Just as I had begun to feel the nausea set in, a direct result of yet another “give Israel whatever it wants” election campaign, our wonderful friend (and allegedly Chaim Sugarman’s 3rd cousin) John Stewart did it again. Stewart, the only living Cable TV pundit capable of putting the Zionuts in check without receiving a pink slip the next morning made obvious the obvious; The “Lobby” is truly the Lobby. Thank you, habibi. I appreciate it.
Related posts:
hey no-buydatti:
the post is perfectly formatted- eat it ya khara-
tarik
Posted by Tarik | June 6, 2008, 10:43 amCan someone explain to me how AIPAC is so influential? I’ve read that its the most organized, has $, etc., but as a voting segment, Jews are only 2 percent of the population.
If politicians feel the need to keep AIPAC happy, my question is.. why?
There are larger lobby groups out there as well as better funded lobby groups, so what makes AIPAC so much more influential?
Posted by jerry | June 6, 2008, 3:37 pmJerry, Get a copy of Paul Findley’s “They Dare to Speak Out”. It’s a “standard” on what AIPAC did to one politician.
Posted by Robin | June 6, 2008, 4:15 pmAnyone have an explanation? If I wanted to read a book I wouldn’t have asked the question on a blog
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2008, 4:37 pmChristopher Hitchens (an unimpeachable friend of the Palestinians) had a great article in Slate about how the power of the supposed ‘Israel lobby’ is often exaggerated.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/
Posted by Joe | June 6, 2008, 4:38 pmJoe,
I haven’t seen Hitchens write about the plight of Palestinians in years. he was a great friend, but has preferred to make fighting Islamofascism and the left his main priorities.
Even the article you sight makes no case for justice. It’s just an attack. I think his support of the Palestinians is pretty impeachable.
Let me know if my impression is wrong.
Will
Posted by Will | June 6, 2008, 5:11 pmOh yeah, I mean, Chris Hitchens is a *genius*, he did real well with the whole Iraq thing. If you can’t trust his assessment of something, who the hell *can* you trust?
Posted by safiyyah | June 6, 2008, 8:31 pm“”I haven’t seen Hitchens write about the plight of Palestinians in years. he was a great friend, but has preferred to make fighting Islamofascism and the left his main priorities.”"
Well, his favorite collaborator on the topic, Edward Said, is dead, and he’s got a battle to fight lately that goes far beyond fighting Islamofascism — fighting all religion in general (and bravo to that).
His edited volume with Said about the Palestinians, “Blaming the Victims”, came out in 2001. Seven years ago isn’t all that long.
As for his writing about other topics, recently — a Palestinian state would be nice and all, but in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger issues in the world today, and Hitchens is writing about them. He’s never been so parochial that Palestine is the only thing he writes about, but he’s touched upon the topic fairly regularly in his columns (at least once a year).
“”
Even the article you sight makes no case for justice.”"
Uh… what was this part of the article, then?
‘Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel’s help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points.’
And this part:
‘The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right…’
“” Oh yeah, I mean, Chris Hitchens is a *genius*, he did real well with the whole Iraq thing. If you can’t trust his assessment of something, who the hell *can* you trust?”"
He comes from a very different point of view in Iraq than much of the rest of the pro-war crowd, and though I ultimately disagree with him as to the merits of the war, his arguments tend to be very well-made and cogent.
Either way, his support of the Iraq war is only one of a number of positions he’s staked out over the years, and not even the most prominent one.
Posted by Joe | June 6, 2008, 9:33 pm“Can someone explain to me how AIPAC is so influential? I’ve read that its the most organized, has $, etc., but as a voting segment, Jews are only 2 percent of the population.”
AIPAC isn’t a Jewish lobby, it’s an Israel lobby. Its members also include many non-Jews with a stake in Israel including the Christian right. (Read about the “fictional” and wildly popular book series “The End of Days” to see why Israel is important to the most fundamental among Christian evangelicals.)
Together, AIPAC’s members constitute a segment of people who not only vote along the very extreme right of Israel (more extreme than a majority of actual Israeli society), but are highly influential in voter mobliziation through media and church movements.
Posted by Bonty | June 7, 2008, 2:39 am“Together, AIPAC’s members constitute a segment of people who not only vote along the very extreme right of Israel (more extreme than a majority of actual Israeli society), but are highly influential in voter mobliziation through media and church movements.”
I get that, but my question is what makes them more effective than other lobbyist groups. If I’m a politician, why am I afraid to vote against AIPAC is my question.
Posted by Jerry | June 7, 2008, 10:04 amThis isn’t a book Jerry, so here it is. An article. Your question cannot be answered so easily. If you care enough to ask the question, then maybe it is best that you DO read because the manner in which the Israeli lobby via AIPAC controls US politics is hair-raising.
http://www.washington-report.org/
backissues/0792/9207007.html
Posted by Robin | June 7, 2008, 10:51 amWhich US policies can you point to are a direct result of the Israeli lobby controlling US politics?
That’s a bold statement that I’d hope you can answer yourself if you’re going to make such claims.
Posted by Anonymous | June 7, 2008, 12:11 pmAnonymous, why don’t you just read already and stop asking everyone to do your homework for you?
Posted by Bonty | June 7, 2008, 1:44 pmWhich US policies can you point to are a direct result of the Israeli lobby controlling US politics?
It seems to be a simple question.
Posted by Anonymous | June 7, 2008, 2:49 pmAIPAC largely influences the way people speak, rather than the content of our policies. There’s broad agreement on many of the fundamental policies at issue, it’s not the AIPAC tail wagging the dog. America makes plenty of major foreign policy decisions that are not to Israel’s liking. There are also Jewish groups opposed to AIPAC, such as ‘J Street’, trying to push in the opposite direction. There’s also tons of opposition in Israel to AIPAC’s positions, which tend to align with right-wing Likud.
Again, I think the Christopher Hitchens article I linked to is very strong on these points.
Posted by Joe | June 7, 2008, 5:23 pmHonestly, it isn’t all that difficult. Just link to AIPAC’s own website and see them boast of what legislation they have gotten passed, how many members they have, and what the various different arms of said entity are.
“For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel.”
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/
default.asp
Link to link on right sidebar, “Our
History”, “What They Say About Us”
AIPAC intern program places AIPAC interns in most Congressional members offices.
“One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties.[2] AIPAC’s mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It became closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel’s existence, has endangered it.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20030
Then, watch “The Israel lobby – The influence of AIPAC on US..”
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=
The+Israeli+Lobby&hl;=eN&sitesearch;=#
Do your own homework assignment anonymous and whoever else keeps asking rhetorical questions.
Posted by Robin | June 7, 2008, 7:23 pmThis string began as a response to a question about forums where Israel can be publicly criticized. I just came across a satirical blog that’s worth checking out. circusisrael.blogspot.com
Posted by Anonymous | June 7, 2008, 8:51 pm“”Honestly, it isn’t all that difficult. Just link to AIPAC’s own website and see them boast of what legislation they have gotten passed, how many members they have, and what the various different arms of said entity are.”"
At the same time, if you believe all or even most of AIPAC’s hype about its own effectiveness I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Posted by Joe | June 7, 2008, 9:41 pmOK Joe, so we can’t believe what AIPAC says about itself, we can’t believe Walt and Mersheimer, we can’t believe various politicians who told of their own smearing by AIPAC, we shouldn’t look at the fact that every politician worth their snuff, including every single presidential candidate, the speaker of the house etc. etc. see it as their duty to attend AIPAC conferences, we shouldn’t be suspicious of the ties between AIPAC and the neocons, and you want to sell ME a bridge in Brooklyn? I suggest it is you who has already bought the Brooklyn Bridge, sure hope you get the deed sometime soon.
Posted by Robin | June 7, 2008, 11:41 pmHitchens is a overrated right-wing tool (in every sense) who realized (ala David Horowitz) that he could suddenly get lots of press and money by turning his coat and going ‘I know how deluded the left is b/c I was used to BE lefty’. And it worked!
And no matter how urbane or quasi-erudite he is in his writing, he’ll always be a piss-poor Orwell imitator…
Posted by Saladin | June 8, 2008, 8:06 am“Which US policies can you point to are a direct result of the Israeli lobby controlling US politics?”
Erm….. why not start with these:
– Voting against every UN resolution that has called for Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied territories, or restates the illegality of settlements or the route of the wall, or the moral depravity of cluster bombs, human shields and administrative detention, etc, etc… I think we’re nearing 70 vetoed resolutions now.
– $billions in funding of a military whose primary function has been to maintain an illegal occupation.
– Failure to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon, when the kidnapping of two soldiers was met with $9 billion of devastation and the deaths of 950+ innocent people.
– Acceptance of Israel’s “nuclear ambiguity”, while other nations continue to be censured and boycotted for their own nuclear programmes.
– Non-military response to the Israeli shelling of the USS Liberty.
– Boycott of Hamas-run Palestine, resulting in human catastrophe in Gaza.
– Sanctions against Iran and Syria.
– The continued idiocy of their position over Jerusalem, not to mention the official reclassification of the term “occupied territories” to “disputed territories” after Oslo.
– Oslo, and every other negotiation at which America used AIPAC-written talking points as a basis of negotiation (no Palestinians in negotiations for most of the 1980s, then no Palestinians from Jeruslam allowed to negotiate, then no debate over refugees, the status of Jerusalem, settlements, etc, etc)
But that’s just off the top of my head…………………………………………………
Posted by Lowfields | June 8, 2008, 9:14 amLowfields, since you’re obviously a man of low intelligence, I’ll keep it simple with two of your examples.
– Boycott of Hamas-run Palestine, resulting in human catastrophe in Gaza.
– Sanctions against Iran and Syria.
If you think that the United States stance on these two issues is the result of AIPAC then you lack any semblance of understanding when it comes to United States political policy. Simply because the United States and Israel might share similar interests on an issues does not mean that the United States is a puppet of Israel.
If someone disagrees with foreign policy, or it’s close relationship with Israel, then by all means, disagree. But I find it ridiculous when those people can’t comprehend that the US might make its own decisions to further its own interests, regardless if they happen to align with Israel’s interests. Not everything is a conspiracy involving AIPAC puppet masters.
Posted by Anonymous | June 8, 2008, 10:53 amI’ll take another few:
“”– The continued idiocy of their position over Jerusalem, not to mention the official reclassification of the term “occupied territories” to “disputed territories” after Oslo.”"
Since it’s clear Israelis themselves would not be intractable about negotiating some sort of shared agreement with regard to Jerusalem as part of a comprehensive peace and sovereignty deal, it makes sense from the US perspective not to put pressure on Israel on this specific point, and allow it to be handled in final negotiations.
In other words, it’s not a ‘sticking point’. On the issues that are actual sticking points, such as building settlements in the occupied territories, we’ve been unafraid to exert pressure both publicly and behind the scenes when the timing was right.
US foreign policy is not normally known for its intelligent design, but on this one the government is playing chess and you’re playing checkers. You’re just worried about whether they check off the box for the ‘right’ position or not; they’re worried about how their public stances affect events, negotiations, and our potential to use our leverage when it matters *years* down the line, thinking many steps ahead and weighing factors that you barely comprehend.
The question of whether the territories are referred to as ‘occupied’ or ‘disputed’ is meaningless to the eventual outcome of peace and sovereignty negotiations. Language like that is usually calculated by DoS, such as how we refer to China and Taiwan, and is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. We’re concerned with results, not wording.
“”
– Non-military response to the Israeli shelling of the USS Liberty.
“”
On issues at that level, none of the actual decision-makers in Washington give a shit what AIPAC thinks. What stays their hand is the strategic alliance itself, not a lobbying group. The alliance was and is worth more than pressing the issue, though both sides went through the motions.
That said, the ‘official story’ regarding the Liberty is still relatively plausible. Simply put, there’s no way attacking the Liberty, knowing it were an American ship, would be worth the potential costs and risks of doing so for Israel. And if the intention *were* to make sure the Liberty went down, IAF aircraft would have been sent out with bombs to do the job far more quickly and comprehensively than the ineffective armaments they used. Not to mention that they were in a chaotic war zone, and shit happens — the IAF had accidentally attacked Israeli tanks the previous day, for instance.
You can bet on leaders being evil, you can bet on leaders being stupid, but if your explanation of events hinges on them being both completely evil *and* completely stupid, your explanation probably isn’t a very good one.
Posted by Joe | June 8, 2008, 1:25 pm“I’ll keep it simple with two of your examples….”
You could, of course, always make it more complicated by addressing some of the other points….. unless you don’t have a leg to stand on, anonymous or otherwise.
But if you want to, let’s look at Hamas.
Firstly, wthout Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, which America now fully supports – morally, financially and militarily – there is no Hamas at all.
Without Israeli lobbying to maintain that its very specific enemies – i.e those restisting an illegal occupation – are also America’s enemies, including the cyncial Sharon-Netanyahu conflation of Palestinian national rights and the goals of al-Qaida, then there is no reason to boycott Palestine and block aid because of a perfectly fair Hamas election victory.
Hamas isn’t America’s enemy in any other context than AIPAC’s persistent pushing of a one-eyed (or Eyeless in Gaza, if I may) pro-Israel policy. And there are plenty of other national groups who do not fall under the “Terrorist” rubric…
Unless you can demonstrate what America’s national interest is in supporting an illegal occupation of a non-strategic corner of the Middle East, then your arguments about the ineffectiveness of the Israel lobby in sidelining Hamas are a little bt meaningless.
Or how about Syria.
It is an open secret here in the MIddle East that Syria has actually been one of the most helpful regional states in tracking down al-Qaida operatives in the aftermath of 9/11. Neither side, for various reasons, wants to make that public.
Bahsar Assad, for all his flaws, is much less of an unsavoury figure than the US-backed Hisni Mubarak – and has repeatedly sought dialogue and friendly relations with Washington. He knows he needs America onside, and believes that the White House is the best route to regain the Golan.
The US has refused al such approaches when there is no national interest to do so – other than appeasing Israel’s territorial thirst and maintianing foreign boogie men to prop up military spending. (And please don’t say “Lebanon”… there was very little concern for Israel’s northern neighbour when it was being levelled by Olmert’s flagging poll numbers.)
So, where does such policy come from?
To ignore AIPAC’s power, and that of other pro-Israel groups, in supporting sympathetic candidates with swathes of cash to ignore how American elections actually work…
Name another naitonal lobbying group in America that all three presidential candidates will visit – and whoe speeches will be broadcast live on TV????
Join the dots, oh wise one….
Posted by Lowfields | June 8, 2008, 11:47 pmJoe,
Why on earth would Obama – and his predecessors – make such a claim about Jeruslaem being “undivided”, when half of it is occupied territory and the UN has insisted it be returned? Why does Obama give a crap…?
Because of votes and funds that AIPAC and its ilk are able to deliver.
And if you honestly don’t believe there is a legal – never mind linguistic – difference between “occupied” and “disputed”, then not much of what else you say on this subject has a great deal of menaing….
Posted by Lowfields | June 8, 2008, 11:53 pm“”Joe,
Why on earth would Obama – and his predecessors – make such a claim about Jeruslaem being “undivided”, when half of it is occupied territory and the UN has insisted it be returned? Why does Obama give a crap…?”"
Partly for electability, sure. But part of the reason such a position is electable is because it makes sense, from a negotiating point of view. And, partly, because we’re talking minutiae here, from the general electorate’s perspective — our negotiating position on Jerusalem is not a major factor in the vast majority of Americans’ voting decisions.
Beyond that, if you look at how actual, elected presidents in this country behave towards Israel, they generally have no problem being tough on issues where they feel it’s appropriate.
“”And if you honestly don’t believe there is a legal – never mind linguistic – difference between “occupied” and “disputed”, then not much of what else you say on this subject has a great deal of menaing….”"
If you honestly think international law has any major role to play in sorting out Israel/Palestine (or Pakistan/India in Kashmir, or Greece and Turkey in Cyprus, or the Sinhalese and Tamils in Ceylon, or China and Taiwan), then not much of what else you say on this subject has a great deal of meaning…
Posted by Joe | June 9, 2008, 12:37 pm“”
Firstly, wthout Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, which America now fully supports – morally, financially and militarily – there is no Hamas at all.”"
You think power structures just disappear into the night? Hamas exists, and it wants to rule. It’s not going away, regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do.
Posted by Joe | June 9, 2008, 12:38 pm“”Unless you can demonstrate what America’s national interest is in supporting an illegal occupation of a non-strategic corner of the Middle East, then your arguments about the ineffectiveness of the Israel lobby in sidelining Hamas are a little bt meaningless.”"
It’s a first step toward spreading secular, liberal democracy in the region.
Posted by Joe | June 9, 2008, 12:39 pm“It’s a first step toward spreading secular, liberal democracy in the region.”
Now let’s see, hmmmmm, the occupation has been going on for 40 years. I suppose this has been the goal all along huh? Spreading “secular, liberal democracy”. I would have never known this was the purpose of the occupation Joe if you hadn’t informed me. What a CONTRADICTION to call Israel a “secular democracy” when it is a JEWISH state! Sorry Joe, but you just opened your mouth and inserted your foot on that one!
Posted by Robin | June 9, 2008, 1:34 pm“”Now let’s see, hmmmmm, the occupation has been going on for 40 years. I suppose this has been the goal all along huh? Spreading “secular, liberal democracy”. I would have never known this was the purpose of the occupation Joe if you hadn’t informed me. What a CONTRADICTION to call Israel a “secular democracy” when it is a JEWISH state! Sorry Joe, but you just opened your mouth and inserted your foot on that one!”"
Reading comprehension is too much to ask of you, apparently.
I never called Israel a “secular democracy”. I said it’s a *first step* toward spreading secular, liberal democracy in the region. And it is.
As to the occupation itself, it’s not like there’s anyone pushing for a great solution that Israel is the one thing standing in the way of. Palestinians in the West Bank were much better off, for example, until they broke off from Jordanian control — in many ways, things have been moving backwards. The blockade of Gaza, for instance, couldn’t happen if Egypt weren’t also, well, blockading Gaza. To lay the whole mess at Israel’s feet is a tempting but severely wrongheaded notion.
Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008, 9:20 pm“I never called Israel a “secular democracy”. I said it’s a *first step* toward spreading secular, liberal democracy in the region. And it is.
This is in reference to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza correct?
Please wise Joe, illuminate us all how Israel, who you just admitted is certainly not a secular democracy is SPREADING secular democracy with occupation.
Posted by Robin | June 12, 2008, 4:34 pm