For more than a decade I have stood on the stage at one Jewish community organizational conference after another as elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans and often even those running against each other, have lauded and applauded the bipartisan consensus of support for Israel. Whatever our differences, the familiar refrain goes, bipartisan support for Israel remains unbroken.
Unbroken, perhaps, but not unbreakable.
A slew of political advertisements have been unleashed by the far right, the "Israel right or wrong" crowd, which have misrepresented the strong support of Democratic members of Congress for Israel and reflect a troubling willingness among some conservatives to strain the historic bipartisan consensus on Israel, at least where doing so serves their own partisan purposes.
Take for example the Republican Jewish Coalition's ad against Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, claiming that she "remained silent as the Obama administration pressured Israel and supported Israel's enemies." Aside from shamelessly rehashing debunked accusations of a deterioration in U.S.-Israel relations -- which Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has called "just flat wrong" -- the missive against Boxer is particularly remarkable given the Jewish Senator's authorship with Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of a March 29th letter -- on which the right wing of the pro-Israel community lobbied heavily -- urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to resolve any differences of opinion with Israel "amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies" (the contemporaneous House version of the letter, lead by Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Mr. Cantor, used the more pointed language, "quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies").
In addition to revealing a breathtaking dishonesty in lambasting a legislator for failing to join an effort which she, in point of fact, led, this ad brazenly threatens the bipartisan consensus on Israel by signaling to Democrats that the right wing may attack them as insufficiently supportive of Israel no matter what letters they sign or votes they take. This is hardly a message the true pro-Israel community would want Democratic Members and candidates to internalize.
Yet the RJC and other conservative-backed groups, such as the Emergency Committee for Israel, continue to churn out negative ads attacking Democrats -- all of whom have repeatedly affirmed their support for the U.S.-Israel special relationship and support U.S. assistance to Israel in order to ensure its qualitative military edge -- as insufficiently hawkish on Israel. In comparison, no pro-Israel group supporting a Democratic Member or candidate has put forward a single negative ad -- not a single one -- attacking the electoral opponent of their own endorsements received over Israel.
The advent of conservative willingness to make Israel partisan would be dangerous enough if limited to the purely political realm of campaigns, but this week, Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor mused that annual appropriations of U.S. assistance to guarantee Israel's qualitative military edge may be "separated out" from the broader state and foreign operations appropriations to accommodate right-wing politicians ideologically opposed to foreign aid. This threatens the ability of Congress to assist Israel in maximizing its security in the expedient and apolitical manner of the past. As Chairwoman of the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee Nita Lowey said, "Manipulating aid to Israel in this way would dangerously threaten continued bipartisan agreement on national security policy and programs other than direct assistance to Israel that aid in its security." Characterizing it as "reckless," Ms. Lowey concluded that, "Eric Cantor's outrageous proposal is based purely on political motives, not what is best for U.S. or global security."
With less than a week to go before the 2010 election this is the political silly season. But for Israel supporters, Democrats and Republicans, this is no laughing matter.
US lawmakers understand that
1) Israel has the military capacity to kill millions, but moral capacity to kill hundreds.
2) Arabs have the military capacity to kill hundreds, but moral capacity to kill millions.
3) Israel has a free election at least every 4 years. Arabs have free elections as a syndrome of regime change or external pressure (and 95% victory elections otherwise).
4) Israelis contemplate the same problems the US does - Health care, Education, Social vs. Military spending, checks and balances between Judaical, Legislative and Executive Branches, immigration policy, technological development etc. Lawmakers connect more easily with that then with another Arab Tyrant and his set of cronies who has only his political and personal survival on que
While Israel continues to ignore and break international laws through her actions, the US blind eye support of Israel has become a huge liability for the US. Not only for the 3 billion in direct aid, we give billions more to "buy" the peace for Israel with it's neighbors. The Iraq war was also in a large way promoted by the Israeli government with Israel's own security in mind. Much of the US terror threats at home come from our support of Israel as well. When you add it all up, along with how Israel never had an honest entitlement to take Palestinian land, Israel is a huge liability for the US.
"US Senator Ernest Hollings, stated the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it."
"1996, a policy paper for Netanyahu it called for removing Saddam Hussein" "The authors included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews" " later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004:"
“The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq,” reported Israeli daily paper, Haaretz, in February 2002. [11] "
"the Guardian, August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq,"
You did not answer any of my points, but said that their result is negative for the US. I far as I see my points are valid, and your points are based on journalistic rumors and incidental common cause. Fact is ever since the Iraq war Iran got stronger and Israel's strategic position worsened vs. Iran.
With the public negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority grinding to a halt, it seems that secret meetings are yielding more results.
According to the London-based newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, the United States has pitched a deal to Israel that would see it lease land in East Jerusalem from the Palestinians in exchange for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
The lease deal would be valid for 40 to 99 years. The report, based on an Egyptian source, called the negotiations
"more quiet than secret, and are meant to try to save the peace process."
" in his teenage years he was the same nice kid...but he was more concerned, sad and frustrated about the situation on Palestine in particular, and the Arab and Muslim world in general."
Furthermore in his public statement intended for the world to see, dated Dec 29 1994, he explicitly mentioned the issue of Palestine. And as AQ expert Bruce Lawrence stated -
"The letter makes it plain that Palestine far from being a late addition to Bin Laden's agenda, was at the centre of it from the start."
This before we even get to the other numerous mentions the issue of Palestine recieves in his other statements. I suggest those who like to pretend Palestine was never an issue for Bin Laden, to go ask Peter Arnett, who interviewed him way back in 1997. It's only the pro-Zionist crowd who like to pretend their beloved project was not a motivator for Bin Laden. Unfortunately for them, the facts tell a different story....as usual !
Just a minor correction, it's not the "plight of the Palestinians" but the presence of jews in holy land that bothered him so much. So, my "beloved project "... heck with it, must keep OBL happy, right?
At least know that Muslims are broken down into Sunni, Shi'ites, Sufis Wahabbis etc
And F__k ObL !
If the Israeli lobby wants to tie itself to the birthers, tenthers, TEA party, Christian Conservatives, and the Republicans, that's just fine, but boy will they be in for a surprise.
The Bi-partisian support in the house reminds me of story about Soviet Russia, where after a party leaders speech the clapping went on for hours. No-one wanted to be seen as the first to stop clapping, so it continued until people started to faint. Fear of the Israel lobby and political fall out drives the asinine "Isreal first, wrong or wronger" policy.
He was pobably more popular than any Israeli politicans.
Saying AIPAC has complete control over out Mideast policy is laughable.
Currently politics in Israel has moved to the right. The Jews who are conservatives are disproportionately wealthy business people, and so they have the money to try to sway the Jewish vote. And they see an opportunity to do it by trying to split the Jewish vote over Israel.
My politics are purely on the J street side of the divide. But I am not sure why there should be an "Israel is politically off limits" rule in politics. I suppose there could be a realpolitic reason if it seemed likely to turn Democrats against Israel, but it doesn't seem likely.
The ads run by the Republican Jewish Coalition are noxious in the ridiculous stand it takes on the region. (I get them near me directed against Sestak). But they are certainly no more noxious than the ads conservatives run about health care or blaiming Democrats for the Bush recession.
In fact, just think about how bizarre it is that American politicians are genuflecting and salivating this way over another country...during a US election, no less. Something is terribly wrong.
The "genuflecting and salivating" is the same pandering they exhibit when they speak to any group.
You only find this offensive because AIPAC is pro-Israel and you don't like that.
Nothing is wrong, except your grasp of american electoral politics.
You do realize that they are also doing this in areas where there are few Jewish votes, right? They are not doing this for votes, so your premise is wrong. The system is irreversibly broken.
The message, although constantly obfuscated by the Israel lobby, is loud and clear to most Americans; the settlements do nothing to help Israeli security, and in fact only serve to inspire terror against it, and the US as well. There is a good chance that 9/11 would have never occurred if the settlers were put out of commission decades ago as they rightfully should have been, and and increasing chance of a recurrence if they are allowed to continue while the US still sends money and weapons to Israel.
It is time to cut Israel off until they comply with the wishes of virtually every single other nation on earth and end the settlements for good.
As a karate expert i find this kind of rhetoric is despicable.
Ask Osama Bin Laden, Who spoke, and speaks, about it regularly.
Ask the head of the CIA's bin laden unit, who makes a VERY direct connection between the tolerance and support of the settlers, and the blowback terror that the US absorbs, and WILL absorb.
Ask Bill Clinton, who shortly after 9/11 called the Israeli Palestinian conflict the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment.
Ask Tony Blair, who, after 9/11 addressed congress and told them that there will NEVER be an end to the war on terror until the Israeli Palestinian conflict is ended in a fair and equitable manor.
The settlers are the cause of the VAST majority of the conflict at this point, as they solely necessitate the occupation, and the misery, suffering and death it regularly causes. That is why these people, and the UN, the 9/11 commission, and really most credible middle eastern analysts make a connection.
That is why President Obama refers to this peace initiative as a matter of US security. .
that is Why Shimon Peres recently said precisely the SAME THING.
That is why our military leaders say CLEARLY that it endangers our troops
THAT is what the settlers have to do with 9/11, and the danger of future terror attacks against the US, as well as a grave and standing danger for our troops and people abroad.
“Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never talked about them before.”
— Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Even Yasser Arafat told the Sunday Times of London that bin Laden should stop hiding behind the Palestinian cause. Bin Laden “never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests,” Arafat said
Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of Shar’ia and Law at Qatar University was critical, “In their hypocrisy, many of the [Arab] intellectuals linked September 11 with the Palestinian problem — something that completely contradicts seven years of Al-Qaida literature. Al-Qaida never linked anything to Palestine.”
Are we all liars, do you suppose?
Seriously - a dictator who accepts billions from the USA and represses his own people?
WTF?
America and Israel aren't exactly on the same level now are they? Israel needs America. Certainly not the other way around.
Tipping point.
Obama showed the willingness to sacrifice Israels and throw it under the bus for what he conceives as the greater picture and American interests. Unfortunately not only did he alienate the Israeli public and the American public he highly damaged the "greater picture".
His unrealistic demands from the Israeli goverment have pushed the Palestinians into a corner and made them more reluctant to peace than ever.
I do think that he has a genuine interest in peace, but that several factors outside his own priorities - from the Netanyahu coalition to the PA to the unfounded beliefs that he's somehow a radical Muslim in sheep's clothes - severely limit how effective he can be.