| "In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the `roll call' of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials." [From The Nation online, "AIPAC's Hold," by Ari Berman (posted 8/04/2006)]
"House Minority Leader John Boehner got a standing ovation when he voiced his continued support for the war in Iraq at AIPAC's annual conference today. When his counterpart, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, dared to criticize the war, she heard boos." [From The Nation online, "AIPAC Disses Pelosi," by Ari Berman (posted 3/13/2007)]
--------------------------------------------------
SOME BACKGROUND
It is interesting to observe the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in messages coming from Congress and some presidential candidates since the most recent AIPAC meeting in Washington. Perhaps more troubling than the new rhetoric directed against Iran was the decision by the House leadership to expunge language from the Iraq military appropriations bill that would have required President Bush to receive congressional approval before initiating a war with Iran. This decision appears to be a direct result of AIPAC's power not just to frame the message, but to dictate actual United States policy. In fact, AIPAC has been known to write legislation, as well.[1]
According to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), its primary mission is to work with America's leaders to strengthen the US-Israel relationship. "From a small public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as `the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel'." [From AIPAC's website] Its services range from workshops for training members to become activists and lobbyists, opportunities (depending on the level of financial commitment) to converse with high-level members of government, to free trips to Israel for new members of Congress.
For context, it helps to understand how AIPAC's influence on US policy has evolved over the 50-year period since its founding. In Israel, there was a left-leaning government from the country's inception - headed by Mapai, the party of Ben Gurion (which eventually merged with other parties in 1965 to become Labour); until 1977, there were no Likud-led governments. Israel has a multi-party parliamentary system, similar to those of Western European democracies; so Israeli governments represent coalitions, not a single party; nevertheless, Carter was the first President to work with a right-leaning Israeli government. And while Ariel Sharon came to believe that Likud had become too ideological and extremist - and therefore broke with Likud to form Kadima - the current Israeli government still is being led by that country's right wing, much as is the reality here in the United States.
While this was not always the case, today AIPAC, with an army of 100,000 members and an annual budget in 2005 reported as $40 million, is at the epicenter of a powerful coalition of right-wing, neoconservative, mostly Republican Americans; and its agendas closely match those of right-wing Israelis drawn from the Likud and Kadima factions.
The same people who led us into the catastrophic quagmire that is Iraq also have close connections to AIPAC and a larger network of powerful lobbyists. Technically unaffiliated with Israel, AIPAC is an American-based force that has ties to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and such notorious figures as Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Joseph Lieberman, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams and Frederick Kagan (one of the prime architects of today's Middle East mess). The incestuous relationships among members of these influential and powerful entities preclude an open and rational foreign policy debate - as rewards and punishments can be meted out to members of Congress according to whether these officials cater to the agendas of AIPAC and its supporting network. While open debate on Middle East policy is alive and well in Israel, our mainstream press (largely in corporate hands) doesn't discuss this fact in US publications.
AIPAC's influence cannot be overestimated. In fact, Congressmen who speak at AIPAC conferences often deliver messages that differ considerably from those they would produce for consumption by the general public. Just as AIPAC courts members of Congress, members of Congress also court AIPAC - with the hope of acquiring prestige in certain valued circles and donations from members, as well as from a wide network of related PACs. For example, Joe Lieberman sings one song, a rather harsh one at that, to his constituents in Connecticut, then preens before his AIPAC audience, regaling this group with all manner of rhetoric that would appall mainstream voters.
In an unabashed moment of pandering to AIPAC and belittling constituents at home, he stated: "Unfortunately, many in our country today do not seem to share that critical understanding of the threats we face." Yet those with "that critical understanding" are the very same members of the inner sanctum of the Bush Administration and some neoconservative "experts" who pushed raw CIA data to the press and public; told us the invasion of Iraq would be a "cake walk;" conflated 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah into a monolithic satanic enemy; and listened to Ahmed Chalaby (now confirmed to have close ties with Iran). On the other hand, those who acted cautiously, studied the geo-political dynamics of the region and carefully delineated the nuances among Sunnis and Shia, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban and Al Qaeda were accused of being ignorant and even unpatriotic traitors.
Lieberman goes on to say: "And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies." Just as we discovered that communism was not a monolith, today we already have ample evidence that Radical Islam is not either - although Lieberman and his neo-con cohorts undoubtedly will continue to disagree. Lieberman, Cheney, AIPAC, the original members of the Defense Policy Board, all ideological diehards, adamantly refuse to negotiate with "Radical Islam." But of course, negotiation takes place among people; you cannot negotiate with a concept. Cheney and Lieberman, more than other neoconservatives, consistently denigrate those who disagree with their belligerent stance; and they appear untroubled by any sense of responsibility for the deaths of over 600,000 human beings (according to a study sponsored by the Michael C. Bloomberg Graduate School of Public Health at John Hopkins). And their most receptive audience is AIPAC. The link cited below exposes the incestuous relationships amongst decision makers in the US government, right wing neo-cons, AIPAC, the right-wing Israeli government, and other disreputable players who served in prominent roles during the period that the Iraq War was being cooked up, "sold," and then foisted on the American public. Take a look: www.holology.com/images/neocon.links.jpg
AIPAC AND THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY
AIPAC tries to represent itself as though it and its policies represent mainstream American Jewish interests. In reality, the 100,000 members of AIPAC represent a small minority of American Jews; yet their leaders' voices are shrill, and their influence is grossly out of proportion to their actual numbers. According to a recent Gallop Poll, 70% of American Jews are against both the Iraq war and the belligerent neoconservative policies of the Bush Administration, thus putting to rest the rather nasty accusation in some circles that Jews pushed the Bush Administration toward the war in Iraq.
In fact, AIPAC speaks neither for American Jews nor for Israelis. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration in the US and Israel's Likud-Kadima right-wing alliance in Israel. In other words, it speaks not for the will of the majority of the citizens in either country, but rather for powerful government officials, neoconservative think tanks, politicized Christian Zionists, and others who wield power in both Israeli and American governmental circles.
When Yitzhak Rabin became Israel's prime minister in 1992, he informed leaders of major American Jewish Organizations that he would be speaking, not through them, but directly to the president and to congressional leaders [Bruce S. Ticker, Philadelphia Jewish Voice]. Unfortunately, Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli zealot.
Today in Israel there is a broad range of political parties and shifting alliances, matched by an equally broad spectrum of opinions by Israelis themselves, who debate openly about the merits of government policy; yet in the United States, debate about Israel has been stifled effectively by cries of anti-Semitism, even against citizens who are practicing Jews.
Glenn Greenwald points out that "There is a real, and quite disturbing, discrepancy between the range of permissible views on these issues within our mainstream political discourse and the views of a large segment of the American public. The former almost completely excludes the latter." [From The New York Sun, Enforced orthodoxies and Iran," (2/03/2007)]
--------------------------------------------------
A STORY
Tony Judt, currently a British professor of European studies at New York University, has experienced all manner of criticism and even death threats to his family, for remarks about what he has termed an "Israel Lobby" that he feels wields too much power and is responsible for stifling debate on Israel. In an interview with Graham Bowley in London's Financial Times, Judt states: "People accuse me of wanting to see the abolition of Israel, which is nonsense. Israel exists. The question is what kind of state is it going to be in future years, what kind of laws is it going to have for first-and second-class citizens?" It is the type of question any historian would entertain.
In 1967, Judt, who incidentally had family members killed in the Holocaust, worked as a translator of French and Hebrew and drove captured Syrian trucks during the 1967 war. It was during this war that he became aware of a change in attitude in Israel that disturbed him. "Until then, the dominant rhetoric in Israel had still been that you didn't disparage the Arabs, you believed in socialism and equality. Now it was straightforward anti-Arab sentiment. What began in 1967, and accelerated in a great tumble through the mid-1970's was the rise of a different Israel: hard-line, rightwing, very often religious, believing they had a real-estate pact with God. It was very ugly, at least I found it very ugly."
Like John Kerry, Judt is a man who actually participated in a war, saw first-hand what was happening and spoke out about it - only to be called anti-Israel in the same way that Kerry was labeled anti-American after Vietnam. The labels, in each case, were tossed around by men who had a vested interest in a particular political agenda and usually had not themselves fought).
--------------------------------------------------
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN JEWS
VERSUS AIPAC AND ITS NETWORK OF ALLIES
? 76% of American Jews voted against Bush in 2004 and over 70% are against the war in Iraq. Since a majority of American Jews are Democrats and a majority of these are progressive (or liberal), it is only natural that they are concerned about Israel's extreme right turn, nurtured by the Bush Administration. Yet, in America, to speak out against Israel's policies, strategies, tactics, or specific actions (such as its bombing mission inside Lebanon after the kidnapping of four Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah) is to invite being called anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.
? Apart from Jewish progressives, another group that figures in this puzzle includes the Zionists. But even in this group, there are Labour-leaning Zionists, who are at odds with Bush and Olmert; and there are right-wing Zionists allied with Evangelical Christians, most of whom support Likud and Kadima policies.
? Allied with Evangelical Christian Zionists, although at odds with their ultimate vision for the Middle East, are Jewish leaders of other organizations. Over thirty organizations fall under the umbrella group known as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which generally is ideologically allied (but not affiliated) with AIPAC - although individual organizations may differ in this respect.
Abraham Foxman, outspoken leader of the Anti-Defamation League, is a well-known example. Under Foxman, the ADL has veered right to support the Bush Administration's foreign policy agenda, including neoconservatives like John Bolton. Foxman treats the very claim that there is a pro-Israel lobby which unduly influences American policy, as evidence of anti-Semitism; yet he tempers his outrage against individuals with charges of bigotry, instead of anti-Semitism. [The New York Times, "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?" (1/14/2007)] Either way, the end result of these accusations is the stifling of debate.[2][2]
In league with these leaders are neoconservatives from institutions like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation; Dick Cheney in the White House; the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon; the out-spoken Senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman; and last, but not least, journalists like William F. Buckley and William Kristol - who aid and abet a highly organized public relations campaign.
? A final group in this mix includes primarily moderate and progressive Christians, who risk being labeled anti-Semitic if they do not court the current right-wing Israeli and American government agendas in the Middle East. This group includes a significant number of democratic members of Congress, who feel compelled to begin almost every statement or speech with Administration generated talking points, such as "support the troops" and "Israel is the only democracy in the middle East and it is our primary ally." The subtext of these messages is: "If I do not recite this mantra, I may be called anti-Israel, labeled anti-Semitic or pro-Palestinian, and even a terrorist sympathizer; and my next opponent will benefit from the massive funding I now receive from the various organizations that take advice from AIPAC."
But is David Obey, Democratic representative from Wisconsin, anti-Israel because he supports the Labour Party agenda rather than that of Likud or Kadima? Should Howard Dean and General Wesley Clark be impugned because they expressed the desire for a more even hand in U.S. policy? Or might it prove more constructive if these men's ideas (and many others) were to become part of an open, even raucous and vigorous debate?
--------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
There's an old joke that if you get 100 Jews in a room, you'll have 100 different opinions; but AIPAC, in alliance with this administration, has sought to stifle debate completely, even while rousing debate takes place regularly among Israelis.
Nicholas Kristof reports: "Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper." [The New York Times, 3/18/2007]
--------------------------------------------------
Debate is especially important now because the latest AIPAC-Bush Administration alliance appears to be pushing for a strike against Iran; both perceive Iran as an imminent threat to Israel. Three questions arise here: First, since pre-war Iraq served as a countervailing power against Iran, did this not occur to those in power before the US invaded that country and let it dissolve into chaos? Second, where is the data that confirms the assumption that Iran poses an imminent threat to Israel? And third, if this information does exist, do the facts alone preclude a diplomatic solution to this problem? AIPAC thinks so; Netanyahu and Likud think so; and the neoconservatives think so too, even though they have advocated a strategy to attack Iran since the late 1990's - before Ahmadinejad called openly for the destruction of Israel, before he denied the Holocaust, and before the raging controversy emerged over the possibility that Iran would have nuclear weapons sometime in the future.
In fact, AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (not a lobby group) have been pushing the Bush Administration in this direction, even in the face of Labour party opposition in Israel, which favors exhaustive negotiations first - and also in the face of the vast majority of American and Israeli citizens, peace organizations and activists in each country.
--------------------------------------------------
"The conservative colonization of much of the media, K Street lobbying firms and a good chunk of the judiciary has been well documented. It would therefore be surprising if other political institutions were resisting this trend. Perhaps some are, but don't for a second think that the conservative message machine is going to stop there. Over the years . . .the Republicanization and increasing hawkishness of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has continued apace, with little heed paid to the ramifications of this shift or its increasing alliance with the far right." [From The Nation online, "AIPAC Runs Right," by Eric Alterman (posted 10/10/2006)]
--------------------------------------------------
Standing by and leaning right is the United States Congress - most members bought lock, stock and barrel [3] by pro-Israel PACS associated with AIPAC. Unless progressive leaders are courageous enough to stand together and challenge the phony rhetoric, the false dichotomies and the incestuous web of alliances that have so far muzzled debate, politicians will continue to avoid a much-needed conversation about AIPAC's undue influence over US foreign policy. The vast majority of Jewish Americans support Israel; but, like Tony Judt, they do not necessarily support US and Israeli right-wing policies - which they believe have been detrimental to Israel, to the United States, and to the world-at-large.
AIPAC AND THE 2008 ELECTION
During the recent March AIPAC conference, Dick Cheney and an assortment of congressional representatives paraded themselves before AIPAC, framing the dialogue and forestalling meaningful debate.
Although Hillary Clinton's advocacy of negotiating with Iran angered members at the conference, AIPAC's influence can be seen in her more belligerent stand on Iraq. She now says that a significant number of troops must remain to protect American interests against Iran and Al Qaeda: "But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of - between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for. . ." [From "Senator's Longer View of the U.S. Role in Iraq," The New York Times, 3/15/2007] This is a significantly different position than she presented to the American people prior to the AIPAC meeting.
John Edwards, after a heart-felt apology to the American people for his initial support for the Iraq War, also appears to be falling prey to the same urgency to impress as he did in 2003, saying: "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table." This statement reflects a careless rush to join the club, rather than a desire to advocate for negotiation and to bring to light the fact that Iran is (at the very least) several years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
Barak Obama also spoke before the AIPAC conference in March and proved able to walk a tightrope. With amazing finesse, he managed to set out his position against the Iraq war and for negotiations with Iran before an audience skeptical of both positions, while simultaneously asserting that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." Obama began his speech with a reference to his trip to the "Holy Land" and spoke immediately of landing by helicopter in Kiryat Shmona, a town he described as looking surprisingly like the towns in suburban America; yet Kiryat Shmona has come under rocket fire by Hezbollah, and is different because (historically) it has acquired a symbolic meaning, as well.
Yes, Obama touched on his disagreement with Bush's policies in the Middle East, and he mentioned administration failures; but his speech also contained enough code words (and loaded words and phrases) to let AIPAC know that it has acquired a new friend. This was a foreign policy speech that he would not have delivered in most parts of our country, one that continuously played on the threat of Iran by emphasizing Ahmadinejad's angry rhetoric - which is not supported by the majority of Iranians, including some members of that government. When
Obama said that "Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric," he not only affirmed the tight connection between right-wing Israeli and US policy makers, but also (by implication) supported the controversial policy of preemption.
And these are just the leading Democratic Presidential candidates - those you would least expect to be towing a neoconservative line. But candidates need lots of money; and AIPAC has the power to "direct" large sums, or to turn off the tap. Some may remember the fate of the once-popular Eisenhower Republican from Illinois, Senator Charles Percy, who incurred the wrath of AIPAC after supporting the sale of AWACS to Saudia Arabia and promptly lost his seat. Speaking in Toronto in 1984, AIPAC's Executive Director Tom Dine boasted: "All the Jews from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message." [Wikipedia] It is ironic that, these days, the administration has been known to share intelligence with Saudi Arabia that it won't even show to congressional leaders; but AIPAC no longer seems to mind.
Percy's son-in-law, Jay Rockefeller, currently a Democratic Senator from West Virginia, apparently also got the message: "A senator with a 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in 1993 was West Virginia Democrat John (Jay) Rockefeller, who also has taken $125,200 from pro-Israel PACs, 100 per cent of it from out of state. He doesn't need the money from pro-Israel PACs. By accepting it, however, he indicates he's going to vote their way, and there's no need for them to find and fund an opponent." [Congress Watch: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "West Virginia's `Wild and Wonderful'," by Byrd Rahall, 6/1994, page 46]
Rockefeller certainly is not alone; like many (actually most) others, he continues to receive contributions from pro-Israel PACs, $36,000 in the 2001-2002 election cycle. But the big question remains: Do these PACs even represent what is in Israel's best interests; or have they simply become paymasters for a right-wing neo-con agenda?
THE STRANGEST ALLIANCE
While AIPAC goes ballistic over any candidate who suggests an even-handed approach to the serious crisis in the Middle East that has put thousands of Americans, Israelis and Iraqi civilians at risk, it apparently has no quarrel with TV evangelist John Hagee. The pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Hagee is a Christian Zionist who has been described as perhaps the most powerful and influential such figure in America. His own congregation boasts 18,000 followers; and he also is founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel. Hagee was honored with a prime speaking slot at AIPAC's most recent policy conference.
The alliance between neoconservative American Jews and Christian evangelical extremists often prompts some to scratch their heads. Why is Hagee, who advocates a hawkish foreign policy which he believes will result in Israel's destruction, allied with AIPAC? What do John Hagee and other Christian Zionists preach that appears to coincide with AIPAC's stated goals?[3][4]
--------------------------------------------------
ANOTHER STORY
Living in Evangelical Zionist country is like nothing a Blue State resident even can imagine. In fact, it is surreal. Driving south on Route A1A, along the northeastern Florida coast on a beautiful spring day, can be breathtaking - so long as you don't happen to turn on the radio. Aside from the lonely NPR Station, an otherwise lovely 45-minute drive from Amelia Island into Jacksonville can become a Jew's worst nightmare if (s)he is foolish enough to try scanning for a classical music station. It's hellfire and damnation all the way. John Hagee may be the most visible evangelist to fill the airwaves; but he is by no means alone. The naïve northerner, or Midwesterner, or Californian would be startled to hear one preacher after another regale listeners with the popular scenario in which Armageddon soon will be achieved along with the second coming. While there are several versions, and the interim prophecies change frequently, the core message is frightening: A Middle Eastern conflagration is encouraged because, in order for "the rapture" to occur, Jews and Muslims must fight to the death in what essentially would be another holocaust; all Muslims are to be killed and most of the Jews. Those who survive either will convert to Christianity (their version, of course) or be eliminated. Some choice; thanks.
--------------------------------------------------
Hagee's version of Christianity has little in common with that of the National Council of Churches or other moderate mainstream Christian organizations. It is mystifying to consider where AIPAC and its neoconservative Jewish supporters find common ground with these extremist Christian Zionists; yet Hagee is welcomed by these self-proclaimed advocates for Israel. Supposition aside, the sheer amount of money and activist foot soldiers of this unholy alliance present a powerful advocacy group for the neoconservative agenda in the Middle East. Consider their ability to frame both the message and the debate.
ADDRESSING THE FALSE DICHOTOMY
Individuals, Congressmen, candidates simply are not permitted to be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. To speak of policies that will benefit both Israelis and Palestinians is to appear anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. To be pro-Palestinian is to be anti-Israeli and - incredible as this non sequitur - also, by definition anti-Semitic. To be pro-Palestinian is to be supportive of terrorists. To speak out against Likud and Kadima's policies is to be anti-Israel. Few in Congress recognize that they can and should challenge these false labels, which have been imposed entirely to confuse the public and to achieve political advantage. Speaking out should be an obligation.
Someone needs to stand up and say: "I support the Labour agenda." "I support the Peace Now movement." "I support the 600 Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories." Someone should be able to say that (s)he loves Israel, but deplores its current policies; that Israel's worst enemy is not Iran, but the utter chaos and instability in the Middle East caused by George Bush's policies; and that the Iraq War has raised the terror ante in the region and, in the process, has seriously compromised Israel. Someone needs to distinguish between terrorists in the occupied territories and the majority of decent Palestinian civilians just trying to survive in an unstable and frightening environment. The responsibility for this unstable environment ought to be acknowledged and widely shared by a number of parties; for starters, consider the misguided policies of the United States, Europe, Palestinian and other Arab extremist and government entities - as well as Israeli actions. It is possible to be in favor of both a secure Israeli state and an independent Palestine because only when the security needs of both parties are met can there be peace; yet few in mainstream politics will dare to espouse this realistic view for fear of retaliation
CHALLENGING THE RHETORIC
It is incumbent on Congress and the American people to battle the inflammatory rhetoric, improve dialogue, and broaden debate. To accomplish this, bold and misleading strokes of simplistic rhetoric must be replaced by careful data collection, proactive efforts to encourage various points of view, attention to nuance, serious (objective) analysis, and the realization that there are no either-or propositions. It wasn't long ago that American leaders held summit meetings with our enemies. Today members of the Bush Administration label the heads of other governments as "extremists," "terrorists," members of the "Axis of Evil," or even representatives of "Old Europe" - dismissing them as irrelevant and thereby precluding the possibility of entering into serious negotiations.
Somewhere along the line, the concept of negotiation - which fully takes into account the likelihood of having to deal with extremist positions - has been denigrated and replaced primarily by a "my way or the highway" approach to decision making. Yet the negotiating process is designed specifically to begin with often diametrically opposing positions, and then to move - step by step - toward an agreed middle ground. Unfortunately, even when the Bush Administration pretends to employ negotiation, its approach still dooms the process to failure. Preconditions that demand defined outcomes even before the start of negotiations represent what sometimes has been called the "prisoner's dilemma," for which the only outcome is war.
Check the reference below, from The Center for Responsive Politics, to identify those 25 candidates who received the largest contributions during the 2006 election cycle from PACs that claim to represent pro-Israel interests. [Joe Lieberman wins First Prize!] Members of Congress who were not up for re-election in 2006 (or were running in essentially uncontested races) - but who have received significant contributions - represent a Who's Who in Congress; among many others, these recipients include Dick Durbin, Olympia Snowe, Trent Lott, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, Max Baucus, Tom Harkin, Elizabeth Dole, Carl Levin and Arlen Specter. http://www.opensecre...
In consideration of the price that America's children (as well those of Israel, Iraq, and many other countries) have paid and will continue to pay for the senseless conflicts that the right wing continues to advocate - and AIPAC promotes - we hope our senators and representatives will have the strength to turn down tainted money that puts a strangle-hold on their independence and ability to represent their constituents, rather than those in positions of power and influence.
[1] One recent example is the non-binding resolution, in July of 2006, condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and their state sponsors; and supporting Israel's right to self defense.
[2] It doesn't seem to occur to people like Foxman that these false assertions of anti-Semitism - as with the boy who cried "wolf"- could contribute to a future situation in which legitimate claims might be ignored.
[3] Lest we forget the elephant in the room, it pays to remember Dick Cheney and his association with Big Oil. For a full discussion of Cheney's complicity in manipulating and balancing the Middle East agendas of both neoconservatives and the oil interests in this administration, we recommend Greg Palast's, Armed Madhouse, Dutton (2006).
[4] Hagee subscribes to a version of Biblical prophecy that precludes any exchange of land for peace and which assumes the certainty of a Russian-Arab led war against Israel. Continuing conflict, leading to Armaggedon, is a certainty; and "the rapture" precludes being saved from tribulation by anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ at the second coming. Hagee's NPR interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross can be heard in its entirety by clicking here: http://www.npr.org/t... |
MLN is powered by