Why isn't there a strong and well established left wing version of AIPAC

[UndertheOcean]

I say if you can't beat them , join them .

Maybe there is , but are not getting much money and support ?

[timtom]

1. AIPAC is all about total control

in the most big brotherly way.

And that's a position completely antithetical to the true progressive.

[leftofthedial]

2. There is.

It's called the PLO.

[kaygore]

29. LOL!

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. I think there's a relatively new group called "J street" or something like that.

Pro-Israel, but not pro-Likud Zionwacko.

[tabasco]

4. Money.

The super-rich want to become as monarchs, so they finance the reich wing.

[liam_laddie]

5. Anti-AIPAC

Try this group <http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us> Promotes a balanced approach: pro-two-state, pro-peace, pro-Israel but certainly an antidote to AIPAC.

[TahitiNut]

6. Tikkun Magazine, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and the Network of Spiritual Progressives ...

... does a good job (imo) of presenting a balanced, positive, liberal perspective regarding I/P issues.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. J-street, I believe it's called.

http://www.jstreet.org/

[LeftishBrit]

8. Isn't there one called J-Street?

You might also be interested in www.allmep.org, and some of the organizations listed under that umbrella.

[Canuckistanian]

9. There's no Defence money in it

AIPAC is all tied into defence companies, contractors and warmongers.

We don't have any of those.

[aquart]

10. Hamas missiles always miss you?

Veer to the right, do they?

[Canuckistanian]

12. Meaning what?

Are there left-wing companies that make missiles for Hamas?

[sandyd921]

11. Here's another group:

Jewish Voice for Peace. Not well-funded, but fighting the good fight.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

[mmonk]

13. There is Peace Now.

http://www.peacenow.org/

[Coffee and Cake]

14. There is a "left-wing" version. Its called AIPAC

You are seriously mistaken if you think AIPAC is a right/left issue. They are a very powerful lobbying group that reaches across the aisle to both parties, including many Democrats.

[EFerrari]

15. AIPAC is a right wing group with little or no support on the left.

That political elites may support them is another matter.

[Coffee and Cake]

21. Lol....seriously?

You are in denial if you think AIPAC has no support from the left. Kucinich doesn't bend to their wishes, but they have plenty of support from the Democrats. Your attempt to turn this into a "right/left" issue is dishonest.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/03/17/aipac-democrats-give-bush-free-hand-to-attack-iran/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/the-harman-aipac-wiretaps/
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-23.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/AIPAC'S_Dangerous_Grip.html

[EFerrari]

23. Not at all. You mistake some Democrats for "the left". n/t

[Coffee and Cake]

24. The same argument could be said about the right

That you mistake the Republicans for "the right".

Again, making AIPAC into a left/right issue is dishonest in order to polarize a serious issue.

[EFerrari]

25. No, the same argument can't be made for the right at all.

Their think tanks spend time and money gratifying AIPAC in a big way.

And your attempt to normalize AIPAC's right wingery is what we call the "Fox News Fallacy".

I don't need to polarize anything. AIPAC already has. But thanks for calling me dishonest. :)

[Coffee and Cake]

28. Learn to read. I never called you dishonest.

I said that making this into a left/right issue is dishonest, since many on the left and many on the right support AIPAC.
AIPAC enjoys deep bipartisan backing inside Congress.

BTW, having Democratic Members spiking a bill that would have gave George Bush sole power to start a pre-emptive war against Iran is not "Fox News Fallacy".

[EFerrari]

32. No, AIPAC "enjoys" the support of the political elite.

AIPAC does not enjoy the support of the left.

Similarly, the left did not support Bush fronting PNAC's plan to attack Iran although some "Democratic" politicians did. That's a very clear instance of the Faux News Fallacy -- using the Beltway succubi to claim bipartisan support. Thanks.

[Coffee and Cake]

37. So is Obama one of those "Democrats" ?

As early as 2004, Obama favored the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program.

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

[EFerrari]

40. You are linking to antiwar? If he said that, then yes.

In what universe is Obama not one of the political elite?

[Coffee and Cake]

43. Is there something about anti-war that I should be aware of?

Perhaps I a misreading you, but you seem skeptical of a link from anti-war

[EFerrari]

44. You might check with the mods. I was under the impression

those links weren't welcome here.

Regardless, Obama is in the category of politicians who don't buck the establishment. Similarly, he went to speak to CANF in Florida as his first big outing to talk to a Hispanic group and unfortunately he chose a wealthy but right wing reactionary anti-Castro exile group who has been quite active in funding terrorism both here and in Cuba. (I can only hope he wasn't aware of their history as much as he was aware of the depths of their wallets.)

So, even if Obama is a Democratic president, he doesn't reflect the actual left in many respects.

[LeftishBrit]

46. Yes - that it is a RW-libertarian site

The name sounds liberal, but they are explicitly descendants of the old-style isolationists, who opposed 'foreign wars' because they thought wars increased the power of the government (originally meaning FDR's government), rather than on pacifist or humanitarian grounds. Their writers include people like Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts.

We should welcome all opposition to the war; but we should not be tempted to accept RW philosophies, or join hands to their proponents.

[UndertheOcean]

16. They are leftist like Stalin was leftist , you mean ?

[Coffee and Cake]

22. No, I mean that they get plenty of support from the left

Including the politicians.

[EFerrari]

26. So what prominent lefties can you name that still support AIPAC?

That train left the station long ago.

Most lefties like myself who supported Israel from its inception have long ago stopped supporting AIPAC. Who is still supporting them? And please don't bother to name elected Dem leaders because they support their own position and will do whatever is necessary, like all politicians, to maintain it.

[Coffee and Cake]

31. Besides Kucinich, what other Dem's don't toe AIPACs desires?

Or are most Democrats not "lefties". Since you don't want to bring in Democratic leaders that support AIPAC, is it safe to say that majority of Democrats are not "lefties"?

[EFerrari]

33. You are avoiding my question, aren't you? You say there is support

for AIPAC on the left. Who are these people?

[Coffee and Cake]

34. Not avioding your question since you completely ruled out Democratic Polticians

You are putting contingencies on who is "left" and who is not. So, that is why I asked you if you consider Democrats who toe AIPAC's line as "lefties"

[EFerrari]

36. The problem is, if the only supporters on the left that can be found

are people like Nancy Pelosi who has a career to protect, it really can't be claimed that she is supporting AIPAC as someone on the left.

Include anyone you want to include. I don't see broad support for AIPAC on the left at all. I see mechanical support for them from politicians who have something to lose. You won't find many discussion groups of lefties organized around supporting AIPAC. You won't find media or entertainment types coming out to support them very much at all. Who does that leave, exactly?

We didn't leave AIPAC. AIPAC left us when they turned to the right and to militarization.

[Coffee and Cake]

38. I understand your position. The Democratic Party is not accurately reflective

of the left's position regarding AIPAC. The same probably could be said for the Iraq War.

I do agree with you that the AIPAC has more support from the Democrats in Washington than they do with people who align themselves with the left.

[EFerrari]

41. Exactly. And the Beltway people aren't exacty without self interest. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. The big problem about figuring who has ties to AIPAC is that they don't contribute directly

but through a bunch of small PACs.

[EFerrari]

42. That's a very good point, OSO. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. I just went to opensecrets.org and it seems that pro-Israel PACS dontated

about $300,000 more this past election cycle to Dems ($1,702,176) than Repukes ($1,416,151).

There are 32 PACs altogether, and if you go into each individual PAC and click on recipients you can see who received what.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q05&cycle=2008

[H2O Man]

17. In the past,

AIPAC did appeal to both liberal and conservative people in the USA. But during the Reagan-Bush era, it developed a right-wing intelligence branch, which changed the nature of it, from a lobbying group, to an entity that represents the interests of a foreign nation.

[mmonk]

18. And people seem to know little about it

despite recent events.

[EFerrari]

27. Even that is at issue. They seem to represent the interests

of those who profit from the militarization of Israel. I'm no expert on AIPAC or Israel but when you think about it, those who profit from AIPAC activity are entities who profit from the defense industry more or less.

[H2O Man]

30. Sure.

They definitely are now. Early on, while they certainly attracted a number of right-wing people (and likely that includes those you note), there were many people who were liberal, who also were advocates for Israel, and were dues-paying AIPAC members. What was once at very least a somewhat good lobby, became a vehicle for very right-wing neoconservatives, as well as people involved in weapons trade.

[EFerrari]

35. Sometimes it feels like I've been sleepwalking through history.

Last time I really paid attention, AIPAC was a necessary and valuable organization. But as you say, during the Raygun administration, something happened, to quote Heller. I was raising kids and in grad school through that time and also through the time of Bush the Elder.

It has been very heartening, though, to look for sanity in Israel, for the peace and reconciliation activists and organizations. AIPAC's days are numbered. The people know better. They know they deserve better policy and they care about their generations. This organization may stay around a while here but, imho, the people here and there will soon make them obsolete. It's hard to deter a people when they see a right and decide to pursue it.

[cali]

19. you want a strong and well established counter to AIPAC? Contribute to J Street

and help build it.

http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us

[UndertheOcean]

20. Thank you .