You seem to assume that laws are passed just because of lobbying groups. Granted, lobbying groups are important but individual support is important too. If you are a senator from a state with a signficiant Christian population, it makes political sense to vote in favor of a law like this.
Why do you think Sarah Palin kept an Israeli flag in her office in Juneau long before she was picked as a VP candidate? Do you think AIPAC got to her?
The NRA is consistently ranked as powerful and influential, and yet gun control laws it opposes get put through now and then. They are powerful, but not all-powerful. The Israel lobby is the same way.
No, this is something you made up inside your head.
I don’t think anyone doubts that there are people that support Israel in the United States. The point of a lobby is that you organize these people into a voting block. Through money and organization, that voting block begins to punch above its weight, so to speak. When that happens, a relatively small group can have a disproportionate influence on an issue. It doesn’t matter if it is the AARP or AIPAC.
“Got to” implies a conspiracy that simply doesn’t exist. Does the AARP “get to” politicians? No, of course not. The bottom line is groups like AIPAC and AARP can deliver votes and money to a political candidate. Politicians recognize that, and do a simple cost benefit analysis. Supporting a lobby like AARP gets them votes and money. Opposing them doesn’t, and so most support them.
As to why Palin has an Israeli flag in her office. It’s probably because she is a fundamentalist Christian, and as you note, there is broad support for Israel amongst fundamentalist Christians.
First off, no one contends that AIPAC is all powerful. That is a made up straw man.
There are a couple differences between AIPAC and the NRA, for example. The first is that AIPAC has broad based national support, whereas the NRA is more regional. It’s going to be very rare that a politician the NRA opposes is going to win an election in Texas or Louisiana. On the other hand, the NRA supporting a politician in NYC is likely going to be seen as a detriment instead of a bonus. It’s really only Republicans (and a few Democrats) that have to worry about the NRA. On the other hand, virtually every politician has to worry about AIPAC.
The other difference is that there is a powerful lobby opposed to the NRA. The Brady campaign is a powerful lobby in it’s own right, and provides a bit of a counter balance to the NRA. There is no, as far as I am aware, lobby that works for the Palestinian side. Opposing the NRA gets you support from the Brady folks. What does opposing AIPAC get you? .
I apologize if I misunderstood what’s been posted in this thread. It seemed you were arguing that if AIPAC wanted the US to move its embassy, then that’s what would happen. Essentially that AIPAC gets whatever it wants.
If you agree that politicians can and do say “no” to AIPAC sometimes, then probably you don’t disagree with me, since I concede that AIPAC is a powerful lobby.
Gotten, as in “recieved the support of”. It is clear from my other posts that I do not think that AIPAC is in control of U.S. policy. I do think that they are a very important part in setting it.
What in the world are you talking about. Look, it’s very simple. Take this statement: “Obama has gotten the support the majority of young people”. Does this statement mean (a) the majority of young people support Obama or (b) Obama controlled young people into voting for him. The meaning to me is clearly (a), but if you are still confused let me emphatically state that I meant (a).
That he needed to persuade every single young person?
Whatever. I know what I believe hasn’t changed in the last 4 hours. If my previous post was unclear, then I apologize. I never believed AIPAC controlled U.S. policy, nor did I mean to imply that I did.
treis, I have no idea what you’re arguing. You seem to be saying at one point that AIPAC is exerting undue influence over politicians through money. Then you go back and say that it’s not AIPAC controlling the politicians, they politicians just willingly support AIPAC in the same way (according to you) an Obama supporter likes Obama. If that is the case, then what exactly is AIPAC doing that you don’t like? In other words, what is your point?
I’m guessing it’s because the US doesn’t want to piss off the Arab states.
As to the Israeli attitude, I did find the following cabinet communique from 1980, after the UN censured Israel for annexing East Jerusalem (bolding mine).
I also found this response, from 2006, at the news of Costa Rica moving its embassy from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv:
It seems more likely that the US presidents are more willing to pay lip service to a Jerusalem embassy than actually do anything. That’s sort of the best of both worlds for the US.
As I already said: when you start getting down to brass tacks, the picture will look different. It always does, on every issue.
But the OP was not asking why no politicians ever question anything Israel ever does. There ARE politicians that do question specific things Israel does, just as there are Americans that do question specific things Israel does.
What politicians WON’T do is say that, in a general way, they do not support Israel, because there are very few Americans that would say so.
No, I do not agree. I also do not agree that US-Israeli relations can be called lockstep agreement. It would be a moment’s work to find a dozen issues on which we have disagreed.
I also think the vast majority of Americans agree with me on both counts. The cites I’ve provided tend to support that claim.
Yes, they would have. Islamic radicals have stated on many occasions what their goals and ambitions are, and why they oppose America. The Palestian issue is among those reasons, but it is far from the only one. Osama Bin Laden’s primary grieviences were the first gulf war, the enforcement of UN sanctions on Iraq, and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
The post seemed clear enough to me. Anyway, I don’t see much of a debate on this point. AIPAC has a lot of influence. AIPAC doesn’t always get what it wants. The United States is rather pro-Israel in large part because there are a lot of Zionistic Jews and Christians here who feel pretty strongly on this issue. That’s the way democracy works, for better or for worse.
