Feingold, Clark, Reid, Pelosi Statements

[oberliner]

Russ Feingold:

“I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The first steps toward establishing peace must begin with the unconditional and immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon, Syria, Iran and countries throughout the region must also condemn the actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups committed to blocking the peace process and must take strong actions to return stability to the region immediately.”

Source: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/07/20060714.htm

Wes Clark:

"Essentially, Hizbullah took advantage of Israel's distraction to attack. They did it to gain credibility, gain more (drop-out) funding, and, and raise their prestige. They probably did it in coordination with Iran to distract the attention of the world from the Iranian nuclear programs. And so, Israel was attacked. Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack. So, Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself. It's running an air campaign, going after Hizbullah. It's going to try to take a significant bite out of Hizbullah and try to get the Lebanese government and the international community to force Hizbullah out of Southern Lebanon. That's what's happening."

Source: http://www.securingamerica.com/node/1243

Nancy Pelosi:

"I will support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do so as well. At a difficult time for the state of Israel, this resolution reaffirms our unwavering support and commitment to Israel and condemns the attacks by Hezbollah. The seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists was an unprovoked attack and Israel has a right and an obligation to respond."

Source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69471

Harry Reid:

“Today’s attacks by Hezbollah in Israeli territory were disgraceful and unwarranted acts of violence by a terrorist organization. Hezbollah must release the captured Israeli soldiers immediately. Hezbollah must be dismantled, and all nations have an obligation to cease any and all assistance to this terrorist organization. Israel has a right to live in peace and security, and the United States will stand by our ally in this difficult time.”

Source: http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=258617&&year=2006&

These sentiments from leading Democrats do not seem to be commonly accepted here at DU. I am trying to understand why there is such a disconnect.

I've been an avid reader of DU since the 2004 election. I've only recently started to post here, and I know I am diving in to some very contentious waters, but I think it's important for Democrats and other Progressives to discuss these issues intelligently in an attempt to better understand this very complex conflict.

Where are the areas of agreement and disagreement? Are there some basic facts about the conflict that we can all accept as a starting point of discussion?

[katinmn]

1. Dem leaders are spouting the AIPAC talking points.

Disappointing to say the least! They think we are all stupid, believing that this invasion of Lebanon is because of two "kidnapped" soldiers. Now it is coming out that this invasion was planned for a year.

Further, where are the leaders calling for diplomacy? No where to be found. They'd rather use military might than use the power of the US to solve the problem diplomatically.

[still_one]

2. you don't think they represent their constiuents?

if they don't then should I expect to see them not re-elected when their term is up

are they all neocons?

Of course Russ Feingold was against the war in Iraq, and the patriot act, and it has been said many times here that AIPAC was for it

Maybe Russ didn't get the talking points back then? Maybe the WHOLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is involved in this

Thanks for setting me straight

[JackNewtown]

14. Obviously they don't represent the people on this

A plurality of Americans favor a ceasefire, while apparently only 0.1% of Dem leaders do...

Regarding AIPAC and Feingold, the Iraq war and Patriot Act had much broader political implications than supporting the Olmert line 100%. Politically, he could have lost if he favored the war, as Lieberman is doing right now, and he gained a lot of political support by opposing the Patriot Act. Israel is an issue where all the political advantage for every politician outside the White House is on the side of supporting anything Israel does. The WH is different because it has to play global politics too, but the difference doesn't really exist under Bush due to PNAC and co.

How much did these leaders receive when they last ran for office in 2004?


Feingold, Russell D (D-WI) --to put this in perspective, the Arab American PAC contributed a total of $109,000 to candidates in 04'. Who do you think candidates are going to back on this?
$113,703


Reid, Harry (D-NV)
$94,200

Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) --18th among House members
$39,050

Many people believe--correctly--corporations can buy votes when there are considerable interests on the other side. In the case of AIPAC it is operated with no real opposition so I don't see why some are reluctant to believe that AIPAC isn't buying a Congress that votes 410-8 in the House and 100-0 in the Senate to pass a resolution that could have been written straight from the Israeli prime minister's office (can you point out any difference between the Congressional position and the Israeli government position?). These resolutions are always more extreme than the White House position, even compared to Bush Jr.

[cigsandcoffee]

15. They shouldn't govern according to polls.

They're supposed to govern according to principles. They're representatives, but not brainless automatons without opinions of their own.

[JackNewtown]

20. Their (Congress) opinions on Israel are always in line with Tel Aviv

Why? They are more extreme than the White House, even this one. For instance, Congress favors moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, something only 2 countries do right now, while even Bush opposes this.

[still_one]

23. Then why did Russ Feingold VOTE AGAINST THE IWR?

or against the patriot act?

It is quite easy to setup strawmen

[JackNewtown]

40. AIPAC wasn't alone in those fights

AIPAC is not the most powerful lobby in DC by any means. It routinely loses to the defense/arms industry regarding selling advanced (by ME standards) weapons to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Where it has a dominant role is in the sphere of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (when is the last time Congress sided with the Palestinians???). Why? Who else is there pumping $$$$ on behalf of the other side? AIPAC is essentially unopposed on I/P and Congress' lopsided actions reflect that.

Notice how every country that doesn't have AIPAC has a government, particularly the legislature, with views that are not anywhere close to the American government's views? Some of these countries have their own versions of AIPAC but they are not nearly as strong as AIPAC. Some countries also have powerful pro-Palestinian interest groups, such as in France. Still, isn't it very telling that in countries where there are no interest groups on behalf of either side that the government is almost always pro-Palestinian or at least neutral? Is that just a big string of coincidences? The fact remains that the American position on I/P severely damages its relations with 1.3 billion Muslims and 57 states. Why would a state that is looking at the conflict free from domestic political considerations take a zealously "pro-Israel" stance and damage its relations with 57 states and 1.3 billion people?

[rucky]

65. One sided policy statements based on one sided stories

are what is shaping public opinion. It's an echo chamber.

Without having the who-started-it debate, I think we can all agree that we should take thorough and careful consideration, and public debate, before jumping into support for ANY war - no matter what. Instead, it is treated as a fait accompli. No questions asked.

For those who think this is clear-cut, I suggest checking some worldwide polls & media coverage from other countries. Also google up: Operation Clean Break (no, I don't think the Dems are part of it, they just don't know about it & didn't ask any questions about how much of this was pre-planned before jumping in with their support). I don't know what's really going on, but I do know that we're not getting the whole story, here. In the end, Feingold & Co. may still throw their unconditional support to Israel, but at least they'd have appeared to have considered all angles.

WHY DON'T DEMS ASK QUESTIONS IN MATTERS OF WAR? Haven't we learned anything from Iraq?

[Mythsaje]

3. It's tantamount to blowing up a city block in the US

to catch a cop-killer. The problem isn't them going after Hezbollah, it's the carnage inflicted upon the innocent Lebanese who had no dog in the fight in the first place.

It's irresponsible and callous, and makes them little better than the people they're fighting. I'm disappointed that these folks are saying what they are, but, then again, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. Israel gets a pass from us that NO OTHER country on Earth would receive. That should raise a few red flags, but it doesn't.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Mythsaje]

6. It got lost in the passages

where they were TOLD to kill their enemies.

[cigsandcoffee]

4. Dem leaders understand the importance of Israel to US foreign policy

They are our allies in a dangerous and unfriendly part of the world that's too well stocked with well-armed lunatics.

[still_one]

8. actually both political parties do

that does not detract from the fact the Palestinians should have a state, but so should Israel, and until the mideast realizes that Israel is here to stay, there will be no progress

Hey, it start with Abraham, Sarah, Hager, Isaac, and Ismael, its all about inheritence rights

This is why a will is so important. Also setting up a trust is a good thing, because you can avoid probate

Worst thing is family members arguing after one is gone

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. There is an offer for peace between Arab countries and Israel:

This specific offer was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League in March 2002. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League going back much, much longer:

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."
___________

And this is the offer Israel made at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[JackNewtown]

41. Why is that part of the world unfriendly to the US in the first place?

You know the answer...

[bdamomma]

42. geez, this is sickening, they are in support of expanding the

war, and for bush's sick agenda, geez, this is terrible, what happened to diplomacy????? We need to call our Senators and Reps and demand a ceasefire, now we can definitely see how disconnected our Dems Senators are.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

9. Clark has said the same thing. In addition, he said there should be

one on one talks with North Korea

[Rose Siding]

10. Pelosi refused to sign on to that resolution-

After five days of wrangling between the two leaders, their aides and other members, Pelosi was still withholding her support for the measure, scheduled to be voted on today, because she wanted Republicans to include language asking the two sides to limit civilian casualties.

On the floor, Boehner explained his position on that language to her and told the minority leader he would bring the resolution to the floor with or without her support.

Pelosi then told him that she would back the measure, and even make a floor statement supporting it, but that she could not attach her name to it, members and staffers from both parties said yesterday.

Pelosi’s refusal to sign on to the resolution forced Boehner to introduce the measure as a joint accord between him, International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), the committee’s ranking Democrat.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072006/news1.html

War fever is so high that she couldn't even get that. It would be irreparably harmful to the party if leadership refused to present strongly against terrorism so I think it was smart not to get boxed in to that. -But she did try to include words addressing the need for a proportionate response.

[BayCityProgressive]

11. AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC

everything is AIPAC's fault. I am not a member of AIPAC and I do not agree with them on many issues. To say however, that congress is controlled by them is ridiculous. They are one of thousands of interest groups. There are many of us here on DU who do not recieve any lobbying or money from AIPAC yet support Israel, so why can't people understand that MANY in congress simply support Israel and don't agree with the posters here. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. Also

I would venture to say that The US does not support Israel because they fear for the lives of Israeli's. It is purely strategical. It just so happens that many Americans for various reasons support Israel as well. Many times the US government has undermined or worked in opposition to Israel through the CIA. Remember, Israel is not the only state in the Middle East we support. We also support Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We support states that give us a foothold in the region. Not for humanitarian purposes.

[Rose Siding]

13. I don't understand how your comment relates to my post.

[BayCityProgressive]

16. I was just responding

to the first post that was a knee jerk AIPAC post. I apologize, I should have placed my post directly under that one! Sorry about the confusion!

[BayCityProgressive]

17. Also Rose,

I am glad that Pelosi wanted a clause to protect civilian life, that should always be our objective whenever possible.

[JackNewtown]

21. WHo opposes AIPAC?

AIPAC has no competition in its sphere. The NRA and the other 1,000 groups are irrelevant to ME policy.

[oberliner]

38. Arab American Leadership PAC

Arab American Leadership PAC
Contributions 2004

House

Abercrombie, Neil (D-HI) $1,000

Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) $1,000

Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA) $5,500

Conyers, John Jr (D-MI) $5,000

Davis, Danny K (D-IL) $1,000

Dingell, John D (D-MI) $4,000

Driscoll, Joseph Edward (D-PA) $5,000

Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY) $2,000

Holt, Rush (D-NJ) $1,000

Honda, Mike (D-CA) $1,000

Hyde, Henry J (R-IL) $1,000

Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $3,500

Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $3,000

Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $2,000

Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) $1,000

Kaptur, Marcy (D-OH) $2,000

Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) $2,000

Kucinich, Dennis J (D-OH) $4,000

LaHood, Ray (R-IL) $3,500

Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $3,000

McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $3,000

McKinney, Cynthia A (D-GA) $4,000

Moran, Jim (D-VA) $6,000

Nadeau, Justin (D-NH) $7,000

Obey, David R (D-WI) $2,000

Paul, Ron (R-TX) $2,000

Payne, Donald M (D-NJ) $2,000

Peterson, John E (R-PA) $500

Rahall, Nick (D-WV) $3,500

Rohrabacher, Dana (R-CA) $1,000

Ryan, Tim (D-OH) $1,000

Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $1,000

Stark, Pete (D-CA) $2,000

Udall, Tom (D-NM) $1,000

Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $2,000

Watson, Diane E (D-CA) $2,000

Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $2,000

Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA) $2,000

Total to Democratic House Candidates: $77,500
Total to Republican House Candidates: $17,000

Senate

Castor, Betty (D-FL) $2,000

John, Chris (D-LA) $5,000

Mongiardo, Daniel (D-KY) $5,000

Obama, Barack (D-IL) $1,500

Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $13,500
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $0

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00194225&Cycle=2004

[JackNewtown]

44. $109,000 vs. AIPAC's $6 million. That says it all

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=Q05&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&Cycle=2004

Party Split:
Dems:
Repubs:
Others: $3,760,996
$2,190,124
$1,000

All Candidates:
$5,952,120
Incumbents Only:
$5,106,169

The following candidates alone received more money than the combined total of candidates who received money from the pro-Arab lobby:

Candidate
Amount

Bush, George W (R)
$262,766

Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
$245,075

Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
$235,200

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT)
$231,050

Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
$162,950

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
$142,110

Murray, Patty (D-WA)
$130,745

Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD)
$127,125

Lantos, Tom (D-CA)
$124,600

Deutsch, Peter (D-FL)
$119,400

Feingold, Russell D (D-WI)
$113,703

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=Q05&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U&Cycle=2004

[katinmn]

24. Both parties take from AIPAC. It is naive to think they have no influence

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

House: Current Cycle
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650

House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275
Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379
Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050

Senate: Current Cycle
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $80,350
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 73,000
Murray, Patty (D-WA) 72,495
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) 70,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 64,999
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 56,500
Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 55,750
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 55,000
Brownback, Samuel (R-KS) 50,850
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 38,500
Senate: Career
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $533,635
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 461,973
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 433,806
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 326,671
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 318,801
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 255,562
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 227,758
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 223,794
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) 221,178
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 201,939

[BayCityProgressive]

26. I don't believe

that I said they have no influence. I just stated their influence IMO is not what some here think.

[JackNewtown]

46. I agree, except on I/P

On I/P, when is the last time Congress defied AIPAC? The White House opposes AIPAC occassionally, even under this president. The only time I see AIPAC losing in Congress is when it goes up against real competition, such as the defense/arms industry, such as the famous battle over selling $8 billion worth of AWACs to Saudi Arabia in the early 80's. On I/P AIPAC has the dance floor all to itself, and that is why you see 410-8, 100-0, 96-2 votes for AIPAC resolutions IMO.

[jonnyblitz]

28. somebody claimed the other day that posting lists like this

was straight out of 'the Protocols Of the Learned Elders of Zion". :crazy:

I AM NOT AGREEING BTW..i just thought you might find that amusing if not pathetic.

EVERY lobby group should be scrutinized. why in hell would they give money if they didn't get a return on their investment? :shrug:

[BayCityProgressive]

29. I agree

we have the right to scrutinize lobbying groups and to this knowledge. I am just pointing out that money is a small and piddly amount of money in comparison to the total that these candidates raise and I doubt AIPAC is "controlling" 98% of congress. That just seems to be quite a conspiracy theory. Cynthia McKinney comes down in favor of the Palestinian position and receives money from interest groups associated with them so would we say that these groups "control" Cynthia McKinney, or does she just hold their view on the issue so they support her? I would go with the latter. I do not agree with Cynthia on this particular issue but that doesn't mean I will accuse her of being "controlled" by an interest group because I don't agree with her on something.

[jonnyblitz]

34. it wasn't you i was referring to, btw. It was somebody that was a

little overheated and upset and probably was getting sloppy, like I do when i get all wound up!

just so you know. :hi:

[JackNewtown]

47. McKinney and AIPAC

Do you know what AIPAC did to McKinney, an incumbent member of Congress, in 2002? AIPAC makes examples of people like McKinney to scare others into toeing the party line. Defying AIPAC is simply not smart politics.

[katinmn]

30. Exactly. It is our duty to watch where our reps get their funding

It's just common sense!

[JackNewtown]

49. I agree, AIPAC should not be exempt from scrutiny

We progressives often criticize the influence of corporate lobbies so I don't see why AIPAC's role on a critical foreign affairs/national security issue should be ignored.

[JackNewtown]

45. Those weren't the final 04' figures, believe it or not

Those were figures from the summer. I posted the final figures in my recent post that will be above your post. The leaders for AIPAC got over $200k...

[katinmn]

27. When my rep DARED to question the withdrawal of humanitarian

aid to Palestinians, AIPAC called her a terrorist supporter.

When Cynthia McKinney questioned our lopsided support of Israel, AIPAC worked to defeat her. Fortunately, she won her seat back the following election cycle.

[BayCityProgressive]

31. well then

you just proved my point. Your rep disagreed with AIPAC and I am sure she will be re-elected. Cynthia opposed them and she has a congressional seat. So they must not have THAT much mind control over congress! This is the action any interest group would take against a congressman. Health insurance lobbyists, abortion rights lobbyists, gay rights activists ect. All interest groups target congressmen that don't agree with them. That is their purpose.

[katinmn]

32. Right! It is fine for lobbyists of foreign governments to work to

defeat our representatives and to threaten them with political retaliation.

:eyes:

[BayCityProgressive]

33. that was a strawman argument

They are not lobbyists from a foreign government. They are an American lobbying group that supports having a strong US/Israeli relationship. There are similar groups that Support Palestine, That support attacking Iran, that supported attacking Iraq, that support better and peaceful ties with North Korea, that support trade agreements with foreign nations, that support and or oppose sanctions on Cuba, ect ect ect. There are many lobbying groups that work on issues of US/foreign relations with specific nations. So why target AIPAC? Your argument isn't holding up..

[katinmn]

35. Nice sugarcoating: "supports a strong US/Israeli relationship"

Nice chatting with you but I need to run to a protest against Israel's invasion of Lebanon. (My third this week.)

:hi:

[BayCityProgressive]

36. okay

have funa nd be safe. Just for the record, I wasn't trying to sugarcoat, but I was too lazy to post everything in detail and argue against your strawman at the same time! Peace! :-)

[JackNewtown]

52. Pro-foreign government lobbies

There is a reasonable argument to be made against such lobbies.

Why is AIPAC often criticized? For the same reason the Cuban-American lobby often is. There are valid reasons why these two are given extra criticism. Just ask them. They will tell you how strong they are. ;)

[JackNewtown]

50. AIPAC toppled McKinney--in a primary in 2002

How often do you see incumbent members of the House lose, let alone lose in a primary? House candidates have re-election rates of 98%. Not when AIPAC, is involved, though...

McKinney came back after the AIPAC candidate gave up her seat to run for the Senate. Her name ID was enough to win it. In 2006, she may lose the seat again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Politicians' first allegience is to themselves.

They read the polls and listen to their lobbyists and political "advisors". Knee jerk support of Israel is to be expected.

They wouldn't want to lose their seat at the trough by doing something foolish like standing against the slaughter.

"America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress." - Mark Twain

[BayCityProgressive]

19. or maybe many of them

really do support Israel just as many US citizens do? Just a thought..

[JackNewtown]

22. 98%?

Funny how 98% of pols. don't back Israel anywhere else...too bad AIPAC is only in one nation...

[BayCityProgressive]

25. You are correct

98% of Americans do not support Israel, however, I would wager a bet that in MOST ALL congressional districts people who oppose Israel are probably in the minority. Congressman/women only have to respond to opinion in their district. Also, there are other interest groups in AIPAC's sphere but you are correct in pointing out they are by far the most powerful. That still doesn't change the fact that they are only 1 out of thousands of interest groups and a politician's success does no depend on a single interest group, no matter what sphere they may be in.

[JackNewtown]

53. The issue is not supporting Israel. I support Israel

The issue is whether the US Congress is going to rubber stamp anything Tel Aviv does or take a more moderate position that reflects what the American people think. Americans sympathize more with Israel but they also favor an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders...

A plurality of Americans favor an immediate ceasefire. How many members of Congress do? Does Dean? Does Mehlmen? Do Clark, Warner, Allen, McCain, and the other possible presidential contenders in 08'?

Supporting AIPAC gives you essentially free money. There is nothing to lose and something to gain. Why not just say "yea" to whatever AIPAC wants? Most politicians are concerned only with their political interests and supporting AIPAC is a no brainer for a member of Congress, with a few exceptions in the House due to their districts.

[ladjf]

37. I find it discouraging to see that Democratic leading politicians

are supporting Israel's devastating campaign in the ME. There is no opposition party. We are totally
bound up in supporting Israel and have been for a long time.

[fujiyama]

39. No surprise here

The list below shows how effective AIPAC is as a lobbying group. There is obviously a lot of money involved here.

But even without AIPAC's monetary influence, I think Israel would still recieve a considerable amount of support from the US congress.

There are several reasons for this. In some ways I believe the US (and by this I mean the political class) thinks of Israel as its child, and feels the right to protect it. Politically and culturally it's much closer to the US than surrounding nations are. It's democratic (sort of) and offers relatively more freedom than the surrounding Arab nations. And it certainly isn't anti-semetic to understand that Jewish influence in American culture is quite great as well from food to music. And Jews have become very successful and integrated in the US as a group, rising to high positions in several different fields including politics - considering the number of Jewish politicians relative to their numbers in society. And then there's the whole religious reason - being that the US is the most devout of all industrialized nations, Israel holds greater interest here due to the larger number of fundies.

But let's get down to the disconnect. Some here regard Israel as a rogue state, constantly violating international law. Some view it as a proxy state for US imperial ambitions and dislike the billions of dollars in military aid we feed them. Some are sincerely concerned about human rights violations that have taken place. They are disgusted when Israel attacks, arguably indiscriminately, leading to hudreds of civilian deaths. Some despise everything Isreal does, because to them its formation itself was a grave injustic and the idea of a Jewish state is appauling (though the idea of several Muslim states throughout the world doesn't seem to bother them). Some just dislike Jews for whatever number of reasons.

As for whether the politicians are following their "constituents", I really don't buy that. Most people really don't know much about Israel. They know it has a lot of Jews and Jews don't scare them like Muslims do. Also, they hear Israel is fighting terrorist groups in the media and figure, "hey that's cool - I don't like terrorists".

Most people don't think any of this out. I'm convinced many on this board aren't rationally thinking it out either.

[DanCa]

43. A few thoughts

General Clark did call on the United States to start humanitarian efforts. If I recall correctly. Btw I am just wondering if people want the republicans to keep control of congress in November and retain the white house in 08. That very thought has me up at nights cringing in fear.
Can you picture in all neo con supreme court.
As far as the whole I/P thing goes I just want the war to stop. The whole thing is beyond me so I just want the killing on both sides to stop. Okay it's time for my pain killers now, does anyone beside rush limbaugh want one?

[k_jerome]

48. Democrats have and will always support Israel...

despite the wishes of a small minority in the party that they do otherwise.

[JackNewtown]

55. define "support"

The US position on Israel until the early 70's was hardly near the position since then. The US did not give Israel $3 billion a year, including billions in military aid, and the diplomatic cover only a superpower can provide before then. The US didn't even sell Israel a single weapon until the early 60's. The US also ordered the UK/Israel/France out of Egypt in 1956.

BTW, how many flag burnings of Old Glory were there in the Middle East during the 50's and 60's? I wonder what changed...

[Strelnikov_]

56. The Peaking Of US Domestic Petroleum Production In The Early 70's

leading to increased dependence on Middle East oil.

This precipitated the need for a powerful proxy, particularly following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

It's all about access to energy resources.

[JackNewtown]

57. How does Israel help secure the oil supply?

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon have no oil. Israel is next to Saudi Arabia but it seems unlikely that Israel would ever attack SA

I have seen the idea that the US backs Israel to protect its oil interests stated several times but I don't buy it. When the US could have used Israel during the two Iraq wars it couldn't call on Israel's help because it would be a liability. Also, in Saudi Arabia the US had to station its own troops and not a single Israeli troop to protect SA's oil. I think if oil were the driving factor the US would have pressed Israel to withdraw to the 67' borders and for peace all along, not just from 1991-2001, since the lack of peace is what makes Israel's military useless for US purposes in the region. If there was peace and normal relations between Israel and its neighbors Israel could have helped significantly in both Gulf Wars.

Israel is powerful by ME standards (for context, Lebanon's defense budget is barely half a billion dollars) but it is still a regional power. It can't project its power to any significant degree to nations such as Iraq, Iran, and the small oil-rich Gulf states. If we were looking for a perfect military partner to help secure the oil we would have chosen Iraq, given its strategic location bordering the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkey. That is probably a factor in PNAC's decision to invade Iraq but that came after decades of hostile relations with Iraq. Even during the 80's the US was not truly allied with Iraq.

The US cared a lot about ME oil before the 70's IMO, look at the coups in Iran, Iraq, and the close ties to the House of Saud.

I do believe, though, that Israel was very useful in the ME during the Cold War since it was a strong US ally in a region with several Soviet client states.

[Strelnikov_]

58. Friendly Country From Which To Stage Operations If TSHTF

And, as you note, a counter to other states in the region.

I agree that Israel is a natural ally of the US. But during the 80's, after the fall of Iran, up until the first Gulf War, it took on even more importance.

The question is, would we even be in the Middle East if there was no oil there? And if we did not have interests in the Middle East, would we be heavily arming a proxy state? I doubt it.

[Rex]

51. Ah well...you see we in the Dem party believe in Freedom of Speech.

Even if it goes against our best interests. That is why we are Democrats as in Democracy. A wide tent with a variety of people with different ideas and notions. The opposite of this if fascism, something Repukes fully embrace.

[JackNewtown]

54. "A wide tent with a variety of people with different ideas and notions."

Not in Congress when it comes to I/P...

[Rex]

59. Israel is not the only issue Dems stick with, there are a few more.

They all seem to stick with the idea of letting special interest groups run things. So do Republicans. Dems still have a bigger party when it comes to issues. Look at voting records. Do Dems line up usually and vote with the party on big issues?

Still better than being a GOPer.

[oberliner]

61. Is anyone else disturbed by the AIPAC replies?

The gist of these AIPAC comments which are all over this thread seem to be:

AIPAC (The Pro-Israel lobby) has so much control over the US government that they make US foreign policy excessively pro-Israel to the detriment of the best interests of the United States.

Is that not antisemitism 101?

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. could you please present a factually based argument

as to why you do not feel AIPAC or the Israeli lobby has significant influence on American foreign policy? And could you please explain why you feel a critique of the influence of the AIPAC or the Israeli lobby is anti-Semitic. Thank you.

Do you feel these thousands of people (admittedly a minority) in Tel Aviv are anti-Semitic?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279792,00.html

[oberliner]

66. My Argument

First, there is the assertion that AIPAC’s position is against the national interest of the US. Then there is the assertion that this group has so much power that it is able to persuade almost every single member of Congress to take a stance that is harmful to the United States.

So we have AIPAC (a primarily Jewish organization) coercing American politicians to go against their own personal beliefs and support Israel thereby doing harm to the US’s interests.

This is the characterization that I see as antisemitic.

Are Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are so unprincipled that they would take a stand that goes against their own beliefs and the interests of the United States just because of financial contributions?

To your other question, I do not think and did not in any way state that protesting the fighting and marching for peace is antisemitic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. I suppose one of the things that confounds me is that in Israel itself

there is much more open debate in the mainstream of their body politic and within their mainstream media. One can read editorials in Haaretz than one would seldom find in the New York Times or the Washington Post.

I cannot say know why this. But there is a level of debate missing in the U.S. mainstream on this issue that is much more prevalent almost everywhere else; including Israel.

As far as the national interest question, that I don't know either. Actually even Noam Chomsky agrees with you that American power and economic concerns drive U.S. policy regarding the Israel/Arab conflict with the issue of the Israeli lobby being only a minor factor; but still a factor.

Still I don't know why that it is more acceptable in mainstream American political discussion to criticize American military actions than to criticize American military actions. I cannot say for any certainty that the main reason is the Israeli lobby. But for me it is hard to imagine that it is not a factor.

Still one can only look inside themselves and ask if they are in any way whatsoever influenced by prejudices whether anti-Semitism or anti-Arab racism. I would agree that both of those might be factors in some peoples understanding of the Middle East.

[oberliner]

71. your points

You raise some interesting points and I appreciate the civil and reasonable tone with which you do so.

The critical point that I mean to make was summed up nicely by Washington Post writer Glenn Frankel:

"It's okay to say that there's an Israel lobby, that it's influential and certainly to criticize its support for various administration and Israeli policies. But to depict Israel's American supporters as part of a cabal that secretly dictates U.S. policy and that consciously supports Israeli interests at the expense of American ones begins to imply an international Jewish conspiracy that has anti-Semitic overtones."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/14/DI2006071400780.html?nav=rss_nation/special

I feel that some of the comments made on this thread regarding AIPAC fall into the latter category. Can you understand why I might feel that way in looking at those comments?

I definitely agree with your last statement that antisemitism and anti-Arab racism are big factors in some people's understanding of the Middle East. As Democrats and Progressives, I think we have a responsibility to combat those prejudices whenever they arise.

[k_jerome]

63. yes. see the Anti Defamation League website. nt.

[Dutch]

64. Yes I'm disturbed by them, but not surprised unfortunately.

They seem to an inevitable (and nauseating) feature of debates about Israeli policy around here these days.

[Armstead]

67. Israel keeps making the situation worse -- That's my beef

I believe Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. I don't have much sympathy for the fanatics in the Srab world who are bent on destruction of Israel and who support terrorism.

But, Israel's hawks and neo-cons have fed this cycle of escalating violence and hatred and tribal divisions. And personally, I'm sick of it. I'm also fed up with the US throwing our own self-inetrests out the window by giving Israel carte blanche....And I'm especially incensed about what is happening now. There is no reason to have widened any military reprosals to be destroying the entire nation of Lebanon.

It hasn't worked.

By allying themselves with the neo-con agenda -- which is both unrealistic and destructive -- the Democrats are undermining any opoportunity for the US to return to a more constructive role.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[derby378]

70. This is all I have to say on the Israeli-Lebanese war so far

Israel had the right to retaliate against Hezbollah for the kidnapping of its soldiers. The respose that Israel delivered, however, is what I'd call disproportionately huge.

Too many civilians on both sides have died. Condi won't even try to intervene in any meaningful way.