Conga Line for AIPAC

ABOUT ten years ago I witnessed my first Conga line.  One of my brothers had just gotten married and all invited guests, including myself, were mixing it up at the reception.  All of a sudden people began to slither through the reception hall via a long line to the rhythm of a famous Caribbean song.  There is a definite rhythm associated with the Conga line; with hands on each others’ hips, people chant “one-two-three” to the rhythm of the song, then they kick in unison with their left foot.  As usual, there are many variations of this theme.  Back then I found the whole experience rather amusing.  I had not converted to Islam at the time. 

Now that I’m a Muslim I no longer dance and I take life rather seriously; and I’m constantly aware of international and domestic issues affecting the Ummah.

Rather than viewing the “Conga Line” as an amusing enterprise, I now view it as a perfect metaphor that explains a curious political phenomenon here in the United States:  the U.S. politician’s dance to the tunes of AIPAC, unflinchingly the most influential political lobby.  Every potential U.S. politician, whether running for the highest office in the land or assuming some influential Congressional seat on Capitol Hill, owes their allegiance to AIPAC.  AIPAC wields tremendous political power in the halls of Congress; it wields tremendous power throughout U.S. elite university systems by funneling enormous financial capital to encourage a biased version of “Middle Eastern Studies” that shows favoritism to Israel; it funds political think-tanks that seek to eliminate any type of political voice associated with the suffering of the Palestinians; it has tremendous power over the U.S. mainstream media.   AIPAC knows how to dispose of politicians who even challenge this nation’s economic and political relationship with Israel; and it does so in spectacular fashion.

When Barak Obama assumed the position as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States, he made a predictable speech at AIPAC, where he asserted, among other things, that Jerusalem would remain “the eternal, undivided capital of Israel”, that Israel’s security is “sacrosanct” and that he would not abandon military activity against any nation, including Iran, to guarantee Israeli security.  I admit that I was somewhat surprised at his remarks, given his narrative about giving “principled diplomacy” a chance and thus viewing military action against Iran as a last resort.  Besides, I never thought that Obama’s foreign policy thinking would approximate George Bush’s.  On the other hand I wasn’t surprised, given his audience – he was speaking to AIPAC.  Obama is not the candidate of “change” as far as U.S. Middle East policy is concerned. 

Aijaz Zaka Syed, a columnist for Khaleej Times Online, shares my sentiments on this matter, with one caveat:  he cites an unprecedented but strong Arab interest in Barak Obama’s prospects for assuming the U.S. presidency.  Arabs see Obama as a presidential candidate born of an African who associated himself with Islam and whose bi-racial background lays the foundation for his message of change for Washington politics and beyond.   Somehow, this promising presidential candidate may share with Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israeli State and might be able to counteract common foreign policy calculations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Now, he says, Arab support for Obama has dwindled.  My take is his support has dwindled since he joined the “Conga Line” for AIPAC.   Hillary Clinton had already joined the “Conga Line”, as has Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

In a strong reaction to Obama’s speech to AIPAC, Palestian President Mahmoud Abbas said that Obama’s “undivided Jerusalem” rhetoric is “totally rejected”.  “The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian State without having [East] Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state”.  The two main rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, united in condemning Obama’s speech to AIPAC.  Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, had this to say:  “These statements slash any hope of any change in the American foreign policy”.  Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestian negotiator, had this to say to Al Jazeera:  “I say to Obama…please stop being more Israeli than the Israelis themselves, leave the Israelis and Palestinians alone to make decisions required for peace”.  Obama’s relationship to Israel seems to be in step with the current president’s.  Just a month ago, George Bush gave a speech to the Israeli Knesset, leading several right-wing members to opine that “Bush seems to be more Zionist than Olmert” and “it is better to have Bush as PM instead of Olmert”.

But if most U.S. politicians continue to pay homage to AIPAC, they are also justifying Zionist aspirations, as this very organization is inextricably linked to Zionist objectives.  Prior to assuming the acronym AIPAC, or the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, it was named the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, or AZCPA.  Therefore, to understand AIPAC, you must understand its precursor, the American Zionist Council.  Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. “Si” Kenen, he directed legislative activity in Washington on behalf of the American Zionist Council with funds and guidance from the Israeli government.  One executive board member of the Jewish Agency, Levi Eshkol, was minister of finance in the Israeli government.  He later became Prime Minister of Israel. 

Arkansas Senator James William Fulbright, who was turned down as a consideration for the position of U.S. Secretary of State because of his uncompromising approach to dealing with Israel, chaired a 1963 investigation of the Jewish Agency while chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  His efforts have “uncovered a conduit operation run by an organization called the American Zionist Council.  Over an eight year period, this council received more than $5,000,000 from the Jewish Agency, based in Jerusalem and New York, to create ‘a favorable public opinion in this country [the U.S.] for Israeli government policies’”.  The following is a conversation, in committee, between Senator Fulbright and Isadore Halmin, executive director of the Jewish Agency-American Section.  I include an excerpt of his investigations here:

Senator Fulbright:  Are you acquainted with an organization known as the American Zionist Council?

Mr. Hamlin:  Yes, sir, I am.

Senator Fulbright:  Subsequent to April 1, 1960, did the Jewish Agency-American Section make payments to the American Zionist Council?

Mr Hamlin:  Yes, sir.

Senator Fulbright:  To the best of your knowledge, when did these payments begin?

Mr. Hamlin:  If my memory serves me, I believe in 1961 for the budget of the Council.

Senator Fulbright:  The first, of the year, about?

Mr. Hamlin:  I would have to look it up.

Senator Fulbright:  Would you provide the committee with a record of such payments as you have made to the American Zionist Council?

Mr. Hamlin:  Yes, sir, we would.

Senator Fulbright:  The American Zionist Council.

Mr. Hamlin:  Yes, sir.

Senator Fulbright:  In general, what were the purposes of these payments?

Mr. Hamlin:  The purposes of these payments were to assist the American Zionist Council carry out its Zionist educational and…its public informational activities.   

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at: drummondhugh@verizon.net