Like the congressman with a large Jewish constituency who portrayed himself as Israel’s greatest defender in Congress but behind the scenes worked against it. There was the time he confided in colleagues that he hated the Israeli prime minister and wanted to cut aid as punishment. After losing his argument, he sought out a favorite reporter so he could publicly declare he not only supported the current aid levels but intended to lead the fight to increase funding.
None of his colleagues ever called him on it publicly, maybe out of courtesy or because they had some misgivings of their own.
Speaking truth to constituents is as difficult as speaking truth to power.
During my years as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee legislative director, I was often asked to carry private messages to Israeli leaders, including prime ministers, conveying their strong criticism of government policies. Those sending the message explained they didn’t want to embarrass the Israelis by going public and thus wished to deliver the messages privately. More likely they didn’t want to risk angering big donors and the major pro-Israel organizations by saying what they really thought.
AIPAC board members would give me similar messages to deliver, warning about potential trouble on Capitol Hill. I dutifully conveyed their thoughts, which they lacked the courage to express in person.
I was frequently in the same room when those lawmakers and bigwigs met later privately with Israeli leaders. The tigers became pussycats. There were no tough warnings or messages of concern, but sycophantic fawning about what a great job the Israeli official was doing and how they had everything under control back in Washington.
On one occasion I was told prime minister Yitzhak Shamir that he faced trouble in the Senate, which was threatening to cut aid to any country with military ties to apartheid South Africa. The stoic old man just sat there. After the Senate voted to do just that, I saw him again and again he just brushed me off. Then US president Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill, and the Senate overrode him and suddenly the threat had teeth. On our next meeting, Shamir apologized and explained that Reagan told him he could ignore any warnings because he’d make sure the policy never became law.
Former US senator Carl Levin, who died last week at 87, was one of the few unafraid to speak truth to power. When Shamir rejected the concept of land for peace in 1988, Levin and 29 of his colleagues wrote to US secretary of state George Shultz reminding him that was contrary to US policy and UN resolutions.
The letter was intended to be private, not a warning to a foreign leader but to the American secretary of state who himself had earlier proposed a Middle East peace plan that was vigorously rejected by then-prime minister Menachem Begin.
Levin’s letter was quickly leaked to the media. Shamir was outraged that these Americans, particularly some of Israel’s closest friends, would have such temerity. Levin did not back down.
What worried the Israelis most was that the senators’ concerns were widespread among their colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even though most were reluctant to speak publicly.
M.J. Rosenberg, the Levin adviser who helped draft the letter, said the response from supporters and Jewish leaders was vicious, showing “criticizing Israel is dangerous business.” There were threats of repercussions, but Levin continued speaking his mind and getting reelected – he was longest serving senator in Michigan’s history, 36 years, and one of its most popular. He enjoyed a reputation for integrity, intellect and bipartisanship.
Levin and his colleagues were speaking from the heart – and brain – not seeking publicity but expressing genuine concern. I am reminded of that by the contrasting response to Ben & Jerry’s decision stop selling ice cream in the West Bank to protest Israel’s settlements policy.
The outrage on the Hill was greater than when Hamas started firing missiles on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in May.
In the view of pandering pols like Sen. Tom Cotton, cutting off Cherry Garcia to settlers was an antisemitic attack on “the integrity of the Jewish state.”
The freeze was not part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement or anti-Israel but “should be seen as advancing the concepts of justice and human rights, core tenets of Judaism,” said company founders Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.
The self-described “proud Jews” call themselves “supporters of the State of Israel” who, like large numbers of American Jews, “oppose some of its policies.”
POLITICIANS AROUND the country sought to exploit the story. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called it “disgraceful and an insult” to Israel. Sen. James Lankford called on his state’s government “immediately block the sale” of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Oklahoma.
Ben and Jerry no longer own the company they founded in 1978 in Burlington, Vermont, but support the company’s decision. In their view it “should be seen as advancing the concepts of justice and human rights, core tenets of Judaism.”
Don’t tell that to Cotton or freshman Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who introduced a resolution condemning the “malignant and metastasizing ideology of antisemitism.” This defender of the Jews is an Evangelical Christian who has complained about trouble converting Jews.
Remember right-wing complaints about “cancel culture”? They don’t.
There’s slews of resolutions, statements condemning antisemitism, threatening retribution and vowing love for Israel in response to the ice cream controversy.
This isn’t serious legislation. It’s big-time fundraising. The righteous indignation is rapidly blasted in emails to prospective donors. Over and over again.
The same folks who were not perturbed by Donald Trump’s accusations of Jewish dual-loyalty and his penchant for antisemitic tropes have suddenly become ardent – and avaricious – defenders of the Jews and West Bank settlements.
Both political parties pander to Jewish supporters and friends of Israel, but in all fairness, the Republicans are far more aggressive panderers. Major credit belongs to former rep. Newt Gingrich, who 30 years ago understood that Republicans’ domestic agenda was a barrier to drawing Jewish support. His goal was to show Republicans love Israel more because they care little about peace with the Arabs, preferring to embrace the hardline zeal of their Evangelical constituencies and the American Jewish and Israeli Right. They aimed to out-Israel the Democrats by becoming hawks, condemning those who didn’t share their views as anti-Israel.
In a political environment averse to nuance, and without any effective and unified peace movement or a potent pro-Arab lobby, it was easy.
When it comes to right-wing pandering, Ben & Jerry’s is out, and West Bank settlements are the flavor of the day.