Indeed, the author of that Al-Jazeera piece is MJ Rosenberg, who not only once worked as editor for AIPAC’s newsletter, but later, as an aide to Sen. Carl Levin, he got to witness firsthand the wrath that rains down when any U.S. politician is in any way critical of Israeli policy. (Here’s a very good must-read followup to that must-read article, contrasting that early experience with what AIPAC has (d)evolved into.)
But if Rosenberg is a bit too extreme for you, Jeffrey Goldberg is a journalist who makes a lot of sense to me.
These are useful cites and links. When I have made similar points in the past, there’s a whole lot of resistance going on, to what is almost irrefutable. Why is that do you think?
Come to think of it, the American prohibition on discussing why there are special rules for Israel has infected even this board. I wish they’d relax that rule.
AIPAC website has it all clearly spelled out why –
Is there anything more truthful that the above? Not even Canada comes this close :o
It’s the money in all its forms. Simply put, US Government is the service for foreign rulers, both “evil” ones and “angel” that offers verbal, written and weapon-assisted influence for foreign rulers to get things done. The more money you invest, more value you can expect. AIPAC simply is not ashamed to invest much, much more than all the others. Average Joes cares about the job and Wall Mart prices. Beyond that, nah - unless, of course, Joe happens to be Evangelist b/c an Evangelist has a meekly delusional interest in making sure all Jews are in Israel, “secure”.
Just one simple example – AIPAC takes credit from ensuring that in these “turbulent” times when US is cutting services left and right and trying to reduce debt, they made sure that three point something billions goes untouched. I mean, you would expect them not to at least brag about it. Or, to be even more rational, “allow” for a symbolic cut as their BFF is trying to get of the hole. It’s all actually quite bizarre.
All in all, I don’t think there’s prohibition on discussing this as much as sincere bewilderment of legislative body along the lines of “How’s us doing what we are paid to do strange to you?”
I’m not sure why felt the need to highlight the names “Rosenberg” and “Goldberg”. Were you trying to argue that criticism of AIPAC must be legitimate if Jews are doing it.
Moreover, you don’t help your case by citing Jeffrey Goldberg. He has ridiculed people for exaggerating and misunderstanding AIPAC.
The article where he criticizes them is for closely aligning with the political right in the US.
Now, no one would deny that AIPAC is influential nor that they don’t engage in the demonization games or pressure tactics that all lobbies engage in.
However, there are lots of lobbies that are vastly more powerful, most notably the AARP.
For that matter, nobody talks about how powerful the Cuban-American lobby is yet not that long ago, they forced the PM of Israel to call up a US Congresswoman and grovel before her after he praised Fidel Castro’s condemning anti-Semitism.
I’ve resisted commenting on most of the counter-factual nonsense here, but between your italicizing Jewish names (gotta have Token Jews to shore up a position, after all) and your rather bizarre errors, I might as well comment.
The… “wrath”. “Wrath” that “rains down”. Truly chilling!
Wait, let’s look at what actually happened, shall we? Levin, along with 29 other senators, many of whom were staunch supporters of Israeli policy, wrote a letter criticizing Likud in a specific political situation. This criticism was, in fact, endorsed by the head of AIPAC. And when there was a negative reaction to it, it didn’t come from “The Lobby”, but rather, in Rosenberg’s own words "from outraged donors, constituents, and “pro-Israel” organizations. ". Sounds like a pretty broad base, there.
Then an Israeli governmental official came to Levin’s office and made some sort of un-named threats… at which point he was thrown out by Levin’s chief of staff. The US president’s reaction at the time was to, well, praise Levin.
The conclusion?
And this is the picture of “wrath” that “rains down” on the US government and keeps them cowed and in line? Are you joking? Just how serious was the backlash against Levin, in Rosenbarg’s own words? “since then he has been re-elected four times.”
Will, at least a language columnist at the Times got all upset. Rosenberg tells us that Safire was “the most influential New York Times columnist”, so now we know for sure that The Lobby is a true leviathan of influence and power, they can wrap your knuckles for a dangling participle!
Surely, this is the red meat we’ve all been waiting for, that will reveal the overbearing, possibly perfidious influence of AIPAC and will reveal, one and for all, what the true issue is.
Which, as we’ve learned, were tactics so diabolical and lethally effective that Levin was re-elected… four times. But, certainly, you’ve got some some evidence squirrled away somewhere. Rosenberg, of course, assures us that AIPAC is simply a puppet of the Israeli government… except when they’re not.
Well, surely Rosenberg has some sort of proof of the dastardly, overbearing impact AIPAC has, right?
Or is it, perhaps, as Rosenberg himself tells us, that donors, constituents and lobbying groups all have a very strong point of view and will make it known if their representatives displease them? Could it be that public opinion has, consistently, stayed on Israel’s side and Americans tend to see the Palestinian government and/or factions in a negative light? That groups ranging from donors to Jewish groups to pro-Israel groups to think tanks to lobbying groups to Christian fundamentalists all support Israel with a passion and dedication that is largely absent in their political opponents in the US?
Nah. Must be AIPAC.
…in case your wishes should come true!
Link:Subscribe to read | Financial Times
I had forgotten that Obama did call for a Palestinian state-guess he kinda regrets that speech, now.
I guess in as much as the two governments maintained policies that enhanced immigration of settlers to these respective regions. I doubt there are too many more points of comparison though considering Greek Cyprus is a sovereign nation. Thanks for bringing it up, I’d never thought about it before except when one of my friends, who had lived on N.Cyprus, stated that the natives were annoyed at the immigration.
Although I understand it. I think it is impossible to separate the two motivations, since the latest turn in the decline of Israeli-Turkish relations means that the Turkish Navy helps in Gaza blockade running and their annoyance over the gas deal.
The thread between them is diplomatic pressure on Israel and establishing themselves as the strongest in the Mideast.
That’s clear and that is why I am impressed overall. Erdogan/Davutoglu/AKP has been trying to establish good relations with their neighbors and to use that peace to become leaders in the mideast. This should benefit Turkey economically and in terms of security. Many of their initiatives have been a failure, but more recently they’ve played their cards well and Turkey as a nation is benefiting from it.
Also, their policies benefit the West in general. Perhaps, being an American, it’s just fun to watch politicians who actually get something done for a change.
Im confused. “Peace activists” with some toys and broken medical supplies sail to Gaza AGAIN to break a legal blockade, attack soldiers, refuse to hand ‘aid’ over to be inspected and delivered (it was later confiscated ), Erdogan throws a fit and you’re ‘proud’? Turkey is acting more reckless than Israel.
It was in context of responding to Huerta88 when he said:
Which was itself a response to when you said:
So I don’t think pointing out two Jewish Americans who know a heck of a lot more about the issues than I do, (and are intimately familiar with AIPAC and it’s modus operandi) is out of place in that context.
Which gets us to the real heart of the matter. You say I don’t help my case by citing Goldberg, but I disagree. Because my criticism of AIPAC has to do with their right-wing agenda, and not any anti-Semitic fear of the political power of The Jews, as you infer. I simply agree more with J-Street’s approach to the issues than I do AIPAC’s.
Nobody talks about how powerful the Cuban-American lobby is? Seriously? I disagree completely. Now granted, the issue of Castro and Cuba is a smaller and more dormant issue relative to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But come on, you don’t really believe that no one is critical of the Cuban-American lobby, do you?
Speaking of which, do you think those critical of the Cuban-American lobby are anti-Cuban, or just weary of their right-wing agenda and the power they wield to influence wrong-headed American foreign policy?
(Interestingly, Goldberg was also at the center of that Cuban issue, as he was the one who was interviewing Castro when he made his comments criticizing Iran and anti-Semitism. He also received considerable criticism from the Cuban-American lobby for that interview.)
Goldberg may be influential in his commentary-slash-sometimes-journalism, but it doesn’t me he’s always correct. And just because you can cite a few things he says does not mean he’s going to agree with your perspective. Today, he called the Palestinian plan symbolic and counterproductive - not to mention downright nasty.
Could you please provide a link to this? It sounds like you are talking about last year but also about something that happened this year and it leaves me confused.
I am proud of them. They’ve put themselves on more even ground with the USA, they have reduced their relations with the current government of Israel while turning their ineffective and fruitless relationship with Israel into a productive relationship with countries throughout the middle east. They have not lost standing with NATO while doing so. Erdogan is the most popular leader in the middle east. His words are inspiring the Arab Spring countries to not only follow democratic principles, but to establish secular governments. He saw a need for leadership and stepped into it. Now the middle east is going to be most profoundly affected by a stable democratic western-leaning government - not Iran or Saudi Arabia. As a Westerner what would you prefer as 3 countries, possibly 4, rid themselves of their dictators and adopt new forms of government and new attitudes toward the world around them? Which? Turkey, Iran, or Saudi Arabia?
Since I’m the one who mentioned Goldberg, I assume you’re addressing me. Except that article you linked and quoted is a very bad example for you to cite as him saying things I supposedly disagree with, since I linked that very same article while saying how much sense it made.
But I understand the confusion a moderate viewpoint can cause in this sort of ideological debate. Goldberg himself often gets it from both sides.
I’m all for Turkey serving as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East - I just don’t see why they feel the need to do it at Israel’s expense. It’s not a zero-sum game, you know. Israel has a lot to offer its neighbors, and bringing it into the fold will support democracy a lot more than turning it a cold shoulder will.