Thread: And the winner is ... the Israel lobby

And the winner is ... the Israel lobby

They're all here - and they're all ready to party. The three United States presidential candidates - John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Madam House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most US senators and virtually half of the US Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. And a host of Jewish and non-Jewish political and academic heavy-hitters among the 7,000 participants.

Such star power wattage, a Washington version of the Oscars, is the stock in trade of AIPAC - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the crucial player in what is generally known as the Israel lobby and which holds its annual Policy Conference this week in Washington at which most of the heavyweights will deliver lectures.

Few books in recent years have been as explosive or controversial as The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, written by Stephen Walt from Harvard University and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, published in 2007. In it, professors Walt and Mearsheimer argued the case of the Israeli lobby not as "a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls' US foreign policy", but as an extremely powerful interest group made up of Jews and non-Jews, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations tirelessly working to move US foreign policy in Israel's direction".

Walt and Mearsheimer also made the key point that "anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite". Anyone for that matter who "says that there is an Israeli lobby" also runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism.

Republican presidential candidate McCain is opening this year's AIPAC jamboree; Clinton and Obama are closing it on Wednesday. Walt and Mearsheimer's verdict on the dangerous liaisons between presidential candidates and AIPAC remains unimpeachable: "None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the US ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. And those who do will probably fall by the wayside."

Take what Clinton said in February at an AIPAC meeting in New York: "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism." A year before, Clinton was in favor of sitting and talking to Iran's leadership.

And take what Obama said in March at an AIPAC meeting in Chicago; no reference at all to Palestinian "suffering", as he had done on the campaign trail in March 2007. Obama also made it clear he would do nothing to alter the US-Israeli relationship.

No wonder AIPAC is considered by most members of the US Congress as more powerful than the National Rifle Association or the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

...

AIPAC in the US Congress is a rough beast indeed. Former president Bill Clinton defined it as "stunningly effective". Former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called it "the most effective general-interest group across the entire planet". The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel". Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, before his involvement in a corruption scandal, said. "Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world."

AIPAC maintains a virtual stranglehold over the US Congress. Critics of the Israel lobby other than Walt and Mearsheimer also contend that AIPAC essentially prevents any possibility of open debate on US policy towards Israel. Compare it with a 2004 report by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, according to which "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies".

AIPAC should not be crossed. It rewards those who support its agenda, and punishes those who don't. In the end, it's all about money - specifically campaign contributions. From 2000 to 2004, according to the Washington Post, AIPAC honchos contributed an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political committees. For pro-AIPAC politicians, money simply pours from all over the US.

Every member of the US Congress receives AIPAC's bi-weekly newsletter, the Near East Report. Walt and Mearsheimer stress that Congressmen and their staff "usually turn to AIPAC when they need info; AIPAC is called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes".

Hillary Clinton has learned long ago she should not cross AIPAC. Clinton used to support a Palestinian state in 1998. She even embraced Suha Arafat, Yasser's wife, in 1999. After much scolding, she suddenly became a vigorous defender of Israel, and years later wholeheartedly supported the 2006 Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Clinton may have gotten the bulk of Jewish American donations for her 2008 presidential campaign.

Rice also learned about facts on the ground. She tried to restart the eternally moribund "peace process" when visiting the Middle East in March 2007. Before the trip, she got an AIPAC letter signed by no less than 79 US senators telling her not to talk to the new Palestinian unity government until it "recognized Israel, renounced terror and agreed to abide by Palestinian-Israeli agreements".

AIPAC and Iraq
It has become relatively fashionable for some members of the Israeli lobby to deny any involvement in the build-up towards the war on Iraq. But few remember what AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003: "Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."

And in a New Yorker profile of Steven Rosen, AIPAC's policy director during the run-up to the war on Iraqi, it was stated that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraqi war".

Compare it with a 2007 Gallup study based on 13 different polls, according to which 77% of American Jews were opposed to the Iraq war, compared to 52% of Americans.

Walt and Mearsheimer contend "the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially its neo-con wing. The lobby is not always representative of the larger community for which it often claims to speak."

AIPAC and Iran
Now it is Iran time. Walt and Mearsheimer contend "the lobby is fighting to prevent the US from reversing course and seeking a rapprochement with Tehran. They continue to promote an increasingly confrontational and counterproductive policy instead". Not much different from the embattled Olmert, who told Germany's Focus magazine in April 2007 that "it would take 10 days ... and 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles" to set back Iran's nuclear program.

A measure of Walt and Mearsheimer's power to rattle reputations is that the Zionist establishment had to bring out all its big guns to refute their argument, again and again.

Walt and Mearsheimer are no ideologues. They are realpolitik practitioners - very much at ease in the top circles of US foreign policy establishment. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of their book is that they argued four points that the establishment never mentions in public. Essentially these are:

• The US has already won its major wars in the Middle East, against Arab secular nationalism and against communism, and does not need Israel quite as much.

• Israel is now so much more powerful than all Arab nations combined that it can take care of itself.

• The unconditional support for Israel, regardless of its outrageous deeds, does harm US interests, destabilizes pro-US regimes like Hosi Mubarak's Egypt and King Abdullah's Jordan, and plays into the hands of Salafi-jihadi radicals.

• Fighting Israel's wars on its behalf is the surefire way to lead to the collapse of US power in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the power of the lobby seems unassailable. In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this was due to AIPAC.

AIPAC made a lot of waves in 2002, when the theme of the annual meeting was "America and Israel standing against terror". Everyone bashed Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria at the same time - just as in PNAC's letter to Bush in April 2002 claiming that Israel was also fighting an "axis of evil" alongside the US.

During AIPAC's jamboree in 2004, Bush received 23 standing ovations defending his Iraq policy. Last year, the star was Cheney, making the case for the troop "surge" in Iraq. Pelosi was dutifully present. But it was pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain recently refused, who really made a killing - even though Hagee maintains that "anti-Semitism is the result of the Jews' rebellion against God".

On Iran, Hagee definitely set the tone: "It is 1938; Iran is Germany and [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad is the new [Adolf] Hitler. We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel." He received multiple standing ovations. McCain may be sure to get the same treatment this year - and he'll certainly have no trouble remaining on message.

McCain to AIPAC: I'm committed to making certain Israel maintains military edge

McCain to AIPAC: I'm committed to making certain Israel maintains military edge



'When we join in saying never again, that is not a wish, a request or a plea to the enemies of Israel, but a promise that the United States and Israel will honor against any enemy,' Arizona senator tells pro-Israel lobby. Adds: Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow

Republican presidential candidate John McCain told a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Monday that the US would not accept a nuclear Iran under his leadership.

"Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow," the Arizona senator told the annual conference of the pro-Israel lobby group in Washington. "Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel free to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to join a nuclear arms race.

"The world would have to live indefinitely with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Armed as well with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to the people of Israel," he said.

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are also expected to address the three-day conference, as are Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu.


"And today, when we join in saying 'never again', that is not a wish, a request or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor against any enemy," he said.

Turning his attention back to Israel's security, the senator said "I am committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Israel's enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small and our shared interests and values too great for us to follow any other policy.

"Foremost in all our minds is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a stinking corpse that is on its way to annihilation," he said, 'but the Iranian leadership does far more than issue vile insults. It acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and the United States".

McCain added that as a further measure to "contain and deter Iran", the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, "which aids in Iran's terrorism and weapons proliferation".

The senator criticized Obama for failing to back an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.

..."A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace, and we do no favors to the Palestinian people by conferring approval upon the terrorist syndicate that has seized power in Gaza," he said.

And take what Obama said in March at an AIPAC meeting in Chicago; no reference at all to Palestinian "suffering", as he had done on the campaign trail in March 2007. Obama also made it clear he would do nothing to alter the US-Israeli relationship.

From Obama's AIPAC Speech:

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

Time to find the reference: 22 seconds

Originally Posted by Djinn

From Obama's AIPAC Speech:

Time to find the reference: 22 seconds

What's your point with that quote? Equivocating Palestinian suffering with Israeli "suffering" is absurd.

Originally Posted by Defensor

What's your point with that quote? Equivocating Palestinian suffering with Israeli "suffering" is absurd.

Uhm you are losing credibility with every post. Your attacking people who probably agree with some of your views. Seriously take a break from the forum otherwise you'll end up having no one read your posts or end up on ignore by most who attend this forum. Seriously get a grip. djinn was basicly agreeing with you and you bit his head off. Geeze. I dont agree with either of you but I can say this right now your worried about aipac. Thats a laugh they sure as hell are better friends to the United States than some of the banking lobby in this country.

Originally Posted by deepthought

Uhm you are losing credibility with every post. Your attacking people who probably agree with some of your views. Seriously take a break from the forum otherwise you'll end up having no one read your posts or end up on ignore by most who attend this forum. Seriously get a grip. djinn was basicly agreeing with you and you bit his head off. Geeze. I dont agree with either of you but I can say this right now your worried about aipac. Thats a laugh they sure as hell are better friends to the United States than some of the banking lobby in this country.

No he wasn't. He was trying to disprove one of the claims made in the article by misrepresenting, either unintentionally or not, what Obama said in his AIPAC speech.

You are one of the most rude and insulting posters on this forum, not to mention the fact that you already established a credibility line of zero, so I really am going to take what you say with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Defensor

No he wasn't. He was trying to disprove one of the claims made in the article by misrepresenting, either unintentionally or not, what Obama said in his AIPAC speech.

You are one of the most rude and insulting posters on this forum, not to mention the fact that you already established a credibility line of zero, so I really am going to take what you say with a grain of salt.

Maybe to you but I would say there are many in this forum who can understand where I'm coming from and understand what I'm saying. You honestly think that your opinion is the only one that matters. You also think you have more respect here than you actually have. All I'll say right now to you is this eventually you'll make posts that no one will comment on unless they want to get a rise out of you. Then they'll just ignore you while you multiple post away your anger and no one will care. Drop the chip off your shoulder. Start realizing that your opinion isn't the only opinion there is. If you dont respect other peoples contribution to dialogue then eventually your view will not be respected. Most of your conclusions are erroneous anyways where as I at least say what I believe and further I even state before hand these are my observations or my beliefs. Further you tote around blogs as sources or you quote some article without a link to it for us to see and expect us to go whoopie this is the gospel where can i get baptized. Sorry but that dont fly. If these are your personal views then say so at least then people can respect that. Dont pretend this is all from official news outlets when really it's probably some blog hack political commentator wannabe.

Originally Posted by deepthought

Maybe to you but I would say there are many in this forum who can understand where I'm coming from and understand what I'm saying. You honestly think that your opinion is the only one that matters. You also think you have more respect here than you actually have. All I'll say right now to you is this eventually you'll make posts that no one will comment on unless they want to get a rise out of you. Then they'll just ignore you while you multiple post away your anger and no one will care. Drop the chip off your shoulder. Start realizing that your opinion isn't the only opinion there is. If you dont respect other peoples contribution to dialogue then eventually your view will not be respected. Most of your conclusions are erroneous anyways where as I at least say what I believe and further I even state before hand these are my observations or my beliefs. Further you tote around blogs as sources or you quote some article without a link to it for us to see and expect us to go whoopie this is the gospel where can i get baptized. Sorry but that dont fly. If these are your personal views then say so at least then people can respect that. Dont pretend this is all from official news outlets when really it's probably some blog hack political commentator wannabe.

:blah: Could you please be so kind as to take your rambling some place else, rather than hijack another thread for this nonsense?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Could you please be so kind as to take your rambling some place else, rather than hijack another thread for this nonsense?

Gladly I'll probably be the last person to comment in your thread anyways. Considering the fact not many people are interested in this junk right now anyways. When you end up talking to yourself on here remember you where told it would probably come down to this. You where warned by someone who doesn't really care but figured it would be a shame to see someone ostracized by a community.

Okay then...back to the OP topic.