Ole Man Lobby Jus’ Keeps on Rollin’

[Scurrilous]

Transforming America’s Israel Lobby: The Limits of Its Power and the Potential for Change By Dan Fleshler Potomac Books, Inc., 272 pages, $24.95.

<snip>

"Every few years, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee goes too far — at least according to its critics. It bullies the wrong congressman. It steps on the toes of the wrong undersecretary. It slanders the reputation of the wrong Jewish peacenik or respected academic. And yet, like the River Jordan, it is still a-rollin’, mightier than ever, flooding Congress with legislation that rewards Israel, punishes Palestinians and generally makes life difficult for anyone who dares to differ. It wins, but it wins ugly, and the people getting rolled predict that next time, it will be different.

A mark of just how powerful, and infuriating, the lobby has become is that after Charles “Chas” Freeman was forced to withdraw from consideration for chair of the National Intelligence Council, AIPAC claimed it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. This lobby is so damned powerful, it can defeat presidential nominations it doesn’t even oppose!

This is the context addressed in Dan Fleshler’s book, “Transforming America’s Israel Lobby: The Limits of Its Power and the Potential for Change.”

Perhaps AIPAC representatives are telling the truth, but the anti-Freeman campaign had all the AIPAC trademarks: character assassination, media leaks of confidential information, loud Congressional outrage and precious few fingerprints. When it was over, Freeman was history, and the message was clear to anyone thinking of deviating from AIPAC’s line. The Israel Policy Forum’s director of policy analysis, M. J. Rosenberg, who writes the book’s foreword, predicted that Freeman’s defeat would “come at a cost.” He quoted an “insider,” calling it “a real pyrrhic victory.”

The case against AIPAC is well worn: It does not accurately represent the views of most American Jews; it does not play fair; it invites the charge of “dual loyalty”; it colludes with Likudniks; it seeks to involve the United States in wars, regardless of self-interest; it corrupts the very meaning of “pro-Israel” to imply all of the above.

Rather than rehearse the argument yet again, let’s boil down AIPAC’s effectiveness to a single question: When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, why is this country different from all others? America’s long-term relationship with Israel is perhaps our single most expensive one, in terms of both blood and treasure. Not only does it cost taxpayers billions in military and economic aid, but it also unarguably inflames much of the Islamic world against us and fuels anti-American violence the world over. No other nation, save Israel, sees the conflict in the same terms as America. And yet, however costly and controversial, the policies continue, largely unchanged, from administration to administration, and Congress to Congress."

more

[babylonsister]

1. I wish I could recommend this. Thanks. nt

[RandomThoughts]

2. If every donation, and every act of influence

was open and people knew about it I would not have a problem with it. Because then it would also have to be acceptable to the American society.

It is the secrecy that brings problems in situations like that. It does not allow American or even Israeli people to make a decision if AIPAC is acting in ways that they agree with. And if they are acting in ways that are acceptable, it opens them up for being labeled as having to much influence.

It is possible, with secrecy, areas of economics policy, maters of justice, or even national security could be being lobbied on without disclosure by our representatives or officials.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. That sounds like a book worth keeping an eye out for...

This bit of the article was worth repeating:

'In recent times, the combination of a new openness in discussing AIPAC among Jews, together with the founding of J Street (a new, politically progressive alternative to AIPAC) has fostered the hope that American Jews will move toward a new definition of “pro-Israel” — one more consistent with their generally humanistic values and the consistent responses they give to public opinion surveys about their support for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.'

[Sezu]

4. The Elders strike again!!!!

:tinfoilhat:

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Wow. A gratuitous accusation of antisemitism. How predictable...

No offense, but you really should read OPs before knee-jerking away...

[Sezu]

7. Not antisemitism but foolish fear of something legal and

done by LOTS of special interest lobbies. This lobby fear is a traditional part of conspiracy theory which is of course irrational.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. If not antisemitism, why drag out the Elders line?

btw, what lobby fear? The guy who wrote the article is on the board of advisers of a progressive lobby group. He was specifically talking about AIPAC, and there was nothing in the way of conspiracy theories about the article...

[Vegasaurus]

6. Shall we add up the billions and billions in aid

that have gone down the hellhole in the PA?

Or the billions to Egypt, SA, or any of the the other not-so friendly regimes that we fund?

And while the different Muslim factions are busy suicide bombing each other in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world (daily news, by the hundreds) we are going to blame the US and Israel for their internal problems?

If Israel went away tomorrow, the problems in the Islamic world would persist, because those problems have nothing at all to do with "Western influence", imperialism, AIPAC, the US or Israel.

Nice to have a scapegoat though.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Shall you ever try to address the OP?

I really don't get why people who haven't bothered reading an OP and clearly have an aversion to discussing it decide to hit that reply button and post a mixture of hyperbole and *Let's Rant About Muslims instead*. If I see an OP I'm not interested in discussing, I don't bother posting anything. You should try it, or maybe find a forum where there's nothing but the stuff you want to talk about instead of the OP. I'd post a link to a place you'd be at home at, but unfortunately linking to it isn't allowed at DU :)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Hitting the reply button and continuing a creepy obsession over Muslims isn't addressing the op...

Before you of all people do a knee-jerk 'try reading for a change', you should practice what you preach and aim to comprehend what you read. The author didn't, as yr claiming, say that Israel is the only country that gets military and economic aid...

Oh, and if yr going to venture into insulting names, I can beat you hands down on that and manage to do something that's funny instead of what you did which is just bleat a variation of an insulting name that banned DUers on another forum use. Try not to be so lame in future...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Capt_Nemo]

10. I just love displays of self-righteous ignorance

let me see...

Who ruled the Middle East between WWI and WWII?
Who installed and supported the Shah of Iran?
Who has supported for more than 60 years the house Saud?
Who supported Sadat and his successor Mubarak?
Who supported the brutal Suharto regime in Indonesia?
Who installed and supported Muhamad Zia Ul-Haq in Pakistan?
Who organized, financed and the armed the Afghan Mujahedin? (there was this saudi guy wih them... Osama something...)

Nope, nothing to do at all with "Western influence" or imperialism...

[Violet_Crumble]

11. If the answer to those questions isn't the Muslims, then Veggie ain't interested... n/t

[Vegasaurus]

12. I said the US has thrown billions and billions at these hellhole regimes

but the fact is that Muslims are killing each other, every day.

Can't blame the US for honor killings, kidnappings, suicide bombings that Muslims do to each other.

If they were only suicide bombing US soldiers and Israelis, you could blame US influence (maybe).

But they are busy killing each other, all the while as their regimes receive billions in aid.

Can't you comment on that?

[Capt_Nemo]

15. Yes, I can blame the US and UK

For manufacturing and installing some of these regimes and for supporting all of them.
This makes them at least co-responsible for the oppression of those peoples under these
regimes.

You seem to believe that the people living under these regimes support them and are free
to choose alternatives.

Believe what you will.

And by the way, the original use of suicide bombings in modern warfare was in Sri Lanka,
a conflict between Hindus and Buddhists...

P.S. I could have made longer lists of equally nasty regimes sponsored by the west
and murderous conflicts in Africa and Latin America, but I didn't want to take this
out of the "Muslim World" context. But since I mention this, I shoud say that
the causes of these conflicts are the same as in the ME and it is not religion.
It is colonialism and imperialism.

[Vegasaurus]

19. There are lots of murderous regimes

and the US supports many of them.

Currently, however, most of the worldwide unrest, from Darfur to Afghanistan to Sri Lanka involves only one ethnic or religious group.

I know political correctness prevents honestly, but it would be nice, for a change.

[Capt_Nemo]

20. Wrong

"Currently, however, most of the worldwide unrest, from Darfur to Afghanistan to Sri Lanka involves only one ethnic or religious group".

Currently conflict in Sri Lanka is between the Buddhist Singalese and the Hindi Tamil. Afghanistan is Pashtun vs. Uzbek vs. Tadjik,
like it has been for ages, Whahabbism happens to be the religious banner used by the Pashtuns since GHWB + George Shultz handed them THAT banner. In Africa the conflicts involving Muslims are the minority. And in Colombia? Is it about religion?

Religion is irrelevant, it is just a badge or a banner.

Just look at Afghanistan. Pashtun were indoctrinated with Wahabbism in the 80's, courtesy of Ronnie Reagan, so that they
would be virulently anticommunist. Now you reap the whirlwind... tough luck!

Currently conflicts happen in countries that suffered decades or even centuries of western colonial rule and then 50 years of
cold war that was red hot in those theaters. The US and the europeans are responsible for that. That has left their civil societies utterly destroyed and that is why those countries suffer war, criminality, religious fanaticism, tyrany, chaos and poverty.

Is the West greatly responsible for that? Hell, yes!

[LeftishBrit]

23. The first part is absolutely correct

However, it is not true that worldwide unrest involves 'only one ethnic or religious group'. In Sri Lanka, it involves conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese. Most of the former are Hindu and most of the latter Buddhist. The most virulent, murderous conflict that is ongoing at the moment (and reported by some to the worst since WW2) is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Though this conflict is not mainly based on religion, most of the people involved are Christians of one sort or another (there are some Muslims and other religions, but these are a minority).

In the UK, until very recently, most terrorism involved Irish Catholic and Protestant paramilitary groups.

No ethnic group or religion is exempt from violence and tribalism. Not being 'politically correct'; just a sad fact of human nature.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. How come you only care about Muslims being killed by other Muslims?

What's the term we'd use for someone who fixated on Jewish on Jewish killing? Oh, that's right. They'd be rightly labelled as posting bigoted stuff, and it's no different when it's Muslims instead of Jews...

[Vegasaurus]

18. Do we have daily suicide bombings or murders or Jews by other Jews?

No.

Suicide bombings and sectarian violence is a daily occurance in the Muslim world and not just the middle east.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Did you miss the entire point on purpose?

It wasn't to get into some lame pissing competition about which religion kills more of their own. The point I made was so clear that it couldn't have even escaped you. If someone were to pop up in thread after thread going on about Jew on Jew killing (for the purpose of this exercise, we'll pretend that Jews are Muslims and visa versa), and they get themselves into such a lather about it that they even appear and do the Jew on Jew killing posts in reply to OPs that didn't even mention Jews. To them it doesn't matter that a conflict has nothing to do with religion, all that matters is the religion of those involved. If someone were to do that, you'd be among the first to object to it as being anti-Jewish, so why engage in the very behaviour you'd be opposed to just because it's aimed at a group of people you clearly have no time for?

So can you see why yr fixation on this whole Muslim killing Muslim thing comes across as creepy? I find antisemitic comments to be rather creepy, and when you talk about Muslims, it has the same effect on me as when antisemites go on about Jews. And to be a bit blunt, I do find it more than hypocritical that you are so opposed to bigotry against Jews (to the point where you've accused people of being antisemitic just because they criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinians), yet appear to lack the slightest bit of sensitivity when it comes to bigotry against other groups. In a way I can sort of understand when people get so wrapped up in their opposition to antisemitism that they sometimes appear like they don't care about other forms of bigotry as they never say anything in opposition to them, but that's a whole different thing than someone being opposed to bigotry against Jews and then turning round and engaging in a fair bit of bigotry against Muslims...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[shira]

29. a little hypocrisy from you, Violet

Violet wrote:

And to be a bit blunt, I do find it more than hypocritical that you are so opposed to bigotry against Jews (to the point where you've accused people of being antisemitic just because they criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinians), yet appear to lack the slightest bit of sensitivity when it comes to bigotry against other groups.

Funny, but that's how I see your views Violet (read below for a very articulate explanation of your views regarding Israelis and Jews who support Israel):

"...the Holocaust has given rise to a persecution complex that is responsible for Israel's perverse behaviour towards the Palestinians, as well as the willingness of Jews abroad to support this behaviour...

Inter alia, most (but not all) Israelis, and many of their Diaspora Jewish supporters suffer from a blood lust. They are insensitive to the suffering of innocent Palestinians. They are exclusively concerned with the welfare of their own people. They engage in illicit lobbying and hysterical political campaigning to promote a narrow and destructive group agenda. They refuse to acknowledge the normal constraints of universal human rights and morality. These are, of course, versions of longstanding anti-Jewish bigotries that infect European and Middle Eastern history. They are, however, rendered opaque and acceptable through translation into the psychological symptoms of a disturbed group....

....the use of the psychologizing discourse for the Israel-Palestine conflict is sui generis. If anyone were to construe other conflicts in analogous terms, they would be quickly dismissed as racists or neo-colonialists. Imagine, for example, how progressive opinion would receive the suggestion that Africans were disposed to mass murder and civil war because they had been traumatized by centuries of colonial rule and so had internalized the treatment and mores to which Europeans had subjected them. Similarly, it seems unlikely that any attempt to analyze the contemporary Muslim world as suffering from a collective psychosis brought on by the trauma of European violence over the centuries will meet with much enthusiasm among people who regard themselves as politically enlightened. But it is precisely the fashionably 'progressive' who accept as the height of wisdom the psychologizing discourse about Jews and Israel."

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/05/therapists-to-the-jews-psychologizing-the-jewish-question-by-shalom-lappin.html

Remember, you saw nothing anti-semitic about 7 Jewish Children. And in the middle paragraph cited above, you own most of those negative views.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. If yr going to continue to attribute views to me you 'think' I hold, at least read my posts here...

Hypocrisy? Only someone who can't be bothered reading my posts and who clumsily and very incorrectly tries to label me anti-Zionist would try that. And then that someone comes along and tries to tell me what views I own. You've been told this by me and more than a few others in this forum, yet it never sinks in, so even though it's talking to a brick wall, it bears repeating. Instead of creating views for people that bear no relation to what they say in their posts, try reading posts in the forum and basing yr views on what people say, instead of throwing them in whatever nasty category you think suits you..

Anyway, here's what I said: 'And to be a bit blunt, I do find it more than hypocritical that you are so opposed to bigotry against Jews (to the point where you've accused people of being antisemitic just because they criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinians), yet appear to lack the slightest bit of sensitivity when it comes to bigotry against other groups.'

What you said in reply was as though you hadn't even read it, and were just embarking on some tangent to draw away from the points I made in my post about bigotry...

Now, it would have been hypocritical of me if I was so opposed to bigotry against Arabs/Muslims to the point that I accused people of being anti Arab/Muslim just because they criticise extremists like Hamas, yet lacked the slightest bit of sensitivity when it came to bigotry against other groups like Jews. It would have been hypocritical if I was someone who jumps headfirst into threads where the OP didn't even mention Jews to engage in yet another bout of ranting about Jews and posting things to support a rather bigoted view that only Jewish violence is worth talking about. It would have been hypocritical if I lacked the slightest bit of sensitivity about bigotry against other groups, and it comes as no surprise that you've ignored posts from me where I do speak out against antisemitism.

[shira]

31. you don't own those views? well I'll be....hmmm

okay, Violet, whatever you say.

And of course, you're not an "anti-zionist" either.

:eyes:

Do me a favor and re-read the red colored text in my last post to you. Do you agree or disagree with the last red paragraph?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. And there it is. The reason why there's no chance of you ever having a rational discussion...

No, I don't own those views, nor am I an anti-Zionist, and you running around accusing people of views and stances that they don't hold and which their posts don't indicate they hold is incredibly stupid...

on edit: You really, really need to read this post from Lithos because yr engaging in the behaviour he was speaking of. Personally, I think it wouldn't hurt for the mods to make something along the lines of what Lithos said then a sticky at the top of the forum, as it's not a problem that's gone away....

A comment on partisanship

[shira]

33. fair enough then

no more snark....feel like discussing the issues with me? answering my questions as I answer yours?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Let's wait and see if any of that did sink in... n/t

[shira]

35. yes, ma'am

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

24. your source needs to check their info

question #1 Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian

nice poll though does the site have another one of crimes commoted by Black males between the ages of 17-40 to "prove" that they are also murderous?

[LeftishBrit]

25. All sites that target particular ethnic groups are revolting

Whether it's the Jews/'Zionists' OR Muslims or any other group.

It would be quite easy to come up with a parallel quiz about Christians - e.g. Tim McVeigh; the IRA; the Protestant paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland; some terrorist groups in India such as the National Liberation Front of Tripura; various neo-Nazi groups in Europe and America - and even the assassin of Robert Kennedy, mentioned in this quiz, who was a Christian Arab, *not* a Muslim.

And many other groups.

I would have to concede that, whatever the ethnic/religious group, a disproportionate amount of violence, political and otherwise, IS perpetrated by males between 17 and 40. So far as I know, no one has suggested declaring war on all young men!

And BokerTov is an unpleasant site all round; looking at the first entries, it's clear that the writer is a big supporter of Bush, and opponent of most left-wing movements. (At least the name of the site is nice; it means 'Good morning' in Hebrew.

Using such sites just gives ammunition to the mirror-image-ists who think that all Zionists are right-wing/ Islamophobic/ allied with the American Right.

[Sezu]

26. Unpleasant truths are often revolting, especially to us

on the left. But the kernal of truth remains. And while we could find comparable examples of that age group in other groups as you say, would the violence be as universal (as in fairly worldwide) I think not.

As to the nature of the site you are probably right but it IS pro-Israel/Jew which I am (and so coincidently is the Democratic Party) and doesn't appear to be a fascist and speaking truth to "power," is NOT the exclusive domain of the left unless one has a fairly juvenile outlook. So he's a moron about Bush I will acknowledge that but to diss him because he dislikes parts of the left; well, I do too and I suspect you do too for you don't seem to be an idealogue.

And yes Sirhan was a nominal Greek Orthodox Christian.

[LeftishBrit]

28. Getting off topic; but I think you may be wrong about my not being an 'ideologue'!

I am not an ideologue on I/P issues; that is true. I am pro-peace; an anti-nationalist by inclination, but a two-stater through a dollop of realism; and critical of the leaders on both sides. I often take such views on national conflicts; e.g. I was critical of all sides of the Northern Ireland conflict, and strongly supportive of the peace process.

However, I *am* an ideologue against all that is right-wing - which is not quite the same as 'for what is left-wing; though I do tend to be for what is left-wing, but not always in a party-political sense. However, I do consider that 'right-wing' and 'evil' are near-synonyms! Note that my use of 'right-wing' does not necessarily mean 'supporter of conservative party'. It basically means supporters of the right of the strong to trample on the weak - whether strength is seen in terms of money, physical strength, majority group membership (ethnic, religious, social, etc), or military might. People like Stalin and Mao, though left-wing economically and nominally, were fundamentally very right-wing in my sense. And although there is plenty of evil that cannot be reduced to party ideology, I actually think that much 'ordinary' evil has parallels with right-wing evil: the strong young thug who robs a little old lady for her money is doing the same on a smaller scale as the powerful politician or banker who advocates and practices the right to crush poor people so that better-off people can advance more easily; the drug gangs or groups of football hooligans who attack each other to the danger of innocent bystanders are doing the same on a smaller scale as hawkish militarists.

What some on the left do sometimes forget is that there are non-Western, anti-American right-wingers as well as Western, pro-American right-wingers. Extreme Islamists (who do *not* represent Muslims as a whole) are very right-wing indeed, for example.

Courage in opposition to power is not the exclusive domain of the left; but truth? - well, I think that the left sometimes have it, but not always; but the right virtually *never* do. I would adapt an old rhyme, originally about men and women, to describe my views:

The Left-wing may have many faults.
The Right have only two:
Everything they say
And everything they do!

Off-topic, but I don't want to be stereotyped, either by friends or enemies, as a general political centrist or neutral, because I happen to have relatively centrist views on the I/P topic in particular.