AIPAC, ADL refuse to condemn inclusion of
ethnic cleansers in new Israel government
By Ali Abunimah
The Electronic Intifada
3 March 2003
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1210.shtml
LEADING PRO-ISRAELI ORGANIZATIONS in the United States have
pointedly refused to condemn Ariel Sharon's inclusion in his new
government of the National Union alliance parties whose members ran
for election on a platform openly advocating the "transfer" -- or
ethnic cleansing -- of the Palestinians. The National Union is made
up of three parties, Moledet, Tekuma and Israel Beitenu and won
seven seats in the recent Israeli election.
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), widely
regarded as the most influential pro-Israeli group on Capitol Hill,
did not issue any statement marking the formation of the new
government. Rebecca Needler, AIPAC's press secretary explained to me
that, "we don't comment on domestic Israeli issues." When I asked
her if she thought that the inclusion in the Israeli government of a
party that openly espouses ethnic cleansing would make AIPAC's
advocacy work more difficult, Needler replied, "Israel's coalition
government is representative of a true democracy."
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which boasts of "90 years fighting
anti-Semitism, bigotry and extremism," also remained publicly
silent. When I called for a comment, a woman named Sarah in the
media relations office initially told me that, "we don't usually
issue statements on changes of government in democratic countries."
I later received a call from ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. I
asked Foxman if his organization planned to issue a statement
commenting on the inclusion of the National Union parties in the
Israeli government. Foxman's first reply was "Why would we?" I
countered, "because they ran on a platform in favor of physically
removing all the Palestinians from their homeland."
Foxman said that it is "an overstatement to say that the party ran
on a platform of transfer." He claimed that this was just the
personal view of a few individual members. On its website, however,
one of the National Union parties says, "Moledet ("homeland" in
Hebrew) is an ideological political party in Israel that embraces
the idea of population transfer as an integral part of comprehensive
plan to achieve real peace between the Jews and the Arabs Living in
the Land of Israel. [sic] " The party further boasts that, "Moledet
has successfully raised the idea of transfer in the public discourse
and political arena in both Israel and abroad."
(http://www.moledet.org.il/english/)
The National Union's combined platform states, "Within the framework
of any agreement, it is necessary to solve the Palestinian refugee
problem -- refugees who have spent the past 55 years in refugee
camps. The proposed solution is transfer by agreement (population
exchange) by which the refugees would be settled in Arab countries
in place of Jews who emigrated to Israel from these countries." More
than eighty percent of the population of Gaza and up to forty
percent of the population of the West Bank are refugees.
(http://www.leumi.org.il/en/index.html)
Foxman explained that since "transfer" is not part of the coalition
agreement, on which the new Israeli government is built, there was
no reason to issue a public comment. "We disagree," he said, "with
many parties on many things, and we don't make statements about
everything." I asked if he didn't think the ADL had a special duty
to respond to proposals that fit the international legal definition
of genocide. Foxman assured me that he thought the idea of transfer
was "unacceptable" and "undemocratic," but made no firm commitment
to condemn the new Israeli government for including parties with a
clear pro-ethnic cleansing platform. Foxman said he had not read the
relevant party platforms "in a while," a remarkable admission from a
man whose organization apparently scrutinizes for evidence of
'anti-Semitism' every obscure pamphlet issued in the backstreets of
Cairo. "I will go back and read them," Foxman assured, "and if
transfer becomes part of the coalition agreement, then you can be
sure you will hear from us."
The very high tolerance for racist and potentially genocidal ideas
that Foxman evinces when they come from Israelis is not evident in
other, lesser cases. For example, when the far-right Freedom Party
made gains in Austria's elections in 2000 on an anti-immigrant
platform, Foxman issued a statement saying, "It is astonishing that
a significant portion of the [Austrian] population is ready to
embrace a party and leadership that espouse xenophobic and nativist
positions and statements." (ADL press release, 1 February 2000)
Foxman and ADL President Howard Berkowitz even flew off to Vienna to
meddle directly in Austrian politics, and met with Austrian
President Thomas Klestil, as well as the president of the Austrian
parliament and other senior officials. According to a 28 February
2000 press release, "The Anti-Defamation League has watched the
political situation in Austria with great concern. After meeting
with elected officials, including President Thomas Klestil, we
remain deeply concerned about the decision by Chancellor Wolfgang
Schuessel to include Joerg Haider's Freedom Party as part of his
coalition."
The idea of "solving" the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinians is gaining increasing exposure in the
United States as well as in Israel. In February 2002, the ubiquitous
daily USA Today published an op-ed calling for "resettling" all the
Palestinians in Jordan, and in May 2002, then US Republican Majority
Leader, Congressman Dick Armey, explicitly backed transfer on
national television. More recently, popular comedian Jackie Mason
wrote an article in The Jewish Press headlined, "Time To Threaten
Arabs With Mass Eviction."
It is hardly surprising that such dangerous notions are becoming
increasingly mainstream when the leading pro-Israeli organizations
utterly fail to condemn them, and not a single American newspaper
devotes an editorial to rejecting them. In such an unrestrained
atmosphere it cannot be long before Sharon is indeed able to openly
espouse "transfer" and still be lauded in Washington as a "man of
peace."
This article was first published in The Daily Star on 3 March 2003
(http://dailystar.com.lb)