to Bush.
"My response to that is that anyone who wants to bless Israel needs to be sure that Israel does justice - the Old Testament prophets loved Israel, but [also] said God was angry with them because they had taken other peoples' houses and land," he adds.
Dr. Seiple is disappointed, too, in Bush's failure to see the moral ambiguity and complexity in the Palestinian-Israeli question. "We went from an honest broker to one-sided emphasis," he says. "It may play well with his base politically, and he might believe it theologically ... but it's not where I would give him high marks for moral leadership."
Even the potential war with Iraq has its biblical resonances. "Iraq as Babylon - I've been hearing that a lot lately," Mouw says. "The two prominent images are the glorious city of Jerusalem and the wicked city of Babylon ... and there's no question [that] the fact Iraq is the site of ancient Babylon is a motif that influences evangelicals."
An intriguing question is the extent to which Americans share the apocalyptic views of some evangelicals that we are heading into the last days of the final battle between good and evil. Polls indicate that some 40 million do.
What's clear is that while evangelicals greatly value the renewed moral tone and religious conviction in the presidency, they, like other Americans, differ over how the president expresses that conviction and the implications for his decisionmaking. Bush has said he tends to make decisions by gut instinct. Many Americans are wondering which religious instincts might hold sway as he acts to determine the course of history.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. |
|
