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?
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?
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!”
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.
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…
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 articlefrom the NYTimes detailing the influence of AIPAC, the second a news reportwhich states that Fortune ranked AIPAC the second most powerful interest group in the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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?
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:
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
What makes you think that the Palestinians were “goaded into anti-Jewish riots”, rather assuming the existence of a widespread resentment?
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.
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.
I agree with that and had thought “If he responds point-by-point, I’ll leave it at that”
But precisely, I content that 1) British colonialist bayonets were involved and 2)Zionist bayonets weren’t very different in nature from colonialist bayonets
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.
You have staffers and trade association members, among others. Play straight.
Yes, there are some who offer lip service. Very good. Now prove that they change their positions based on AIPAC’s direction.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!”
Documented history. 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.
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.
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.
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.
After several years of deteriorating relations (to which McKinney contributed more than her measure), AIPAC targeted McKinney, and helped to fund a primary challenger:
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.)