'Israel Lobby' bad for Israel, the U.S.

[Tom Joad]

From St. Louis Jewish Light.
http://access.stljewishlight.com/content_printstory.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stljewishlight.com%2Fcommentaries%2F286061544108230.php

BY RABBI BRUCE WARSHAL

Oh my God, someone has publicly outed the "Israel Lobby." For those readers who do not closely follow the machinations in academia, let me explain. John Walt, the academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have written a blistering critique of the Jewish lobby, focusing primarily on AIPAC.

Their main complaint is that "the thrust of US policy in the region (the Middle East) derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'." There is much with which to disagree in the paper, including their assertion that Israel is not a vital strategic asset (there are many generals who would challenge that assertion). But there is also much truth, if we would only be honest with ourselves.
<snip>
Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right-wing, rich Jewish neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500 delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48 rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of the mainstream of Jewish thought.
________________________________________________

Comment: AIPAC exists. It has influence, it doesn't create a $15 million lobby with over 60,000 members for nothing, any more than the NRA does what it does for nothing. There can be debate as to whether that influence is good or bad or sometimes one or the other, but I don't understand the position of pretending that they do not exist. AIPAC and related-groups specifically work on U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine, but also seek to change US policy toward the entire Middle East, in ways they perceive to be good for Israel. for example, AIPAC has made a point of making much of the supposed threat of Iran (a nation without of nuclear weapons), and supporting heavily the so-called "Iran Freedom Support Act", that Rep. Dennis Kucinich called "a steppingstone to war". It seeks to prevent any discussion of the only nation that possesses nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel. It is also supporting a very restrictive bill that seeks to punish the Palestinian people for their election choice (or is conveniently using that as an excuse to punish Palestinians).

I am also at a loss to understand the lament that viewing AIPAC negatively somehow is anti-Semitic. Does actively opposing the agenda of the NRA mean that one hates White males?
Or does it mean that one merely disagrees with its work regarding gun laws?

AIPAC is a political lobby that promotes its agenda, and should not be seen as anything more or less than that.