NY Review of Books: A very interesting article about AIPAC

[joemurphy]

<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062?email>

It helps explain Democratic silence on what happened over the last 2 weeks.

"Democrats, though, still get most of the pro-Israel dollars. Among AIPAC's staunchest backers in Congress are such well-known liberals as Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Jerrold Nadler, and Howard Berman. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, is so reliable that "he might as well be on the AIPAC payroll," a congressional staffer told me. Hillary Clinton is equally dependable. Still attempting to live down her 1998 declaration of support for a Palestinian state and the kiss she gave Suha Arafat in 1999, Clinton has sought to compensate by voting AIPAC's way on almost every issue. In the current election cycle, she has received $80,000 in pro-Israel money—more than any other congressional candidate."

[GAPeace]

1. Her opponent Jonathan Tasini is taking major heat for calling for

a ceasefire and attacking her for her support of the war: www.tasinifornewyork.com

He's a man who stands by his conscience. If he had her kind of dollars he might've won. It's an unjust America.

[Larkspur]

2. What can we do to weaken AIPAC's hold on Democrats?

If we can bust AIPAC, then we can help our Dem leaders get a more balanced view of the Middle East and Israel.

[GAPeace]

3. Honestly, I think only voting third party would accomplish that

If the Dems think they can just get the peace-minded votes for not being Republicans, they have no incentive to change. Threatening to support third parties could make Democrats more progressive.

[joemurphy]

4. The article says that, next to the NRA, AIPAC is the most

powerful lobbying group in Congress.

[originalpckelly]

5. I call them AIPAC Democrats...

they are hawkish when it comes to Israel, and they will be the people who give into Bush. They are willing to play the terrorism threat game, and do it well. It is sick to play the fears of the American people, no matter which party does it.