Today, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has decided to hold a hearing at 2:30 pm on the recent Middle East peace meeting called "After Annapolis: Next Steps in The Middle East Peace Process." It sounds wonderful. He has taken the initiative of holding this hearing on how we can continue pursuing such an even-handed policy in the peace process as we have so faithfully pursued throughout the past six decades.
Or not. Let's start with the hearing where two witnesses are invited: Dennis Ross and David Wurmser. While on the surface, Dennis Ross is a neutral expert as he was responsible for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations during both George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, he is currently counselor of the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the research arm of American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC). David Wurmser is also a seemingly neutral expert who has previously served as the Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and was a former research fellow on the Middle East at the American Enterprise Institute. But what Lantos wouldn't share on the press release is that Wurmser, too, is a neoconservative and has long been credited as being one of the main authors of the 1996 report Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, which was prepared for then incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Both invited witnesses have a consist record of disproportionately and unconditionally supporting Israel.
But Tom Lantos himself is the least free of pro-Israel bias. Lantos has represented California's 12th district and Israeli interests as an AIPAC ally in Congress since 1981 and was one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq War, which as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt eloquently lay out in Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, was not our war to fight, but we got pushed into it by Israel. While Lantos may now be making the same excuses for voting for the war that Hillary Clinton and others who caved make - that it wasn't a vote for war, we thought Saddam had WMDs, or we should promote democracy - evidence proves the existence of other motivations on his part. In the September 30, 2002 edition of the world-known Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Lantos was quoted as having told Minister of Knesset (Israeli legislature) Colette Avital, "My dear Colette, you won't have any problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." That may be why, as one former AIPAC leader put it, Lantos "is true blue and white."
There are a number of reasons as to why, as Serge Halimi of Le Monde Diplomatique puts it, Lantos "acts as a mouth piece for Likud policies." Lantos has used his status as a holocaust survivor in Congress and unconditional supporter of Israel to obtain the support of Pro-Israel PACs. In 2004, the 12-term incumbent's power was challenged by Maad Abu-Ghazalah, a Palestinian-born lawyer, and Ro Khanna, a 27-year-old anti-war Indian-American lawyer. Hardly a critic of Israel, Khanna simply held the position that "we have to find a way of articulating a very pro-Israel position that recognizes it as a strong ally and recognizes its security threat, but expresses empathy to the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people," Khanna said. "That's in the best interest of the U.S., in the best interest of Israel and in the best interest of the world."
But as anything short of unconditional support for Israel is unacceptable to the Israel lobby, Pro-Israel PAC funds channeled the total sum of $31,600 in campaign contributions to Lantos (WRMEA), which helped him hold on to his seat despite strong anti-war sentiments in his district. Pro-Israel PACs have been very generous to Lantos over his career, and as of 2006, they contributed $112,750 to his campaigns (WRMEA). While he has not received as much as the authors of the anti-Iran Kyl-Lieberman Amendment over their lifetimes - Senator Kyl: $163,025, and Senator Lieberman: $286,258 - Lantos has been the 8th highest receiver of Pro-Israel PACs contributions in the U.S. House of 435 representatives.
A congressional hearing is supposed to be about giving all sides of a debate a voice, so that our representatives can make the well-informed decisions that are in the best interest of the United States. But because not all citizens have the legal or financial means to contribute equally, domestic lobbies have a disproportionate influence on the policy process. But as citizens, we have the power to let our representatives know that we are watching their actions in Congress. You can do that today by calling Tom Lantos's office at 202.225.3531 and ask that he invite additional witnesses who can offer a different viewpoint than just that of the Israeli government and lobby. This blogger has learned that Eugene Bird, President of the Council for the National Interest Foundation already contacted Rep. Lantos and formally asked that two members of the recent delegation to the Middle East, Ambassador Robert Keeley and Richard Bliss, be added to the witness list today. CNI expressed its rationale for the request via a letter to members, in which it stated "If Rep. Lantos is unwilling to provide the Committee on Foreign Affairs with impartial experts, the least he can do is balance his partiality with witnesses who have recently traveled to the region and can testify as to the realities on the ground." This is a reasonable request. As this blog is getting published, Lantos has not responded to the CNI request.
One of the worst things about the domestic lobbies is that their influence on policy process is rarely investigated by the media because of the media's own lack of impartiality. So it takes us citizens to do the job of looking at raw data, follow the money, identify the interests and connect the dots that are shaping the context within which our representatives are acting. But an equally important part is to make our representatives aware that we know about their potential motivations and demand that they live up to their oath to office and defend our interests as citizens and not just those of the lobbyists. I hope that you will take the opportunity to do that today.
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon
Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei
There are lots of representatives within government who have as much or more knowledge of the conditions on the grounds in Mid East - such as Ambassador Robert Keeley and Richard Bliss - and neither one were invited. The article is not about Hamilton and neither does Sedaei argues that Hamilton should be there.
He is arguing that there should be a more balanced representation of both sides of the conflict, which currently is not the case because of Lantos's own heavily pro-Israel bias.
Why are these dual-citizenship jews clamoring for continued war with Iraq and for war with Iran? When are we going to get rid of these people who put Israel's interests ahead of our own?
IdiotBush just installed the twice-failed Wolfowitz into a nice cushy job deciding on foreign policy and we can guess in what direction he's going to steer us. Wolfowitz' is joined by two more Israeli firsters, Wurmser, & Ross. IdiotBush has just installed Mukasey as our Attorney General, who will probably start prosecuting holocaust deniers, like Europe does, meanwhile we have jew heading our Homeland Security Department. At what point do we see a pattern? If all these offices were occupied by Mormons or by people who had dual allegiance to another country, wouldn't there be lots of controversy?
Virtually all of our presidential candidates have vowed their unconditional support for Israel, (If we could only get that kind of support for our Constitution). AIPAC is trying to get our Justice Department to drop the case against two former AIPAC agents who spied against us for Israel. Should be much easier with Mukasey as Attorney General. Maybe Mukasey can finally free Jonathan Pollard, another jewish traitor, as a favor to Israel, since Israel has been petitioning every president for his release since Pollard was imprisoned, and while not admitting treasonous act, Israel has nonetheless deposited a monthly sum (probably US tax dollars) in a bank account in Israel, in his name. Is there a pattern yet?
Those who aren't dual-citizens have dual allegiance with Israel being their main interest. Why does the prominent jewish millionaire, Sheldon Adelson back Giuliani? Is it because Giuliani has been most outspoken about his support for Israel, as well as one of the most prominent warhawks clamoring for continued war? Is this a pattern yet? Do all of the Cabinet posts have to be occupied by Israeli-firsters before we see a pattern?
?
It appears to be a corrupt criminal enterprise, and everyone involved should be prosecuted and forced to pay the money back to the U.S. taxpayers. Fat chance.
While "our" Democrats are completely incapable of doing even one thing to help the people of this country -- refuse to end the war, refuse to even stand against a new war in Iran, refuse to investigate, refuse to impeach -- they are busily voting to give Israel another $2.6 billion for 2008. And on top of that $40 million for "refugees." What? Since when did somebody who moves voluntarily become a "refugee?" Did you know that we pay thousands of dollars to every person from anywhere in the world who will move to Israel. How obscene is that?
U.S. out of Israel. If we want to end the conflict, we quite simply need to cut off the money. Give Israel one year, then tell them they're on their own, like big boys and girls. They can either learn to live in peace after 60 years, or leave. But it's nothing to me one way or the other. I just don't want to pay for it anymore.
By the way, Israel has no incentive to end its wars against everyone as long as they can use the "tensions" to keep getting billions of dollars for free from the U.S.
What is clear is that now, as since 1948, the U.S. is not the honest, even-handed broker required to help resolve the many problems and issues surrounding the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many friends of Israel, both inside and outside Israel, consider the greatest obstacle to regional peace the fact that Israel is, by its constitution and law, officially an ethnocracy, which grants only second-class citizenship to its non-Jewish citizens, severely restricting their property rights and other rights.
It is a system of rule that prompted former President Carter to compare it, with some justice, to the discredited Apartheid policies of the former government of South Africa.
U.S. diplomats and politicians have, as a matter of policy, turned a blind eye to this glaring defect in the Israeli polity. This remains one of the reasons the U.S. has no credibility with other governments and groups in the region, including the Palestinians, and engenders much of the hostility directed toward Israel as well as the United States.
Israel needs to put its house in order before even thinking about attempting any peace deals. The U.S. needs to insist on political reform in Israel as a precondition for our participation in seeking a lasting settlement.
If you want to annex something, annex Mexico. Then there won;t be much illegal immigration, we cna access Mexico's oil and Mexican workers will get a living wage and won;t have to come be slave labor so we cna have cheap food.
The other alternative is to let Israel finally be what it claims to be, an independent country without the "special relation" they enjoy with the US congress which gives them a big chunk of our tax money.
We shouldn't have a dog in the Israeli Palestinian fight. It is a petty war over land dressed up as a religious epic showdown for media mass consumption.
Let them fight over that piece of dirt on their own. To me California, Texas or New Orleans are no more nor any less HOLY than the marketed "holyland".
Sedaie continues to present business as usual as if it is something alarming and unusual in the way he presents AIPAC support for a candidate that agrees with them. But it is hard to see a committee that ranges from Ross to Wurmser doing much good.
I somewhat doubt that there exist the kind of non-partisan experts that Sedaie thinks would be optimum. But he is right that some balance would be useful here.