The UK Prospect (no relation) has a cover story about a "New Israel Lobby" by TAP Senior Correspondent Gershom Gorenberg. Most of the piece is a nice analysis of why America's policy on Israel is so hawkish. Gorenberg explains why a counter-lobby to AIPAC and friends is needed, and what a liberal Israel lobby should, in fact, be lobbying for. This point is interesting:
Realistically, even a liberal Israel lobby will be more timid than progressive Israelis. Few US Jews will feel comfortable asking for American pressure on Israel. Publicly, the lobby's task will be to increase support for diplomacy and a two-state solution. But it will also allow more politicians—particularly liberal ones—to say what they really think about Israel/Palestine, safe in the knowledge that there is an alternative lobby to back them with money and votes.
I think it's important to distinguish between the limits of a lobby and the personal positions of prominent jewish Americans. Many of the most outspoken American critics of Israeli policy in recent years, from Tony Judt to George Soros to Richard Cohen to Eric Alterman, have been Jews. Heck, even Thomas Friedman has called for negotiations with Hamas, which would put him to the left of Barack Obama on the issue. As Gorenberg points out in the story, the bulk of US Jews are much more dovish on Israel than American policy in the region would suggest. I can't imagine American Jews would be hesitant to raise their voices about pushing for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians if they could do so knowing they would have some institutional and community support. It's more of a chicken and egg problem -- you can't have a lobby without support and few people will feel comfortable expressing that support without a strong lobby.
---Jordan Michael Smith
