‘Zionist lobby’ paranoia is growing (Jewish Chronicle)

A fortnight or so ago I received an email from a film-maker. A leading public figure had suggested that I might help him publicise his television programme about the Middle East, which was due to be shown on a major channel. Though the film had a good slot, the problem was, he explained, “that despite our best efforts, no one wants to hear about this”. Then he added: “It seems the pro-Zionist lobby in the UK is as strong as ever.”

Getting coverage for serious documentaries is — from my experience — a hit-and-miss affair. In fact, usually it is just a miss affair. Often this is because the channel’s publicists themselves, with a list of that week’s offerings, prefer the sensational over the sober, or the new issue over the old, no matter how important. This is certainly true of reviewers. But in this case, this very serious man, who had made a very serious film, was clear that the culprit was the pro-Zionist lobby.

For various reasons I asked him, by return, what specific evidence he had that his problem had such a cause. He replied that he had been trying for two weeks to get newspapers interested in his story, and “every time someone has got interested in doing a big feature it has been pulled at the last minute”. The reasons given were all different, “but I have been doing this long enough to know that something is going on, though it’s very hard to prove”. The one concrete instance that he could cite concerned a channel press officer who warned him that he shouldn’t stress a particular aspect of the film because “we are expecting an Ofcom complaint from the Israelis, so let’s not make it any worse”.

That was it. The “pro-Zionist lobby” was, in fact, a pricking of his thumbs. As it happened, he had left approaching me about the film far too late, and there was no time to watch a copy before it went to air. But I daresay that this would count as one of the plausible reasons given to mask the activities of the lobby.

He obviously didn’t know this, but two weeks earlier I had participated in a televised debate at the Oxford Union on the motion that the pro-Israeli lobby had stifled debate on the Middle East in the West. This event, like all the Doha debate series, was put together by an organisation sponsored by the Qatari authorities which is attempting to spread free discussion in the Arab world, and was attended by a range of people, not — as is usual for the Oxford Union — just students.

On my side, opposing the motion, was Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel. I didn’t know him and was worried lest I found myself debating alongside a raving Likudnik, but he was no such thing. On the other side were the journalist Andrew Cockburn and the American academic Norman Finkelstein.

Dr Finkelstein, who blames his lack of academic preferment on the activities of the Israeli lobby in the US, was probably the most intense man I have ever encountered. His website bears testimony to the volume of abuse that he suffers from various people — often Jewish — who loathe him for his writings about what he sees as the Zionist exploitation of the Holocaust. I noted his genuine suffering while wondering what he expected when he decided so uncompromisingly to tell people what they least wanted to hear.

From the early applause it was obvious that Indyk and I would lose. A problem was that the proposers could point to one or two specific instances where organisations in the US had indeed made representations leading to the withdrawal of speaking invitations or the cancellation of events. The audience seemed to prefer this “hidden hand” explanation for US policy to the possibility that Americans simply believed that they had more in common with Israel than with the Arab world.

In any case, when preposterous statements by the other side are clapped, you know the House is against you. I haven’t time for the details (and in any case, you can find the whole debate on the web on Google Video), but one moment stood out. The “lobby” (including Indyk) were accused of suppressing reporting of the Saudi peace initiative. But, protested Indyk, he himself had testified before Congress in support of the plan. Ah, replied Finkelstein, but Indyk’s lobby had stifled reporting of Indyk’s own testimony.

The vote was taken and we lost it by two to one. In the warm evening, tables had been set up outside in the grounds of the Union by Waterstones — the largest booksellers in the country — and piled with books by Finkelstein and Cockburn. So Indyk and I made our way back to our hotel from the place where it had just been agreed that the Zionist lobby stifled debate, while Finkelstein and Cockburn signed copies of their books until late into the night.

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

Having also been the victim of Zionist abuse (sometimes on this blog) whenever I raise the topic of Palestinian suffering I can empathise with how Norman Finkelstein feels.

Its not that it isn't possible to build a rational case for a number of different points of view, but that, for some reason, a rational debate never even gets started.

The first response from my opponents is always to latch onto the fact I have a German sounding name and label me as a crypto (or not so crypto) Nazi sympathiser.

Personal abuse of the most vile sort invariably follows, and even on moderated blogs such as Timesonline, this is rarely censored, and even some mild retorts on my part have been ruled out of order.

It sometimes seems that any attempt at a rational analysis which uses generalisations about Israel is automatically deemed to be anti-semitic and racist, whilst the most vile racist slurs by Zionists are regarded as fair or at least arguable comment.

However it is the ad hominem nature of the responses which is the most saddening, because it means that the argument is never progressed beyond the playground "who's side are you on anyway?" level of debate.

American's may very well feel they have more in common with Israelis rather than Arabs, as you say. We share the same westernized culture and political value system, even if we sometimes have different ideas of what constitutes rational debate.

The emergence of Islamic terrorism in recent years now provides the "slam dunk" argument against any accommodation or even listening to the Palestinian point of view.

We forget that Zionists almost invented the genre in their opposition to British rule during the time of the British Mandate.

The bottom line is that the Middle east remains one of the most dangerous potential flashpoints for a World War in the world. Colonialism, political repression, engineered coups d'etat, and invasions haven't lessened that threat. Is it any wonder that thinking people shouldn't want to explore other ways of resolving the problem?

It is certainly no surprise that some people will always prefer war and the pursuit of absolute victory over rational debate and negotiated compromises. It just seems that they are far more prominent amongst Zionist and Islamic followers than they are elsewhere in the world.

[Jew Everyman]

Dear David,

I plead guilty to having performed Zio-abuse on the above person. It seems that anytime a Jew dares to defend himself or Israel from lunacy or arrogance, the "Zionist lobby" is guilty.

Now, the above "debate" was a pathetic affair. It was clear from the beginning that the topic was set up to come to a foregoned conclusion.

Why is it that the polite Jew haters among you can't bring themselves to say "Jew"? Because they are heirs to the vicious virus of Jew hatred given to them with their mother's milk in Europe.

You labor and labor to bring a sane discourse but in vain. All these boycott attempts will do nothing but bring the eventual break in diplomatic relations between the UK and Israel. I welcome it for the sake of Israel.

[Steve Sanders]

David wrote: ...Nor can you simply change the word "Jewish" to "Zionist" and somehow be exempt from the charge of low-level racism...

You sound like a Zionist.

[Frank Schnittger]

There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist, Steve, though some may regard it as a fundamentally racist ideology. The problems arise when those "who seek to defend Israel" do so by branding all they disagree with as "anti-semitic" and, if they have a German sounding name, as neo-Nazis.

The issues are never addressed, nobody ever learns anything, because no genuine dialogue ever takes place. Some seem never to get out of their "victimhood" bubble and realise that the world (for good or ill) has moved on.

Even David's stock-in-trade is to complain about how unfair people are towards Israel, whilst all the time denying he has any special interest in Israel at all. Perhaps he is the victim of a Jewish sounding name, but even Jews don't have a monopoly on injustice.

The Irish used to make an industry out of their history of oppression by the British. We have moved on and now just like to beat the Brits at their own game. I wonder when the self appointed defenders of Zion will get the message that their favourite mode of argument is what keeps anti-Israeli feeling so alive amongst those whose only crime is to recognise that past attempts to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem have failed and that perhaps a new approach is needed.

But of course the conversation never gets that far. Anyone who argues for a different approach must be anti-semitic. You are not allowed to think differently, that is if you are allowed to think at all. It all reminds me of David's Communist past. He has just found a new system to defend.

[pipistro]

I understand that Mr Aaronovitch maintains there is an 'explanation' for the issue, namely for stifling western debate about Israel's actions and he suggests that people at Oxford Union preferred the pro-Israel "hidden hand" to different ...actual explanations. That's it. In fact it is easy to say that, in his own words, he endorses the motion, though he stresses that 'stifling the debate' happens for the Americans have a lot in common with Israel.

[Bob Jackson]

You write something about the idea that Americans feel a connection to Israel. The truth is that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to find Israel on a map (I'd say at least 70% would not be able to find it). The vast majority of Americans have no idea when Israel became a country, who is leader is, what type of gov't it has, etc. In fact, American's idea of of the Middle East boils down to, "Arabs are all crazy terrorists". That's the sad state of affairs amongst the vast vast majority of Americans.

[Sam Danzig]

And just to be the devil's advocate, these are the people who have right of return to Israel and not the thousands of desperate Palestinians demanding their homes back.

But I would ask if it's wrong to encourage Jewish Americans who are emotionally and intellectually detatched from Israel to reconnect with the country through such innitiatives as birthright(which gives young American Jews free, structured trips to Israel).

If Jews are lacking connection to Israel, is that a signal that Zionism is misconcieved, or a sign that Jewish people need to 'find themselves' and re-engage with a country of profound historical significance for them that embraces and nurtures Jewish community like no other?

[dan]

Both sides of this debate concern me.

It is very important that critics of a countries foriegn policy are not reflexively labelled racist, just as it is important that defenders of a countries policy not be accused of conspiring to stifle debate.
I have grave concerns about aspects of Israels policies, but i can appreciate how Israels geography and history have provoked a defensive mentality. The deaths we mourned on 7/7/05 are the tip of the iceberg compared to Israels losses to suicide bombers.

Throwing around accusations of 'zionist' and 'anti semite' provoke more heat than light.

What a terrible tragedy the assassination of Rabin was, just when a compromise seemed achievable.

Because a compromise really is the best on offer, all other roads lead to bloody tragedy.

[Al]

Just a thought, but if Palestinians (however defined) are given the "right of return" to Israel because they were chased out in the Forties, will all the Jews chased out of various Middle Eastern countries during the same period also be offered the right of return to those countries?

[Robin Bather]

Dear David
The style of JEW EVERYMAN seems very similar to the offensive style of that person who, last year, you wisely condemmed to a section of his own away from the area of sensible polite debate. He did indeed grieviously offend Frank Schnittger (and myself, but that's bye the bye).
Argue as thy may, the pro Israel Lobby (or Zionist Lobby, or Jewish Lobby--call it what you may) is a world wide powerful influence based on the flow of hard cash, and whose well organised groups have achieved considerable sucess in suppressing criticism of Israeli misdeeds.
The infamous AIPAC umbrella organisation has exploited the voting system weaknesses in the US to such an extent that Jewish influence is deeply entrenched at all levels of the US Administration.
Pity you lost the debate, but you were on the wrong side.

[Joy Springreen]

Th Arab lobby is present and infintely more powerful


It has always been the control of resources and access that has been he biggest factor in Arab political/economic influence over middle eastern policy in the last 50 years.
The Arabs used to be in the 3rd world, they bought the second world and have put a firm down payment on the first one.

The huge commercial power of Arab Oil money is the largest force in international economics. All international issues of Middle eastern identity have been brought to the fore, and arguably exacerbated, by the influence of an Oil powered Arab Lobby. The price hike on the early mid-70's was the political and economic after tool, for a united defeat by the last battle of pan-arabism. In the anxiety of this, the price of petrol doubled. That was the point in which the second world was bought.

As for the down payment on the 1st world, well that has steadily increased with gradual prices of Oil, Iranian revolutionary attitudes, the Gulf War, the Iraq war, the US ports deal and the ever expanding power of the spending Gulf Oil States.

If they say jump, the world considers it, but on the whole doesnt "jump".

The "israel lobby" can therefore be seen as an increasing reactionary phenomenon to counteract the globally influencing dynamic of the international "arab oil lobby".

The Palestinians fit into this macabre twist of chaotic international economics as the very last issue of arab nationalism in the middle east. In seeking influence based on an agenda that have seen enourmous gains since implemented (price rises of oil in mid 70's made arab states very wealthy), the Palestinian issue is not given the respect it deserves. Ultimately by keeping refugee status for the 100's of 1000's of descendants of Palestinians in Arab countries, keeps a hot earner hot.

Never give up on a good thing.

Which in itself is true but for Israelis and Palestinians to enjoy co-existence by, and not co-ercion.
Personally, I cant really see the cultural or politcal connection between Iran and the Palestinians. Its much like Russia and Greece. Both Orthodox but infinetly different. Greece is a mediterranean place not a transeurasian state. Much like Iran is both Gulf, Persia and Caucaus. But nothing to do with the cultures of the levant.

It just begs the question, Shouldnt Israelis and Palestinains look to each other to build a future rather than aggrevating the minute details between each other to exagerated effect in an attempt to try to overshadow the enourmous similarity between all the levaninte cultures old and new?

Look at all the biblical, maps and from the few times when there wasnt empire there. All you can see is small states all huddling together to keep warm in a hostile politcal environment with big neighbours.

So whatever we may feel about lobbies here and there. They are all reactionary, the channels that must be pursued are cultural and not political or economic as there is always a competition in these factors.

The cultrual connections must be strengthened between Israelis and Palestinians. If they both love the land the need to share it. Like the story of Jesus who administered over the case whereby 2 mothers disputed a baby.

Only in our version, we need to accept while one is the mother, the other is the father. Which one?

That is the question of Israeli and Palestinian parenthood for the 21st century. They need to start behaving like parents and not bitter orphans in order to find the answer.

[Adam Gee]

Frank Schnittger has a strange perspective on history.

"We forget that Zionists almost invented the [terrorism] genre in their opposition to British rule during the time of the British Mandate."

So what was that genre the Irish Republicans were practising in their opposition to British rule around 1916?