Salon: Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?

Last week, a familiar Washington ritual took place: Leading American politicians from both parties lined up at the annual AIPAC policy conference to vie with each other over who could pledge the most undying fealty to Israel. As usual, much of Congress showed up -- half of the members of the U.S. Senate and more than half of the House, including figures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with Vice President Dick Cheney.

It was a typical AIPAC parallel-universe extravaganza, marred only by partisan rifts that have begun to appear over Iraq. (Even some of the AIPAC crowd, who overwhelmingly supported the war at the outset, have begun to realize that it has been a disaster for both the United States and Israel.) Cheney got a standing ovation, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said via a video link that winning the war in Iraq was important for Israel, Nancy Pelosi was booed for criticizing the war, a fire-breathing Christian dispensationalist who believes that war on Iran will bring about the Rapture and the Second Coming was rapturously greeted, and Barack Obama took heat for having the audacity to mention the suffering of the Palestinians.

more
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/index_np.html

it then, either. The ban on criticism of Israel is still going strong.

The line about how a foreign group more right-wing than Jewish Americans has control of US foreign policy toward Israel is the scariest thing. And one that if the players were changed, say to a group of leftish Venezualeans determining US policy toward Hugo Chavez (to the point of driving a war that costs American lives), the media and the right-wingers here would be in the streets in protest.

AS everything, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.

AIPAC is to Israel as the Miami Cubans are to Cuba.

Both countries are greatly harmed by their American lobbys.

the support of that particular lobby? Money for a campaign vs. money going to one's opponent in a primary and perhaps later in the general election. Press releases announcing your lack of support is equivalent to be antagonistic toward the goals of that group, and you being manipulated into an undesirable defensive stance of having to rebut the accusations. The benefits can be too great and the penalties too dire to cross a group sometimes. If not AIPAC, look at the republicans dilemma with the religious right. Same situation without a war.

Why do DC Dems cowtow to the Jewish lobby but when it comes to Progressives the DC Dems are dismissive.

Either Progressives need to lobby better or the DC Dems need to learn how to treat AIPAC the way they do Progressives.

why should anyone think their counterparts in Israel are any more competent in their decisions for their country?
We are dealing with authoritarians. I have a bit more sympathy for the Israeli version of paranoia but they still can end us up in the same mess. People sometimes ask how Jews can treat other people in some of the ways they were treated. The ones who can do that are of the authoritarian mindset, and they can find justification to do anything to protect themselves, just as "Christians" here cheer on violence and torture.

If someone were to argue that, although AIPAC and those neo-cons who are Jewish are not representative of the views of American Jews as a whole, the latter still bear culpability for the damage the former have wrought, since they had a responsibility for reining in the excesses of their fellow believers and didn't sufficiently do so (in other words, collective guilt), that person would be rightly attacked for bigotry, anti-Semitism, etc.

So, why do so many people (likely including those who would object the most to the above line of reasoning) have no problem using the same standard on Muslims (i.e. that the average "moderate" Muslim is guilty of the sins of radical Islamists, since it is their "duty" to somehow "control" the latter)? :shrug:

:evilgrin:

And alas, this is something that is too often implied in Britain, by the hideous right-wing tabloids (we don't have Fox News, but we've got the Daily Mail instead!) and even by politicians who should know better.

However, we should note that a number of people, including a few here, *have* occasionally implied just the sort of thing about Jews that you've given here as an 'awful example'; and, when challenged, have seen it as a ban on any criticism of Israel. It isn't. It's objection to exactly the sort of thing that you're describing.

Suspecting *any* group of 'divided loyalties' because of their ethnicity or religion, or blaming them for every action of any member of their ethnic or religious group, or demanding that they prove themselves in some way that people of other groups would not need to, is always wrong, and a main source of bigotry, prejudice and violence. All of us, of all ethnic groups, should oppose it whenever it occurs.

First of all, you are comparing the influence of an American lobbyist group, (whose views you may or may not agree with) with terrorism. They are not nearly in the same class. Jewish Americans have a long and storied history of working for liberal causes such as civil rights in percentages far above their relative population in America. I think the Jewish population in America have proven their mettle time and time again in championing causes for the common good.

AIPAC has more than its share of critics among Jewish Americans. But I don't know if its actions are such that many people feel the need to really engage them on the same level that they might other causes. If we look at more hot-button issues like the Israeli occupation of Palestine there is no shortage of vocal and committed Jews both in Israel and America doing their part for the cause they believe in. AIPAC is not a "jewish" lobby nor does it operate to the benefit of Jews. Israel is not the equivalent of the Jewish People.

Next, I don't think anyone is critical of Muslims in general for not reigning in terrorism. There is criticism against Muslim leaders for not voicing adequate rejection of terrorism though. And there is criticism against Muslim states for openly supporting terrorism. The problem people have in this area is not because we expect every Muslim-on-the-street to involve themselves in ending extremist elements in their society. But there is a real lack of organized voices denouncing terrorism compared to those that make excuses for it, or even openly support it. Even among our friends in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. For example, look at the peace organizations operating in Israel. B'tselem, Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Bat Shalom, Yesh Gvul, New Profile, Ta'ayush, and so on. Where are the equivalents in Lebanon or Morocco or Palestine. They exist, sure, but not to the degree that should be expected. And I don't think discussing this dearth of peaceful voices within Islam is in any way holding the average Muslim accountable for terrorism. It is an honest appraisal of what is ultimately a failing on the part of Muslim leaders. It has as much to do with the authoritarian systems of control that exist in many Arab/Muslim states as it does anything else. And it is a complex topic, and certainly one that is highly debatable.

But to compare terrorism with lobbying in any way is highly disingenuous. When Jewish terrorism does occur there is always an outpouring of condemnation from Jewish and Zionist organizations not replicated from their Islamic counterparts following Muslim terrorism. And that is something worth discussing.