After looking around this site, I will definitely not accept its content as being unbiased. They are totally devoted to their Zionist cause.
Also, as a test, I searched for Deir Yassin we both mentioned. I saw in their timeline a number of articles about crimes the Palestinians committed (“Hebron massacre”, “Hadassah convoy massacre”) but the “Deir Yassin massacre” article was strangely absent. Should I base my opinion on a cite from a site that prominently features the failings of one side and ignore the failings of another? I don’t think so.
Contrasting the content of their FAQ with the FAQ of a Palestinian site was “interesting”, though.
Since I know someone will eventually post a link if I don’t mention it : I eventually found the references to Deir Yassin dug into the account of the 1948 war. I also searched for their treatment of other informations that can cast a bad light on the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel. And I’m definitely unsatisfied with those. This is a propaganda site with only a varnish of “reasonable discourse”, as they put it.
I can’t help but writing more about this site. Reading now the “Zionist commentaries” on the first page, it’s even worst than I thought. For instance, the first link, about the medias stating that Israel is overreacting in Gaza, shows a fake paper titled “Warsaw ghetto uprising an overreaction : European leaders blame Jews” and with articles such as “public opinion shifts towards Gestapo”. The next page is equating humanitarian supplies with rockets. Another is equating “progressives” who criticize Israel with Nazi supporters.
I’m done with this site. Quoting it in GD for any other purpose than showing what is the stance of dedicated supporters of Israel (and more specifically zealous Zionists) is a joke.
Yet your argument is not that AIPAC has no real influence and simply gets politicians to pledge support regardless of them following through on those promises, but that they have great influence on actual American political decisions.
And yet, both AIPAC and Jerusalem want the US embassy in Jersualem. It’s kinda a ‘big thing’. And yet, candidate after candidate makes the promise, and then President after President uses the specific provision written into the ‘95 law in order to not move the embassy to Jerusalem. Every president has done that repeatedly, since the law was passed in the first place. Even Bush II has prohibited the US embassy from moving to Jersualem, again and again, and often using the justification that it would hamper US national security to move it there. Even Obama, the next President of the US, only said that once Final Status negotiations were concluded would the embassy be moved to Jerusalem; Obama said that he’d only move our embassy to Israel’s capital once we had the Palestinians’ blessing.
Of course, this shows that rather than slavish obedience to AIPAC, politicians are happy to pander to them and then reneg on massive promises. Bush II started prohibiting the move to Jerusalem at the very beginning of his first term. And lo and behold, he got a second term.
If the claim is that AIPAC influences politicians to pander, that’s a claim that nobody would disagree with. But the claim is that AIPAC actually gets things done. The language already quoted was that they “pass” legislation. And yet, they can’t even get our embassy into Jerusalem. This is a major disconnect between the conspiracy theory and reality.
No. Your own cite makes clear that it was only certain member of AIPAC’s board of directors, and that even then it wasn’t all of them, and those who donated didn’t always donate to both of the candidates’ challengers. You are now at the point of conflating private citizens and their own campaign contributions with AIPAC as an organization
In fact, your second cite clearly states:
So “AIPAC’s” influence is actually largely due to non-AIPAC members who support it and with private citizens who are members of AIPAC and who make and solicit contributions as private citizens. In other words, the influence lies with the actual voters (Gasp! Shock! Horror! Treason!)
Of course, the article you just cited says that part of the reason is the strategic importance of Israel to US interests.
So I assume you’ll join me in denouncing Treis’ claims that Israel isn’t of strategic importance to the US and that it’s nasty ol’ AIPAC which is largely responsible for our politicians supporting Israel. Right?
Your own cite also mentions Obey and how he’s spoken out about his dislike of AIPAC (I thought AIPAC was so powerful politicians couldn’t do that?) In fact, he was up for election again in 2008. The conspiracy theory would tend to suggest that AIPAC is so powerful that he was defeated. Care to lay odds on whether or not he’s still in office? Maybe whether or not he was removed as chair of the Appropriations Committee? Or the chair of the Subcommittee on Labor Health and Human Services Education and Related Agencies? Or a member of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel?
She was also re-elected later on (AIPAC influence FTW!)
More significant she was an embarrassment who made massive mistakes and helped ensure her own downfall in 2002.
Even prominent members of the black community backed away from that loon.
The fact is that there were plenty of reasons why she was defeated, and the political contributions of AIPAC members are just one of the many factors. But of course, only talking about AIPAC is much sexier.
Same goes for Hilliard.
[quote]
In the earlier race, political analysts said Artur Davis, who defeated Representative Earl F. Hilliard, an Alabama Democrat, in June, benefited from Mr. Hilliard’s history of ethical lapses.
Last summer, he was rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for converting campaign gifts to his own use
[quote]
So we’re left with a situation where politicians, already under fire for their own actions and vulnerable, had their opponents’ political campaigns contributed to by pro-Israel private citizens.
In other words, private citizens of the United States of America make up their own minds and donate along the lines of their own beliefs. So even by your claim, AIPAC helps provide the tools for private citizens to contribute to campaign funds and they are the ones who influence the financial dynamics of campaigns.
Can you show instances where AIPAC has taken out newspaper ads saying that people are anti-Israel and shouldn’t be voted for? I’ve never seen or heard of any. Although if you can provide some (and especially if you can prove they’re not isolated incidents) I’ll happily concede that I was mistaken.
Your position has been that Iran’s support for anti-Israeli forces has been at the expense of its anti-American activity in Iraq. Israel has been a buffer, is your claim. Well, in your latest post you no longer assert that claim, which is something. I can only believe you aren’t serious in claiming the ‘death to America’ chant is a rational indication of Iran’s policy to current Iraq.
And this notion that democracy ‘spreads’ as though contagious, isn’t it a little aged nowdays? As in solidly discredited. In any case, it’s nowhere near plausible to claim Iran would positively oppose democracy in Iraq to secure it’s own system domestically; and here we are digressing from the thread.
You probably wouldn’t have this inclination if you’d been properly informed from the outset. Which is the whole point of the propaganda of course. The well’s poisoned.
The question is what occurs when you realise the gravity and insistent quality of the poisoning. What justice must the panderers meet?
Indeed. Several posters here are well intentioned, on the right track but a little mistaken in viewing AIPAC as the single agency of the Israeli Right-Wing in the US. Their numbers are legion and diffuse.
So don’t accept it as unbiased. (And in truth on review you are correct that many of the other pages are clearly promoting a particular perspective.) Accept it as biased but the all of what is presented in the pages I linked to are factual and accurate and easily verifiable by checking a variety of primary sources if you care to make the effort to do so: Jewish immigration brought with it a relative economic boom to Mandatory Palestine and Palestinian Arabs consequently did better on a variety of economic, literacy, and health measures than other Arab groups; what had been a net emmigration of Arabs out of the area turned into a significant net immigration of Arabs into the area during that time period.
Yup, they fail to mention some of the negatives - towards the end of the Mandatory period you had the Stern gang of thugs, Irgun’s terrorist activities, and some distinct anti-Arab activities. And in the earlier Mandatory period economically Palestinian Arabs were better off than other Arabs but that does not mean that there was no economic discrimination - Jews tended to get the better jobs from Jewish investment and Arabs were hired as lower pay laborers. Some resentment was going to occur. The practice of hiring preference of Jews by Jews helped create it even as the lot of all improved. It set the stage for a division into a higher paid group of Jews and a less well paid and less well educated Arab group and the fact the Arab circumstance was still better there as a result of Jewish immigration does not change how that still was perceived with some justification as unfair. Especially in the historic context of the traditional place of the Jew in the Arab world.
But the site did not make up the history. The facts are still accurate.
My position remains.There are myths held by both sides and one of them is the concept that Jews came in and displaced Arabs out of Palestine during the Mandatory period. The Jews came in and brought with them an economic boom but also fostered some resentment. That resentment was exploited for political gain and an us vs them cycle of violence ensued. By the end of the mandatory period there were significant forces on each side that feared the other and not without cause. By then blood was spilled by each side and some forces from each side did want to share “their” space with the “other.” However you want to read that history can inform you and can bias you but it doesn’t change the facts now on the ground.
Thank you, toadspittle for writing this. I cannot agree more. I’d like to add a few more things:
I want to support Israel but I refuse to use rhetorical acrobatics to justify what I perceive to be disproportionate force.
In my lifetime, it hasn’t been the Israeli Jews that have been persecuted, it has been the Israeli Arabs, the Gazans, and the Palestinians. We’ve installed democracies there and had a temper tantrum when the people didn’t vote with the West, meddled in their affairs and engendered hatred, and hyperinflated the danger to Israel by its Arab neighbors. While I support Israel’s right to exist, I cannot, unlike most of the world, turn a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians. As Audre Lorde said, “Your silence will not protect you.” It didn’t protect the innocent children in Sudan nor the peoples in Rwanda. And guess what? It won’t protect the Palestinians.
Israel has shown repeatedly that even with advanced U.S weaponry and a strong flow of U.S tax dollars into Israeli coffers, that they cannot conduct a war without killing civilians. Whether its illegally using cluster bombs or dropping bombs on places of worship, I am convinced the war tactics used by Israel are dangerous and sets a terrible precedent. Israel must be confronted about this issue by the U.S and the international community.
To answer the question of the OP, I can think of one reason to support Israel. They contribute to the Sciences. But so does Iran, Ghana, and South Africa. <shrug>
FinnAgain, you do love to muddy the waters, but let’s refocus on the OP. The OP wonders why we support Israel so unfailingly. Lobbying is part of the answer.
You seem to want people to think that AIPAC only conducts its lobbying by writing nice polite letters to Congresspeople, earnestly expressing its views. Well that ain’t so.
AIPAC plays hardball.
Now, in general, there’s nothing wrong with an interest group pursuing it’s agenda, even to the point of using hardball tactics. What makes AIPAC different is that it is lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. And the danger from that (as forseen by George Washington) is that our own national interest gets confused with that of Israel, or even subverted to that of Israel.
Just to be clear, I would like to see Israel succeeed as a nation. At the same time, I would like to see the Palestinians treated more justly. There are legitimate claims and legitimate grievances on both sides of the dispute.
I only wish my government would acknowledge that, rather than parroting the Israeli government’s position.
You ‘want to support Israel’ but you don’t want to bother to learn about the situation enough to make an informed decision about your support, instead just going on assumptions or your own perceptions. Check.
Just simply an amazing collection of drivel here. I mean…truly amazing. And you feel this way after a close examination of the current situation, an overview of the history and wading through not only this thread but all the OTHER threads on this subject? Okey Dokey…
Israel has shown that even with US magic weapons technology (we won’t complicate things by discussing Israel’s own weapons capabilities or uses) they can’t hit military targets that are deliberately put near or even on top of or under concentrations of civilian populations or civilian structures. We certainly need to do something about this since it MUST mean that the Israeli’s are deliberately misusing our magic military hardware and needlessly causing death to the poor, innocent and persecuted ‘Israeli Arabs, the Gazans, and the Palestinians’. I mean, when WE use those weapons they never kill innocent civilians, even when the military installations we are attacking are surrounded by civilian targets, hospitals and a day care center right under the weapons storage lockers! We should definitely DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS HORRIBLE ABUSE OF OUR MAGIC TECHNOLOGY!
Well, we should definitely cut all ties to them and let them fend for themselves then, since this is the only reason to support them (in your obviously unbiased and heart felt search for reasons to support Israel of course). After all, if Iran and Ghana and South Africa are already doing their part what need for Israel, ehe?
shrug
Seeing the same tired arguments brought up over and over again (though multiple threads going gods know how many pages)…well, it just never get’s old, does it?
They are not just going after military targets. They are destroying apartment blocks and killing families just to assassinate an individual in their home. That is simply inexcusable barbarism.
You have reached the point in your argument where you simply repeat the same debunked canards over and over.
As has already been pointed out, not only is Israel targeting valid military targets, and not only is it quite excusable, it’s explicitly permitted by the Fourth GC.
Pretty sure I already cited that, to you.
And now if only I could figure out how to get rid of a “title” that I accidentally cut and pasted in the wrong field…
So you won’t and can’t refute any of my claims or show any factual errors, but you’d like to disagree anyways.
So noted.
US embassy: Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
The claims that we support Israel ‘uncritically’, ‘unfailingly’, ‘unquestioningly’ are all fabrications. But don’t let me muddy the water with facts.
Embassy?
Where is it?
I suppose I could continue and list all the policy disagreements we’ve had with Israel, but as your rhetoric seems to be bombast, is it really worth my time? When the US State Department routinely criticizes multiple aspects of Israel’s conduct, should anybody really take your claims seriously when you pretend that we “parrot”, well, anything?
You’d also do well to note that the “Israeli government” is hardly a monolithic block and as a coalition government, even the ruling group isn’t a monolithic block.
The recently-uncovered AIPAC spy ring had its agents on the staff of Doug Feith, one of the leading exponents of the Iraq adventure. If that’s not actual, tangible access to the levers of power, I’m not sure what is.
As noted, it is not just AIPAC that influences policy. Many or most of the neocon outfits who promoted the Iraq WMD theory, etc. were firmly in the pocket of the Likud lobby (AEI’s position on Iraq had Netanyahu’s fingerprints all over it).
It’s interesting how many anti-Israel posters here have their positions grounded in pure fiction. It really does say something that many of your positions cannot be supported without inventing an alternate reality.
The fact, as opposed to the fiction, is the US State Department routinely and vocally criticizes Israel.
Ahhhh, the “disproportionate force is bad!” dodge.
I suppose you’d support proportional force, then? If Israel started indiscriminately lobbing high explosives randomly all over Gaza? No?
State your position accurately, don’t dodge behind this silly “disproportionate” smokescreen.
In addition to the fabrications, your lack of even basic knowledge makes it rather hard to take your argument seriously. Gazans are Palestinians. And your claim that we “installed” democracy there is a simple fabrication, emphasis on simple.
Your weird claims about us having a ‘temper tantrum’ are also rather blatant bombast.
What actually happened is that the Palestinians elected a genocidal, racist, rejectionist government which refused to recognize that Israel had a right to exist. When you elect a government, you take responsibility for their actions. Pretending that just because a government is elected that means other nations have to have friendly relations with it is… a unique perspective.
And, interestingly enough, one you don’t apply to the Palestinians themselves (who’d a thunk it?). Has Hamas freely accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign state? No? Funny… that.
And if you’re not using a double standard, please show one single example of one war, in the entirety of human history, where an entrenched force that surrounded itself with civilians was attacked with zero collateral damage.
Otherwise admit that you’re faulting the Israelis for not being magic.
