Hardline Pastor (Hagee) Gets Prime AIPAC Spot

[Tom Joad]

Source: The Jewish Week (not The Onion, as some many have of us would have hoped) read the whole thing...

(snip)

One keynoter at the event, which annually draws hundreds of lawmakers, administration officials, diplomats and political hopefuls, will be Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), author of several books about biblical prophecy and an opponent of new territorial concessions to the Palestinians on biblical grounds. (Comment: Hagee opposes ANY territory being given to Palestinians)

(snip)

And a time when pro-Israel forces are being accused of beating the drums for war with Iran, Rev. Hagee seems to believe such a conflict is both inevitable and necessary. In his apocalypse-oriented book “Jerusalem Countdown,” he predicted a nuclear showdown with Iran and said, “The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching ... rejoice and be exceedingly glad, the best is yet to be,” according to a Wall Street Journal report posted on the CUFI Web site.

Last year, Rev. Hagee told the Jerusalem Post that “I would hope the United States would join Israel in a military pre-emptive strike to take out the nuclear capability of Iran for the salvation of Western civilization.”
(snip)
(article notes some dissent within aipac community of Hagee's extremism, but goes on to note...)

But Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a strong critic of many Christian right groups, said he is not alarmed about Hagee’s role in the policy conference.

“I think there is a role for him,” Foxman aid. “He has earned a certain recognition with the community because of his support for Israel.”

Foxman said he expects Hagee will get a good reception. “It’s a friendly platform,” he said. “I’m sure an overwhelming majority may be pleased with what he says.”
_________________________________________________

Comment:
Foxman sums it up, Hagee has "supported Israel" (Right, in the same way Pat Robertson "supports America") and that is the only criteria necessary for aipac and the ADL to give this religious nut-case a major platform at the huge aipac conference. It doesn't matter that this man opposes even the most fundamental human rights for Palestinians. It doesn't matter that he supports a catastrophic war on Iran. It even doesn't matter that Hagee thinks that persecution against Jews is the result of his god's judgment against Jews for "disobedience". What only matters to aipac is that he supports Israeli policy, and he demands that US support these policies (although he would strenuously oppose any future effort by Israel to make any concessions to Palestinians, but that doesn't seem likely to happen anyway).

Your congressman will be there for at least part of it, more likely than not. Please contact them and urge them to support a balanced policy in the Middle East, and to oppose the militarism support by aipac.

[Tom Joad]

1. The aipac conference is this Sunday, March 11th -13th. Protest planned for the 12th

http://dawndc.net/float.php?annc_id=478§ion_id=1

Mon.Mar.12.2007@6:00PM to Mon.Mar.12.2007@8:00PM

Call to Protest AIPAC’s Annual Conference Issued 2/21/07 MONDAY, MARCH 12 - 6 to 8 PM DC Convention Center, Mount Vernon Place between 7th & 9th Streets NW
CONGRESS, STAND UP TO AIPAC
Stop Funding Crimes Against Palestinians And Iraq and Iran Wars

DC Antiwar Network invites other peace and justice organizations to endorse and/or participate in a peaceful “Congress Stand Up to AIPAC” demonstration on Monday, March 12 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. We will protest the “Gala Banquet” of the 2007 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference

Dozens of congressional representatives and executive branch officials will attend the AIPAC banquet. Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and house leader Nancy Pelosi will speak. We encourage those inside and outside of D.C. who cannot attend to take other action:

* call congressional representatives, especially Reid, McConnel and Pelosi, and ask them NOT to attend the AIPAC conference.

(more at link)
http://dawndc.net/float.php?annc_id=478§ion_id=1

[DinahMoeHum]

2. Any Jew or Israeli who thinks Hagee is their ally should have their head examined.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/05/60minutes/main557187.shtml

Back in 2003, author Gershom Gorenberg spoke on a "60-Minutes" segment about the Revelations/Left Behind mania. He’s the author of the “End of Days,” a book about those Christian evangelicals who choose to read the Bible literally:

(snip)
“The Jews die or convert. As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario...They don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and that’s not who we are, and we never auditioned for that part, and the play is not one that ends up good for us.”

“If you listen to the drama they’re describing, essentially it’s a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act,”
(snip)


In short, the likes of Hagee and Falwell ain't good for the Jews, either here or in Israel.

:evilfrown:

[Tom Joad]

6. Maybe people need to consider the extremism aipac really represents

It's no wonder so many Jews feel aipac does not represent them.
It's no wonder that many other americans feel the same way.

http://www.stopaipac.org/

[HamdenRice]

3. Hagee is stark raving insane

I grew up as an evangelical Christian. (There's a difference between fundamentalist and evangelical, btw, and there's a strain of liberal Evangelicals, like in the Black Church.)

Anyway, as a former evangelical, I like to watch televangelists sometimes just to see what they're about and compare them to the doctrines I learned.

I have to say that of all of them, Hagee is the most bizarre and insane. He makes Benny Hinn look orthodox and makes Pat Robertson look liberal.

Listening to Hagee and comparing him to mainstream evangelical Christianity, or even putting aside his doctrinal arguments and just focusing on the style of his presentation, I can only conclude that he has an actual psychotic mental illness of some kind.

It's shocking that anyone would give him a platform.

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Hagee's "support" for Israel goes exactly this far.....

that the Jews play the part they must in his bullshit vision of the end-times prophecies. He wants the Jews to be in Israel so they can be (ostensibly) damned to hell during the tribulation. The man is a dominionist, a Bible literalist, a glutton, (ever seen a pic of him? Here he is, below) and little more than a money grubbing bullshit salesman. He is a used car huckster, just that the used cars he sells is little more than the idea of "Be a good christian like me and you'll spend eternity in paradise. Not like those damned sinners, the Jews and all the other heretics."



Hagee, in all his tubby glory

[Kagemusha]

5. Your comment seems fair and on the mark to me.

Who cares what his motivations are. His deeds further AIPAC policy, and that's all that matters. A useful nut, if you will.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Rabbi Block sums it up nicely

Rabbi Barry Block of Temple Beth El in San Antonio—the home of the John Hagee Ministries and to his 18,000-member Cornerstone Church—said he hopes the minister’s presence will be balanced by “Christians who support Israel but who do not share the ‘end of days’ theology and extremist anti-Palestinian positions and anti-Muslim prejudice so often spewed by Pastor Hagee.”

Rabbi Block, who said he is an “AIPAC supporter” and participates in local activities of the lobby, added that “there are those I love and respect in my community who believe we should work with Pastor Hagee on the important concern we share—the welfare of the state of Israel. However, despite what may be good intentions, I don’t think Pastor Hagee’s activism is good for Israel.”

[Tom Joad]

8. Doesn't seem like Mr. Block's view was the majority opinion in aipac

or the adl.

If we are to believe mr. foxman, then he will be in the distinct minority.

The fact that Hagee opposes even basic human rights for Palestinians, one may wonder what "good intentions" Block sees.

[oberliner]

9. Inviting Hagee to speak is a bad move

I agree with Rabbi Block's opinion on the matter.

Check out this editorial he wrote in the Jewish Standard:

Be wary of evangelical support for Israel

<snip>

Instead of conversionary activity, my concerns revolve around my everyday labor, engaging mainstream Christians — Catholics and mainline Protestants, as well as mainstream evangelicals — in support of our Jewish homeland and all the causes that we American Jews hold dear. To the Christian colleagues with whom I work most closely, Hagee is a charlatan. He and his group’s partners hew to a theology that mainstream Americans of every faith reject and often abhor. Even as they speak to large congregations, Hagee and his ilk are repudiated by tens of millions of Christians, including evangelicals, and for good reason. The group’s advocacy for Israel will harm everything we hold dear, as Israel and the Jewish people are tarnished by association.

Our people, though, cannot be our only concern. No Jew can hear Hagee’s sermon series, "Allah and America," and still support his efforts. Yes, the terror-supporting fundamentalist Islam that dominates the Muslim world today is worthy of condemnation. Hagee, though, vilifies Islam itself, demonizing Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Having lived through centuries when our own faith was similarly mocked, we cannot partner with today’s preachers of hate.

When we embrace Hagee and the like, we may be seen as joining or at least tolerating their repugnant extremism. When we work with these folks, we legitimize them as political players, strengthening their impact on agendas we find anathema, from their opposition to the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious freedom to their callous opposition to programs most critically needed by the poorest among us. Unlike the Catholic Church, for example, with which we disagree on the important concerns of sexual and reproductive freedom, the only issue on which we agree with the extremist fundamentalists in Hagee’s group is our shared support for Israel. They work hard to oppose our priorities and American Jewish interests every day.

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/1307/1/Be-wary-of-evangelical-support-for-Israel

[Tom Joad]

10. It seems aipac has no problem with his hatred of human rights, his fanatical militarism.

Hagee is a fascist. on that i think most of us can agree.

Tell it to aipac. Tell it to Abe foxman.

They missed the memo.

[Lilith Velkor]

11. This totally baffles me

Here we have this Hagee clown, who cheerfully admits he wants Israel to be involved in a war that destroys the entire planet including Israel. No problem.

Over there we have this bunch of leftists or something who are proposing instituting a one-state secular democracy, and I have seen an apparently straight-faced opinion that that would be no different from a military attack.

I really don't get it. I know people who live there, and unless there's something they are not telling me, I'm pretty sure they would rather not die for the jollies of any religious fanatic.

Meh. Seems like everybody's got Fox News Syndrome (or Guardian Syndrome) these days.

[Scurrilous]

12. Cheney keynoting at AIPAC

<snip>

"Vice President Dick Cheney will address the AIPAC policy conference. This will be the second year in a row that the vice president is the keynote speaker at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's benchmark event.

Cheney represents the Bush administration’s hardest line on containing Iran’s nuclear program, a central strategy for the pro-Israel lobby powerhouse. The conference runs March 11-13; Cheney speaks March 12."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100363.html

[Tom Joad]

15. Hagee & Dick Cheney. Their love of war, their willingness to kill

masses of Muslims and Arabs in support of the fundamentally unjust status quo in the Middle East, has earned them the love and respect of AIPAC and Foxman's ADL.

[pelsar]

13. ...looking for the balance....(and a bit off topic)

i personally despise the use of the chrisitian right (with their jews convert or die view....) within AIPAC or any other pro israel lobby, precisly because their vision excludes civil rights for all etc.

on the other side of the line which i find equally disgusting is the use of hamas supporters/islamic jihad/islamic fundamentalists. etc in those protests that are backed by the left and are "pro palestinian"..


i admit its an old question i've asked of tom, never really getting a straight answer....... and its a bit off topic, but still it seems to be a good oppertunity to bring it up again.


________________
Do those who see a problem with the christian religious right siding up with AIPAC have the same problem when hamas supporters (and other islamic fundamentalists) side up with the "left" against israel?
_______________

and will i get a straight answer as i have given?

[UndertheOcean]

14. Yes , I do (simple answer!), But even A.N.S.W.E.R rallies don't have hamas supporters in them..

what left are you talking about ?

And I don't care about the christian religious right siding up with AIPAC , for they are Fascist anyway, there a benefit there , for it actually shows them for what they are.

[pelsar]

16. a straight answer...

you are are rare poster here...and i find the straightforward answer refreshing.....

As far as the "left" or perhaps pro palestenian or "anti israeli protests (rather a vague description i admit) I can recall many times seeing signs for the hamas/hizballa (party of god!) and other islamic fundamentalists right along side the more "secular version" of the protestors.

i dont really save the specifics (i was under the impression that many were in England), though i do recall seeing some images from California.


i just did a quick google of Brian Becker (ANSWERS coordinator )and hizballa...seems the "party of god and ANSWER seem to get along.
(Hizballah is dedicated to liberating Jerusalem and eliminating Israel and has formally advocated ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon)

whats the difference between hizballa, christian right in terms of their views?.....

[UndertheOcean]

17. Not much , other than the Christian right of this age is more oriented towards a unabashed

capitalist social order without the social freedoms that come with that.

On the otherhand hizbullah wants to return to the mideaval feudal times.

But does anyone defend Hizbullah on this forum?

[pelsar]

18. there was some....

nothing "serious" in that it was more of a "hit and run" kind of thing....

I'm far more bothered by the absense of concern for the shape of the future PA govt. I've been told several times that if its a version of the taliban, iran or Hollands democracy, its none of israels business.... hence my concern since a hizballa or real hamas style govt will only bring additional bloodshed

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Big difference.

These leftist protests that you speak of are not involved in the formulation of US foreign policy. A.N.S.W.E.R meetings are not attended by Congressional representatives, presidential candidates, or Vice Presidents.

And no, I would not associate myself with any organization or protest that had ties with extremist Islamic groups. It is kind of a stretch though, IMHO, to compare John Hagee speaking at an AIPAC conference with Joe Blow from off the street waving some sign at a protest rally. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand the difference? :shrug:

[pelsar]

37. lets keep this simple..

and start with the principle.

do you have a problem if ANSWER teams up with Hizballa/Hamas for some political action?

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Yes. Now a question for you.

Do you or do you not see the difference between a highly influential lobbying group that commands the attention of top politicians, and a fringe organization that does little more than organize protests? Can you see where one of them might be held to a higher standard than the other? Can you fathom why one of them might be a greater source of concern than the other, when it involves itself with extremists?

How often do you see people defending ANSWER on this board?

[pelsar]

43. i look at the principle...

in that respect there is absolutly no difference what so ever.

Whereas AIPAC is successul in the many of their goals to influence the US govt policies, ANSWER is trying very hard to.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. So, one extremist fringe group associating with another extremist fringe group

is no different to you than a respected and supposedly mainstream organization, with major influence over government and policy, associating with extremist fringe groups.

I'm sorry, but I have to part company with you on that one. There will always be plenty of extremist fringe groups out there, and I can't possibly worry about all of them. I will continue to be more concerned about the ones that are actually infuencing policy. If ANSWER ever starts being even a tiny fraction as influential as AIPAC, I'll start worrying more about it.

[pelsar]

63. the principle is the same.....

however once we get into the actual influence.....of those same fringe groups i then "stop" and say (and this goes for all of them) that one has to leave the world of emotional reaction and actually do some research and find out how much influence and how much internal politics are involved.

both deserve blanket condemnation, beyond that blanket principle..the world is far more complex.....

[pelsar]

44. I understand...that ANWER has no problem with hizballa...

or so says their spokesman....so its not a matter of "joe blow" off the street......its the organization itself.

[Tom Joad]

19. Why did aipac choose the Hagee the Horrible?

I've been thinking about this, and wondered with all the mainline support aipac gets, why did they choose Hagee?

A few thoughts:

1. Hagee does not say anything about "diplomacy" with Iran. He wants to get the job done, so to speak. He supports unequivocally a US/Israel military strike against Iran. "The only way (the President of Iran) will be stopped will be by a pre-emptive military strike in Iran." (wash times, 7/13/06)

2. In contrast, even Pelosi, who is considered a staunch supporter of aipac, she is not quite up to the level of support for a military strike in Iran that fits comfortably with aipac. aipac wants a provision in the current spending bill, limiting Bush's option in Iran without congressional approval (you know, something closer to the US Constitution that only gives congress the right to declare war) stricken from the bill, as it probably will be, so again aipac and bush will get what they want in regard to iran. Pelosi does get to speak at the aipac conference, and does get top billing on Tuesday (she is, after all, speaker of the House), but i think that hagee's approach to Iran is more popular with the aipac folks.

3. Rev Hagee has relationships with important Israelis, including Israel's most popular politician, Netanyahu.

"The greatest support Israel has today is in the United States. And the greatest support Israel has in the US, besides the Jewish community, is that of Evangelical Christians," Netanyahu said at the monthly meeting of the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus, which hosted Hagee on Monday.

"These people... support us not because of a shared ethnic identity, but because of a broader partnership based on values," Netanyahu added.

Hagee is featured on the "One Jerusalem" website, that was co-founded by Natan Sharansky. So the man has important connections.

so why should a few wacky beliefs about what god is going to do to you and your loved ones in the imagined afterlife get in the way of someone who wants to kill millions of your supposed "enemies". They chose Hagee, despite his religous line because he is faithful to the political line of aipac, and that is all that counts in this life.

I think this is a very tragic mistake. It can lead to unspeakable catastorphe, to support this hardline religious extremism, mixed as it is with militarism and love of war.

The level of religious and extremist rhetoric is Wrong in Iran, and Wrong in Washington DC this Sunday.

[oberliner]

20. Wrong in the Palestinian Authority as well?

You wrote:

"The level of religious and extremist rhetoric is Wrong in Iran, and Wrong in Washington DC this Sunday."

Would you agree that the level of religious and extremist rhetoric espoused by Hamas is also a problem and that progressives should respond to the current leadership in the Palestinian Authority accordingly?

[Tom Joad]

21. Wrong anywhere. But no, i do not believe, as does aipac, that

Palestinians should be starved for choosing "incorrectly".
Genocide just ain't cool.

[oberliner]

22. AIPAC does not believe that Palestinians should be starved

If you are interested in learning what AIPAC believes, feel free to read their position papers, such as this one:

U.S., Israel Act to Prevent Palestinian Humanitarian Crisis

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesMemos/U.S._and_Israel_Act_to_Prevent_Palestinian_Humanitarian_Crisis.pdf

Being critical of AIPAC for inviting Rev. Hagee to speak at their conference is certainly reasonable.

Claiming that the membership of AIPAC believes that Palestinians should be starved or suggesting that they think "genocide is cool" is not.

[breakaleg]

23. That was in May of last year. There have been recent reports out suggesting there is indeed

a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. So, were those measures implemented? Did the money / aid reach the people and do it's job?

Also note that that paper places blame on Hamas for Gaza's troubles.

[Tom Joad]

24. The humanitarian crisis continues. A few handouts are not going to make a difference.

It is revisionist history of the worst sort to deny the reality in Occupied Palestine.

There could be no human rights organization in the country that would say otherwise.

the only people who deny what is being done to the Palestinians, or who do not care what happens to them, are extremists like Hagee. Hence, it makes sense for aipac to invite him.

[oberliner]

26. No one is denying reality

However, one cannot reduce the cause of the problem into such simplistic terms (i.e. Israel and/or AIPAC wants to "starve the Palestinians")

Here is a statement from the spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry:

"Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said his government does not want to see hardship in the Palestinian territories. He said Israel supports additional humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and is committed to improving the flow of goods in and out of Gaza.

"We've always tried to find the right balance between keeping the Israeli population safe from suicide bombers and our commitment - which is genuine and real - to allowing the maximum possible flow of produce and goods," he said."

The situation would be vastly improved if Hamas moderated some of its positions towards Israel. Such steps would encourage the international community that this organization should be dealt with as something other than a terrorist entity. Continuing to orchestrate suicide operations and refusing to curtail regular rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilians does not help to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.

[Tom Joad]

27. LOL. That was their response to the prospect of hungry Palesitnians

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9785

The Hamas team had not laughed so much in a long time. The team, headed by the prime minister's advisor Dov Weissglas and including the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the director of the Shin Bet and senior generals and officials, convened for a discussion with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on ways to respond to the Hamas election victory. Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter. And, indeed, why not break into laughter and relax when hearing such a successful joke? If Weissglas tells the joke to his friend Condoleezza Rice, she would surely laugh too.

But Weissglas' wisecrack was in particularly poor taste. Like the thunder of laughter it elicited, it again revealed the extent to which Israel's intoxication with power drives it crazy and completely distorts its morality. With a single joke, the successful attorney and hedonist from Lilenblum Street, Tel Aviv demonstrated the chilling heartlessness that has spread throughout the top echelon of Israel's society and politics. While masses of Palestinians are living in inhumane conditions, with horrifying levels of unemployment and poverty that are unknown in Israel, humiliated and incarcerated under our responsibility and culpability, the top military and political brass share a hearty laugh a moment before deciding to impose an economic siege that will be even more brutal than the one until now.
(more at link)

[grassfed]

52. Effect of Slavery on Whites - Frederick Douglass

The Occupation has had a similar effect on Israeli society and on some foreign supporters.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave

Effect of Slavery on Whites -
“Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness”

"My new mistress proved to be all she appeared when I first met her at the door,--a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings. She had never had a slave under her control previously to myself, and prior to her marriage she had been dependent upon her own industry for a living. She was by trade a weaver; and by constant application to her business, she had been in a good degree preserved from the blighting and dehumanizing effects of slavery. I was utterly astonished at her goodness. I scarcely knew how to behave towards her. She was entirely unlike any other white woman I had ever seen. I could not approach her as I was accustomed to approach other white ladies. My early instruction was all out of place. The crouching servility, usually so acceptable a quality in a slave, did not answer when manifested toward her. Her favor was not gained by it; she seemed to be disturbed by it. She did not deem it impudent or unmannerly for a slave to look her in the face. The meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none left without feeling better for having seen her. Her face was made of heavenly smiles, and her voice of tranquil music.

But, alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon."


http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Douglass/Autobiography/06.html

[Tom Joad]

28. The idea that Palestinian children can be fed if "the Hamas

moderated some of its positions towards Israel" is basically affirming what i said.

Hunger is being used as a weapon of war, a weapon of terror.

what other Christian leader would support that except from the extremist fundamentalists sects? Just as I said, it begins to make sense they got someone like hagee to represent this morally bankrupt position.

[oberliner]

30. It is not that "Palestinian children can be fed if Hamas moderates"

It is that Palestinians can more easily get jobs in Israel if Hamas moderates.

One of the primary reasons why there is this problem is due to the high unemployment rate resulting from those Palestinians who used to work in Israel no longer being able to do so.

That you don't see that there is a security issue here is baffling to me.

One billion dollars in aid was given to the PA in 2005 and approximately the same amount of aid was given in 2006.

Hunger is not being used as a weapon of war. Hunger is a consequence of actions being taken by leaders on both sides.

[Tom Joad]

32. Security is the not just the right of Israelis. Palestinians suffer from a

"security issue" as well. Palestinians suffer from torture in Israeli prisons. Palestinians suffer from land theft. Palestinians suffer from arbitrary arrest, and then detention without charge. Palestinians suffer from farms being razed. Palestinians suffer from exports being restricted. Palestinians suffer from tax money being confiscated.

Yes, there is a security issue.

[oberliner]

36. Your points are noted

Yes, the paper does blame Hamas for Gaza's troubles. I just do not believe that it is fair to say that the membership of AIPAC "believes that Palestinians should be starved". AIPAC membership supports getting humanitarian aid to Palestinians, just not dealing directly with Hamas.

[Tom Joad]

46. You have to deal with the fact that the keynote speaker of aipac

believes not only that the holocaust is the fault of Jews for their so-called disobedience, but also Hagee desperately wants war with Iran to bring in the "end times".

Fact two: The end results of aipac policy, and israel's policy, is hungry Palestinians. and they damn well know it.

[oberliner]

53. Deal with all of the facts

One might argue that the end results of Hamas policy is hungry Palestinians and they damn well know that as well.

Keynote speakers at the AIPAC event included both right-wingers like Hagee and left-wingers like Pelosi. As I've mentioned before, AIPAC is a broad-based organization. Large numbers of its membership are Democrats. Large numbers of its membership are Republicans.

AIPAC does not, as an organization, promote a military strike on Iran.

They promote legislation aimed at increasing economic and political pressure on Iran to persuade Tehran to end its nuclear program.

[Tom Joad]

25. Do you deny that Palestinians are facing sanctions that cause hunger?

if so, can you cite a humanitarian/human rights organization that would agree that Palestinians are not being denied basic necessities, in part due to sanctions imposed by Israel and its allies?

[oberliner]

29. Have you yourself not proposed sanctions against Israel?

If I am not citing you accurately, then I apologize, however I believe that you have advocated a boycott/divestment/sanctions campaign against Israel until it complies with international law.

Hamas currently heads the Palestinian Authority and they are an organization that supports terrorist operations against civilians in violation of international law. They have also refused to honor internationally recognized agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Why is it acceptable to advocate sanctions against the Israeli government for its actions and positions but not to advocate sanctions against the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government for its actions and positions?

The situation right now is, indeed, horrendous. There are, however, numerous paths to potential solutions that are worth exploring. The end result that I believe all of us seek is for both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. That is not going to happen unless major concessions are made by both parties.

That there are innocent Palestinians who do not have enough food to eat in Gaza is absolutely deplorable and we should do everything we can to alleviate their suffering.

That a man from Gaza could enter Israel from the Sinai and attempt to kill vast numbers of innocent Israelis in Eilat and succeed in killing three bakerty workers and that Hamas would speak favorably of such an operation is also deplorable.

Clearly you believe that the international community should take action to protest the behaviors of the current government of Israel.

What actions, if any, do you think the international community such take against Hamas while at the same time ensuring that innocent Palestinians will not suffer as a result of those actions?

[Tom Joad]

31. Comparing the two is ridiculous. Israel is a prosperous nation

that is occupying other people's land. It expends great wealth in doing so.

The Palestinians are a people UNDER occupation.

Sanctions applied to Israel would only mean that profits of some of its companies would suffer. It is unlikely to produce hunger. Hunger in Israel today is the result of its inequitable economic system. It is there despite the very generous support of the United States (if only congress would be so generous elsewhere, like to say... West Oakland)

[oberliner]

33. Ok, but I would still respectfully ask you the same question

What actions, if any, do you think the international community should take against Hamas while at the same time ensuring that innocent Palestinians will not suffer as a result of those actions?

[Tom Joad]

34. The world should pressure Israel to end its occupation. The source of the violence.

[pelsar]

38. its about time..."Israel......The source of the violence."

what i find refreshing about the extreme settlers, hizballa, hamas and islamic jihad is their honesty. Talk to them in any forum and its doesnt take more than a few minutes for their black and white good and bad version of events to appear.

but here on the DU...whew... takes months to get some straight simple answers....as far as i can see the only differences lie in the honesty.

ask a settler a straight question...one gets a straight anwer..do it here.....very difficult, but sometimes as in the above i guess it just slips out.

[Tom Joad]

39. The occupation is the source of the violence, you conveniently left that out.

[pelsar]

41. history can be troublesome....

i realize that simple facts can really mess up ones belief and if i ask one of my "simple and stuiped questions"..will i even get an answer?

if the occupation is from 67....why was israel constantly under attack from pre 67?

or do you consider the occupation from 1948?

____________

[breakaleg]

42. What is your point?

That if the fighting started on a certain date then the current hostilities have nothing to do with the occupation? Is this another way to justify Israel's actions towards Palestinians? Do you deny that the current treatment of Palestinians has a lot to do with their feelings towards Israel? That there is reason other than "they hate Jews" for Palestinians to fight you? Or is it simply anti-semitism that fuels this fight?

[pelsar]

47. my point is very very very simple...

I'm looking for a definition of:

The occupation is the source of the violence


is the occupation 67 or is it 48? (i'm confused again and am requesting clarifiation)

lets start with that.......

[breakaleg]

48. What difference does it make? Many of the people fighting on both sides at the moment

are young enough to have been born into the occupation - either date. So it's likely that their feelings, attitudes and reasons for fighting stem from real world experience as much as any other reason. In other words, the occupation is all they know.

[pelsar]

49. tough question?

i was asking tom...who claims that the violence is a result of the occuaption...i just want to know what his definition is......

he blames israel for all the violence which is a result of the occupation.....i just want to know his starting point.

perhaps you dont understand why there is a difference, but for an israeli there is (I'll explain later if your actually interested in why there is a difference....have to go)

[Shaktimaan]

54. Is it not just as valid to say

that the feelings in Israel are formed from their own experiences of constant Arab terrorism and calls for Israel's destruction, frequently couched not in terms of withdrawl and peace but in seriously anti-semitic sentiments such as support for killing every Jew worldwide? Or the feelings of despair following the leftist victory to pull out of Lebanon when everyone realized that Israel's occupation of Lebanon had no calming effect on Hezbollah's frequent attacks or anti-semitic rhetoric? Or the realization that steps taken by Israel to ease the occupation, such as the Gaza pullout, have universally resulted in strengthening terrorist support an increase in attacks?

These are real world examples that support the notion that the occupation has little relationship to terrorism. Everything you have offered is pure speculation, there is ZERO evidence to suggest that the occupation causes terrorism or that ending the occupation would end terrorism. In fact, the evidence to date, (REAL evidence, not speculative) suggests the opposite. That ending settlements and leaving the west bank would probably INCREASE terrorism and worsen the conflict.

But hey, maybe I am wrong. Do you have a SINGLE example that supports your claim?

[breakaleg]

55. well...

You question assumes many things. That the pullout of Gaza was meant to ease the occupation. That they even really pulled out of Gaza. That the Lebanese were supposed to feel thankful for Israel getting out of their country after how many years? That all Palestinians subscribe to the idea of wanting to kill every Jew worldwide and want Israel's destruction.

Given that I disagree with those questions, I can't answer your question. In fact, I got so caught up in your assumptions I don't remember what your question was.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Show me where I made this assumption.

That all Palestinians subscribe to the idea of wanting to kill every Jew worldwide and want Israel's destruction.

While you're at it, show me where I said that Lebanon should "Thank" Israel for anything. Or when you say "Thank" do you mean "refrain from increasing attacks and calls to kill every Jew in the world?" Because in that case I do think Lebanon should "thank" Israel for leaving. In fact, that's how peace works. (Maybe you missed that day in class.)

I couldn't help but notice that you got so "caught up" in falsely accusing me of racism again that you were unable to come up with a single piece of evidence that supports your view. Aren't you one of those people that constantly says that anyone who criticises Israel is shouted down with baseless accusations of anti-semitism? Do you see any irony in your own constant accusations of racism to distract anyone who asks you to support your claims?

You never seem to get around to returning to the subject to provide evidence for anything you say either. You just scream "racist!" and then skitter away. I wonder why that is?

[Tom Joad]

56. What are the causes of Israeli Terror?

[pelsar]

57. see post 47..for a base line .....n/t

[pelsar]

50. how about an answer?

which is your definition of the occupation 1948 or 1967?

[Tom Joad]

45. Tsuriel Raphael, would have been a saner, more sober speaker.

[Tom Joad]

59. AIPAC's Deal with the Christian Zionist Devil

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/richards1052/2007/mar/13/aipacs_deal_with_the_christian_zionist_devil

This includes a transcript of much of hagee's speech. Must read.

And relates what Hagee believes:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West." (he said this July 2006)


The Hagee-aipacists want war, and they want it badly. The world can't afford to listen to the looneys.

[oberliner]

60. Other AIPAC members include Ameinu, a group committed to peace and social justice

From their website:

Ameinu envisions Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, at peace with its neighbors, committed to religious pluralism and social and economic justice for all its citizens. Ameinu's political agenda addresses a range of domestic and international issues, including protection of the environment, support for universal healthcare, preservation of civil liberties, and the ending of foreign and domestic sweatshops.

Ameinu supports efforts to end the Middle East conflict with a negotiated peace with the Palestinians and the Arab States. We look forward to continuing our historic cooperation and identification with the activities and goals of the labor movement of Israel and other progressive forces which share those goals.

This group of progressives were also very unhappy with Hagee's remarks and what they call the "hawkish shift" presented at the recent conference.

Ameinu remains committed to working to make its voice within AIPAC hear, to help make this large advocacy group accountable to all of its members, not just its members on the right.

This particular branch of AIPAC supports a two-state solution recognizing Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, opposes violence and terror and accepts prior agreements between Israel and the PA.

[Tom Joad]

61. Let's not forget Olmert either....

telling the US it needs to continue occupation of Iraq...

and nothing makes up for the anti-Muslim extremism of Hagee. It is more than a mistake. This racist organization should be marginalized.

[oberliner]

62. AIPAC is not a racist organization

As for Olmert, his position on Iraq is the same as W's.

Hopefully the Democrats will win here in the US and Labor will win in Israel.

[Tom Joad]

64. Is Hagee a racist warmonger?

Keynote speaker... i mean, if he were just one of the crowd...okay, i would say no big deal. he was a keynote speaker.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. He is ONE of the keynote speakers.

Perhaps you should re-read your OP...the part about dissent. You have still yet to prove your assertion that AIPAC is a racist organization.

[Tom Joad]

66. But you chose not to answer my question. Which is fine, of course

i know he was one of several speakers. I asked if others would agree he should be considered to be a a racist warmonger?

http://maxblumenthal.com/archives/56

AIPAC Cheers an Anti-Semitic Holocaust Revisionist (and Abe Foxman Approves)

“I think there is a role for . He has earned a certain recognition with the community because of his support for Israel.”
–Anti-Defamation League national director Abe Foxman, 3/9/07

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day…”
–Pastor John Hagee, “Jerusalem Countdown,” pp. 92-93

It does not necessarily matter to AIPAC if you preach “New World Order/Illuminati” conspiracy theories involving “international bankers,” a classic coded anti-Semitic trope. Nor does it necessarily matter to them if the rhetoric you have spewed about the Holocaust sounds like a Christian version of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. AIPAC doesn’t even necessarily care that you’ve lionized Yigal Amir, the assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

(from the link, also Blumenthal's writing)
For instance, in his 1996 book The Beginning of the End, Hagee described the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as fulfillment of prophecy and suggested admiration for Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir.
_______
This is the sewage aipac chose to hook up with. This is the man Foxman finds has "earned his place at the table". That table needs to be overturned.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[oberliner]

67. In response to your question

AIPAC, like the US, is made up of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.

Many members of AIPAC voiced their strong displeasure with the invitation that was extended to Rev. Hagee; others cheered him.

I agree with those AIPAC members who do not feel comfortable aligning with him and I support those AIPAC members who are in favor of pursuing diplomatic and political means of addressing issues between Israel and her neighbors (such as the bill proposed by Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos).

I don't know that name-calling is particularly helpful, but I will not dispute the terminology you've chosen to use to characterize Rev. Hagee based on the evidence you've provided.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. Watching Hagee's "congregation" soaking up every word (on TV)

makes me question the basis of our democracy. I just saw this on TV 2 days ago. "Fighting Between 2 Families" I believe it was called.

It makes me CRAZY that these sponge-like idiots soak up every stinking word that charlatan blathers... and those idiots vote!

Nothing makes me more angry than those fundy Christians acting like they have some righteous knowledge of the reality in the middle east "because the Bible says so."

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[Scurrilous]

69. AIPAC’s Embrace of Hagee Exposes Extreme Right-Wing Agenda

<snip>

"I was reading James Besser's story about John Hagee's keynote address to the recent AIPAC national policy conference. For the past few days I've been railing about Hagee's loony theological ideas and his not so latent anti-Semitic views. I've excoriated AIPAC for its amoral stance, which allows it to embrace such an extremist all because he's "good for Israel." Israel supposedly has so few friends that it can't afford to turn its back on ones like Pastor John."

<snip>

"If you were a political strategist, which AIPAC certainly fancies itself, wouldn't you want to ride the winning horse? Is the Christian Right the winning horse? Is the extreme right of the Republican Party, where these Christian Zionists stand as far as American politics are concerned, a winning horse? The answers respectively should be Yes, No and No. Bush and the Republicans have been trounced in recent elections. Their most ardent supporters, the Christian right, while still powerful wield nothing like the power they once did before November. Democrats are ascendant.

So what does AIPAC do? Not only does it give Hagee a prime time slot, its members boo when Nancy Pelosi tells them that Democrats oppose the war in Iraq. Keep in mind this is the Speaker of the House. The woman who controls the legislative agenda for the next two years. The woman who can advance or bottle up AIPAC's pet bills. Of course, Pelosi isn't going to turn her back on AIPAC because a few bellicose delegates gave her the finger. But nevertheless it is instructive how far the interests of AIPAC and the Democratic party have diverged.

But when will Democrats finally recognize that AIPAC is NOT their friend. When will people like Nita Lowey, Jane Harman and others realize that AIPAC does them no favors when its former national director endorses a multi-million dollar election ad campaign attacking Democrats for being "soft" on Israel. Barack Obama is beginning to see this. Hillary will never see it. We need Democrats who can be pro-Israel (and pro-Palestinian) without being slaves of AIPAC."

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/15/aipacs-embrace-of-hagee-exposes-extreme-right-wing-agenda/