M.J. Rosenberg says that the reason Barack Obama only got a mild reception at this week’s AIPAC conference, was due to the lack of Arab-bashing:
For the far right in the pro-Israel community, it is more important that a candidate hate Arabs than love Israel. It’s true. At AIPAC, professions of love for Israel are politely applauded but only Arab bashing (and Palestinian bashing in particular) brings the crowd to its feet.”
Bashing the bad guy isn’t new or unique to AIPAC or course, but this behavior is hardly evidence of a group committed to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
He goes on to say:
The overwhelming majority of American Jews support the two-state solution, venerate the memory of Rabin rather than the likes of Netanyahu, and will support a candidate who promises not a Bush-like hands-off policy but leadership to end the deadly conflict.
Which raises the question. Who does AIPAC represent and where does their power come from? Is their influence a residual phenomenon fed by the belief that all Jews must remain in lock step with regard to the policies of Israel? Is this overwhelming majority not politically active, or just afraid to speak out?
Justin Raimondo makes an interesting observation , confirming that while the majority of the Jewish population in the US wants an end to war and a peaceful settlement in Palestine, wealthy Jewish donors remain commited to extremist policies of refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians and demands for aggression against Iran.
This disconnect was made all the more apparent by the fact that the most unpopular and reviled man in American politics became the darling of the AIPAC Conference.