You mean, something like when Protestant Churches’ leaders wrote a letter to every Congressman several months ago (Oct-2012) calling for review of US aid to Israel where - among other things - it says:
And then a number of Jewish organizations (ADL, AIPAC, JStreet etc.) attacked these churches and the signatories as in “how dare you promoting ideas I don’t like”? not seeing the irony - as they probably don’t see themselves as made-up authority - of having the agents of a foreign state rebuking American Protestant Churches (who apparently no longer invite respect as they used to) for simply communicating their opinion and concern to their elected representatives.
No.
Rather obviously, the issue is that your fellow travelers attempt to shout down dissent by alleging treachery on the part of their opponents (and a Zionist Conspiracy to explain why oh why Americans don’t all agree with your anti-Israel positions). That is nothing like groups debating an issue in the public sphere.
Do you honestly not comprehend that?
You named one single Jewish organization. AIPAC and JStreet are most certainly not Jewish organizations, they’re political organizations and include plenty of gentiles in their ranks. But thank you for providing yet more evidence that some people are simply unable to comprehend the difference between “having to do with Israel” and “Jewish”. JStreet, by the way, is the ‘liberal’ counterbalance to AIPAC. But both earn your ire. Funny, that. Oh, and by the way? The actual quotes from your article show that there was definitely debate on the issue, but the churches’ leadership was not accused of being Arab agents, or having Dual Loyalty, or what have you.
People disagree with your position, newcomer. You must be being persecuted. It’s exactly the same as trying to slander and shout down people who support Israel by alleging that they’re engaging in ethnic-based, or International Zionist-directed, treachery. Why, indeed, exactly the same.
So, American Jews (and gentiles who happen to be Zionists, who you still call Jewish because, well, who knows why you do what you do…) who have opinions that are counter to yours, they’re foreign agents messing with real, honest American Protestant Churches. Let me repeat that. Everybody, from an umbrella group for Conservative rabbis in America to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and others? They you allege are foreign agents. But Christians who disagree with them? Dab gum, sure, those are American Protestant Churches. Why, it’s almost like in your view, Jews are outsiders in their Host Nations and they should know better than to have contrary opinions to American Protestant Churches, lest we doubt not only their patriotism but their very loyalty to their homeland, family and friends who live in said homeland. And, of course, you’re now referring to the religious leadership councils of several Jewish organizations, including the JCPA… as having “made-up authority.”
Did you even bother to read your cite? Re-read the Rabinnic Assembly’s statement and try to puzzle out why there may be a ‘loss of respect’ going on.
But it is quite interesting, as you’ve now couched your claims in verbiage about the “Jewish organizations” who are “agents of a foreign state” and hold “made-up authority”, as opposed to the good “American Protestant Churches”, and who aren’t showing the proper “respect” to those good “American Protestant Churches.”
Two discussions in this thread:
[ul]
[li]whether the AIPAC exerts undue pressure, (as opposed to being one more voice among many in a typical democratic republic)[/li][li]whether it is a legitimate claim that some number of U.S. citizens (greater than a couple of hundred*) genuinely hold dual loyalty or place loyalty to Israel above their loyalty to the U.S.[/li][/ul]
Each of those theses needs to have evidence provided to support them. I have not yet seen any.
In a nation of over 300 million, one can find a few hundred people to hold nearly any view.
Try reading that again when you are not too sleepy or otherwise impaired to understand it. If it is too much effort, I will re-word it:
Democracy is impaired by false cries (or insinuations) of “treason.”
The cries and insinuations of treason are false.
The false nature of those claims exacerbates the situation in which democratic action is impaired.
I am not sure what your link was supposed to start. It pretty much put nails in the coffin of the crowd claiming excessive influence especially in regards to a claim of the desire for excessive influence:
Here you have the pundit Rosenberg and the AIPAC director Dine agreeing with each other that Jewish Americans are Americans, first.
Does it have to be AIPAC in particular or can it be the Israel lobby in general? Surely there’s nobody here who’s going to dispute that the Israel lobby is very powerful in America?
Let’s include political donations in that. New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community. If you’re running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them.
Only those of us who comprehend basic logic. Correlation is not causation. If any if the various groups which lobby for various positions on Israel (there is no The Israel Lobby) have their positions mirrored in policy, you first need to determine that that’s via their action. Since polls reliably and consistently show that the US electorate is pro Israel, you actually need to do more than insinuate knowingly that The Lobby is pulling th strings rather than politicians going with an overwhelmingly popular position among their constituents.
Can you?
Yah, imma call bullshit rapidly followed by, cite?
Give proof that Jews represent a significant enough revenue stream for pols that they become an essential block to woo. Provide specific campaign contribution figures. Give proof that among those Jews who do donate, Israel is a primary political concern for a statistically significant percent which politicians cannot afford to lose funding from. Your claim that Israel is the single most important political concern for thousandsof Jews you have never met is not probative. Provide statistics and campaign contribution figures.
OK, there are various groups that lobby for Israel. Let’s look at the peace process. For the past couple of decades the general consensus among those organisations who lobby for Israel is that there can be no daylight between Israel and America. When Obama wanted a settlement freeze he was told that public disharmony between the two countries didn’t help the situation resolve itself. Israel is now increasing building and Obama is saying nothing about the only issue he seriously disagreed on Israel over. So who won that argument?
Also, too. Israel is, unbelievably, shifting even further to the right. The new playa in Israeli politics is a guy who publicly calls for the West Bank to be annexed. I’d like to get you on record now. If this becomes official or de facto Israeli policy in the future, do you agree with it and as an American do you think the American government should oppose this illegal act?
The second paragraph of mine was a direct quote from an Orthodox rabbi. From here :
“New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,” he said. “If you’re running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them.”
and
Tonight’s event is the first time any of the 2008 candidates have competed for attention in the same room since they launched their campaigns in earnest. It is also an important illustration of just how much stock all of the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, will put in the pro-Israel community, particularly for campaign dollars.
Go figure, neither proof nor retraction, along with what has now become a defining characteristic of your arguments; once you’re beaten on the facts, you retreat to your “Awww shucks, who me? T’aint nuthin’ nobody can prove ‘bout nuthin’, guess I reckon folks is gunna have to make up their own minds.”
Speaking of which:
Actually, Dick, being able to prove your position is kinda how one would go about measuring if that position is supportable. That’s kinda basic. Further, your attempt to bring it to an issue of “credibility” is simple ad hominem spew. The issue doesn’t come down to “credibility” (unless you honestly do want to claim that you’re a psychic and can read the minds of thousands of people you’ve never met, spoken to or know anything about other than that they’re Jewish and rich). No, Dick, your standard retreat reveals, as it always does, that you have nothing in your argument but bullshit, and you need some sort of popularity contest to make up for the fact that you can’t actually support any of your claims, at all.
Basic logic yet again, Dick. As recent as a few years ago, support for the US stepping in penalize Israel for continued settlement construction were only hovering near 50% with the explicit provision that such stopped construction would be part and parcel of the peace process. There is correlation between a lack of support for the US forcing a settlement freeze and the President not having enough political clout to get it done. Yet again, prove your point with actual facts and not your pattern of innuendo and ominous whispering.
Good for you, Dick! You found a Token Jew, and you used him as a Gotchaya! too. That was so clever of you. And to say not a word about a veteran 30 year political operator political experience and mention only how very Jewy and Rabbiey he is? You are truly generous to restrain the full potent force of your well crafted argument by diverting attention to the man’s ethnic faith, and his ordination that’s so fresh that the ink is still wet, and away from his actual qualifications to speak about politics. Very giving of you.
Oh and, by the way Dick? Let’s look at your Token Jew’s track record on prognostication about American Jewry, shall we? I won’t even pretend his quotes are my own words. [
But, no, your gambit is still uninspiring. “But but but, my Token Jew said it about Jews, we have to accept it” does not fly. You provided the claim, pretending it was your own words by the way.
Now give proof.
Or retract.
But if you’d simply like to cling to your story about how Rich Jews care more about Israel than any other issue at all, and they can override a President’s decisions that are popular and would require no expenditure of political clout, simply by virtue of being such very wealthy Jews who put Israel at the very forefront of all their political concerns?
Knock yourself out.
That’s all good, you can post your version of the facts and I can post mine and people can judge which set they prefer. I feel I’m on fairly safe ground saying that the Israel lobby is really powerful in America. Another way of looking at that poll is that voters who expressed a preference decided by more than a two to one majority that Israel should freeze settlemt construction.
And I see you’re dodging answering whether you’ll continue to support Israel if/when they eventually annex the West Bank.
Here’s another token Jew, the owner of Harretz :
The term “apartheid” refers to the undemocratic system of discriminating between the rights of the whites and the blacks, which once existed in South Africa. Even though there is a difference between the apartheid that was practiced there and what is happening in the territories, there are also some points of resemblance. There are two population groups in one region, one of which possesses all the rights and protections, while the other is deprived of rights and is ruled by the first group. This is a flagrantly undemocratic situation.
Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions. Zevulun Hammer, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of the National Religious Party, and Ariel Sharon, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of Likud, were only two of many. Now Avigdor Lieberman, too, is following this path, but there were and are others, such as the late Hanan Porat, for whom the realization of this ideology was and remains the purpose of their political activity.
This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization. It has no difficulty with illegal actions and with outright criminality, because it rests on mega-laws that it has adopted and that have no connection with the laws of the state, and because it rests on a perverted interpretation of Judaism. It has scored crucial successes. Even when actions inspired by the Gush Emunim ideology conflict with the will of the government, they still quickly win the backing of the government. The fact that the government is effectively a tool of Gush Emunim and its successors is apparent to everyone who has dealings with the settlers, creating a situation of force multiplication.
This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir (who said lying was permissible to realize the Gush Emunim ideology. Was Benjamin Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan University speech a lie of this kind? ). Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.
Whatever the reason for this state of affairs - the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West’s relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology - the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid.
Interesting to see him use the term “Jewish lobby”. It’s a good job he isn’t trying to be confirmed for a US cabinet post or he’d be smeared as an antisemite. Anyway, lots more about Israeli apartheid and lawlessness at the link.
Seriously though if Israel annexes the West bank and writes off any chance of a two-state solution are you still going to support it?
The pro-Israel side won. But it’s also worth considering that Israel had the facts on its side. Recall that at the United States’ behest Israel agreed to a 10 month settlement freeze with the idea of spurring direct peace talks with the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs refused to have the peace talks for about 9 months, then entered the direct peace talks at the last minute and demanded that the settlement freeze be extended in order to have further talks.
So it would have been reasonable for the Obama administration to conclude that the Palestinian Arab leadership was not serious about having direct peace talks – they were simply trying to get an indefinite settlement freeze without giving anything at all in return. This is also a slap in the face to America so it’s reasonable for Obama’s people to conclude that there’s nothing to be gained by opposing Israeli settlement building.
Why is that so unbelievable? Israel is unrelentingly attacked from the Left and Israeli Jews are surely smart enough to notice this.
I realize that this question is not addressed to me, but I will answer it anyway:
I totally support Israeli annexation of the West Bank, the birthplace of Judaism, as soon as the demographics are there.
America should support it too.
I am not aware of any law Israel would be violating by annexing what used to be known as Judea and Samaria If you think there is some law which prohibits it, I challenge you to cite it, chapter and verse.
Congratulations, Dick. You just found out that Amos Schocken’s politics are slightly to the left of Che Guevara. That makes you, like, the 7,000,001st person to discover this, right after the entire population of Israel.
(And no, I’m not implying in any way that Shocken is some sort of traitor or “self-hating Jew”. He’s just a guy whose politics I disagree with. As far as I know, he loves this country as much as I do).
(Oh, and I’ll conceded that Israelis occasionally refer to AIPAC and similar organizations as “the Jewish Lobby”, but that still doesn’t make it any less of a misnomer. Israelis really don’t know that much about the American Jewish community).
Pathetic, but expected.
Not only do you have nothing at all, you know it. If you want to post bullshit with zero factual or logical support and then not only pretend that you provided facts, but also deliberately ignore any and all factual or logical reputations? Maybe you consider confining your posts on this topic to IMHO, seeing as how you are either unable or unwilling to engage in honest debate.
Naturally you are trying to change the subject (hint this thread isn’t about bombastic bullshit claims of “apartheid”). And naturally, as is your pattern, you have again offered an Israeli/Jewish opinion as if I was gospel. And you are not fooling anybody that you’re playing straight, nobody reading along thinks you actually value Israeli or Jewish sources on their own, only that as soon as they say something anti Israel, you can’t wait to quote them. Nobody here with the brain believes that you would just as uncritically vomit up quotes from israeli journalists or pundits or what have you, if they disagreed with you.
But please, post more unsubstantiated opinions from Token Jews, whose Jewyness you are sure to highlight. That and about the thousands of Jews whose minds you can read (what with Israel being their primary concern despite that it never rising anywhere near that position in polls of American Jews). and whose political contributions are known to you despite a total and complete inability or unwillingness to cite any facts at all.
Also ignore all the errors in your bullshit, like your Jewy orthodox Jewy rabbi’s track record of electoral analysis, that what luck, you just happened to change the subject from.
*" It’s one of the oldest canards in American politics — the claim that Jewish Americans are single-issue voters whose support goes to those candidates with the most hawkish views on Israel…
…Seventy percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. The result is in line with the 74 percent support he received in 2008, and the 70 percent average support Democratic presidential candidates have received since exit polling began in 1972…
Campaigns to shift Jewish votes over Israel don’t work because the overwhelming majority of Jewish voters say the economy, not Israel, is their top electoral concern, followed by health care, Social Security and Medicare. Turns out that Jewish Americans have the same voting concerns as all other Americans."*
It would be correct to say that for a small minority of American Jews, including some influential ones, Israel is a paramount concern. And some of them are effective at lobbying, a process open to anyone with differing views and money to spend (and opponents have lots of cash at their disposal). The point that the Evil Lobby proponents don’t want to address is that a viewpoint that resonates with the American public is easier to promote.
In general, politicians who lack guts and vision (excuse the redundancy) and embrace “safe” positions that currently have popular support and can more readily gain campaign contributions are far more of a problem than Evil Lobbies. That goes for any major issue that you care to name.
Well Jack, we have our facts and Dick has his telepathy.
Obviously the only fair thing to do in a Great Debate is be Fair and Balanced and say we just can’t decide between facts and things Dick dreams up about wealthy Jews who value Israel above all other political concerns and who vital enough to political funding that politicians simply must court them and betray their own values in order to do so.
Your eloquence reminds of those mouth-breather cowards one can hear on fight videos who encourage and constantly egg-on during the fight and who go off berserk and foam-mouthed when a big guy has some qualms of beating some tiny dude. Somehow, I always expect that big guy to turn around and knock-off the a-hole but, I realize pretty quickly, that would be too poetic for real world.
In short, your contribution to this thread not a pretty sight.
You can put as many facts as you want - a reference to an actual event that took place and actual words uttered by people and actual outcomes it appears that facts like those do not count because, apparently, there is something always wrong with them. And, as always, there is a counter explanation that is designed to counter conclusion that one might arrive at if relying on your facts. It’s logic that says – yeah, you have your facts but I have another set of facts that nullifies your facts therefore your facts don’t count.
This discussion method has a consequence that makes otherwise capable men in judging right from wrong to end up with total inability to make a judgment call about interference in US – everyone agrees interference is there – the struggle is to “demonstrate” that political outcomes with such interference are negative.
The only way to think about this is like having an abused wife being regularly beaten – and “loved” too – who even when she’s putting a cold steak under her eye she mutters “I know he loves me.”
Newcomer?
Dick steadfastly has refused to provide any facts, at all. He’s not provided a single instance of a position AIPAC took that was in contradiction to what’s popular among the electorate, and still got it passed. When it was pointed out that the one issue he could bring up was an example of how the President’s position was unpopular with the electorate and was dropped, he deliberately ignored context in order to claim that, well, if we neglect what the poll actually showed, then we can play Make Believe and just claim that Americans really do support Obama’s abandoned policy. He has ignored each and every factual refutation and attempted to change the topic. When it was pointed out that his Jewish Jewy JewJew source for his claim about Jewish political contributions wasn’t an authority at all, he changed the subject… to “apartheid”. He was unable to provide any statistics about how very valuable Jewish political contributions are. He was unable to provide any statistics, at all, to back up his claim that Israel is the first-and-foremost concern for thousands of wealthy Jewish New Yorkers. Because, of course, his claims are 100% fictional and the product of his imagination. Not that I’m going to hold my breath thinking that he’ll admit that he’s wrong, even when confronted with hard data.
In fact, all Dick did provide was a pair of opinions. Other people’s opinions. We deal with facts in GD, newcomer. Not opinions. Dick is entitled to his own opinion, of course, but he knows he’s utterly bankrupt factually and logically, which is why he needs this absurd nonsense about how “he has his facts, and the rest of reality has its facts, and we just have to agree to disagree.” He doesn’t have his own facts. He, like you, has an argument typified by unreasoning and unreasoned anti-Israel bias that is utterly unsupportable on factual or logical grounds. Which is why you rely on Conspiracy Theories about the Mossad and 9/11 and Dick reliably and predictably retreats to claims that somehow he has separate, magic facts all his own that can compete with, ya know, reality. And gosh darn, we just can’t choose between what exists and what Dick dreams up, so we need to put it to a vote of a popularity contest.
No, not everybody agrees that “interference” is there. What you’re referring to is the dogma among your fellow travelers that there must, simply must be enemy action going on. Why, otherwise, everybody would agree with you! So the Zionists simply must be doing nefarious stuff behind the scenes. What you’re feeling now, the urge to lash out in frustration and annoyance at those proving you wrong? That’s cognitive dissonance. Ride through that, and try to realize that since you have zero facts, and since you cannot support your position at all with anything other than innuendo and supposition, you must retract your claims. It’s the basic rule for properly using your facilities of reason for any issue. The fact that your argument’s logical processes disintegrate when the subject under discussion is Israel is neither here nor there. Epistemology is epistemology is epistemology. The rules don’t shift because, damnit, you just KNOW that your opinions on Israel are true!