On Saturday, the German daily Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an interview with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa on the current prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. Among other things, Moussa observes that peace with a Netanyahu government is “of course” possible, since “Netanyahu has the advantage of being clear about his positions.” But perhaps more revealing – and disturbing – than Moussa’s answers are the questions posed by FAZ correspondent Rainer Hermann. For instance, the following: “President Obama’s charisma could change a lot. But could not the Washington apparatus and the lobby quash his approach?”
The lobby? What lobby? The “Israel Lobby,” one presumes – although in less polite circles, it is still called rather the “Jewish Lobby.” Like Hermann, those less polite circles also assume that “the lobby” in question is intertwined with the Washington “apparatus” and is powerful enough to rival or even control the American government. Consequently, they refer to it sometimes by the acronym ZOG: the “Zionist Occupation Government,” i.e. the “ZOG” that secretly rules America. “The lobby” of which Hermann writes is so powerful that it can even “reduce to nothing” an express policy of the US president. This is the literal meaning of the verb phrase employed by Hermann (“zunichte machen”, which I have translated above by the more colloquial “quash”).
Presumably, Rainer Hermann will not be holding forth on the machinations of ZOG anytime soon in the pages of the FAZ. But that a correspondent of Germany’s most distinguished daily can so glibly refer to “the lobby” – with a wink and a nudge, as if his readers will know exactly what he is talking about – indicates that the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the subjects of Israel and Jews has clearly shifted in Germany. (The publication of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s The Israel Lobby obviously has something to do with this. Perhaps not coincidentally, the book was published by the American FSG subsidiary of the privately-owned German publishing giant Holtzbrinck. The authors received a reported $750,000 advance for their manuscript: a mindboggling sum for two university professors.)
It is interesting to note that Moussa completely ignores Hermann’s question about “the lobby,” as if he found the reference somewhat embarrassing. “It is not Obama’s charisma that will change things, but his policy,” Moussa responds and then continues on in the same vein.
Hermann concludes the interview with yet another revealingly leading question. “At what point,” he asks, “does the Arab League begin to plead for the one-state-solution, i.e. for a single state with Israelis and Palestinians.” The “question” is obviously in fact more statement than question, since it suggests that sooner or later the point at issue must be reached: the point, namely, at which the only “solution” will be Israel’s elimination. Moussa’s relatively measured response again contrasts with Hermann’s zeal. “That is being discussed in all political circles,” Moussa replies, “Yes, it may become impossible to establish a Palestinian state.”
9 responses so far
1 tdawg11870 // May 19, 2009 at 9:10 am
Two questions:
1. Did Hermann actually use the term “ZOG” or its German translation, or did you just take a charged word used in certain anti-semetic circles? If so, that’s more than a little disingenuous. If not, a link would be helpful to dispel the aura of guilt by association.
2. Why can’t we say about pro-Israel groups what we say about Cuban exile groups every time a Florida election is predicted to be close? Namely, that there exist multiple lobby groups and organizations dedicated to specific U.S. foreign policy aims with regard to one country that, due to amenable elected officials, electoral and fundraising might, limit the spectrum of possible policy responses to issues involving said country. And is that such a bad thing?
Say what you will about the more outlandish conspiracy theorists out there, I don’t think it’s fair to paint everyone who acknowledges a powerful lobby advocating certain policies toward Israel as some sort of Protocols of the Elders of Zion freak.
2 dragonlady // May 19, 2009 at 9:24 am
tdawg11870, as former SecofState Shultz pointed out, yes, there is an Israeli lobby, just as there a host of lobbies in DC. He also stated to blame them for upending our foreign policy is scapegoating. The actions we take are our own–if we do something against our own interests, that is our fault versus trying to pin it on a group. I think criticism of Israel policies are legitimate, but when one keeps carping on the lobby, you start getting dangerously close to the “its all the Jews fault” rhetoric and line of thinking.
3 tdawg11870 // May 19, 2009 at 10:13 am
Dragonlady:
Carp or don’t carp if you wish, but the debate is not being served by treating anyone who acknowledges it exists as some sort of malign crazy, as David seems to do here.
As for “trying to pin it on a group,” one would assume you mean the active pro-Israel lobby (which has many different elements and points of view, especially on Iran) and not the Jewish people, which is neither what I said nor what Hermann appears to have said (once again, no link or translation in context). That being said, if a policy fails, the people who propose it have to answer for it. If AIPAC (or PhRMA or the AFL-CIO or whomever) propose a policy that is adopted and doesn’t work, one can rightly question whether listening to that lobby group serves the national interest.
4 dragonlady // May 19, 2009 at 11:49 am
tdawg11870, when you say That being said, if a policy fails, the people who propose it have to answer for it. Do you mean the US government or the lobby? Ultimately, we are responsible for own actions, lobbying notwithstanding. I agree that a link should be posted so we can read the entire article. But if he did reference a lobby, of course he was referencing the pro-Israel lobbyhe certainly wasnt talking about the Cuban-American lobby. As far as Washington apparatus, many folks who float the bogeyman of the pro-Israel lobby often believe AIPAC members have infiltrated our government at all levels. In my experience, when people bring up the pro-Israel lobby as holding power over the US govt, and further, talk about a one-state solution, they tend to be hostile to Israel’s interests. I realize this is a generalization, but how can one deny that a one-state solution would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland? The author feels Herman is furthering the notion that this all powerful lobby can undo the President’s foreign policy. Looking at the quote, this does seem to be the underlying assumption. It is one thing to say our policies are influenced by lobbies. Its quite another thing to say that the POTUS cannot conduct American foreign policy without a powerful lobby stopping it. Many who make this assumption view the pro-Israel lobby as an extension of Israel. As you point out, we can question whether adopting the policies advocated by a lobby served our national interest, but most often, these folks do not give specific examples of how they thwarted our policy or engage in a discussion of how exactly we went against our own interests. The authors main point is summed in the 3d para where he indicates the discussion on Jews and Israel in Germany has shifted. I don’t think you can prove that with just two quotes from a journalist but it’s something to keep an eye out for. Anti-Semitism has re-emerged in Europe over the last few years. The EUs own center on racism has found a rise on attacks against Jews. Im not saying Herman is an anti-SemiteI cannot tell that from the quotes (nor am I stating you are oneplease do not misinterpret this). But if Herman believes there is an all powerful lobby, a one-state solution is up for discussion, and is conveying that message in German papers, well then, its a thin line that separates that discussion from indifference to the fate of a Jewish nation. Recent academic studies show that during WWII, most Germans knew what was happening to the Jews. They do not show that the German population approved of outright genocide, but most were indifferent to their fate. That sort of attitude can unfortunately, lead one to turn a blind eye to the blood-curdling rhetoric and intentions of Hamas. In sum, I do not know enough of Herman or this piece to make that judgment. Yes, we should not assume right off the bat hes a Protocol of Elders of Zion freak as you put it. But that does not mean we should not examine his assumptions, or dismiss their implications. Those types of assumptions are becoming more prevalent in academic and journalist circles.
5 tdawg11870 // May 19, 2009 at 12:21 pm
dragonlady,
You’re reading a lot into the use of the word “lobby.” There is an Israel lobby, just like there is a sugar lobby and a public transit lobby.
I see phrases like “many folks” and “when people bring up” and “Its quite another thing to say that the POTUS cannot conduct American foreign policy without a powerful lobby stopping it.” Just like David’s post, we start with a sentence that is uncontroversial on its own and soon after find the speaker’s mouth filled with words he did not say.
If you can imply that mentioning a lobby (or even acknowledging its interest) leads down the road toward “indifference to the Jewish nation” and Nazis, you only give grist for the real enemies of Israel and Jews worldwide. I could shout from the rooftops that “the ethanol lobby has made it tremendously difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to enact sensible policies on energy and agriculture” and nobody would even think of assuming I believed that there was some secret evil cabal of corn farmers pulling strings in the government. Sometimes people mean what they say.
I understand how a history of conspiracy theorizing and mistrust of Jews (I am Jewish, FWIW) has created a sense of defensiveness on stuff like this, but the only way to move past it is to make room for debate between reasonable people who disagree on substantive issues.
There has to be some dialogue on Israel policy that can recognize the existence of a lobby without resorting to aspersion-casting. For example, I believe in taking action on climate change, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to lump me in with people who think we shouldn’t fly or drive cars at all. This Hermann fellow, on whom we have exactly zero background information, made one statement and asked one question. It strikes me that the thesis “Germans are hostile to Israel” came before the data (what he actually said).
6 kroner // May 19, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Regardless of what John Rosenthal’s personal views of the viability of a one state solution are, it’s certainly not by any means tantamount to “Israels elimination” and it’s a perfectly reasonable thing for an interviewer to ask about.
7 kroner // May 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating a one state solution as policy, but the notion that just to bring it up is somehow antisemitic is ridiculous.
8 dragonlady // May 20, 2009 at 7:09 pm
tdawg, I was looking at the quote by Herman: President Obamas charisma could change a lot. But could not the Washington apparatus and the lobby quash his approach? That to me points to an underlying assumption of an all powerful lobby that can stop the POTUS. Perhaps I’m looking too much into it. I agree that bringing up a lobby’s influence is in no way anti-Semitic, and that we can have a reasonable discussion on this.
9 dragonlady // May 20, 2009 at 7:16 pm
kroner, the vast majority of Israelis do not believe in a one-state solution (or binational solution, take your pick). They see it as a destruction of Israel due to the demographics of higher Arab Palestinian birthrate. People who advocate it clearly do not seem to mind the implications that it completely undermines the concept of national self-determination. It obviously is indifferent to the fate of the Jewish nation.
You must log in to post a comment.