Comments

1. 

   E Holman

   March 28, 2008 at 13:18

   Israel is a dependant, not an ally. Americans are identifying neoconservatism as an adjunct of Israeli influence upon U.S. foreign policy. McCain’ stance on the Iraq invasion and occupation will be the single-greatest reason why he lost this election. The leeching of neoconservatism upon the face of the Republican Party is the central reason why Liberalism is back as a viable alternative to the American people. Nation-building, deficit spending, the embracement of the Welfare State/amnesty, and the abandonment of Limited (federal) Government as a concept have cast conservatism adrift and should precipitate the ultimate system shock as the only viable cure. The Republicans – in their present form – are unfit to lead. By November, this country will elect a socialist with an exit strategy. And that includes Israel.
2. 

   Petru

   March 28, 2008 at 13:34

   The article is typical for bleeding heart liberals who think everybody is amenable to reason. They were wrong in the past, they are wrong now.
3. 

   Kevin Hale

   March 28, 2008 at 13:37

   I know the Jewish Peace Lobby has been around since 1989 as a "dovish Israel lobby." I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about JPL's effectiveness in the past, and, since it already exists, whether efforts to create a "counter-AIPC" should just join forces with the JPL?
4. 

   Richard

   March 28, 2008 at 14:40

   The author of the article, as well as the majority of Jews are simply failing to learn from history. The Islamic nature of Israelis foes will never allow her to live in peace. Israel will ultimarely vanquish her enemies or be wiped out by them-and I do mean another mass execution and extermination of the Jewish people. What is so hard to understand about this? Does it ever occur to misguided "Peace At All Cost" appeasers that the only answer to solving the problems in the Mideast is an all out war-once and for all. The once proud and defiant Jews may actually lose-becasue as we all know, they are tired of fighting and defending their own families. Throughout history, the Jews have been rounded up and exterminated-or forced to flee. It is history and undeniable. This time it seems, the majority of non observant Jewish sheep ewsiding in Israel just want to be slaughtered. It's wonderful that self-hating Jewish Liberals and regular anti-semetic Jew haters can get together and agree on something.
5. 

   Sofron Sophos

   March 28, 2008 at 15:56

   It is rare to read such a balanced article for what is a delicate issue and a dangerous topic of discussion
6. 

   Chuck

   March 28, 2008 at 16:22

   I'd give money to such a lobby, and I'm not even Jewish. The Israeli right's domination in American politics will be the downfall of both Israel and the US.
7. 

   A Bokhari

   March 28, 2008 at 17:45

   It's heartening to know that there are still voices of reason like Gorenburg around, and it's even more heartening to know that an entire lobby of these voices is about to be heard. It has long dumbfounded me why the outposts still exist, in the West Bank of all places. By all rights, the West Bank should be the one place that is totally free, as it is run by Abbas and Fatah, who recognise Israel. Removing those outposts, quickly, and completely will be the first step to winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, something which must be accomplished if peace is to come about. A long shot, maybe, but I think there are really only two logical pathways. Either Israel and it's people are all destroyed, all the Arabs are destroyed, or Israel and the Palestinians make peace. I'll take number 3, no matter how long a shot it is.
8. 

   Jabram

   March 28, 2008 at 18:32

   I appreciate Gorenburg's sincerity but I do not agree with her characterization that Aipac is so right-wing. A couple of years ago, the big issue facing Israel was the decision to withdraw and pull out of Gaza. The members of Aipac were overwhelmingly in favor of Sharon's decision to pull out of Gaza. I know this because I was at the DC policy conference where Sharon spoke. We are all for a two state solution where both the Israelis and the Palestians can live side by side in peace. The problem is how do you get there. As we see in Gaza a unilateral pull-out has not led to peace.
9. 

   Alibaba

   March 28, 2008 at 20:58

   The author of this article is an idiot. The Palis want a ONE STATE SOLUTION with their controlling Israel and, in fact, destroying it. What was the author smoking when he wrote this? "Liberal Israel lobby" - oh, he means a pacifist radical, self hating lobby! give me a break.
10. 

    johnny lawless

    March 29, 2008 at 04:17

    You state in the article: "The research would also report that Aipac sometimes loses—as when it failed to keep Ronald Reagan from selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981." I think the fact you have to cite an issue from 27 years ago suggests that AIPAC gets its way pretty darn often. You need to come up with some more issues where AIPAC doesn't get its way to convince me of your point. How about an article on whether their are similar lobbies for other countries and whether they are as influential as AIPAC? It would be a pretty short article I suppose since the answer is NO.
11. 

    wannabelsewhere

    March 29, 2008 at 09:48

    I don't see J. Lawless' point, nor Alibaba's -- inasmuch as JL's point is simply wrong, and A's point misses the point. I like to say that Israel is the only country on earth that I would actually fight a war for. I would be happy to be killed in defending the country. Mine, I can live without. Yet, I hate the Israeli's policies as they self-perpetuate the problems. Yes, the P's want to go back to "home," which cannot happen as it would end Israel as it is, as it needs to be. Yes, peace is the only way -- and that does mean negotiations and sacrifices. Yet again, I cannot fathom Israel giving up Jerusalem by splitting it into two. Lastly, I'd like to read how Jews got lumped together with the neo-cons. Like any group, they have those that believe X, but that hardly shows support (as a group). Rather I say that neo-cons find Israel interesting as a playing ground for their ideas (e.g. aggressions).
12. 

    peace process

    March 30, 2008 at 15:22

    You've got to give Goremberg credit for one thing -he owned up to being a "liberal". That takes guts. Not many people would admit to such silliness . One thing he's not, however is pro-Israel.
13. 

    soovey

    March 31, 2008 at 20:27

    "..The left's once-forbidden positions—a two-state solution, evacuating settlements—are now boringly respectable. Olmert, a recovering rightist, supports them. But nothing happens. Why can't a winged figure descend to get the plot moving?.." It'd need precisely that, with a sizeable dollop of additional magical thinking. Israel comprises dar ul-harb (the house of war) within what is believed by Muslims to be dar ul-islam, and Muslims are enjoined by sharia law never to cease fighting until they have recaptured what they believe to be Muslim land. I believe that Israel is dangerously compromised by her unrealistic approach to this. Given the aove, she will never have a lasting peace with her neighbours; the best she can hope for are periods of non-belligerency and those only because her Arab neighbours are not strong enough to attack her, and the sooner she realises that her only recourse is to defend herself with all her might, militarily and in the media, the more chance she has to survive.
14. 

    Shalom Freedman

    April 1, 2008 at 08:11

    Goremberg does not understand the security needs of Israel. He misunderstands the fundamental nature of the threat Israel is facing. He is one of those who believes that Israel should make more and more and more concessions and that will bring Peace. But in fact major Israeli concessions, withdrawal from Lebanon, withdrawal from Gaza have only brought more hostility and violence. The major Israeli concession which was Oslo resulted in an upsurge of Terror. Gorenberg's way of thinking is disastrous for Israel. Now he is urging a step which will only do more damage to Israel and put more pressure on it for concessions.
15. 

    Ben Greenberg

    April 2, 2008 at 05:32

    Shalom Freedman, I think Gorenberg is aware that withdrawing causes short-term insecurity for Israel (he explicitly says that AIPAC is concerned primarily with such short-term goals), but he also thinks (like myself) that the long-term interests of Israel are helped by not occupying Gaza/West-Bank etc. Additionally, as a 21st century liberal its traditional to view the colonization of other people's land as inherently illiberal, and something that shouldn't be encouraged/protected by roads and checkpoints.
16. 

    DrSteveB

    April 10, 2008 at 18:13

    One problem is that there are already many pro-real-peace, liberal, left of center, progressive, yada yada yada, American Jewish groups. IPF is one. But there are at least 6 I have given money to over the last several years. Too many, too fragmented. We need one big powerful one. Our one stop shopping equivalent of AIPAC.
17. 

    Jewish Settler Guy

    April 16, 2008 at 20:11

    As a past and future "West Bank Settler" myself (living in Jerusalem for a little while in the mean time,)I like to keep up with the other side, but I have to say there is nothing new in this article. A few points: -The author assumes the "Palestinians" want a state. On what is he basing this? Their four rejections of statehood in the past century seems to indicate that they consider the idea of national independence truly horrifying, and place a much higher premium on simply destroying Israel. If he's betting on Palestinian national sentiment to outweigh their quest for vengance, he's going to lose his bet. -As the author mentions, liberal Jews tend to identify with domestic concerns. In other words, they have assimilated into the host country. Most Jews are left, but because leftism is basically multicultural nihilism. Only right wingers care enough to get involved. Every year about 2,500 Jews move from the U.S. to Israel. I can count the left-wingers among them on one hand. -Like most policy ignoramuses, he confuses our actions, the Jewish nationalists, with those of the Israeli government. Exposing the amount of funding going to the settlements would simply illustrate the fact that the settlements, despite the Israeli government's strangulation policy of the last decade, can grow quite briskly without massive infusions of cash.
18. 

    Mike Berger

    July 8, 2008 at 09:27

    Gershom confuses his desire for a kinder, juster world (which most of us share) for analysis. He believes labelling people as left/right or neocon/liberal is helpful in itself; it isn't. He contrasts "shortterm security needs" with "longterm peace". But if you don't have the essential shorterm security the longterm is irrelevant. And who says, that "concessions", justice, kindness will contribute to peace against opponents (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran for instance) who are interested in your destruction, not your friendship? Of course justice, kindness and magnanimity can be pursued for their own sakes and not for the political dividends they bring - but that is another matter. What does Gorem say to the argument that the political situation demands a decisive Israeli (Western) military victory, the end of 2-state hopes, the extension of Israel to more defensible borders, expulsion of all those not willing to live in peace in a Jewish Israel and hopefully a raprochement and even cooperation with neighbours who understand Israel is there to stay and that it would be more rational to get along. This would require USA (and Western) longterm commitment of course, and that may be the biggest stumbling block. As much as my heart is liberal my head is a neocon - with some imagination I hope.
19. 

    John Kelly

    July 8, 2008 at 22:40

    Dear Mike How do you propose to guarantee 'a decisive Israeli (Western) military victory' without even more ethnic cleansing, expansionism and suppression of the incumbent and surrounding indigenous populations? Israel has more than enough existing military capability and US backing to achieve this dubious (temporary) end if required, but the evidence of Iraq, Chechnya, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, several African states or wherever you care to look - Israel/Palestine itself, for that matter - is that 'overwhelming' military supremacy only leads to years of insurgency and guerilla warfare. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Israel and respect its right to exist, but not as an indiscriminate cypher for ill-informed, partisan and bellicose western (US) interests. I agree that it would be better for all parties to reach an accommodation, but economic blockades, concentration camps and brutal incursions are unlikely to build bridges. The root causes of the intifada are poverty, despair and injustice, out of which it is easy to fan the flames of bigotry and fanaticism. The Middle East needs a Marshall Plan, not yet another Blitzkrieg. And that's why it needs a liberal Israel lobby, not AIPAC.