# Why Should I Support Israel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015 "2008-12-29T01:32:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/201 "2009-01-05T06:52:04Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t get this. The entire raison d’entre of AIPAC is to influence American policy to favor Israel. I don’t see how it’s a conspiracy theory to say that they have been successful at that. Really? You really and truly don’t understand why, without a single fact in your fist, you want to claim not just that AIPAC has been effective in its mission statement, but that’s (a large?) part of why the nation’s leaders act as they do. You don’t get why, in the absence of any facts, that’s a simple conspiracy theory? Are you honestly and truly not aware of the massive gap in your rationalization? > [@treis](#): > > I’ve never seen anyone be called a conspiracy theorist if they suggest that the AARP or the Teacher’s Unions are successful at influencing public policy. That’s because they can point to exact times and places where AARP or TU’s have had an impact, and how. As of yet, you have offered absolutely nothing regarding AIPAC. Care to try? > [@treis](#): > > The policy of the AIPAC is to influence American policy to support Israel’s goals. That’s not a conspiracy theory. They say so right on their webpage Come on, your argument is getting dumber line by line. Who cares what their policy is? The Aryan Nation’s policy is to support White Power, does that mean they’ve swung the nation over to their cause? Yes, AIPAC wants to have massive influence. But you’re the one here making the claim that it’s gone beyond desire into reality. It’s your job to _prove_ that. It’s rather gobsmacking that you’re ignorant of that basic fact. Arab nations also have lobbying groups set up to influence US policy. By your rationalization, they too have massive influence that determines American foreign policy. But they’re opposed to AIPAC… so, what, they take turns massively influencing Americans foreign policy? Do you honestly not understand the importance of proving your factual claims rather than just saying “Ayieee, they’re a lobbying group!” > [@treis](#): > > Judging by the numerous Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Cabinet officials, and other high ranking government officials that have spoken at their events or praised AIPAC, I think they’ve had at least some success in their efforts. Yep, a conspiracy theory based on the fallacy of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You haven’t proven that the politicians didn’t already agree with AIPAC, that they changed their votes based on AIPAC’s influence, what votes they changed their minds on due to AIPAC’s influence, etc, etc, etc. When come back, bring facts. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/202 "2009-01-05T16:19:20Z")
The first page of [AIPAC’s own website](http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp) trumpets “AIPAC Achievements”: > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]Passing more than a dozen bills and resolutions condemning and imposing tough sanctions on Iran during the past 15 years.[/li][li]Securing critical security assistance to Israel each year to ensure that Israel remains capable of facing increased threats.[/li][li]Passing legislation requiring the administration to evaluate all future military sales to Arab states in the context of the need to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over potential adversaries.[/li][li]Reinforcing the key principles America should stand by as it works to help Israel achieve peace in letters to the president signed by 268 House members and 78 senators.[/li][li]Passing multiple resolutions affirming congressional support for Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of terrorism by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah.[/li][li]Strongly urging the administration to take its decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group and weapons proliferator through an amendment supported by 76 senators and key legislation passed in the House of Representatives.[/li][li]Strengthening U.S.-Israel energy cooperation by passing legislation that establishes a grant program that funds joint projects between U.S. and Israeli entities in the field of alternative energy.[/li][li]Strengthening U.S.-Israel homeland security cooperation by passing landmark legislation creating an office within the Department of Homeland Security to support joint research and development projects between the United States and key allies such as Israel.[/li][li]Prohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with a Hamas-led PA until its leaders recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and ratify previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.[/li][li]Ratifying an agreement that led to the Israeli medical service Magen David Adom’s admission to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (IRC). [/li][li]Passing the Syrian Accountability Act, which allows the president to sanction Syria for its continued involvement in Lebanon and support of terrorism.[/li][/ul] Are you saying AIPAC itself is buying into the “conspiracy theory”? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/203 "2009-01-05T16:57:17Z")
Seems to be a pretty weak list for a supposed strong and influential PAC to me. Almost any internal lobbying group could boast at least as many accomplishments. Of course I supposed they COULD be minimizing their actual impact in order to keep folks from knowing the true extent of their power over the hapless US… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/204 "2009-01-05T17:00:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seems to be a pretty weak list for a supposed strong and influential PAC to me. Almost any internal lobbying group could boast at least as many accomplishments. Of course I supposed they COULD be minimizing their actual impact in order to keep folks from knowing the true extent of their power over the hapless US… > > -XT Of course, they don’t brag about smearing opponents and silencing critics. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/205 "2009-01-05T17:09:03Z")
Of course. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/206 "2009-01-05T17:13:02Z")
Back to the OP, Glenn Greenwald has another thought-provoking entry today: [Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/04/terrorism/). A cut-and-paste wouldn’t do it justice. Read the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/207 "2009-01-05T17:37:49Z")
You know I am quite amazed that not only would someone deny that AIPAC and the wider Israel lobby have a major influence on US policy in the ME but claim that saying so constitutes a “conspiracy theory”. Pretty pathetic and desperate if you ask me. Anyway Wikipedia has two interesting links from the 80’s and 90’s: the first an [article](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DC1230F935A35754C0A961948260)from the NYTimes detailing the influence of AIPAC, the second a news [report](http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/971128/aipac.shtml)which states that Fortune ranked AIPAC the second most powerful interest group in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/208 "2009-01-05T19:00:08Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > -access to a first rate intel service with contacts all over the ME The U.S. has its own intel apparatus, and while not perfect, it would suffice to get the U.S. the information it needed about the M.E. just as it does elsewhere. N.B. that the U.S. would have much less need for M.E. intel absent its “alliance” – presumably, while there may be some overlap with the U.S.'s independent interests, much of the information Israeli intelligence is gathering is specific to its own regional quarrels, which the U.S. is not necessarily interested in. One would also want to keep in mind that “Israeli intel” is not always a good thing for the U.S., given their persistent and successful efforts to apply their spying against, well, the U.S. – including the most recent instance, in which, in fact, AIPAC was implicated. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/209 "2009-01-05T19:32:16Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But you’re the one here making the claim that it’s gone beyond desire into reality. It’s your job to _prove_ that. It’s rather gobsmacking that you’re ignorant of that basic fact. The only gobsmacking thing here is that you doubt the AIPAC’s influence. If you want proof, then fine: > [@](#): > > Polling for the Power 25 was conducted by the Mellman Group, a Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican outfit, who each polled Washington insiders\_lawmakers, lobbyists, and congressional and White House aides\_to asses, on a scale of 0 to 100, which of the 114 trade associations, labor unions, and interest groups have the clout to get things done. [http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667546,00.html](http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667546,00.html) AIPAC ranked as the #3 most influential organization in a Fortune survey of Washington insiders in 1999, and #2 the year before. They polled aids, lawmakers, and other lobbyists. If you don’t want to take their word for it, then that’s your problem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/210 "2009-01-05T20:01:30Z")
I’ve seen that assertion several times but the articles listed are from the late 90’s. Anything more recent? Even assuming that such a poll is accurate it would be interesting to see what the current ranking is. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/211 "2009-01-05T20:07:39Z")
An interesting [article](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm) from the same period: > [@](#): > > Our survey rebuts one of the oldest axioms of lobbying: that campaign contributions buy power in Washington. While donations are still crucial (and are often abused, as the recent revelations about “soft money” excesses in the last presidential election show), they aren’t the only keys to the kingdom. True, three of the top ten organizations owe their high rankings to their substantial campaign contributions: the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (No. 5), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the American Medical Association (No. 8). But these days, interest organizations are valued more for the votes they can deliver. Most of the Power 25 have large numbers of geographically dispersed and politically active members who focus their energies on a narrow range of issues. In other words, they know their convictions and vote them. In this era of low voter turnout, that kind of commitment can mean the difference between victory and defeat in close elections, which translates into real heft on the legislative front. Few things are more important to a Congressman than getting reelected. > [@](#): > > Fully half of the top ten groups in the FORTUNE survey were propelled there on the strength of their long-established grassroots networks. These kings of the town hall meeting are the American Association of Retired Persons; the National Federation of Independent Business, better known as the small-business lobby (No. 4); the National Rifle Association (No. 6); the Christian Coalition (No. 7); and the National Right to Life Committee (No. 10). Which isn’t to say that money doesn’t talk at all anymore. The AFL-CIO (No. 3) garnered great grades for both its grassroots and its campaign fundraising. > [@](#): > > The affluence of an organization’s members doesn’t guarantee influence. Sometimes it has the opposite effect. In one of the most striking examples of the populist imperative, the only investor-related organization that made the Power 25 is the American Bankers Association at No. 12. The other financial services lobbies are washouts. The National Association of Securities Dealers is No. 83; the Public Securities Association, recently renamed the Bond Market Association, is No. 84; the Securities Industry Association is No. 47; and worst of all, the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry trade association, languishes at No. 115. Of course these groups do more than try to affect laws and regulations; they also serve their own members. But one thing’s for sure: Wall Street’s stock isn’t very high on K Street. > [@](#): > > In contrast, the groups with huge memberships that also have an intense self-interest in government payouts are disproportionately represented in the Power 25. These include the National Education Association (No. 9) and AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (No. 14), whose members rely on government for their paychecks. More to the point are the Veterans of Foreign Wars (No. 16) and the American Legion (No. 23), whose members not only get veterans’ benefits but also have a patriotic pull on politicians. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/212 "2009-01-05T20:21:40Z")
> [@treis](#): > > AIPAC ranked as the #3 most influential organization in a Fortune survey of Washington insiders in 1999, and #2 the year before. They polled aids, lawmakers, and other lobbyists. If you don’t want to take their word for it, then that’s your problem. A useful question is: when has anyone heard a mainstream politician criticize or question the Israeli lobby? A Republican could criticize the teachers unions, or say the autoworkers needed to start building better cars. A Dem could and would question gun rights. So even on issues where powerful lobbies do exist, there is no unanimity of party or policy. But off the top of my head, I come up with Cynthia McKinney and Pat Buchanan when I think of public figures who might openly say anything critical of AIPAC, even when it’s directly involved in espionage against the U.S. How are those two faring in the political marketplace these days? Who is the last presidential candidate who did not make the pilgrimage to genuflect before AIPAC and promise “unshakeable” support for the cause? This suggests to me that either (1) AIPAC’s policies are so self-evidently right and undebatable that only cranks could conceivably conjure up any reason to complain about their influence on U.S. policy; or (2) the Israeli lobby does indeed have significant influence, at least significant enough to silence any meaningful debate on U.S. aid and alliance. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/213 "2009-01-05T23:33:49Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > (2) the Israeli lobby does indeed have significant influence, at least significant enough to silence any meaningful debate on U.S. aid and alliance. Which is why, since the 80’s, people have been debating AIPAC’s influence in the pages of the NY Times. Eh, eh? That’s how you know when criticism is silenced, when it’s been in the NY Times for more than two decades. The argument I’m contending against is fast approaching self-parody. Much like Carter’s claim that being asked to debate his claims, which he put forward while claiming he was doing so to stimulate debate, was an attempt to silence him. Or Walt and Mearshimer who claimed that no discussion of Israel was possible, while they were being discussed all over the main stream media and most colleges in the US already been discussing the same issues for decades. > [@treis](#): > > The only gobsmacking thing here is that you doubt the AIPAC’s influence. If you want proof, then fine: Doesn’t the irony there smart a bit? Why would someone do anything other than doubt without proof. You might want to ask why you _believe it_ without proof. > [@treis](#): > > If you don’t want to take their word for it, then that’s your problem. This is getting downright sad. You’re down to the level of offering up the opinions of staffers to prove that politicians voted for positions they wouldn’t have otherwise, due to AIPAC. Come on, try to drop the whispering campaign and simply show me which politicians in which years reversed their positions due to AIPAC. Politicians voting records are all public record. Show, say, fifty? Twenty? How about ten politicians who all were against or simply not for certain positions, and AIPAC made them change their minds. No? Then AIPAC surely must winnow the field of potential candidates themselves. If that’s your contention, please show, I dunno, I’ll be fair and say 100 politicians who ran for office and had popular support but somehow lost because AIPAC chose to stand against them. That should be fairly simple, as, if your claims are at all true, it must happen all the time. Surely you can do that, right? Provide proof of something that must be endemic to the entire political system? Notice, again, proof, not claims. I mean, if AIPAC isn’t a boogeyman whose influence is inflated. I’m sure you’ll come back with actual facts real quick, right? > [@spoke-](#): > > The first page of [AIPAC’s own website](http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp) trumpets “AIPAC Achievements”: First of all. please employ some basic critical thinking. Lobbying groups do not “pass” legislation. They support it. If you want to claim that AIPAC helped get certain pieces of legislation passed via their support, you’ll have to show some politicians who didn’t agree, and then changed their mind once AIPAC pressured them. All you’ve done is provided a list of bills/resolutions that AIPAC supported. So AIPAC committed the Cum Hoc fallacy and you accept it. That’s still not proof. If AIPAC is anywhere nearly as powerful as you contend, it should be very easy to prove your point. There should be politicians all over the place who expressed personal or political opinions, and then AIPAC made them change their minds. The page you quoted started with an interesting preamble that you apparently, I suppose, forgot to include. You know, the part where AIPAC says that they “[work] with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship.” Surely, since you believe what AIPAC says, you will publicly, here and now, admit that you were wrong and that Israel and the US do in fact have a vital relationship. Right? > [@spoke-](#): > > Are you saying AIPAC itself is buying into the “conspiracy theory”? As should be rather obvious if you weren’t coming at this with a pre-judged position, lobbying groups toot their own horns in order to seem more important. Of course they’d claim that they’re powerful. The point is that claims have to be backed up. I can’t quite figure out why you’re having so much trouble with this concept. And, and: > [@](#): > > Back to the OP, Glenn Greenwald has another thought-provoking entry today: Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza. A cut-and-paste wouldn’t do it justice. Read the whole thing. Why, it’s almost like he’s full of shit spewing biased idiocy and calling the rules of war specifically set down by the Fourth Geneva Convention “terrorism”. It’s almost like people have a pretense to following the international laws of war, but then want to say that Israel isn’t allowed to do so or it’s a terrorist state. Hrm… wonder if there’s any significance to that? > [@Lantern](#): > > You know I am quite amazed that not only would someone deny that AIPAC and the wider Israel lobby have a major influence on US policy in the ME but claim that saying so constitutes a “conspiracy theory”. Pretty pathetic and desperate if you ask me. I know! It’s like, I’m so unreasonable, I won’t just accept the whispering campaign or the baseless claims of evil foreign influence, I actually want facts to back the claims up. Why, next, I’ll probably be asking for cites. That’s pretty desperate. I mean, why can’t I just play fair and believe whatever claims are made whether or not they’re supported by any facts. Speaking of pathetic and desperate, did you even read those two cites? The NY Times says: > [@](#): > > The perception of Aipac’s strength may be larger than the reality, a product of ‘‘smoke and mirrors,’’ in the words of one former White House aide with close ties to various Jewish organizations. > […] > Aipac cannot take sole credit for all these developments, of course; Israel itself lobbied hard for the strategic relationship and it found key supporters in the Administration. But Mr. Rosen has reportedly worked to flesh out the strategic cooperation by encouraging joint American-Israeli naval maneuvers, the use of Israeli target ranges by United States Navy planes and the like. Despite initial opposition in the Pentagon, the relationship has become institutionalized. > > Richard L. Armitage, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, described the phenomenon in a letter last month to Aipac’s director. In the salutation typed by his secretary, Mr. Armitage crossed out ‘‘Mr. Dine’’ and wrote ‘‘Tom.’’ > > ‘‘We take great pride in the fact that many activities, unthinkable in the past, are now a normal and routine occurrence between the two defense organizations,’’ Mr. Armitage wrote. ‘‘The unique relationship that exists between the U.S. and Israel is being enhanced by the daily exchanges and the development of personal relations between the professional members of the two countries’ military forces.’’ And again, no facts, no specific bills that weren’t going to pass and specific senators who shifted their views to accommodate AIPAC, the fact that the US an Israel were already on the same page an agreeing with each other. If you claim that the Times article has any actual facts that prove that AIPAC has significant influence on America’s decision making process, quote it. And please, not claims that the administration can’t even talk about certain topics followed immediately by an administration member saying “um, no… we can.” The second article is even worse. Did you read that one too or just link it? > [@](#): > > Fortune polled members of Congress, top congressional staffers, senior White House aides, top officers of lobbying organizations and professional lobbyists, asking them to rank the clout of 120 leading interest groups. In other words, again, an opinion survey largely of people who don’t even write laws. Why is the concept of factual confirmation so hard to digest here? Prove your claims by showing which senators and congressmen weren’t for a specific bill/resolution/position, and changed their minds due to AIPAC. If AIPAC is anywhere nearly as powerful as you’re claiming, it should be easy to o that. Or you could complain how being asked to prove your claim is just ever so pathetic and desperate. You might also want to take a good hard look at the methodology of the survey you’re trumpeting. Also in the top ten was the National Right to Life Committee. How much federal anti-abortion legislation we had over the past few decades? Real influential bunch, the NRLC, eh? Or the NRA. Vast influence and the Assault Weapons Ban was passed outlawing scary cosmetic changes in guns. AARP is listed as the first… how’s social security reform coming along? For fuck’s sake, people are now citing the opinions of “lobbyists [and] trade association executives” to prove a group’s influence. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/214 "2009-01-06T00:35:12Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Doesn’t the irony there smart a bit? Why would someone do anything other than doubt without proof. You might want to ask why you _believe it_ without proof > > This is getting downright sad. You’re down to the level of offering up the opinions of staffers to prove that politicians voted for positions they wouldn’t have otherwise, due to AIPAC. I have people in the know ranking AIPAC in the top 3 of influential lobbying firms. I see how politicians from all parts of the country try to curry their favor. I read leading newspapers and magazines calling AIPAC a very influential organization. That is enough proof in my mind that AIPAC is a very influential organization. In order to think otherwise, I would have to accept that these leading publications are all being mislead, that a bunch of lawmakers and staffers lied in an anonymous survey, and that the multitude of politicians appearing to curry AIPAC’s favor is a coincidence. That is far too difficult of a pill to swallow. The logical and most likely explanation for these sets of facts is that AIPAC does have influence, and that the survey is correct, the leading publications are correct, and the multitude of politicians are trying to curry their favor. Why? Tell me why I should believe that all these people are either mistaken or lying? The evidence you are asking for is unreasonable, and simply doesn’t exist. No politician is going to issue a press release saying “I introduced this bill because I fear the power of AIPAC” or “The lobbying pressure AIPAC brought to bear changed my vote on this issue”. This goes for every single lobby and every single politician. Lobbying goes on behind closed doors. It’s easy to see their influence, but impossible to get any politician to admit they were influenced. Speaking of sad and pathetic. The **1987** article you cherry picked a quote from says, and I include direct quotes only here: > [@](#): > > ‘‘It tends to skew the consideration of issues,’’ a senior State Department official said. ‘‘People don’t look very hard at some options.’’ This narrows the Administration’s internal policy discussions, he said, precluding even the serious study of ideas known to be anathema to Aipac, such as the sale of some advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia or Jordan. Interviewing Candidates > [@](#): > > ‘‘This is an actual example,’’ Mr. Dine [AIPAC’s executive director] said. ''I won’t give you the name. One of the Presidential candidates called us and said, ‘I will be publicly declaring soon, and I am interested in hiring so and so for a top campaign position. Tell me what you think about him.’ ‘’ > [@](#): > > ‘‘This is an actual example,’’ Mr. Dine said. ''I won’t give you the name. One of the Presidential candidates called us and said, ‘I will be publicly declaring soon, and I am interested in hiring so and so for a top campaign position. Tell me what you think about him.’ ‘’ > [@](#): > > ‘‘It is an extraordinarily well staffed, dedicated and able organization that pursues its work systematically and relentlessly and effectively,’’ a State Department official said. > [@](#): > > ‘‘We’re involved at every point that a decision is being made,’’ Mr. Dine said. Administration officials are now sounding out Aipac about the 1989 budget. And as the 1988 budget is being considered by Congress, ‘‘we are being questioned constantly,’’ he said, ''getting phone calls from the House Budget Committee leadership and staff, the Senate Budget Committee leadership and staff: ‘What do you think if? What do you think about? Hey, how about?’ ‘’ > [@](#): > > He quoted Secretary of State George P. Shultz as saying the goal was ‘‘to build institutional arrangements so that eight years from now, if there is a Secretary of State who is not positive about Israel, he will not be able to overcome the bureaucratic relationship between Israel and the U.S. that we have established.’’ > [@](#): > > A classified list of proposed arms sales that the United States regularly compiles is provided by the Administration each year - at least orally - to Aipac officials, to test their reaction to various plans. > > ‘‘In 1978, I was in the Pentagon working on the Saudi F-15 sale,’’ a former official said. ‘‘We didn’t do anything there that Aipac didn’t have within hours. Our briefing papers. We went to brief Congressmen on the sale, and Aipac already had rebuttals to our briefings.’’ He attributed the leaks to ‘‘friends of Israel in the Pentagon.’’ > [@](#): > > according to a former White House official. ‘‘They learned about Aipac,’’ he said, and officials then took this attitude: ‘‘We blew three fuses with those guys, and we don’t want to go to the mat with them again.’’ I don’t know how you can offer a cite and then ignore what the cite says. But hey, who knows? Maybe these anonymous staffers are lying their asses off as well. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/215 "2009-01-06T01:20:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I must be bored as I usually stay out rehashing these old myths and canards but **clair** _both_ Jews and Arabs moved in to the region around the same time. Yes, there was an extant Arab population in the region but the bulk of the population came in as a result of the economic development that Jewish immigration brought. > > [Read this.](http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm) I began to read it the other day, but stayed away from this thread for a couple days, and now, for some reason I can’t access the page anymore. From what I read, I’m willing to provisionally admit, until I get further informations, that there was room for everybody in Palestine. > [@](#): > > Yes some Jewish forces drove some Arabs out and some Arab leadership goaded Arabs into anti-Jewish riots. What makes you think that the Palestinians were “goaded into anti-Jewish riots”, rather assuming the existence of a widespread resentment? > [@](#): > > You are free to argue about chicken and egg (and I would be free to document how the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked with the Nazis and used the evil Jews as his means to gain power) Well… you’re speaking like you try to be impartial, but you couldn’t resist adding a reference to the Grand Mufti pro-Nazi stance. So, I’ll mention I would be free to point at how the non-evil Jews behaved at Deir Yassin, and we’ll leave it at that. > [@](#): > > but we have a reality right now: impoverished Palestinians with little hope for anything else and an Israel that aint going anywhere but really wants to not have to worry about security so much. All that from before don’t really matter as much right now. Well, actually, it still matters, since the issue of the Palestinian refugees isn’t settled yet, and it’s difficult to give an opinion about how it should be settled justly without ever mentioning what happened in 1948. Plus the debate won’t go away any time soon. The Armenians, for instance, are still hot about how their ancestors were driven out of their land almost a century ago. I’m not trying to equate the two situations, but pointing at the fact that people have long lasting memories. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/216 "2009-01-06T01:35:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Unfortunately, I lack the time to respond point-by-point, and it is getting reptitive. I agree with that and had thought “If he responds point-by-point, I’ll leave it at that” > [@](#): > > … in my opinion you are utterly wrong. **Immigration** isn’t what makes those two examples “wrong”, but _colonialist bayonets_. But precisely, I content that 1) British colonialist bayonets were involved and 2)Zionist bayonets weren’t very different in nature from colonialist bayonets > [@](#): > > Your POV would have my country of Canada being the most “illigitimate” country on earth, as practically everyone here is an immigrant. The difference being that your Chinese neighbour was allowed in by Canadians, or rather their freely elected representatives, not by the UK deciding what’s best for your neighbour and you. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/217 "2009-01-06T03:17:03Z")
It just keeps getting worse. > [@treis](#): > > I have people in the know ranking AIPAC in the top 3 of influential lobbying firms. You have staffers and trade association members, among others. Play straight. > [@treis](#): > > I see how politicians from all parts of the country try to curry their favor. Yes, there are some who offer lip service. Very good. Now prove that they change their positions based on AIPAC’s direction. > [@treis](#): > > I read leading newspapers and magazines calling AIPAC a very influential organization. That is enough proof in my mind that AIPAC is a very influential organization. In other words, you have deliberately abandoned the entire structure of how proof and refutation works and the fallacy of appeal to authority is fine for you. Thought as much. We also had newspapers in the runup to the Iraq war saying that Iraq was a threat to us. I suppose it really was, eh? Or yet more mutable rationalizations, eh? > [@treis](#): > > In order to think otherwise, I would have to accept that these leading publications are all being mislead, that a bunch of lawmakers and staffers lied in an anonymous survey Since you seem not to understand this blindingly obvious bit of epistemology, I’ll elaborate: the plural of anecdote is not evidence. The other possibility is that the newspapers are _wrong_ and that your vaunted trade association staffers are reacting to a perception of power and not to actual verifiable influence. > [@treis](#): > > Tell me why I should believe that all these people are either mistaken or lying? In other words, fuck epistemology, eh? You have to see their proof before you believe their opinions. Yes, there are lots of people under a certian opinion, that you first require proof to believe their opinions are mistaken rather than correct says all that needs to be said about your position. And, again, you’re not using logic, you’re rationalizing to support a pre-judged position. Otherwise, you’d come to the conclusion that since so many American politicians were of the opinion that Iraq was a threat to us, that it really was. But, of course, you don’t make that claim. Just the anti-Israel one based on unsubstantiated opinions which you don’t care to confirm, since the fact that they exist is good enough for you. > [@treis](#): > > The evidence you are asking for is unreasonable, and simply doesn’t exist. Not only is it not unreasonable, the fact that you can’t provide any real proof shows the truth of the matter. And yes, it’d be quite possible for you to show a politician taking one position and then AIPAC taking out an ad or what have you. You can’t, because it doesn’t happen. I’d wager you can’t even posit a valid _mechanism_ for how AIPAC would project its influence at unwilling politicians without showing them spending money on influencing elections or public opinion. If we’re talking a non-conspiracy theory, we could show for instance how AARP mobilizes public opinion and makes sure that their membership base makes their opinions clear to legislators. With the NRA, you can point to their mailings and position papers urging their membership to vote a certain way. You can point to opinion polls and why politicians need percentage points in orer to get elected. Impossible? It’s _easy_. All you’re left with is your conspiracy theory. And like most conspiracy theories, the fact that you can’t provide proof for it is, in and of itself, proof of the power and covert nature of the conspiracy. > [@treis](#): > > Speaking of sad and pathetic. The **1987** article you cherry picked a quote from says, and I include direct quotes only here: First, after abusing logic, please don’t fuck with semantics too. Posting a relevant quote from a military leader as to why the US has a close relationship with Israel is hardly cherry picking. I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t argue out of both sides of your mouth while pretending that I’d “cherry picked”. Your anonymous state department official’s quote was immediately gainsaid by a named senior administration member, but of course you didn’t mention that. That’s kinda the definition of cherry picking. And you’ve also got a bunch of other anonymous claims. And anonymous claims made by AIPAC about how very powerful they are. And then, of course, you oddly enough cited yet another quote showing that your argument is full of shit. You actually cited another anonymous claim that says that the the reason AIPAC was kept in the loop was because members in the Pentagon, on their own, support Israel. And here, all these anonymous accounts, not one saved a letter, recorded a phone call, had the minutes for a meeting? Not one? No actual proof at all? It’s all their own personal opinions, eh? You don’t stop to think that if there was really 20+ years of discussion in the MSM and this evil AIPAC behavior has been going on for all that time, that at least one person along the way would have a smoking gun that they’d have presented to the press. But like most conspiracy theories that would involve hundreds of thousands of people who coul blow the whistle, the fact that not one single one has come forward with evidence just shows how powerful the conspiracy is at silencing dissent. And that’s good enough for you. If you don’t realize why I can see a cite and don’t take anonymous claims that are provided without any proof as gospel? Well… But never mind. Since you’ve already admitted that you can’t and won’t provide any actual proof in the form of votes, records, recordings, memos, meetings, opinions changed due to AIPAC influenced advertising or what have you, we’re pretty much stuck at the level of you saying “But lots of people think it’s true!” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/218 "2009-01-06T04:22:42Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > What makes you think that the Palestinians were “goaded into anti-Jewish riots”, rather assuming the existence of a widespread resentment? [Documented history.](http://www.zionism-israel.com/impact_of_zionism.htm) In truth the lot of the Arabs who moved into the same areas where Jews moved to was good relative to the state of live elsewhere. That’s why Arabs moved in there. There were no bayonets forcing people away in Mandatory Palestine. > [@](#): > > the literacy and health of Palestinian residents improved steadily from 1922 to 1948. … The impact on Arab prosperity in Palestine was profound. Palestine had been the poorest country in the region Before the first World War, it had been a country of net emigration for Arabs. During the mandate period, it became a country of net immigration for Arabs as well as Jews. By 1932-36, it was one of the richest, and the Palestinian Arabs took part in the prosperity … In 1922, there were 22,000 dunams of Arab land producing citrus crops. In 1940, there were 140,000 dunams of Arab citrus land, mostly producing crop for export in Palestine. In 1931 Arabs had 332,000 dunams of olive groves and apple orchards. By 1942 they had 832,000 dunams under cultivation.7 Still, the immigrant Jews were doing most of the investing, and Jewish literacy was still higher than Arabs. In a part of the world in which Jews had always been the _dhimmi_ - a tolerated second class citizen with limited rights. Seeing Jews doing better than they were still probably triggered some resentment. Some real resentment. Which was exploited into riots as there is nothing like hate of the other to unite people under your leadership. Yes, the Mufti. > [@](#): > > No history of mandatory Palestine and the Arab Palestinian community could be complete without understanding the career of the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin El Husseini, who was, as far as all the evidence can show, a convinced actual Nazi, as opposed to the figurative Nazis created by name callers. In large part it was Husseini who was responsible for spreading the myth of Zionist dispossession, as well as false rumors that the Jews were planning to violate the sanctity of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, a perennial favorite in Middle East incitement. > > From the beginning of Zionist settlement, Husseini had been active in kindling anti-Zionist sentiment and fomenting riots against the Jews. Violent pogroms instigated by Husseini and his followers broke out in 1920, 1921 and 1936 - 39. (see Arab Riots and Massacres of 1929 Hebron Massacre Kiryat Haroshet Massacre-1938 The Arab Revolt in Palestine ) Non-Zionist Jewish communities in Hebron and Jerusalem, people who had been living there for hundreds of years were attacked. In the mosques, Imam’s lectured “and you shall kill the Jews wherever you find them.” Armed mobs and later gangs (“oozlebarts”) screaming itbach al yahud (slaughter the Jews), Nashrab Dam Al Yahud (we will drink the blood of the Jews) and Filastin Arduna Wa Al Yahud Kibabuna (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs) descended on defenseless civilians. People were cut in half with a sword thrust. Pregnant women were stabbed in the belly and left to die. Children were murdered. These horrors are euphemized by Lesch as follows: > > ``` > When the Palestinians mounted violent protests in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, and the late 1940s, the yishuv sought to curb them by force, rather than seek a political accommodation with the indigenous people. > > ``` > > There was nobody available for negotiations. The Husseini family terrorized moderate Palestinians. It developed that there was nothing to negotiate. The Arabs of Palestine, represented by the Husseini clan’s Higher Arab Committee, rejected any attempt at compromise. As Lesch noted, even the minuscule state proposed by the Peel Commission was rejected by the Arabs of Palestine. > > The situation was complicated by the fact that the British allowed the intervention of the Saudi monarchy in British policy in Palestine, in effect inviting the King of Saud to block any compromise whatever. Saud rejected partition and demanded that the British curtail Jewish immigration. Saud said that if the British failed to follow Arab wishes in Palestine, the Arabs would turn against them and side with their enemies. He said that Arabs did not understand the “strange attitude of your British Government, and the still more strange hypnotic influence which the Jews, a race accursed by God according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation hereafter, appear to wield over them and the English people generally.” 9 > > By 1936 Husseini was apparently being funded by Fascist Italy. Coopting a revolt that had sprung up for largely local reasons (see Arab Revolt ) , he terrorized Arabs and Jews alike. About 1,500 people were killed in these “protests,” and the majority of the Arabs were killed by Husseini and his gangs. It was Husseini, and not the Jews, who decimated the Palestinian leadership, killing off large parts of 11 different rival clans. It is not true that the British decapitated the Arab leadership by jailing the Arab higher committee, as Lesch claims. Rather, in September or October of 1937, after Husseini was involved in killing the British commissioner for the Galilee, he fled along with key members of the Arab higher committee to Beirut and thence to Iraq. In Iraq, the Mufti began fomenting a pro-Axis coup against the British. These plans came to fruition in the Spring of 1941. 10 > > The coup was crushed however, and the Mufti fled again. This time he fled to his spiritual home, Nazi Germany. There, he became a friend and confidante of Adolf Eichmann, organized SS Units and enthusiastically supported the German annihilation of Europeans Jews. > > After the war, Husseini escaped from France where he was awaiting transport to Germany for trial by the Nuremberg tribunal. He advertised that his solution for the Jews of Palestine was the same as the solution adopted in Europe - annihilation. If all this could be attributed to Zionism and its impact, then certainly the Holocaust must have been due to Judaism and its impact… > > … the Zionists did try to reach an accommodation with the Arabs of Palestine. Herbert Samuel, first governor of Palestine, a Zionist as well as a Jew, ensured the election of Husseini as Grand Mufti in the hopes that he would seek accommodation. The Zionists courted the Nashashibi family as well. They agreed to compromise after compromise in the Peel plan. Zionists, including Arthur Ruppin, Yehuda Magnes and others formed Brit Shalom to work for a bi-national state, but support for the bi-national state state melted away in the Jewish community because there were no Arab partners to be found who would support this idea. The binational state was the product of Zionism and its impact, not of any Arab proposals. The compromise plans to partition and repartition Palestine was again due to Zionism and its impact, and not to any compromise offer by the Arabs. Yes there were also Zionist terrorism groups and those who by the end of the Mandatory period had forsaken any hope of living together and conspired to drive Arabs off of the land. There was Deir Yassin which at best was shameful and other events as well. But the myth of Zionists coming in and driving an extant people out at the point of a bayonet is as false as the myth that paints the Zionists as coming into an empty land and being without sin. Jews came in and invested in the region leading to massive influx of Arabs to the same areas and economic improvements for all. Resentment against the uppity Jews was exploited and violence ensued in a cycle ever since. Now we need to get down to the business of how to both give Israelis some security from attacks and the Palestinians a viable state of their own, which will be to the benefit of all involved and justice alike. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/219 "2009-01-06T04:52:19Z")
This [1999 article on Cynthia McKinney in the Jewish Times](http://www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/1999/110599cs.htm), and this [subsequent (2004) article in the Washinton Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62438-2004Sep4?language=printer) give a feel for how AIPAC deals with congresscritters. Upon first running for office, McKinney was given a list of positions by AIPAC which she was expected to endorse in return for AIPAC’s support. > [@](#): > > [McKinney’s friend and mentor Jules] Stine said McKinney thought AIPAC was heavy-handed in demanding her endorsement of their positions in return for their support. McKinney refused to play ball. "Here was a young woman who had not yet been elected to Congress and AIPAC was saying ‘This is our point of view, sign off on this.’ Cynthia being Cynthia was not going to do that… > > …Stine calls himself a strong supporter of AIPAC, but he defends McKinney for refusing to placate an organization which Stine thinks plays a disproportionate role in defining how Jews view elected officials. “We have been known on occaion to get turned off if the list [of issues] AIPAC hands out isn’t checked off properly.” After several years of deteriorating relations (to which McKinney contributed more than her measure), AIPAC targeted McKinney, and helped to fund a primary challenger: > [@](#): > > In 2002, two Democrats in Congress with records of voting against Israel’s interests – Reps. Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia – **faced primary opponents who received substantial support from Jewish donors. A majority of AIPAC board members gave to either McKinney’s challenger or Hilliard’s or both.** Hilliard and **McKinney lost.** Bill Banks, McKinney’s campaign manger, charged that AIPAC had made her the “No. 1 candidate to try to remove from office.” AIPAC denied the accusation. Significantly, McKinney’s district was only 4% Jewish. I am no fan of McKinney, believe me, but let’s not pretend AIPAC doesn’t target those who oppose it. It isn’t a case of AIPAC itself spending money to defeat those with opposing views. Rather, it steers donations of its supporters away from those who do not endorse its agenda, and toward challengers who do. (Much of the financial support for McKinney’s opponent came from outside McKinney’s district, a fact which was noted in the local paper at the time.) > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Not only is it not unreasonable, the fact that you can’t provide any real proof shows the truth of the matter. And yes, it’d be quite possible for you to show a politician taking one position and then AIPAC taking out an ad or what have you. You can’t, because it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015/220 "2009-01-06T05:31:45Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > [Documented history.](http://www.zionism-israel.com/impact_of_zionism.htm) In truth the lot of the Arabs who moved into the same areas where Jews moved to was good relative to the state of live elsewhere. Hmmm. You understand that I’m going to have doubts about the impartial presentation of "documented history on a site called “[zionism-israel.com](http://zionism-israel.com)” ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-support-israel/479015.md?page=12)