Molly Ivins---Let's call the Israel lobby the Israel lobby

[dogday]

Kooky lobby deniers pretend Israeli influence in U.S. is a myth

AUSTIN, Texas -- One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.

A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "The Israel Lobby" was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe.

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious -- that there is an Israel lobby in the United States -- Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky academic work." Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them "liars" and "bigots."

Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America -- its leading working group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and it attempts to influence U.S. legislation and policy.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20708

[Ian David]

1. They're not the Israel lobby. They're The Apocalypse Lobby

Just preparing Israel and The Middle East for destruction to facilitate The Second Coming of Christ.

[wicket]

2. Molly Ivins, on fire as usual!

:kick:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[lovuian]

4. Thank you Molly

Its about time somebody started saying it like it is!!!

[Jigarotta]

27. like part of it is, anyway. yay, Molly.

absolutely no denying the imbalanced influence Israeli politics has on american citisens.

Molly will be a holocaust denier in tomorrows papers, ya'll know that. developing...

[cali]

28. Oh, please. Throw a little hyperbole

in there. That's real responsible. People can and will disagree with Molly. That doesn't mean they're all reactionary or don't have a valid point to make. After all, Chomsky was critical of some aspects of the paper Ivins is referring to. When you make a comment like the one above, you're simply using smear tactics.

[Jigarotta]

31. I have no power in this issue, what can I possibly smear?

and I didn't realise I had such a 'responsibility'.
just saying is all I can do.

we'll just see how Molly is treated for this. Bets are she'll be slapped down big time.

'smear tactics'. like what the fuck isn't nowadays. Bout time to dismantle all the smear tactics that has got us to this point.

[cali]

36. smearing a person or a group

has nothing to do with whether or not one wields power within a given issue. Your anticipation that people who disagreed with Ivins will use stoop to trumped up charges was the smear. You can back away from it as much as you wish, but your post was clear.

And let me take the opportunity to explain to you what you say you don't understand; the sentiments expressed in the post you responded to: Accusing Jews of secretly manipulating banking or journalism or government or what have you is a thread in the fabric of anti-semitism, and that's one of the things that makes the discussion of anti-semitism so thorny. Yes, the charge of anti-semitism is used inappropriately sometimes, but I think it's a mistake to assume that it comes only from a desire to shut down criticism. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it arises out of fear that history will repeat itself. Someone who does this may be in error, but they're not trying to stave off criticism, just caught up in fear.

[Jigarotta]

39. accusing 'Jews'.

lol.
well, nothing more to say to you.
I'll just go on my way now to my friends place and accuse them of being AIPAC.

lol.

on edit.
let's just ALL keep in mind the separation of the people from the politics and power that use us all.

[cali]

40. Now that is a truly pathetic

response. People on this thread were not simply talking about AIPAC. They were also talking about PNAC as if it were operating as a front for Israeli interests. In addition, I was referring, as you very well know, to your expression that you didn't understand the sentiments expressed in another post on this thread. You were totally non responsive to the points I brought up, and I can only assume that's because you were incapable of responding in an intelligent and measured way. That's a shame.

[Jigarotta]

42. personal attacks on my intelligence from cyberspace

doesn't really hurt me much. just to let you know.
but i guess I'm an easier target than what PNAC or AIPAC really means to shameful untelligent questions like so many have.

[cali]

43. Let's see

you make a snide attack on me in a post that's totally non responsive to what I wrote, and contained not a scrap of a cogent argument, and then you get huffy about my remarks. Hmm. That I believe is what's known as hypocricy.

[Jigarotta]

44. I 'snided' you?

oh my. I thought I was just discussing the issue, whatever it is now, I forget because now it's 'personal' to you.
You were the one that brought in 'intelligence' and 'shame' connected to me.

[mike_c]

86. no one "accused jews...."

Israel acts as a STATE, not as a religion or even as an ethnic entity.

[cali]

89. Choose to misinterpret what I wrote.

It's pretty clear that I was explaining the fears that some harbor and why they do so.

[dogday]

46. That is just a wee bit over the top

don't ya think?

[Jigarotta]

48. we'll see, won't we?

how many 'tops' have we had these last few years?

rule #1, you do not fuck with AIPAC or Isreal (the government or whatever you want to call it). It's a given.

[dogday]

49. Saying Molly will be a holocast denier is over the top

read this paragraph...

Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of "anti-Semitism." In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

[Jigarotta]

51. said she may be called one. Not Saying She Is, dammit.

geeeesh!

[dogday]

52. oops, never mind

:hi:

[Jigarotta]

53. oopsy is okay.

glad you understood me. :-)

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Seinfeld had a great bit on people that cannot help but label

any person as "anti-Semitic" if they disagree in the slightest with their positions. I think it was Uncle Leo that accused everyone of being an "anti-Semite". He even accused animals and inanimate objects of being "anti-Semitic".

[Poll_Blind]

8. I now have a face to put to some of the posters in I/P! LOL! n/t

PB

[kenny blankenship]

7. Uh what's that? Can't hear you Molly! Can't hear you.

I'm too busy searching the sofa cushions for change to pay for gasoline and the Long War on Iraq/Iran/Arabia/Muslims.
In any case, let's not speak of it please. It wouldn't do. It won't help.
If we say nothing maybe it will just go away!
Can't talk about it with you Molly. Can't talk right now.

[The Doctor.]

9. I swear to God...

the world is going insane all around us.

Why the hell can't people wake up?

[Poll_Blind]

11. Because tradition says "keep your eyes closed". n/t

PB

[gordianot]

12. I feel the same way.

Sometimes I am tempted to follow Dirty Harry's advice and become an equal opportunity bigot and hate everyone. Then I remember that natural selection has worked on this planet for billions of years. Humans need to work out a new survival strategy quickly.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Catrina]

13. Molly will now be totally thrashed ~ although I'm sure she expects it,

which would prove her point. To me, as another poster has said, Israel is no more important than Darfur or any other country in which I do not live. This country is of primary concern to most Americans as it should be. Molly is right. I noticed on another board when the Pentagon Spy case was under discussion, just the fact that it was being reported caused a few posters to level the ridiculous 'anti-semitism' charges at others whose main interest in the case was the fact that someone might be spying their country!

I don't understand it but have noticed time and time again, what she is talking about ~ this does not happen when people talk about the Mafia, eg. Italians don't usually appear out of nowhere accusing people of being 'anti-Italian'. Maybe if you do love your country, and some of your citizens or supporters are doing something wrong, the best thing to do is to side with those who wish to stop them so that they do not become the representatives of the entire country. Imo, this attempt at silencing people is causing a lot of negative feelings towards Israel as a whole. So it's having the opposite effect if anything ~ we value our first amendment rights in this country, still.

[Taxloss]

14. Ivins is wrong here. She has missed the point.

Mearsheimer and Walt did not simply point out "that there is an Israel lobby in the United States". That much is indeed "painfully obvious".

However, their suggestion was that the Israel Lobby had "undue influence" of some kind - that it was too powerful in some way.

That's a deeply unsettling thing to say. For a start, it raises the question - how much influence should the Israel lobby have? What is it "due"? These questions make little sense when you consider how lobbying works - the lobbyists may have resources, but the decision-makers still wield the influence.

Why shouldn't the Israel lobby be powerful and well-financed? This leads to one of the more worrying undercurrents in this debate - the suspicion that the Israel lobby has somehow gained this influence via clandestine, underhand means. And, sadly, that plays right into the RW myth of a shadowy Jewish conspiracy of blackmail and under-the-counter bribes to influence politics.

This article was a gift to the far right, even though it was not intended as such.

[specimenfred1984]

15. Good Point, The Right Constantly Blames "The Jews"

instead of taking responsibility for their own crimes. Then, the right whines about losing freedom of speech when they get called on shifting the blame to someone else.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Stop thinking in polarized terms. That gives far too many clever people

a chance to use you.

[specimenfred1984]

58. Thanks for Telling Me How to Think oh King of Thinkers

Any other orders I should blindly follow?

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. Yeah, look out for that tree. Oops. Sorry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. The answer is very simple:

If they spy on us, boot them out of the country or if they steal from us and run to Israel to avoid extradition, tell Israel to show their friendship by handing the bad guys over to us.

Sorry, but Israel has done some clandestine underhanded things to us and Abramoffs buddies did run to Israel to escape extradition laws. You can't escape these facts. You have to face them.

[Taxloss]

18. What has that got to do with the DC Israel lobby?

You're criticising Israel, not the Israel lobby in DC. AIPAC's power has nothing to do with what it says. It's to do with who listens.

(PS you elect who listens.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Oh, puhlease, oh puhlease!!!

A pro-Israeli lobby group that has nothing to do with pursuing an agenda that favors Israel. That is, afterall, what pro-Israeli Lobbyist do.

Sorry, you're ten years behind the times. Stuck in the 90s.

[Taxloss]

30. You're misreading my point.

Israel has a right to lobby the US government. The fact that you don't like Israel doesn't change that. And if the US government listens, then that's the business of the US government, not the Israel lobby.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. What you're saying doesn't even sound rational.

Sounds like you're weaseling.

[Taxloss]

38. Way to avoid arguing!

How much influence should Israel have?

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. How about we punish them each time they spy on us?

Do you think that's fair?

[Taxloss]

68. If the USA thought it was "OK" for Israel to spy on it,

it wouldn't be spying, would it? What do you want, exactly? Show trials? You may worry about the influence Israel has on the USA, but I can tell you that Israel is far more concerned about the influence the USA has over there.

[The Backlash Cometh]

69. I think you can't see the forest for the trees.

[Taxloss]

74. Care to elaborate?

Are you saying the coded language isn't working any more? What do you really think? What do you want out of this situation? An end to aid to Israel? That's a matter for the US government, not AIPAC (but AIPAC is within its rights to argue against that). An end to spying? Good luck with that, and it's a matter for the Israeli government, not AIPAC. The abolition of AIPAC? Why? What are you so worried about?

[The Backlash Cometh]

76. I don't think you're ready to accept criticism of Israel and debating

you is pointless. You're very polarized right now and you won't be open to the possibilty that someone can still think that Israel is an ally, but one that needs to be taught a lesson when it acts in a hostile manner against us. You won't even consider that A.I.P.A.C. may have some ties to the government of Israel, which is ludicrous in today's world where the intersection between business and government is so wide, you can drive a convoy of Mack Trucks through it. Take a look at what the Bush Administration has done for the oil business. And if it is found that A.I.P.A.C. has acted criminally, then it should be abolished. What are YOU so worried about?

[Taxloss]

77. I'm not rejecting criticism of Israel.

And of course AIPAC has ties to the Israeli government, but that doesn't make it the same thing as the Israeli government.

Do you see Israel as a hostile power?

[The Backlash Cometh]

78. I see Israel as a fair-weather ally.

[fujiyama]

100. Remember the old adage in diplomatic circles:

There are no permanent allies. There are only permanent interests.

There have been times when the US sold out Israel's interests as well, like when they gave Saddam chemical weapons in the '80s, or on those occasions they had relations with various terrorists that threatened Israel..or when they ordered Israel not to retaliate after they were bombed by Iraq...or their condemnation of the destrtuction of thee Osiraq nuke reactor...

But I agree that Israel like all other nations should be viewed with healthy skepticism too (Pollard, Liberty, various other spies)...I view them as no better or no worse than France in that regard, though Israel does have more influence on US politics.

[The Backlash Cometh]

106. Your last paragraph encapsulates it all.

[Jigarotta]

34. I like Israel.

I understand the fact they are worried about their families and livelihood like anyone else on the planet.

that has got nothing to do with AIPAC.

learn to separate like Bush does Not represent America, etc. etc. We are all the same, us pleebs.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. I strongly disagree. Your comments would have us believe....

...that Israel's relationship with the U. S. has been open and above-board since Israel's formation as a sovereign nation in 1948. That is not the case, and has never been the case. Israel has spied on the U. S. at every opportunity. Do you remember the Pollard case? Do you think that was an isolated incident? How about the Israeli "art students" that were rounded up and deported after 911?

Israel has also paid millions to the PACS of Members of Congress to influence U. S. policy. We have seen what undue influence by American corporations can do to the U. S. political process...why is it so unbelievable that Israel would not be doing the same thing?

And what about the connections between certain high-level members of the NeoCon Junta and Israel? Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and others are heavily influenced by their connections to Israel.

To believe that Israel has an undue influence on American foreign policy is not just rooted in rightwing political thinking. This line of thinking has been elevated to the level of open discourse by the undue influence of PNAC on the current U. S. governmental system, and the strong connections between certain PNAC members and rightwing political interests in Israel.

[Taxloss]

32. How much influence is Israel "due"?

Do you think the Irish have undue influence in American politics? Because they certainly have a lot of influence.

Also, you are being a bit naive if you think that this isn't common practice. All countries spend money to influence other countries. The USA certainly does. Why does Israel put such a bee in your bonnet?

[K-W]

47. Ideally a foriegn country should have no influence.

How much influence is Israel "due"?
Posted by Taxloss


Do you think the Irish have undue influence in American politics?

Also, you are being a bit naive if you think that this isn't common practice. All countries spend money to influence other countries. The USA certainly does. Why does Israel put such a bee in your bonnet?

Why are you equating Israel with the Irish?

Israel is not an ethnicity, it is a nation.

[Taxloss]

"Ideally a foriegn country should have no influence."

That's utterly unrealistic. The USA doesn't sit on its own little planet isolated from the rest of the world. Every country on Earth works to influence other countries, and always has done, and the USA certainly works to influence other countries. Britain works to influence you. Belgium and Taiwan work to influence you. Eritrea and Tuvalu work to influence you. Their relative influence is never proportional - indeed, how would one calculate that proportionality? Proximity, wealth, population, military spending? Where the wheels meet the road is who is listening, not who is talking.

[entanglement]

85. self delete

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. We spend about 2 billion and another 1 billion in products

every year on Israel. How much do we give to France, Germany, Spain? For all the kindness, they just sold something highly sensitive to one of our competiting super nations. Does anyone on DU have the link to that recent gem? It was quietly handled on the MSM, but it reached DU.

[Nevernose]

60. Do you think we don't spy on Israel?

I've good cash money that says we do.

the strong connections between certain PNAC members and rightwing political interests in Israel
This isbn't exactly the same as "The Israeli Lobby," but I'll give you, without the slightest bit of dissent, that there is too cozy a relationship between the wingnuts in America and the wingnuts in Israel.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. That's not my point, is it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. Great post.

I've even heard that several of the neo-cons have dual citizenship with Israel. Hard to believe.

[Taxloss]

75. Ah, the "divided loyalties" line.

Are you saying that PNAC is an "Israeli" plan?

[The Backlash Cometh]

79. LOL! I'm saying that when we go to indict them, they may have

another country to slither into and hide. One, by the way, which has no extradition laws with the U.S.A.

[cali]

81. I hear lots of things. That doesn't make them true.

I have no idea if some of the neocons have Israeli citizenship, but if you toss something like that out, you have an obligation, if you're responsible, to provide some evidence for it. Otherwise, it's just an incendiary accusation that serves no good purpose.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[cali]

50. I'm always intrigued

by remarks like yours. Essentially, you just accused the poster you responded to of being a racist. You said that anyone that reads the WM paper or Ivins' column the way the poster did is a racist. Even if someone's totally misguided and wrong in a charge of anti-semitism or racism of any kind, that hardly makes them a racist.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Oh, my God. Now we're suppose to pretend we don't see A.I.P.A.C.

I'll be the first to say it. Alan Dershowitz is a putz.

[adriennui]

22. oh, those nasty little jews

the secret is out again....we control the world and every problem on earth....including starvation, mumps, arab on black violence, sickness, boils,pestilence, locusts and flooding are our fault.

gee, and i thought we got away with all that.

[Poll_Blind]

23. Self-delete

PB

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. IMHO, your comments are badly misdirected....

...if you want to blame something, try blaming PNAC and their heavy connections to rightwing interests in Israel. If that didn't exist, very few questions about Israel's current undue political influence on the U. S. would need to be asked.

I find it interesting that whenever a post about Israel's influence on U. S. foreign policy appears on the DU boards, it is invariably attacked as being anti-Jewish. Why is that? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction? Please explain.

[cali]

26. Yes there are Jews involved with PNAC

and there are non jews, as well. My interpretation of PNAC's goals is that they developed the delusional and grandiose concept that the US could remake the Mid East, puportedly for alturistic reasons- that old spreading freedom and democracy crap. Their intent had far more to do with securing and controlling the future of oil from the region, than anything to do with Israel.

AIPAC is a different story, and I think Molly's largely correct that the influence it wields is very real.

[Jigarotta]

29. I don't get it either.

something like, don't critisize Bush or America's foreign policy of rape and pillage because he's 'christian'?

?

[adriennui]

35. many were virulently anti-israel long before the PNAC

i and my fellow jews really do control the world.

[AlienGirl]

64. Are you a member of the IJC?

http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com

This is a really funny site, and its forum can be a lot of fun. :hi:

Tucker

[Nevernose]

59. I can explain, at least in part

I find it interesting that whenever a post about Israel's influence on U. S. foreign policy appears on the DU boards, it is invariably attacked as being anti-Jewish. Why is that? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction? Please explain.

Because many responses to Israel any time mentioned appear to be "knee-jerk reactions." Because more often than is comfortable, anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that the Israeli government does is considered to be at best self-serving and at worst (and more often than not) downright evil.

Take for instance unilaterally pulling out of the Gaza Strip. Everything the Palestinians wanted? No, but a step in the right direction, and they still took shit for it on DU as if pulling the settlers out of Gaza was a page from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

A couple of years ago when that 15 year old suicide bomber backed out at the last minute. and the press got pictures of him crying for help at an Israeli checkpoint? There were people here who said it was all an Israeli ploy to make the Palestinians look bad.

Personally, I don't see it as anti-Semitism as much as a knee-jerk anti-Israeli viewpoint. I've been at DU longer than most, and maybe it's the Unitarian in me seeking to get out, but I'm of the opinion that all too many people here, on any subject you care to choose, are radically black-or-white. Name the paradigm: Israel or Palestine? Red state or blue? South evil/ North benevolent? Or vice/versa on any of these subjects, and a hundred more?

(And if you want my opinion on the I/P conflict, for the record, I'll give it to you: the only thing, and I do mean the ONLY thing, saving Israel from total damnation in my eyes is that despite the inadvertant killing of women and children, they're "retaliating" against enemies instead of purposely killing women and children. Other than that, a few missiles fired from an American-made Apache helicopter aren't any better than a suicide bomber hitting a cafe in Tel Aviv. If I were on a jury in a civil court, I would vote for a 60/40 split of culpability. The sooner the right-winger Israelis and the right-winger Palestinians learn to get along, the better for the rest of the world.)

[entanglement]

84. Funnily enough, they are also the ones

that gleefully bashed 'the Arabs' as a whole during the Dubai ports discussions.

[Kickin_Donkey]

65. You've just proved Ivins' point ...

if you cared to read the whole column.

In essence she wrote that anyone in America who dares criticize Israel or the Israel lobby, i.e., AIPAC, is automatically branded "anti-Semitic."

Thanks for giving us a vivid illustration of this knee-jerk reaction.

[Poll_Blind]

108. Yep, couldn't have asked for a better example of it, either. n/t

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

72. If you feel that way about it, you should write a letter to Jon Stewart.

I'm saying that the days when people of Jewish descent can shut down open debate in regards to Israel by calling everyone who disagrees with them an anti-semite, are over.

[entanglement]

83. Very insightful comment, and one that deserves a separate thread

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

56. The Dersh Man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place.

Don't knock the Dersh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kickin_Donkey]

67. Screw Alan Dershowitz ...

He ain't a god. He's just a man, with good points and bad points and biases like anyone else.

Making the world a better place? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. After 9/11, he freaked out and was one of the first to advocate Americans' use of torture (although, admittedly, he said it be used in "limited" cases such as in the "ticking-bomb" scenario).

It's a slippery slope from there. I'm sure he had Middle Easterners/Arabs/Muslims in mind with regard to torture in the wake of 9/11. He'd probably think differently if it were an Israeli agent who had the goods while the bomb was ticking. Funny that.

[Jim Sagle]

96. Yes, he was VERY wrong about torture. Overall, I like him.

[Boojatta]

21. On the road of life, there are non-combatants and there are combatants...

Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990-91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition (...) History repeated itself in 2003: (...) Israel stayed on the sidelines again.

From:
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt 

[adriennui]

37. israel remained on the sidelines

because the arabs bitched.

[Neil Lisst]

41. Not only are they Israel's lobby, but you'd better not mess with them.

If you want a political future.

[reprehensor]

55. Jim Lobe - Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"

http://www.alternet.org/story/34935/

One month after the publication by two of the most influential international relations scholars in the United States of a highly controversial essay on the so-called "Israel Lobby," their thesis that the lobby exercises "unmatched power" in Washington is being tested by rapidly rising tensions with Iran.

Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction", has pushed the government -- both Congress and the George W. Bush administration -- toward confrontation with Tehran.

Leading the charge has been a familiar group of neo-conservatives, such as former Defence Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey, who championed the war in Iraq but who have increasingly focused their energies over the past year on building support for "regime change" and, if necessary, military action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear programme.

...

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multi-media exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped", has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran.

more@link

(The comments section is aflame at link.)

[PuraVidaDreamin]

57. U.S. give $10 Million dollars of aid to Israel a day!

They don't need this!

Darfur needs this

The Gulf Coast displaced residents need this.

Why does Israel need this. They are pretty self reliant
in these modern times.

[One Honest Guy]

62. "pretty self reliant" ?

Cut all forms of aid today and Israel will look like Zimbabwe by April 2007.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

88. a bit of an exaggeration?

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

[JCMach1]

63. Some facts on US aid to Israel

...Regular Economic and Military Assistance

Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments. The Cranston Amendment was left out of the FY1999 and subsequent appropriations bills. At that time Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed only $328 million in debt service so the amendment was no longer needed.

Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amout set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In FY2004, the figure is $568 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program.

At the end of 1998, Israel requested an additional $1.2 billion in aid to fund moving troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the October 23, 1998, Wye agreement. Israel received $600 million of this in military aid in FY1999 and $300 million in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 (see Wye funding table).

In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby and the government of Israel. The 0.65 percent deduction was not aimed at Israel; however, it was an across the board cut of all foreign aid programs for fiscal year 2003. The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance), Congress included a number of provisions in the aid bill viewed as favorable to Israel, including a provision that bars federal assistance to a future Palestinian state until the current Palestinian leadership is replaced, and that state demonstrates a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and takes measures to combat terrorism.

The setbacks were also temporary as the Administration approved a supplementary aid request in 2003 that included $1 billion in FMF and $9 billion in loan guarantees to aid Israel's economic recovery and compensate for the cost of military preparations associated with the war in Iraq. One quarter of the FMF is a cash grant and three quarters will be spent in the United States. The loan guarantees are spread over three years and must be spent within Israel's pre-June 1967 borders. Each year, an amount equal to the funds Israel spends on settlements in the territories will be deducted from the loan amount, along with all fees and subsidies.

Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance. This includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.5 billion overall) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981).

The total does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004. The United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html


Please note, I don't believe this list contains any items which are part of the blackops portion of th e security and defense budget. The totals will more than likely be higher.

[fujiyama]

61. How much is the US doling out to Pakistan? Egypt? Arab gulf nations?

Saudi Arabia? Iraq (OK that's something different all together)...

The fact is, Israel is likely the largest beneficiary of US aid (mostly military), but it's not the only one.

I find the selective outrage by some on the left somewhat disturbing. The nations I listed also have worse human rights records than Israel...

[The Stranger]

92. Four posts now have diverted this from Israel to "the Arabs."

Still counting, though, . . .

[cali]

93. When people are discussing

how much foreign aid the US gives Israel, why isn't it a legitiimate part of the discussion to put that aid into context with what the US gives other countries in the region? I admit to being against Israel receiving what I consider to be an obscene amount of military aid, but I don't think bringing up that neigboring countries, chiefly Egypt, also receive aid, is a diversionary tactic.

[The Stranger]

94. To say that the knee-jerk "Arab!" reactions are simple geopolitical

comparisons is not realistic, given history.

It would be like saying the Duke La Crosse case is simply a misunderstanding between two groups of people.

Or like saying that Daniel Pipes is just a historian. Or Michael Weiner is only interested in freedom of religion.

[cali]

98. Of course I said nothing of the kind, but oh well.

Good strawmen though. Duke, Pipes and Weiner. Way to go.

[The Stranger]

107. They were examples used to show that there is a history behind all of this

[fujiyama]

99. I didn't really "divert" the conversation

I simply noted that Israel isn't the only benefiting from US military aid.

OTOH, it seems like you have an axe to grind with anyone pointing that out. Feel free to believe what you want.

[Fight_n_back]

103. You are using charges of

"anti Arab" to shut off debate. Shame on you.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Molly misses the mark!

I like most of her stuff. But, in this instance, she was way off!

First of all, the paper, to which she refers, by Walt and Mearsheimer, is a poorly researched and produced piece of drivel with many errors. But don't take my word or the word of any pro-Israeli, take the word of Noam Chomsky. He, all but tore the piece apart. Funny, Molly doesn't mention that fact and, trust me, Chomsky is not even close to being "pro-Israel!"

Secondly, there is not one detractor that I have read that denies the presence of a pro-Israeli lobby. So, her very title is inflammatory, insulting, and ignorant. However, she has fallen into the little trap of the "far-left;" pretend that every time Israel is mentioned, you will be called an anti-Semite. So, to stave that threat off, the new mantra is: "criticize Israel, but place the disclaimer that you are bound to be called an anti-Semite." That mantra is used here often! Actually, the mantra by a few here is "the usual suspects will show up." The funny thing is they (they anti-Israeli group) are the ones that act like sharks at a chum feeding with ANYTHING related to Israel. They are usually the same ones that pretend anti-Semitism is not a real issue on the left.

Finally, she says:

Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of "anti-Semitism."

I couldn't agree more! However, the discussion also cannot start with unfair accusations of "I will be called an anti-Semite." How is that supposition any different?

She also says:

In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

And THERE is the REAL elephant! Does the AMERICAN Israeli lobby really represent the wishes of the Israeli government? Does the AMERICAN Israeli lobby really represent the wishes of the Israeli people? And, the one that most people like to deny or pretend isn't an issue, does the AMERICAN Israeli lobby really represent the wishes of the American Jews?

Molly missed the mark by a mile!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Chomsky did not "tear the piece apart".

And, Molly did, in effect, mention his objections.


From Molly's article.

"Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper,....and having perhaps overemphasized the clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby."

From Chomsky's critique.

"Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

And, Chomsky has been called an anti-semite because of his criticisms of Israel, which is pretty good evidence of what Molly is saying.

[Behind the Aegis]

90. Oh, but he did...

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.

Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.

<snip>

I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.

The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case."

The Israel Lobby? by Noam Chomsky

As you see from the above, it is not a "slight" disagreement with the paper, but a through dismissal of many of their points; so much so, that he all but loses interest in continuing to point out the flaws! Molly doesn't mention his objections, she alludes to some pointing out "some" flaws. It seems Chomsky found more than "some" in his analysis.

And, Chomsky has been called an anti-semite because of his criticisms of Israel, which is pretty good evidence of what Molly is saying.

There are other reasons Chomsky has been called an anti-Semite, correctly or incorrectly. However, also, as predictable, I disagreed with Molly and I am accused of being biased. See, that is the new MO here...disagree with an anti-Israeli screed, then you must be a "freeper, kool-aid drinker, not a real progressive, or (insert insult)." How are those claims any difference from being called an anti-Semite? OH that's right! One can be accused of the things I said and the post will stand, but call some an anti-Semite here and the post is deleted because it is against the rules...in ALL the forums! So which group is REALLY being silenced?!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. Chomsky's concern was that the paper didn't identify all the lobbyists.

Which I agree with. However, he did not say that it was a minor player in the politics of Washington.

Also, do you really think that Molly's piece is an "anti-Israel" screed? As I read it, she is pointing out the influence of the Israel Lobby.

I haven't accused you of being biased or called you anything. However, you did say something about "leftist anti-semitism" in a previous post. Which "leftists" are you referring to?

[Behind the Aegis]

105. Clarifications

Chomsky had more than one concern about the paper, only one of which was they didn't identify all the lobbyists.

They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion).

I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.

It appears that Chomsky was not at all impressed by their creation. You say: "However, he did not say that it was a minor player in the politics of Washington." I don't see how this would give any credence to the piece.

Clarification: Do I think Molly's piece is an anti-Israeli screed? Anti-Israeli, slightly. A screed? No. The paper she is 'defending' is a throughly anti-Israeli screed, however.

Clarification: I never said you, personally, accused me of being biased or called me anything, but there were TWO responses to my original post...read the one that is not yours. I apologize if you thought the remark was directed at you.

As for leftist anti-Semitism, well, that is a dissertation in of itself. The short version, they are the ones that always attack Israel, no matter the topic. They are the ones that intertwine anti-Zionism, anti-Israeli remarks in classic anti-Semitic rhetoric. They are often the ones that scream about being called anti-Semitic, though no one has said it or even implied it, yet have NOTHING to say about the topic, other than they cannot comment because they will be called anti-Semitic. Not every person who is anti-Israeli is anti-Semitic, even some of the most vicious of anti-Israeli people are not really anti-Semitic. However, there are a few, and its getting worse, who are raging anti-Semites who glide under the radar of legitimate criticism of Israel. Just as there are those who knee-jerk with accusations of anti-Semitism, there are those who really are anti-Semitic.

[mike_c]

87. gee, what a surprise....

You being all unbiased and such....

[Behind the Aegis]

91. .

:eyes:

[Tanyah]

97. The Israel Lobby wins again!

Congress just passed the "Iran Freedom Support Act"

Pro-Israel lobbyists on Capitol Hill are cajoling members of Congress to support the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand the existing American sanctions on companies that invest more than $20 annually in Iran’s oil and gas sectors. The bill would tighten sanctions on companies that invest in Iran’s energy industry in the hopes of blocking money that could be used to produce nuclear arms.

The bill also provides for assistance to pro-democracy forces within Iran, and funding for independent media broadcasts to the country. The House of Representatives’ Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, and Howard Berman, a California Democrat, are sponsoring the proposed legislation. The sponsors of the Senate version are Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat.”

Read more
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11719

[Fight_n_back]

101. What about tha bill do you disagree with?

What other lobbies were working on it?

How much business do you think we should be doing with Iran?

[Fight_n_back]

102. Was "w" holdong hands with an AIPAC lobbyist?

Does he refer to one of the Israeli Royal family as "uncle"?

Do you people really have the notion that Israel or any AMerican Jewish lobbying group has more influence than Saudi Arabia? How may times have US troops gone to war to protect Israel?
I'll probabvly be called anti muslim for those comments but thats just becuase you want to shut down debate.

[Fight_n_back]

104. Anyone here give an example of when an "anti semitism" charged mattered?

Jesse Jackson called New York Hymie town and didn't even lose the Jewish vote.

George HW Bush had an avowed Nazi running his campaign in Ohio and it didn't make a slither of difference.

No one here can give a single example of anyone giving two shits about being called anti semitic.

The Catholic Church thught "The Passion of the Christ" was anti semitic and still gentiles hemmed and hawed abiut whether it was or not.

And to the poster who said "when people talk about the Mafia Italian Americans don't call it Anti Italian" except that yes they do. There is an anti defamtion league in charge of doing just that.

What should be worrying people is the undo influence of WASPS in this administration all of the decision makers are WASPS even that that group is not even close to a majority in the country. They have far more influence than they are do.