Harvard study: AIPAC makes US act against own interests

[occuserpens]

2006-03-18 JePo on Harvard report

JePo. NATHAN GUTTMAN. Harvard study: AIPAC makes US act against own interests

[Warpy]

1. No shit, Sherlock!

The most underreported scandal of the century has to be the Israeli/AIPAC agent working in Feith's office and quite probably formulating US policy as well as transferring classified information to Israel via AIPAC contacts.

And when is Judith Miller going to be NAMED as the "unnamed female journalist" present at those meetings between Franklin and AIPAC? They're not fooling any of us and it's time to fess up.

And when are peoplle going to wake up and realize that Israel is a SEPARATE COUNTRY and is NOT our friend?

There have been 3 indictments so far, but you'd never know it from reading the good puppy press.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Wow. We didn't even need a Harvard education to figure that one out.

Heck. They must have read the post I wrote on the subject last month. I must dig it up and put it in my journal.

[Jim Sagle]

48. As far as I'm concerned, Israel IS our friend.

[president4aday]

2. ...and has been, for quite some time.....

1973

"During the height of the 1973 war, a thirty-six hour phone blitz by I.L. Kenen, the head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, the Israeli lobby), resulted, on 18 October, in the immediate introduction of legislation in both houses to transfer "Phantom aircraft and other equipment in the quantities needed by Israel to repel aggressors in the amount of $2.2 billion." A massive campaign prefaced the passage of this military aid bill, and an attempt to strip $500 million from the legislation was defeated when Kenen fired off ninety-five telegrams to House Appropriations and Foreign Affairs Committee members.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Trouble is every time you bring up this topic, you get accused of being

anti-semitic.

[bemildred]

5. Name-calling is not an argument.

It is an attempt to silence discussion.
Why let yourself be intimidated?

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Quite agreed. But this modus operandi of logical fallacy is ubiquitously

employed when debating topics such as this. I want to see a promiment leader call them on begging the question and ad hominum attacks, and make them address the issue(s).

To answer "why let yourself be intimidated", an accusation of antisemitism is a like a hand grenade going off. The implications range from "Jew hater" to "bring back the Third Reich". Having a "defense" of antisemitism to the criticism of AIPAC is sort of like a girl starting a physical altercation with a boy on the playground with the smugness of knowing boys shouldn't hit girls.

[pelsar]

7. your falicy about AIPAC

is two fold:

one have you compared other lobbies to AIPAC? (oil? car? cigarettes?)

i would say that all three are working against americas interests

and two, your assumption that americans who differ from your point of view somehow are working against americas interests. It happens that many americans see israels security in a different light that you do..

which means someone here has a very very very narrow minded view of other americans who have a different opinon.......

[no_hypocrisy]

8. My criticism is directed at the tenor of debate, not the debator(s).

I don't think any issue is resolved (AIPAC or otherwise) when the topic is changed to making someone defensive rather than developing the argument. We see that when debating Iraq and the topic is changed to being called "unpatriotic".

[pelsar]

10. whos changing the argument....

in case you didnt notice in real life...arguements and discussion tend to go "have life of their own"...i can easily discuss anti semitism...when it is and when it isnt...when its hidden as "anti zionism" and when one cant even tell the difference.

talk about aipac..no problem...want to single it out...sure we can discuss it and pretend that other lobbiest dont do the same...that other americans dont worry about other countries (Ireland for example).....but i might bring up those other countries just to compare...or is there a problem with that.

If there is a problem with Aipac i suspect its because its successful....the americans who run it, are as patriotic as any other irish american who supports one of the various Irish groups....but they are jewish, they do have influence and they support israel....whether or not some may disagree with their views is perfectly legit, but the trouble is that amongst those legit opinons, well find the usual crowd of anti semites: far left far right Nazi, white power, and the usual niave "liberals' who think singing kumbaya and holding hands will solve the worlds problems.

The actual question at hand is: Does AIPAC do anything that any other lobbies doesnt do?.....or is the complaint that they're simply good at it?

[Malikshah]

11. Now now-- you didn't take the bait.

guns, and other lobbies were raised. ;)

In the typical "tango" one is supposed to now go off topic and discuss *those* issues.

Obfuscation...quite the fun game.

BTW--

Another link for the Harvard Study (calling Campus-Watch!!!!)


http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

[pelsar]

12. Israel and AIPAC dont exist in a vacuum...

whats wrong with discussing them all?....or is it if we do, we discover that AIPAC is nothing special?....is that the problem?

[Coastie for Truth]

13. Lobbyists and PACs are part of the gosh darned "First Amendment"

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Inconvenient when it comes to campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.

Here's what Cornell law School's "Legal Information Institute" says-

Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying.— Inasmuch as legislators may be greatly dependent upon representations made to them and information supplied to them by interested parties, legislators may desire to know what the real interests of those parties are, what groups or persons they represent, and other such information. But everyone is constitutionally entitled to write his congressman or his state legislator, to encourage others to write or otherwise contact legislators, and to make speeches and publish articles designed to influence legislators. Conflict is inherent. In the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act,171 Congress by broadly phrased and ambiguous language seemed to require detailed reporting and registration by all persons who solicited, received, or expended funds for purposes of lobbying, that is to influence congressional action directly or indirectly. In United States v. Harriss,172 the Court, stating that it was construing the Act to avoid constitutional doubts,173 interpreted covered lobbying as meaning only direct attempts to influence legislation through direct communication with members of Congress.174 So construed, the Act was constitutional; Congress had “merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose,” and this was simply a measure of “self–protection.”175

Other statutes and governmental programs affect lobbying and lobbying activities. It is not impermissible for the Federal Government to deny a business expense tax deduction for money spent to defeat legislation which would adversely affect one’s business.176 But the antitrust laws may not be applied to a concert of business enterprises that have joined to lobby the legislative branch to pass and the executive branch to enforce laws which would have a detrimental effect upon competitors, even if the lobbying was conducted unethically.177 On the other hand, allegations that competitors combined to harass and deter others from having free and unlimited access to agencies and courts by resisting before those bodies all petitions of competitors for purposes of injury to competition are sufficient to implicate antitrust principles.178
____________________________________________

Footnotes

171 Ch. 753, 60 812, 839 (1946), 2 U.S.C. §§ 261 – 70.

172 347 U.S. 612 (1954) .

173 Id. at 623.

174 Id. at 617–624.

175 Id. at 625. Justices Douglas, Black, and Jackson dissented. Id. at 628, 633. They thought the Court’s interpretation too narrow and would have struck the statute down as being too broad and too vague, but would not have denied Congress the power to enact narrow legislation to get at the substantial evils of the situation. See also United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953) .

176 Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498 (1959) .

177 Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) . See also UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669–71 (1965) .

178 California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) . Justices Stewart and Brennan thought that joining to induce administrative and judicial action was as protected as the concert in Noerr but concurred in the result because the complaint could be read as alleging that defendants sought to forestall access to agencies and courts by plaintiffs. Id. at 516.

Part of our Bill of Rights - Part of Our History and Heritage

AIPAC has as much right to lobby as the American Petroleum Institute or the National Rifle Association or the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association ---- or any Progressive or Liberal Group.

Edited to Add link to Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1cfrag8_user.html

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

39. Well, no... see PEOPLE should mean

individuals.

Then the problem would go away. From both sides.

[Coastie for Truth]

40. There is the grammatical argument

that "people peaceably to assemble" in the clause "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" specifically allows people to lobby and contribute and campaign in the aggregate.

The right to lobby, contribute, and campaign is both "individual" and "aggregate."

[Malikshah]

25. Sorry-- not in the mood to play

(oil? car? cigarettes?) AIPAC

If one cannot see the difference then one needs to go elsewhere to learn the nature of intelligent discourse.

Enjoy one's game.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. LOL!

:eyes: actually..... :rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

46. When you're ready to engage in intelligent discourse, let us know.

Until then, I think I'll catch a little shut-eye. :boring:

[Malikshah]

49. Ah-- the emoticons and attempts at humor

The last bastions of the same old tiresome tango.

BTW-- When you're ready to engage in intelligent discourse...

Nah...it's too easy.

Enjoy your games.

[bemildred]

9. And agreed back.

Some leadership on the issue would be a good thing. Unfortunately most of our "leaders" are "leading" proponents of name-calling and the throwing of verbal grenades, of which the "antisemite" canard is only one of many.

I am not suggesting that one defend oneself against such attacks. I am suggesting that one ignore them, let them speak for themselves, stick to your guns, refuse to be distracted into a name-calling contest. It is one of the luxuries of this venue, the internet, that the girls and boys are on equal ground, and the damage is all verbal, and there is little anyone dissatisfied with that situation can do about it, except to try to shut down discussion or go elsewhere. What I am suggesting is that one ignore such transparent ploys and continue with what one has to say. It appears to me to be the only effective strategy in response to someone whose intent is to shut you up.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. verbal grenades...

The only ones I have seen "tossed" here are those of those who whine about not being able to discuss such issues without being labeled anti-Semites. Not one poster has accused another of anti-Semitism, yet the "grenade" that shuts down conversation is..."boo-hoo, I can't discuss Israel," when in fact, they can!

Shakespeare had a play that's title cover this, "Much Ado about Nothing."

Look at all the protests of not being able to discuss the situation, while not even discussing the situation; simply discussing the "inability" to discuss the topic.

It is sad, really.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. You didn't read this forum last weekend?

Because last weekend there was a thread in this forum where there were accusations of antisemitism made when it came to discussing AIPAC...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

18. really?

please direct me to it....

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yes, really...

You want a link to deleted sub-threads? Because you know very well that accusations of antisemitism are deleted. I have a copy of some of the posts making those accusations, but I'm sure you can understand why I won't repost them here as they'll be deleted again. You could always ask the mods whether they deleted accusations of antisemitism last weekend, or better yet I'll PM you one of the posts as soon as I've posted this :)



Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Oh but Violet...

Does that mean anti-Semitism could be possible on these very boards, but we not able to prove it because said posts would be deleted? Could it mean that posters exist who post Jew-hating material that we can't "prove" because it has been deleted as YOU WELL KNOW?

I am SURE you understand why I have posted this response to your "allegation!"

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I take it you got my PM containing the posted accusations...

Which do show that yr comment 'Not one poster has accused another of anti-Semitism, yet the "grenade" that shuts down conversation is..."boo-hoo, I can't discuss Israel," when in fact, they can!' was wrong, and that it has happened, and very recently....

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

26. didn't happen here....yet. still the same "grenade"....

"boo hoo hoo!"

[Violet_Crumble]

30. It did happen here!

I just sent you a PM with a post from this forum last weekend! Where do you think it happened?? This is the thread it happened in, bta http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x118307#118711

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

33. all I saw was "deleted posts"...

...that could "mean anything!"

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I sent you one of the deleted posts!

I was around here a fair bit last weekend and saw that thread unfold. Is it really that hard to acknowledge that accusations of antisemitism have happened in AIPAC related threads? I'm not really seeing what the problem is, but I don't much care for the implication that I'm making this up, not when I sent you a post so you could see for yrself...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

35. how do I know you didn't re-write it?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. You can check with the mods...

They'll confirm it was exactly what was posted last weekend. I didn't rewrite it and I'm sure there's others who were around and also saw the accusations before they were deleted...


Violet...

[bemildred]

38. It is forbidden to call other posters anti-semites.

That may be why the insult direct is avoided here?
And a good thing it is, too.

Nevertheless, the term is bandied about with considerable enthusiasm here, as a search will show.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Congressman Eliot Engel

This study of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the efforts of the pro-Israel community in the United States could not be more wrong. Israel, our lone Democratic ally in the Middle East, enjoys a strong relationship with America because it embodies our shared values of freedom and democracy.

The pro-Israel lobby in Washington exists to refute studies as these and other misinformed propaganda which erroneously contends that Israel's success, either in diplomacy, economics or politics, is due to anything other than the drive and determination of its own people. Israel has managed to stay on the map because its citizens constantly work for its betterment. It is wrong to simplify their decades of achievements, going far before its founding in 1948, to the influence of a lobby. This is a discredit not only to the Israeli people, but to the democratic principles which underlie our two societies.

As a Jewish American, I have always been a strong supporter of Israel. But as a Member of Congress, particularly one who sits on the House International Relations Committee, I have heard nearly 18 years of testimony, arguments and evidence to solidify my belief in the U.S.-Israel relationship. And, I am proud to stand with AIPAC and all Americans who support Israel to say to the world that it is only through peace with the Jewish state that the problems of the region will be solved.

source

[Violet_Crumble]

17. All froth, no substance...

Not surprising, coming from a politician...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

19. perhaps it would be better from one of your politicians.....

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Not likely...

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

23. but...

I am sure you have them....

[Violet_Crumble]

27. have what?

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

29. re-read...maybe you will understand. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I think rereading would be a huge waste of time...

Considering nothing that was said makes the slightest bit of sense....

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Well...nothing ventured, nothing gained...including knowledge.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. There's no knowledge to be gained...

I gathered that on the first reading. If I thought there was any genuine attempt to have a discussion I might think differently...

Violet...

[meti57b]

41. Congressman Eliot Engel is a liberal Democrat from New York!

Why are you trashing liberal Democrats, whom we have worked to get elected, and on a liberal message board whose policy is to support Democrats.

[Englander]

42. Who supports pre-emptive war & the illegal actions of Isreal!!

Eliot Engel on War & Peace
Democrat/Liberal Representative (NY-17)


Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.

>snip

Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq.

>snip

Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

http://www.issues2000.org/NY/Eliot_Engel_War_+_Peace.htm

[meti57b]

43. A whole lot of Dems supported the Iraq war .....

at first. Hopefully, they are finally wising up a bit. However, how many lib Dems would you like to throw out of Congress over that one? Exactly, who are you supporting against Engel?

In 2002, the Resolution to support Israel passed by an overwhelming majority. The vote was 94-2 in the Senate. In the House, the vote was 352-21, with 29 representatives voting "present." A majority of Americans support Israel.

It is your opinion that the actions of Israel are illegal.

[Coastie for Truth]

44. And a lot of Prominent British Diplomats

supported the marginalization of the Palestinians, Like Sir Mark Sykes, VC, OBE, and a lot of Prominent British Diplomats were "enablers" of the post WW2 Holocaust, like Sir Ernest Bevin, VC, OBE.

[barb162]

52. After the events of last week when a certain British building

got burned down, I think there may be some major questioning about sinking more British money into the Palestinian economy

[Englander]

54. Red herring, straw man, ad hominem. n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

51. Actually, all substance, no froth

[ChairmanAgnostic]

93. WAIT A SEC.

we've been told that Iraq is a democracy, mission accomplished and all that. Egypt has democratic elections and is an ally, pakistan, a muslim nation, has elections and supports the US. Jordan is an US ally. Yemen is an US ally, UAE is a US ally. Turkey, a democracy, a full member (almost) of EU and NATO is also a muslim nation and a huge ally of the US.

So where does ANYONE get off claiming that only Israel is the one and only trustworthy democratic ally in the region? That is almost word for word propoganda from AIAC.

I, for myself, completely believe in Israel's right to survive, I HATE what they do to innocent palestinians and I HATE even more the destructive policies, control, treason, spying and bribery commited by AIPAC and its agents of destruction.

Frankly supporting Israel and hating AIPAC is probably the sanest, most rational and fairest approach to that region.

[Jim Sagle]

45. AIPAC RAWWWWWKSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer:

[Tom Joad]

50. I have mixed reaction to this.

In regards to the Harvard study.

First, I do find the authors suspect, at least one of these idiots voted for Bush. Which in itself is not to say any point they may make is false (after all, if a Republican said the earth is more round rather than flat, it is just as true as anyone else saying it), still, they tend to look at things from a "national interest" standpoint, and not looking as it being in our interest to making a foreign policy based on people's interest.

Secondly, I am not convinced that policy surrounding Israel, though clearly not in common people's interest, is not in the interest of the wealthy elite (of any ethnic/religious persuasion) of the united states. Just as acting cooperatively with other nations, and supporting justice and real democracy and not supporting arms transfers, would seem much more rational, the US does not do this.... in the Middle East, in South America, in Africa.. and so on.

The US elite certainly have a problem with any nation that pursues a way independent of US plans. It could be a democracy or a dictatorship, if it deviates it is attacked. I think it is also in the elites interests to prevent any example of a free democratic state independent of US control and basing its economy on any other system that does not serve the US elite. Vietnam certainly paid the price for seeking Independence from the US system. Haiti has. Venezuela may be next. Can you imagine the fear they must feel if a democracy developed in the Arab world?

All that said, i do think that AIPAC is a powerful and determined lobby, and they do help shape policy, to the detriment of Palestinians (especially) but also to Americans and ultimately Israeli Jews. I mean all these millions of dollars are not spent for nothing. It supports many extreme measures not supported by many people within Israel, not supported by a great many Jewish people in the US, and certainly not the fairness most American people expect of their own government.

[bemildred]

55. Yeah, it smelled just a bit to me too.

As I said in the other thread, the most interesting thing to me is that they published it; it leads one to ask why these people chose to do that, and why now?

[Matilda]

56. Israel Lobby Dictates US Policy, Study Charges

"This situation has no equal in American political history," says the 83-page study "The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."

"Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies
in order to advance the interests of another state?" ask authors John Mearsheimer and of the
University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University.

The answer, according to the paper, which is already stirring debate in academic circles and fury
among pro-Israel groups, is the influence of the pro-Israel lobby."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm


I know that some people on this forum will immediately howl that I am anti-Semitic, but I'll live
with that - I know the truth, and that's a cheap shot anyway.

Although I'm not a U.S. citizen and can't complain about what is being done with U.S. tax dollars,
I am concerned that over-generous contributions to Israel and lack of aid to build a stable
Palestinian infrastructure is fuelling ever more violent Arab hatred towards Israel and the U.S.,
which spills over to the rest of Europe.

I am also angry that successive U.S. governments in the past thirty years have done little to
encourage a true peace process, or to rein in Israel's continued theft of Palestinian territory.
This is not just my opinion - numerous U.N. resolutions have been mounted in condemnation of
Israel's territorial ambitions, only to be thwarted by the U.S. It is a very short-sighted policy,
based on the immediate needs of Israel and the U.S. desire for a western buffer in the Middle East,
but it pays no attention to the simmering anger growing in Palestine and other Arab nations. That
anger has already assisted the rise of Al Qu'eda as a guerilla group, and now threatens to involve
open was with other nations, as we are seeing with Iran.

I'm sure the neo-con adventures in the Middle East are in large part aimed at increasing US/Israeli
influence in the area, and also gaining control of the oil, which is the biggest bargaining chip
the Arab nations currently have. But it's a short-sighted policy and ultimately doomed to fail -
we have already seen that the U.S. has been unable to control either Afghanistan or Iraq, and it
cannot succeed in other countries unless it drags all of the western nations into endless war.

I think it's time for the world to tell Israel that enough is enough - be glad they have a territory
of their own, go back behind the Green Line, or risk bringing the whole Middle East down and
themselves with it.

[Talismom]

57. Would it surprise you to know that many Jews in the US--this one

included--and many Israeli citizens (such as Uri Avnery) agree with you? Of course instead of being called anti-Semites, we get screamed at and written off as "self-hating Jews". The reality is that many of us agree that the policies of both countries have long been short-sighted and self-destructive. Between the actual anti-Semites, who are very real, and the mainstream Israel supporters, it is a very painful and difficult time to be a Jew with liberal/progressive values. Never-the-less, many of us are here and agree with you and are doing what we can to change the status-quo. Check out the organization called Americans for peace now. www.PeaceNow.org

[Matilda]

58. Thanks for the link.

I'm glad to hear it, because what saddens me most about the current situation is the feeling that
Israel has lost its moral compass. I was once very idealistic about Israel and its future, but
my illusions have been shattered.

[pelsar]

60. perhaps you should do some more research?

instead of having shattered illusions...(reality is always better)...but if your interested in israels moral compass, perhaps you should compare....see what other countries do in similar and near similar situations......

you'll find that israels moral compass is quite intack...

somethings to compare?
israels entrance in jenin vs the US in Falluja

Israels methods against armed demonstrators vs the French (ivory coast)

Israels methods of searching and finding terrorists vs Syria (1982-syria or russia..)



i could make a very long list of just how other countries in similar situations, carpet bomb, massacre, machine gun crowds, etc.....all of them israel doesnt do......at a very high cost to its own society.

Given its very difficult situation, the massive amount of incidents that occur and the minimum loss of life involoved, the compass is still there.

[Englander]

61. That's completely irrelevant.

No matter how many times it's used as a tactic, trying to justify Isreali illegality
by using absurd comparisons that ignore said illegality, doesn't prove anything. Using
an absurd straw man to try & justify said illegality doesn't address the reality of the
situation.

I'll post that Orwell quote again, try & think why it's relevant, *why* I think you
should read it;

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

George Orwell.

[Matilda]

62. That's a straw man argument.

Israel's actions in Jenin - bad. U.S. actions in Fallujah - bad.
Which proves - what?

And I almost hate to shatter your illusions, but I wouldn't talk too
loudly about Israel not using tactics like massacres and shooting into
crowds. It would take too long to write the list ....

[Tom Joad]

59. Also look up Jewish Voice for Peace.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org

[Scurrilous]

63. Pro-Israel lobby in U.S. under attack.

<snip>

"Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.

They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.

And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life."


more

[katty]

64. need alot more of this!

[physioex]

68. No doubt....

It is time this country stop being a proxy for alternate agendas......

[LSparkle]

65. Couldn't get the link to work, but is this about AIPAC?

[Scurrilous]

70. Try this:

http://upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060320-124726-1902r

Yes, it's about AIPAC.

[High Plains]

66. Ah, they must be anti-semites!

[Fredda Weinberg]

67. What a cop-out

As Americans, we need a scapegoat for our own imperial ambitions?

[Chimichurri]

71. No cop out. Get to know these guys - they are very real

and very powerful.

The basic idea is they have aligned themselves with the uber greedy knowing all they need is money to dominate the policy.

[Fredda Weinberg]

84. These guys are my people

And no, they don't exert any more influence than any other special interest group. What this article is describing is an updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I was raised devout, a first-generation American and a child of the holocaust. I understand the terrors behind AIPAC and it disgusts me that Americans get themselves off the hook for the horrors committed in our name by blaming a Jewish lobby. It's a cop-out, plain and simple.

We are the imperial power of our age - no political action committee rules this predominantly Protestant country.

[HereSince1628]

69. The 51st state needs a lobby less than New Orleans does...

Which is probably part of the reason they have one and New Orleans doesn't.

Of all the States and Commonwealths, the 51st state gets the biggest return for every tax dollar they send to Washington.

[European Socialist]

72. The twin disasters of the past 30 years, supported by both Democrats and

Republicans--Knee jerk for cheap labor and Israel.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlamoDemoc]

74. I recommend Dr. Norman Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah"

n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

76. Equally relevant,

I recommend "Chemical Data Guide for Bulk Shipment by Water" by DUer "Coastie" (who wrote the first edition). See, everybody on DU is "one of America's top scholars."

Edited to add link to Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1577853318/sr=8-1/qid=1142896529/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9184128-1483823?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Coastie for Truth]

75. Stephen Walt's World. - Sandstorm 3/17/2006

<<<SNIP>>>
But let's enter Walt's World, and accept its presumptions, for argument's sake—and for the sake of an argument about Israel. Let's set aside the claim that Israel and the U.S. share democratic values, rooted in a common tradition. Let's set aside the fact that the American public has a genuine regard for Israel, shown in poll after poll, which prevents it from ever seeing Israel as one more Norway. (Walt: if Israel tries to impose an "unjust solution" on the Palestinians, the United States should reduce its support for Israel to "the same way that we support a Norwegian state.") Let's just ask his simple question: is Israel a strategic asset or a strategic liability for the United States?

To recap: Walt thinks that by any objective measure, U.S. support for Israel is a liability. It causes Arabs and Muslims to hate America. Since he thinks the United States should disengage from the Middle East, and follow a policy of "offshore balancing," he believes America needs to cultivate a sense of shared purpose with Arabs and Muslims, many of whom detest Israel or its policies or both. The less the United States is identified as a supporter and friend of Israel's five million Jews, the easier it will be for the United States to find local proxies and clients to keep order among the billion or so Muslims. And the only thing that has prevented the United States from seeing this clearly is the pro-Israel lobby, operating through fronts as diverse as AIPAC, The Washington Institute, and—yes—even the Brookings Institution. Have I simplified Walt's argument? Probably not as much as you might think.

To answer Walt's simple argument, I'll respond with a simple question. If you need an ally somewhere, don't you want it to be the smartest, most powerful, and most resourceful guy on the block, who also happens to admire you? And what is the point of having an ally who's backward, weak, irresolute, and thinks in his heart of hearts that you're his enemy? That's the choice the United States faces in the Middle East.

It took the United States some twenty years to figure this out. Between 1948 and 1967, it believed in Walt's zero-sum concept of the Middle East. The United States recognized Israel in 1948, but it didn't do much to help it defend itself, for fear of alienating Arab monarchs, oil sheikhs, and the "Arab street." That was the heyday of the sentimental State Department Arabists and the profit-driven oil companies.
<<<SNIP>>>

Read Stephen Walt's CV - his articles, his books. He is to the right of Zbig, Henry Kissinger, and Jean Kirkpatrick -- he is a PALEOCON - a remnant of the times described in Berkeley Professor Jerome Karabel's book "The Chosen."

[Malikshah]

77. Always check the source

Martin Kramer...hmmmmmm.

Failed academic. Self-created pariah among learned circles....

Buttboy for the neocon brigade.

What next? Support from Strauss? Fukayama? Regnery Publishing?

[Coastie for Truth]

78. Two points

1. I'm a "doc" too

"Everybody loves a doctor
That's why I'm in Love With Me
Call Me Doctor, Call Me Doctor

Whenever you address me
Don't forget the PhD
Call Me Doctor, Call me Doctor

2. I actually went over to Hoover - and checked some of their writings - about as Paleo Conserve as Zbig and Kissinger and Kirkpatrick.

[Malikshah]

80. Moi aussi

in the same general areas as Kramer and Pipes


:) I so wish to have "earned" a space on their witch-hunt list... alas...they scrubbed it after too many folks demanded to be put on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. What's yr doctorate in?

Unless I'm mistaken, academics are those lucky folk who are employed by places like universities to sit around doing research and writing books and papers, and to try to teach something to us undergraduates. I know a few people at work who have PhD's, but they're not employed in an academic field and if they went around trying to pass themselves off as academics, I think it'd be pretty hilarious...

Violet...

[Scurrilous]

79. Palestinian diplomat takes on Israel, AIPAC and U.S

<snip>

"Palestinians have had to pay a heavy price for the birth of Israel, says Afif Safieh, the top Palestinian representative to the U.S.

"Misunderstood,” "misportrayed” and "mischaracterized,” Palestinians are the victims of a tragedy, he said. Their suffering and their rights have been denied as Israel has unilaterally annexed "occupied” Jerusalem in defiance of international law and United Nations resolutions."

<snip>

"His message may not be one that Jews are comfortable hearing. But during a speech to the City Club last week, the articulate, forceful and erudite diplomat received two standing ovations from an audience predominantly Arab and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Safieh was vitriolic in his criticism of what he often called, simply, "the lobby,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "On Capitol Hill, AIPAC has gone for the kill. It's easy to demonize Hamas and the Palestinian people. They had the audacity of voting for Hamas. Islamaphobia, Arabphobia are the only permissible forms of racism” in America.


The AIPAC agenda, he claimed, is to stop American aid to Palestinian society, block U.S. Palestinian leaders from visiting the occupied territories, and close the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington. Furthermore, AIPAC wants the U.S. to subtract from its United Nations dues the amount the international organization spends on Palestinian aid. Finally, he said AIPAC wants to bar Palestinian Americans from visiting Gaza or the West Bank by designating it a sanctuary for terrorists."


more

[Boojatta]

81. In other words, an audience with very little influence in the Middle East?

...an audience predominantly Arab and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Does that mean that the audience was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and predominantly Arab or that the audience was predominantly Arab and predominantly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?

[Scurrilous]

87. I would say the latter.

...and yes, a pro-Palestinian group doesn't carry much influence. No slavering politicians queuing-up to address these guys.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

83. Well, I'm part of this lobby and I say it RRRRAWWWWWKSSS!!!!!!

Because that's what these two McCarthyists are saying - that anyone pro-Israel American is part of a mysterious "lobby."

Their info smells like they got it from a spittoon in the lobby of the David Duke Lodge.

[IndianaGreen]

89. Pot meet kettle

McCarthyism is the hallmark of AIPAC which, in case you haven't noticed, is now in the middle of a prowar campaign to lure Americans into supporting an attack against Iran. They used the same script to fool us into invading Iraq, and now we have 2,300 dead GIs to thank AIPAC for.

[rockymountaindem]

91. Woah woah woah

How did AIPAC get a majority Protestant country to invade Iraq on behalf of the Jewish state?

The problem with this whole thread is that lobby groups such as AIPAC are only as powerful as the people who listen to them. If you got the political leaders to ignore lobby groups, that would solve your problems. Getting rid of lobbying isn't the answer, because it's protected by the courts and because people will always coalesce around policy initiatives to influence the powerful.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

95. not to mention tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis.

Disgusting. Deadly. Unforgivable.

So much for the ethical and moral high ground. AIPAC has a lot to answer for, at least those traitors who have not yet been caught spying and stealing US secrets to Israel.

[adriennui]

94. i am pro-israel

i must be off to my mysterious lobby meeting tonight. we've lots of plotting to do. taking over the world requires mucho work. we're doing such a wonderful job.....all those mid-eastern countries with those lines we fed them to say. (Don't tell anyone.....but we control them as well....saudi arabia, libya, the sudan, iran, iraq, even pakistan).

they are all our puppets. the world is ours!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Boojatta]

85. What persuaded the U.K. to get involved in the Iraq war?

"decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war

[Coastie for Truth]

86. Reliving Their Glory Days

when the "Sun Never Set On The British Empire" and they happily carved up the Ottoman Empire to suit their own convenience, imperial dreams, colonial dreams, protect Suez, and protect "their" oil.

They predestined the region for war lords and tribal warfare.

See Engdahl, "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" -readable and adequate, but only exemplary of a body of scholarship. Remember - this was the time when the WWI victors really screwed up Europe, the ME, Africa, and Asia for a century.

[Englander]

98. 'Protocols of the Elders of Albion'?

;-)

[IndianaGreen]

88. Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

Published on Thursday, March 23, 2006 by Inter Press Service

Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - "This situation has no equal in American political history," says the 83-page study, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy".

"Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" ask authors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The answer, according to the paper, which is already stirring debate in academic circles and fury among pro-Israel groups, is the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

These groups include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, and more recently, Christian Zionist organizations.

A shorter version of the study was published in the London Review of Books on Mar. 10. The authors say their research is so strong that they doubt that any U.S. mainstream publication would dare publish it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm

[IndianaGreen]

90. What Is The Lobby?

Here is an excerpt from this 83-page document:

What Is The Lobby?

We use “the Lobby as a convenient short hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that the Lobby is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro-Israel to include letter-writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro-Israel organizations. But not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish-Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60

Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, “it is routine for us to say: ‘This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.’ We as a community do it all the time.” 62 There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish-American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of “perfidy” when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial “security fence.” 63 Critics declared that, “It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.”

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

[truth2power]

96. I don't suppose it would be reasonable to ask

those on this thread who are complaining about this study to actually read all 86 pages and then refute points they think are in error, instead of engaging in ad hominum attacks on the author(s) and using other devices that serve to shut down discussion of the issues.

I just now downloaded the article to my HD and I intend to read it (not tonight; I'm going to bed) and determine for myself whether I think it's credible. I thought that's the way we did things. Just sayin'...

[Coastie for Truth]

97. About as valid as Carnegie Mellon Prof Lester Lave's critique of Hybrids

Good old Les Lave (GM Professor of Industrial Administration at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon Univ) has published that if a motorist switches from a 25 mpg conventional car to a 50 mpg Prius Hybrid - that motorist will actually drive three times as many miles - and therefore burn more gas and generate more greenhouse gases then with a 25 mpg conventional car.

Moral - just because a prof says it - don't make it true.