THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AIPAC AND THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
When Hamas won the Palestinian election in January of 2006, the situation in Israel became immeasurably more complex. A radical Palestinian organization, responsible for countless acts of terrorism, suddenly acquired legitimacy in a fair election. Instead of waiting to see if Hamas might modify its agenda in light of its new status, the Israeli government – with full support of the Bush Administration – decided to withhold tax money legitimately owed to the Palestinian Authority; this ensured that there would be insufficient resources for Hamas to fulfill its campaign pledge to improve economic conditions for the Palestinians.
Yet Hamas is not monolithic. According to George Soros, "Its inner structure is little known to outsiders, but according to some reports it has a military wing, largely directed from Damascus, which is beholden to its Syrian and Iranian sponsors and a political wing which is more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian population that elected it to power." [The New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC," Volume 54, Number 6, 4/12/2007] If the United States and Israel had provided the new government with some breathing space in the beginning, the political wing of Hamas may have risked taking more moderate positions. But the chance to wait and see how a Hamas government might act, if given the opportunity, was squandered in a hard-line response that inevitably increased economic hardship among the civilian population and exacerbated the already significant difficulties between Hamas and its coalition partner, Fatah.
The Bush Administration, with the encouragement of AIPAC and its own neoconservative advocates, deliberately remained on the sidelines through the months of upheaval and gave Ehud Olmert a green light to take whatever actions his right-wing government wanted. From its inception, the Bush administration has failed to continue the peace-making efforts initiated by President Clinton. In fact, the more chaos and the more instability, the more removed Bush remained – until some US allies were able to persuade the administration to intervene. "You can make fun all you want of Bill Clinton's 'naïve' Middle East peace passion, notes Mr. Clinton's top negotiator, Dennis Ross, but the fact is four times more Israelis and Palestinians died fighting each other during the 'realistic,' 'pro-Israel,' sideline-sitting Bush years of 2001 to 2005 than in the 'naïve' decade of intense U.S. peacemaking – dominated by President Clinton – from Madrid to Oslo, 1991 to 2000." [The New York Times, "Many Plans, No News," Thomas Friedman, OpEd (3/30/2007)]
Faced with the prospect of negotiating some kind of settlement, the Bush Administration has fallen back on the all-too familiar argument that has hampered its ability to negotiate in the past: Negotiations cannot begin until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist. This also is AIPAC's position; but while recognition certainly ought to be a condition for any final settlement, it shouldn't be the "sticking point" that prevents negotiations from taking place. Of course, in the case of both the Palestinian and Iranian debates, this is exactly what both AIPAC and the Bush Administration appear to want.
TWO ISRAELIS SPEAK
A Peace Activist
"What is clear is the broad consensus within Israel that a two-state solution is inevitable, and the sooner the better. The other issues are in contention – Jerusalem, the refugees, and the precise location of the borders of those states – but the principle of ending the occupation has prevailed. Ironically, at a time when the Israeli body politic and the moderate Arab states could come together on a deal, we in Israel have ended up with a prime minister with barely enough power to stay in office, let alone negotiate a peace agreement with our neighbors. We will be lucky if he is replaced by someone no worse."
Gila Svirsky
Jerusalem
Coalition of Women for Peace
A Prominent Writer
"In the present situation any sort of dialogue between Israel and Palestinians is positive and has the potential to change the state of mind of both societies."
David Grossman,
whose son was killed in Lebanon
The intransigence of AIPAC and the Bush Administration should give rise to suspicions about motive. Why not want peace at almost any cost? Why the dogmatism? Why the deliberate self-defeating parameters set for negotiation? The fine art of negotiation has saved the world from many a conflagration. It should embarrass the Administration that the latest peace initiatives come from Arab States, even formerly provocative and intransigent ones, and not from the US.
Recently, under tremendous pressure from many sides, Condoleezza Rice has undertaken shuttle diplomacy; but this may represent more pretence than substance; and so far there has been little movement – partly for reasons already discussed and partly due to the very complicated (and clandestine) nature of decision making in the Bush Administration. This subject will be addressed shortly.
In another recent column in The New York Times, entitled "Abdullah's Chance," Thomas Friedman discusses the latest Saudi Arabian effort to restart negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. He praises the new Saudi initiative and creates for the reader an idealized version of what King Abdullah could accomplish by reaching out in a stroke as bold as that once initiated by Anwar Al Sadat. Although Friedman's enthusiasm is tempered by a healthy degree of realism, his tale of a meeting with Abdullah in 2002 is revealing: "King Abdullah first unveiled his peace proposal in an interview he and I did in his home in Riyadh in 2002. As we sat by his desk, he told me he was motivated to propose full peace for full withdrawal to the Israelis because 'I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them. But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people'." [OpEd column, 3/23/2007]
Here is a leader of an intensely Islamic government who says that most Arabs don't hate Israel; they hate the present government of Israel – just as 70 % of Americans do not hate America, but dislike and mistrust the Bush Administration and its policies. AIPAC continuously has framed the debate using either-or arbitrary positions described earlier as pro-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel pro-Palestinian and pro-terrorist; and both our executive and legislative branches have fallen into line. However, the problem really is about conditions under which human beings are living – those who inhabit both Israel and the occupied territories. Israeli and Arab citizens living in this troubled region have become political footballs, the victims of a high-stakes game of jockeying for power by those who simply ignore the everyday chaos.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AIPAC AND IRAN
What does the Palestinian question have to do with Iran? Soros points out that ". . .if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. . . . Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas." [The New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC," Soros, Volume 54, Number 6, 4/12/2007]
R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs – in an effort to justify the newly imposed United Nations sanctions on Iran – asserted that the "sanctions are immediately focused on the nuclear weapons research program, but we also are trying to limit the ability of Iran to be a disruptive and violent factor in Middle East politics." [From The New York Times, "U.N. Security Council Adds Economic Moves Against Iran," 3/27/07]
This statement is ironic in two respects: First, it is the United States that has proven to be the primary disruptive force in the Middle East thus far; and second, no factual evidence yet exists to suggest that Iran will be the next aggressor in that part of the world. In fact, Iran has been notably absent from each war in which Israel has been engaged since its independence in 1948.
Of course, it is impossible to ignore the inflammatory rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad, although other government officials more powerful than he have moved to neutralize some of it; and as Iran is a country bordering Iraq, there undeniably has been cross-border movement; but so far, accusations of belligerence have not been supported with hard evidence. In fact, further consideration must be given to the fact that the Iranian government is not unified in its approach to foreign policy.
While Ahmadinejad, supported by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, advocates an aggressive position, Ali Larijani, the head of the Supreme National Security Council, is a pragmatist, interested in negotiation and moderation. [Michael Slackman, The New York Times, "Seizure of Britons at Sea Underlines Iran's Political Split Between Radicals and Pragmatists," (4/04/2007)] The complex dynamics within Iran's government demand from the Bush Administration a nuanced response rather than the threat of aerial attack; but unfortunately ideological blindness, preconceived ideas, a reliance on supposition rather than fact, and the demands of a coterie of powerful neoconservatives seem to preclude a pragmatic approach.
Although Flynt Leverett, a Middle East specialist and senior fellow at the New American Foundation, has said he believes that Iran "was supplying munitions to Shiite militias," he speaks to the intrinsic complexities of the situation by saying "that the threat to Americans troops from Sunni insurgents who draw on Syria and Saudi Arabia for money and other logistical support, was 'orders of magnitude' greater than that from Shiite militias, and he contends that the Bush administration's public emphasis on the E.F.P.'s is part of a larger administration strategy to blame Iran 'for the failure of the American project in Iraq'." [The New York Times, "Behind U.S. Pressure on Iran, Long-Held Worry Over a Deadly Device in Iraq," 3/ 27/ 2007]
THE ISSUE OF ROADSIDE BOMBS
In this connection, it is important to address the issue of the roadside explosive devices (E.F.P.'s), a central focus of possible Iranian participation in the war in Iraq. In at least three articles, The New York Times has suggested that these devices have come either directly from Iran or its Quds force; but it remains troubling that no solid evidence has been produced to support this claim; and not one government official has been willing to affirm, for attribution, that these devices have been supplied directly by Iran.
As early as August, 2005 Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, said the E.F.P.'s "seem to have a footprint similar to that of devices used by groups that have historically had Iranian support." ["Behind U.S. Pressure on Iran, Long-Held Worry Over a Deadly Device in Iraq," (3/27/07)] And since that time we have not come any closer to hard evidence. Unidentified voices continue to muddy the playing field nearly two years later. There are a multitude of anonymous sources; but after learning that Ahmed Chalaby was the primary source for Judith Miller's articles on WMD in Iraq and "Curveball," even though discredited by the CIA, continued to be used to support Administration's assertions about Iraq, it is reasonable to demand that at least one credible spokesperson must be willing to vouch (on the record) for some of the charges that now are being directed at Iran.
The same article that addressed the issue of E.F.P.'s originating in Iran also mentioned that the opposite could be true: "Some people who are experts on military matters but who acknowledge they do not have access to the classified intelligence have said the weapons could be made in Iraq." In fact, apparently it isn't clear where (or by whom) these devices are made. In a prior article, a source claimed that they must have been Iranian because they were too sophisticated to be made in Iraq; so the US launched a pre-emptive attack on a country ostensibly because it had WMDs, including chemical weaponry; but this same country now is declared incapable of producing a sophisticated roadside bomb. No fiction writer could get away with such a flimsy story line.
So the dynamics simultaneously are becoming more intricate and fuzzier. While Everett asserts that the major aggression against Americans comes from Sunnis, the Bush Administration – according to Seymour Hersh in his most recent New Yorker article entitled, "The Redirection," [3/5/2007] – now is funding Sunni groups to offset the emboldened Shia, (a loose alliance including Iran, Hezbollah and a majority of Iraqis). [This paper cannot do justice to Seymour Hersh's article, which is a "must read" for anyone who really wants to understand current US Middle East policy.]
Right out of Orwell's 1984, the government is able to switch enemies with no more than a flourish of rhetoric for public consumption; and Dick Cheney is spear-heading this effort. In January, on Fox News, Cheney warned of the threat "of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world." [Hersh]
Cheney's comment about those "prepared to use terrorist organizations" is revealing. Americans tend to think politically in terms of "moderates" and "extremists." However, it is both misleading and naïve to apply such labels to the complicated Sunni-Shia alliances and battles in the Middle East. Hersh tells us that the key players behind what is being called the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney; deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; former ambassador to Iraq and recently confirmed ambassador to the UN, Zalamay Khalilzad; and Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security adviser and close personal friend of the Bush family. Apparently, Condolezza Rice is the public face; but Cheney and Bandar (who also had a role in Iran contra) seem to be driving the largely covert operations.
Why AIPAC should line up on the side of these high-stakes gamblers with agendas of at least doubtful benefit to Israel is difficult to understand. In fact, anyone who has read "The One Percent Solution," by Ron Suskind has to be concerned about anything that Cheney undertakes. He apparently operates on the assumption that if there is even a one percent chance that something may happen, it is appropriate to act on it. His approach makes clear the enormous gamble that the US already appears to be contemplating with Iran.
So here's the big question: An attack on what country would draw attention away from the stalemate in Israel, the quagmire in Iraq, and the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan – all of which have resulted from the Bush Administration's catastrophic foreign policy? If you answered "Iran," you would be correct! Remember Wag the Dog? AIPAC also is pushing for an aggressive policy toward Iran. The bottom line for AIPAC, however, is Israel – no matter how misguided and ultimately dangerous its Iran agenda might be.
According to Seymour Hersh, "The U.S. military has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. 'The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can,' a former senior intelligence official said. 'They had five hundred locked up at one time. We're working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they've been doing it all along – that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.' The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who 'get scooped up and released in a short time,' after they have been interrogated."
Today beneath the public relations whirlwind lies something far more sinister – intensive planning in the Pentagon for a bombing campaign, including the selection of targets and the presence of special operation forces over the border in Iran. (Hersh). On the public front, Cheney has left his comfortable D.C. perch to stand on the air craft carrier Stennis in the Persian Gulf to hurl threats at close range – while Nicolas Burns continues to insist that there is still time for diplomacy, even as he deliberately manufactures a situation in which each nation becomes irrevocably locked in its respective intransient position. And in a parallel unholy alliance with the Administration, AIPAC and a coterie of neoconservative "experts" have been hitting the news and talk show circuit to tout the government line, which is not based on historical accuracy and facts, but simply represents the increasingly narrow agenda of the Bush Administration and the Kadima-Likud government in Israel.
Finally, setting aside all preconceived (and some erroneous) notions about Iran, we should examine the actual legality and ethics of the United Nations sanctions. The foreign minister of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki, has stated that sanctions to halt Iran's "peaceful" nuclear energy program were a "gross violation" of the United Nations charter. Actually Iran, as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is permitted to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Mottaki has stated that "Iran does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable rights . . . I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy." While there is no proof that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, Mottaki's firm statement is exactly the response the Bush Administration wants: An Iranian position that, when coupled with its own intractable stance, creates a non-negotiable situation that renders movement on both sides impossible and thus presents war as the only viable outcome.
Why are there war ships in the Gulf now? Why the rush to sanctions? Why the war chatter? These all-too-familiar drumbeats should not fool the American people, who recently have witnessed similar pre-war propaganda generated by the same arrogant decision-makers who sold us the Iraq war under false pretences and who believed that they could control its consequences.
Even as Burns claims that by June "we will move ahead toward a third set of sanctions" [New York Times, Sanger, "Inspectors Cite Big Gain By Iran in Enriching Nuclear Fuel," 5/19/ 2007], the latest Iranian progress in the manufacture of viable nuclear power falls far, far short of that needed for weaponry. In fact, the Bush Administration's position suggests that sanctions are designed less to stop Iran from manufacturing nuclear energy than to provide a rationale for military action and regime change when Iran fails to comply. Contrary to the American position, Dr. El Baradei claims that ". . . from a proliferation perspective, the fact of the matter is that one of the purposes of suspension – keeping them [the Iranians] from getting the knowledge – has been overtaken by events. The focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production, to allow us to do a full-court-press inspection and to be sure they remain inside the treaty." How different El Baradei's position is from the purely ideological stance of the Bush Administration, where the objective is power and hegemony, not peace. It should be noted, according to The New York Times, that "The resolution included amended language that stressed the importance of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East – without reference to Israel, a close American ally widely believed to have nuclear weapons. . ." ["U.N. Security Council Adds Economic Moves Against Iran," (3/25/07)] Although the Americans and Europeans do not see a problem with this, most of the world sees gross inequity and Western bias.
As some European countries look at the fine points involved in Iran's manufacture of nuclear power: the number of centrifuges, the percentage of purity, the quality of machinery, etc. – much of which is being revealed through the inspection process – the Bush Administration continues to hold firm with its "not one centrifuge spins" argument; this, of course, is the position supported by its neoconservative base.
Before 9/11, before the Iraq War, before Ahmadinejad began to utter florid and belligerent rhetoric, before the 21st Century, the Defense Policy Board (along with Dick Cheney and several prominent neoconservatives from conservative think tanks) decided that Iran had to be next – after Iraq; and only the prolonged disaster in Iraq has prevented the invasion thus far. The rationale, of course, is tied to the neoconservative notion – supported by the Likud Party in Israel and AIPAC –that Iran is a catastrophic threat to Israel. But is it? And wouldn't it be wise to consider that just as the war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous and the position of Israel even more precarious so, too, could a war with Iran? This is of particular concern given Iran's newly empowered ally, Hezbollah, now poised on Israel's border.
It isn't difficult to conclude that both our government and the press are using familiar tactics with regard to Iran, dangling the same can of worms as bait that also was employed to justify the invasion of Iraq – again replacing facts and clear evidence with supposition and innuendo:
- Targeting an "enemy" that might represent no more nor less of a threat to the Middle East than a myriad of other candidates – Al Qaeda, the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria; Hezbollah and Hamas (supported by Iran and Syria); and even the United States itself, which has ignited both Sunni and Shia passions far beyond the borders of Iraq.
- Moving aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf and conducting war games.
- Ramping up rhetoric, prompted by the Bush Administration and AIPAC – and joined by most of the current group of presidential candidates.
- Encouraging premature UN sanctions to justify a US invasion by being able to cite (as an excuse) failure to comply.
- Insisting that a halt to nuclear power production becomes a pre-condition for negotiating, instead of a desired outcome.
All of these elements were in play before the invasion of Iraq. All now are in place again – in anticipation of the next war, an aerial war as we have no troops for a ground war.
Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Iraq Study group, suggests that the charge about E.F.P.'s ought to provide all the more reason to engage Iran in negotiations, not less; and this position is openly supported by Secretary of Defense Gates, as well.
Others, however, either throw caution to the wind or position themselves on both sides of the equation. Carl Levin, for example, thinks the Bush Administration has been too cautious about pinning the blame on Iran. And, as was mentioned earlier, most of the presidential candidates repeat the coded mantra that "no option can be taken off the table." These people seem to have forgotten that they, too, are being influenced by propaganda instead of facts and by belligerent rhetoric instead of rational analysis. How easy to forget when you receive critical campaign funds from pro-Israel PACs who take AIPAC's influence very seriously.
George Soros acknowledges the threat posed by Iran, but he also warns that another war would create more problems than it would solve. Recent history certainly suggests that he may be right. Soros believes that the AIPAC-Bush Administration agenda – including the war in Iraq, knee-jerk support for the Olmert government rather than continuation of the peace process, and quiet support for Israel's heavy-handed response to Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers – has led to a more powerful Iran and an increase in regional instability. As a consequence, Israel stands in a more precarious position than ever.
LIKUD-KADIMA AND AIPAC
For the last few years, the Likud and Kadima parties have supported bombing Iran's non- existent nuclear weapons facilities. [From James Petras, "Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs"]
- Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's army to prepare for air strikes in 2005.
- In December 9, 2005, Israeli Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz stated that Israel should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions."
- In March, 2006, Israeli officials set a deadline for an air attack on Iran. The March date, according to Petras, was not arbitrary but tied to US government and AIPAC political machinations.
- AIPAC, according to Petras, pressured the Bush Administration to reject negotiations with Iran.
Let's take a look at some recent AIPAC (essentially neoconservative) initiatives and actions, which have had the effect of impeding the Israeli peace process, as well as greater Middle East peace initiatives.
- Supported John Bolton for Ambassador to the United Nations.
- Failed even to consider exploring the Saudi peace initiative.
- Took an antagonistic position to any possibility of dealing with Hamas until it accedes to all of Likud's requirements prior to negotiations.
- Supported bombing Iran, another Likud position at odds with most Israelis.
- Endorsed Israel's use of overwhelming force in Lebanon after Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, a source of great controversy among Israelis because of its abject failure – which ultimately strengthened Hezbollah and Iran.
- Pressured Congressional representatives to alter their positions so as to be more in synch with AIPAC's agenda.
In fact, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and pro-Israeli PACS have exerted excessive pressure on the Bush Administration and on Congress to comply with the Likud-Kadima foreign policy agenda. The Bush-Cheney team played a "hands-off" role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while the invasion of Iraq was being planned (before 9/11) – as early as January of 2001 [Reported by former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, in Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty] – and continued this policy for the next few years. This may have given the Israeli government a free hand, but the peace process was sacrificed, replaced by a rise in tensions. What is ironic is AIPAC's support for the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq when its leaders must have known that failure would lead definitively to the ascendance of Iran.
It is obvious that President Bush, in an effort to please his Christian Zionist and neoconservative base (which includes AIPAC), has become caught between what is good for the United States and what is good for the Kadima-Likud alliance in Israel. This is a dangerous position for an American president; and it makes it difficult to understand how democrats and independent-minded Republicans continue to tow the AIPAC line at a time when most Americans, most American Jews, and a large part of the Israeli population have concluded that these positions are not in the interests either of Israel or the United States.
Israeli public opinion is overwhelmingly against military engagement with Iran with only 36 percent of the population in support. The majority of American Jews, over 70 percent, reject Bush's foreign policy initiatives (or the lack of them) in the Middle East.
We speak of our country as a democracy and of Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East. Yet the foreign policy agendas of both countries lack support from the majority of their citizens; and there is consensus that the agenda pushed by AIPAC and the neoconservatives has seriously endangered both countries.
SOROS SPEAKS
"AIPAC is protected not only by the fear of personal retaliation but also by a genuine concern for the security and survival of Israel. Both considerations have a solid foundation in reality."
"But now I have to ask the question: How did Israel become so endangered? I cannot exempt AIPAC from its share of the responsibility. I am a fervent advocate of critical thinking. I have supported dissidents in many countries. I took a stand against President Bush when he said that those who don't support his policies are supporting the terrorists. I cannot remain silent now when the pro-Israel lobby is one of the last unexposed redoubts of this dogmatic way of thinking. I speak out with some trepidation because I am exposing myself to further attacks that are likely to render me less effective in pursuing many other causes in which I am engaged; but dissidents I have supported have taken far greater risks.
I am not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC; but I must speak out in favor of the critical process that is at the heart of our open society. I believe that a much–needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC." [The New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC," by George Soros, Volume 54, Number 6, 4/12/2007]
It is an encouraging sign that Speaker Pelosi has led a high-level Congressional delegation to the Middle East and has met with Syrian and Saudi Arabian leaders, among others. Although, while abroad, she stated that she had no foreign policy differences with the Bush Administration, she nevertheless demonstrated that styles and strategies differ among representatives of the US
government. And she has shown the world that some in our government seek solutions through negotiation – rather than employing inflammatory rhetoric, issuing directives, and starting unnecessary wars.
EPILOGUE
Some of us are old enough to remember when Queen Noor, American-born wife of Jordan's King Hussein, sobbed at Itzak Rabin's funeral. Born Lisa Halaby, Noor had a Syrian grandfather of Lebanese descent. Now widowed, Noor remains actively involved in a number of international organizations dedicated to advancing global peace-building and conflict recovery; and she advises the United Nations on these issues.
Israel's Itzak Rabin and Egypt's Anwar Al Sadat both committed themselves to the cause of peace in the Middle East; both were assassinated by extremist citizens in their own country. Lea Rabin and Jehan Sadat (together and separately) continued to further their husbands' efforts. For just one example, see "Two Women of Peace, A Conversation with Lea Rabin and Jehan Sadat,"
It is not unusual for women to take up the cause for peace. Is it a pipe dream to hope that more of America's prominent Democratic women will begin to stand up and challenge the neocon agendas? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jane Harmon, Loretta Sanchez, Rosa DeLauro, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Carolyn Maloney, Nita Lowey and many others have accepted contributions from AIPAC. These women are not alone; and most of the highly influential male members of Congress, from both parties, have received much larger sums than some of these women.
In consideration of the price that America's children (as well those of Israel, Iraq, and many other countries) have paid and will continue to pay for the senseless conflicts that the right wing continues to advocate – and AIPAC promotes – we hope our senators and representatives will have the strength to turn down tainted money that puts a strangle-hold on their independence and ability to represent their constituents, rather than those in positions of power and influence.
We call upon those progressive Democratic office holders who say they care about issues affecting the health and well being of all the world's citizens and urge them to take a fresh look at the sacrifices being made daily by American, Israeli and Arab victims of the current Middle East conflicts. |
MLN is powered by