Israel Lobby

[lfantwister]

So I'm currently writing a paper evaluating the power of the so-called Israel Lobby--AIPAC, and among others, my employer (the Republican Jewish Coalition). Wikipedia is too neutral for me, so I pass it on to you. Does the lobby have disproportionate power? Is it a bad thing? Does it really have any influence on foreign policy?
Or, in general, is lobbying conducive to democracy/the growth of the US?

[Hababi]

No, No, Somewhat just as other countries' lobbies do (without near the same attention) and lobbying is a reality of Democracy.

[Cain]

I would look for information on the debate between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz: Finkelstein is a vehemently-critical-of-Israel Jew who has written a number of written works slamming the postulates of works like "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen and others, and who has claimed that the Anti-Defamation Leaque's true purpose is to defame critics of Israel. Dershowitz is a recipient of Finkelstein's critiques (he is also a Jew) and the debate between them--debates ranging from use of the Holocaust as a tool in the war of support for Israel to simple matters as commonly-held conceptions about German guilt and Jewish victimhood--is very prominent.

For starters on both men, try to read Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry" and Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel." These would draw it out quite nicely--although they focus mostly on Israel, there is a degree of attention paid to the power they wield over US foreign policy (and the foreign policies of most European nations involved in WWII also). The two viewpoints are fair polar opposites, and the publicity with which they've waged their sometimes immature feud makes it a nice case to play one side off the other and see which one you agree with more.

[shaqadelic]

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

Paper by By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

It has received significant criticisms. Many of the criticisms are responded to in their rebuttal here.

http://alternet.org/story/35925/?page=1

[Smokey D]

No, No, Somewhat just as other countries' lobbies do (without near the same attention) and lobbying is a reality of Democracy.

Israel has a disproportionate amount of interest for its size and importance, though, and that prevents realistic and helpful measures being taken by the US to resolve problems in Palestine.

[White Riot!]

Hi we're the israelites , gods chosen people. We think everyone else stinks but we dont.

[Smokey D]

God you're annoying.

[griftadan]

Banhammer

[White Riot!]

Let me give you a fact.

Resolution for an end for the trade embargo against cuba 183 - 4.

The four against were the united states , israel , marshall islands, palau

[griftadan]

???

[Smokey D]

Let me give you a fact.

Resolution for an end for the trade embargo against cuba 183 - 4.

The four against were the united states , israel , marshall islands, palau

That's cool. What does it have to do with Israel or a belief that the Jews are teh chosen people? That's why you're annoying -- your points never follow and are never backed up.

[White Riot!]

It shows you how strong the tie is between the U.S and Israel

[Smokey D]

How?

[Hababi]

Israel has a disproportionate amount of interest for its size and importance, though, and that prevents realistic and helpful measures being taken by the US to resolve problems in Palestine.

Look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. they have a huge amount of interest in US foreign policy and aid. As for Israel/Palestine, it's more that Israel is a western-style democracy and an ally, while Palestine is dominated by radical terrorists other assorted nutters. If Palestine had elected sane people, it wouldn't be the same thing.

[Smokey D]

Only Saudi has comparable influence to Israel, and that's a result of its oil.

It's pretty clear that even if Palestine was run by someone other than Hamas it would still have less influence than Israel.

[Hababi]

Only Saudi has comparable influence to Israel, and that's a result of its oil.


Sure, but what's the difference? Different countries have sway with the US for different reasons. With Israel, it's because it's a free and Democratic country that shares our values and just happens to be located in one of the most repressive regions of the world. Of course, the paranoid polemicists who wrote the thread's namesake book spread age-old anti Jewish propaganda, alleging some Jewish-power construct in America, but it's just transparent bigotry.

Colombia can get basically what it wants from the US, and there's a reason for that--it's in an increasingly undemocratic and anti-American region. Well that and it's fighting drug producers.


It's pretty clear that even if Palestine was run by someone other than Hamas it would still have less influence than Israel.[/QUOTE]

But what do you think it would be if Palestinians had long been sane and had built up relations with the US? Obviously we're talking about hypothetical, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the US wouldn't be pretty close to evenhanded with the two sides.

But when one side elects terrorists, swears itself to the violent destruction of the other side, and celebrates when terrorists attack the United States, I think it's incredulous to suggest that America should be unbiased.

[Smokey D]

Sure, but what's the difference? Different countries have sway with the US for different reasons. With Israel, it's because it's a free and Democratic country that shares our values and just happens to be located in one of the most repressive regions of the world. Of course, the paranoid polemicists who wrote the thread's namesake book spread age-old anti Jewish propaganda, alleging some Jewish-power construct in America, but it's just transparent bigotry.

I doubt that is the entire if even main reason. Israel is supported because of a combination of political inertia (Israel has always been supported, so it always will be), strategic importance, some shared political values (particularly anti-communism and anti- Islamism, rather than things like a mutual respect for democracy; that's really just a happy coincidence) and a not insignificant lobby in America.


Colombia can get basically what it wants from the US, and there's a reason for that--it's in an increasingly undemocratic and anti-American region. Well that and it's fighting drug producers.


Exactly -- America supports it because it is in America's interests to do so, not necessarily because it's democratic or not.



But what do you think it would be if Palestinians had long been sane and had built up relations with the US? Obviously we're talking about hypothetical, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the US wouldn't be pretty close to evenhanded with the two sides.


If Palestine had been a viable and responsive political community since the beginning, maybe, but once America started supporting Israel in the 1970s, it pretty much ended the chance to be even-handed.


But when one side elects terrorists, swears itself to the violent destruction of the other side, and celebrates when terrorists attack the United States, I think it's incredulous to suggest that America should be unbiased.

Of course it should be unbiased. Being unbiased allows the US to criticise all that bat-**** crazy stuff Hamas still does and criticise Israel when it does something well. Having a bias towards Israel means criticising even the successes of the moderate Palestinians while giving a carte blanche to Israel's hard liners, which is going to make things worse.

[shaqadelic]

Having a bias towards Israel means criticising even the successes of the moderate Palestinians...

Also criticsing the shift of hardliners to more moderate positions - when Hamas dropped its call for the destruction of Israel and when it agreed to the unity government deal that respects previous agreement with Israel and renounce civilian violence -.

[Reaganista]

It shows you how strong the tie is between the U.S and Israel

and the bond between palau and the marshall islands

you know what they say, you mess with the marshalls, you're messing with palau

[Dr Hooch]

America has the right to ally itself with ISrael if they wish, and it is in their interest to do so from a middle eastern diplomatic perspective.

I personally wouldn't wish to be an ally with Israel for a number of reasons but there's something wrong with every western country and if america wanted a government that didn't have such strong links with Israel they'd've voted for one.

[Hababi]

I doubt that is the entire if even main reason. Israel is supported because of a combination of political inertia (Israel has always been supported, so it always will be), strategic importance, some shared political values (particularly anti-communism and anti- Islamism, rather than things like a mutual respect for democracy; that's really just a happy coincidence) and a not insignificant lobby in America.

I don't know if I would say anti-Islamism; perhaps anti-Sharia, or anti Islamic law, but neither are anti=Islam.

But, I find few qualms about what you're saying; it's realistic. The same can be said of other countries, too. But Israel gets singled out, because of its Jewish identity.



Exactly -- America supports it because it is in America's interests to do so, not necessarily because it's democratic or not.


It certainly helps, though. Part of America's interest is to have Democratic countries around the world.


If Palestine had been a viable and responsive political community since the beginning, maybe, but once America started supporting Israel in the 1970s, it pretty much ended the chance to be even-handed.


I don't see the need for America to ever be even-handed, though, in large part because I don't think Palestine will ever be sane.


Of course it should be unbiased. Being unbiased allows the US to criticise all that bat-**** crazy stuff Hamas still does and criticise Israel when it does something well. Having a bias towards Israel means criticising even the successes of the moderate Palestinians while giving a carte blanche to Israel's hard liners, which is going to make things worse.

I don't see this so called giving carte blache to Israeli hardliners. Dick Cheney criticized the security fence, which was a justifiable measure by Israel. Condi Rice was tepid at best during the Israel-Hezbollah war.

This is the central problem with the idea: people greatly exaggerate perceived bias, and misconstrue it where it is. It is irresponsible to think that America should hold the two sides equal, because they are not equal. One side is Democratic, the other side is terrorist. There is a dramatic difference in moral and ethical standing of the two sides.

Do you think the US should be unbiased in regard to the ongoing conflict between Uganda's government and the LRA? I sure don't. Uganda's government isn't exactly the best around, and doesn't have near the standing of Israel, but the LRA is a brutal terrorist group, much like Hamas. There therefor has to be an obvious favoritism shown by the US toward the Ugandan government. To do anything else is unthinkable.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if I would say anti-Islamism; perhaps anti-Sharia, or anti Islamic law, but neither are anti=Islam.

Islamism is the doctrine based a radical intepretation of Islam. It's no more Islam than shooting abortionists is Christianity.

By the way, anti-Sharia is anti-Islam. They're not separable

It certainly helps, though. Part of America's interest is to have Democratic countries around the world.

Not really. Democracies have frequently shown themselves to vote against American interests -- Allende, Ahmadinejad, Chavez etc.

I don't see the need for America to ever be even-handed, though, in large part because I don't think Palestine will ever be sane.

Then you condemn the situation to no resolution. If you fail to treat the Palestinians as equal in some way, you can't expect a sane approach.



I don't see this so called giving carte blache to Israeli hardliners. Dick Cheney criticized the security fence, which was a justifiable measure by Israel. Condi Rice was tepid at best during the Israel-Hezbollah war.

No. I'm saying that if America has a bias (ie, the position you said you favoured) in favour of the Israelis, it automatically gives the hardliners a carte blanche. I didn't say that this Administration has given such a free hand (though they have backed down a few times when they shouldn't have).

This is the central problem with the idea: people greatly exaggerate perceived bias, and misconstrue it where it is. It is irresponsible to think that America should hold the two sides equal, because they are not equal. One side is Democratic, the other side is terrorist. There is a dramatic difference in moral and ethical standing of the two sides

You're equating outcome (democrats versus terrorists) with input . Each side has goals that shouldn't be affected by the actions of their proponents, only the justice inherent in the goal itself.

Do you think the US should be unbiased in regard to the ongoing conflict between Uganda's government and the LRA? I sure don't. Uganda's government isn't exactly the best around, and doesn't have near the standing of Israel, but the LRA is a brutal terrorist group, much like Hamas. There therefor has to be an obvious favoritism shown by the US toward the Ugandan government. To do anything else is unthinkable.

No, but you've still got the equation back to front.

[shaqadelic]

Each side has goals that shouldn't be affected by the actions of their proponents, only the justice inherent in the goal itself.


Haha, you know zero (in typical bias and anti-Palestinians ways) is just gonna spout that all the Palestinians want in life is to destroy Israel and all of its people in a genocide.

[Smokey D]

But what I'm trying to say is that the behavior of the claimant has no bearing on the justice on the claim itself. Arguing the point you identify would be really stupid.

[Hababi]

By the way, anti-Sharia is anti-Islam. They're not separable


I'll let someone else handle that one :p


Not really. Democracies have frequently shown themselves to vote against American interests -- Allende, Ahmadinejad, Chavez etc.


With Allende, you were dealing with a poor, illiterate voting base. And possibly some fraud. With Ahmadinejad, it was a phony election, rigged by the Mullah's. And with Chavez, first time it was the former, second time the latter. So, get better educated people and true democracy :p

But in seriousness, Allende was the only real example I can think of where the Democratic choice of the people was directly averse to the global interests of the United States and the free world. Contrast that with all the Democratic nations of the world, and nations that have shifted more toward democracy thanks to America, and I'd say it's a pretty good record and indication of preference.


Then you condemn the situation to no resolution. If you fail to treat the Palestinians as equal in some way, you can't expect a sane approach.


There will be solutions, just no perfect resolutions.


No. I'm saying that if America has a bias (ie, the position you said you favoured) in favour of the Israelis, it automatically gives the hardliners a carte blanche. I didn't say that this Administration has given such a free hand (though they have backed down a few times when they shouldn't have).


Well, what exactly do you mean by bias? We've been conversing back and forth a little while now, but I don't have quite a handle on what you are getting at when you say bias and unbiased.


You're equating outcome (democrats versus terrorists) with input . Each side has goals that shouldn't be affected by the actions of their proponents, only the justice inherent in the goal itself.


I don't see this at all. If the people have chosen to commit themselves to terrorism as a means of achieving goals, which they have done by Democratic mandate, then they have lost their standing and their claim. It invalidates their goals. A group of people who advocate and support terrorism deserve no recognition or support.


No, but you've still got the equation back to front.

How so?

[Smokey D]

With Allende, you were dealing with a poor, illiterate voting base. And possibly some fraud. With Ahmadinejad, it was a phony election, rigged by the Mullah's. And with Chavez, first time it was the former, second time the latter. So, get better educated people and true democracy

You're defining 'true democracies' as those that vote for US interests.

Nice.

But in seriousness, Allende was the only real example I can think of where the Democratic choice of the people was directly averse to the global interests of the United States and the free world. Contrast that with all the Democratic nations of the world, and nations that have shifted more toward democracy thanks to America, and I'd say it's a pretty good record and indication of preference.

America has repeatedly thwarted moves towards democracy where it's not in its interests.

There will be solutions, just no perfect resolutions.



It's not a solution to kill all Palestinians or perpetuate the situation we have now.

Well, what exactly do you mean by bias? We've been conversing back and forth a little while now, but I don't have quite a handle on what you are getting at when you say bias and unbiased.

You said the US should favour Israel in favour of Palestine simply because Israel is a democracy and Palestine elected Hamas. If you decide to favour any side over the other for reasons other than the merit of the claim, you're biased.



I don't see this at all. If the people have chosen to commit themselves to terrorism as a means of achieving goals, which they have done by Democratic mandate, then they have lost their standing and their claim. It invalidates their goals. A group of people who advocate and support terrorism deserve no recognition or support.

If someone steals my goat, and I murder his family, it doesn't invalidate my claim to the goat. I can be punished for my actions, but the goat is still mine.

[Hababi]

You're defining 'true democracies' as those that vote for US interests.

Nice.


Not always. I don't see how Venezuela is a true democracy, and Iran certainly is not. Spain is, and a few years back elected an idiot who hurt the war on terrorism by capitulating to terrorists. They're still a true democracy.


America has repeatedly thwarted moves towards democracy where it's not in its interests.


Where else?


It's not a solution to kill all Palestinians or perpetuate the situation we have now.

Well duh :p



You said the US should favour Israel in favour of Palestine simply because Israel is a democracy and Palestine elected Hamas. If you decide to favour any side over the other for reasons other than the merit of the claim, you're biased.


I still don't see how this is a bad thing. There are always mitigating factors involved with decisions.


If someone steals my goat, and I murder his family, it doesn't invalidate my claim to the goat. I can be punished for my actions, but the goat is still mine.

I'm glad you used that example. If that were the case, you would punished to such an extent that the goat would functionally no longer be yours. You'd be in jail, and there'd be an abnegating of what was formerly rightfully yours. You'd no longer get use of it. The punishment would exceed the reward.

Same thing with Israel Palestine. Palestine is the guy who kills his neighbor when his neighbor takes his goat. They need to suffer the repercussions of their actions.

[Tha End]

Not always. I don't see how Venezuela is a true democracy, and Iran certainly is not. Spain is, and a few years back elected an idiot who hurt the war on terrorism by capitulating to terrorists. They're still a true democracy.



Where else?



Well duh :p




I still don't see how this is a bad thing. There are always mitigating factors involved with decisions.



I'm glad you used that example. If that were the case, you would punished to such an extent that the goat would functionally no longer be yours. You'd be in jail, and there'd be an abnegating of what was formerly rightfully yours. You'd no longer get use of it. The punishment would exceed the reward.

Same thing with Israel Palestine. Palestine is the guy who kills his neighbor when his neighbor takes his goat. They need to suffer the repercussions of their actions.

that is so ridiculous, if anything it's more like Palestine is the guy who shoots and kills the armed burgler breaking and entering his home in order to protect his family.

[Hababi]

Tha End: Never ceases to defend terrorism and thuggary

[Tha End]

Tha End: Never ceases to defend terrorism and thuggary

Serenity: Constantly spewing recycled garbage lies because he can't handle the truth.

[shaqadelic]

People in this thread: Totally miss the point in Smokey D's analogy.

[Smokey D]

Not always. I don't see how Venezuela is a true democracy, and Iran certainly is not. Spain is, and a few years back elected an idiot who hurt the war on terrorism by capitulating to terrorists. They're still a true democracy.

Yeah, but you trying to dismiss a First World democracy as a not a democracy would be painfully transparent. You're less forgiving of other democracies in countries with dubious electoral histories even when they are legitimate.

Where else?

Various African countries, Iran before the Shah, Vietnam, Korea before about the 1970s, Indonesia, the Phillipines.

I can rustle up some more examples if I find a history book.

I still don't see how this is a bad thing. There are always mitigating factors involved with decisions.

And sometimes the mitigating factors are not sufficient.

I'm glad you used that example. If that were the case, you would punished to such an extent that the goat would functionally no longer be yours. You'd be in jail, and there'd be an abnegating of what was formerly rightfully yours. You'd no longer get use of it. The punishment would exceed the reward.

But provided said goat wasn't the profit of my misdeeds then it would still be my property and thus mine to dispense with how I wish. As such, the goat would still be usable by my family or who ever else I might choose to discharge it to. As the Palestinian right to Palestine not being the product of a misdeed (terrorism), we can justly punish the terrorists while maintaining their claim (as you say, functionally unimportant as they're in jail) and the claim of other, non-terrorist Palestinians of this generation and future ones to the land.

[Der Übermensch]

Various African countries, Iran before the Shah, Vietnam, Korea before about the 1970s, Indonesia, the Phillipines.
Don't forget Chile and Nicaragua :)

[Smokey D]

He already conceded those ones.

[Hababi]

Yeah, but you trying to dismiss a First World democracy as a not a democracy would be painfully transparent. You're less forgiving of other democracies in countries with dubious electoral histories even when they are legitimate.

Depends what you call legitimate. I don't call Chavez's last election legitimate.



Various African countries, Iran before the Shah, Vietnam, Korea before about the 1970s, Indonesia, the Phillipines.


Look at them on a case by case basis: where was there a viable democratic alternative? Certainly not in Vietnam, nor Korea, Indonesia or the Phillipines. Iran is a bit more arguable. Which African countries. America supporting one tyrant over another is pragmatist, not anti-Democratic.


And sometimes the mitigating factors are not sufficient.


Ah but you concede that sometimes they are, yes? So it just comes down to whether or not the situation with Israel/Palestine is. And I think it is.


But provided said goat wasn't the profit of my misdeeds then it would still be my property and thus mine to dispense with how I wish. As such, the goat would still be usable by my family or who ever else I might choose to discharge it to. As the Palestinian right to Palestine not being the product of a misdeed (terrorism), we can justly punish the terrorists while maintaining their claim (as you say, functionally unimportant as they're in jail) and the claim of other, non-terrorist Palestinians of this generation and future ones to the land.

I don't disagree with this, essentially. I support a two-state solution.

[Dr Hooch]

Zerocool go buy a new thesaurus one where "Palestinian" and "terrorist" are not in the same box pls

[Iskandar]

I don't disagree with this, essentially. I support a two-state solution.I thought the Palestinians were too extremist to deserve the right to self-government. That's the impression I get, at least.

[Smokey D]

Look at them on a case by case basis: where was there a viable democratic alternative? Certainly not in Vietnam, nor Korea, Indonesia or the Phillipines. Iran is a bit more arguable. Which African countries. America supporting one tyrant over another is pragmatist, not anti-Democratic.

There were viable governments in all those countries, but the US refused to acknowledge them because they would have bolstered worldwide communism. In terms of democracy, though, they were what were desired.

Also, America is notorious for not setting up democratic institutions and supporting tyrants in the face of fledgling democratic movements throughout Africa and the Middle East, as well as parts of Latin America.


Ah but you concede that sometimes they are, yes? So it just comes down to whether or not the situation with Israel/Palestine is. And I think it is.


The things that have happened have never implicated the whole country in violence.

Not that would extinguish their claim even if it did.


I don't disagree with this, essentially. I support a two-state solution.

See.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Don't forget Chile and Nicaragua :) And the CIA supported coup in Guatamala in 1954. Plus supporting Batista in Cuba up til 1959 and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

[Smokey D]

Castro isn't a democrat though, so that's a bit different.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Castro isn't a democrat though, so that's a bit different. Yes but the US, when Cuba was basically in its pocket, did nothing to encourage democratic reform.

[Smokey D]

Not during the Bay of Pigs it wasn't.

But I agree. The US doesn't promote democracy in all the areas it dominates.

[lunchforthesky]

It promotes democracy when the people will vote their way and promotes dictatorships when they won't. Standard self interested forgein policy.

[Smokey D]

I don't want people thinking I think the US always acts in the same way or that its foreign policy can be boiled down into a few bold statements. However, you're right in that the US has frequently (but certainly not always) done that.

[Hababi]

There were viable governments in all those countries, but the US refused to acknowledge them because they would have bolstered worldwide communism. In terms of democracy, though, they were what were desired.

Sure, they were viable, but the question is were they democracies--if they weren't, how can you judge that that's what the people wanted?


Also, America is notorious for not setting up democratic institutions and supporting tyrants in the face of fledgling democratic movements throughout Africa and the Middle East, as well as parts of Latin America.


Well this would really have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Remember that the US withdrew support of Batista and allowed Castro to sieze control, even though he was left leaning, when he was promising to install democracy.


The things that have happened have never implicated the whole country in violence.


But they do implicate the majority of the people in Palestine.

[Iskandar]

Remember that the US withdrew support of Batista and allowed Castro to sieze control, even though he was left leaning, when he was promising to install democracy.
Wait, is the US not allowed to support leftists? What does "left-leaning' mean, anyway?

[Hababi]

Wait, is the US not allowed to support leftists? What does "left-leaning' mean, anyway?

Red :p

[VomitStainedCretin]

Wow... You have such a multi-dimensional view of politics.

[White]

I just got finished a Paper on the Palestinian Israeli problem, our mandate was to solve the conflict haha he knew it was impossible but we still did pretty good.

[Smokey D]

What did you say?