This post comes from a comment made in this post. It is about why we cannot discuss Israel in this country like mature adults:
If they want to discuss the role of AIPAC on American foreign policy, well, fine, let's do that. But let's do it without implying that it's an illegal or unethical enterprise by labeling it 'mafia,' or by bringing up the spectre of anti-semitism.
Sadly, the term anti-semitism is thrown around too much in this country when it comes to even the slightest mention of Jewishness or Israel or Israeli influence over US foreign policy in the larger Middle East. I find that sad because critics use the word so much it takes away its power. It's like people comparing Bush to Hitler. It's become so commonplace that people don't understand the enormity of Hitler's evils any longer. (No doubt someone will find fault with my mentioning Hitler and Israel in the same sentence--so let me pre-empt you: don't bother, I don't have a hidden agenda.)
Is there anti-semitism in America? Sure. Is there as much anti-semitism as some critics think they see lurking in the corners of academia, on TV, radio and the media in general? Not hardly.
What I find most sad is that we in America cannot have a conversation about the role of Israel without hurling accusations and counter-accusations at each other, watching it turn into, as one of my favorite foreign policy thinkers called it "an orgy of recriminations." We never discuss facts and reality. It's all about who did what and when and why it's ok to retaliate this way or that way. That's biblical eye-for-an-eye nonsense. It's the 21st century for crying out loud.
What's even more sad is that the level of debate inside Israel and among Israelis about Israeli influence on American politics is much more mature than our debate. Why is that? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm very serious.)
I guess my main point is that it's hard to talk about Israel here in America at all because if you do and you are not a fervent supporter of Israel you are labeled an anti-Semite. That's disturbing. It can also wreck careers, which is extremely anti-American.
I have very real concerns about the the influence of Armenians on American foreign policy--they have a powerful lobby, you know, and the same goes for Taiwan, which has an extremely powerful lobby, which no one denies exists like they do the Israel lobby--but when I voice my concern about either I am not in fear of immediately being demagogued out of the conversation.
Woe unto her who raises concern about Israeli influence on American foreign policy, however, for the response is swift and the charges brutal: "she's an anti-semite." This shuts off all debate, which is, I imagine, the point.
We need to have this debate in America. And it isn't about being an anti-Semite or pro-Israeli or about having duel loyalties. I'm Irish American and don't like what's happening in the North and I say so. Jews in this country should be (and are) free to say the same about Israel. And just as someone can speak in opposition of my views on the Troubles, so too should I be able to voice my concerns about how Israel acts.
This is about honestly taking stock of where we are in the world--the American people, regardless of what comes before the hyphen--and how we got here and how we proceed.
Can we have that debate?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 77
Just to get the party started, I can only say that not all of us will feel we can add meat to the stew. I am eager to read what comments are shared here, to learn more and get an education.. I hope there will be more readers like me at this thread -- and hope we can see both sides presented, if we're lucky, in reasoned and intelligent dialogue.
Why can't the various Arab tribes that live in the Middle East have their own convocation and re-divide their countries in such a way that they reflect the people's wishes that live on the ground; rather than the lines drawn by the British in the Balfour Treaty in 1917?
The Israelis should be able to share in that division. They are an historically ancient people and have a legitimate claim to their own country in the Middle East. They should be free to live their lives without being in fear of being blown up by a suicide bomber or ambushed on their way home by an Arab terrorist with an AK-47. It seems to me that the Israelis target and kill individuals that are guilty of killing, or directing the killing, of Israeli citizens. If I were an Israeli citizen, I would find this comforting. Thank God our country defended our citizens against terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11.
If I had my wish, I wish that they would all sit down, smoke the peace pipe, and figure out how they could collectively make their part of the world a better place for the people that live there, both Arabs and Jews...and Christians, for that matter.
Someone made a comment lately that all Jews and Arabs are Semites so all tough comments concerning Jews or Arabs can be considered anti-semitism.
Thank you Sean Paul in this PC world just opening thiis door takes guts.
really?
so, when i look at the map and see palestine being pushed into the sea - that's the arab's fault, hey?
when i see israeli tanks rolling down palestinian streets, while kids throw rocks at it - that's a situation that is not influenced by american tax dollars in any way, hey?
interesting.
i never understood the political quicksand called israel. they seem to be able to handle themselves just fine.
oh, except they need my money to do it. anti-semetic?
or just stingy.
what happens if israel goes down - jesus won't return, or something?
why are fundamentalist republican christians so interested in protecting the jews?
Unfortunately we live in a world where folks are looking for easy black and white answers to very complex problems and when we feel frustated by their lack of an easy solution we resort to our own prejudices as an anchor to interpret them. Then we sleep better. It happens all over the place every day.
What I cannot do is try to muzzle their verbal expressions. Respond yes; censure no. I believe there is a line separating insult and offense to a group from expressed uneducated interpretations of events. As long as it is the latter and not the earlier I am willing to live with it. I need to know who my neighbor really is and what he or she stands for so I can avoid walking with him or her next time. It will not take long for those who express those positions to realize that we do not condone that kind of thinking, not only because it is offensive but also because it is not accurate..
The only comment I don't understand, among the many here, is Bruce's. Why is a person 'scared' and 'paralyzed' if he/she admits he/she may not have as much to offer to this conversation as others?
Please, let's not pretend that anti-Semitism isn't rearing its ugly head again, that it isn't extremely common, and that being "reasonable" about it or pretending that this is a freedom of speech issue is anything but a disguised form of anti-Semitism. Just who do you think you're kidding?
find a way to forward engineer solutions and without Judaic values fewer of us would be inspired to charity and sacrifice and the pursuit of miracles. There is room for Arabia but count me out of any world that
would condemn Israel. Also, there is room for us all to offer recognition
of merit before searching others for rotten apples. Sean we need more wagons for this train. Much love and appreciation,you too Liz!
Now why is it that Israell needs our money when they are here is the US purchasing Chains of Gas-station-stores.
A search on Israeli companies buying large businesses in the Us may be fruitful.
I do not think anyone is pretending here.
Comments such as yours above make me believe that Joel is correct in that we cannot have this debate here. Do you mean to say that?
the arabs just need better PR.
"we aren't really bad, it's the liberal press making us look that way." ?
......
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Israeli warplanes hit a building in Gaza City early Monday, Palestinian witnesses and the military said.
~~
mmm - helluva defense move.
When there is this level of irresponsibility, the ONLY solution is to start destroying structures. The American Civil War was horrific, but Sherman's March to Georgia was effective.
I can tell I'm about to become an idiot again because one of my daughters is raging against an auto dealer servicewriter and I must intervene before she shouts "Twanda!"
The solution to the anti-whatever problem is education and wealth. The enemies of peace know this which is why most of us are becoming dumber and poorer by the day . Train our children WHAT to think rather than HOW to think and you will have an following. Keep them in poverty and you will have a highly motivated army of zealots.
We forget that we fought the Hitler Youth for two years after Germany surrendered because the Nazis had so thoroughly indoctrinated their youth; and in the space of little more than a decade.
Now we are dealing with charter schools that teach in the Aztec language the superiority of all things Hispanic, hatred of all things not Muslim in the mosques, hatred of Whites in the inner cities, and moral relativism to everybody else. We don't teach political science, history, or how to recognize propaganda. The f-bomb has replaced most adjectives and adverbs as our language of choice. Hostility and rage have replaced polite conversation.
The people in power want to stay in power. If we all got along, hundreds of thousands of arms dealers, lawyers, social workers, prison guards, politicians, ruthless businessmen, and broadcast journalists would be out of work. Thousands of redundant charities would have to close up shop.
If everybody started teaching their children correct principles, we could solve all of the world's problems in a generation. But what we are really attempting to do is change the nature of man; and without divine intervention that just isn't going to happen.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that debating anti-semitism, or any topic other than the weather is fast becoming an exercise in gum-flapping and time-wasting.
"Expressing anti-semitic thoughts is no different from expressing anti-immigrant thoughts or "anti-(place your favorite subject here) thoughts." Persons of color (yes, "us" hispanics are also persons of color), sexual preferences, religion, I have seen them all."
so.. any caution in dealing with a view of Israel is now not only anti-(fill in the blank) but RACIST too???
you crack me up. Good thing you are a doctor, perhaps you'll be able to get that knee jerked back down into place.
any but glowing terms is not politically correct eh??? well that's "double plus good".
L.
Way before the 9-11-01 attacks on the U.S. the Neo- Conservative play book was drawn up where we would go in and take over Iraq.
The 9-11 attacks and the bogus weapons of mass destruction thing were simply excuses to attack iraq which the people who were pulling Georgie's strings had planned to do all along. So that is the background which brings up the argument about our government favoring Israel.
The other things to note is that our country has backed Israel since it's inception in 1948. We also back them because they are the only democracy in the middle east. To say that they have a great deal of influence in this country is a well known fact. We also favor them because they are not considered terrorists . They use conventional warfare and have a court system which we perceive as being just.
So there are many aspects to this debate about the U.S. and Israel.
There is also the point of view of some fair minded Arabs here in this country who feel that our country should have a more balanced approach and occasionally consider their point of view about how Israel is conducting itself. None of these ideas has anything to do with bigotry.
When having any debate we need to consider opposing view points. For example many Arabs believe that dropping bombs from the air on them is simply the American/Israeli form of a random terrorist act since more often than not innocent civillians are killed. On the other side of that the American/Israeli commanders would consider the bomb dropping tactic as a legitimate tactic of fighting agains terrorists. You point of view could depend on whether you were looking down or looking up in fear.
When Will They Ever Learn?
by Rabbi Michael Lerner
When will they ever learn…that violence is not the path to security?
Today we write those words about Israel and Palestine, yesterday about the U.S. in Iraq, tomorrow about China in Tibet, and it goes on and on. And the only solution is to break the chain of pain and say, "No more—we will not respond to violence with violence. We will follow the teaching of the Torah that says 'love the stranger' and Jesus that says 'turn the other cheek' and we will stop this madness forever if we could really sustain the courage to do that."
This is a tough moment to say this point—and yet it needs to be said to both sides. I start with Israel only because it is the greater military power, but I'll get to a critique of the Palestinians too, so read this whole thing through. Tikkun's progressive middle path for Middle East Peace rejects any attempt to say that one side is the pure bad and the other the pure good.
So, the details of the day. Israel is the military power occupying the West Bank and surrounding Gaza. By all international standards it has no right to do either, but if it does so it has an absolute obligation to treat the civilian population with certain respect and basic human rights. Israel continually fails to do this and has become one (not the worst, but one) of the world's major human rights violators.
No wonder that people are asking their Jewish neighbors, "Do you really think that is morally acceptable to cut off electricity and water for a million and a half Gazans as a retribution for the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the kidnap of a third? Isn't this the kind of 'collective punishment' that ruthless dictators have used against the civilian populations of countries that they controlled to the horror of the rest of the world? Don't you realize that when you face acts of terror against Israeli civilians that it is because the Palestinians have no army, no airplanes, no tanks, so they fight with their improvised weapons as resistance forces have always done, and it makes no sense to call that "terror," particularly when the targets are members of the armed forces on active duty. And don't you think that the U.S. should be allowed to stand up for human rights there rather than be restrained by the fear that anyone criticizing Israel will be described as anti-Israel and their political futures put in danger by the AIPAC-related crowds that have been so effective in shaping the media and the public discourse in this country? And while we are at it, don't you think that it's really not great for the Jews to be identified with AIPAC and neo-cons and their spokespeople in Congress like Senator Lieberman who support the war in Iraq and who have become a major voice for trying to push the US into conflict with Iran?"
Those who care about the Jewish people, want to preserve it and protect it, want to see a safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Jewish people all around the world, have to shout out now in very clear words: "Stop what you are doing, Israel, not just at the moment, but in the essence of your policies. Forget about taking over the part of the West Bank within the Wall built by the Israeli Right and their Labor party collaborators. Get out of the West Bank, and do it in a spirit of generosity, not of resentment and begrudging response to world pressure. Do it in a spirit that communicates that you recognize the humanity of the Palestinian people and recognize their suffering! Imagine, for example, how different the feelings would have been this week in the Arab world if, after killing a family on a Gaza beach through an IDF shelling, the President and Prime Minister of Israel had together gone to visit the family of the deceased to offer apologies and to share in the mourning of this loss, rather than trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that it wasn't really Israel's shell after all! Imagine how different things would be if today the Israeli government said, "We will find a way to create an international consortium to provide reparations for those Palestinians who have lost their homes in 1948-1967, and those whose homes were unfairly bulldozed to support the needs of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank! Imagine how different things would be if Israel could say, "We recognize that we have the greatest power in the area, that we face no credible threats from our neighbors, that our actions since 1948 have been ungenerous and sometimes outright immoral in the way we've treated not only Palestinians outside our state but also Arabs who have lived and paid taxes inside our state, and we want to stop all that, stop the escalation of weaponry and the arrogance of power, so we will take the first steps to show how generous the Jewish people can be when it follows its Torah's command to "love the stranger" and then announces concrete acts of love and generosity! Nothing less than this will work.
That is the way to break the chain of pain. The only way. And that's why eventually the path that Tikkun put forward years ago in our Resolution for Middle East Peace, and then in our support for the Geneva Accord, will be recognized as necessary components of peace. But we are not believers in power politics—in the final analysis what counts is transformations in consciousness and in the heart, and that is why the world so badly needs the New Bottom Line with its call to privileging love over power. Unrealistic, you say? No. What is unrealistic, in fact pure craziness, is for Israel to keep acting the way it has been acting for all these many years, imagining a different result from the same behavior.
So, does that mean that there's one side that is good and the other evil? No, the world rarely works that way.
So, we have a message for the Palestinian people also: Violence doesn't work and it is not working for you. You have every democratic right to elect a government that declares it does not recognize the very existence of the State of Israel, and that sees the fundamental crime not in expanding into the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 but rather in its coming into existence in the first place in 1948. Sure, you can do that. But if your government that you elect says it is in a war, then don't be surprised to find that war getting carried to your doors, to your electricity and water supply, and to your children. If it's war that you want, you'll get it. But if it is peace, then there is only one way: totally, 100% renounce violence, renounce the articulators of that violence (whether they be in Hamas or in Fatah). Embrace the path of Martin Luther King, jr. and of Mahatma Gandhi and of the later Nelson Mandela, and physically restrain those people among you who will resort to violence or even to violent speech. If you want to win, you can't do it by kidnapping, or sending missiles across the border, or throwing rocks. You must be disciplined soldiers of non-violence in your actions and words. You must not only unequivocally announce your support for the Right of Israel to exist, you must put forward your vision of a peace in which you live together with Israel in two sovereign states. And you must acknowledge that when it was Jews who were climbing out of the concentration camps and gaschambers and crematoria of Europe and desperately looking to return to their ancient homeland that it was your Palestinian leaders who, in alliance with British imperialism, tried to keep those refugees from settling in Palestine, thereby confirming to them the previous experiences they had in Arab countries where they were often treated as second class citizens. Acknowledge that when offered a two state solution in 1947 it was your own people who rejected it and denied that Jews could have any state of their own, while Muslims could have more than a dozen states in which their language, culture and religion was the official position of the society. Speak about that, teach it to your children, and enunciate it in Arabic for everyone to hear, and you will have some credibility in talking about the only thing that will make it possible for you to win: a strategy of open-hearted reconciliation with Israel and the Jewish people. So you must reject the anti-Israel lefties who give you the fantasy that you can keep on talking about the destruction of Israel, or embracing fanatics like the president of Iran, and then hope that Israel will be gentle and generous. It's a fantasy. Your only power is moral credibility, and you build that by giving yourself to that vision of peace and non-violence and love of the enemy. Don't listen to the people who tell you you have a right to struggle—because of course you have the right. The question is not whether you have the right, but whether it s SMÅRT to follow that path. Those who care about Palestinians will come to a different conclusion: that the smarter path, the path most likely to lead to an end of the Occupation and to peace and security for the Palestinian people, will come through developing the kind of compassion for the other, for the oppressor, combined with absolute commitment to non-violence that made Martin Luther King Jr. and Mandela so successful. Your misleaders have taken you on a self-destructive path, and a path that has led you to immoral actions against innocent civilians. Stop that path—it brings only more suffering and no liberation.
This is the message that our ancient prophets have been trying to communicate in various languages: that the only path that can work is the path of peace, social justice, love, compassion, kindness and generosity. And the path to peace is a path of peace.
When will they ever learn?
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun and national chair of the Tikkun Community/ Network of Spiritual Progressives. Join us at www.spiritualprogressives.org. His most recent book is The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006). His most recent book on the Middle East is Healing Israel//Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003). RabbiLerner@tikkun.org.
To support this message, please Join The Tikkun Community or the Network of Spiritual Progressives at www.tikkun.org. We are the movement fighting for a New Bottom Line of love and kindness, caring and generosity. Not only in regard to Israel/Palestine, but also in our support for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. You are hereby given permission to circulate this message widely. Please read our Core Vision and our book The Left Hand of God. NSP@tikkun.org
For Israeli peace voices, please read "Suffering from Paralysis of Thought" in Friday, June 30th Ha'aretz Prof. Zeev Sternhell of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shows how the path of the Israeli government continues to be as we in Tikkun magazine described it 20 years ago: immoral and stupid. To confirm, read the lead editorial "The Government is Losing its Head " in Ha'aretz also.
Robert, your message is also outstanding. The general trend is very promising in all of these messages except for a couple minor exceptions such as the one about your brains falling out. Broad minded people are that way because they know how to use their minds which are already external to their brains anyway. It is the brain only group that has no compassion or understanding of the commonality of our joint and co-creative mind connected to our common spirit under the one and same God for each and all. Let us hope that all awake to that fact and truth !!!
Bless this discussion, it is spiritually uplifting overall.
Civil disobedience is not just a right it, at times is a duty.
Those countries that don't offer their citizens a full spectrum of civil rights don't need to be on this world with the others that do.
Those countries that don't offer their citizens a full spectrum of civil rights don't need to be on this world with the others that do.
And while agree with the sentiment how would you propose to execute, no pun intended, this idea? Would it require some unpleasantness?
I'd ask why can't Israel just get along with Palestinian folks.
But I got a secret - I already know. For the wide area of civil rights aren't available in that area. For example how many Jewish folks are in the Palestine congress? And how many Palestinians are in the Jewish Kinist.
I know the answer. There in times back used to be a few Palestinian politicians with some pull in Israel, but no longer.
Anger is the answer.
As a one handed clap makes no noise at all.
People forget that there are abou 25% of Israel's population who aren't Jewish and aren't immigrants. They have full rights as citizens and they identify themselves as Israeli-Arabs.
Cat,
So let me understand this... The most powerful country in the world, in history, with nearly 300 million people, is under the power of a country the size of Rhode Island with less than 10 million people?
Tell me how that works, because it's big news.
I always love how folks like Eric who would deny Israel has any influence on American foreign policy do so by pointing to the fact of how small Israel is. Geographically, yes. But the diaspora and network of supporters around the globe and especially in the United States allows for Israel to, excuse the boxing term, punch well above its weight. Look at how well funded AIPAC is. And who funds it? Mostly American Jews. And their support is both entirely legal and ethical and moral and to be expected. This is how America works. But you cannot sit there and pretend Eric that Israel and her American supporters are not an outsized influence on this countries debate about Israeli policy. My God, some people, profressors, are afraid to criticize Israel for fear of not getting tenure. Tell me that's not influence, beyond what a small state the size of Connecticut has?
Sean-Paul,
I haven't denied that American Jews influence our government's perspective of Israel through lobbying. So do Cuban Americans, the AARP, Armenians and the NAACP, and many other interest groups. Are you saying that AIPAC is more well funded than the AARP? Or more effective?
Implicit in your comments are the notion that supporting Israel is NOT in the US's best interest. Also, implicit in your comments is the notion that American Jews support Israel against the interests of the US. It would be interesting to see you support any of these notions.
Most US Jews are Democrats, and pretty Liberal. Most do not support the war in Iraq, and most have at least some criticisms of Israel's domestic or foreign policies, despite being avid supporters of the country itself.
Actually, what you said was "deny Israel has any influence on American foreign policy" which is quite different than AIPAC's influence.
Tell us how Israel, which is the recipient of foreign aid from the US, is influencing our government. Virtually all of the elected members of the government are not Jewish, so I don't see how major legislation supporting Israel could be passed by Congress witthout the at least tacit approval of many many non-Jews.
Are you asserting that Israel is financially influencing Congress? That would be illegal. So, are you saying that there is a vast illegal conspiracy of campaign financing by Israel, sufficient to sway both the Executive and Legislative branches of goverment?
That is big news.
I've read Walt and Mearsheimer's paper, and also the many refutes by their colleagues that this paper suffers from significant errors, including 1) quotations are wrenched out of context, 2) important facts are misstated or omitted; and 3) embarrassingly weak logic is employed.
According to Alan Dershowitz, who wrote a most scathing rebuttal to this nonsense, "One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that "none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.""
Imagine that. Skewing professors for poor scholarship. Must be a Jewish conspiracy.
Lookit, Sean-Paul, while I respect your passion for the topic, I don't think you are particularly fair in your assertions.
Eric,
You are way wrong when you say this:
Also, implicit in your comments is the notion that American Jews support Israel against the interests of the US.
It is not implied. It is not meant. You are putting words in my mouth and trying to tar as someone who would make the accusation of "dual loyalties." I said absolutely nothing of the sort. And don't you dare try to spin my words and stick that label on me. I have said nothing of the sort.
You also wrote:
Implicit in your comments are the notion that supporting Israel is NOT in the US's best interest
That's not the case either. I'll spell it out for you and clearly say it: what is not in our best national interests is to unconditionally support all that Israel does. We used to take on the role of the honest broker between the Palestinians and the Israelis. When Bush become president that changed. Do you know what he said about it? "Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things." Real man of peace, no doubt.
You say you haven't denied anything, but when I read this what I am to think other than the fact that you simply deny it:
The most powerful country in the world, in history, with nearly 300 million people, is under the power of a country the size of Rhode Island with less than 10 million people?
Tell me how that works, because it's big news.
That's a clear attempt at denial.
Moving along, I readily concede that the Walt and Mearshimer essay has its faults. To my mind, this article is probably the best one on the discussion that Walt and Mearshimer brought up. It's the most balanced one I've yet seen.
Next up is the black-is-white, night-is-day whopper. You write:
Actually, what you said was "deny Israel has any influence on American foreign policy" which is quite different than AIPAC's influence.
The whole purpose of AIPAC is to influence our foreign policy. That's the organizations reason for being. Just go to the site and read what is on the very front page:
"The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"
Do I look that stupid? There may be some people too lazy to look stuff like this up but not me. The organization exists to influence American foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.
Finally, you write:
Tell us how Israel, which is the recipient of foreign aid from the US, is influencing our government. Virtually all of the elected members of the government are not Jewish, so I don't see how major legislation supporting Israel could be passed by Congress witthout the at least tacit approval of many many non-Jews.
I won't tell you, I will let a sitting US Congresswoman tell us all how AIPAC influences US legislation:
This short preface is necessary first:
The letter below was sent by Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, to the executive director of AIPAC. The bill mentioned, H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, would place so many restraints on aid to the Palestinian people, and so many restrictions on the administration's ability to deal with the Palestinians, that even the State Department has opposed it. AIPAC has strongly backed it. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2237, would allow the administration far more flexibility. On April 6, the House International Relations Committee passed H.R. 4681 by a vote of 36 to 2; McCollum was one of the two nays. As of May 11, AIPAC has yet to respond to her demand for an apology.
Here's the full text of the letter.
Mr. Howard Kohr
Executive Director
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
440 First Street, NW; Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Kohr:
During my nineteen years serving in elected office, including the past five years as a Member of Congress, never has my name and reputation been maligned or smeared as it was last week by a representative of AIPAC. Last Friday, during a call with my chief of staff, an AIPAC representative from Minnesota who has frequently lobbied me on behalf of your organization stated, "on behalf of herself, the Jewish community, AIPAC, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum's support for terrorists will not be tolerated." Ironically, this individual, who does not even live in my congressional district, feels free to speak for my constituents.
This response may have been the result of extreme emotion or irrational passion, but regardless, it is a hateful attack that is vile and offensive to me and the families I represent. I call on AIPAC to immediately condemn this un-American attack and disavow any attempt to use this type of threat and intimidation to stifle legitimate policy differences. I will not stand to be labeled or threatened in a manner that questions my patriotism or my oath of office.
Last week, I did vote against H.R. 4681 during mark-up of the bill in the House International Relations Committee. As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution, and ensure the security of the US and represent the values and beliefs of the constituents who I serve, it was my view that H.R. 4681 goes beyond the State Department's current policies toward Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and potentially undermines the US position vis-à-vis the coordinated international pressure on Hamas. The language contained in S. 2237 accurately reflects my position.
Keeping diplomatic pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism, recognize the State of Israel, dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and honor past agreements and treaty obligations, while preventing a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people, are all policy goals already strongly supported by myself, the Bush administration, Congress and the American people. But, if the purpose of H.R. 4681 was to send another strong message to Hamas and the Palestinian people, as Congress already has sent with the passage of S. Con. Res. 79, then I disagree with the vehicle for that message. In my opinion, Congress should be articulating clear support for the Secretary of State's present course of action; not creating a new law which likely diminishes the diplomatic tools needed to advance US policy goals with regard to the Palestinian people, potentially cuts US funding to the United Nations, and largely restates current law while creating on-going and burdensome unfunded reporting requirements.
As you well know, in Congress we do not shy away from condemning the vile words of despots and dictators who use anti-Semitism as a weapon to incite hatred, fear and violence. AIPAC should not have a lower standard for persons affiliated and representing its organization when they label a Member of Congress who thinks for herself and always puts the interest of our nation and people first a supporter of terrorists.
You and your colleagues at AIPAC have the right to disagree with my position on any piece of legislation, but for an AIPAC representative to say that I would ever vote to support Middle East terrorists over the interests of my country will never be tolerated by me or the families I serve. This incident rises to a level in which a formal, written apology is required.
Mr. Kohr, I am a supporter of a strong US–Israeli relationship and my voting record speaks for itself. This will not change. But until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization I must inform you that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in my offices or for meetings with my staff.
Betty McCollum
Member of Congress
4th District, Minnesota
Washington, D.C.
Wow! This is news. AIPAC makes threats to Members of Congress. This is news. They influence American foreign policy? Who knew?
Lookit, Eric, while I respect your passion for the topic, I don't think you are particularly accurate in your facts.
Sean-Paul,
Well here we are again, making mega-posts...
I can't help but believe that what I assert is true, since you consistently mix Israel, American Jews, AIPAC and Jews elsewhere in the world rather indiscriminately in your comments. As Jerry says, intent is everything, but your comments are incautious at making these distinctions.
I've outlined this already, but here it is again.
You say: "I always love how folks like Eric who would deny Israel has any influence on American foreign policy do so by pointing to the fact of how small Israel is."
In my response to you above, I make the statement that direct foreign influence of a foreign government on Congress or the Executive Branch is illegal. I'm sure you won't dispute that. So, how does Israel influence American policy?
Oh, I guess you must mean AIPAC, which is, as you've pointed out, a lobbying group made up of (to my knowledge) American Jews.
So, you do not distinguish between "Israel" and "American Jews".
When someone asserts that the interests of the foreign government is the interests of the American making the appeal, are you not asserting that the American is making appeals on behalf of the foreign government?
I understand the righteous indignation, since you say this was not your intent, but do you see where you've mixed the parties here.
Also, in my note to you, I assert that AIPAC's interests are supportive of, but are not the same as the Israeli government. You seem to have missed that. There are any number of examples of American Jews who have disagreed publicly about Israeli actions or policy. That also needs to be noted in your broad assertions.
Bottom line, supporters of Israel in our government generally have their own reasons for supporting Israel. It might be a religious reason (fundamentalist Christians believing that the end times won't happen without a re-establishment of a Jewish Kingdom, and rebuilding of the Temple). It might be a recognition that, of all of the Middle Eastern governments, only Israel has a democratic government and does not support either secular or religious terrorism.
Also, many in our government have relied heavily on Israel's well renowned intelligence resources and capabilities.
You also argue that while the US should support Israel, we should not "unconditionally support all that Israel does." Who said we should? Not me. Nice straw man. I'll knock it down for you.
Israel is BY FAR our best friend in the Middle East. No country in that region has EVER shown the unconditional support for the US that Israel has.
Lest you misunderstand the last two paragraphs that I wrote, that doesn't mean that our leaders shouldn't tell Israel when Israel does something they disagree with. If it's bad enough, I presume that will cost Israel financial support. Whatever. That's how we run our foreign relations.
While you have pulled one Legislator's assertions out, and this person was clearly offended by the AIPAC representatives statement, I didn't see a "threat." Neither did you. That's quite an overstatement.
The only threat was from the Congresswoman herself, that until she recieves a written apology, AIPAC is not welcome in her offices.
So, is this evidence of the overwhelming influence of AIPAC on Congress? If so, it's quite the bad example, since even this very pissed-off legislator ALREADY FAVORS ISRAEL.
So, tell me what your point was for this again?
You say:
"Next up is the black-is-white, night-is-day whopper. You write:
Actually, what you said was "deny Israel has any influence on American foreign policy" which is quite different than AIPAC's influence.
The whole purpose of AIPAC is to influence our foreign policy. That's the organizations reason for being. Just go to the site and read what is on the very front page:
"The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"
Do I look that stupid? There may be some people too lazy to look stuff like this up but not me. The organization exists to influence American foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel. "
Hello? You said Israel influencing our government, not AIPAC influencing our government. You still don't see an issue with mischaracterizing Israel's interests and the American Jewish community's interest. You assume they are the same.
Of course, AIPAC asserts influence over Congress on behalf of Israel's interests. But, do you think that there is a difference between asking Congress for military aid on behalf of Israel, and asking Congress to change foreign policy or allow Israel to do things against the US's interest? Of course not.
My main nit-pick is your drifting to and fro between Israel's influence on the US and American Jew's influence on the US. They aren't the same and they aren't as synchronized as you would have people believe.
Have you read Alan Dershowitz' critique of the Israel Lobby paper? What do you think?
Say What????
You mean that those that shop in Fairfax in LA at the Farmers Market are different than those that shop in Israel.
What then about the layers that are Jewish in LA that go to Palm Springs to pick the Democrats or Republicans that they want to support with all that money??
What about them? Are they different than those in Israel?
Or do they just have fancy dinners and chew the fat.
I'm not supposed to know all about them am I.
But I do know that the same Lawyer firm in LA supports both the Democrat and the Republican teams in the White house, you know Secretary of States, Commerce and whatever else they need.
But then they aren't all Jewish of course.
That's the life I choose to live.
I'm not even sure of what you're trying to say. Perhaps if you dumb it down and give it to me really straight, I can react...
I said that I know Jewish Lawyers that work in a firm in LA that meet in Palm Springs for the purpose of supporting both Republicans and Democrats.
They make their choices based upon the agenda of the politicians that best met their own agendas.
Bill Clinton was one of them and I was aware of him and their support from 1971 on.
They also support the needs of the White House cabinet offices for what ever the needs are.
And I'm sure that there are other firms doing the same.
That's it. Not any big thing at all, just a bunch of old Jewish men that meet and do their thing.
Is that any different than what goes on in Israel?
I think not.
I forgot to say that currently they are and have been supporting George W. Bush.
The word Semite actually is more often in truth a designator of the Arabs more or as much as it is to the Jew, especially the Jew that is so by religious choice rather than heredity. Was not the Semites the totality of the two tribes of Israel that stayed in the general area after the fall of Babylon, as the other ten tribes were displaced around the world ? I don't know that history off hand, but seems I have read that much somewhere.
Maybe if we all went back far enough and reconstructed this argument, an answer might pop up to solve it all. Maybe the flap is just a family squabble. Maybe they can kiss and make up...better idea then nuking each other to death.
What I read you to say is that you get lumped together with "antisemites," which is a larger group than Islamic radicals. I suppose it is inevitable, when the antisemites of Europe have allied themselves with the fundamentalist anti-Israel elements in the MidEast. The "Pan-Arabist" movement still gets support from European antisemites, as well. (See Saddam Hussein.)
All of this makes it difficult to criticize Israel, unless you are on a college campus, or an MSM reporter. They have no problem criticizing Israel's military incursion into Gaza, or arrest of Hamas legislators. They just never seem to have any criticism of the kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit, or the daily rockets that rain down on Israel.
Is it any wonder that some people are so over-sensitive about criticism of Israel?
As a conscientious polytheist, I am concerned to point out wherever I can that monotheism is not the only choice. Therefore, I could be considered in opposition to the Jewish faith in some ways. As a proponent of world citizenry, I lack an interest in promoting any nationalistic group. As a strong proponent of cultural diversity, I applaud Jewish identity, so long as this does not lead to denigration of other cultures. As a student of history, I blame the Allied forces post-WWII for their absurdly imperial solution to the "Jewish problem" -- though, of course, it could never compare in horror to the Aryan "solution" -- for all the brutal misfortunes of unintended consequences suffered by the Middle East, and by ripple effect throughout the world. But it is not a "Jewish problem" it is a human problem of divide, hate, conquer, take the spoils.
And round and round we go, where we stop... BOOM, okay, somebody knows (that guy with the semtec strapped to his chest).
So much easier to laugh... but that isn't the course being taken today as I type.
Jerry, you are probably right. The God aspect is very real to the people. It is their leaders who use this against them. As has always been with religion across the world and across time.
So... emboldened, you fly airplanes into their buildings. It should have gotten attention much earlier.
Israel knows this lesson.
From what I recall, eye for an eye was the law of the land over there for several thousand years. It sure made a mess out of things.
We could switch the discussion to War: Do ends justify means sort of thing. It is nearly the same discussion.
I understand the school of thought that tries to avoid violence whenever possible. But I think there is something built into human nature, into all nature, where passivity breeds aggression in the other. Aggression breeds more aggression (but only to the point of submission). I think the point of submission is what war is all about. And, if that is the case, the quicker the submission of the enemy, the better for ALL sides. Which would suggest that maximum escalation is the best overall strategy to pursue.
From my understanding, this has been the focus of most successful wars up until nuclear weapons. Nukes have seriously changed this dynamic, tho. Maximum escalation becomes a form of suicide and we're left with attrition. Trench warfare again.
Everything is so interconnected these days. We're back to the "just muddling thru it" phase.
But I am inclined to forgive Israel quite a bit in light of the situation in which history has place them. I don't think they have a winning strategy. But I'm not going to tell them to back down here, or anywhere, in the face another group that claims to want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Somebody says that to us and it means little. They have a different world memory, tho. It sits a little closer to home.
So much of what is going on in this world of the negative sort is all about religious views...because innate in us all is a spiritual voice, our intuition, that nags at us that there is a spiritual transcendence to be had and experienced.
The problem then arises when people seek a particular religion for guidance in not being aware that those religious leaders for the most part are also unaware of the true spirit that would seek to love and forgive each and all. So now we have those Blind Leaders telling their also blind followers how to think and act...what would you expect when the blind follow the Blind...?...what you get is religious based war !!! That is worse than an oxymoron...heavy on the moronic.
If each of us would just cultivate our own intuition, we would develop the needed sense of self confidence to make individually the proper decisions that become thought and action, the cumulative result would be a peaceful world of mutual respect and appreciation of diversity.
Believe it or not, but there is a God that communicates to each and all via spirit that seeks for us to learn the truth of this, all we have to do is use a little introspection and seek within...rather than following without question our Blind Leadership religious and secular down the path to self destruction...the direction that we all are currently being sucked into.