" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The tide may have finally begun to turn in a drawn out battle over what entails legitimate criticism of Israel in U.S. politics, particularly within the Democratic Party. During the past several months, writers at the ThinkProgress blog hosted by the Democratic-allied Center for American Progress (CAP) have been diligently deconstructing the core talking points of “pro-Israel” hardliners in the United States in an effort to broaden discourse about U.S. Middle East policy and help prevent another misguided war (i.e. in Iran).

They have had some notable successes, such as the media splash surrounding CAP’s August 2011 report on leading anti-Islamic figures and their funders, “Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.”

Nothing, however, has thus far matched the notoriety they and other likeminded writers achieved last week with the publication in Politico of a story by Ben Smith arguing that the increasing willingness of Democratic groups like CAP and Media Matters to criticize unequivocal U.S. support for Israel has “shaken up the Washington foreign policy conversation and broadened the space for discussing a heretical and often critical stance on Israel heretofore confined to the political margins.”

This assertion—along with the fallout from it, including an explosive follow up piece by Salon.com’s Justin Elliott—reveals the success of ThinkProgress writers (and Right Web contributors) Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton, as well as other writers at CAP, Middle East Progress, and Media Matters, to bring criticism of unbridled U.S. support for Israeli actions into the liberal mainstream.

An important part of this success has been the growing backlash against efforts by neoconservatives and “pro-Israel” hawks to marginalize critics by calling them “anti-Semitic.” A key culprit in this smear campaign has been the Progressive Policy Institute’s Josh Block, a “pro-Israel” Democrat, former AIPAC spokesman, and one of Smith’s primary sources for the feature, who blasted the Politico piece out—along with 3,000 words of his own opposition research on the writers mentioned in the article—to a predominantly neoconservative listserv, bidding readers to “amplify” Block’s reporting on the alleged “anti-Semites.”

Perhaps Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin was on that listserv. She quickly penned a post summing up CAP’s views as “not merely anti-Israel” but “anti-Semitic,” accusing ThinkProgress of publishing “fiction for Israel haters”—citing nary a single example of either “fiction” or anti-Semitism from the group’s ample body of work.

Alana Goodman, blogging at the neoconservative Commentary, attempted to provide the appearance of a nuanced view, drawing a distinction between the merely “far left” views expressed at ThinkProgress and the “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” of MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters (who, although Goodman doesn’t mention it, is not only Jewish but a former AIPAC staffer). 

The anti-Semitism charge has become boilerplate in efforts to marginalize critics of Israeli policies, whatever their background. While there are indeed anti-Semitic actors in U.S. politics, the “Israel Lobby” has increasingly wielded the epithet to sideline legitimate criticism of U.S. and Israeli policies. “The ability to play the anti-Semitic card is perhaps the single strongest weapon in the lobby’s arsenal of arguments,” writes Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service (IPS).

But the hardliners are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain legitimacy when they loosely wield the anti-Semitic charge. In this case, only a few of the players have revealed overt sensitivity to it, including CAP’s Ken Gude, who attempted to distance CAP from the ThinkProgress blog. “There’s a distinction here that we have between the policy work that we do and the blogging work that we do,” he said, evidently wary of jeopardizing CAP’s policy work with “pro-Israel” figures in Washington.

A far more predominate reaction to the episode has been the effort by high-profile figures to back away from Block and his tactics. Thus, for example, Clinton Democrat and lobbyist Lanny Davis, a business partner of Block, lambasted  Block’s comments. “Impugning motives of people at the Center [for American Progress],” he said, “and impugning [that] those motives are driven by anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, wrong.”

For close observers of beltway politics like IPS’s Lobe, Davis’s comments are critical: “The fact that Lanny Davis, a not insignificant member of the lobby establishment, is now calling for everyone to use that deadly epithet with much greater care and discrimination seems quite remarkable, particularly in these circumstances.”

A few days after the Politico story broke, Philip Weiss of the blog Mondoweiss presciently speculated on how long it would take for the various organizations Block is associated with to distance themselves from him. It didn’t take long. By Monday, both the Progressive Policy Institute and the Truman National Security Project had begun to consider whether to sever their ties with Block, according to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent.

With Lanny Davis appealing for a broader space for Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico acknowledging such critics in a full-length feature, and Democratic establishment organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, it would seem that at long last Washington—and indeed the United States—is willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share