So when do the Candidates talk at the German PAC or the Irish PAC or the Korean PAC???

[LSK]

Why the hell does AIPAC get all this press, and the candidates pander to Israel so much???

I really dont get it.

Why does this country hold America hostage when it comes to foreign policy??? Can someone explain this to me?

Why doesn't the MSM cover speeches to the Germany American conferences? How about the Russian Americans conferences?

:shrug:

[Fresh_Start]

1. two theories

1) bowing to the religious wingnuts who believe the jews are the chosen people
2) bowing to the MIC who need to support never ending war (and Israel is conveniently situation for being the centerpiece of that strategy)

[AlphaCentauri]

2. Money talks

[LSK]

3. the Russians and Chinese are loaded lately, maybe they should pander to them?

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Because there's video? n/t

[LSK]

5. and this is the only group that can get video cameras setup???

[ColbertWatcher]

6. No, that is why they're on TV. n/t

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Um because Germany isn't at war and -

Because Israel is a big piece of leverage in the Middle East. Just keep everyone focused on Israel while we do everything we can to pillage the oil. The leaders of ME countries do the same thing 'Look at the evil Jews... pay no mind to the boot i have on your NECK."

AIPAC doesn't hold America hostage. America uses Israel.

[razors edge]

8. It would be cheaper to buy the oil.

America uses Israel the way my tires use my car. Without oil neither go anywhere, with oil one gets ground down while the other steers the course.

Let Israel do their own dirty work.

[Indenturedebtor]

10. They aren't steering the course

Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq without any help from Israel thanks. Israel is in a position where it has to do what we say. Stop with your Jewish Global Conspiracy theories. Politicians and Americans in general support Israel in part because of AIPAC, but for many other reasons.

I get so sick and tired of people in the left saying that Israel leads America around by the nose. What a rediculous idea. America wouldn't give two shits about Israel if we couldn't use it as a tool to suck money out of the region.

[razors edge]

41. Unfortunately, in this area, yes they are.

I don't blame Israel for using the influence they have in DC, quite the contrary, I blame my government for not putting the interests of the American people before the interests of foreigners with large purses.

When a Mother and her children go hungry, when a former service member is homeless with no hope, my government is not taking care of that they were entrusted with, as long as they are giving tax dollars to any foreign country, simple as that.

Israel wanted to replace the old pipeline through Syria to Haifa and made it clear they saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to get it. Talk about your pipe dreams. BTW, tell me how many links to that story you would like before denying it.

I never said anything about a global conspiracy, your accusation from nowhere, combined with your denial of Israel not having any influence on US foreign policy, is what is truly ridiculous in this whole conversation.

Where the Oil companies may be extracting black gold from the area, my government certainly isn't doing it in a manner that lowers the budget deficit. Killing our soldiers yes, making money for the people who are America, most definitely not.

[Indenturedebtor]

51. I didn't say that Israel has no influence on American foreign policy

Simply that if there was no monetary/imperialistic benefit to the relationship it wouldn't be such a driving force. There's a lot of money to be made in an unstable Middle East. We decide our Israel policy accordingly. Why do you think that Bush has made no real effort to brokering peace?

I would like to see the link that you mention, I honestly haven't read about that.

And yes I agree, foreign aid needs to take a backseat to social welfare. First and foremost military spending needs to take a backseat to foreign aid.

[razors edge]

54. Sorry I took so long

to get back to you, I missed your request for the links.
\
This is an easy to find link, and I apologize for going for the easy ones first.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-03.htm

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/20/israelandthepalestinians.oil

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.




http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html

n Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, has reported that Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements.

According to the daily, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would reduce the country's cost of oil imports. This is currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia. There would also be a strategic justification for the project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in Israel's close proximity would increase its fuel security and would address its major handicap, that is, its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away suppliers. While living in the oil-rich Middle East, the Israelis cannot count on regional oil exporters because of the existing Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran, which was on friendly terms with Israel, provided its oil requirements. That arrangement ended in 1979 when the new Iranian revolutionary regime cut ties with Israel.




These are easy to find articles, and I have seen articles published before the war began. Obviously this idea did not just pop into someones head after the US took Baghdad.

[Indenturedebtor]

55. I'll grant you it's possible and thank you for the links but...

That still isn't enough to say that Israel led the US to war, or that we went to war on their behalf.

They had things to gain and things to lose. Ultimately Israel does what we say. They influence our ME policy but they don't control it by any stretch. In a similar way to how we influence England's policy but we don't control it.

[razors edge]

69. That in itself causes me concern.

Who is the horse and who is the cart.

If the very thought of one nation being subservient to the other isn't bad enough to warrant a change in the relationship, what is?

[newmajority]

11. "AIPAC doesn't hold America hostage. America uses Israel."

Actually, I'd say it's more of a mutually destructive co-dependent relationship.

And it's not really so much "America" and "Israel" as it is a handful of Zionist Likud lunatics who hijacked the Israeli government, and their PNAC counterparts who pretty much own the Chimpministration and various elements (DLC/PPI) within the Democratic party.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. "it's more of a mutually destructive co-dependent relationship."

I can go with that.

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."

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html

[LeftishBrit]

26. If Howard Kohr did say that...

then Howard Kohr must be a big-headed boaster, a liar, or both.

I am sure that some within as well as outside of AIPAC would like to exaggerate AIPAC's influence.

But someone like Bush wasn't going to take advice from AIPAC - any more than from anyone else, ranging from the UN to his own father - unless it suited his own and Cheney's existing wishes. As Blair's advice did. Otherwise, Bush would have ignored it, as he ignored Schroeder's and Chirac's and Annan's and everyone's advice.

[JohnyCanuck]

37. I think AIPAC and the neo-cons are pretty tight.

AIPAC keeps a very close relationship with an array of influential think-tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Hudson Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Middle East Forum, the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Sprinkled neo-cons in these think-tanks can be regarded as a microcosm of the larger Israel lobby - Jews and non-Jews (It's important to remember that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and five other neo-cons drafted the infamous "A Clean Break" document to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 - the ultimate road map for hardcore regime change all over the Middle East.)

SNIP

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".

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html

[Indenturedebtor]

52. I agree. But destabilizing the region is not what Israel wants

It would not at all be in Israel's best interests to have a massive World War erupt all over the place.

People often forget that Israel has a large military but a small population. Everyone serves. Israel wants peace.

[rucky]

70. AIPAC doesn't necessarily work in Israel's best interests

but they leverage that mission quite effectively to work in their own best interest.

[LeftishBrit]

25. EXACTLY!

It is similar to American-British relations; in fact, Blair had much more input into the decision to go to war in Iraq than anyone Israeli did.

No one except the real LaRouchie nuts (and one extremely Blair-hating colleague of mine) accuses Britain or its leaders of controlling America, getting America into war, or 'holding it hostage'. Our leaders are instead often regarded, both here and in the US, as 'collaborators' and 'poodles'. Why is Olmert not also regarded as a poodle, instead of someone who can control America (he can't even control Israel!)

[Virginia Dare]

9. You should see the security here in Washington..

motorcades of buses under heavy guard, helicopters, it's been going on all week. I can't imagine how must all of this must cost us.

[question everything]

12. If you ever visit Washington D.C., go to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

http://www.ushmm.org/

and read closely the story of the S.S. St. Louis, a German boat with Jews escaping the Nazi's new rules.

The ship sailed to Cuba where they were promised entry but once the ship arrived, it changed its mind. The U.S. State Dept. apparently dominated by anti-Semitic clerks, would not let them enter, either.

You also have to remember that when Hitler first took power, many in the West, including Churchill, welcomed that "barrier" to Communism.

In the Evian Conference, only the Dominican Republic was willing to accept a significant number of German Jews.

We were there two months ago, and as I was reading these "stories" I then realized why there are so many American Jews among the neo-conservatives. Why AIPAC: to make sure that Jews will never again be considered as "disposable" human beings (or even as non-humans, as the Nazi were trying to achieve.)

You have to be ashamed to put Germany in the same sentence.

[LucyParsons]

15. Where is the Native American group???? nt

[question everything]

16. Native Americans live in this country

and while they were close to be annihilated, they certainly now have the resources to stand for themselves. You don't think that they are now in danger of being physically annihilated now, do you? Or that there is a ruler someplace in the world who claim that he is going to do so.

[LucyParsons]

18. What Jews in America are in danger of being physically annihilated?

**Edited for spelling.**

If Jews in Israel are in danger of being physically annihilated, I don't see why that should concern us any more than Africans in Darfur being physically annihilated, or Tibetans in China being physically annihilated, or... you get the idea. I don't think ANY of those groups (read: any human beings) should be in danger of being physically annihilated. But I am sure there are lots of Iraqi refugees in the United States who wish that the U.S. government had catered to their demands during the Saddam years as closely as both parties cater to Israel.

That's all. I don't think Jews should be in danger of physical annihilation; but nor do I think they're special.

[LeftishBrit]

28. They are not special, more than the other groups...

but they also are not 'special' in the sense of having some sinister control over American or world foreign policy.

'If Jews in Israel are in danger of being physically annihilated, I don't see why that should concern us any more than Africans in Darfur being physically annihilated, or Tibetans in China being physically annihilated, or... you get the idea'

No, all these things should concern us all. The Darfur situation is horrific and REALLY needs intervention. But I don't think of these things as some sort of competition. We can be concerned about all groups.

[LucyParsons]

30. Totally agree

But it does seem to me, and a lot of other Americans, that Israel gets a LOT more support - unconditional support, in fact - than any other country. And that's wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

34. The support seems far from unconditional...

E.g. the military aid for Israel is conditional on choosing to buy American weapons.

And if Israel didn't tow the American government line on foreign policy, I am sure that the aid would be threatened. Even Israel's indirect talks with Syria resulted in loud tut-tuts and 'you didn't ask permission!' from State Department officials.

And as regards similar relations with other countries - well, what about mine, the UK? The relations between Bush and Blair, or Maggie and Ronnie, seem actually far closer and stronger than those between most American and Israeli leaders.

I am sure there is plenty of collaboration, some of it decidedly undesirable, between right-wing American and Israeli leaders. But as a citizen of an allied country myself, I can see the difference between collaboration and somehow controlling American policy. A 'special relationship' between American and an ally implies a lot of demands for support from that ally. It's never a one-way street; and that goes for Israel as well as the UK.

Just because America at the moment doesn't set the sort of conditions on its allies that a left-wing supporter of peace movements, like myself, would like, doesn't mean that they don't set conditions at all.

[question everything]

59. Thank you. Most Americans, certainly DUers, do not understand this

And it is not just purchasing American weapons.

More than 10 years ago, the Israeli Aviation company - El Al - was in the market for new jets and was looking at both Boeing and Airbus. The office of the Secretary of State made it clear to Israel that it was expected to give the business to Boeing, which it did.

[question everything]

57. The atrocities in Darful are real, and we should be doing something

but they are an ethnic group inside the Sudan which, for many countries in the world, is an "internal matter" - just as many viewed the (almost) annihilation of the "their" Jews by the Germans.

I am not aware of any head of state declaring to the world that a certain state has to be wiped off the world. No, not even the Sudan.

Thus, the danger to Israel is real.

[Carolina]

74. so true, great post LucyP

[NuttyFluffers]

44. i have rarely seen things so unbelievably wrong.

the level of NA poverty is mind *fucking* blowing. these 'resources to stand for themselves' is so far off the mark as to be embarrassing. and they are being actively targeted for abuse, theft, racism, etc. still! AND habitually used and abused by the BIA. a few licensed casinos managed by outsiders who are paying for the privilege is a band-aid on a patient with arterial bleeding and critical condition.

life for NAs is far from rosy and the vast majority are not making it. the "lucky" get to barely scrape by in 3rd world poverty and save enough change to visit loved ones in jail. and i'm just waiting for the boom to drop on the Sioux separation from the gov't. wounded knee was visited before, god help us it doesn't get visited again -- but i have *very* little faith in America, especially with the current gov't. there's only 2 million NA left in America, and they only recovered from numbers of 20,000 back in 1920. minimum numbers of life lost is over 14 million, with the lowest assessment of pre-columbian america being 15 mil and the highest end being 50 mil. the blood siege has yet to end of this epic criminality.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Here are some...

http://www.nativeamericans.com/Organizations.htm

Yes, they were tragic victims of genocide. We should remember and acknowledge all genocides.

[DCKit]

38. "Voyage of the Damned" was the movie.

Great film with lots of huge stars of the 70's.

Apparently, the whole thing was a set-up.

[LucyParsons]

14. There are more atheists/agnostics than Jews in America.

And they often overlap, as well.

Just pointing that out.

[question everything]

17. It is not about American Jews

who, unless David Duke takes over, are well protected under the Constitution of the United States and are being treated like any other citizen (Native Americans excepted).

It is about the security of the State of Israel who has been treated like a pariah by most of the Western World including Germany where, I think, it finally feels free to resurrect the old Anti-Semitism.

[JackRiddler]

43. Just go ahead and make up your own facts, won't you?

"It is about the security of the State of Israel who has been treated like a pariah by most of the Western World including Germany where, I think, it finally feels free to resurrect the old Anti-Semitism."

At best this is incredibly ignorant.

Germany has been a close ally of Israel since its founding, and provided billions in financing and arms for Israel. Both sides made much of this special relationship in their respective propaganda.

Show me where the "Western world" makes a pariah of Israel! Incredible.

[Canuckistanian]

19. Don't forget the Polish PAC!

Everybody always forgets the Polish PAC.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Here...

http://www.polamcon.org/org/aboutus.htm

and here's the Polish-British equivalent:

http://www.zpwb.org.uk/en/Current_Matters

Who, among other things, actually managed to combat the Daily Hate-Mail's venomous crusade against Polish immigrants - and good for them!

[Canuckistanian]

36. Dziekuje!

Do widzenia.

[leveymg]

20. When they get nuclear weapons and start threatening their neighbors, then we'll have to talk to them

If the German, Irish, or Koreans invaded their neighbors, assassinated their left-of-center Prime Ministers, and embraced the doctrine of preemptive first-use of nuclear weapons, I'm sure they'd get lots more American attention.

[question everything]

21. Rabin would be rolling in his grave if anyone would describe him as "left of center."

And, just a reminder: Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967. That these attacks ended up with them losing territories, and since then refusing to manage the refugees problem, is a different story.

One more point: after the war of 1948 there were Palestinian refugees who escape from what later became Israel, and a similar number of Jews escaping Arab countries. The latter were absorbed and settled and because equal citizens in the new State of Israel.

[The Stranger]

33. Actually, I recently pointed out to another poster Israel attacked her neighbors on June 5, 1967 --

and tomorrow is the anniversiary.

[Phx_Dem]

39. Egypt started the conflict with Israel

when they closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. Restricting a nations access to territorial waterways is considered an act of war by international law.

[The Stranger]

50. "Who started the conflict" is obviously subject to being spun and sounds like a child's playground.

The fact, as posted, is that Israel launched an attack on her neighbors on June 5, 1967, starting the Six Day War.

To deny this is to destroy one's own credibility.

[question everything]

40. You are wrong

Not only did Egypt started by blockading the Straits of Tiran, but once the war started, Jordan and Syria decided to "join the festivities" and were beaten.

But, hey, in DU and among European countries, Israel will always be the bad man. The only way Israel can gain favors with the likes of you is it it ceases to exist and it is not going to do this, so keep dreaming.

[The Stranger]

49. No, I am actually right.

I stated that Israel launched an attack on her neighbors on June 5, 1967. To deny this is to deny fundamental reality. It is simply to lie to oneself.

[question everything]

56. Israel started a pre-emptive attack on Egypt after it blocakeded

the Straits of Tiran - an act of war recognized internationally (though, obviously, not in the offices of Mr. Stranger.) And while you want to debate this point, you conveniently ignore the fact that once the war started, Jordan and Syria attacked.

Israel has long signed a peace agreement with Egypt and returned the Sinai. What is still in dispute are the territories won from Jordan and Syria, but you conveniently ignore them.

[leveymg]

45. Israel launched preemptive airstrikes against the Egyptian AF on 6/5/67

Don't try to change history. It's called Revisionism; it rarely works for the denier.

If you want to argue legalisms, the Straits of Tiran were claimed as Egyptian territorial waters (see below). The place for resolving that issue was the UN, not in the cockpit of a Mirage fighter-bomber.

Israel may have made a smart move militarily by pulling the trigger first, and war may well have been inevitable, but they were undeniably the first to do so.

History doesn't judge Israel harshly for that, given the circumstances, but it was a preemptive attack.

[Phx_Dem]

47. Funny thing is that the Tiran straits used to be open to everyone

and then for some reason Egypt decided to restrict access to only arab ships. Maybe this quote from Nassar explains the reasoning:

"The problem before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it - but how to totally exterminate the State of Israel for all time."

[leveymg]

48. Undeniably, the closure was a hostile act and Egypt was hostile to Israel

The Egyptians also massed several tank divisions on the border prior to the start of the Six-Day War.

It seems silly, however, to argue that the Israeli air assault of 41 years ago wasn't a preemptive military strike.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Who has been embracing 'the doctrine of preemptive first use of nuclear weapons'?

Nuclear countries embrace the doctrine of nuclear *deterrence*, and the threat of retaliation. Not first use. In fact for Israel - or Iran - to use nukes pre-emptively in the region would be literally suicidal. Apart from retaliation, nuclear fallout doesn't recognize geographical boundaries; and would devastate any country that used nukes on its close neighbours. Not just Mutually Assured Destruction, but Self Assured Destruction.

I am against nuclear proliferation, but no one has a policy of using nukes pre-emptively.

[leveymg]

46. Israel has a policy of "ambiguity" about the existence and use of its nuclear weapons

Israel doesn't clearly embrace the doctrine of deterrence with regard to first-use of nuclear weapons, particularly with regard to Iran, which some Israelis claim cannot be deterred as they are, allegedly, irrational.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Why the hell you so worried about it?

I find it funny the way some here react to the word "AIPAC." A powerful lobby? No doubt. The be all to end all of presidential elections? :rofl: There are only four groups that think that way.

Edit: sorry, should have put "four" instead of "three" groups.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madinmaryland]

24. I hear Donald Rumsfeld was consulting the Brazilian PAC when

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the President his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

:hi:

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. Rimshot!

:-)

[Poll_Blind]

35. LSK:

1. Why the hell does AIPAC get all this press and the candidates pander to Israel so much???

A. Because American Jews participate in politics and the media (editorially and critically) more than any other group in America which shares a heritage and an identity which is presumed to be homogeneous in fundamental ways.

B. Because of thousands of years of persecution there is a palpable cultural pressure to editorially provide information on Israel to promote the welfare of Jews as a group (a bulwark against anti-Semitism) and, critically, to request this is information as consumers and constituents.

3.Why doesn't the MSM cover speeches to the Germany American conferences? How about the Russian Americans conferences?

  See point B. again.

  Also: While there are many more German-Americans and Russian-Americans than there are Jewish-Americans, German and Russian Americans do not generally identify their German or Russian heritage in the same way and more importantly, in the same numbers. The MSM would cover speeches from those organizations more frequently if German-American and Russian-American constituents put an equal or greater amount of editorial or critical pressure on them.

2. Why does this country hold America hostage when it comes to foreign policy??? Can someone explain this to me?

   See point A. again.

PB

[oberliner]

42. Cuban American National Foundation To Hear Obama

(AP) The Cuban American National Foundation, once the foremost voice representing the Cuban exile cause in Washington, is hosting a speech Friday by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in a bold move to recapture the group's prominence.

Its founder, Jorge Mas Canosa, long served as a symbol of stalwart anti-Castro sentiment. But since his 1997 death, the group has receded into the cacophony of Cuban-American voices.

The decision to host Obama is a daring move in a community generally more supportive of Republican candidate John McCain and even Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Right now, it's a very important chapter in the history of Cuba. We are also at a turning point in our own community," said Francisco Hernandez, the foundation's president and co-founder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/22/ap/politics/main4118330.shtml

[JackRiddler]

53. True enough...

The other ethnic lobby in the US that gets to hold foreign policy hostage.

Not that others wouldn't like to, but no one's had the same success. And not that the policy in either case is entirely a function of the ethnic lobby -- the MIC and right-wing crusaders have a lot to do with both.

[leftofthedial]

58. when any of those countries buy half the American "government"

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Israel has "bought" half the American government? There's one I hadn't heard.

[leftofthedial]

61. cheap too

a few thou in campaign contributions and they are yours

[Behind the Aegis]

62. OIC...just more propaganda lies. Gotcha.

[leftofthedial]

64. Google finds only a little over a quarter of a million hits

on "AIPAC influence in Washington," including a good summary from alternet:

-snip-
With its impressive contacts among Hill staffers, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, AIPAC is the lobby's key emissary to Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of doing business inside the halls of Congress. AIPAC's interest, Israel's interest and America's interest are today perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the same.
-snip-

AIPAC's dangerous grip on DC

That's not propaganda. It's reality.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. There is a BIG difference between...

...influence by AIPAC (fact) and Israel cheaply buying half of the congress (hyperbolic propaganda bullshit).

[leftofthedial]

66. really?

I see zero difference, unless you're haggling over the meaning of "cheap."

[Behind the Aegis]

67. If you really see "zero difference" then you are lost in the propaganda...

,,,but then I had already suspected as much!

[leftofthedial]

68. AIPAC, which represents no US interest at all,

is perhaps the only lobby that enjoys that kind of total obedience by anyone of political importance in Washington. That is not propaganda. That is reality. I think you are the one who is lost.

[Behind the Aegis]

71. It is even MORE propaganda, not truth you are peddling.

"...the only lobby that enjoys that kind of total obedience by anyone of political importance in Washington." Seriously, this is reminiscent of the "Protocols" except "Jews" have been replaced by "Israel." It is sad, really. So, no, you are in fact lost in leftist (and far-right) propaganda.

[leftofthedial]

76. you are in denial

[Behind the Aegis]

78. Sadly, no, I am not. And neither are you.

[LeftishBrit]

72. Do you really mean...

that the gun lobby; the oil lobby; the insurance lobby; etc. don't have at least equal - and huge - influence? That would go against everything I've been told by American acquaintances.

And I don't see that AIPAC 'represents no US interest'. Its members are Americans and not Israelis; and it represents the interest of those in the US who see collaboration with Israel as advantageous to the US; and at the moment it seems to represent the more right-wing and hawkish side of such an alliance. Whether this actually is to the advantage of the US - or of Israel if it comes to that- will depend on point of view.

America and Britain are also very close allies and collaborators in foreign policy; and this happens because there are some influential people in the leadership of both countries who think this is advantageous (when it involves making war on Iraq, I don't; and neither do most Brits!) - not because the politicians of one country are 'obeying' a lobby from another.

[leftofthedial]

77. I didn't say AIPAC is the only lobby in town.

I said it was the only one universally kowtowed to by every member of congress. All the lobbies you mentioned have powerful opponents on the Hill and have had enemies in the White House (although admittedly their opponents have weakened over the last decade.) AIPAC has no significant opposition in any branch of our federal government. EVERY major Presidential candidate and many congressional candidates have appeared before AIPAC to reassure them of ongoing support for Israel. This happens with no other lobby.

From AIPAC's website:

What Is AIPAC?
For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. -snip-

Nowhere in their mission statement do they mention any American constituency. Their sole purpose is to promote Israel's security interests in the US.

[RadiationTherapy]

63. This won't last another generation. Our relationship with Israel is not

as understood nor cared about by many people under 50.

[Carolina]

73. I totally agree

Our unwavering (i.e. Israel right or wrong) support is one of the additional reasons for the anti-US sentiment in the mid-east. Israel flaunts UN sanctions all the time, Israelis bulldoze Palestinian settlements all the time but heaven forbid someone call Israel's actions a form of terrorism.

Before 1948, that nation/area was Palestine and the US assisted in the displacement of the Palestinians much as the indigenous peoples of America world were killed or displaced... Hmmmm.

We are hated because of it and for:

- overthrowing democratically elected Muhammad Moussadeq(sp?) in Iran in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize his nation's oil profits for Iranians. CIA covert ops overthrew him and installed the Shah so the US (along with the UK) could take 80% of Iran's oil

- installing our puppet Saddam Hussein and arming Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war

Now there's going to be hell to pay for what we've done TO Iraq, a nation that NEVER ATTACKED US!!

[sampsonblk]

75. This is all about christianity.

If there weren't so many right-wing christians who vote, we'd be an honest player in the world instead of taking one side every time. Odd thing is, if we were an honest player, some of these problems might actually get solved - for good!