New pro-Israel lobby as alternative to AIPAC

New pro-Israel lobby as alternative to AIPAC

By Amiram Barkat

(snip)

"It's important for both the administration and congress to know that AIPAC is a right- wing organization that represents only part of the Jewish community in the United States," Beilin said.

Soros' decision to take part in forming the lobby came as a surprise, as he has been considered anti-Zionist. After meeting the lobby's other founders, Soros said he would take part in its founding ceremony on October 26 in New York.

The founders have been discussing ways to persuade the Bush administration to increase its involvement in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The initiative for the lobby is spearheaded by Dr. David Elcott, executive director of the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), an advocacy think tank founded to counter AIPAC's objection to the Oslo Accords.

<more>

to move settlements very close to border into Israel - as in the Geneva proposal. It is not being "zionist" to support that deal. Geneva had a very limited right of return but had compensation for those not moved back - and that is obviously the only solution unless Israel agrees to commit suicide as to being a jewish state.

It is time to ask the PA what are you willing to compromise on for peace. So far Hamas has indicated nothing - not ever.

A lobbying group that points that out, and which continues pushing for the Taba/Geneva/Peres solution, would not be a bad idea IMO. Indeed a lobby group that was not pushing neo-con hot buttons would be a great improvement over AIPAC. We might be able to stay out of a few wars with such a group in place.

Their particular influence is not that great. The Israel lobby transcends the AIPAC - consider the work that Dershowitz & Daniel Pipes have been doing in silencing critics of Israel in various public forums. This move to create a competitor to the AIPAC would be cosmetic at best.

do not understand your point.

That the AIPAC does not uniquely define Israeli influence in the US government.

:-)

there are some here that claim AIPAC controls american policy when it comes to israel. I wonder if those people will reconsider that stand when they realize that is the same thing that David Duke spews.

you remember David Duke dont you? the head of the KKK? claims that the holocaust was a sham by the jews? remember him?




not pointing any fingers anyone on this thread, but just something to remember.

but not undue influence, necessarily.

They have less power than the oil industry lobbies, the House of Saud, and, most certainly, the pharmaceutical industry.

change US policy in the Middle East, particularly in regard to Israel?

I think the pharmaceutical industry is more influential than the National Rifle Assocation. However, i think in specific regard to policies of gun control, i think the NRA has considerable more influence than the oil lobby, since the oil lobby has little interest in the specific subject.

But, then, you knew that.

Not pointing any fingers... well, except maybe my middle one at aipac and another middle finger at Duke...

Go to http://www.aipac.org/ and you see right there in the home page a quote from the New York Times
"The most important organization affecting U.S. relationship with Israel"
I think aipac is very proud of that.

I don't think there is much argument that aipac makes a difference. To argue that they make very little or no difference is to say that tens of thousands of people are being scammed out of a considerable amount of money they invest to support a worthless organization. I don't think that is the case.

The debate should be is what policies are aipac and the Israel Lobby supporting, and are these policies helpful to bringing about peace and justice in the world or not. Many people think these policies are not helpful to anyone... most especially it is hurtful to the Palestinian people, but also damaging to the United States and even Israel itself...

Despite what aipac says... supporting policies of militarism and occupation and so on is not helping Israel.

It would be like some lobby in France working to get France to "support the US" by lobbying support for Bush's policies. Now some americans may equate supporting America with supporting Bush's policies, but i am not among them. Such a lobby would not be doing me any favors.

No doubt that is how many Israelis see aipac.
________________________________________________________

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15634

Wandering Jew - Propaganda for the Insipid

I’ve been working as teacher’s assistant at my temple’s religious school for the past four years. I love teaching my second-graders their first Hebrew letters. I love watching my sixth-graders find Israel on a map. But what I love most is the connection my job gives me to Judaism and to Israel, where I hope to travel during college. That is why I jumped at my grandfather’s invitation to attend the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference in Washington D.C., where I could join more than 1,000 students and 4,000 adults in discussing the future of Israel. I returned from the conference, however, feeling manipulated, disturbed and disgusted with a great deal of what I witnessed there.

The first thing I noticed about the conference, besides the sheer volume of participants, was the carefully manufactured atmosphere of fear and urgency. The cavernous hall that hosted all our meals and plenary sessions was always filled with dramatic classical music, red lighting and gigantic signs reading “Now Is The Time.” That, combined with the montages of terrorism footage projected onto six giant screens, whipped the audience into a “Save Israel” fervor that most found inspiring. By the time we finished our meal, the audience seemed eager to agree to anything that would protect Israel — even war.

The conservative slant of the conference became obvious as I chose “Policy Perspectives: How the Democrats and Republicans View Foreign Affairs” for my first breakout session. The Republican speaker, John Podhoretz of The New York Post, got to have the first word and the last word on almost every question. Podhoretz insulted the Democratic Party, calling it “schizophrenic” and “weak” because of its division on certain issues, and calling Democratic protests about the Iraq war “inappropriate and dangerous.”

well, I'd make sure to check by myself first, but he'd be right.

One doesn't have to deny the Holocaust to think that AIPAC has undue influence on American affairs. One also doesn't have to believe they have used their Washington, D.C. connections to spy on America.

They are a right-wing organization, and they have managed to guilt many Democrats into supporting their near-fascist BS. One doesn't only have to support Israel by taking a far-right position on its defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal

Some people here at DU believe US military support for Israel is a good thing.

I wonder if those people will reconsider that stand when they realize that is the same thing that Dick Cheney spews.

you remember Dick Cheney dont you? Claims that the Iraq war was a wise and noble move. remember him?
Denies that over 600,000 died as a result of that war.

not pointing any fingers anyone on this thread, but just something to remember.

Same logic as Mr. Hunter's post. Think its illogical? So do I.

is a good thing,

but do you think that AIPAC controls american foreign policy. key word. controls.

distinguishes the view of Duke and similar cretins who want to make aipac out to be almost god-like. I don't think aipac controls the US. I also don't think aipac represents the Jewish people, whose politics are diverse and varied, contrary to both what many in aipac and David Duke seem to think.

I think we both agree that aipac has an influence... is that a positive influence or negative? that is where the debate should be.

I think aipac and the Israel lobby has a very significant influence in policy in regard to Israel. and i think that is not for the good of most people, including the people of Israel, but certainly the cause of human rights for all.

People who argue that the influence is negative should not be called anti-semitic or in many cases self-hating Jews. They should instead be called people who disagree with aipac.

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

check it out.

but wonder if "AIPAC" hasn't become a catch-all codeword for some (not accusing anyone in this thread).