Stephen Schwartz

Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC, will discuss his latest book, Is It Good For the Jews? The Crisis of America's Israel Lobby. Schwartz, a former journalist and author of many books - among them the best-selling The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism - concludes that in today's America, "a Jewish lobby may no longer be necessary."

Schwartz' writing is often-times controversial and his articles appeared in major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and The Toronto Globe and Mail. He is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard, as well as to The New York Post and Reforma in Mexico City, and leading periodicals in the Balkans. Readers can send him questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.


Dear Stephen

Why do you expect the trial of the two former AIPAC people to be so harmful to the organization? they no longer work there...

Adam Robin

Regardless of their present status the trial will be perceived, as is already consistently reported, as a trial of AIPAC and its activities. In addition, Mr. Rosen has indicated that he will mount a vigorous defense that everything he did was appropriate in the fulfillment of his employment, and if the court finds wrongdoing, the reputation of AIPAC will be badly harmed.

Dear Stephen

Do we need a Jewish lobby in this country? why?

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Eli Katz


Jewish civic organizations are necessary in the U.S. to defend the rational interests of the Jewish communit(ies) and to emphasize the common Judeo-Christian (and, I would say, Abrahamic, therefore including Islamic) heritage of Western civilization. In addition, of course, Zionism, like other national movements, should be represented in American life. But I have doubts that the present structures can fulfill these tasks in the immediate future. Since I have been taken to task for the comments in my book on the American Jewish Committee, I would like to clarify that I consider the AJComm the best of the bunch, notwithstanding my criticisms.



Stephen Schwartz



Dear Stephen,

I'm sending two comments from readers for your reaction.

1. While this book was pretty good at shedding light on things that should concern Israel advocates, Iran is greatly underestimated. Iran has been supporting both Sunni and Shi'ite terror, and is looking to unify Jihadis as not seen since the time of Muhammed. They are clearly the more pressing threat. Even to the point of harboring Al Qaida leaders [Bin Laden etc..] The Saudis/Wahabbis are clearly a major threat, but Iran deserves the priority at this time.

I am a firm opponent of the clerical regime in Iran and look forward, as soon as possible, to its dismantling by the action of the Iranian masses, who are daily more disgusted with the antics of Ahmadinejad. My opinion of Ahmadinejad may be found here:

However, the claim that Iran has been supporting Sunni terrorism in Iraq holds no water. It is a media legend, based, it seems, on the presumption that the Iranians are so insane that they would pay Sunni terrorists to kill Shias. The Iranians do not support the killing of Shias, except in judicial executions in Iran, anywhere, and there is no serious evidence to support the claim that they do.

The charge that Iran is looking to unify jihadists could only be made by someone with no knowledge whatever of jihadism. Sunni jihadism and Shia combativeness (Shias do not use the term jihad in the same sense) are theologically as different from one another as German Nazism and Chinese Maoism were politically different from one another. All have had horrific effects, but the art of politics is that of making distinctions, not confusing them.

It is true that the Iranian authorities, attempting to outdo their Sunni rivals in supporting the Palestinian Arabs, have subsidized Palestinian Islamic Jihad and given aid to Hamas, the latter which does not seem to have been taken very gracefully, since Hamas, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, is anti- Shia. The PIJ example is unique. There are no Shias at all in Palestine or Israel except, I am told, in a couple of small villages. Arafat is often quoted by Shias as having said that, thank God, there are neither Shias nor malarial mosquitoes in Palestine. (This remark is based on the use of "mosquitoes" as an anti- Shia hate term among Sunnis.) The claim that Iran is "harboring al-Qaida leaders" may be made if one uses an extremely broad definition of "harboring."

The Al-Qaida members caught in Iran would have been turned over to the Saudis, except that the Saudis refused to accept them; otherwise they are under arrest, which is not the same as "harboring" them. By that standard the U.S. is harboring al-Qaida members at Guantanamo.

The claim that the Iranians support Sunni terror in Iraq, which is mainly aimed at Shias, reminds me of two other ridiculous and groundless cliches featured in Western media and government circles. The first is that the Iranians have matched the Saudis in building new mosques everywhere in the Muslim world (meaning, presumably, that the Iranians are so rich and stupid that they would build Shia mosques in countries that have never had Shia communities, or that the Iranians have decided to break with 1,300 years of Shia history and will now attempt to convert Sunnis, which they do not). The second is that Iran, like Saudi Arabia, builds medresas around the world. Shia clerics go for religious education to seminaries, or hawzas, in countries with large Shia communities. They do not generally attend local medresas in the Sunni manner.

I am also repeatedly amazed by the unanswered argument in Western media that clericalist Iran will take over a Shia-majority regime in Iraq. Iraqi Shias never accepted Khomeini's scheme for clerical rule. Nobody in the West seems interested in the probability that the consolidation of a non-clerical, Shia-majority regime in Iraq, based on parliamentary elections supported by Ayatollah Sistani, would have a positive effect in encouraging the reform movement in Iran.

Anyone is entitled to the opinion that Ahmadinejad's lunacy is a worse threat to the Jews than Wahhabism. I think the demographics speak for themselves: the recent Iranian elections demonstrated that Ahmadinejad represents a minority of Iranians; Iraqi Shias, as noted, reject the Khomeini theory of clerical governance; and Shias are no more than 15 percent of all the Muslims in the world.

If one combines the Ahmadinejad gang with the fascist Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, radical Shi'ism may appear as a much bigger threat than it is. But when compared with the worldwide threat of Wahhabism it remains, in my view, secondary. As for the nuclear threat, Pakistan, which plays the same role vis-a-vis the Saudi Wahhabis that East Germany did with the Soviet Union, already has the so-called "Islamic bomb," and since they are only interested in cash, the Pakistani regime of Mush-head Musharraf has already sold nuclear technology to the Iranians, so would presumably sell them bombs as well. Wiping out the Pakistani nuclear facilities would seem to me an urgent task. Mush-head is a real piece of work; his government accommodates the Taliban, does nothing to stop the massacre of Pakistani Shias, and also sells nuclear technology to Iran. Yet somehow this topic is never discussed.

The experience of the German Communists in the pre-Nazi era is instructive. To them, all their opponents were equally bad, and the Socialists were worse than the Nazis. It is unnecessary to comment further on the outcome that idiocy produced. I would not like to see the same thing happen again - a failure to distinguish between the comparative strength and menace of one's enemies.

2. You are a practicing Sufi Muslim, correct? As such, why are you involved in what is essentially a Jewish conversation about left and right strains within Zionism? Isn't it disingenuous not to mention your conversion to Islam when being interviewed in an Israeli publication? Forgive me if my information is incorrect and you are a Jew.

2. I am an American journalist aged 58. I was always under the impression that authors are permitted to comment on anything they wish, and that there is no ethnic standard for such matters, especially in America which has something called the First Amendment. I happen to be half-Jewish ethnically (father's side), had no Jewish upbringing, was never bar mitzvah or otherwise admitted to the religious community of Judaism, but am friendly to Jews and a defender of the integrity of Israel.

I learned about Judaism on my own. I was contracted to write a book on a subject of which I know a lot, and was then invited to comment on the reaction to the book. Complaints about the propriety of asking a Sufi Muslim to comment on these issues should presumably be addressed to my publisher or the editor of this blog, not to me. I did not "convert" to Islam because conversion means leaving one religion and joining another, and I had no religion prior to becoming Muslim. If I had joined the religion of my mother's forebears (German Protestant pietism) would I be required to disclose that before discussing these issues? When Jimmy Carter's execrable tome came out I did not notice anybody asking whether he should have discussed his Christian religion in the book, and it seems to me that introducing the Christian or Muslim faith of an author into a discussion of books about Israel can only have negative effects.

I do not see that my Islam is publicly relevant to Western audiences, with regard to my writing on Jewish or Israeli issues. It is, of course, of importance when I address Muslims. If I had advertised my Islam in this book or in discussions of it, the only outcome I would imagine would be to divert attention from the issues, to details of my biography. If the book is pro-Jewish and defends Israel how is my Islam of any interest except as a curiosity for some and a means to pry into my personal beliefs, which should be private? If I were required to identify myself religiously when being interviewed by an Israeli publication I would start out by mentioning my book "Sarajevo Rose," on the preservation of Jewish historical memory (and on saving of Jewish lives during the second world war) in the western Balkans. "Sarajevo Rose" was translated into Bosnian and published by two of the leading Bosnian Muslim clerics. They consider it a profoundly Islamic work, even though it is about Jews, praises Jews, and expresses great pain over the disappearance of Balkan Jews in the Holocaust.

I have written nothing about left and right strains of Zionism and would not address those issues. I have written about the condition of and dangers facing the Jewish community in America. I consider myself permitted to do this by the worthy examples of the outstandingly great Sultans Mehmed al-Fatih, Bayazet II, and Suleyman the Magnificent, may they be rewarded in paradise, who sent their navies and provided resources from the treasury of the exalted Ottoman state to rescue and resettle the expelled Jews of Spain and Portugal. I consider it the religious duty of every believing Muslim to protect and assist the Jewish people, as did the Ottoman sultans.

I don't expect to be rewarded for it, but I was always under the impression that half-Jews or non-Jews with Jewish fathers (however one wishes to define someone like me) who defend Jews are considered worthy people. Of course, sensible Jewish leaders do not reject the idea that a Muslim could write sympathetically and with concern about the situation of the Jews, especially now when such Muslims are little known (there are more of them than most Jews realize) but some people just can't take yes for an answer.

Stephen Schwartz


Why is the Jewish lobby "on the edge of its demise" as you claim in your book, and what evidence can you provide for such controversial claim?

I don't think the Jewish leadership in America - which many would conflate with "the Jewish lobbies"-- is on the edge of its demise, but I think "America's Israel Lobby," the official descriptive of AIPAC, is in much deeper trouble than many people realize, especially since the trial of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman will go ahead, beginning June 4.

There are elements in the AIPAC proceeding that should be deeply alarming to the Jewish or pro-Israel community. The first is the language employed by the prosecution and judge in court filings leading up to the trial, in which AIPAC has been effectively equated with Soviet spies and even with agents for Iran. If the trial finds that AIPAC is indeed a foreign lobby and must be subjected to U.S. government oversight as such, its situation will be very grave, and its capacity to garner donations and other support will be reduced. Those who reply by saying that AIPAC now gets more contributions than ever are whistling in the dark. A judgment against AIPAC could easily result in the demise of AIPAC.

By the way, I am not a Zionist myself in the strict sense of the term, I am not an uncritical supporter of the dominant Israeli leaders, and I happen to like the main prosecution figure and respect the judge in the case. But I fear they have been swept up in a phenomenon larger than them and not of their making. The second troubling aspect of the trial somewhat recapitulates the latter point: there are many indications that the AIPAC proceeding is the result of some kind of anti-AIPAC machination within the U.S. government.

As to the Jewish lobbies like ADL and AJCommittee, I don't think they are on the edge of their demise but I do think their effectiveness in representing Jewish interests has been reduced by such silliness as the habit of ADL in exaggerating trivial problems like that of the Mel Gibson movie while underestimating profoundly serious issues, like the Jew-baiting of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, as well as other neoconservatives, as alleged architects of the Iraqi war supposedly for the benefit of Israel.


The book met with some harsh criticism from people feeling unhappy both with your tone and with what they perceive as lack of data or evidence supporting your arguments. How would you reply to such criticism?

I'm not aware of much harsh criticism of my book aside from a rather mean-spirited review in The Jerusalem Report of December 11, 2006, which seemed to imply that I am unworthy to comment on these issues and even stated, "Can we have a rational, serious discussion about this issue? I would like to think that we can. But if it is to be truly rational, Stephen Schwartz cannot be a part of it." I find it dismaying that a volume produced by a serious author and a leading publisher would be treated by a book reviewer as somehow lacking rationality.

However, a much fairer review appeared in the New Jersey Jewish News of January 25, 2007.

I don't know who is unhappy with the tone of my book. The book is pro-Jewish and expresses a warning that the Jewish leadership and the Israel lobby need to heed the realities that have suddenly come to play so significant and sinister a role in American life. A polite, understated, apologetic and bland commentary was not my intention. My goal was to sound a loud alarm. That is therefore the tone of the book, which is an angry polemic.

As far as data goes, I provided data on such issues as the increasing success over the decades and even centuries of Jewish figures in U.S. politics and especially in federal appointments, some of which - e.g. the role of Jews in the American Progressive movement of Theodore Roosevelt - is forgotten today. But my book is not a sociological study. It is, to emphasize, a polemic. I would not mind it being described as a pamphlet, or manifesto, or any similar genre of political work.

Regarding evidence, it is, for me, simple and obvious:

1. After September 11, 2001, outrageous and scurrilous garbage was put forward in America claiming Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks and a deliberate refusal by Israelis to warn the American authorities. This dreadful claim should have been met exceedingly forcefully. Most Jewish leaders preferred to ignore it.

2. The Iraq war produced a new and vicious form of Jew-baiting in America. Where in the past it was alleged by a minority within the mainstream that a Jewish interest along with others (e.g. the British in the second world war) influenced U.S. foreign policy, an unchallenged argument emerged in mainstream American media that a Zionist "cabal" - an illegitimate, Jew-baiting term in itself - had seized control of the Defense Department and invaded Iraq to support Israel. This represented a new and deeply shocking development. The established Jewish leadership made no effort whatever to counter these claims, mainly because said leadership were and are mainly Democrats, and the neoconservative victims of this smear were Republicans. This represented an extraordinary abdication by the Jewish leadership.

3. I have already mentioned the AIPAC proceeding.

4. The Smearsheimer-Walt Dizzy pamphlet, reminiscent of German academic "anti-Semitismus" of the 19th century, is scheduled for publication by a mainstream New York house with a "Jewish history" - Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. This is appalling to an extreme.

5. The unspeakable book by Jimmy Carter (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid [sic]) in which Israel, by the very title of the screed, is equated by a former U.S. president with the former South African regime, should be a major cause for concern by Jewish leaders. Carter's swill was also retailed by a publisher with a Jewish history - Simon and Schuster. That a man like Carter ever occupied the White House now looks shocking, to say the least.

Others have commented on the new willingness of Jewish lumpen intellectuals like Tony Judt to enable the Jew-baiting crusade.

And here is empirical evidence: Last week an American tourist I encountered in Europe, knowing nothing about me at all, and seeming to be a normal, "good American," told me that Wolfowitz had started the Iraq war to help Israel and that with the Carter tome, "the cat is out of the bag" about Israel and American politics.

All of which is, to me, evidence enough that Jew-hatred in America has reached a new and critical level. The failure of the American Jewish leadership to respond appropriately to these issues also seems to me self-evident.

Stephen Schwartz