Full Version: Cracking the Israeli Lobby
Former Knesset member Uri Avnery talks about the important precedent of the Mearshiemer Walt analysis of the influence of the Israeli lobby and the new(I believe) book they are coming out with(The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy) and why getting it published in America involves a change in the political dynamics of this country. While praising the book profusely and adding on some of his own confirming experiences he is not above taking a shot at their downplaying reasons other than Israeli lobby influence for US ME policy.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
Questions for discussion:
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
QUOTE
In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.
The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.
In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.
Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.
The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.
In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.
Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.
Questions for discussion:
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 4 2007, 09:35 PM) 
Questions for discussion:
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
Overrated.
Well I did't read the book but it doesn't make a ton of sense.
Maybe.
I think we should call the Illuminati and have the Easter Bunny pull a hit.
***
So I think the Israeli Lobby is a subtle way of saing the "Jews run the world"... I'm more of Templars running the world kinda guy.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 4 2007, 06:48 PM)
So I think the Israeli Lobby is a subtle way of saing the "Jews run the world"
I see, so anything addressing the power of the Israeli lobby is anti-Semitic and the equivalent of holocaust denial and The Protocols right, even if the article is written by an Israeli Jew who was a former member of the Knesset?
Just out of curiosity do you have a teeny weeny concern for the good of America?
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 4 2007, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 4 2007, 06:48 PM)
So I think the Israeli Lobby is a subtle way of saing the "Jews run the world"
I see, so anything addressing the power of the Israeli lobby is anti-Semitic and the equivalent of holocaust denial and The Protocols right, even if the article is written by an Israeli Jew who was a former member of the Knesset?
Just out of curiosity do you have a teeny weeny concern for the good of America?
If they are so powerful let's see them get a Jew elected as President. That's a good barometer.
Listen I didn't say anything about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, or the (fake for Pete's Sake) Protocols od Zion. I have no doubt there are Jews who think they DO run the world. All I'm saying is - conspiracy theory.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 4 2007, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 4 2007, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 4 2007, 06:48 PM)
So I think the Israeli Lobby is a subtle way of saing the "Jews run the world"
I see, so anything addressing the power of the Israeli lobby is anti-Semitic and the equivalent of holocaust denial and The Protocols right, even if the article is written by an Israeli Jew who was a former member of the Knesset?
Just out of curiosity do you have a teeny weeny concern for the good of America?
If they are so powerful let's see them get a Jew elected as President. That's a good barometer.
Listen I didn't say anything about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, or the (fake for Pete's Sake) Protocols od Zion. I have no doubt there are Jews who think they DO run the world. All I'm saying is - conspiracy theory.
Excuse me, did you read anything in the post other than the words "Israeli Lobby"? There is nothing in it about Jews or the lobby controlling the world. It does have to do with the Israeli lobby exerting strong influence on matters having to do with the ME, kind of like the NRA exerts strong influence on gun control legislation. To show you take this thread minimally seriously how about first reading the post and then answering the questions in a serious fashion. I thought that's the way the game was played around here.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 4 2007, 09:35 PM)
Questions for discussion:
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
a. Yes, there is a strong Pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. but I don't ee it as being some sort of solid all encompassing organization working its wiles upon the unsuspecting US public. And while it influences our policies in the ME it is not an undue influence.
b. Influence yes, strong influence no. The simple truth is that Israeli and US goals in the ME are generally compatible. If you have a conversation with someone who is in agreement with you, you do not then have influence over their actions or vice versa, this is the case of Israeli/US relations.
c. I disagree that our stance concerning Iran is belligerent, strong perhaps, but necessary concerning the situation at hand.
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Overrated, I think. What does the all-influencing Israeli lobby think of our multi-billion dollar Saudi weapons deal? How about the rest of our arms deals throughout the ME (Israel excluded)?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Not by a long shot. That Israel lobby sure took its time to act! After twelve LONG years with our forces posted in Saudi and Kuwait and Qatar (not Israel)....
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
Not by a long shot. Our policy with Iran hasn't changed since right after 911 when it was publicly proclaimed to be among the "axis of evil". Iran (not the lobby) has more of an influence in our DPRK policy today than the Israel lobby has on our Iranian policy....both of which incidentally change with every president. Or can't those darned lobbyists make up their minds about how US foreign policy should be run? And why for that matter, did the Jewish population vote overwhelmingly against Bush if he is doing exactly what they want?
Overrated, I think. What does the all-influencing Israeli lobby think of our multi-billion dollar Saudi weapons deal? How about the rest of our arms deals throughout the ME (Israel excluded)?
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
Not by a long shot. That Israel lobby sure took its time to act! After twelve LONG years with our forces posted in Saudi and Kuwait and Qatar (not Israel)....
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
Not by a long shot. Our policy with Iran hasn't changed since right after 911 when it was publicly proclaimed to be among the "axis of evil". Iran (not the lobby) has more of an influence in our DPRK policy today than the Israel lobby has on our Iranian policy....both of which incidentally change with every president. Or can't those darned lobbyists make up their minds about how US foreign policy should be run? And why for that matter, did the Jewish population vote overwhelmingly against Bush if he is doing exactly what they want?
QUOTE
If they are so powerful let's see them get a Jew elected as President. That's a good barometer.
This is not the Jewish Lobby - it is the Israeli Lobby. It shouldn't be surprising that the Israeli Lobby is not entirely comprised of Jews - and there are many Jews who are not a part of the Israeli Lobby. Some of the Christian Right are members of the Israeli Lobby. There are Christian Zionists in this country, you have the AIPAC, as well. I doubt that any in the Christian Right have an interest in having a Jewish person elected as President. They do, however, have a strong interest in Israel.
This is, from what I understand, covered in the book.
QUOTE
All I'm saying is - conspiracy theory.
You don't even know the most basic of facts on this issue, BA, so... how can you reasonably jump to the "conspiracy theory" conclusion?
I think the Israeli Lobby has a powerful influence - not all-powerful, but, definitely significant. It doesn't help a politician to go against them on support of Israel.
Actually, I think Baphomet has a point. There’s a strong Israeli lobby out there, its true, but the same can be said for almost any ethnic group or minority out there. You don’t see people yelling “CONSPIRACY!” when black people lobby for affirmative action, do you?
…Oh right. They do.
Israel, up to this point, has been willing to comply, and meld itself to the dictates of the modern world. I mean, they’re pretty much a mini-America already! Admittedly, there aren’t any unclothed American hookers running around in Tel-Aviv, but give it time! They’ll get there eventually, as long as they keep accepting the flow of American culture that we spray in their faces.
They took the time and effort to acquaint themselves with out power bases, to play by our rules. Can the same be said for the radical countries of the middle-east?
I’m not saying that Israel has the moral high ground. I’m saying that they were smart, and the Middle-east was stupid. Much as we’d like to, its not like we can blame Israel for planning ahead.
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Yes, they do. They have the money, and the influence to do that. But then again, does it really matter? Israel, as the only US-friendly country out there, was bound to get our support sometime, whether they lobbied for it or not. The Israelis just sped up the process.
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq?
The decision to invade Iraq was stupid. The Israel faction can be cunning. They can be devious. They are not stupid. If they were, they would have been wiped from the face of the earth by now.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
Our belligerent policy towards Iran is mainly due to the fact that the US cannot afford yet another nuclear competitor on the world stage. The threat potential to Israel is a nice scapegoat, and gives us all the reason we need to bully Iran.
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
Its not unhealthy! Look, intimidating Iran, Establishing a pro-US foothold in the Middle East, our government needs to do this anyways. Israel just gives them a reason that makes up for all of its logical fallacies, with a really big wad of cash. So long as we have our “Israel Shield”, we can muck up the Middle East with impunity.
…Oh right. They do.
Israel, up to this point, has been willing to comply, and meld itself to the dictates of the modern world. I mean, they’re pretty much a mini-America already! Admittedly, there aren’t any unclothed American hookers running around in Tel-Aviv, but give it time! They’ll get there eventually, as long as they keep accepting the flow of American culture that we spray in their faces.
They took the time and effort to acquaint themselves with out power bases, to play by our rules. Can the same be said for the radical countries of the middle-east?
I’m not saying that Israel has the moral high ground. I’m saying that they were smart, and the Middle-east was stupid. Much as we’d like to, its not like we can blame Israel for planning ahead.
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Yes, they do. They have the money, and the influence to do that. But then again, does it really matter? Israel, as the only US-friendly country out there, was bound to get our support sometime, whether they lobbied for it or not. The Israelis just sped up the process.
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq?
The decision to invade Iraq was stupid. The Israel faction can be cunning. They can be devious. They are not stupid. If they were, they would have been wiped from the face of the earth by now.
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
Our belligerent policy towards Iran is mainly due to the fact that the US cannot afford yet another nuclear competitor on the world stage. The threat potential to Israel is a nice scapegoat, and gives us all the reason we need to bully Iran.
If you think the Israeli lobby exercises an unhealthy influence on our government and media what do you think should be done, if anything, about it and similarly powerful lobbies.
Its not unhealthy! Look, intimidating Iran, Establishing a pro-US foothold in the Middle East, our government needs to do this anyways. Israel just gives them a reason that makes up for all of its logical fallacies, with a really big wad of cash. So long as we have our “Israel Shield”, we can muck up the Middle East with impunity.
QUOTE(akalae @ Oct 5 2007, 01:07 PM)
Actually, I think Baphomet has a point. There's a strong Israeli lobby out there, its true, but the same can be said for almost any ethnic group or minority out there. You don't see people yelling "CONSPIRACY!" when black people lobby for affirmative action, do you?
…Oh right. They do.
…Oh right. They do.
But do they shout "CONSPIRACY THEORY!" - as if it wasn't really happening? And you appear - as BA did - to be mistaking the Jewish Lobby with the Israeli Lobby in your analogy to black people and affirmative action.
QUOTE
Do you think the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence on our ME policies or do you think its influence is overrated?
Yes, they do. They have the money, and the influence to do that. But then again, does it really matter? Israel, as the only US-friendly country out there, was bound to get our support sometime, whether they lobbied for it or not. The Israelis just sped up the process.
Yes, they do. They have the money, and the influence to do that. But then again, does it really matter? Israel, as the only US-friendly country out there, was bound to get our support sometime, whether they lobbied for it or not. The Israelis just sped up the process.
And just how long do you think this Lobby has been in place? You seem to imply that this is a relatively new development.
QUOTE
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq?
The decision to invade Iraq was stupid. The Israel faction can be cunning. They can be devious. They are not stupid. If they were, they would have been wiped from the face of the earth by now.
The decision to invade Iraq was stupid. The Israel faction can be cunning. They can be devious. They are not stupid. If they were, they would have been wiped from the face of the earth by now.
Israel viewed Iraq as a threat. Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War. Israel had a vested interest in the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe they would've seen an invasion as stupid. Just as they wouldn't believe an invasion of Iran and Syria to be stupid.
QUOTE
Do you think it is influencing our belligerent policy towards Iran?
Our belligerent policy towards Iran is mainly due to the fact that the US cannot afford yet another nuclear competitor on the world stage. The threat potential to Israel is a nice scapegoat, and gives us all the reason we need to bully Iran.
Our belligerent policy towards Iran is mainly due to the fact that the US cannot afford yet another nuclear competitor on the world stage. The threat potential to Israel is a nice scapegoat, and gives us all the reason we need to bully Iran.
Does this mean that you don't believe the Israeli Lobby is having an influence?
QUOTE
Does this mean that you don't believe the Israeli Lobby is having an influence?
No, entspeak, it means that I believe that the Israeli Lobby has as much power as the US government allows it to have. Instead of your intriguing theory about Israeli manipulation from the sidelines, think of it from another angle. The US government, under the cover of "defending Israel's interests" can do just about whatever the heck they like in Iraq, Iran, and any other middle-eastern country that so much as looks at us funny.
Its a convenient tool for big-stick diplomacy, is all. The government has allowed it to grow out of proportion, only to use as a PR umbrella. If they go to far, they'll be struck down.
Is it powerful? Yes. But should it start to threaten the needs and interests of the american (lit. Rich and White) citizens of this country, and/or capitol hill, I'm pretty sure we can expect a political holocaust to smack them down again.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 5 2007, 04:06 AM)
why for that matter, did the Jewish population vote overwhelmingly against Bush if he is doing exactly what they want?
We have to be careful about simply equating Jews with the Israeli lobby. Aipac and important figures in the Israeli government wanted us to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Most American Jews opposed that policy. The main political pressure on Bush to support Israeli positions, particularly with respect to seizing Palestinian territories, comes from his right wing Christian base, with leaders like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell.
However the guiding lights directing us to a policy of invading Iraq seemed to have been a well established group of government neocons who apparently thought of Israel as the democratic model for a Muslim region that needed to be changed along democratic western lines, hopefully resulting in governments that were friendly to Israel and friendly to Western oil interests and of course not incubators of terrorism. For obvious reasons Iraq was chosen as the first domino. As Cheney said, it was "doable." And no I'm not discounting concern for WMDs or possible cooperation with Jihadists. But the PNAC agenda seems to have been a core reason for our going in and I think finally overrode our willingness to do the rational thing and let the UN inspections play out.
I'm by no means saying Israelis lobby pressure was the only thing dictating our ME policies. For one, the arms industry has their own lobby(In reference to your earlier Saudi arms sale point) and of course there are the oil interests. But the lobby is a strong influence, strong enough to make it perilous to oppose it and remain politically viable or for that matter for the msm to seriously criticize Israeli policies.
I hope folks are reading the link of the former Israeli Knesset member. It makes my point far better than I.
QUOTE(Macura @ Oct 5 2007, 04:18 AM)
a. Yes, there is a strong Pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. but I don't ee it as being some sort of solid all encompassing organization working its wiles upon the unsuspecting US public. And while it influences our policies in the ME it is not an undue influence.
b. Influence yes, strong influence no. The simple truth is that Israeli and US goals in the ME are generally compatible. If you have a conversation with someone who is in agreement with you, you do not then have influence over their actions or vice versa, this is the case of Israeli/US relations.
c. I disagree that our stance concerning Iran is belligerent, strong perhaps, but necessary concerning the situation at hand.
b. Influence yes, strong influence no. The simple truth is that Israeli and US goals in the ME are generally compatible. If you have a conversation with someone who is in agreement with you, you do not then have influence over their actions or vice versa, this is the case of Israeli/US relations.
c. I disagree that our stance concerning Iran is belligerent, strong perhaps, but necessary concerning the situation at hand.
In the interest of avoiding needless repetition, I'll simply quote Macura and say ditto.
I'm curious as to how anyone would be surprised that current US policies in the ME are similar to Israel's considering the events of the last 16 years.
-Castle
QUOTE(Castle @ Oct 5 2007, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE(Macura @ Oct 5 2007, 04:18 AM)
a. Yes, there is a strong Pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. but I don't ee it as being some sort of solid all encompassing organization working its wiles upon the unsuspecting US public. And while it influences our policies in the ME it is not an undue influence.
b. Influence yes, strong influence no. The simple truth is that Israeli and US goals in the ME are generally compatible. If you have a conversation with someone who is in agreement with you, you do not then have influence over their actions or vice versa, this is the case of Israeli/US relations.
c. I disagree that our stance concerning Iran is belligerent, strong perhaps, but necessary concerning the situation at hand.
b. Influence yes, strong influence no. The simple truth is that Israeli and US goals in the ME are generally compatible. If you have a conversation with someone who is in agreement with you, you do not then have influence over their actions or vice versa, this is the case of Israeli/US relations.
c. I disagree that our stance concerning Iran is belligerent, strong perhaps, but necessary concerning the situation at hand.
In the interest of avoiding needless repetition, I'll simply quote Macura and say ditto.
I'm curious as to how anyone would be surprised that current US policies in the ME are similar to Israel's considering the events of the last 16 years.
-Castle
This link from the first post might give you a clue why you are dead wrong if you mean similar interests.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
QUOTE
In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.
The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.
The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
This link from the first post might give you a clue why you are dead wrong if you mean similar interests.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Similar interests does not imply the US and Israel marching through ME policy in lockstep. It means that in the end both nations have similar goals and generally speaking similar means towards achieving those goals.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Similar interests does not imply the US and Israel marching through ME policy in lockstep. It means that in the end both nations have similar goals and generally speaking similar means towards achieving those goals.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2007, 01:49 AM)
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
QUOTE
In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.
The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.
The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
There are likely numerous sides to the above story. Perhaps the State Department/ White House didn't have all of the facts when they made their initial statements, then ameliorated their opinions after receiving those facts?
Where was the Israeli lobby when the Pentagon cut weapons' sales to Israel in 2000, and also 2005 until it improved its controls on weapons exports?
QUOTE
In 2000, Washington persuaded Israel to cancel the sale to Beijing of the Phalcon -- an advanced, airborne early-warning system. More recently, the Defense Department reacted angrily after Israel agreed to upgrade Harpy anti-radar drones it sold to China in the 1990s.
In response, the Pentagon suspended Israel's access to data on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), held up some arms shipments and refused to deal with the director general of the Israeli defense ministry, whom Pentagon officials accused of misleading them on the Harpy deal, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
In response, the Pentagon suspended Israel's access to data on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), held up some arms shipments and refused to deal with the director general of the Israeli defense ministry, whom Pentagon officials accused of misleading them on the Harpy deal, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
It seems to me that it the Lobby were as powerful as espoused, Israel would be selling whatever it liked to whomever it wanted without repercussions. In this case, the Pentagon not only curbed sales, but actually refused to deal with the Director general of the Isreal Defense Ministry...a slap in the face.
I'll add that I agree the Israel lobby has some impact, I just believe that it is tremendously overblown. Obviously all lobbyists have an impact in a democracy...that's why we still don't trade with Cuba. France has a very high population of Muslims and this influences their foreign policy as well....is there any doubt of that? Every democratic country is effected by its population base and interest groups.
Here is a list of 13 influential US Senators, all of which are Jews. Not to mention they are some of the most powerful and influential as well.
Arlen Specter ® PA
Joseph Lieberman (I-D) CT
Carl Levin (D) MI
Charles Schumer (D) NY
Dianne Feinstein(D) CA
Barbara Boxer (D) CA
Russ Feingold (D) WI
Norm Coleman ® MN
Ben Cardin (D) MD
Bernie Sanders (I) VT
Ron Wyden (D) OR
Frank Lautenberg (D) NJ
Herb Kohl (D) WI
Based on the last US Census, Jews make up only 2% of our nation's population, yet they represent 13% of Congress. Contrast that with African-Americans and Mexican-Americans who make up approximately 28% of our population, but only have 2 senators between them, Barack Obama (D) IL and Ken Salazar (D) CO.
The Kennedy Assassination, Jack Ruby or should I say, Jacob Rubenstein, a Jewish nightclub owner killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the supposed assassin of John F. Kennedy. Cover-up? Who knows, and now we never will.
Carl Bernstein a Jewish reporter that broke the Watergate Scandal, Look at what Nixon says about Jews in this http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/lkl.01.html and tell me the Jews weren't out to get him.
Iran-Contra affair, a sale initiated by Israeli PM Shimon Peres. The sale went bad and all of a sudden heads started to roll. In all, 6 people were pardoned by President George H.w. Bush, two of which were Jewish, Elliott Abrams and Caspar W. Weinberger.
Monica Lewinsky involved in the Bill Clinton Impeachment was a college graduate and classmate of fellow Jew, Tori Spelling, daughter of prominent Hollywood television producer Aaron Spelling and then one year after graduating college she is an intern at the White House? What kind of fast track is that? Then during the scandal Clinton starts bombing Iraq. Yeah, it's just conspiracy theory that every Presidential Scandal since Kennedy has a Jew involved in it. If that's not enough for you take a look at our mass media outlets represented almost exclusively by Jews.
Beatrice Arthur, Estelle Getty (Golden Girls)
Lauren Bacall (1st cousin to Israeli PM Shimon Peres)
Ellen Barkin (Starred in The Diner, casted by Barry Levinson, a Jew himself)
Richard Belzer (Law & Order)
Jack Benny
David Schwimmer, Lisa Kudrow (Friends)
Matthew Broderick, Sarah Jessica Parker (Ferris and Carrie are married)
James Caan
Christopher Guest
Tony Curtis
David Charvet, Yasmine Bleeth (BayWatch)
Kirk Douglas
Michael Douglas
Richard Dreyfuss
David Duchovny
Peter Falk
Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher (Star Wars)
Jeff Goldblum
Seymour Hersh
Dustin Hoffman
Jamie-Lynn Sigler
Kate Capshaw
Harvey Keitel
Piper Laurie
Stan Lee
Lisa Bonet
Joan Lunden
Mae West
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Walter Matthau
Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy (Breakfast Club)
Leonard Nimoy
Joaquin Phoenix
Noah Wyle
Shia LaBeouf (Transformers)
Jeremy Piven
Adrien Brody
Jake Gyllenhaal
Zach Braff (Scrubs)
Michael Rapaport
Kyra Sedgwick
Steven Bochco
Jerry Bruckheimer
Barry Levinson
Joel Silver (48 hrs, Die Hard, The Matrix)
Aaron Spelling
Henry Winkler (Happy Days)
ESPN and Broadcasting Jews:
Chris Berman
Charley Steiner
Dick Schaap
Jeremy Schaap
Max Kellerman
Tony Kornheiser
Marv Albert
Al Michaels
Howard Cosell
Jews that are in charge of professional sports:
Bud Selig (MLB)
Gary Bettman (NHL)
David Stern (NBA)
If this isn't a little concerning I don't know what is.
Jews that sing to us:
Carly Simon
Art Garfunkel
Paul Simon
Paul Stanley
Gene Simmons
Barbra Streisand
Carnie Wilson
Sammy Davis, Jr.
Bob Dylan
Jakob Dylan
Bette Midler
Neil Diamond
Lisa Loeb
Billy Joel
Mel Tormé
Jews that make us laugh:
Jon Stewart
Gene Wilder
Garry Shandling
Sarah Silverman
Adam Sandler
Jerry Seinfeld
Lewis Black
Andrew Dice Clay
Larry Miller (he tries)
Brad Garrett
Gabe Kaplan
Roseanne Barr
Sandra Bernhard
Milton Berle
Jack Black
Larry David
Jon Lovitz
Rodney Dangerfield
Gilbert Gottfried
Seth Green
Charles Grodin (He thinks he's funny)
Gilda Radner
Don Rickles
Jews that make us cry:
Debra Winger
River Phoenix
Gwyneth Paltrow
Jews that give us the news:
Mike Wallace
Barbara Walters
Wolf Blitzer
Katie Couric
Larry King
Ted Koppel
Talk show Jews:
Geraldo Rivera
Joan Rivers
Ricki Lake
Maury Povich
Sally Jessy Raphaël
No-talent Jews:
Sarah Silverman
Steve Guttenberg
Tori Spelling
Paula Abdul
Woody Allen
Tom Arnold
Patricia Arquette
Rosanna Arquette
Robert Wuhl
Ian Ziering
Shelley Winters
Pauly Shore
Scott Wolf, Neve Campbell (Party of Five)
Fran Drescher
Harold Ramis
Rhonda Shear
Madeline Kahn
Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman)
David Copperfield
Robert Downey, Jr.
Stephen Dorff
Jews that are Hot:
Cindy Margolis
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Gina Gershon
Jami Gertz
Alicia Silverstone
Goldie Hawn
Scarlett Johansson
Natalie Portman
Winona Ryder
Jennifer Connelly
Phoebe Cates
Kate Hudson
Jews that got a TV show for their 10th birthday:
Fred Savage
Corey Feldman
Soleil Moon Frye
Mayim Bialik
Melissa Gilbert
Political Jews
Sandy Berger (NSA to Bill Clinton)
Dick Morris (Clinton campaign manager 1996, Fox "News" analyst)
Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC)
Sidney Blumenthal (Senior adviser to Bill Clinton
Our mass media controls our thoughts, they decide our elections, they help make decisions on where to spend our money, they are intrusive into every aspect of our society.
Arlen Specter ® PA
Joseph Lieberman (I-D) CT
Carl Levin (D) MI
Charles Schumer (D) NY
Dianne Feinstein(D) CA
Barbara Boxer (D) CA
Russ Feingold (D) WI
Norm Coleman ® MN
Ben Cardin (D) MD
Bernie Sanders (I) VT
Ron Wyden (D) OR
Frank Lautenberg (D) NJ
Herb Kohl (D) WI
Based on the last US Census, Jews make up only 2% of our nation's population, yet they represent 13% of Congress. Contrast that with African-Americans and Mexican-Americans who make up approximately 28% of our population, but only have 2 senators between them, Barack Obama (D) IL and Ken Salazar (D) CO.
The Kennedy Assassination, Jack Ruby or should I say, Jacob Rubenstein, a Jewish nightclub owner killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the supposed assassin of John F. Kennedy. Cover-up? Who knows, and now we never will.
Carl Bernstein a Jewish reporter that broke the Watergate Scandal, Look at what Nixon says about Jews in this http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/lkl.01.html and tell me the Jews weren't out to get him.
Iran-Contra affair, a sale initiated by Israeli PM Shimon Peres. The sale went bad and all of a sudden heads started to roll. In all, 6 people were pardoned by President George H.w. Bush, two of which were Jewish, Elliott Abrams and Caspar W. Weinberger.
Monica Lewinsky involved in the Bill Clinton Impeachment was a college graduate and classmate of fellow Jew, Tori Spelling, daughter of prominent Hollywood television producer Aaron Spelling and then one year after graduating college she is an intern at the White House? What kind of fast track is that? Then during the scandal Clinton starts bombing Iraq. Yeah, it's just conspiracy theory that every Presidential Scandal since Kennedy has a Jew involved in it. If that's not enough for you take a look at our mass media outlets represented almost exclusively by Jews.
Beatrice Arthur, Estelle Getty (Golden Girls)
Lauren Bacall (1st cousin to Israeli PM Shimon Peres)
Ellen Barkin (Starred in The Diner, casted by Barry Levinson, a Jew himself)
Richard Belzer (Law & Order)
Jack Benny
David Schwimmer, Lisa Kudrow (Friends)
Matthew Broderick, Sarah Jessica Parker (Ferris and Carrie are married)
James Caan
Christopher Guest
Tony Curtis
David Charvet, Yasmine Bleeth (BayWatch)
Kirk Douglas
Michael Douglas
Richard Dreyfuss
David Duchovny
Peter Falk
Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher (Star Wars)
Jeff Goldblum
Seymour Hersh
Dustin Hoffman
Jamie-Lynn Sigler
Kate Capshaw
Harvey Keitel
Piper Laurie
Stan Lee
Lisa Bonet
Joan Lunden
Mae West
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Walter Matthau
Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy (Breakfast Club)
Leonard Nimoy
Joaquin Phoenix
Noah Wyle
Shia LaBeouf (Transformers)
Jeremy Piven
Adrien Brody
Jake Gyllenhaal
Zach Braff (Scrubs)
Michael Rapaport
Kyra Sedgwick
Steven Bochco
Jerry Bruckheimer
Barry Levinson
Joel Silver (48 hrs, Die Hard, The Matrix)
Aaron Spelling
Henry Winkler (Happy Days)
ESPN and Broadcasting Jews:
Chris Berman
Charley Steiner
Dick Schaap
Jeremy Schaap
Max Kellerman
Tony Kornheiser
Marv Albert
Al Michaels
Howard Cosell
Jews that are in charge of professional sports:
Bud Selig (MLB)
Gary Bettman (NHL)
David Stern (NBA)
If this isn't a little concerning I don't know what is.
Jews that sing to us:
Carly Simon
Art Garfunkel
Paul Simon
Paul Stanley
Gene Simmons
Barbra Streisand
Carnie Wilson
Sammy Davis, Jr.
Bob Dylan
Jakob Dylan
Bette Midler
Neil Diamond
Lisa Loeb
Billy Joel
Mel Tormé
Jews that make us laugh:
Jon Stewart
Gene Wilder
Garry Shandling
Sarah Silverman
Adam Sandler
Jerry Seinfeld
Lewis Black
Andrew Dice Clay
Larry Miller (he tries)
Brad Garrett
Gabe Kaplan
Roseanne Barr
Sandra Bernhard
Milton Berle
Jack Black
Larry David
Jon Lovitz
Rodney Dangerfield
Gilbert Gottfried
Seth Green
Charles Grodin (He thinks he's funny)
Gilda Radner
Don Rickles
Jews that make us cry:
Debra Winger
River Phoenix
Gwyneth Paltrow
Jews that give us the news:
Mike Wallace
Barbara Walters
Wolf Blitzer
Katie Couric
Larry King
Ted Koppel
Talk show Jews:
Geraldo Rivera
Joan Rivers
Ricki Lake
Maury Povich
Sally Jessy Raphaël
No-talent Jews:
Sarah Silverman
Steve Guttenberg
Tori Spelling
Paula Abdul
Woody Allen
Tom Arnold
Patricia Arquette
Rosanna Arquette
Robert Wuhl
Ian Ziering
Shelley Winters
Pauly Shore
Scott Wolf, Neve Campbell (Party of Five)
Fran Drescher
Harold Ramis
Rhonda Shear
Madeline Kahn
Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman)
David Copperfield
Robert Downey, Jr.
Stephen Dorff
Jews that are Hot:
Cindy Margolis
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Gina Gershon
Jami Gertz
Alicia Silverstone
Goldie Hawn
Scarlett Johansson
Natalie Portman
Winona Ryder
Jennifer Connelly
Phoebe Cates
Kate Hudson
Jews that got a TV show for their 10th birthday:
Fred Savage
Corey Feldman
Soleil Moon Frye
Mayim Bialik
Melissa Gilbert
Political Jews
Sandy Berger (NSA to Bill Clinton)
Dick Morris (Clinton campaign manager 1996, Fox "News" analyst)
Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC)
Sidney Blumenthal (Senior adviser to Bill Clinton
Our mass media controls our thoughts, they decide our elections, they help make decisions on where to spend our money, they are intrusive into every aspect of our society.
Oh yeah we also have received over 21% of ALL Noble Prizes ever awarded out of less than 1% of the world's population. Must be a conspiracy!
Maybe it's just talent instead, think about it.
Maybe it's just talent instead, think about it.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 6 2007, 04:47 AM)
It seems to me that it the Lobby were as powerful as espoused, Israel would be selling whatever it liked to whomever it wanted without repercussions. In this case, the Pentagon not only curbed sales, but actually refused to deal with the Director general of the Isreal Defense Ministry...a slap in the face.
Mrs P. You are setting up a strawman. You are in effect saying if you can find any example of where Israeli lobby influenced has been curbed then somehow concerns about the use of that power against the interests of this country is overblown. Did you read my two links? Did you read how Bush had to back down on a declared policy which was of huge consequence to Arab American relations because of the power of the lobby? Did you read about the influence the strongly Likud connected neocons exercised in getting us to invade Iraq and how the Israeli lobbies backed them to the hilt? These influences have consequences, serious ones, for this country.
QUOTE
B2341. Here is a list of 13 influential US Senators, all of which are Jews. Not to mention they are some of the most powerful and influential as well.
B2341 I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't hijack this thread into another tiresome Jews control the world rant. Those Senators were elected by constituencies who were largely nonJewish. You have no idea what their agenda is until you search individually into the record of each one. If I were Jewish I would see Jewish accomplishment as something to be pleased about. In any case there is nothing in my thread that is meant to cast aspersions upon Jews or suggest they are part of a world wide conspiracy. If I want to find material to criticize Israel you can find few better sources than the Israeli paper Haaretz. M & W themselves said their sources were to a high degree Israeli. If you want to deal in proportions I can guarantee you that a disproportionate number of major critics of Israel are Jewish. If you hadn't noticed, the featured article in the first post of my thread is by a Jewish writer who was a former member of the Israeli Knesset.
One other problem with folks like B coming out of the woodwork with their Jew conspiracy nonsense is they then provide the opportunity for their inevitable counterparts, the folks who will divert every discussion of the power of the Israeli lobby into claims of anti-Semitism. Folks like B give them just the handle they need.
dingo and company are the real strawmen here.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 6 2007, 04:09 PM)
dingo and company are the real strawmen here.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
Just out of curiosity Loreng, did you read the links? Are you going to continue to maintain as you always seem to do that Israel is the national equivalent of God and simply can do no wrong? Why do you assume that an outfit(Your link produced nothing by the way) that has, perhaps, a partisan interest in a particular view has successfully refuted M & W? Is it that Israel is God thing? Are you sure they touched on EVERY COMMENT that Mearshiemer and Walt said and if they did, which is about as likely as grasshoppers on the moon, do you not think that ONE thing that M & W said was accurate? I understand they documented their stuff up to their eyeballs and are loaded with quotes from original sources, so apparently a whole bunch of Israelis must be in on the lie.
Of course America always only acts in its own best interests and it's poor Israel that so often takes the butt of it. Loreng I nominate you to go to the State Dept and tell them to leave poor victimized Israel alone. I'll be right behind you.
When you use partisan hyperbole in the fashion you just have and deny the most obvious kind of realities you come off as totally ridiculous.
How do I put this politely... Your links are crap. No, wait that's not nice... uhhhh... hmmm Counterpunch is NOT a reliable source of ANYTHING. The posted material is a CONSPIRACY THEORY and frankly poorly edited.
QUOTE(Macura @ Oct 6 2007, 04:54 AM)
This link from the first post might give you a clue why you are dead wrong if you mean similar interests.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Similar interests does not imply the US and Israel marching through ME policy in lockstep. It means that in the end both nations have similar goals and generally speaking similar means towards achieving those goals.
http://counterpunch.com/avnery10042007.html
This link to an essay by the Harvard professors Mearshiemer and Walt might give you a further clue.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Similar interests does not imply the US and Israel marching through ME policy in lockstep. It means that in the end both nations have similar goals and generally speaking similar means towards achieving those goals.
Amazing how quickly the spin takes hold is it not. I am thankful that at least one person gets it.
Similar interests does not equate to an Israeli US coalition. On many occasions they are at odds politically but when and if the other shoe drops US support leans towards Israel. One does not need to entertain Jewish power lobby theories to understand why US policy in the ME is no longer passive.
-Castle
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 6 2007, 06:39 PM)
How do I put this politely... Your links are crap. No, wait that's not nice... uhhhh... hmmm Counterpunch is NOT a reliable source of ANYTHING. The posted material is a CONSPIRACY THEORY and frankly poorly edited.
And what you say is doggy doo so there. Now what SPECIFICALLY that is being said can you refute. Let's see if before this thread is over you can actually indulge us to produce a verifiable fact that refutes Avnery or M & W. Offering cute verbal dismissals doesn't count.
QUOTE
Castle. Amazing how quickly the spin takes hold is it not. I am thankful that at least one person gets it.
Similar interests does not equate to an Israeli US coalition. On many occasions they are at odds politically but when and if the other shoe drops US support leans towards Israel. One does not need to entertain Jewish power lobby theories to understand why US policy in the ME is no longer passive.
Similar interests does not equate to an Israeli US coalition. On many occasions they are at odds politically but when and if the other shoe drops US support leans towards Israel. One does not need to entertain Jewish power lobby theories to understand why US policy in the ME is no longer passive.
A total and complete cop out given the evidence presented. We're talking about a lobby that helped take us to war against our own interests. We're talking about a lobby that has to a major degree turned us into a enemy of much of the Muslim world. We're talking about a lobby that has milked us for 10s of billions of dollars. We're talking about a lobby that by much off the record and on the record testimony has a congress that is terrified into compliance with its dictates. And it's well documented. Throwing out sophistical nothings is not an answer. Why don't you smart sophisticates start offering some substance that counters what they are saying? So far no one except Mrs. P has even tried to seriously offer a counter with any facts. Yeah we have some differences with the Israelis but for the most part we apparently tow the line on matters that they feel are relevant to their security. Prove me wrong, or better prove the authors wrong.
You know the game of claiming any criticism of the Israeli lobby is conspiracy thinking is a cute and calculated ploy given the past history of conspiracy fraud perpetrated against Jews. But if you look at the flip side of that tactic it is simply saying that anyone who criticizes Israel is part of a conspiracy against the Jews, Israel or whatever. Well for you conspiracy folks here is one more patriotic American organization that is part of the conspiracy against the Israeli lobby. Seriously, can anyone criticize the power of the lobby and not be part of a conspiracy against Israel or the Jews? CNI, The Council for the National Interest Foundation, is headed iby a former Republican congressman and takes fact finding trips to Israel and surrounding areas. No doubt they are part of the conspiracy.
http://cnifoundation.org/index.php?option=...ge&Itemid=1
Another member of the conspiracy, a respected researcher, reporter and news anchor, Jim Reed, shows just how deadly it is for a member of Congress to stand up to the Israeli lobby. Some comments in response show the absolute virulent hate that those who defend Israeli policy hurl at those who dare to criticize it and the employment of guilt by passing association is used. Zionists who historically often strategically made nice with the Nazis ought to be a little careful with this game of guilt by association.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_reed/20060801.html
QUOTE
He advocated the implementation of UN resolutions, which defined Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory as illegal and he called for their removal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2007, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 6 2007, 04:47 AM)
It seems to me that it the Lobby were as powerful as espoused, Israel would be selling whatever it liked to whomever it wanted without repercussions. In this case, the Pentagon not only curbed sales, but actually refused to deal with the Director general of the Isreal Defense Ministry...a slap in the face.
Mrs P. You are setting up a strawman. You are in effect saying if you can find any example of where Israeli lobby influenced has been curbed then somehow concerns about the use of that power against the interests of this country is overblown. Did you read my two links? Did you read how Bush had to back down on a declared policy which was of huge consequence to Arab American relations because of the power of the lobby? Did you read about the influence the strongly Likud connected neocons exercised in getting us to invade Iraq and how the Israeli lobbies backed them to the hilt? These influences have consequences, serious ones, for this country.
Yes, I read the article, and some of it I agree with...I've also read very convincing rebuttals to it (even Chomsky disagrees, though I don't usually read his work, I don't remember him to be an Israel supporter?). A singular example might be a straw man, but I believe there are many such examples. The underlying problem I see with this theory is that our policy with Israel, like all of our ME policy, changes all of the time. There is no consistent pro-Israel stand, prior to Clinton at least. Consider our policy with Saddam, for starters. In the few years before his invasion of Kuwait, western companies did brisk business with him, in spite of the fact that he made threats, like “by God, we will make the fire eat up half of Israel.” That would be example number two.
Fast forward to directly after the Gulf war when Bush senior linked US loan guarantees to Israel with cooperation in the peace process (example number three). Did he lose that election because he withheld the money and the Israel lobby objected, or did he lose it because Perot was running and took a large portion of the vote, the economy had tanked as he raised taxes, and he was looking at his watch and staring at the floor during the debate? I'd say the answer is probably the latter. On that note, if we were truly concerned with protecting Israel as a primary goal, why didn’t we fully support the Kurds in Iraq?
It seems to me this theory is a way to try to explain foreign policy actions that, taken together as a whole make very little sense….but in the very short term, looked at individually, they are understandable. Our foreign policy in the ME is short-sighted, and expensive. I think that's a fundamental problem with the way bureaucracies (especially democratic ones) work. There are few election browny points for investing in finding a new better form of fuel (eventually), there are election browny points for lowering the short-term cost of fuel (at the pump, not the various indirect but related expenses) and securing our energy supply. Few election browny points for longterm planning in preventing emergencies, lots of election browny points for successfully dealing with emergencies when they come up.
Israel happens to be smack in the middle of the mess, and our (short term) interests are often similar, therefore they might seem to be directly connected and one is causing the other. A quote in Churchill’s memoirs, about his thoughts right after the attack on Pearl harbor. “I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.” Yet the British lobby was not the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor, nor was it the reason we ultimately joined the war.
Edited to add: Another point to consider is that we've basically lost Iraq and it has become a mess. Doesn't seem to be a fortunate happenstance for Israel....to back this theory it has been explained away that the intention was a quick victory. Of course it was, but why does that have to be the Israel lobby's doing? I believe that, rather, Bush and his advisors naively thought that they would rid the world of a tyrant and be met by the population with flowers and cheer and a new western friendly place in the ME to counter the Iranian regime....which would have been an incredible score. Sort of a fantasy, but the most of the evidence I've read has convinced me that this was the case.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2007, 08:48 PM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 6 2007, 04:09 PM)
dingo and company are the real strawmen here.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
The United States has not once ever done anything that they did not think was in it's best interests and have usually acted against Israel's best interest.
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September,
2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
Just out of curiosity Loreng, did you read the links? Are you going to continue to maintain as you always seem to do that Israel is the national equivalent of God and simply can do no wrong? Why do you assume that an outfit(Your link produced nothing by the way) that has, perhaps, a partisan interest in a particular view has successfully refuted M & W? Is it that Israel is God thing? Are you sure they touched on EVERY COMMENT that Mearshiemer and Walt said and if they did, which is about as likely as grasshoppers on the moon, do you not think that ONE thing that M & W said was accurate? I understand they documented their stuff up to their eyeballs and are loaded with quotes from original sources, so apparently a whole bunch of Israelis must be in on the lie.
Of course America always only acts in its own best interests and it's poor Israel that so often takes the butt of it. Loreng I nominate you to go to the State Dept and tell them to leave poor victimized Israel alone. I'll be right behind you.
When you use partisan hyperbole in the fashion you just have and deny the most obvious kind of realities you come off as totally ridiculous.
I would use the terms you piece of garbage deserves but it would be censored.
And if you had read the article in question yes it does refute their entire ridiculous claims. If the Israeli lobby is effective it is pointing out where Israeli and American interests merge. That is called being smart. They are effective because Israel does support a lot of America's stands and that neither are attempting to overthrow one another.
Maybe you could point to a single time where this Israeli lobby ever managed to convince the US government to support a policy where did not agree. How about that just once.
For the record Israel did not push for a war with Iraq, they did not consider them to be a viable threat and they are very capable of defending themselves.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 7 2007, 09:34 AM)
I would use the terms you piece of garbage deserves but it would be censored.
And if you had read the article in question yes it does refute their entire ridiculous claims. If the Israeli lobby is effective it is pointing out where Israeli and American interests merge. That is called being smart. They are effective because Israel does support a lot of America's stands and that neither are attempting to overthrow one another.
Maybe you could point to a single time where this Israeli lobby ever managed to convince the US government to support a policy where did not agree. How about that just once.
For the record Israel did not push for a war with Iraq, they did not consider them to be a viable threat and they are very capable of defending themselves.
And if you had read the article in question yes it does refute their entire ridiculous claims. If the Israeli lobby is effective it is pointing out where Israeli and American interests merge. That is called being smart. They are effective because Israel does support a lot of America's stands and that neither are attempting to overthrow one another.
Maybe you could point to a single time where this Israeli lobby ever managed to convince the US government to support a policy where did not agree. How about that just once.
For the record Israel did not push for a war with Iraq, they did not consider them to be a viable threat and they are very capable of defending themselves.
The media did not ask the hard questions about the war, they still don't ask the hard questions. Such questions would have the President running from stage crying for Daddy or Cheney. Those types of questions would have exposed this foreign policy for the sham that it was. But why weren't those questions being asked? Because our media is controlled by the Jews. It's not that Israel can't defend themselves, it's that they don't have to. To quote the movie Braveheart, "Send the Irish, the dead cost nothing." Think of all the hardships we have endured for the Jews and what has come of it? More dead American Sons and Daughters.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 6 2007, 07:09 PM)
George Friedman Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Wednesday, 05 September, 2007 had a long article Friedman Strategic Forecasting on this very subject where he refuted absolutely every comment and claim by Mearshiemer and Walt. They got it wrong.
Are we supposed to take your word? It's a for-profit site. I didn't see their publication on the 'net.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 6 2007, 07:09 PM)
Currently to the tune of several billion dollars in aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and hostile regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, Iraq is arguably a puppet democratic state, ditto Afghanistan. Jordan? Eh. Hussein seems more reasonable than Assad. Didn't Israel invite older and formerly expelled Fatah fighters from Jordan in the run up to the confrontation with Hamas into the West Bank earlier this year?
Of course, they're all still scum. Just the two months ago Haaretz had a story about Israeli soldiers seeing Egyptian border police beat and shoot illegal Sudanese refugees. But Egypt is a "friendly" autocratic state doing what we want them to do more often than not. Dead Sudanese don't mean jack in the big picture. That's why they, and Saudi Arabia, get a nice arms deal. In Africa we can back unlawful acts against Muslims even as we condemn Christian and animist persecution by Muslims in Darfur.
More importantly Middle East states have oil. Israel doesn't. While I don't want to continue dealing with Middle East states whether or not they allegedly call for the end of Israel it boggles my mind why Israel is the biggest benefactor of U.S. foreign aid. Israel has nothing we want. Their flimsy role as a check on Communist ambitions in the region is at an end. In fact, it angers me when considering there are so many states, so many people worse off than Jewish and Arab Israelis.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 4 2007, 10:36 PM)
I see, so anything addressing the power of the Israeli lobby is anti-Semitic and the equivalent of holocaust denial and The Protocols right, even if the article is written by an Israeli Jew who was a former member of the Knesset?
It is. I'm surprised Mearshiemer and Walt aren't on the Jewish S.H.I.T. List. There was a time when I'd read The New Republic and snort contentedly at stories that highlighted and criticized the slightest indication of anti-Semitism. That was before Marty Peretz started ranting about uneducated breeding Muslims (could this guy honestly not know that orthodox Jews, like other religious fundamentalists, have the world's highest birth rates?) and before the "non-partisan" ADL failed to condemn the trivialization of Nazism and fascism when it comes from right-wing pundits and "news" personalities.
I admit I haven't read the publications and probably won't read them. I've read about both. I don't think either work is anti-Semitic any more than overstating the influence of Cuban American lobbyists on American policy towards the Castro regime makes one a racist, a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. My concern is that these realists are going to help give the theory as bad a rap as the gargoyle Kissinger did in the 70s, albeit for different reasons.
Realism is pretty cut and dry. Supporting Israel to the extent that the U.S. does doesn't make practical sense. The aid places a premium on our economic needs, and the economy is subject to state interests (libertarian principles do not apply as far as realism is concerned). Realism isn't the only theory available, however. By filtering the Israel lobby through one theory and extrapolating from its principles you set up a condition to deflect criticism ("But Arab states are much worse!") and I'm tired of that defense. Not to mention realism offers guidance on a macro level. Speculation as to whether or not we attacked Iraq on Israel's behalf, and whether or not we're thinking of attacking Iran on Israel's behalf again, is better left to constructivists to ponder, who actually attempt to answer questions of state behavior from a first and second image perspective. If you're a realist you're above specific concerns like a lobby. Even a powerful one.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 7 2007, 01:12 AM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
Let's get at least one fact right here. Pete McCloskey was first elected with a margin of 831 votes. Hardly an extreme mandate. Second he didn't run for re-election in 1982. He gave up his seat and ran against Pete Wilson for the US Senate as an anti-Reagan Republican, not an exactly intelligent decision and yes the Republicans votes against him in mass.
Now how much of that can be attributed to the Israeli lobby - just about none. The man has been extremely hostile to many elements both within and outside of his party, managing at one time or another to tick off just about every voter in California. Unlike you Dingo I do actually remember McClosky since I lived in California at the time.
I find barnaby2341's list of Jews to be offensive, in and of itself, but the comments are completely over the line. I would have recommend banning the poster, but highlighting the idiocy produced by such a hateful brain is probably more helpful.
Uh, it's the kind of fast track that interns take?
Since you don't even know what an intern is, I hope you can understand why many of us aren't concerned with your take on the Jewish-ness of our current sports commissioners, and other Jewish conspiracies.
The paper (and now book) "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is poorly-researched, badly-argued, pseudointellectual piece of crap which wouldn't pass undergraduate muster at their respective schools. They should be ashamed and ostracized. Harvard removed their letterhead after someone smart read the piece. I recommend anyone commenting read the whole piece, just to see how badly argued it is.
We tried to have a nice discussion of pro-Israeli policies being in the USA's self-interest here, as I recall.
QUOTE(barnaby2341)
Monica Lewinsky involved in the Bill Clinton Impeachment was a college graduate and classmate of fellow Jew, Tori Spelling, daughter of prominent Hollywood television producer Aaron Spelling and then one year after graduating college she is an intern at the White House? What kind of fast track is that?
Uh, it's the kind of fast track that interns take?
QUOTE(whitehouse.gov/government/wh-intern.html)
Applicants must be:
At least 18 years of age on or before the first day of the internship
Enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program at a college or university, or graduated the previous semester
A U.S. citizen
At least 18 years of age on or before the first day of the internship
Enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program at a college or university, or graduated the previous semester
A U.S. citizen
Since you don't even know what an intern is, I hope you can understand why many of us aren't concerned with your take on the Jewish-ness of our current sports commissioners, and other Jewish conspiracies.
The paper (and now book) "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is poorly-researched, badly-argued, pseudointellectual piece of crap which wouldn't pass undergraduate muster at their respective schools. They should be ashamed and ostracized. Harvard removed their letterhead after someone smart read the piece. I recommend anyone commenting read the whole piece, just to see how badly argued it is.
We tried to have a nice discussion of pro-Israeli policies being in the USA's self-interest here, as I recall.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 8 2007, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 7 2007, 01:12 AM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
Let's get at least one fact right here. Pete McCloskey was first elected with a margin of 831 votes. Hardly an extreme mandate. Second he didn't run for re-election in 1982. He gave up his seat and ran against Pete Wilson for the US Senate as an anti-Reagan Republican, not an exactly intelligent decision and yes the Republicans votes against him in mass.
Now how much of that can be attributed to the Israeli lobby - just about none. The man has been extremely hostile to many elements both within and outside of his party, managing at one time or another to tick off just about every voter in California. Unlike you Dingo I do actually remember McClosky since I lived in California at the time.
Loreng, before you start saying silly things like announcing I'm not from California perhaps you ought to check the From: part of my self-description. Does Monterey Bay ring a bell? Not only do I live in California but for a while Pete McCloskey was my representative. By the way, in most of the congressional elections he was in he won handily.
As to the effect the Israeli lobby had on his Senate race I'm not arguing he would have otherwise won. I'm arguing that an honorable congressman who for once put the interests of the US over the Israelis was heavily targeted by the Israeli lobby for defeat along with many other representatives. As for your insistence that the lobby had no effect, maybe you ought to write a letter to AIPAC, the ADL and co. letting them know how incensed you are that they should waste so much money, demand from Pete Wilson that he accept annexation of the West Bank and Gaza as a condition for their support, and incur so much ill will threatening loss of patronage to business folks who supported McCloskey. I have to say, unfortunately, that McCloskey marginalized himself by making some of his most significant comments before a forum of the IHR - The Institute For Historical Review which has hosted holocaust deniers like David Irving. Even though McCloskey disassociated himself from those views it is generally the first tack taken against him by the hit boys from the Israeli lobby. He has repeatedly offered to debate policy with representatives from the ADL and they have always turned him down, although they are quite prepared to send their speakers all over the place if they feel they are serving Israel's interests. Apparently they don't feel honest debate serves Israel's interests.
This link offers some historical background and interesting perspectives on the lobby from a variety of folks in our government and lists some of the casualties, representatives who tried to honestly represent the best interests of our country rather than Israel. Frankly I blame the American public more than the lobby. Between the folks who see Israel as their principle country of loyalty and the rapture crowd, who only care about Israel as their ticket to heaven(Where Jews aren't allowed ironically) it seems that a good portion of our ME policy is caught in a hammerlock by folks who don't consider the long term interests of this country first.
http://desip.igc.org/radicalbushcheney.html
QUOTE
Mike Wallace shines a rare light on the Lobby
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
QUOTE
CW. The paper (and now book) "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is poorly-researched, badly-argued, pseudointellectual piece of crap which wouldn't pass undergraduate muster at their respective schools. They should be ashamed and ostracized. Harvard removed their letterhead after someone smart read the piece. I recommend anyone commenting read the whole piece, just to see how badly argued it is.
Hey, we don't, for the most part, agree on the assessment but at least you recommend that they read it. That's fair. The documentation is voluminous.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 8 2007, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 8 2007, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 7 2007, 01:12 AM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
Let's get at least one fact right here. Pete McCloskey was first elected with a margin of 831 votes. Hardly an extreme mandate. Second he didn't run for re-election in 1982. He gave up his seat and ran against Pete Wilson for the US Senate as an anti-Reagan Republican, not an exactly intelligent decision and yes the Republicans votes against him in mass.
Now how much of that can be attributed to the Israeli lobby - just about none. The man has been extremely hostile to many elements both within and outside of his party, managing at one time or another to tick off just about every voter in California. Unlike you Dingo I do actually remember McClosky since I lived in California at the time.
Loreng, before you start saying silly things like announcing I'm not from California perhaps you ought to check the From: part of my self-description. Does Monterey Bay ring a bell? Not only do I live in California but for a while Pete McCloskey was my representative. By the way, in most of the congressional elections he was in he won handily.
As to the effect the Israeli lobby had on his Senate race I'm not arguing he would have otherwise won. I'm arguing that an honorable congressman who for once put the interests of the US over the Israelis was heavily targeted by the Israeli lobby for defeat along with many other representatives. As for your insistence that the lobby had no effect, maybe you ought to write a letter to AIPAC, the ADL and co. letting them know how incensed you are that they should waste so much money, demand from Pete Wilson that he accept annexation of the West Bank and Gaza as a condition for their support, and incur so much ill will threatening loss of patronage to business folks who supported McCloskey. I have to say, unfortunately, that McCloskey marginalized himself by making some of his most significant comments before a forum of the IHR - The Institute For Historical Review which has hosted holocaust deniers like David Irving. Even though McCloskey disassociated himself from those views it is generally the first tack taken against him by the hit boys from the Israeli lobby. He has repeatedly offered to debate policy with representatives from the ADL and they have always turned him down, although they are quite prepared to send their speakers all over the place if they feel they are serving Israel's interests. Apparently they don't feel honest debate serves Israel's interests.
This link offers some historical background and interesting perspectives on the lobby from a variety of folks in our government and lists some of the casualties, representatives who tried to honestly represent the best interests of our country rather than Israel. Frankly I blame the American public more than the lobby. Between the folks who see Israel as their principle country of loyalty and the rapture crowd, who only care about Israel as their ticket to heaven(Where Jews aren't allowed ironically) it seems that a good portion of our ME policy is caught in a hammerlock by folks who don't consider the long term interests of this country first.
http://desip.igc.org/radicalbushcheney.html
QUOTE
Mike Wallace shines a rare light on the Lobby
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
QUOTE
CW. The paper (and now book) "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is poorly-researched, badly-argued, pseudointellectual piece of crap which wouldn't pass undergraduate muster at their respective schools. They should be ashamed and ostracized. Harvard removed their letterhead after someone smart read the piece. I recommend anyone commenting read the whole piece, just to see how badly argued it is.
Hey, we don't, for the most part, agree on the assessment but at least you recommend that they read it. That's fair. The documentation is voluminous.
Yes I too live in Monterey Bay once more. And yes he too was my congressman for a time.
In 1982 a Republican running against Reagan in California was political suicide. Did it help when he decided to deny the holocaust? Probably not, but since most Jews are members of the Democratic party, I really think that would not have made a lot of difference. Californians usually don't vote for racist idiots in large numbers. So yes I continue to state that the 'Israeli Lobby' had absolutely no influence on the 1982 Senate race.
Again I say that he committed political suicide and to somehow claim that is the fault of the 'Israeli Lobby' is about the same level as Mr. Walt and Mearsheimer's work, which I found to be about as flawed as former President Carter's book. Both were poorly written and full of down right lies.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 8 2007, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 8 2007, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Oct 8 2007, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 7 2007, 01:12 AM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
To pressure Israel to comply with the United Nations resolutions, McCloskey put forward a controversial resolution. He moved that the United States withhold $150 million in aid to Israel.
That was the amount that Israel was spending to subsidize the settlement activity. While many Congressmen agreed with him, including many Jewish American members, it was to be Pete McCloskey’s last political hurrah. Under pressure, he withdrew his amendment.
Nevertheless, AIPAC mobilized against him and accused him of fostering anti-Semitism; AIPAC had lobbied hard and successfully to make sure the amendment never saw the light of day. It then poured resources and funds into his opponents' election campaigns and Pete McCloskey, marine hero, on the right side of every other issue, was consigned to the history books.
McCloskey's fate was to be an object lesson for all other American politicians and even those in some other countries.
Let's get at least one fact right here. Pete McCloskey was first elected with a margin of 831 votes. Hardly an extreme mandate. Second he didn't run for re-election in 1982. He gave up his seat and ran against Pete Wilson for the US Senate as an anti-Reagan Republican, not an exactly intelligent decision and yes the Republicans votes against him in mass.
Now how much of that can be attributed to the Israeli lobby - just about none. The man has been extremely hostile to many elements both within and outside of his party, managing at one time or another to tick off just about every voter in California. Unlike you Dingo I do actually remember McClosky since I lived in California at the time.
Loreng, before you start saying silly things like announcing I'm not from California perhaps you ought to check the From: part of my self-description. Does Monterey Bay ring a bell? Not only do I live in California but for a while Pete McCloskey was my representative. By the way, in most of the congressional elections he was in he won handily.
As to the effect the Israeli lobby had on his Senate race I'm not arguing he would have otherwise won. I'm arguing that an honorable congressman who for once put the interests of the US over the Israelis was heavily targeted by the Israeli lobby for defeat along with many other representatives. As for your insistence that the lobby had no effect, maybe you ought to write a letter to AIPAC, the ADL and co. letting them know how incensed you are that they should waste so much money, demand from Pete Wilson that he accept annexation of the West Bank and Gaza as a condition for their support, and incur so much ill will threatening loss of patronage to business folks who supported McCloskey. I have to say, unfortunately, that McCloskey marginalized himself by making some of his most significant comments before a forum of the IHR - The Institute For Historical Review which has hosted holocaust deniers like David Irving. Even though McCloskey disassociated himself from those views it is generally the first tack taken against him by the hit boys from the Israeli lobby. He has repeatedly offered to debate policy with representatives from the ADL and they have always turned him down, although they are quite prepared to send their speakers all over the place if they feel they are serving Israel's interests. Apparently they don't feel honest debate serves Israel's interests.
This link offers some historical background and interesting perspectives on the lobby from a variety of folks in our government and lists some of the casualties, representatives who tried to honestly represent the best interests of our country rather than Israel. Frankly I blame the American public more than the lobby. Between the folks who see Israel as their principle country of loyalty and the rapture crowd, who only care about Israel as their ticket to heaven(Where Jews aren't allowed ironically) it seems that a good portion of our ME policy is caught in a hammerlock by folks who don't consider the long term interests of this country first.
http://desip.igc.org/radicalbushcheney.html
QUOTE
Mike Wallace shines a rare light on the Lobby
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
In an important and highly unusual 15 minutes of prime time debate in October 1988, Mike Wallace on CBS TV's 60 Minutes’ charged the Lobby with responsibility, or depending on how you see it, credited the Lobby with defeating congressmen Paul Findley (R-IL), Pete McCloskey (D-CA), Senators Harrison Schmitt (N.M.) Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, and Chuck Percy of Illinois. Since then others like Earl Hilliard of Alabama, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Gus Savage of Illinois have been likewise targeted and defeated and are no longer present to challenge the dominance of the Lobby’s power over Congress.[4] In addition, every single president since Truman – even such presidents as Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and G.W. Bush who wished to stake out an independent Middle East policy have been forced to bow to the power of the Lobby on critical issues.
A quote from Senator Percy, who appeared on the “60 Minutes” program, makes clear why he was targeted.
I finally reached the stage where, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I saw our foreign policy totally turned around with a Moslem world – 800 million people – looking askance at the United States of America, what is happening, who is running foreign policy. Can Israel and the prime minister have more power than the entire Senate of the United States or the President of the United States?
Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, a longtime critic of the Lobby also appeared on the program. Ball replied to Senator Daniel Inouye who said that he “helps Israel every chance he gets [because] he’s convinced it’s in our [the U.S.’s] national interest.” Ball pointed out that Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S. “We have no alliance with it…They [the Israelis] insist on total freedom of action, and they insist on our subsidizing their freedom of action.”
Some of the examples of U.S. politicians targeted by the Lobby cited in the “60 Minutes” program include Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III, Democratic Congressman Mervyn W. Dymally (D-CA) and Republican Ed Zschau (CA). The latter was a strong supporter of Israel who dared to ask questions that might be seen as critical of U.S. support for Israel in a House Committee session. Afterwards the Lobby opposed him and he narrowly lost his bid for election to the U.S. Senate in 1987. Senator William Hathaway of Maine was pro-Israeli but not quite pro-Israeli enough. He was targeted by the Lobby and in 1978 lost his seat to William Cohen.
QUOTE
CW. The paper (and now book) "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is poorly-researched, badly-argued, pseudointellectual piece of crap which wouldn't pass undergraduate muster at their respective schools. They should be ashamed and ostracized. Harvard removed their letterhead after someone smart read the piece. I recommend anyone commenting read the whole piece, just to see how badly argued it is.
Hey, we don't, for the most part, agree on the assessment but at least you recommend that they read it. That's fair. The documentation is voluminous.
Yes I too live in Monterey Bay once more. And yes he too was my congressman for a time.
In 1982 a Republican running against Reagan in California was political suicide. Did it help when he decided to deny the holocaust? Probably not, but since most Jews are members of the Democratic party, I really think that would not have made a lot of difference. Californians usually don't vote for racist idiots in large numbers. So yes I continue to state that the 'Israeli Lobby' had absolutely no influence on the 1982 Senate race.
Again I say that he committed political suicide and to somehow claim that is the fault of the 'Israeli Lobby' is about the same level as Mr. Walt and Mearsheimer's work, which I found to be about as flawed as former President Carter's book. Both were poorly written and full of down right lies.
Loreng, from what I've seen of your posts I think anything critical of Israel you will find flawed and full of lies. Somehow you couldn't find one single point to disagree with. Grand dismissals are fun but prove nothing. It's nice to know that Israeli Jews like Avnery who know a lot more about the subject than you or I substantially disagree with you.
I was going to drop McCloskey but since you chose to lie about him I guess we'll just have ride this train a little further. Here's the IHR speech and yes some of McCloskey's border line references make me wince a bit but I don't see an anti-Semite nor a holocaust denier. He talks among other things about the illegal lengths the ADL was willing to go to intimidate critics of Israel. 98% of what he says appears to come out of a perfectly legitimate objective anger. As for the other 2% well maybe somebody needed to explain to him that you don't use "Jewish community" and "Israeli lobby" interchangeably and you should not play around with holocaust numbers and avoid some cultural cliches. Okay here is the killer quote that he invariably gets hammered with. "I don't know whether you're right or wrong about the Holocaust, but anytime a historian takes a position against Israel, that brings down their wrath and concentrated numbers and economic power." Even the IHR doesn't deny the holocaust but they play too many fun and games with the numbers for my taste. Anyway, here's McCloskey's speech. I think it's instructive.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p13_McCloskey.html
CNI, The Council for the National Interest which McCloskey cofounded distanced themselves from IHR when they found out he had made a speech there and so did McCloskey.
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/118324/index.php
QUOTE
When its founding chairman Pete McCloskey addressed a conference of the Institute for Historical Review some five years ago, he was not representing the Council for the National Interest. Board members are not responsible to clear their speaking engagements with CNI, and CNI was not even aware of the address until many months after it was made. In any event, Rep. McCloskey later distanced himself from the Institute when he wrote the president of the Institute, Mark Weber, “there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership,” and suggested that the Institute give up it views about the Holocaust and focus instead on the distortions of truth promoted by the Anti-Defamation League – one of which was to claim that McCloskey was a Holocaust denier.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNI is immensely proud of the contribution that Pete McCloskey has made over the years to the American political process, including an appearance in 2003 at a Tikkun Conference in Washington, and toward helping Americans – and especially Jewish Americans – understand that the interests of a foreign state such as Israel, among a number of countries in the Middle East, are not the same as American interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNI is immensely proud of the contribution that Pete McCloskey has made over the years to the American political process, including an appearance in 2003 at a Tikkun Conference in Washington, and toward helping Americans – and especially Jewish Americans – understand that the interests of a foreign state such as Israel, among a number of countries in the Middle East, are not the same as American interests.
Dingo - First off from the San Jose Mercury News, February 20, 2006.
Campaign charges are exploding over a 2000 speech McCloskey gave to the controversial Institute for Historical Review, some of whose members question the severity of the Holocaust. McCloskey said at the time, "I don't know whether you are right or wrong about the Holocaust," and referred to the "so-called Holocaust". McCloskey said Friday that he has never questioned the existence of the Holocaust, and the 2000 quote referred to a debate over the number of people killed.
Is that a lie too? In your warped mind maybe, since if anybody that doesn't say how terrible Israel is even when it didn't happen, is somehow wrong and distorted. Strange world you live in.
As anybody knows if you are running for statewide office in California as a Republican you must have the support of Orange County period. Can't win with out it.
Taking on the single most popular California Republican of all time, in a place where they still practically worship the ground he walked on, when he was most popular ain't going to cut it. Attacking Pat Robertson Reagan's daughter and Barry Goldwater Jr. didn't win any political points even if he was right.
McCloskey is pro-choice, supports stem cell research and Oregon's assisted suicide law. And all three are diametrically opposed to the stands that the Republicans had then and now. What any of those have to do with the Israeli Lobby? Nothing that I can see.
As for this being critical of Israel, how so? If it were true the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton Administration wouldn't have been Arafat. The US would not be pouring billions of dollars into terrorist regimes, and arming them to the teeth, and Israel wouldn't have a corrupt Prime Minister that would rival any Arab state for stealing and lying. All of which I would believe to be a good thing.
The fact that none of that is happening is disappointing to me, the fact that the Israeli Lobby isn't as good as you claim is as well.
Campaign charges are exploding over a 2000 speech McCloskey gave to the controversial Institute for Historical Review, some of whose members question the severity of the Holocaust. McCloskey said at the time, "I don't know whether you are right or wrong about the Holocaust," and referred to the "so-called Holocaust". McCloskey said Friday that he has never questioned the existence of the Holocaust, and the 2000 quote referred to a debate over the number of people killed.
Is that a lie too? In your warped mind maybe, since if anybody that doesn't say how terrible Israel is even when it didn't happen, is somehow wrong and distorted. Strange world you live in.
As anybody knows if you are running for statewide office in California as a Republican you must have the support of Orange County period. Can't win with out it.
Taking on the single most popular California Republican of all time, in a place where they still practically worship the ground he walked on, when he was most popular ain't going to cut it. Attacking Pat Robertson Reagan's daughter and Barry Goldwater Jr. didn't win any political points even if he was right.
McCloskey is pro-choice, supports stem cell research and Oregon's assisted suicide law. And all three are diametrically opposed to the stands that the Republicans had then and now. What any of those have to do with the Israeli Lobby? Nothing that I can see.
As for this being critical of Israel, how so? If it were true the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton Administration wouldn't have been Arafat. The US would not be pouring billions of dollars into terrorist regimes, and arming them to the teeth, and Israel wouldn't have a corrupt Prime Minister that would rival any Arab state for stealing and lying. All of which I would believe to be a good thing.
The fact that none of that is happening is disappointing to me, the fact that the Israeli Lobby isn't as good as you claim is as well.
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
I've refrained from commenting because I have not read the book. I bought the book this weekend. I'm curious, who has read the book? I don't see vitrolic reactions as part of honest debate until those debating have read the book.
I've refrained from commenting because I have not read the book. I bought the book this weekend. I'm curious, who has read the book? I don't see vitrolic reactions as part of honest debate until those debating have read the book.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Oct 9 2007, 10:03 AM)
Do you think, as the book asserts, that the Israeli lobby exercised a strong influence on the decision to invade Iraq.
I've refrained from commenting because I have not read the book. I bought the book this weekend. I'm curious, who has read the book? I don't see vitrolic reactions as part of honest debate until those debating have read the book.
I've refrained from commenting because I have not read the book. I bought the book this weekend. I'm curious, who has read the book? I don't see vitrolic reactions as part of honest debate until those debating have read the book.
You don't have to read the book to get their opinion on the matter. The book is an expansion of a rather long article they published in the London Review of Books last year. Here it is.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
A little edit note. The above is condensed from the larger pdf article. The link to that article is in there along with links to commentary on the article including from perpetual Israeli apologist and heavy duty M & W basher Alan Dershowitz . In case you want to jump to the full article which includes over two hundred references-footnotes, here it is.
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpap...06_011_walt.pdf
QUOTE
L59-from SJMN. Campaign charges are exploding over a 2000 speech McCloskey gave to the controversial Institute for Historical Review, some of whose members question the severity of the Holocaust. McCloskey said at the time, "I don't know whether you are right or wrong about the Holocaust," and referred to the "so-called Holocaust". McCloskey said Friday that he has never questioned the existence of the Holocaust, and the 2000 quote referred to a debate over the number of people killed.
Is that a lie too?
Is that a lie too?
McCloskey explained himself and does so in your quote. You can take it or leave it. Of course you passed right over my additional contribution on the point. I'm not surprised. As for whose warped in their attitude toward Israel, I'm a supporter of peace between the parties. You support perpetual conflict. I'll put myself up as a true friend of Israel over your commitment to blood thirsty oppression any day.
Oh yeah the McCloskey part you chose to pass right over; once again:
QUOTE
Rep. McCloskey later distanced himself from the Institute when he wrote the president of the Institute, Mark Weber, “there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership,” and suggested that the Institute give up it views about the Holocaust and focus instead on the distortions of truth promoted by the Anti-Defamation League – one of which was to claim that McCloskey was a Holocaust denier.
What part of that don't you get? Holocaust deniers tend to be rather prolific in their denials. One questionable line out of context does not a holocaust denier make. Plus McCloskey claims to have been misquoted at certain points. Nonserious demagogues will pass by 99% substance, cherry picking for that one association however tenuous, or one phrase, however seized out of context, then adding a few lies, to bulldoze their otherwise narrow indefensible views. That seems to be your style.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 9 2007, 06:27 PM)
What part of that don't you get? Holocaust deniers tend to be rather prolific in their denials. One questionable line out of context does not a holocaust denier make. Plus McCloskey claims to have been misquoted at certain points. Nonserious demagogues will pass by 99% substance, cherry picking for that one association however tenuous, or one phrase, however seized out of context, then adding a few lies, to bulldoze their otherwise narrow indefensible views. That seems to be your style.
I believe Loreng's point about McCloskey is that his political career did not end as a result of the Israeli lobby, but rather because of his own personal decision to pursue a statewide office (Senator) while having decidedly non-traditional Republican beliefs (i.e. pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, etc).
The Economist seemed to have good things to say about McCloskey. Perhaps they aren't owned or owe allegiance to the Israeli lobby like all the other media outlets...
I don't see how this Israeli lobby really has ended the career of someone who opposes their views. If we could have some more examples (since one example is b