|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Middle East AIPAC - American FIRST, or Israeli FIRST?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
WASHINGTON — The formidable political strength of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s major pro-Israel lobby, has been on decidedly intentional display here in the last few days.
But this year, Aipac’s annual conference comes after a period fraught with small anxieties for the group and its supporters. Just days ago, the Obama administration said it was seeking the dismissal of charges that two former Aipac analysts had violated an espionage statute by improperly disseminating national security information. The case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman had raised what many in the pro-Israel community in the United States regard as an unfair, even toxic question about whether the loyalty of some American Jews to Israel matches or exceeds their loyalty to the United States. Gary Silow, a Philadelphia-area lawyer and Aipac member at the convention, said he was deeply troubled by the potential for renewed discussion of what he said was the offensive “dual loyalty” issue. In Mr. Silow’s view, “the fact that they came after Aipac was what was really disturbing.” Like many at the convention, Mr. Silow said he was relieved at the move for a dismissal. More than half the members of the House and Senate attended Monday night’s dinner, which featured the group’s act in which the lawmakers all rise. It is a conscious — and effective — effort to demonstrate the group’s influence on Capitol Hill. Even as the charges were dismissed, the issue of Aipac’s role in the capital’s political life surfaced again in recent days with the disclosure that Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, had been overheard in 2005 on a government wiretap offering to help reduce the charges. Ms. Harman, who has denied she intervened in the Rosen-Weissman case, was greeted with sustained applause when she appeared on Sunday morning. The site of the conference, the Washington Convention Center, is conveniently, and symbolically, about equally close to the White House and the Capitol, the two objects of Aipac’s muscular demonstration. Along with 6,000 delegates, mostly Jewish, leaders of the two branches of government have been attending the convention to offer praise for Aipac and support of Israel, both in generally unreserved language. The roster of scheduled guests from Sunday through the meeting’s conclusion on Tuesday included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker who remains an important Republican voice; and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who has longstanding ties to Israel. The group also heard from the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (via satellite), and the new opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, and the president, Shimon Peres (in person). Huge slides of former American presidents were displayed, and there was a murmur of disapproval when the image of Jimmy Carter appeared. Mr. Carter brokered the Camp David peace accords but has turned harshly critical of Israel since leaving office. Speeches are scrutinized closely at Aipac events. As a presidential candidate in June 2008, Barack Obama spoke to Aipac to counter whispers in the American Jewish community that he was insufficiently committed to Israel. Mr. Obama told the group that he regarded them as “friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.” Doug here: Does that PROMISE sound just a bit TOO STRONG for an AMERICAN PRESIDENT to swear to ANY FOREIGN ENTITY??? Mr. Obama went on to win an estimated 78 percent of the Jewish vote, a figure higher than that won four years earlier by Mr. Kerry. Many of the Aipac attendees are planning to fan out on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to brace lawmakers with their views. Aipac’s spokesman, Josh Block, said there were 508 appointments at Congressional offices. The conference’s literature is filled with suggestions for lobbying as in “don’t be late” and “be direct” in making your case. Aipac officials say the key to their success is linking their supporters across the country with their local elected lawmakers. “Relationships matter” is a slogan plastered around the convention hall. Aipac does not make political donations but encourages its members to do so. Last year, some prominent American Jews, asserting that Aipac’s generally down-the-line support of Israeli policy was neither helpful to Israel nor wise, founded a counter group called J Street. J Street, which is only a tiny percentage of the size of Aipac, is vocal about supporting lawmakers who might disagree with some Israeli policies. Aipac officials have tried to treat J Street as if it were lint. Is this lobbying group in AMERICA controlling TOO MUCH of our leaders? Are they doing what is best for America, or for Israel? Do you feel good about ANY group having such total control over our government? This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag, |
||
|
Member |
Well, we already know where the loyalties of Syrian Americans lay. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Oh really? Well, apparently you are not really aware of who are "Syrian Americans". For instance SENATOR GEORGE MITCHELL, who brokered the IRA / British peace, and more recently worked on the MLB / Steroid hearings, and is most recently an envoy of Obama's to the Middle East. So, perhaps you should cite some specific examples of Syrian Americans and show how they are NOT Americans FIRST. Because right now all you are showing is your prejudice; as opposed to the article posted above, from the NY Times, which cites some specific cases of TREASON by American officials which have been in American Courts recently. AND... you've completely avoided the context of the article above. The point to "ponder" from the above article, is about how much our leadership is being controlled / lobbied by a FOREIGN power. Did you happen to notice that "more than half the members of the House and Senate attended" this AIPAC meeting? MORE THAN HALF of the US CONGRESS all there to accept the votes and MONEY from AIPAC, and therefore WILL VOTE FOR AIPAC ISSUES. QUID PRO QUO. Doesn't this bother YOU as an American? No, you'd rather make a disparaging remark about Syrian Americans.... PATHETIC. This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag, |
|||
|
|
Member |
So, if you can respond without changing the subject to an entirely different concept:
How do you feel about a FOREIGN GROUP having such complete control and influence over OUR AMERICAN LEADERS? Doesn't that strike you as DANGEROUS, and un-American? Especially when you consider these lobbyists are representing the interests of a FOREIGN POWER! Clearly NOT the interests of AMERICA. Whether you like Israel, or not, whether you see the atrocities of their occupation and the associated side effects through the decades of Middle Eastern conflict, or not, whether you like America being in a "War against Terrorism", or not, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT AIPAC's power over the American Government? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I am an Israeli American and I will soon be joining the US Army.
|
|||
|
Member |
DGS fell from his chair when he read it.  |
|||
|
|
Member |
So, as an American, how do you feel about the control of our American government by a foreign interest group? OK, you might feel warm and cozy with Israel pulling our strings; but, what if it was a group of Muslims pulling our strings? That wouldn't set too well with you would it? Historically, the "American way" had been strongest and best for EVERYONE, with NO outside / foreign control of US. Considering our American Principles of Justice for ALL, we were ready to maneuver through many international issues, successfully. But, lately, we've let those Principles slip away, as we have been under the thumb of our Achilles Heel: MONEY. Money has worked it's evil from a particular special interest group, throughout the American Government. Considering those American Principles were what made America great, without them, you're therefore watching the demise of America. Enjoy the show; the rest of the world is. This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag, |
|||
|
|
Member |
I was not bothered in the slightest! What I was effected by was the "usual" avoidance of the subject at hand. It seems that the majority of people choose to avoid the question(s) with a comment, as opposed to a dialogue, so we have a series of one liners. Less than efficient, isn't it. |
|||
|
|
- |
 Proud to have you serve D.J. |
|||
|
|
- |
Good to see your still around Panzer We'll keep you in our prayers D.J. |
|||
|
|
- |
Seems to work very well, that way you can hear yourself while beating your chest. The bigger the caps. dosnt make it any less a non truth. D.J. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Why not attack Syrian Americans, you attack Jewish Americans all the time, I bet the list of Jewish statesmen and other Jews that have done some good in this world is a lot longer than the list of Syrians that have done something mentionable. |
|||
|
|
Member |
If you had bothered to read and then responded to the BIGGER ISSUE, it is not WHO has the cleanest hands, it is the UNACCEPTABLE FOREIGN LOBBIESTS controlling AMERICA. American Principles of Justice for ALL, and Equality under the Law, etc., are being completely ignored with Israel. We complain to China, and Cuba about their human rights issues, but not with Israel. Though camped around Israel are thousands and thousands of refugees, supported by the UN because they have not been allowed the "right to return" to their homes. AND they have not been paid for their homes. But, that is not the big deal! The BIG DEAL, to this AMERICAN, is that my country is SUPPORTING this INJUSTICE! Granted Syria has made egregious acts, BUT WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING SYRIA, are we? NEITHER AM I. I am SUPPORTING an America that SUPPORTS OUR OWN PRINCIPLES, which are what made us so strong and great! So, I am real upset with our media, likewise in the back pocket of the "special interest" group, because they are not providing us with unbiased objective reporting. An uninformed public does not make informed votes. Which is VERY BAD for our representative democracy. So, get off the Arabs bad, Jews good band wagon, and focus on the much more important issue of America for AMERICANS FIRST, NOT for ANY special interest group first. THAT is the American way. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Not only do we just "look the other way" while Israel commits atrocites to it's non-Jewish population, we look the other way with Saudi Arabia too! In that case it is for their oil. We don't want to interupt that flow, for even one day.
So, we complain to China, Russia, Cuba, N. Korea, and anyone else who "fails" our American Principles of Justice for ALL, but we don't say anything to Saudi Arabia, for their oil, and ISrael because of AIPAC, and the other ISraeli special interest "agents", controlling the majority of OUR government. So, since 9/11, America has begun paying a VERY heavy price for our allegience to other governments who do NOT follow our American Principles. The victims of these oppressive regimes can now include America on their list of enemies, since we are selling their Kings and thieves weapons, training their elite forces used to maintain their control over their victims, and supporting them on the world's stage, i.e., the UN. When ANYONE inspires our government to disregard our American Principles, for money or power, and support unjust oppression of civilians, we are making a BIG MISTAKE. IF you'd like to see our war on terrorism END, we have to return to an across the board support of AMERICAN PRINCIPLES, FIRST, WAY before we support any "special interests". I am not just against Israelis, I am against injustice being supported by AMERICA. THAT is the BIG ISSUE. ANY country should be open to debate / review / and even an occasional critique, as EVERY OTHER country is, by America, and our government. We sometimes critique England, France, Germany, etc., etc., but NEVER Israel!? Obviously, this is unacceptable and VERY UNHEALTHY. And THIS IS what I have been pointing out, (or TRYING TO), to everyone willing to read my rhetoric. Then, of course, I point out how MUCH Israel DESERVES to be critiqued if you consider their creation of millions of refugees, etc. ,etc... especially by America the "home"? of equality and justice for all...?! But, nobody seems to give a damn. We just shrug, and look away; or people indicate how "bad" the "terrorists" are... as though that exonerates the displacement, extermination, blockading, bulldozing, etc... by the people of Israel, who should know better than to abuse people especially considering how much the Jews have been abused, historically. As an American, I keep coming back to how disgusting it is that our leaders and our policies are in the Israelis back pocket. WE are supposed to be the SUPER POWER, but this little Israel is leading us around by the nose. DISGUSTING. And it is even more disgusting that AMERICANS don't seem to care. This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Todays' NY TIMES:
U.S. Joins Rights Panel After a Vote at the U.N. UNITED NATIONS — The United States won a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday, joining a group that the Bush administration had pilloried. The controversy surrounding the 47-member body, which assesses the rights records of United Nations member states, was underscored by the General Assembly’s re-electing other nations condemned by human rights organizations for abusing their own citizens. They include Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Cameroon. The Bush administration considered the Human Rights Council beyond redemption because of the group’s repeated focus on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians under occupation. So, folks, I wonder why Bush kept America out of the UN Human Rights Panel, because they kept focusing on Israels' treatment of those bad Palestinians? Could it have been that he was following AIPAC "orders"??? Obviously this would be contrary to Israeli propoganda that they don't abuse the Palestinians, so AIPAC must have been "supporting" America staying out of the UN Human Rights Panel. Shouldn't AMERICA always be in a UN Human Rights group? Aren't we SUPPOSED to be FOR Human Rights? But when AIPAC speaks, American leaders LISTEN, very carefully. So, PERHAPS Obama WILL bring "Change" to America. But AIPAC sure is going to beat him up over it! This is a very tough call for Obama. IF he does what is "right" and conducts American policy following American Principles, he could lose his chance for a second term. Hmmmmm, I wonder what he will choose? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Today's NY Times:
President Obama has set clear and appropriate priorities ahead of the visit to Washington on May 18 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Speaking to Jewish-American activists last week, Vice President Joseph Biden conceded, “You’re not going to like my saying this,” and then he laid out the administration’s list. If there is going to be a serious peace effort with Palestinians, Israel must work toward a two-state solution, Mr. Biden said. It must freeze further settlement construction in the West Bank and dismantle roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns not needed for security. Israel must also grant Palestinians more responsibility for security to the extent that they combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel, he added. This should not come as news to Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Obama and his aides have been telegraphing their intentions for weeks. But the Israeli leader’s responses have been unconvincing and insufficient. Growing tensions were obvious when his White House meeting slid later into May — after Mr. Obama hosted Arab leaders. In his video speech to the same activist group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Netanyahu said he wants peace with the Palestinians. He even committed to negotiations “without any delay and without any preconditions.” But it rings hollow. He has resisted — and his foreign minister and unity government partner, Avigdor Lieberman, has openly derided — the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace. On Monday, the 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a statement endorsing the two-state solution. Other differences also threaten next week’s meeting. One is the president’s decision to reach out to Iran, which has made Israel uneasy. Mr. Netanyahu — perhaps trying to ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere — hinted that he might condition peace efforts on Mr. Obama’s success in ending Tehran’s nuclear program. Stopping Iran’s nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obama’s approach — a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail — is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehran’s capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obama’s initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action. It cannot be either-or. We have seen how former President George W. Bush’s delay in engaging seriously on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts sabotaged United States interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran by giving Al Qaeda and other extremists a rallying point for anti-Americanism. There are huge obstacles to peacemaking, including the rivalry between the ruling Fatah and militant Hamas Palestinian factions. Fortunately, there is also a new, potentially useful dynamic: Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are as worried about Iran as Israel is. That is a shared concern that should be exploited to bind these old adversaries in common cause — to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace and to restrain Iran. As new leaders of two deeply entwined countries, President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu have an interest in getting their relationship off to a good start. Mr. Netanyahu, a smooth talker, will have to do better than vague promises, however. Just think what might happen if he declared an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations. Gee, what if America did what was best for AMERICA rather than continuing to get dragged into conflicts to keep supporting oppression? Crazy idea, huh? |
|||
|
New Member |
First of all DougSabbag, stop capitalizing everything...It's annoying and it does nothing to help your point.
Second of all, Israel is by far the United States' biggest ally in the middle east. We have a long history of close ties with them. In fact if it wasn't for us and our support of them, Israel probably wouldn't have lasted very long as a nation. Has Israel done some bad things to the Palestinians? yeah they have, but it's not like the Palestinians have been peaceful themselves. The situation between those two has become a seemingly never ending feud. From a U.S. perspective, it's a whole lot easier to deal with a modern Jewish state, who we have historical ties with, than to try and reason with a chaotic pseudo-state swarming with Hamas, Hezbollah and other recognized terrorist organizations, and full of Muslim extremists, many of whom would like nothing better than to see the United States brought down. That's why the United States maintains a strong relationship with Israel. While our alliance with them obviously benefits Israel, it is primarily a self-serving agreement controlled by the U.S., not the other way around. |
|||
|
|
Member |
If it weren't for the European Jews who invaded and created millions of refugees who have been fighting for their right to return to their homes for decades ever since, do you think there would be anywhere as near as much "terrorist" activity in the Middle East???So, considering the Israelis started the mess, it is actually bizzare that we are helping them maintain their occupation. Sure they are a great ally. We are their main supporter because they have our government in their back pocket. Did you read the AIPAC meeting details I copied from the newspaper? More than half of our congress was in attendance at their meeting! Just because it is "easier" to deal with a "modern Jewish STate" does not make it appropriate for us to associate with the oppressors and occupiers who also happen to (this is where I would normally use capital letters) have nuclear bombs against all international agreements, rules, etc. Apparently their control and power over our government is so strong, we look the other way on that slight indiscretion too. Hmmmmmmm. And considering our "association" with Israel, as "easy" as you seem to think it is, is now placing us in the position of being in a "War on Terrorism", perhaps it isn't really all that easy being their "friend". What are our "historical ties" that should inspire us to support the cause of decades of conflict in the Middle East? The "never ending feud" is a logical result of Israel creating millions of refugees by stealing their homes. The "recognized terrorist organizations" organized in the first place to fight against their oppressor: Israel! What would YOU do if some group of thugs kicked you out of your house? Wouldn't you fight to get it back?? You've turned the victims into the bad guys and actually think we should support the invaders who are killing civilians! Think about what you are saying. You are forgetting all about the American Principles of Justice for all, and equality under the law, just to name a few, which if you held Israel accountable to, would place them in the same inhumane category as the other nations like China and N. Korea, and Cuba, etc., which we keep telling to change their evil ways. Why not Israel too? Because of AIPAC and our biased media, that's why. They have even convinced YOU that they are the good guys, when by any American standard of right vs. wrong they are the invading occupation force who is slowly exterminating their victims. And as far as Israel "lasting as a nation", if they used justice instead of bullets and bulldozers to address their citizens with, I think there would be a much greater chance of their health as a nation and peaceful existence lasting for a very long time. Justice for ALL works in America, why can't they, (our ally as you point out), also try it out?! This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Firstly, thank you for not over-capitalizing, it makes your post much easier to read.
Anyway, I agree that Israel had no business setting up their country in the first place. The only reason they were allowed to do it was because of the holocaust, the world was sympathetic towards the Jewish population at that time. That being said, there can be no "undoing" of what is done. Israel isn't just going to go away, they are here to stay. Whether them being there in the first place or not was justified (and if you ask any Israeli they will till you it was) is at this point irrelevant. The Palestinians need to accept that they are most likely never going to regain all the territory they had before the creation of Israel. I understand that they want "their" land back, but at a certain point (like 6 decades later) you have to be a realist and accept that it's not going to happen. The question now is, acknowledging that neither side is going away anytime soon, how do you divide it all up in a way that both sides will accept. That has proved to be almost impossible, which is why the conflict continues today. As far as the American/Israeli alliance, it's logical. Israel provides us with a powerful ally in a dangerous part of the world, in which we are currently deeply involved. That is something that Palestine can't offer us, and wouldn't even if they could. You asked what I meant by 'historical ties.' Well if you look into the history of the US/Israeli relationship, you'll see we have supported them since their creation in 1948. In fact we were the first nation to officially recognize Israel as a sovereign state. It goes back even farther than that actually, back to 1922 when Congress passed a resolution backing a League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The fact of the matter is they have been our ally for over 60 years, and for most of that time they have been battling with the Palestinians. We are certainly not going to abandon them now, when we need allies in the middle east more desperately than we ever have. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Without any argument I agree that Israel wil remain, I am only suggesting changes. So, what I have been suggesting is to address the injustices within Israel. You do not need to be unfair and continue a policy of extermination for Israel to exist. In fact, if you think about it, Israel will have a much greater chance of continued long term existence if it stops the present policies of arrogance. In a similar manner as when South Africa stopped their apartheid policies, and their "whole" population was able to vote and had equal rights, yet, South Africa remained. So, if Israel either paid those families / refugees for their stolen / lost lands, or let them have them back; these people would be Israelis. Right now, they are refugees, without passports, without a "country". As far as our alliance with Israel being critical for our Middle East presence; well, if we were better "balanced" as I have said before, we would have more "friends" amongst the other nations too. The biggest reason this is such a dangerous part of the world is because of the Israeli / refugee injustice. If we helped the Palestinians as opposed to arm and finance their oppressor, the Palestinians would be more than happy to be our ally / friends too. But, as you noted historically, even as far back as 1922, and the British with their Balfour Agreement, we have been "selling out" the Palestinians to the Jews, when it was not our land to give away. Families of civilians lived there. When you accurately point out that the "Israelis" have been battling with the "Palestinians" since their inception as a nation; the other way to look at that is, the Palestinians have been battling for their lives since the European Jews, (with the Balfour Agreement in hand), swarmed into the area, kicked them out of their homes, and made them refugees. America would not be "abandoning" Israel if we were to support a just resolution of the refugees plight. You CAN have both Justice and Israel co-exiting. That is what America should be supporting. It has always been in America's best interest to support the expansion of Justice, in the Middle East, and globally. That is clearly the "right" side to be on. As we have taken the opposite side, i.e., supporting injustice, we have been making enemies, losing respect, and are even in a "war" because of it. This is clearly not in America's best interest, and all debates must accept that as a reality. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Middle East AIPAC - American FIRST, or Israeli FIRST?
