Yavin has said he made the documentary “so that I and those like me can’t say we didn’t see it, we didn’t hear it, we didn’t know.” The rest of us also need to stop making that excuse, and face up to the realities that are vividly conveyed by Yavin and the people he interviews

The first, very brief clip on the Ameinu web site focuses on Hebron, and includes an interview with a laconic Israeli soldier who describes what it feels like when Jewish settlers casually urge him to shoot Palestinian children. Also worth reading is a call to action, which proposes an orderly withdrawal of settlers now, before it’s too late. It does so from a decidedly Zionist perspective which will make both Jewish right wingers and anti-Zionists uncomfortable, but is a message that should resonate with Ameinu’s chief, target audience: affiliated American Jews.

When the series first aired, some Israeli reviewers express much more impatience with the settlers than Ameinu does. Here was the emotional reaction from Raanan Shaked in Yedioth Ahronoth (6/1/05):

The breath becomes short, the heart is choked with anger. This is the only human response to The Land of the Settlers. No, there is actually another reasonable reaction: After watching The Land of the Settlers, every caring Israeli, every humane Israeli, should get up next Saturday, go to the settlement nearest to his place of residence, and drag its inhabitants, kicking and screaming, across the road to the side of sanity. This is what comes out of The Land of the Settlers, the personal territories journal of Chaim Yavin, who reaches an impressive professional peak here as a documentary journalist. Although it may not be new on an informative level, The Land of the Settlers will astound you, mainly by placing on the screen, over the course of many hours, the hard core of the shameful insanity of the settlers in the territories, along with the tacit approval of the Israeli governments, along with the helplessness of the army…

What makes this video even more important now is that the plight of Palestinians in the territories has gotten even worse than it was when Yavin aired it…Ameinu is also distributing the whole series at a discount.

Finally, I will extend yet another apology for the infrequency of my posts. I should be able to pay more attention to this blog within the next few weeks, after I complete the manuscript of my long-awaited, soon-to-be-classic book on America’s conventional Israel lobby and what, if anything, can be done to transform or replace it.

“For understandable historical reasons, Israelis take any threats made against them literally. They should keep in mind that Mao spoke with the same reckless abandon that Ahmadinejad does about war. Yet Mao’s China, after testing nuclear weapons in 1964, let the potential go largely undeveloped with a few nuclear bombers hidden away in caves to deter the Soviets from about 15 years. It was the more pragmatic Deng who developed China’s nuclear capacity in the 1980s. Iran’s mullahs have profited well from the revolution by their appropriation of properties and their control over trade licenses. Would they really want to risk this comfortable arrangement in a nuclear war for the pleasure of knowing that they had damaged Israel for twenty minutes before they are wiped out?”

That assumes, of course, that we are dealing with rational actors in Iran, or at least it diminishes the possible role of irrationality in foreign policy. Isn’t that assumption a gigantic leap of faith?

I have met a former CIA analyst who monitored Iran’s weapons systems in, I think, the early 1990s. He might be one of the 50 people in the world with enough information about Iran to be credible. He said that other Iranian presidents and leaders have also threatened Israel’s destruction or at least, as in Ahmadinejad’s case, publicly relished the possibility of Israel’s destruction. He never took their threats very seriously, considered them to be political posturing…until recently. This time, with this president, he’s not sure. He’s not certain that Ahmadinejad, whose imman in Qum apparently believes a major war will pave the way for the appearance of the ‘hidden imman” (the Sh’ite messiah), would be averse to triggering a catastrophe. And those who say this president has no power might be right, but his following is with the Revolutionary Guards, and there is no telling what they are capable of, or where they will fit into the Iranian power structure next month or next year or ten years from now…

Again, I am not one of those 50 people with enough knowledge to venture more than an educated guess about Iran…But what if this guy is correct?

Here is Tom’s piece in its entirety.

IRANIAN NUCLEAR POLICY AND MOTIVES

Before we should contemplate any action against Iran over its nuclear policy we should attempt to ascertain its motives. I see how the following possible motives for the development of nuclear weapons or a potential for nuclear weapons by Teheran:

1) Iran wants to fulfill its destiny and sacrifice itself in order to destroy the Zionist state. This is what most Israelis and their American supporters impute to Tehran based on statements by President Muhammed Ahmedinajad. It should be noted that in Iran the president has little more power than does the Israeli president. The real executive position is held by the unelected Supreme Leader chosen by the pro-regime mullahs.

2) Iran fears regime change by the United States as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It figures that a nuclear deterrent in the form of at least one deliverable weapon may make it immune from regime change.

3) The nuclear weapons program was started as a reaction to the danger from the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and has been maintained as a result of bureaucratic inertia.

4) The nuclear weapons program is seen as a cover to allow Tehran to subvert its neighbors and spread its ideology and influence in the Middle East and Muslim world without fear of regime change.

5) Tehran wants to provoke a confrontation from the West—especially the Great Satan in Washington or the Little Satan in Jerusalem—on an issue that it assumes that most of its population will support it on.

I would argue that Tehran’s motives are a combination of motives 2 though 5. The fact that the only member of the “Axis of Evil” to be attacked by the United States was the weakest regime, the one with the weakest conventional army and little air force or navy and with no nuclear potential, has been noted by Tehran. We negotiate with Pyongyang out of fear and a healthy respect for the power of nuclear weapons rather than out of any respect for its sovereign rights.

The Manhattan Project in the United States was begun out of fear of a non-existent Nazi nuclear weapons program and then the A-bomb was used against Japan after Germany’s surrender. Tehran’s nuclear effort was actually begun under the Shah with American support. Tehran developed a weapon’s program in reaction to Saddam Hussein’s attack against Iran in September 1980. This occurred partly in reaction to Tehran’s efforts to spread its revolution to Iraq.

Wherever there are sizeable Shi’ite populations in the Middle East Tehran is active attempting to either subvert the ruling Sunni or Christian (Lebanon) regime or support the Shi’ite regime (Iraq). Tehran views Shi’ite Muslims the way the Bolsheviks viewed industrial workers in Europe in the early 1920s—as potential allies and revolutionaries to spread the revolution.

Iran has the only population of pro-American Muslims in the Middle East. This must be viewed as both a great insult and frustration and a great danger by the ruling theocracy. It needs to find a way of changing the popular opinion of America before the regime is overthrown. Most rulers tend to look at adversaries as mirror images: Western liberals see their opponents as liberals and subversives see their opponents as attempting to subvert them. The fact that the U.S. partially aligned itself with Iraq in the 1980s Gulf War is seen as justification and proof of the validity of these fears, as are statements by American conservatives and Israelis. The United States has had a policy of regime change in Iran as it had one in Iraq. Thus, there is some validity for these fears. Plus, revolutionaries by their nature tend to be paranoid, as they fear their opponents doing to them what they accomplished earlier to the ancien regime.

Ordinary Iranians consider themselves as entitled to possess nuclear weapons as Pakistan or India and probably more so than Israel. And as long as Tehran remains ambiguous about its nuclear intentions, it will retain widespread internal and international support for its stand. Any military action by either Israel or the United States against Iran will rally the population around the regime. It would also likely cause a split in the West similar to that which occurred in 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Tehran may be looking to split Washington from Europe or Israel from the U.S.

The best thing to do is to continue to operate multilaterally with Europe while gradually ramping up sanctions. Sanctions can be seen as aggressive but not an act of war—they may cause many Iranians to rethink their stance on nuclear power.

For understandable historical reasons, Israelis take any threats made against them literally. They should keep in mind that Mao spoke with the same reckless abandon that Ahmadinejad does about war. Yet Mao’s China, after testing nuclear weapons in 1964, let the potential go largely undeveloped with a few nuclear bombers hidden away in caves to deter the Soviets from about 15 years. It was the more pragmatic Deng who developed China’s nuclear capacity in the 1980s. Iran’s mullahs have profited well from the revolution by their appropriation of properties and their control over trade licenses. Would they really want to risk this comfortable arrangement in a nuclear war for the pleasure of knowing that they had damaged Israel for twenty minutes before they are wiped out?

So, Israel, if it has not already done so, should develop a secure second-strike capability through the development of nuclear-armed submarine launched cruise missiles. If Washington wants to help Israel, this is how it can help. Israel can then live with the same threat that the West lived with for some forty years during the Cold War.

Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) have issued a letter today stating that a non-binding resolution they offered on Iran does not call for a military action against that country…

…While the resolution (I repeat, non-binding) also includes a specific denial that it authorizes use of American military force - “Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran” - it has, understandably, led some to believe that it is tantamount to a declaration of war against Iran.

“These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense,” Ackerman and Spence wrote. “The resolution states plainly and distinctly that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;” the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders.”

What to make of this? I have no ax to grind or premise to prove here. That is the nature of this blog; I annoy everyone across the political spectrum, at one time or another. So I would like someone who is convinced that this resolution calls for a blockade to explain why, if these Reps wanted such a thing, they would go out of their way to deny it?

The resolution doesn’t have any legal standing; it’s just a forceful message, encouraged by AIPAC. It is easier for Member of Congress to be more hawkish in non-binding resolutions than they would otherwise be in bills that have the force of law; the former documents are generally more convenient vehicles for political grandstanding. So, it would seem to me that if they wanted to convince voters they were super-tough, they would have no reason to deny that they were calling for a blockade. Are they reassuring constituents who are nervous about war-mongering? If so, isn’t that good news? Or, am I being spun by some kind of nefarious, manipulative “War Party” in ways I am too naive to grasp? If so, how?

As I’ve noted before, there are perhaps 50 people in the world who have a sufficiently detailed understanding of Iranian politics and its nuclear development program to provide recommendations that are worth considering. I am not one of them. Neither, apparently, is anyone in the Bush Administration. Parsi is.

Mismarriage of Convenience

Analysis by Trita Parsi

Iran and Israel are stuck in a dysfunctional relationship that neither party can escape on its own. Here’s how to break up their fight.

————————————
Last week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group—held its annual policy conference in Washington, and it went as you might expect. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain roused the faithful with a call to tighten the noose on Iran and mocked those who favor a more diplomatic approach. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that negotiating with Iranian leaders would be pointless “while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for “all possible means” to be used to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A few days later, Israel’s Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” as long as Tehran “continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons.”

As if to underscore these arguments, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obligingly played the role of villain, predicting ominously from Tehran that Israel will “soon disappear off the geographical scene.” Against this backdrop, it’s safe to say that few at AIPAC were convinced by newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s call for direct U.S. talks with Iran (though the Illinois senator did win many new friends at the conference this year). In fact, AIPAC and Israeli leaders fear that any bargain between Washington and Tehran would come at their expense and have heightened their rhetoric accordingly.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Although Iran and Israel will not be signing any mutual defense pacts anytime soon, the two countries aren’t destined to be implacable foes. If anything, Israel could be a prime beneficiary of a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.

It might sound inconceivable that Iran, whose leaders since 1979 have used the most venomous rhetoric against the “little Satan,” would ever moderate its stance toward Israel. Yet a careful review of the past three decades shows that Iran’s hostile rhetoric is more a product of opportunism than fanaticism. Iran and Israel have even been willing to work together quietly at times, despite their conflicting ideologies.

The reason is simple: When forced to choose, Tehran invariably chooses its geostrategic interests over its ideological impulses. In no other area is the decisiveness of the strategic dimension of Iran’s foreign policy clearer than when it comes to Israel. When these two pillars of Iranian foreign policy have clashed, as they did in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran’s geostrategic concerns have consistently prevailed. Tehran quietly sought Israel’s aid, and the Jewish state made many efforts to place Iran and the United States back on speaking terms. Faced with an invading Iraqi army and finding its U.S.-built weaponry starved of spare parts by a U.S. embargo, Tehran was in desperate need of help from Israel. Israel, in turn, was more than eager to avoid an Iraqi victory and to restore the traditional Israeli-Iranian clandestine security cooperation established under the shah, the mullahs’ fierce anti-Israeli rhetoric notwithstanding.

Iran never discarded its Islamic and anti-Israeli ideology, but for years it did refrain from translating that ideology into operational policy. It has been only for the past 15 years, for example, that Iran has come to play such a spoiler role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why now? Today, the ideological and strategic currents of Iran’s foreign policy are aligned, and the results are visible in every corner of the region: a surging Hezbollah in Lebanon, a more deeply entrenched Hamas in the Palestinian territories, a radicalizing Shiite population in Iraq.

Quelling these potential threats requires understanding why Iran behaves the way it does. On a strategic level, Iran opposes Israel because it perceives the Jewish state as seeking its exclusion from regional affairs. Iran thinks Israel is working assiduously to counter its interests, whether in Washington or Ashgabat. Israel is seen as a major obstacle in initiating a U.S.-Iran dialogue and has played a critical role in putting Iran’s nuclear program atop the international agenda. Even Ahmadinejad’s highly ideological broadsides against Israel have come to have a strategic purpose. Playing the anti-Israeli card helps Iran overcome the Persian-Arab and Shiite-Sunni divide, Tehran reasons. Harsh rhetoric against Israel goes down well with the Arab street, increasing tensions between Arab governments and their publics, which in turn prevents the Arabs from signing up with Tel Aviv against Tehran.

The key to eliminating the danger Iran could pose to Israel lies in arranging these two forces of Iranian foreign policy—strategic interest and ideology—to counter each other once again. Threats of war and sanctions cannot achieve this end, however. Only through a larger accommodation—Iranian political rehabilitation in the region in return for an end to destructive Iranian behavior—will Iran let go of its open hostility toward the Jewish state. Brought in from the cold, Tehran’s cost-benefit analysis would change dramatically. The Islamic Republic would be careful not to undermine its own geopolitical status with ideology-driven anti-Israeli and anti-American behavior.

This is not a new formula, nor is it untested. China refuses to discard its communist pretense, but global integration has made it loath to put communist economic principles into practice due to the devastating impact it would have on its economic interests.

But why would Iran seek serious negotiations now, opponents of diplomacy might ask, when it appears to be having its way in the Middle East? Because the Iranians are eager to consolidate their gains through talks with the next U.S. administration and win American recognition for their role in the region. Those who would reject dialogue cannot have it both ways. They can’t argue that Washington shouldn’t negotiate because it lacks leverage (which isn’t true—for one, only the United States can lift its sanctions and support Iran’s inclusion in a new regional security architecture) and simultaneously claim that Tehran prefers the status quo and isn’t interested in talks precisely because Iran does have leverage.

In reality, the United States need not pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table; it need only demonstrate that it is serious about reaching a strategic understanding. What will induce Tehran to play ball is not a threat, but the promise of achieving a legitimate regional role without surrendering its pride. For Israel, that could be a good thing. A tamed Iran—integrated into the region’s political and economic structures and the forces of globalization—is much less dangerous than an angry and isolated Iran that defends its interests by fanning the flames of anti-Israeli extremism in the region. That’s a concept supporters of Israel and AIPAC should find useful.

First of all, the original title of the previous post referred to a “boycott,” not a “blockade.” The latter, when enforced, is an act of war. The title has been corrected.

Our Teddy, as usual, got to the heart of the matter in his comment:

“So anything or anyone that leaves Iran will get inspected by the Americans, whenever the Americans feel like it? That means the Americans will claim the right to hop on board Iranian ships?

“Maybe that wouldn’t be an “act of war,” technically. I don’t know one way or the other. But it wouldn’t be a passive boycott enforced on American or European shores. It would be enforced by American naval officers and marines aggressiely [sic] patrolling Iranian waters.”

The only semi-positive news here is that the resolutions were non-binding.

Alarming. But is it alarmist?

MJ, an American hero (I mean that!), is concerned about House Resolution 362 and S. Res. 580. I described the House bill in my previous post, as part of an effort to show that AIPAC does not appear to be pressing for an attack on Iran. Maybe it is, but I did not think the evidence could be found in those bills or in the policy conference that promoted them. MJ, apparently, disagrees. He asserts:

The bill’s “action clause” would put us at war with Iran by immediately imposing a blockade.

The resolution cleverly states that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran” assuming, apparently correctly, that potential co-sponsors won’t know that a blockade is an act of war.

Here is the heart of the bill:

Congress hereby “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program….”

Note: The blockade described in the bill is identical to the one JFK imposed on Cuba in 1962 which almost plunged the world into nuclear war. The huge difference is that we knew the Soviet Union had installed missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from Miami, and was about to equip them with nuclear war heads. A rather immense difference from the Iran situation today.

Is imposing a blockade “an act of war?” I’ve tried to figure out whether that equation holds up in international law. The only useful comment I’ve uncovered comes from a piece by Dale Russakof in the Washington Post (8/20/1990) on Bush 41’s confrontation with Iraq. (You can only read the article, as far as I can tell, if you are a Highbeam subscriber):

Barry Carter, professor of international law at Georgetown University Law Center, who is not involved in the current crisis and therefore speaks untortured English, said that the word, blockade, while traditionally associated with war, has no “legally significant meaning different from quarantine, interdiction or the like…It’s the act of stopping a ship that is a hostile act, whether you call it quarantine, blockade or interdiction.”

In other words, if the U.S. actively stops a tanker from carrying petroleum to Iran, that is an act of war. Calling for a blockade is not.

Is that splitting hairs? Did I let AIPAC off too easy? Perhaps. MJ doesn’t mention AIPAC, but doesn’t need to. Some claim AIPAC was directly responsible for the resolutions. Whether or not that is true, the bills are clearly something they have done more than endorse: they sent thousands of lobbyists to the Hill to push for the bills the day after their recent extravaganza at the DC Convention Center.

I have written, in no uncertain terms, that the organized American Jewish community needs to find the courage to publicly rebuke the pre-emptive war fetishists in its midst. Even if the U.S., Israel, Iran’s neighbors and Europe find a nuclear-armed Iran to be an intolerable risk –and that is arguable– it would be senseless to bomb its nuclear facilities unless and until every conceivable diplomatic option is attempted. It is also foolish for American policy to rely completely on sticks and offer no real carrots. MJ has written the same thing.

But that doesn’t change my view that, at least in this case, AIPAC and its Congressional allies stopped well short of overt warmongering. What is it that I’m missing here? In these non-binding resolutions, they tried to ratchet up the economic and political pressure. That’s a far cry from adapting the mentality of Richard Perle and Norman Podhoretz others who appear to relish the idea of one last firestorm before Bush and Cheney leave.

First of all, AIPAC does not appear to be trying to prod the U.S. to bomb Iran. If it is, I have not seen any credible evidence, just a lot of inferential yammering by those whose stock-in-trade is to promote the notion that the so-called “Lobby” is a bunch of bellicose fifth columnists.

Here, for example, is Justin Raimondo, an articulate libertarian whose Antiwar.com is an increasingly popular source for all things anti-Israel and anti-AIPAC: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s visit to the U.S. is part of a concerted effort, by the Israeli government and its American lobbyists, to convince U.S. lawmakers – and, most of all, President George W. Bush – that the time to attack Iran is now.”

At last week’s Policy Conference, attendees got a distinctly different impression. Sure, there was obligatory tough talk about the perils of a nuclearized Iran. Sure, anyone who asserted or hinted that the military option should remain on the table could count on applause in the small seminars and the large plenary sessions. Of course the notion of unconditional dialogue with Iran was an object of scorn.

And, yes, the action agenda pushed for tightened sanctions against Iran. AIPAC called for its grassroots troops to descend on Congress and urge passage of the Iran Counterproliferation Act in the Senate, and to promote a slightly tougher, non-binding resolution from Reps. Gary Ackerman and Mike Pence. But, as described by Ron Kampeas of JTA, one of the smartest reporters in Washington:

The language of the [Ackerman-Pence] resolution is sensitive to the political realities of a presidential campaign that has made the possibility of war against Iran a partisan issue: It explicitly counts out military action — a point hammered home in the AIPAC talking points.

“The resolution specifically states that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to be an authorization for military action,” the sheet says. “In fact, the sanctions called for in H. Con. Res. 362 are the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability by avoiding military action.”

Additionally, the action part of the resolution opens by declaring “that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently.”

Notably absent from AIPAC’s talking points is any mention of military force — a prospect that spooks Democrats and would discomfit an organization that prides itself on its bipartisanship. [emphasiis added by DF]

Kampeas is spot on. I suspect a large part of the membership would have been upset by overt war-mongering. I know this is a rather inconvenient truth. Painting the AIPACers with a broad brush as a dangerous, evil band of Likud supporters and war-hungry “neocons” makes it much easier for those who oppose the group to mobilize, and to write angry op-eds and blog posts filled with reckless generalizations that ignore complex, institutional truths. Mea culpa: I’ve written a few of those myself.

Dismissing AIPAC as nothing but a support group or cheering section for Dick Cheney and Richard Perle feeds the hunger of those on the far left and far right for a bogeyman, an organization that can serve, along with Israel itself, as a kind of totemic hate object, a repository of all that is wrong. I am trying to write a book about the conventional Israel lobby and my task would be much easier if AIPAC could be summed up so glibly. But I’m afraid it can’t.

The inconvenient truth is that many of its members and board members are centrist Democrats; they are politically moderate, at least by American standards. They want the U.S. to keep Israel strong by giving it a qualitative military edge because they believe Israel’s neighbors still want to destroy it. They are deeply worried about Iran and the dangers they believe it poses to Israel and to the U.S., especially to American troops in Iraq, But they are not irresponsibly trigger happy. Even Philip Weiss, a hero of the cabal-watchers, was initially a bit perplexed when, in the first policy conference he attended, he found himself rubbing shoulders with attendees and listening to speakers who were moderate, temperate and as desirious of peace as he is (although they don’t care as much about Palestinian suffering or Palestinian rights as he does).

My friend and fellow Ameinu board member Judy Gelman, described the AIPACers in an email to the organization’s leadership:

Who goes to AIPAC? This year’s conference had over 7500 participants, about 1200 of who were students. The attendees also included many large congregational groups. I don’t know how many rabbis brought congregants but 4 rabbis were acknowledged as having brought more than 100 congregants with them. Two of these congregants were large Conservative shuls from LA, one of which (Valley Beth Shalom) had over 200 participants (the other was Sinai Temple). Stephen Wise Synagogue from NY (also Conservative) was one of the others. So the participants at the Policy Conference are not a group of wild-eyed reactionaries. Kippot are rare and tzitzit almost completely absent.

It is pretty much the people you would be sitting next to at Holy Holidays at a Conservative shul. Like most Jews, these are largely Democrats–not the most liberal Democrats, but still Democrats and mostly from NY, CA, Chicago, Philly, Southern Florida, but also from the smaller Jewish communities like Tulsa, Salt Lake City and Orlando. From these smaller communities, it is not uncommon for AIPAC activists to overlap heavily with the Federation and local congregational leadership. AIPAC gives these people (mostly people of considerable wealth) a way to connect to Israel politically, and also to connect with their local politicians on behalf of Israel. What AIPAC “sells” them is a way to be informed about Israel and a way to be involved for Israel.

She’s right. Most of them are not “neocons.” They are just very worried about Israel. They come to these conferences expecting guidance and instruction about how they –and America– can help to keep it safe. It’s not much more complicated than that. What’s more, although they were urged to suppress partisan poltical instincts, many of them cheered for Obama not only because they were glad he expressed support for Israel; they also cheered for him because they were Democrats and, like the rest of us, want an end to the Republican reign of error.

Of course, there are also vocal, irrepressible militarists in that organization. In a speech to the plenary on Monday night, Executive Director Howard Kohr gave, I think, some clues about the pressures on him from that wing of AIPAC. After rattling off the many dangers posed by Iran and the need to sanction it, he said:

Now, I have spoken to you and I know you feel a real sense of frustration. Of impatience. You have asked me, from New York and Los Angeles, what more can we do? You wonder, is there still time for our efforts to work?

My friends, I understand your concern.

But I want to make the case to you today that the path of political and economic sanctions is still the best immediate option. There is still time..to persuade Iran through sanctions that its leader cannot vow to wipe Israel off the map. It cannot promise to visit destruction on Israel, and escape the consequences of its actions…My friends, we cannot lose our determination to stay on this path –together we must make it clear that Iran must change its behavior.

He could have gone much further. He could have revved up the crowd to show the attentive world that these American Jews were serious about doing whatever was necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, he urged the AIPACers to trod what was, at least in their Manichean version of reality, a middle path.

I still think they are wrong, these AIPACers, about a good many things. They are wrong to ratchet up tensions with Iran and favor all sticks and no carrots. They have been wrong about Draconian restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority and will continue to be wrong in their opposition to evenhanded American diplomacy in the Middle East. I still think an alternative political bloc, a lobby for the rest of us that encourages a new American course in the Middle East, is necessary. The stony, uncomfortable silence that greeted Sec. of State Rice when she dared to refer to the “daily humiliations” suffered by Palestinians is reason enough to develop that alternative.

But if we want to change the current, conventional Israel lobby, we need to understand how it actually works and who is in it, not create straw men and straw women.

I have been coming to these AIPAC conferences over the years as an observer and as the Jewish peace camp’s equivalent of a Log Cabin Republican, believing that if you can’t get a seat at the power table with these people, at least you should be in the room and take their measure.

This one, like all the others, was a masterpiece of political theater. It was a combination of agit-prop worthy of Mao, a Veterans of Foreign Wars conclave and shmaltzy Yiddish theater.

One plenary session after another conveyed that it is 1938, it has always been 1938, the darkness is upon us, with footage of the Holocaust on giant screens, interspersed with scary stills of the Iranian president, scenes of terrorist bombings, Hamas rockets in mid-flight. The argument that Israel’s security was intertwined with America’s, that Israel is on the front line of our battle, was hammered home in seminars with military experts, in speeches from Members of Congress. It was conveyed in icons and totems, like the ubiquitous logo with an American and Israeli flag, and the tag line: “The American-Israel relationship: Built to Last.” And, amidst all the flagwaving and policy discussions, there were tear-jerkers, like the obligatory but deeply moving stories of Israelis who had built lives from the ashes.

But the most important political theater focused on the candidates. Before the conference, AIPAC sent emails and letters urging attendees to be respectful of all speakers. Throughout the proceedings, for three days, its stage managers did a masterful job of putting a damper on grumpy right wing protest, knowing that, in the past, strident hawks and settler supporters had booed Nancy Pelosi and Colin Powell (when he defended the Road Map) and a string of reasonable people stretching back to Secretary of State Jim Baker.

A staffer who led a small seminar on lobbying techniques told us that every speaker is a “guest in our house,” that any friend of Israel should be greeted as a friend of ours.

The worst thing, the very worst thing, that could happen to AIPAC would be a war between a presumptive presidential nominee and the self-appointed “pro-Israel” community. That is something the cabal-watchers who are obsessed with the attention paid by politicians to the American Jewish community fail to understand: AIPAC needs the candidates as much as they need AIPAC. The group needs access to every administration, lines of communication, friendly relations with mid- and upper-level staffers. It needs access not only to try to influence and monitor policy; it needs access because its high-level donors expect to be rewarded and honored with the chance to be in small rooms where administration officials listen –or pretend to listen—to them. So it would have been very foolish to annoy Barack Obama.

Before the session in which Obama and Hillary Clinton (and Congressional leaders from both parties) were to speak, screens in the center of the grand ballroom of the DC Convention Center displayed telling quotes from, fittingly enough, American icons, not rabbis:

“If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins” –Benjamin Franklin

and

“Friendship is precious.” –Thomas Jefferson.

McCain, of course, had been the star of Act 1, laying down the gauntlet for his opponent by insulting Iran, challenging Obama’s security bona fides and weak-kneed willingness to talk to enemies. He got applause for every bit of red-meat rhetoric, more than a dozen ovations. More than half of the people who roared and got to their feet were Democrats and a large percentage are not going to vote for him. Some of them had been fans of the Oslo process. (American Jews, according to the old saw, live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Some Americans Jews think like Shimon Peres but cheer like Likudniks).

But in Act 2, Obama did what he had to do, and for the most part he did it very well. Even as he walked on eggshells, differentiated himself from McCain and outlined a reasonable approach to foreign policy, he gave them everything they needed and more: a sincere and heartfelt admiration and empathy for Israel, an assurance that his toughminded diplomacy did not mean placating Iran, a commitment to Israel’s “qualitative military edge.”

At one point, he even rushed, breathlessly, through a sentence about Israel’s obligations, one that was left out of the NY Times report on the speech and has gone almost unmentioned in the blogosphere. He bravely said that Israel could “advance the cause of peace” by taking steps to “ease the freedom of Palestinians, improve economic conditions” and “refrain from building settlements.”

That got no applause, but it didn’t matter, he already owned the crowd. They wanted to come away feeling, deep in their kishkes, that this man would protect Israel. He gave them what they wanted. And that is why all the Republicans in the room joined in the standing ovations. And why the stage managers breathed sighs of relief.

So there was no need to call for a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its “undivided” capital. If he had left out any reference to Jerusalem, no one would have noticed. He and his advisors cannot possibly believe that this should be a red line for Israel. Ehud Olmert doesn’t believe it. No Israeli or Palestinian who sincerely wants a two state solution believes it.

It will have no bearing on what happens if he is elected, because if the parties to the conflict want to divide Jerusalem, of course he will express delight.

But the foolish words escaped from his lips, in a scene broadcast throughout the world, and now he won’t be able to take them back. It is yet another discouraging signal to the Palestinian people, most of whom have understandably lost faith in the possibility of a negotiated settlement, even though they continue to endorse the idea.

It is yet another reason why alternative voices in the American Jewish community need to be heard. And it is another reason why there is an urgent need to change the political calculus that prompted Obama to believe that maximalist rhetoric about Jerusalem was necessary.

AIPAC has 100,000 members and its operating budget is somewhere between $40-50 million. The J Street organization has a comparatively paltry $1.5 million budget. Other dovish American Jewish groups –like Brit Tzedek v’ Shalom, Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, Meretz USA and Ameinu– have a fraction of the resources and membership that AIPAC and Jewish groups even further to the right can deploy.

So who in their right mind can believe there is even a slight chance that we can change anything? One of the scoffers called me “Rabbi Don Quixote.” Perhaps he’s tagged me correctly. But here are some reasons to believe:

1) First of all, the dovish Jewish organizations pushing for balanced, fair and creative American diplomacy in the Middile East are not alone. As I have pointed out a number of times in this space, they have increasingly worked in tandem on legislative initiatives with Churches for Middle East Peace -which represents most of the mainline Protestant denominations as well as other Christians- and Arab American organizations, including the American Task Force on Palestine and Arab American Institute.

That is a splendid development. This not just a Jewish issue or a Muslim issue or an Arab issue. This is an American issue, as Philip Weiss keeps insisting. (I disagree with much of what my old friend Weiss writes about American Jewry, but he’s certainly got that one right). Likeminded people from different faith groups who see no contradiction in being pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and pro-American should be working hand in hand.

Moreover, every once in awhile, the great battleship of the Jewish Reform movement, the Religious Action Center, joins these little skiffs, and the armada becomes a bit more impressive.

2) An untold number of Congresspeople and their staffers are fed up with AIPAC. I know this because the information comes from someone who understands more about the agendas and moods of Democratic Representatives and Senators than anyone: Victor Kovner.

Kovner is the former Corporation Counsel of New York City under David Dinkins, one of the most active fundraisers for the Democratic party in New York City, a fellow board member of Americans for Peace Now and one of the key advisors to the people at J Street. At breakfast last week, he told me, “Some Members of Congress have felt intimidated and resentful, and have been forced to take positions against their better judgment, out of fear of retribution….”

Then this careful attorney, who does not say anything without carefully weighing its impact, uttered something delightfully bold, knowing full well that I would probably use it here and in my forthcoming book: “I would like to restore the First Amendment rights of Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Americans to speak their minds on Israel-Palestine issues, without being subjected to baseless, vicious calumnies.”

His comments gibe with my own observations as well as those of a former Congressional aide, who told me, “There is a lot of pent-up anger. Lots of staff and some Members curse the box that AIPAC puts them in. They feel like they are forced to take positions that they don’t believe are in the best interests of the U.S. or Israel…I don’t think that progressive voices in the Jewish community have demonstrated the ability to deliver political and financial support for people who step out.”

Asked what would happen if they did provide that support, the former aide, who is still a player in Washington, said, “It might really change the atmosphere around here because they would find Members welcoming them.”

I suspect this means that we don’t need to make nearly as much noise or donate nearly as much money as the conventional Israel lobby. The angry waters have been rising steadily, lapping against the dam, and perhaps it won’t take as much effort as is commonly assumed to open the floodgates.

3) If all goes well, at least within a few years, politicians will think twice before crossing the passionate moderates who want to give the next president the political leeway to lean on both sides of the conflict, rather than just one side. Members of Congress already think ten times before crossing AIPAC, fearing its wrath if they don’t sign whatever outrageous bill or “Dear Colleague” letter is plopped in front of them. But everyone can play that game. Here is Kovner, softer and more politic: “When somebody who might otherwise think that they would receive our support disappoints us on a particular issue, notwithstanding our efforts, there is always the possibility of opposing them in a primary or general election…Such activities would be quite ambitious at this point, when we are just getting started. But it’s possible.”

Some on the left are uncomfortable with using America’s deplorable campaign finance system to promote reasonable policies. But it makes little sense to wash our hands of it, to be Pollyannas. Too many Palestinians are waiting at too many checkpoints, too many kids in Sderot and Ashkelon are worried about Hamas rockets slamming into their schools. We don’t have time to wait until the rules of the game change. I say, let’s put the fear of J Street into a few centrist, waffling legislators!

There are other signs of hope. Or at least there are signs that it is not inconceivable to build consequential political support for the next president to be more evenhanded, more active, less constrained by interest groups yammering at the edge of his or her ears. I will offer a few more next time.

At a time when the social and economic gaps between Israel’s Arabs and Israel’s Jews are gaping, these Jews and Arabs are striving, almost defiantly, to build a “shared society,” an Israel where different cultures have a shared stake in the future, despite the Nakba, despite the racism, despite the difficulties of reconciling the Zionist ethos with the Israeli Arab experience, despite the Arab villages that have disappeared, despite the Muslim cemetaries that have been desecrated by government-approved construction projects, despite everything.

Other American Jewish groups are also engaged in this struggle, including the Abraham Fund and Ameinu, on whose board I serve. Recently, the plight of Palestinian citizens of Israel has been taken up by the American Jewish mainstream, or at least part of it, in the form of an Interagency Task Force on Israeli Arab Issues. That is a coalition of 80 North American Jewish organizations, foundations, federations and private philanthropists, who “support Israel’s Declaration of Independence, including the article that promises social and political equality for all its inhabitants—Jews and Arabs alike.”

This is, to put it gently, a journey up a very steep, perilous slope. It may well be harder to reach the goal of a shared and equal society within Israel than to create a Palestinian state. But the last thing Israel needs is to make the problem worse, to send a signal to Israeli Arabs –one fifth of the population–that they are not full-fledged citizens. That is why a Knesset bill that will be introduced by Likud MK Limor Livnat is not just infuriating; it is obscene. As noted in today’s Haaretz:

MK Limor Livnat (Likud) and three other leading MKs from Kadima, Likud and Shas are set to propose this week that the Knesset remove Arabic from its list of the country’s official primary languages.

The bill would make Hebrew the only official primary language, and Arabic, English and Russian would become official secondary languages…

“It cannot be, it is not appropriate or reasonable that the status of one language or another in the Land of Israel is identical to the status of the Hebrew language,” said Livnat.

“Precisely in these times, when there are radical groups of Israeli Arabs trying to turn the State of Israel into a binational state, it is most urgent to put into law the unique status of the language of the Bible - the Hebrew language.”

Her last statement might win this year’s prize for the most contorted, creative Orwellian doublespeak. Yes, there are single-staters among Palestinian citizens of Israel, and there are fierce separatists, and there is bitterness and fury and confusion. The answer to that trend is to make every effort to give these citizens equal standing in Israel. Instead, some political opportunists are going out of their way to slap them in the face, to treat them as a kind of irritating afterthought.