ה' עז לעמו יתן; ה' יברך את־עמו בשלום
G-d will give Strength to His People; G-d will bless His People with Peace
Attached is Fighting to Win, a piece that the Jewish Link of New Jersey was set to publish this week. It was submitted at the paper's request. The Link asked for a counterpoint from local AIPAC and NORPAC leaders to run side-by-side. Rather than argue the merits, these individuals chose to pressure the Link to censor Fighting to Win. The resulting campaign of threats and intimidation by AIPAC and NORPAC led the Link to pull the piece.
Fighting to Win appeared last week in the Los Angeles Jewish Home (p26) and is running this week in the 5 Towns Jewish Times (p1).
In light of BDS, the Iran Deal, and growing anti-Semitism, those who are concerned about the US-Israel relationship should read this piece and make their own decisions.
And those who care more about standing for Israel than about protecting American Jewish organizations from criticism should be troubled by their censorship of a true pro-Israel movement.
We are in a critical election year. If you agree that it really does matter which party controls Congress and who sits in the White House - if you agree that it's high time for Israel's friends to go on the offensive - then click here to learn more about Iron Dome Alliance, the only national pro-Israel super PAC.
We welcome you to join us!
Jeff
Senior Fellow, London Center for Policy Research
Senior Fellow, ACU Center for Statesmanship and Diplomacy
office: +1-703-879-3870
mobile: +1-917-207-0900
email: jb@b2strategic.com
web: www.B2Strategic.com
--------------
Fighting
to Win: Revolutionizing Israel Advocacy
Jeff Ballabon & Bruce Abramson
The final
year of the Obama Presidency has not begun well for Israel. Arab assassins earn
greater international sympathy than do their Jewish victims. Iran gleefully
violates even the modest obligations that Secretary Kerry
negotiated, and receives
$100 billion or so to fund terrorism. The BDS movements scores labeling
victories in the EU and the Obama Administration reinforces them. The UN
Secretary General unleashes slanderous antiJIsrael bile into a receptive global public.
Meanwhile,
with America’s focus on the election, the country’s leading proJIsrael
activists again boast of unshakeable bipartisan support in Congress. Never mind that a sizable majority of Israel’s Democratic
“friends” just agreed to fund Iran’s ability to exterminate the Jewish State.
The proJIsrael establishment insists that their hard work keeps the
“proJIsrael” position a rare point of consensus in a partisan town.
Decades of
polling tell a different story. The difference between Democratic and
Republican views of Israel is stark, longstanding, and growing. Almost 85% of
Republicans express consistent warm support for Israel. Democrats’ more tepid
proJ Israel sentiment routinely
polls below 50%—and
even that support
skews old. Young Democrats overwhelmingly take pride
in their antiJIsrael politics, exacerbating the dire situation on college
campuses. Astoundingly, many American Jews who know from personal experience that fullJthroated support for Israel has become contentious accept the absurd fiction that
Israel’s position in Washington remains secure no matter who is in charge. Even
skeptics of the “bipartisan consensus” silliness have been persuaded that vast
millions should be squandered on supporting Israel’s enemies’ campaigns because
they might gain power (thus actually helping Israel’s enemies gain power) as
though, despite all evidence to the contrary, such contributions somehow
make them Israel’s
friends rather than reward bad behavior.
This denial
of the obvious has been killing Israel slowly. Israel’s alleged supporters in Washington claim exemption from the most basic rule of politics: While it is nice to have friends on both sides of the
aisle, control of Congress and the White House is critical. Planned
Parenthood, the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the Chamber
of Commerce all know it. Each
of these groups champions an agenda, fights for their beliefs, rewards proven
friends, and punishes enemies.
America’s “proJIsrael” establishment stands
apart; its neurotic
need to claim as many “friends” and as few “enemies” as
possible earns public lip service but private contempt. As last year’s vote on
the ObamaJIran deal showed, Congress overflows with politicians eager to
court wealthy Jews, spout proCIsrael platitudes, and
cast easy votes. The moment
that Israel requires a vote of conviction rather than convenience, however,
they politely express regret and an intention to return as soon as the easy
money resumes—because it always does.
Israel’s
American supporters have confused themselves with the Israeli government. Israel is a small state
surrounded by enemies seeking her destruction and the genocide of her citizens.
Because Israel plays with razorJthin margins of error, risk aversion can be
highly rational. The significant risks that Israel has incurred have almost all
focused on securing friends and allies, rather than on securing victory.
As a foreign government dependent on the
United States, Israeli diplomacy compels conciliatory statements about U.S.
policy and the American leadership. American activists are under no compulsion
to believe such statements. To the contrary, American supporters add maximum value when championing the tough
truths that diplomacy puts beyond Israel’s reach. Yet rather than
pushing to expand Israel’s political playing field, Israel’s leading advocates
in Washington have instead become similarly risk averse, at times even allowing
their own neuroses and extraneous political priorities to further constrain
Israel’s options.
The system
is broken and must change. Israel deserves advocates fully committed to the cause,
not ones who use it to advance
their other interests. And proJIsrael activists should behave more like the
lobbyists for American interests they are, and less like supplicants for an
embattled state. Israel remains popular with Americans; Iran and the
Palestinian Authority do not. A proJIsrael lobby that played to win would
articulate basic, immutable principles for which it would fight. It would
pressure Israel’s neighbors to work with Israel, while removing pressure
on Israel to take risks that compromise its security. It
would stop pushing Washington and Jerusalem to reward Arab incitement and
terror with a PLOJled state, and instead work overtime to ensure that
antiJJewish terror works against Arab interests. It would innovate on policy
and narrative, promoting truths and ideas that run counter to conventional
wisdom, even if such innovations remain minority positions for the years that
lobbyists often need to assemble winning coalitions.
Israel’s enemies understand this strategic
imperative. Temple Denial sounded crazy when Arafat first floated the idea in 2000. By 2015, the New York Times detailed the “controversy”
surrounding Jewish “claims” to the Temple Mount, and UNESCO tried to declare
the Western Wall a Muslim holy site. BDS began with a coalition of radical
fringe NGOs in 2005. By 2015, allegations of Israeli apartheid and genocide
dominated discourse among American academics and European parliamentarians.
ProJIsrael activists may boast about state legislatures adopting antiJBDS
legislation, but the antiJIsrael forces framed the conversation. When the
debate concerns singling out Israel as the subject of an international boycott,
Israel has already lost.
Not too long ago, acceptance of a Palestinian state appeared radical and anathema to
America’s interests and the pursuit of peace. Jimmy Carter—hardly a proJIsrael
advocate—opposed it when he was President, arguing of the destabilization such
a state would cause. Yitzchak Rabin, martyred in 1995 for his dovish politics,
never wavered from his opposition to a Palestinian state. In 1998, five
years into the Oslo process, Hillary Clinton spoke with tentative approval of a
Palestinian state triggering a furious backlash; her husband’s White House
issued a very blunt official repudiation. Yet over the past fifteen years, much
of the world— including many Jews claiming to advocate for Israel—has severed
this “solution” from the considerations of peace,
security, Arab behavior, or Arab preparedness that were supposed to have justified it. By 2011, exJPresident
Clinton had adopted his wife’s views; he publicly blamed Israel for the lack of
peace and supported the Obama Administration’s attempts to reward Arab
intransigence and distance the U.S. from Israel.
With
foresight and boldness, nimble antiJIsrael forces have solidified the
“Palestinian” claim while rendering contingent Israel’s legitimacy; Israel’s
sluggish advocates lament that “the ship has sailed” while it is their own
hands on the tiller. On any other issue, Washington lobbyists would have sounded alarm bells, informing their members and supporters of the animosity
emanating from the White House.
For the proJIsrael establishment, however, mobilizing pushJback is of
far lesser importance than maintaining “access” to legislators who take
meetings and attend parties but evaporate when
needed.
Looking
ahead, France has threatened to become the 137th country to
recognize a State of Palestine. Might the Obama Administration follow suit? If
the ship has sailed, why delay? If
proJIsrael activists living in the safety of Washington do not stridently
oppose the emergence of this new JewJhating terror state, who will? If
America’s Jewish leadership fails to insist that the U.S. oppose antiJJewish
terror as resolutely as it does terror in general, why shouldn’t American politicians join the global chorus labeling JewJkilling regrettable,
but understandable?
Israel is losing on many fronts, and
those claiming to be its greatest American advocates remain stuck playing
defense. Yet the success of Yasser Arafat’s delegitimization of Jewish
Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton’s implicit Palestinian State, and Barack Obama’s
nuclear Iran prove that drastic shifts in both the terms of debate and U.S.
policy are achievable—but only to those
who think strategically, risk criticism, and act fearlessly. As Winston
Churchill observed, the only way to avoid making enemies is to stand for
nothing. To fight for Israel is to risk
the enmity of Israel’s enemies,
not to wish it away. Israel’s friends
do not need money
to remain friendly, and Jewish money will never buy Israel the friendship
of those who wish it ill.
The absence
of policy innovation within the proJIsrael establishment is palpable. When
Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed that the Oslo Accords no longer bind the PA, a
strategic thinker might have suggested that Israel and the U.S are similarly
unshackled—setting off a debate about two decades of rewards for Arab
incitement and violence. The creation of a new Arab state, the limitations on
Jewish life in Judea and Samaria, and even the PA itself would all come under a
microscope. Ships deemed to have sailed would reenter port. The U.S. would
pursue American interests with no sense of obligation to a terrorist
organization. For once, Israel’s friends
would frame the discussion. Just as Israel cannot win a debate about
BDS, Israel cannot lose a debate
about PA incitement. The only downside
would be increased risk of criticism and condemnation from those who
believe that supporting Israel should be easy, comfortable, and remunerative.
Such costs are hardly negatives when
exchanged for greater benefits. A willingness to forego the illusion of
lockstep bipartisanship in the name of strategic policy innovation would ignite a new era of proCIsrael activism. It would educate voters for whom Israel is a priority about
the real differences between the parties, helping to empower the Republican
leadership necessary to turn proJIsrael innovations into American policies,
while reminding Democratic politicians that only those who truly support Israel
deserve to reap the benefits of Israel’s support.
The time has come for a new strategy.
The time has come for Israel to play to win.
Jeff Ballabon is Chairman and Bruce
Abramson is VP and Director of Policy of the Iron Dome Alliance, America’s proDIsrael super PAC.
