Democratic Rep Accused of Anti-Semitism for Calling Pro-Israel Lobby "Powerful"

[Tom Joad]

Comment:
Sen. Schumer has said that the ACLU had virtual "veto-rights" over crime legislation when he came to congress in 1980. Some may have disagreed with the influence of the aclu at that time (i would, and i support the work of the aclu), but no one (that we would take seriously) called the Senator a racist for such an opinion of the aclu.

Yet a Democratic war opponent has stated that he thinks the aipac lobby currently has too much negative influence, and says this in an influential Jewish journal, and he ends up getting the most brutal attacks to his character. Why is any other lobby free to be criticized on their merits and aipac is not?
_______________________________________________

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/62834/
TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?

MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances. Yesterday, AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members--that's less than 10 percent--who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty. My feeling was that it wasn't just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel's security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.

That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an "AIPAC vote." As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.

TIKKUN: In your estimation, how does AIPAC get that power?

MORAN: AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it's a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it's the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they're the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe, obviously. Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person's entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel.

more...
______________________________________________

The answer is to organize effective political protest of aipac and its policies. Those who protested the WTO and unfair trade policies effectively have helped to reshape the discussion. Organizing protest of aipac, which foments escalating tension with Iran (and demands that discussion of Israel's vast nuclear arsenal is off the table) and one-sided support of Israel with no support of Palestinian rights is in direct contradiction for those of us who want the US to stand for peace and human rights.

aipac is coming to celebrate its "accomplishments" at a membership dinner this December into oakland, ca. one of the most anti-war communities in the nation. We will demand our political leaders show no support for this lobby for war. We will stand outside the conference hall and make it clear our community favors human rights, peace, global nuclear disarmament (not selective disarmament) and a fair resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict based on international law, not military might.

www.StopAIPAC.org

[liberal N proud]

1. Say anything that has Israel in a bad light and you are tagged

Similar to the Right wing and "patriotism" if you don't support bu$h and his war, you are not patriotic.
It is the same thing, it is their way of putting down anyone who might object or have an opposition voice.
This has been done for Israel for years and the Republicons only since 9/11.
And I will surely be tagged for posting this. Sad that there can't be any dissent but true.

[Cha]

7. More than time for that

shyte to stop..they've gotten away with it far too long. What would George Lakoff say?

[Cha]

2. Is that like calling

someone anti-Black because they think alan keyes is an ego-maniac?

[Karenina]

3. 10... 9... 8...

[stillcool]

4. damn...that is clout..

"If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it's the best-organized national lobbying force."

[cali]

15. Senator Leahy regularly crosses AIPAC

He's quite viable politically.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. I want to know WHY aipac is so damn special that it can get away with such bull.

THAT is what I want to know.

I mean, does this lobbyist org represent MY interests, my neighbor or community's interest and, if so, how?

No. This org has narrow interests it pushes, too narrow to include me.

[rodeodance]

6. I am glad he had the courage to say that. maybe others will follow???

[Tom Joad]

8. Rep. Betty McCollum has questioned aipac tactics, and has refused

to attend "A Night to Honor Israel" organized by aipac ally Christian United for Israel (and supporter of a nuclear attack on Iran) Reverend John Hagee (Hagee was one of many keynote speakers at aipac's main conference in DC this year)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. Ewwww,...Hagee!!!!

:puke:

I seem to recall reading about a huge segment of the Jewish community having, not only reservations but also out-n-out objection to aipac and its interests/methods/practices.

[Tom Joad]

13. that's true, many were quite appalled at aipac's choice regarding hagee. See here...

http://www.stopaipac.org/christianright.htm

[rockymountaindem]

9. This is the same guy who said that "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community

for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

I'd take what he says on this matter with a grain of salt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Who's calling him an anti-semite?

AIPAC isn't, as far as I can tell. In fact the only person quoted saying anything about him is the director of some community outreach group. Hardly the same thing, eh?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Tom Joad]

11. another thing i don't get... isn't usually calling a lobby influential something of a compliment?

[bbgrunt]

14. that's a good question.

[Robson]

16. Criticize AIPAC.....and you will be remembered.

Don't criticize AIPAC.

If you criticize AIPAC as a blogger, Congressman, constituent, internet poster on DU, etc. your name goes on a well organized list of so-called anti-AIPAC activists. It's been said that you don't want your name on that list as it will come back to bite you.

Have others heard of such organized activity against those who are considered as anti-AIPAC?

When names are put on a list because of dissenting views in our "free country" it becomes very concerning.

[mmonk]

17. Where do you get this information?

[rockymountaindem]

18. Paranoid much?

Don't you think a Washington lobby group of their supposed clout has better things to do than keep lists of obscure people on the internet who criticize them? Please.

[cali]

21. BWAHAHAHA

My Senator has gone up against AIPAC. He's doing just fine. I criticize AIPAC, and no, I'm pretty sure that AIPAC doesn't give a damn what insignificant little me says about it.

You have lost it. Badly.

[LeftishBrit]

29. As an *internet poster on DU*???

You really think AIPAC, or any similar lobby, are that interested in tracking the opinions of posters on a forum?

[leftynyc]

31. Screw that tinfoil hat a bit tighter

With all due respect - you sound like a lunatic.

[Lurking Dem]

36. This is one of the most

astounding posts I have ever read.

It's like The Protocols, McCarthyism, and Rense all in one neat little package.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Do you have a copy of this list?

:shrug:

[IronLionZion]

57. Mossad agents are inside your head, listening to your thoughts.

Never forget that only God knows everything...and he works for Mossad.

:silly:

[populistdriven]

19. why does a tiny country that mostly exports grapefruit need AIPAC?

:+

[democrat2thecore]

20. To keep the money flowing AND

to keep fighting their wars.

[question everything]

22. Because that country is the field test for most of this country's

military equipment?

You may not like military things, but Israel and we cooperate on developing and testing various equipment. Many don't like the foreign aid to Israel (and to other countries) however such aid does have strings attached. Most has to be sent back to purchase American-made products and with Israel, it is mostly military equipment.

During the Cold War, when the Arab countries were supplied by the Soviet Union, we were welcomed there to inspect Soviet tanks and fighter planes that ended up in Israel.

Certainly last year war in Lebanon provided important information about Iran-made missiles.

Again, you may not like anything military, but as long as it is a factor in our economy, Israel is part of this. Certainly a part of whatever configuration takes place in the Middle East.

[mmonk]

23. AIPAC isn't Israel. I think Israel could get what it wants through other channels.

But this affairs committee does seem to persuade lawmakers anyway. Anyway, I have my problems with them and the ATC especially concerning the Sibel Edmonds situation.

[democrat2thecore]

24. AIPAC is Israel's official lobby in America

Must be registered as foreign agents. They are, without question, the single most powerful lobby in Washington.

edit spelling

[mmonk]

25. Actually, we have had registered agents of foreign governments

enter in our government. Sort of walking through one door and into the next. All I know is, the Dept. of Homeland Security isn't really secure.

[piesRsquare]

26. Like hell they are

The oil and coal industries, AMA and pharmaceutical industries, tobacco companies, and defense industries are a hell of a lot more powerful lobbies in D.C. than AIPAC.

AIPAC isn't even among the top 25 donors of lobbying funds to Congress! Go look it up on this website yourself: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do

[leftynyc]

32. Also the NRA (eom)

[Lurking Dem]

35. Don't confuse them with facts.

If they looked at the APIPAC (American petroleum Institute) budget they'd have heart attacks.

[Tom Joad]

46. aipac does not contribute one penny... but it has contacts with PAC

aipac = american Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is not a Political Action Committee, but actually a non-profit.

There are groups that contribute money to support the Israel Lobby's line, however.
They do raise boatloads of money.

See those contributions here:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2006/0605031.html

But even that does not tell the whole story. Because many times politicians choose to tow the line to prevent having a serious challenger. Politicians play safe. Most politicians don't care about anything other than being reelected, and do not take risks.

[democrat2thecore]

48. Ask any elected official on the Hill

"Who pressures you the most?"
"Who is the most intimidating?"

Just Google the question we're talking about.....what lobbying group is mentioned consistently - over and over?

AIPAC.

[leftynyc]

50. Have you got a link or a quote for that info?

How many have you asked and what were their names?

[democrat2thecore]

55. I stand by what I wrote

I can't give you names, addresses and DNA. Go ask them yourself. I mentioned Googling this and what lobbying group is most mentioned? Again, I stand by what I said as being, really, something without dispute by most on the Hill. If you think differently or have reasons you would rather deny it to be the case - that's fine. It's a free country. (I think. I haven't seen the evening news yet.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Perhaps because many of their neighbors want to drive them into the sea?

:shrug:

[cali]

27. NOWHERE Do you demonstrate that anyone called him an anti-semite. n/t

[Tom Joad]

39. You have not been keeping up with current events.

[Tom Joad]

41. Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington says

Ronald Halber, executive director of said Moran's remarks are anti-Semitic and draw on ugly stereotypes about Jewish wealth, power and influence.

"He uses several age-old canards that have been used throughout history that have brought violence upon Jews," Halber said this week. "He uses clearly anti-Semitic images such as Jewish control of the media and wealthy Jews using their wealth to control policy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402171.html

[LeftishBrit]

30. As I understand from other threads...

he's been criticized not for saying that AIPAC is powerful, but for saying that pressure from American Jews got America into Iraq. I personally don't know which it is, but they are two different things.

I suspect that AIPAC are not as powerful as they boast of being, or as opponents accuse them of being. My reason is that Britain has no 'AIPAC' and yet our foreign and Middle Eastern policies have been similar to America's - even when other Europaean countries have gone against America (and therefore America can't be exerting an all-powerful influence either). Therefore, I think that other issues are in play.

[mmonk]

33. Normally I would agree with you but

as someone who is pushing for Sibel Edmonds being able to testify in public hearings, I think they are one of a few powerful Washington organizations or lobbies helping keep the lid on what she would reveal. Others I believe are the Saudis and the Turks (ATC).

[mmonk]

34. Also, the policy similarities you mention probably go back to this

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mmonk

[Tom Joad]

40. It may not be the same to you or me, Leftish, but to others it is....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3274065.shtml

Notice that Hoyer says that “I think the remarks that I've heard or were reported I think were factually incorrect,” Hoyer said. “I think they did adopt a canard that is not -- absolutely is not true, that somehow the Jewish community controls the press, the media, the Congress and other institutions has been used by those who are anti-Semitic for a very long period of time.”

Notice how remarks about aipac from Moran become remarks about the "the Jewish community" from Hoyer as if they were one and the same?

You don't think political lobbys work the media in the US? big pharma works the media to rally against changes in health care delivery in this nation. The Israel lobby works overtime to protect the status quo in working the media for Israeli policy of war and occupation, and US support for same.

Perhaps most in congress and the elite are already predisposed to support such policies (for the last century, there have been very few instances of the US supporting anything but oppression and war against indigenous people) but the lobby still works to make sure there is not the slightest movement away from absolute support of Israeli policy. that is their purpose. they are just doing their job. It is up to progressive people to challenge that, to tell these lobbys that support war to go to ... ummmm... you know.... away.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I was referring to this

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/moran.jews/

From this, it sounds as though in 2003 he was accusing Jewish Americans of trying to drag America into the war in Iraq. Now, he may have been misquoted. People do get misquoted. However, I have not come across anything that said he was misquoted.

[Tom Joad]

44. He was not correct when he said that, but the fact remains that there was

a push from war from many organizations purporting to represent Jewish Americans, like aipac, that wanted an attack on Iraq. It is even clearer with Iran now, that these lobbies do all they can to support escalating tensions with Iran.

Despite the fact more American Jews were protesting on the streets against the war than supporting it.

Prime Minister Sharon certainly favored a US attack on Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

42. Michael Lerner defends Rep. Moran's comments...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402171.html

"It's the kind of statement I would have made to any religious community, or to any labor movement audience, citing their own failures to act as a critical factor in why we had gotten involved," Lerner wrote in the article.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Does Lerner also defend this:

' "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."'

Or did Moran not say it? As I say, I have never seen any evidence that he didn't.

The point is also that it's WRONG factually. Most American Jews did not support the war in Iraq. Most Jewish voters didn't vote for Bush. A disproportionate number of Jewish Senators in Congress voted against the IWR.

Moreover, Moran is a congressman from a state that voted for Bush twice. Would he have said:

"If it were not for the strong support by Virginia voters for President Bush, we would not be going into Iraq. My constituency is influential enough that it could change the direction of where this is going, and I think it should."

(Which *would* be the equivalent of Rabbi Lerner saying it to a Jewish group.)

If he didn't make the latter, perfectly accurate, statement, but is instead prepared to blame a lobby that probably isn't strongly represented in his district, then one does question his objectivity. I'm *not* saying that he's an antisemite; but I *am* saying that his name could do with a slightly different spelling!

[Tom Joad]

47. I commented in post #44... but i do wish to point out that

the war against iraq (in one form or another) had much bipartisan support in congress.
Clinton/Gore was in favor of regime change in Iraq, and continued deadly sanctions, and conducted deadly bombing runs to create regime change.

The fact remains that aipac and other groups purporting to represent the Jewish community supported the war. But i do disagree with Moran's generalization.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Do you then think...

that this Iraq war would have happened in the same way if Gore had been inaugurated as president? I don't mean "Would relations between America and Iraq be good?" but "Would this war have happened?"

Once Bush wanted the war, a disappointing number of Dems (about half of them IIRC) caved in to him; but that's not the same thing as saying that the war would have happened with a Dem president.

[Tom Joad]

51. We don't know exactly. I doubt very much that it would have happened the same way

It could have been possible that Gore would have broke with the Bush I/Clinton strategy completely, though there is no evidence he would have gone that far.

But Sharon still would have wanted the US to attack, no doubt. and aipac would have helped foment pro-war sentiment in congress, as well as other actors that support war, empire and u.s. imperialism would have also acted to bring about a confrontation.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Well, one can never know...

but I don't think it would have reached the point of war under President Gore.

[iamthebandfanman]

52. its one thing to hate the country of isreal

and another to hate the people of isreal (jewish people).

[LeftishBrit]

53. Not sure I agree - you can hate the GOVERNMENT of a country without hating the people

but I don't think you can hate the whole country without hating the people. A country is its people, in a way.

I hate Bush, but I don't hate America. If I did, I think it would mean I hated Americans.

I hated Blair and Thatcher (don't yet know about Brown), but I've never hated my own country! It would mean that I hated all or most of my fellow-citizens.

I hated Sharon and despise Olmert, but I don't hate Israel. Again, if I did, I think it would mean I hated the people.

[iamthebandfanman]

56. sorry

i meant their government... tho i think ud find that the majority of the citizens of isreal agree with the governments actions... not all of them tho of course... infact i think discontent on the behalf of the people is starting to show thru more and more every year...

i was just pointing out that you can dislike the state of isreal, but not jewish people.