Ira Glunts sent along an open letter he wrote to Lara Friedman, Director of Policy and Government Relations of Americans for Peace Now. Glunts wrote the letter in response to that group’s “action alert” praising the pro-Israel Rep. Gary Ackerman. I then told Glunts it's hard for me to go after Peace Now because I also praised Ackerman for his harsh words on settlements. Glunts then responded to my point.
And so: here are Ira Glunts's 2 letters, one to Peace Now, one to me.
Dear Ms. Friedman,
I write to you as a Jew who is outraged by the serious violations of international humanitarian law which Israel continues to commit with the support of the United States government and specifically the US Congress. As someone who has lived in Israel, reads Hebrew and has been following the events and politics (foreign and domestic) of the Middle East for many years, I can tell you that your organization is probably the most ill-named group in the arena. You should be called “Americans for Peace Later.”
You have been identified by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, correctly, as being part of the Israel Lobby. It seems to me your basic purpose is to tell people that although Israel may be currently behaving badly, we Jews are a moral people who given time will take care of this “messy problem.” We all know that the Middle East is a “tough neighborhood” and it is difficult to find a “true partner for peace.” And remember how generous Barak’s offer was. And, did we support the disengagement? Maybe that was a mistake. And the last Gaza war? Did we yell, self defense? Well, you know, there are political and electoral considerations. Did you say divestment, boycott, and sanctions? That’s not really necessary. It makes Israelis sound so bad. And it does not make sense politically. Really, it’s not so bad. And you are so optimistic. We will have peace, you say. Not now, but soon enough.
Congressman Gary Ackerman is AIPAC’s “go to guy” when it needs legislation to justify and support Israel’s occupation. If he says a few words that sound as if he may be reasonable you people run to kiss his tuches. Then when Ackerman says, “I’m a good guy, a peacenik, but Israel has to bomb Iran,” people will say, look Ackerman is a good guy, and even he thinks Israel is acting in self-defense. His credibility is, at least, partly your fault.
Why has Ackerman introduced H.Res 362? Why has Ackerman co-sponsored H.Res 34? Why is Ackerman not supporting H.Res. 130? Is this because he is someone who represents those who advocate a sane US policy in the Middle East? I think not. Ackerman is who you pick as the spokesman for peace in the Middle East? Sure, he is a spokesman for peace in the Middle East, peace later.
By the way, the Ackerman remarks that you quote are peppered with statements which tell those who support Israel’s present policies that the Congressman is still in their pocket. An example is: Keith Dayton is “one real bright spot?” Oh, really?
Here are a couple links the first is about Ackerman and his “blockade Iran bill,” H.Res 362, which was special ordered by Ehud Olmert. The second is about Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton’s failed military coup in Gaza.
Yours truly,
Ira Glunts
Now here is Glunts's letter to Weiss:
I first received notice of Gary Ackerman's statement in an action alert that originated from APN. They not only praised the "Congressman's courageous statement" but called on people to notify their Congressperson that he/she should "follow Ackerman's example." There is no mention that he is one of the leading AIPAC supporters in Congress and it is not clear that APN is praising only his statement and nothing more.
This alert was sent to me by a fledgling Jewish peace group in Syracuse (I have not met them yet). My guess is that most of them now think that Ackerman is a paragon of virtue concerning Israel/Palestine.
I do not know why Ackerman made this statement, which I admit sounds good in some places. But politicians say what is expedient at the moment and rely on the short memories of their constituents. Who knows, maybe sometimes the statements are a result of a brief fleeting brust of clarity in their otherwise muddled thinking. It was not too long ago, that Ehud Olmert sounded like a born again refusenik. Ariel Sharon had his moment of glory with the peace crowd in the period before he announced the disengagement. Moshe Dayan made that famous statement about how all of it was theirs (the Arabs) before we took it all from them, at the grave of Roi Rutenberg. In the end, these statements were just curious footnotes in the histories of their careers.
In addition, it is always possible to qualify a statement. What did Ackerman mean by a settlement? Is it just the ones where the residents incite pogroms? Are the settlements referred to here only the ones that are illegal according to Israeli law? Very few Israelis think of Ma'ale Adumim as a settlement. Does Ackerman? Who knows?
Also, although I am sure there are many good and well meaning people at APN, I really feel that they do more harm than good. They are the political version of "shoot and cry" that Gideon Levy talks about in his Waltz with Bashir article. Further, I feel you were correct to criticize APN for being part of the Board of Conference of Presidents [a rightwing organization that has stuffed the West Bank colonies down the throats of Americans for decades–Weiss]. But this is APN. I am sure that they are very comfortable being there.
This is my point of view. I do not expect that even most "progressive Jews" will agree with it.
