Obama will soon make the case that he'll be as strong on Israel as anyone

[Tom Joad]

Comment: meaning, unfortunately, he will be willing to say yes to any and all Israeli policy, no matter how misguided.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=826921&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=2#article826921

My weekend column for the Hebrew print edition is a lengthy piece on U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Most Israelis don't know him, and my editors thought he was enough of a political phenomenon to make him worth writing about, even at this early stage of the campaign. Most of the piece was not translated into English, as much of the material in it will not be of any value to American readers who have gotten more than their fair share of Obamania in the last couple of months. The only part of it that's worth presenting here is the section on Obama and Israel.
....

I asked about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) (comment: aipac former leaders will go on trial for passing classified secrets to Israel this June) convention in March and was told that he will speak there too, but wants to have another speech sooner. Obama doesn't want to wait such a long time - not when he is running a campaign in which he will need the support of many people who care deeply about Israel. (Oh, let's just say it: Jewish voters are major donors to the Democratic Party and its nominees.) He also wants to make sure that people will hear him, and him alone. After all, Obama will not be the only candidate speaking and getting attention at the AIPAC conference.

....

A Washingtonian familiar with the Obama campaign reminded me that Obama is the anti-war candidate, and thus will have some maneuvering to do on Iran. He will probably warn of a possible deterioration in relations that could lead to an unintentional war, but by the same token he can also be expected to agree that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and that no U.S. president should take any of the options off the table.

emphasis added.
__________________________________

Why do candidates pander to special interest groups with money? It seems money trumps concern human rights, money trumps desire for making real peace based on justice for all. We can expect no call for an evenhanded policy in the Middle East, but another president that repeats Israel's demands for Palestinian concessions. Money trumps a call to full nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, and that will only be demanded for a state without nuclear weapons, unlike Israel that is the one of the largest nuclear weapon states, and has refused to sign the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. AIPAC seems to be in the news all the time.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Only on DU. In reality, not so much.

:boring:

[Warren Stupidity]

2. We will continue to have no debate and no options.

All candidates will take the pledge. As a resident of NH I recognize this sort of idiocy for what it is.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[illinoisprogressive]

4. AIPAC is the most powerful thing in America. You can't even talk about it.

Look at Jimmy Carter. It's power need to be broken somehow.

[Jim Sagle]

6. YOU look at him. I just ate.

[Tom Joad]

8. We need to stop aipac. Work for a different foreign policy.

www.stopAIPAC.ORG

work to stop US support for military occupations.
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

[Mind_your_head]

9. Thank you for saying it.....tis true....

AIPAC is the most powerful thing in America. You can't even talk about it.

thank you for 'continuing':

Look at Jimmy Carter. It's power need to be broken somehow.

No greater beginning truth than this is there to learn.....and then "We, The People" can 'go from there'

Peace,
M_Y_H

[Tom Joad]

10. The State of the Union Speech has the largest gathering of congresspeople gathered under one roof

each year... (makes sense, of course, one of the only times there is a joint session of congress... so unless someone is sick, they go)

The second largest gathering of congresspeople, outside congress itself? The annual aipac conference in Spring of each year in DC. Only a few get to speak, but they do very much want to be seen there... Republican and Democrat.

I would like to see the day Amnesty International gets so much attention.

[AdHocSolver]

12. More powerful than the oil companies, Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed, etc.? Hmmm!

The oil companies, Halliburton, et al must be super happy with the concept promoted by many hereabouts that Israel somehow controls our foreign policy. Then people are easily distracted from the fact that the Bush/Cheney goal for invading Iraq was to steal Iraqi oil and provide huge profits to Halliburton and others through no-bid contracts.

Then again, Israel fought several wars against the Arab states which were armed by and partly financed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet aim was to develop spheres of influence in the Middle East oil states. If Israel hadn't been successful, Americans might now be paying for their gasoline in Rubles.

Israel, in fighting Arabs armed and trained by the Soviets, provided valuable information to the U.S. military about Soviet weapons capabilities and military tactics. Israel obtained a late model MIG fighter jet and an entire Soviet anti-aircraft system intact, among other weapons, for the U.S. military to study.

[Tom Joad]

13. Boeing (for example) certainly supports military aid to Israel also...

since they profit well off of it, and have an interest in keeping the conflict going. They sell arms to Israel (from US taxpayer money sent to Israel... most of it going to Boeing executives/stockholders, of course)
Caterpillar makes a profit when Israel buys bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes.

So yes, other interests are at work.

[AdHocSolver]

14. Most of the U.S. money to Israel has been in the form of secured loans which Israel repaid.

In addition, the money had strings attached, namely to buy U.S. military equipment to create jobs for U.S. citizens.

Since you mentioned the Palestinians, they also received billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars as an incentive to make a peace deal with Israel. Much of that money went into Arafat's pocket to buy castles in Europe for his family and friends. A lot of it went to buy bombs, guns and ammunition for terrorist attacks in Israel. I have read about estimates that when Arafat died, he was one of the richest guys on the planet, i.e., he stole close to a billion of those U.S. taxpayer dollars from the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians who now populate the West Bank and Gaza were the ones who went to Jordan after the 1967 war. They were invited there by King Hussein of Jordan. They repaid his hospitality by trying numerous times to assassinate him and overthrow his government. In 1970, the king finally had enough and had his army drive the Palestinians out of Jordan.

They went to Lebanon at the invitation of the Lebanese and within a few years, fomented a civil war in that country from which Lebanon has never recovered.

[TomClash]

16. Not true

Most US loans to Israel since 1948 have been forgiven, not repaid.

[AdHocSolver]

17. Your information is incorrect.

The U.S. government didn't give hardly any money to Israel prior to the 1967 "six day war". Israel's military equipment was purchased from European countries (which were more affordable). For example, the primary combat aircraft in the Israeli airforce up to and including the 1967 war were French Mirages.

The value to the U.S. in Israel's counteracting Soviet influence in the Middle East prompted the U.S. government in providing financial support to Israel for weapons purchases. Israel's repayment for the loans was predicated on keeping their independence in making policy decisions concerning Israel's security. At various times, some of the loans were forgiven by the U.S., but Israel repaid a substantial amount of money.

U.S. support of Israel worked well for U.S. containment of Soviet incursion in the Middle East. During the 1974 "Yom Kippur war", Israel had a much superior arsenal including the F4 Phantom jets which were superior to any other war plane of its time.

[TomClash]

19. I disagree

Now you say "some of the loans were forgiven" and "Israel repaid a substantial amount of money." In fact, most of the loans were forgiven.

The Yom Kippur War was in 1973, not 1974. And it is only after that war that military loans and grants were dramatically increased.

The primary reasons for the dramatic increase in the aid amount after the Yom Kippur War were Camp David and the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US, not curtailing the USSR. If the primary benefit to the US was the curtailment of the USSR, which could have been done in other ways, then one wonders why have we spent over $50 billion in direct aid after the collapse of the USSR.

[breakaleg]

18. How do you know that the loans were repaid?

Most of the information I've found shows that the loans were forgiven by congress before they came due.

[Tom Joad]

7. Interesting side (literally) note: check out the poll beside the article.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=826921&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=2#article826921

The poll asks:
Is giving financial support to Israel in the best interest of the U.S.?

among the responses:
The U.S. should help the Palestinians, not Israel 45%
Absolutely not 17%

I know these things aren't even close to being scientifically valid, but this is interesting ... in an Israeli paper.

[TomClash]

15. Visit Tel Aviv and then Ramallah

and you will understand how decent people come to that conclusion.

[The Magistrate]

11. Sen. Obama, Mr. Joad, Is Making a Serious Run For The Presidency

Naturally, he takes positions popular with the great majority of the people of the United States, on the Left as well as in other portions of the political spectrum.