Legal Commentary

In Defense Of AIPAC

By Big Tent Democrat

In describing a view that is often excoriated as "anti-semitic," Glenn Greenwald writes:

[T]here are powerful domestic political forces in the U.S. which enforce Israel-centric orthodoxies and make it politically impossible to question America's blind loyalty to Israel. . . . In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.

Of course there are such "powerful domestic political forces" (as for Glenn's characterization of such policy as "blind loyalty," to me that is beside the point for this discussion.) And there is such a "powerful domestic political force" on Cuba policy. And agricultural policy. And so on. That is politics. These are "political forces" after all. That is the way it works. And that is not a bad thing. More . . .

Consider what Glenn himself is trying to do with his Accountability Now project. Is he not trying to force a certain orthodoxy on policy? Is he not trying to change the fact that "[i]n the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions[?]" If not, then I withdraw my endorsement of it. It seems to me what what Glenn is really complaining about is the different way these two types of projects are treated by the Media. One is accepted and one is treated as an awful threat.

I never attack people for the fact that they try to dictate policy (be they pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-free trade or anti-free trade, pro-Cuba embargo or anti-Cuba embargo and so on.) I join with the ones I agree with and criticize the views of those I disagree with.

What I find fault with is the Media's blessing of some "special interests" while criticizing others. What makes some ok and some awful? Is it mere disagreement or something more. I think Glenn's point is that there is something more going on - that there is an ingrained acceptance of some "special interests" while others are treated as bad.

Glenn may well be right to question the wisdom of AIPAC on Freeman and on US Israel policy generally. But it always bothers me when a critique on the substance slips into mindless attacks on the "influence" of "special interests" (to be clear, Glenn did not do that.) Everyone who cares and is involved is a "special interest" - the good ones have tremendous influence. I assume they all want to be as powerful as AIPAC. And that we will cheer if "special interests" we agree with become as powerful as AIPAC.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).