Obama to offer pro-Israel views at Chicago gathering

[oberliner]

For the first time since becoming a senator -- much less a White House hopeful -- Barack Obama on Friday will talk in depth about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Mideast.

The story behind the story of Obama's appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's regional forum at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers provides insight into the Obama presidential operation.

AIPAC, whose sole interest is U.S.-Israel relations, is one of the most influential lobbying groups in the nation. Its annual policy conference starts March 11 in Washington. The gathering provides fertile territory for Obama to schmooze with well-connected backers and donors. Though no 2008 presidential candidates are on the program, Obama is hosting a reception for AIPAC members -- as is archrival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton delivered a well-received speech before an AIPAC regional meeting in New York on Feb. 1. The Obama team wanted to get Obama's pro-Israel views -- not well-known -- out front before the big AIPAC conference. Obama's team has put together a briefing sheet on his record about Israel, but that was not widely circulated and clearly not enough. If he was to make a major speech on Israel, there was an interest among Obama's Chicago backers for him to deliver it in the city.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/278222,CST-EDT-sweet01.article

[Skip Intro]

1. Why do our politicians have to suck up to Israel (not the people of Israel)?

Why must they all pledge unconditional support for this particular nation as opposed to other nations?

Why is Israel placed upon a pedestal?

[Colobo]

4. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with

True "Western values".

[FrenchieCat]

5. Not all do.....but if they don't, they are called anti-semitic, often enough!

Evidenced.....(watch the whole thing...cause what it appears initially isn't what it is)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8&mode=related&search=

[Colobo]

6. I would do it, too

Israel is a nation with very similar values to ours in the middle of a region full of nations that are very far, ideologically speaking, from us. It's important to back our ally over there.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I don't think that the question of whether to "back" them or not is the issue....

The issue is much more whether we should be willing to do anything that Israel requests simply because we are its ally. That is the question.

You must remember that part of the problem with the ME issue is the lack of a powerful Honest Broker that can look at both sides and advise the best way to proceed looking out at all interest, Israel's included. If we have leaders that always agree that Israel is right in all that it does, than we forfeit that important role...which is the role that will bring peace to that area of the world in a long time.

The United States cannot be an extension of Israel, it can only be its best friend....that pull on its coat-tails when required.

Most of our elected officials believe in Israel's right to self defense...it's just that sometimes what that means becomes muddled. Kinda of like Iraq being an imminent threat.

[razors edge]

12. But the values we have in common

seem to be all about bombing other people and stealing their land.

So the only value we we don't share with the rest of the region then seems to be stealing land.

Edit:sp

[eridani]

20. The "values" of cheerleading mass murder and ethnic cleansing?

Not my values at all.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. What are you talking about?

What "mass murder?" Whose values are these other than psychopaths?

[Low Notes]

23. Anti-semitism

I left a message but I'm not used to this forum so I left it in response to the original message. I'm deeply saddened to see the "liberals" buy into this notion of "Jews in powerful places". They don't realize how dangerous their words are and how reminiscent this is of an unspeakable time in history. This is what neocons have done to this country - pit people against each other in the name of greed and imperialism. How do we fight this notion and prevent anti-semitism from rising again? Fundamentalists of any group taint people's perceptions of the ethnic group itself. Are Muslims all terrorists? No. Are all Isralies for bombing the hell out of Iran? No! We are going to abandon our support of an ally and a country that is surrounded by terrorists because of some extremists? I am ashamed at people who I thought were of like mind.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Welcome to DU.

Don't worry about where posts show up; it can take a few tries before you get the hang of things! :toast:

You will find that there are a few here that are not bigoted when it comes to Israel. You will find even less anti-Semites, though a few do lurk about in our midst. However, the very mention of Israel, AIPAC, or something along those lines will cause a torrent of posts. Also, don't be ashamed of the posts here because you will find that bigotry can also (and does) claw its way into our camp.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Do you know what a concentration camp is?

And, are you sure it is the largest outdoor one or is that just hyperbolic propaganda?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

35. You are kidding?

You might want to really investigate your hyperbolic charge. Also, take a "spin" around that site. It isn't one you really want to be quoting here.

[Low Notes]

30. ?

..and I have a problem with suicide bombers constantly killing innocent Israeli children...

[eridani]

32. You mean as opposed to dropping bombs on them?

Or bulldozing their houses? We are talking a slaughter ratio of about 10/1 in Israel's favor here.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. 10/1?

You have a source for that "fact?"

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Here's some statistics from B'Tselem...

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

[Behind the Aegis]

66. That is still not 10/1.

[regnaD kciN]

37. Wow...we managed twenty-two posts...

...before someone played the "anti-semitism" card. The discourse level on DU seems to have improved over the past three or four years -- back then, it would have happened within the first five posts at the latest. ;-)

(On second thought, I realized that I hadn't counted posts from people on my "ignored" list. It may have happened a lot earlier than I thought. :dunce: )

[Low Notes]

39. card?

It's not a card..my God...am I at the Democratic underground? Do you also think that African Americans "play the race card" when they feel discrimination? You are buying into more fear-mongering.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Don't sweat it.

If someone said that ("African Americans "play the race card"") there would be a plethora of people to trounce that accusation. Check out the posts about Obama being "articulate." There are a few that don't "get" why that was not a smart thing to say. However, when it comes to Israel, or even Jews, to be accused of playing the 'anti-Semitism' card is MUCH more common than anyone actually "playing" that card!

On edit: I don't know the logistics, but, considering Obama is a senator, can we add his name to the 'spell check?'

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Maybe you should ask "why?"

[cali]

43. If people don't want to see the anti-semitism "card" played

then might I suggest that they don't quote friggin hate sites. Do that and you ARE going to get called on it.

[Andromeda]

71. Welcome to DU...

A lot of us feel as you do and it's very frustrating to see Israel blamed for everything bad that happens in the ME and the rest of the world.

The language here has become very strident and hostile to Jews and the loyalty and patriotism of (some) American Jews is questioned repeatedly.

Palestinians have victim status and Israelis are depicted as bullies who pick on them and keep them from self-determination.

When you call them on their anti-semitism they cry foul. The fact that the Palestinians must take some reponsibility for their own condition is not acknowledged. It's as if they have no will of their own and their actions and movements are always justified, especially if they are having a confrontation with an Israeli, whether that person be soldier or citizen, because all Jewish blood is the same to them no matter which country they live in.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. AIPAC seems to be doing everything it can to promote that notion.

Actually, it seems to me that AIPAC is just about the worst enemy that American Jews could have at this juncture. Although the vast majority of US Jews are opposed to the aggressive military policies they are pushing, they are being neatly set up to be the scapegoats when the Bush/neocon policies go completely sour.

I think there needs to be a strong move to set up other more liberal and less militaristic pro-Israel organizations, which I think would be much more in line with mainstream American Jewish opinion. There needs to be a counterweight to AIPAC.

Our Congress looking like it's caving to AIPAC on matters as critically important as war and peace definitely plays into the traditional stereotypes.

[msmcghee]

75. I would edit that last sentence . .

"Our Congress looking like it's caving to AIPAC on matters as critically important as war and peace definitely plays into the traditional stereotypes."

It would be more complete and accurate for you to say,

Our Congress looking - to those of us who blame Israel for everything bad in the world - like it's caving to AIPAC on matters as critically important as war and peace definitely plays into the stereotypes - constantly promoted by antisemitic hate sites around the internet.

You said, "I think there needs to be a strong move to set up other more liberal and less militaristic pro-Israel organizations, which I think would be much more in line with mainstream American Jewish opinion. There needs to be a counterweight to AIPAC."

If, as you say " . . the vast majority of US Jews are opposed to the aggressive military policies they are pushing . . " then I would wonder what's standing in their way. I think that American Jews are free to set up a more balanced PAC if they wish. There are already several of those anyway as I understand it. The problem is, every time some liberal pro-Palestinian group makes a huge effort to help the Palestinians by apologizing for and justifying their actions and statements - the Palestinians themselves discredit those organizations with more senseless violence and fanaticism.

<disclaimer> Note to breakaleg: While I did say "the Palestinians" in that last sentence I meant some Palestinians. I did not mean every Palestinian in Palestine.</disclaimer>

Note that I am not convinced that AIPAC is pushing aggressive military policies. That sounds like anti-Israel propaganda to me. From what I read no speakers at this conference were pushing such policies. In fact most speakers were more interested in Iran's nuclear ambitions at this conference - and they were pushing sanctions against Iran - not war.

Just maybe, AIPAC already represents the majority of American Jews who care about Israel's existence and future - despite your opinions about the vast majority of US Jews.

[Crunchy Frog]

76. No, I think I'll leave it exactly as I wrote it. Thanks for the concern though.

:hi:

As far as advocating aggressive military policies, how about this? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/13/cheney/index.html?source=rss

Do most American Jews love Dick Cheney and Pastor John Hagee as much as the AIPAC attendees seem to?

[msmcghee]

77. Dick Cheney is not AIPAC.

He was invited to speak there.

While I harbor an extreme dislike for Dick Cheney what he said in this case . .

An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff -- (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)


. . is hard to disagree with IMO. We on the left, in our eagerness to rid our government of RW ideologues like Cheney, Pearl, Wolfowitz, etc. - must remember that 3000 Americans were killed by suicidal Islamic zealots on 9/11/2001. The neo cons are certainly hindered by their ideology and have made a terrible and expensive mess of the war on terror (especially Iraq but Afghanistan as well) - but they are not always completely wrong about everything.

9/11 still carries much weight with the average American citizen (and rightly so) because they know that bin Laden and others like him will do it again in a heartbeat the next chance they are given.

Fortunately, the average American citizen (unlike some on the left) is not dumb enough to try appeasement of the terrorists who want to kill us. That citizen also understands that fighting this war is still our most important national priority and will remain so for a long time.

It will be at Democrats' peril if we think that our control of congress means that we can stop worrying about and defending our nation from Islamic terrorism. Actually, we need to do a much more proficient job of it than the pukes if we hope to retain our control of the government and even add a presidency in '08 - because we have been pretty effectively branded as appeasers by the RW.

Don't think for a minute that ideology on the left is not as great a danger to America as ideology on the right. Both can and will cause grave errors in national judgment and will result in many dead Americans down the road.

[eridani]

31. OK, ethnic cleansing, then.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zeroes/Ariel_Sharon.html

In 1978, on the occasion of president Jimmy Carter's presiding over a meeting of the Israeli Cabinet-the only non-Jew to have ever chaired such a meeting-Carter was told by then minister of agriculture, Ariel Sharon, that there already was a Palestinian state, that it was Jordan, and that Carter could take for granted that within the next few years there would be 2 to 3 million Jews living in the occupied territories. Sharon added that "even as we speak, Jewish families are migrating into Judea and Samaria."

This statement echoes an earlier one of David Ben-Gurion, who later became Israel's first prime minister. In a 1937 letter to his son he writes:
A partial Jewish stare is not the end, bur only the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish state will serve as a means in our historical effort to redeem the country in its entirety.... We shall organize a modern defense force... and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means.... We will expel the Arabs and take their place...with the force at our disposal.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Do you know what "ethnic cleansing" is?

Oh, and you do realize that the site you quote is listed on page 36 of the "The Hate Directory"?

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. Didn't Know Occupying Arabs Was A "Western Culture"

Oh, shoot, I forgot about Eye-Rack, how silly of me. Of course we have to back our ideological partner :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Jim Sagle]

2. Obama RRRRRAWWWWXXXXXX!!!!!!!!

[k_jerome]

3. bravo Mr. Obama. nt.

[elizm]

7. As a supporter of Obama...

...his views on this will be very important to me. I would like for him to take the views of President Carter. If not, I may have to rethink my support.

[Colobo]

8. You need to be prepared for a considerably pro-Israel stance

No candidate, in any of the two parties, will take Carter's position. It takes guts and a willingess to take some serious heat, something none of the hopefuls are in the position to do.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Did you go to the link I provided?

Cause it doesn't seem like you did.

[Colobo]

11. I'm checking it now

Hadn't seen it!

[Colobo]

14. Good video

Thanks! AIPAC and the neo-cons are dangerous indeed...

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well the bottomline is that they in essence attempt to influence our politicians....

with money.....

[razors edge]

13. If Israel bombs Iran

and gas goes to $10/gal, that support of Israel will be enough to loose any election.

[cali]

15. Carter isn't running for office.

I really wish that Israel wasn't the 5th rail in political life, but it is. The thing is you don't have to be anti-Israel to be supportive of Palestinian rights. But if you're expecting Obama to say that Israel practices apartheid, you might as well resign yourself, not only to not supporting him, but to not supporting any dem candidate.

[Bullet1987]

17. Cali nailed it...

ANY candidate who even criticizes Israel will be called anti-semitic ad-nausuem. They can pretty much kiss the White House goodbye. Is it fair? No....well hell no!!!

[The Magistrate]

18. Where, Sir, In Ms. Cali's Remarks

Do you find anything even approaching your statement that "ANY candidate who even criticizes Israel will be called anti-semitic ad-nausuem"? Ms. Cali said that no candidate is going to accuse Israel of being an apartheid state. That is not quite the same thing. The reason candidates support Israel has nothing to do with what you suggest: candidates support Israel because that is far and away the most popular stance among the people of the United States, and has been for decades.

[regnaD kciN]

42. I believe, Sir, that Bullet1987 has the right...

...to add his or her own comments as an addendum to those of Ms. Cali.

And, for the record, I think the track record has borne out Bullet1987's observations. Knee-jerk allegiance to the policies of the Israeli government (which is a order of magnitude different from support for Israel's existence and security) has been the "party line" of U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. It has also been the most "popular" stance among the public -- but how much of that is a vicious circle? In other words, if something is the "party line," speaking the opposite is "unthinkable." If one cannot speak the "unthinkable," only one side, the "party line," will be allowed in the mainstream marketplace of ideas. Since that's the only side allowed there, it gains a monopoly over discourse, and thus is accepted by the public as "conventional wisdom" because it's the only opinion that can be expressed -- which only cements it further as the "party line." And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[Low Notes]

19. Israel - I'm stunned at the reactions of Liberals

I am so stunned that at how liberals (and I am one), who are known for their open minds, can just believe this nonsense. Yes, Israel is subject to its own neocon rule (unfortunately for the Israeli people), but we are forgetting why they created a homeland to begin with and how they have been our ally for years. Not only that, but people are now beginning to hate Jews and Israelis, saying they are the reason for the war in Iraq, which is utter nonsense. George Bush is an imperialistic, greedy man, as is Cheney, and they are the root of all these evil. I am just flabbergasted at how this situation has gotten to this level. I even hear people saying that Jews own all the media and the wealth in this country and shouldn't be in gov't. What does this sound like? And then to consider not backing Obama, a good and intelligent man..we'd be cutting off our noses. Wake up folks...

[Superman Returns]

38. If I could "favorite" your individual reply I would

you speak the truth. criticism of Israel has slowly evolved among some liberals into borderline anti-semitism. Now please, I'm not saying all or even many liberals are trending this way. But as jewish person, I definitely feel I have witnesseed a change in feeling towards jews in this country, particularly on the internet.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Superman Returns]

22. good, believe it or not DU

many Democrats are pro-Israel; not blindly, not religiously, but simply feel Israel is our ally and needs support. Politically, socially, and culturally, Israel shares an eternal bond with the United States.

[Low Notes]

24. Thank you.

Some sense!

[k_jerome]

25. 100% agree. this is a strength for Obama. nt.

[eridani]

28. Right. "Injuns" = "Palestinians." Not the nicest aspect of American values n/t

[Hunky Dunky]

44. Well-stated and irrefutable! n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I've got a question for you, Oberliner...

Not sure what forum this was kicked down here from, but after reading the posts in this thread, I have a question about this *support* of Israel that some posters in this thread are warbling about. None of them, nor has any article that you post about this Democratic *support* of Israel, get the slightest bit specific about what this *support* entails, so I'd like to know what *support* means, and what the difference is in the *support* of someone who it's claimed is a strong *supporter* of Israel like Hillary Clinton, and someone like Obama. I'd also like to know why when it comes to the US, it's all about *support* of Israel and there's not one single word about *support* of the Palestinian people.

[Jim Sagle]

47. Is it any different in Oz?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yes n/t

[oberliner]

49. In response to your question

I disagree with your assertion that there is "not one single word" about support of the Palestinian people. Allow me to cite a relevant excerpt from Obama's speech to AIPAC:

"We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in
working to make that goal a reality."

As far as I am concerened, this is one of the critical differences between Democrats and Republicans vis-a-vis Israel. The Democrats know that the United States needs to be focused and involved in an active way towards making this goal a reality. Clearly, Bush and co. have not done this, whereas Clinton made every effort to try to help negotiate some kind of agreement.

I should mention that this post was moved from General Discussion: Politics to this forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I totally disagree with you...

See, I've read that speech in its entirety and while the Palestinians rate a mention as either the unwilling party to peace or as an aside that they actually suffer, that speech is chockablock full of warbling about having seen Israeli homes damaged and how much they're suffering. Also, what is someone who is supposed to be left-wing doing giving a speech to an organisation that is decidedly conservative?

When I start seeing threads full of DUers arguing about whether or not a candidate has given the required amount of *support* to the Palestinians, then I'll stop thinking that there's something very one-sided about the way the US views the I/P conflict.

As there's been very similar comments to the one you copied from the speech made by the current administration, I fail to see how there is much difference at all in the views of the Democrats and Republicans vis-a-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict...

[oberliner]

51. Photo-ops and BS vs. Sustained Diplomacy

Do you really believe that there wasn't much different between President Clinton's approach and Bush's approach to the I/P conflict?

It seems to me that Bush's engagement in working towards peace between the parties has been negligible and his actions in Iraq and elsewhere have only made matters worse (by alienating any and all potential allies in the international community).

Clinton, on the other hand, made a sustained effort not only to talk with leaders from both sides of the conflict but also to ensure that they continued talking with each other. In his autobiography, Clinton wrote that he had practically memorized every corner of Jerusalem since he had been pouring over detailed maps in an attempt to help reach an argument on borders.

I cite another quotation from Obama's speech to AIPAC:

"We must be partners – we must be active partners. Diplomacy in the
Middle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured by
patience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting of
little more than photo-ops with little movement in between. Neither
Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach."

Patience and effort. The Bush administration offered neither. An Obama administration would provide both.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. We were talking about Obama, not Clinton...

You seem to be of the belief that Obama's comments were remarkably different than anything Republicans would say, and I pointed out they're not.

Doesn't it strike you that there's something wrong with this particular comment from Obama? 'Neither Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach.' Shouldn't someone who wants to take on the role of mediator be remembering to include the Palestinians in there? Patience and effort should come from someone who takes an even-handed approach to the conflict, not from someone whose patience and effort is exerted in focusing only on what Israel wants...

[oberliner]

52. If AIPAC is so "decidely conservative"

Then why do you think people like Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi and other leading Democrats have had such kind words for the organization?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. There's no *if* about it. AIPAC holds very conservative views on foreign policy....

Which is why I asked why left-wing politicians like Obama are courting them and giving speeches at their do's...

[oberliner]

57. Do you have any ideas?

I wonder whether you have any speculative answers to the question you posed.

You are asking why a left-wing politician like Obama would speak to a right-wing organization.

Two logical answers that would resolve the apparent contradiction are that either Obama is not really left-wing or the organization is not really right-wing.

Since you assert confidently that the organization is right-wing then that leaves the notion that perhaps Obama is not left-wing after all.

Are there other potential resolutions to this seemingly incongruous situation that you can throw out there?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Of course Obama is left-wing...

Are you sure you can't think of any more reasons than the two obviously wrong ones you gave me? Or do you actually believe that AIPAC isn't a conservative and hardline organisation??

[oberliner]

60. I don't think they are obviously wrong

I think that AIPAC, like the Democratic Party, is a "big tent" organization. There are conservative and hardline elements to be sure, but that is not the totality of what AIPAC is. Currently, their agenda is aimed at putting economic and political pressure on Iran to end it's nuclear program. This is a goal that is shared by many US politicians on both sides of the aisle. AIPAC is also pushing to ensure that recognition is not granted to the Hamas led PA until that group renounces violence and accepts previously brokered Israeli-Palestinian agreements. This, too, is a position shared by a broad spectrum of American legislators.

The upcoming AIPAC conference will feature some decidedly right-wing speakers like Boehner and Cheney, but also features leaders within the Democratic Party such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And of course, as has been discussed here in the past weeks and months, other leading Democrats such as Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all spoken at AIPAC-sponsored events.

I cannot see why all of these Democrats would speak in such glowing terms to and about an organization that is "conservative and hardline". I think that the two issues I listed are examples of issues where the values of those aforementioned Democrats and the position of AIPAC overlap.

Again I would ask you, since you are so dismissive of my suggested reasons for why Obama and others would speak at these events, do you have any potential explanations of your own?

[breakaleg]

61. I think they speak in glowing terms because they want the Jewish vote. pretty simple.

[Lurking Dem]

62. So they're pandering? To 2% of the population?

[breakaleg]

63. That's your word, not mine. The fact is they want their support.

It's not about the percentage of the population that they represent. It's also a matter of how vocal AIPAC is, how much attention they get and how aggressive they can and in that way, how many people they can reach should they want to. A decent smear campaign can reach more than 2% of the population, it would be front page news across the board.

Let me ask you this. When was the last time a president got elected who shunned AIPAC? I don't know the answer, I'm asking.

[Lurking Dem]

64. I don't know that anyone has

ever "shunned" AIPAC. (Interesting question though!) How about the same question toward the American Petroleum Institute? They are considerably bigger with a seemingly bottomless budget.

As to "pandering", is not indulging or catering to someone for their support the very definition? Were you not implying that is was only for the vote rather than because they agreed with their mission statement?

[breakaleg]

65. It's also not as simple as the budgets they have at their disposal.

If you don't support AIPAC the attacks get personal, you are branded as an anti-semite. Look what happened to Carter.

Not supporting the big oil companies doesn't yield the same type of disdain.

[Shaktimaan]

67. Really?

So did AIPAC brand rep. Dave Obey, or former rep Paul Findley as anti-semites? They are both critical of Israel.

And if it is all about getting the Jewish vote, then why aren't other groups that represent more populous minority causes just as influential? Because AIPAC is not a "Jewish" lobby. In fact it is pretty offensive of you to say so. Jewish people have a long history of being involved in the most progressive, liberal movements that have come about in America. There was a strong Jewish presence in the civil rights, anti-war and labor movements greatly disproportionate to their population numbers. You think that AIPAC is extremely conservative, and also that American Jews vote according to what AIPAC mandates? Why do the vast majority of Jews vote democratic then?

Carter was criticised because he published an extremely biased book, riddled with factual errors and half-truths. I don't know if he's anti-semitic but he is certainly anti-Israel. But to say that there was a smear campaign against him is absurd. Legit criticism of what he wrote is not "smearing."

[Violet_Crumble]

69. No, it's not absurd to claim there was a smear campaign against Carter...

I don't call labelling him antisemitic and a supporter of terrorism legitimate criticism...

[Shaktimaan]

72. First of all I don't remember AIPAC labeling him an anti-semite.

Or a supporter of terrorism. Although they certainly may have. In any case, I'd like to see a link.

Second of all his book's facts were so suspect and the basic timeline portrayed therein was so biased that I don't take either statement to be particularly illegitimate. I don't know if you have read the book yet but I'd be curious to know if you have. Carter's book was a tremendous disappointment to me. I had a great amount of respect for the man beforehand. But there was no getting around what he wrote and it was, at the very least, virulently anti-Israel.

Most disturbing to me was the religious twist that the book took at certain points, making some criticism of Israel within a Christian context. He suggests that God is punishing Israel for being too secular in a paragraph about Golda Meir, making sure to relay her bemused and/or offended reaction to him. He really drifts into potentially dangerous territory with statements like these...

"It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities - the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier."

The wall ravages many places along its devious route that are important to Christians. In addition to enclosing Bethlehem in one of its most notable intrusions, an especially heartbreaking division is on the southern slope of the Mount of Olives, a favorite place for Jesus and his disciples, and very near Bethany, where they often visited Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus.

And while he may not directly support terrorism he has no problem defending Hezbollah and Hamas, going so far as to outright lie about their actions, as in this PBS interview.

And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes -- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.

http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/jimmy-carters-apartheid-book.html

At the time of this interview, Hamas had already kidnapped the soldier Gilad Shalit and killed many more. He made such a clear remark condoning terrorism in his book at one point that he publicly apologized for it to the students of Brandeis University, admitting he was wrong and that the remark clearly made it seem as if he endorsed terrorism. He also speaks glowingly and romantically throughout the book and subsequent interviews about some of the most brutal and oppressive Arab regimes in the world. Dictators such as Assad and the leaders of Saudi Arabia receive effusive praise. Maybe it has nothing to do with genuine anti-semitism on Carter's part and is just a reflection of the vast amounts of cash they've given him.

Don't underestimate the fact that every Jewish member of his staff or steering committe or whatever resigned. These were not hardline likudniks. They were people who had given years to support the Carter Center's mission yet could not be a part of what they considered Carter's bias. Nevertheless, criticising AIPAC when Carter HAS in fact been making extremely circumspect noise far from proves your point. I'd like to hear some more examples. They have probably also called David Duke anti-semitic. Would that be another example of hysterical finger pointing? Since you seem so comfortable making this extremelty offensive accusation I am sure you've got many. many airtight examples.

Because if you don't that would mean you were just making base assumptions based on what you think the Jews probably do. Or what you heard they do. And that would be pretty awful.

[TomClash]

80. ADL did

"In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff. "

http://www.adl.org/carter/letter.asp

[Shaktimaan]

101. Wow, that's lame.

First off, we are talking about AIPAC, not the ADL.

Second, the quote you printed is hardly an example of labeling carter anti-semitic. It says that BECAUSE of anti-semitism the stuff Carter wrote is dangerous stuff. That's a tremendous difference. Accusing someone of crying wolf by falsely charging someone as an anti-semite is as serious an accusation as ACTUALLY calling someone an anti-semite. If true, then it deserves to be denounced. But it is a heavy claim and not one that should be made carelessly as you have done here.

For all the noise you guys make about any criticism of Israel getting habitually neutralized by AIPAC using claims of anti-semitism you have yet to show me an example. Shouldn't you have tens, if not hundreds of examples of this happening? Assuming you aren't all completely full of shit, that is.

[TomClash]

102. The only thing that was lame was your response

I commented that ADL said. So what?

I think you need to re-read the quote.

When someone says that "you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff" that sounds to me like someone is being accused of antisemitism. "Feeding into" in this context means "buying into" or supporting. If the ADL wanted to say that because of antisemitism what Carter wrote was dangerous - they would have said that.

Want an example of AIPAC power - follow the aid money.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. On Carter and the US smear jobs...

First of all I don't remember AIPAC labeling him an anti-semite. Or a supporter of terrorism. Although they certainly may have. In any case, I'd like to see a link.

Yet you claimed in yr post that Carter's book was criticised, which led me to believe that you were talking generally about the US and not specifically about AIPAC. AIPAC may have criticised his book, but I don't recall seeing them do so. Do you have a link to it if they have?

Second of all his book's facts were so suspect and the basic timeline portrayed therein was so biased that I don't take either statement to be particularly illegitimate. I don't know if you have read the book yet but I'd be curious to know if you have. Carter's book was a tremendous disappointment to me. I had a great amount of respect for the man beforehand. But there was no getting around what he wrote and it was, at the very least, virulently anti-Israel.

I've read the book. To be a bit more specific I'm halfway through it right now and I'm finding some of the comments made at DU about the book to be particularly ridiculous after actually having read it. Does he do some amazing change in the second half of the book or something? Coz so far it's been a lot more even-handed than I'd been led to believe, though I can understand why ardent 'supporters' of Israel would think he's 'virulently anti-Israeli' because he actually dares to point out that the Palestinians have suffered and do deserve their own state in Gaza and the West Bank...

Most disturbing to me was the religious twist that the book took at certain points, making some criticism of Israel within a Christian context. He suggests that God is punishing Israel for being too secular in a paragraph about Golda Meir, making sure to relay her bemused and/or offended reaction to him. He really drifts into potentially dangerous territory with statements like these...

Two things. His visit with Golda Meir happened on his first trip to Israel in the early 1970's when he wasn't the slightest bit critical of Israel. Also, is there a different version of the book on sale in the US than everywhere else? Because the copy I've got doesn't say that Golda Meir was either bemused or offended at his question. Here's the bit from the book:

Later, in her office, I thanked the Prime Minister for making possible our wonderful visit, and she asked if I had any observations I would like to share. With some hesitation, I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government. She seemed surprised at my temerity and dismissed my comments with a shrug and a laugh. She lit one cigarette from another and then said that "orthodox" Jews still existed and could assume that portion of the nation's responsibility. She was referring to the religious Jews in the Israeli parliament, who were sometimes a real thorn in her side. She added, "If you attend a session of the Knesset, you will see them in action and will know that they have not lost their faith."

I have a built-in allergic reaction to weirdarse creepy Christian shit, and nothing he's said in his book so far has set it off...

And while he may not directly support terrorism he has no problem defending Hezbollah and Hamas, going so far as to outright lie about their actions, as in this PBS interview.

And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes -- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.

http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/jimmy-carters-apa...

At the time of this interview, Hamas had already kidnapped the soldier Gilad Shalit and killed many more.

Correction. Jimmy Carter definately doesn't support terrorism, and anyone who's read his book would be aware of that. I'll get to that a bit further in the post, but right now I'll address yr claim that the capture of the Israeli troop was terrorism.

Have you changed yr mind since this post of yrs where you said attacks on troops weren't terrorism?

But I don't personally believe that one can commit terrorism against a soldier. I always assumed that for something to qualify as "terrorism" and not just a military action it has to purposely target civilians. One of the goals (if not THE goal) has to be formenting terror.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=163631&mesg_id=163669

Can you explain to me how the raid that resulted in the capture of Shalit was purposefully targetting civilians?

He made such a clear remark condoning terrorism in his book at one point that he publicly apologized for it to the students of Brandeis University, admitting he was wrong and that the remark clearly made it seem as if he endorsed terrorism.

He did not make any such clear remark, and all he apologised for (which I think he was very polite to do, but had no need to do so) was writing a clumsy sentence that some read the wrong way. I did zip forward to page 213 to see what all the fuss was about, and found this sentence: 'It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they renounce all acts of violence against innocent civilians and will accept international laws, the Arab peace proposal of 2002, and the ultimate goal of the Roadmap for Peace.' There's nothing I disagree with in that sentence, and anyway, it appears that he is actually paraphrasing a professor at the Hebrew University in that paragraph because the sentence prior to it says: 'He added that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there is a negotiated agreement that Palestinians can approve (as specified in the Camp David Accords).'

My initial suspicion when stuff was posted in this forum about that sentence was that it was cherry-picked and twisted in an attempt to smear Carter. Now after reading the book, it's no longer a suspicion and has been confirmed for me. Anyone who claims to have read his book and accuses him of condoning terrorism must have short attention spans and missed this bit from page 14: 'There is no place for sustained violence, which tends to subvert peace initiatives and perpetuate hatred and combat. Some Palestinians have responded to political and military occupation by launching terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, a course of action that is both morally reprehensible and politically counterproductive. These dastardly acts have brought widespread condemnation and discredit on the entire Palestinian community - and are almost suicidal for the Palestinian cause.'

Gosh, I wonder why those who insist that Carter condones terrorism never mention the first chapter of his book? ;)

He also speaks glowingly and romantically throughout the book and subsequent interviews about some of the most brutal and oppressive Arab regimes in the world. Dictators such as Assad and the leaders of Saudi Arabia receive effusive praise. Maybe it has nothing to do with genuine anti-semitism on Carter's part and is just a reflection of the vast amounts of cash they've given him.

He does praise some Arab leaders, but it's not effusive praise. He praises the moderate leaders for their private statements about what it would take to bring an end to the I/P conflict, but does point out that their private statements and their public statements are not the same. He also praises some who he got on with on a personal level. He also praises Israeli's leaders, some of who he had close friendships with. Since when has it been antisemitic to praise an Arab leader or to strike up a friendship with one?

Don't underestimate the fact that every Jewish member of his staff or steering committe or whatever resigned. These were not hardline likudniks. They were people who had given years to support the Carter Center's mission yet could not be a part of what they considered Carter's bias.

Have you got a link to anything credible that says that every Jewish member of the board (btw, this wasn't the governing board, but the board which was responsible for gaining public support for the work of the Carter center) resigned? I've never seen that and strongly suspect it's not the case, as the board has 200 members and nowhere on the Carter center site does it have a list that says whether any member is Jewish or not...

When it comes to the 14 who resigned, good bloody riddance to them. Seriously, now that I know of the good work the Carter center does around the world, for those 14 to resign cause his book wasn't a slavering tome of praise towards Israel shows them as being narrow minded arsewipes who the center are better off without...

Because if you don't that would mean you were just making base assumptions based on what you think the Jews probably do. Or what you heard they do. And that would be pretty awful.

Huh? I have no idea what yr going on about. Maybe you could explain whatever it is a bit more clearly?

[breakaleg]

115. I just finished the book yesterday and I also don't know what all of the fuss was about.

So I searched some old threads here were it was criticized. And from the many threads, I hardly came across anyone who actually read the book. Most just jumped on the bandwagon and criticized Carter based on the news reports out there.

I did go and read these criticism though. http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273 And after reading the book, I have to say that a lot of things were taken out of context, or had the Israeli slant, but weren't outright lies, as has been suggested.

And again, the entire book is written from his perspective and details his visits with various leaders, to various countries as he remembers them. There are certainly times when he appears to have a negative impression of Israel but those times are based on specific incidents and specific comments made by the people he was talking to. I'd hardly say that makes him anti-semitic.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. I'm hoping to finish it today...

It's a wet and miserable Saturday outside, so it's the best sort of day to settle down with a book :)

[TomClash]

79. You bet - cash is king

AIPAC and ADL are cash cows.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Here's why AIPAC is a hardline and conservative organisation...

"big tent" organisation? I'll call bullshit on that one. Maybe you'd like to point out any progressive policies that AIPAC have coz I haven't been able to find a single one....

AIPAC Runs Right

Whether AIPAC is good or bad for US foreign policy is a topic of enormous and vitriolic dispute, and one I plan to avoid here (though of course I have pretty strong views). Rather, what requires some attention is the right-wing takeover of the organization and its increasingly close relationship with the Republican Party.

Not long ago, an anonymous tipster with access to a member of AIPAC's board of directors passed along an e-mail with an inside story on just what has been happening behind the scenes. A few years ago, the source's boss, according to the e-mail, said that "he didn't like Rudolph Giuliani because Giuliani was "too conservative" for his taste. Immediately he got involved with AIPAC, he declared that he couldn't support Democrats anymore unless he absolutely had to, and he started hosting politicians such as Jim Bunning, Sam Brownback and Conrad Burns at our offices, because they are strongly "pro-Israel."

"AIPAC is committed to turning the country completely over to ultra-right-wing Republican control. I am sure it colludes with other organizations to make this happen," the source concluded.

He also forwarded a few e-mails sent on a "pro-Israel" mailing list, complaining about Democrats who voted against recent House and Senate resolutions supporting Israel in its war against Hezbollah. The e-mail notes, "Four Republicans. Nineteen Democrats . Now, tell me again which party you belong to...and why?

"Irrespective of your party affiliation, I urge you to join AIPAC and to get involved politically to help elect Senators and Representatives who support Israel and democracy around the world."

(The list was so sloppily compiled that it included Ernest Hollings, Gary Condit and Earl Hilliard. Senator Hollings left office two years ago, while Condit and Hilliard have been out of their seats for four years each.)

The shift is not exactly news. Back in March 2002, Michael Massing wrote this in The American Prospect: "During the 1980s, when AIPAC was establishing its reputation, policy was effectively set by four ex-presidents: Robert Asher, a lighting-fixtures dealer in Chicago; Edward Levy, a building-supplies executive in Detroit; Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, a scrap-metal dealer in Mobile, Alabama; and Larry Weinberg, a real-estate broker in Los Angeles (and a former owner of the Portland Trailblazers). Asher, Levy, and Mitchell were stalwart Republicans who raised huge sums for that party; Weinberg was a Scoop Jackson Democrat."

But its fruits have taken time to reveal itself, as AIPAC's Republican leanings have come closer to the forefront of the organization's actions. This past July, as Daniel Levy reported (again) in The American Prospect that when Democratic Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota voted against Resolution 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, one AIPAC official took a page out of Karl Rove's playbook and publicly accused her of supporting terrorists. The bill, as one might expect, doesn't exactly contain the provisions for crushing terrorism, since it was written to make it difficult for nongovernmental organizations--except those providing healthcare--to receive American funding, while denying US visas to members of the Palestinian Authority and prohibiting official US contact with Palestinian officials. It also ends all American funding for United Nations agencies that in any way directly assist the Palestinian Authority. In a rare instance of a Representative taking a case like this public, McCollum, a self-described "strong supporter of Israel and of a strong US-Israeli relationship," banned any representative of AIPAC from her office and published a letter about the incident in The New York Review of Books, demanding an apology.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061023/alterman

I also can't see why politicians who are left-wing would speak in glowing terms about such an organisation and can only come to the conclusion that there is something very wrong in US politics, coz this doesn't happen in other countries...

[oberliner]

70. Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Dean

All of these Democratic leaders have spoken at AIPAC-sponsored events. These men and women as some of the leaders of the Democratic party. As I mentioned, the two primary objectives currently of AIPAC, as stated on their website, are preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons (via economic and diplomatic pressure) and discouraging interaction with the Hamas-led Palestinian government until that organization recognizes Israel and commits to abiding to past agreements. These objectives, I would argue, are neither "progressive" nor "hardline conservative" on their face. They are, however, goals that are shared by the above-mentioned Democrats and large numbers of their constituents. Within AIPAC there are Republicans who would recommend one approach towards achieving these objectives and Democrats who would recommend other approaches.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. Did you read the link I gave you?

It's no good just repeating over and over that some Democrat politicians have spoken at their events when my question is WHY are they lowering themselves to speak at events run by a hardline organisation like that. Oh, and what you claim is merely 'discouraging interation with the Palestinian govt' is a hardline stance, and it's disgusting that any left-winger would support it. Because it goes way beyond discouraging interaction, but involves stopping aid to the Palestinian people...

Here's a letter to AIPAC from an American Democratic congressperson demanding an apology for the attack they launched on her. Big tent organisation, my arse...

A LETTER TO AIPAC

The letter below was sent by Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, to the executive director of AIPAC. The bill mentioned, H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, would place so many restraints on aid to the Palestinian people, and so many restrictions on the administration's ability to deal with the Palestinians, that even the State Department has opposed it. AIPAC has strongly backed it. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2237, would allow the administration far more flexibility. On April 6, the House International Relations Committee passed H.R. 4681 by a vote of 36 to 2; McCollum was one of the two nays. As of May 11, AIPAC has yet to respond to her demand for an apology.

—Michael Massing

April 10, 2006

Mr. Howard Kohr
Executive Director
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
440 First Street, NW; Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Kohr:

During my nineteen years serving in elected office, including the past five years as a Member of Congress, never has my name and reputation been maligned or smeared as it was last week by a representative of AIPAC. Last Friday, during a call with my chief of staff, an AIPAC representative from Minnesota who has frequently lobbied me on behalf of your organization stated, "on behalf of herself, the Jewish community, AIPAC, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum's support for terrorists will not be tolerated." Ironically, this individual, who does not even live in my congressional district, feels free to speak for my constituents.

This response may have been the result of extreme emotion or irrational passion, but regardless, it is a hateful attack that is vile and offensive to me and the families I represent. I call on AIPAC to immediately condemn this un-American attack and disavow any attempt to use this type of threat and intimidation to stifle legitimate policy differences. I will not stand to be labeled or threatened in a manner that questions my patriotism or my oath of office.

Last week, I did vote against H.R. 4681 during mark-up of the bill in the House International Relations Committee. As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution, and ensure the security of the US and represent the values and beliefs of the constituents who I serve, it was my view that H.R. 4681 goes beyond the State Department's current policies toward Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and potentially undermines the US position vis-à-vis the coordinated international pressure on Hamas. The language contained in S. 2237 accurately reflects my position.

Keeping diplomatic pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism, recognize the State of Israel, dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and honor past agreements and treaty obligations, while preventing a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people, are all policy goals already strongly supported by myself, the Bush administration, Congress and the American people. But, if the purpose of H.R. 4681 was to send another strong message to Hamas and the Palestinian people, as Congress already has sent with the passage of S. Con. Res. 79, then I disagree with the vehicle for that message. In my opinion, Congress should be articulating clear support for the Secretary of State's present course of action; not creating a new law which likely diminishes the diplomatic tools needed to advance US policy goals with regard to the Palestinian people, potentially cuts US funding to the United Nations, and largely restates current law while creating on-going and burdensome unfunded reporting requirements.

As you well know, in Congress we do not shy away from condemning the vile words of despots and dictators who use anti-Semitism as a weapon to incite hatred, fear and violence. AIPAC should not have a lower standard for persons affiliated and representing its organization when they label a Member of Congress who thinks for herself and always puts the interest of our nation and people first a supporter of terrorists.

You and your colleagues at AIPAC have the right to disagree with my position on any piece of legislation, but for an AIPAC representative to say that I would ever vote to support Middle East terrorists over the interests of my country will never be tolerated by me or the families I serve. This incident rises to a level in which a formal, written apology is required.

Mr. Kohr, I am a supporter of a strong US–Israeli relationship and my voting record speaks for itself. This will not change. But until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization I must inform you that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in my offices or for meetings with my staff.

Betty McCollum
Member of Congress
4th District, Minnesota
Washington, D.C.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19063

[oberliner]

118. it is a big tent organization

Not interacting with Hamas does not mean stopping humanitarian aid from reaching Palestinians. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has been committed to the destruction of the state of Israel since its inception.

Betty McCollum, the woman who wrote the letter to AIPAC that you cited, believes that Hamas should be isolated as they are a terrorist organization.

Here is an excerpt from her floor statement regarding the resolution that she voted against:

"The refusal of the political leadership of Hamas to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism, and agree to previous agreements and obligations of the Palestinian Authority is unacceptable and therefore they must continue to be isolated by the international community."

Also, she has since reconciled with AIPAC after a meeting with AIPAC's executive director regarding the issues raised in her letter.

I don't know how on the one hand you can chide me for repeating over and over the long lists of Democrats who have spoken positively about AIPAC and then say "Big tent organization, my arse".
Any organization that has featured such speakers as Gore, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and Dean in addition to Bush, Cheney, Brownback, Boehner, and McConnell is by definition a big tent organization.

[Violet_Crumble]

119. So you keep on saying, but you've shown nothing to support that...

Why is it that you ignored the link to the article about the right-turn that AIPAC have taken? Also, Democrat speakers at their events is not something that makes an organisation a 'big tent' organisation. It is a hardline organisation that, for some bizarre reason probably best answered by the complete weirdness of US politics, these pollies think they have to gain approval from to be successful in election campaigns...


Maybe you can answer these questions. If the answers are yes, then I'll revise my opinion that AIPAC are war-mongering hardline bastards...

Is AIPAC supportive of aid reaching the Palestinian people?

Can you show me a statement from AIPAC that shows support for a two-state solution where the Palestinian state is made up of the West Bank and Gaza?

It's not true that Pelosi was booed and hissed when she spoke at an AIPAC event because she dared to say she was opposed to the war in Iraq?

[oberliner]

120. Are you familiar with Ameinu?

First, in response to your questions:

1. Is AIPAC supportive of aid reaching the Palestinian people?

Direct humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is something that AIPAC supports. They do not, however, support providing non-humanitarian aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian governing authority.

They point out support for the fact that The United States—the single largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians—has increased to $245 million this year (2006) its support for the basic humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.

2. Can you show me a statement from AIPAC that shows support for a two-state solution where the Palestinian state is made up of the West Bank and Gaza?

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 which AIPAC aggresively lobbied for states:

(a) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States--

(1) to support a peaceful, two-state solution to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (commonly referred to as the `Roadmap')

3. It's not true that Pelosi was booed and hissed when she spoke at an AIPAC event because she dared to say she was opposed to the war in Iraq?

Some people booed her, some applauded. Some AIPAC members have very neocon-like views on the matter, others do not. The organization itself has not taken a position on the Iraq war.

I did read the article you linked and, as you may have noticed by my posts on other threads, I am disturbed by the apparent right-wing movement that AIPAC seems to be making.

Within AIPAC there are very right-wing elements but there are also many progressives.

Have you heard of Ameinu?

This group of progressives was very unhappy with Hagee's remarks and what they called the "hawkish shift" AIPAC presented at the recent conference.

Ameinu remains committed to working to make its voice within AIPAC heard, to help make this large advocacy group accountable to all of its members, not just its members on the right.

Have a look at their website:

http://ameinu.net/

[TomClash]

78. Money

Let me say it again - money.

This time I'll shout it - MONEY!

[oberliner]

81. John Edwards and Barack Obama received no money from any pro-Israel lobby group

Nancy Pelosi received $23,000 from pro-Israel lobby groups in the last elections cycle. That was out of $1.1 million in PAC money she received, including about $350,000 from labor union PACS.

Hillary Clinton received $35,000 from pro-Israel lobby groups in the last elections cycle. The total amount of campaign contributions she received that cycle was $51.5 million.

John Edwards and Barack Obama received no money from any pro-Israel lobby group in the last elections cycle.

[msmcghee]

82. Maybe they realize they . .

. . have not been pro-Israel enough in the past - and that's why they didn't get more of that sweet Israeli cash - so now they're really doing some heavy pandering just to prove to AIPAC that they are really worth the cash this time.

Or, maybe they purposely refused to accept more than a small amount so they can appear unbiased while they brazenly do all of Israel's bidding - maybe for some bigger predetermined payoff in the future.

:sarcasm:

That's the great thing about the votes-for-money accusation. It can be used however you want to use it - to smear any candidate. It just keeps on giving.

The only surprising thing is how easily (supposed) democrats can turn on Democratic candidates that show any sympathy or support for Israel.

[TomClash]

84. More likely . . .

it's how easy people who have no Democratic campaign experience misunderstand how US electoral politics works.

And by the way none of the cash is "Israeli."

[TomClash]

83. You define quite narrowly and deceptively

If you take on AIPAC, or criticize Israel, money from many jewish Democratic donors dries up. Your fundraising takes a huge hit.

Go to a John Edwards fundraiser in New York. Jews will make up at least 50% of the donors. Most, but not all, are ardently pro-Israel. If Edwards criticized Israel, many would choose another candidate.

Here's a WaPo proving my point: "In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17878-2003Mar12?language=printer

Money makes the world go 'round. :)

[oberliner]

85. hmmmm

So would it be fair to say that Democrats take positions that are pro-Israel due to the power and influence of wealthy Jewish donors?

[TomClash]

86. Oh here we go again

Here comes the canard. The antisemite card is about to be played. :eyes:

What is "fair?"

Money influences the decisions of candidates. Isn't that obvious?

[msmcghee]

87. I think the mods should add a rule to the IP forum . .

. . that you can't accuse someone of playing-the-antisemitism-card until they actually play it. Saying that they are getting ready to do so should be prohibited IMO. :sarcasm:

In fact, if such a rule were in play I suspect there would be very few accusations of playing-the-antisemitism-card. The few antisemitic statements that are posted here are deleted by the mods fairly quickly.

In this case though - I thought he was going to show how easily it is around here for a Democratic candidate to be accused of selling out their principles if they express sympathy or support for Israel. In the good old days we reserved such accusations for repukes.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[oberliner]

90. I did not accuse the poster of anti-semitism

Accusing someone of planning to accuse someone of anti-semitism does not seem particularly fair.

Especially in light of the fact that we have been discussing the I/P conflict now for some time in what I believe has been a respectful manner.

[breakaleg]

91. My post was not directed towards you. I have never seen you make any accusations

along those lines. The poster I was responding to knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

93. I'm not talking about a simple voicing of opinions and I think you know that.

And my post was meant to explain why you often don't the anti-semitism card played here. It's played elsewhere by the same people.

[pelsar]

94. that doesnt even make sense...

but i definiity enjoyed reading it:

let me translate in my understanding:

other people call some people anti semites in specific forum.....and if your a member of that forum then you too must agree with them...even though you never write it.(almost never)

i like it...can i use it too?

some people are actually anti semites here on the DU...breakaleg is a member of that forum and even though breakaleg nevers writes it, which explains why breakaleg doesnt often play that card

[breakaleg]

95. I can't even understand what you are trying to say. But I am sure you have no idea what I'm talking

about, so why not keep your comments to yourself in cases like this.

[msmcghee]

96. I don't think anyone knows what . .

. . you are trying to say. Did you read your own post?


"And my post was meant to explain why you often don't the anti-semitism card played here. It's played elsewhere by the same people."

[Englander]

98. That's it.

Subtle accusations, or insinuations are made here, & blatant & explicit accusations get posted
at the hate-site.

[breakaleg]

99. And yet no one here knows what I'm talking about. nt

[Englander]

104. Amazing, isn't it?

[oberliner]

103. And yet the poster I replied to was the one who brought up Jews

Not me.

And I still haven't gotten a response to my request for clarification on his remarks.

No accusations or insinuations were made regarding anyone being an antisemite.

[Englander]

105. Yeah, I know.

I wasn't referring to yourself, or anything you've posted.

[TomClash]

108. Well, now you have your response

Ok, perhaps I was hasty; I thought your comment was a prelude to such an attack - it has happened before to me and others who dare to question unequivocal support for Israel. I apologize for misinterpreting your remark.

[TomClash]

97. I was connecting dollars from donors

to support for Israel. It's nuanced. Without the dollars the support level would be less - that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Or do you really think Dem candidates support the human rights violations and occupation in the West Bank and Gaza?

[msmcghee]

100. I think most Dem candidates . .

. . feel that the occupation is the unfortunate result of several inter-related factors including the '67 War of course, Arab politics, the radical Islamist movement, virulent antisemitism and others. But the proximate and obvious cause is the rising level of vicious terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians from the disputed territories over the last 40 years.

No-one likes to see anyone's human rights violated - but at the same time most reasonable people (including most Dem politicians IMO) understand that Israel's enemies have spent many years and many Arabian oil dollars refining their attacks and methods against Israel so that the only way that Israel can successfully defend itself is through means that ultimately restrict the freedom of movement of the Palestinians in that area. While successful attacks have been largely quelled the terrorists do get the PR benefit of painting Israel as a brutal occupying force that enjoys the suffering of the Palestinians.

I suspect Israel sees that as the price it has to pay to save the lives of its citizens. Most democratic nations that have had terrorist attacks on their own soil (that's almost all of them these days) as well as most Dem politicians understand how hard it is for a free state to defend against terrorism. Terrorists use that personal freedom to their advantage.

It's no accident that ME states with large Islamic populations only exist under the protection of repressive regimes that limit the human rights of their citizens. Iraq lasted for several decades but look who ran it and the methods he used to retain his power.

For those reasons most objective reasonable people give Israel some leeway in these areas - to do what is necessary to defend itself - though not Carte Blanche. Israel is, after all a legal state, a member of the UN that provides human rights to its citizens and whose government is democratically elected. You and others here no doubt believe that Israel goes too far in defending its citizens' lives.

I would politely suggest that your concern for the plight of the Palestinians would be better directed at condemning the terrorists who make such a pervasive defense necessary - than it those who are forced to defend against their attacks.

[TomClash]

106. I would put it another way

Terrorism is word some people love to bandy about these days. They forget it is really an asymmetrical military tactic. Some people used terrorism at Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel and countless other places against another colonial occupier, a fact all too easily whitewashed from history.

Most reasonable and objective people outside of the United States believe the opposite of your thesis: the forty year occupation has produced terrorism in Israel and Palestine.

And what of the state terrorism of the occupier? Most objective and reasonable people reject the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian men, women and children when targeting the "terrorists," the frequent neighborhood bombing, however falsely "smart," the cutoff of essential supplies to Palestinian areas, the abject squalor in which Palestinians are forced to live.

Most reasonable and objective people outside of the United States reject the continued construction of settlements for forty years on Palestinian land, including the suburbs that ring Arab East Jerusalem, in violation of sundry UN Resolutions, as a policy of lebensraum designed to end the Palestinian problem another way.

Now why do most Democratic Presidential candidates fail to see what others on the Left around the world, including Israel, see all too clearly?

[msmcghee]

109. And I would find that view full of wishful thinking on your part . .

"Terrorism is word some people love to bandy about these days. They forget it is really an asymmetrical military tactic."

Asymmetrical military tactic? An asymmetrical military tactic implies that an army is attacking another army using unconventional tactics they are not prepared to defend against.

Terrorism is when an enemy purposely attacks civilian populations hoping to kill as many as possible - and thereby terrorize that civilian population. It is especially effective against democratic states where civilians elect their leadership and where successful attacks are more likely to be blamed on the incompetence of those elected leaders. Also where civil freedoms make such attacks relatively easier to carry out. I'd say referring to such practices as bombing school buses and cafes and markets where many civilians gather as asymmetrical military tactics is about as close as one could ever get to "whitewashing".

"Some people used terrorism at Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel and countless other places against another colonial occupier, a fact all too easily whitewashed from history."

Yes, there are sufficient examples going back in history for each side to justify whatever they wish - if justification for ongoing attacks against civilian populations is your thing. If so then, using an excuse that you find so potent in your own cause, I invite you to see the occupation as simply an extension of past wrongs - a vengeance for all those Palestinian terrorist attacks in the past (and those ongoing). If past wrongs are justification of present day Palestinian terrorism - then they should work just as well for Israel. So stop complaining about the occupation - everything Israel does is fully justified by past wrongs and Israel can now do nothing wrong in terms of the occupation or its tactics.

That was :sarcasm: of course. I don't justify vengeance or retaliation as a state policy. Israel's actions are defensive in nature as any objective look at the situation shows. You or no-one else in this forum has ever shown otherwise. But I invite you again to make your case. But why bother? You've already said that vengeance is OK by you when the Palestinians do it. Why can't Israel? Double standards again?

"Most reasonable and objective people outside of the United States believe the opposite of your thesis: the forty year occupation has produced terrorism in Israel and Palestine."

This bogus argument (that the occupation is the cause of the terrorism and not the other way around) has been thoroughly discredited in this forum several times and no-one but hard-core Islamists and their apologists believe it. Certainly no credible Dem politicians. But keep the faith. The faithful don't need facts and reality to base an opinion. If you are so sure that the rest of the free world shares this view I invite you to offer some evidence of that. But I'm really more concerned that my Dem candidates in the US retain a healthy respect for reality.

"Most reasonable and objective people outside of the United States reject the continued construction of settlements for forty years on Palestinian land, including the suburbs that ring Arab East Jerusalem, in violation of sundry UN Resolutions, as a policy of lebensraum designed to end the Palestinian problem another way."

You may be closer to the truth here. But it's a complex question that I'd prefer to withhold my opinion on since I don't completely understand it. I would note however that the PA has had the opportunity since R242 (1967-8) to finalize the borders with Israel and has rejected every opportunity - while using the excuse that any recognition of borders implies a recognition of the existence of Israel as a legal state in the ME - and also that such a recognition is incompatible with their plans to keep attacking Israeli civilians on the other side of that border in order to rid the ME of Jews. (You can refer to any of the latest pronouncements of Hamas on the matter.) For that reason I'm inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on the settlements and consider it an internal matter that Israelis need to deal with.

I am open to arguments against Israel's settlement policy that are based on what's the smart thing for Israel to do in its own interests. And I've heard some good ones in this forum. But like I said, I'm withholding my opinion.

"Now why do most Democratic Presidential candidates fail to see what others on the Left around the world, including Israel, see all too clearly?"

Now that's a very profound question that gets into my favorite area - beliefs. I won't write a small book for you right now on the subject but the summary is that beliefs determine behavior and strongest beliefs are the result of events that derive their emotional power from threats to one's survival - like 9/11.

The saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged is quite apt.

That event affected all Americans - politicians and voters - and created a new place for the midline in American politics considerably to the right of where it existed before that day esp. as regards ME terrorism - to the great dismay of the anti-Israel far left in the US. That line has started to shift back but for a long while a majority of Americans (those who elect our government) will continue to see terrorism as a real threat to their own and their families' lives and well-being (i.e. their survival) and will be voting according to those potent beliefs.

The Dems did not take control of congress because Americans agree with al Qaida or the Palestinian terrorists - they were elected to fight a smarter more nuanced war against terrorism, free of the political corruption and cronyism of the current administration that actually gives the terrorists an advantage. Fortunately most Dem voters and politicians understand this - unlike many in this forum. And most Dem candidates understand that Israel is a singularly important ally in that war that deserves our greatest support.

PS - If you want to continue this discussion let's address one point/issue at a time. I don't have time for these lengthy tomes in response to a barrage of arguments in every post.

[TomClash]

110. And I would find your views biased

Asymmetrical military tactic? An asymmetrical military tactic implies that an army is attacking another army using unconventional tactics they are not prepared to defend against.

Terrorism is when an enemy purposely attacks civilian populations hoping to kill as many as possible - and thereby terrorize that civilian population. It is especially effective against democratic states where civilians elect their leadership and where successful attacks are more likely to be blamed on the incompetence of those elected leaders. Also where civil freedoms make such attacks relatively easier to carry out. I'd say referring to such practices as bombing school buses and cafes and markets where many civilians gather as asymmetrical military tactics is about as close as one could ever get to "whitewashing".

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs called it an asymmetrical military tactic. At the Naval War College in Newport or the Army War College in Carlisle, it is often taught as an asymmetrical military tactic.

Are the Palestinians not a civilian population in fear when Israeli planes hit their neighborhoods? Is the use of force against teenagers throwing rocks a justifiable military tactic? And, by the way, if the Palestinians attack a convoy of soldiers or an Israeli army outpost, the press in the US calls this terrorism too.

I don't condone any war. Most political conflicts can be resolved without force. But it is foolhardy to think we are going to solve any political conflict by making a military tactic the enemy.

You make this argument because it suits your political view. But I doubt you would have made it in the 1940s when the Irgun and the Stern Gang were attacking the British. It suits your view because it deprives the Palestinians of any means to fight back, allowing Israel to grab more land. Like the US now, Israel is militarily strong, self-righteous, arrogant - and despised by much of the rest of the world.

This bogus argument (that the occupation is the cause of the terrorism and not the other way around) has been thoroughly discredited in this forum several times and no-one but hard-core Islamists and their apologists believe it. Certainly no credible Dem politicians. But keep the faith. The faithful don't need facts and reality to base an opinion. If you are so sure that the rest of the free world shares this view I invite you to offer some evidence of that.

Show me where the view that the occupation caused the Palestinian intifadas has been "thoroughly discredited" in this forum or anywhere else. Obviously, I don't mean the occupation caused terrorism worldwide - I would agree that argument is bogus - there are myriad reasons for terrorism. That's because terrorism is a military tactic and not some monolithic political force. And I suppose you are calling me a "Hardcore Islamist" here. That's a laughable comment and you should really retract it and apologize. It's way out of line.

You may be closer to the truth here. But it's a complex question that I'd prefer to withhold my opinion on since I don't completely understand it. I would note however that the PA has had the opportunity since R242 (1967-8) to finalize the borders with Israel and has rejected every opportunity - while using the excuse that any recognition of borders implies a recognition of the existence of Israel as a legal state in the ME - and also that such a recognition is incompatible with their plans to keep attacking Israeli civilians on the other side of that border in order to rid the ME of Jews. (You can refer to any of the latest pronouncements of Hamas on the matter.) For that reason I'm inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on the settlements and consider it an internal matter that Israelis need to deal with.

You're ducking the argument here. Recognition is a red herring. The PLO, which includes Fatah, explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist in the Declaration of Principles at Oslo in 1993 and got nothing in return. Israel still occupies the West Bank and continues settling Palestinian land. Indeed, the failure of Oslo and its progeny in part led to the Second Intifada. And the attacks on civilians in no way justify continued settlement of land which is in many cases closer to the attackers.

An internal matter? You must be kidding. Israel wants to expand - it's pretty obvious.

Now that's a very profound question that gets into my favorite area - beliefs. I won't write a small book for you right now on the subject but the summary is that beliefs determine behavior and strongest beliefs are the result of events that derive their emotional power from threats to one's survival - like 9/11.

The saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged is quite apt.

That event affected all Americans - politicians and voters - and created a new place for the midline in American politics considerably to the right of where it existed before that day esp. as regards ME terrorism - to the great dismay of the far left in the US. That line has started to shift back but for a long while a majority of Americans (those who elect our government) will continue to see terrorism as a real threat to their own and their families' lives and well-being (i.e. their survival) and will be voting according to those potent beliefs.

You know what? This is hilarious. 9/11 didn't really affect you or most other Americans. You probably weren't in NYC or DC. You probably watched it on TV. 9/11 was manipulated to produce a public fear for a variety of causes already on the shelf, like the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Homeland Security. That's the potent belief system for you - fear.

If you lump Palestinians in with Al Qaeda then there can be no peace in the ME and then maybe the Christian crazies are right - the end times are upon us.

[msmcghee]

111. Tom, based on your writing . .

. . I'd guess you are a pretty smart person. Most of the points you made in the last post have been hashed over here endlessly and I don't have time right now to indulge you in another pass through them.

Still, I respect your ability to remain generally respectful during a discussion. As long as that continues you'll find that I will respond in kind no matter how much we disagree. If you can reduce your argument to one main assumption upon which the rest of your assertions rest - I'd be happy to respond to it as best I can and go where it may lead us - in the interest of honest and informed debate.

[TomClash]

113. Fair enough

and I respect your viewpoint, especially in light of history. And there is plenty to criticize on the Palestinian side. But I still think that Israel gets a pass, which it once deserved and has now forfeited.

[msmcghee]

112. One more thing. You say my views are biased. Of course.

That's what views are. They derive from our beliefs. One's expressed views generally support one's beliefs and will be biased in that direction.

My beliefs regarding the underlying motives for this conflict on each side are different from yours on a fundamental level.

Those underlying beliefs are what we need to address for the discussion to be interesting IMO - if you wish to carry it forward.

[oberliner]

89. With all due respect

You were the one who brought Jews into this discussion, not me.

I just indicated that the amount of money pro-Israel lobby groups gave to those four Democrats was minimal to nothing.

In your post, you postulated that at a John Edwards fundraiser in New York, Jews would make up at least half of the donors.

In your post you claimed that most (but not all) Jews were ardently pro-Israel.

You were suggesting, were you not, that these Democrats are adopting pro-Israel positions as a result of Jewish supporters who are donating large sums of money to their campaigns, and who would, perhaps, withhold that support were the candidates to adopt less ardently pro-Israel positions?

If that is not a fair reading of your position then I apologize.

If this analysis is correct, then I would respectfully disagree and would suggest that Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi, and others present pro-Israel positions because they themselves actually hold those positions and that many Jewish Democrats donate sums of money to their campaigns for a variety of reasons, including their stance on that issue.

[TomClash]

107. With all due respect

This was your subject line: "Obama to offer pro-Israel views at Chicago gathering." Doesn't that have something to do with jews?

You make my response appear too cut and dried, black and white. Are there some candidates (Dodd, for one) who would probably be unequivocally supporting Israel regardless of campaign contributions? Sure. Are there other candidates who look at the money (Hillary, Edwards) and decide that a more balanced approach is not worth it, that criticizing Israel is a bad political move because it threatens their war chests? You bet.

I'm not entirely sure about Obama. Some of what he says in his AIPAC in support of Israel - his sympathy for the family hit by Katyushas, rebuilding the road to peace and striving for regional lasting security - is right. However, much of the rest of the speech was unbalanced and, in some cases, dubious. I have hope that he will articulate a more balanced view, but we'll see.

It is true that many jewish donors contribute for a wide variety of reasons - I never said otherwise. But if you articulate a more balanced view on the Middle East, some of that money dries up - one reason why Hillary's position changed right after she decided to run for the Senate. That pretty much is beyond dispute, IMHO.

On edit: one more thing - do you actually take the position that campaign contributions have no effect whatsoever on whether cnadidates support Israel?

[Dover]

73. Adding this post here, due to the additional links on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x168786