'Israel Lobby' bad for Israel, the U.S.

[Tom Joad]

From St. Louis Jewish Light.
http://access.stljewishlight.com/content_printstory.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stljewishlight.com%2Fcommentaries%2F286061544108230.php

BY RABBI BRUCE WARSHAL

Oh my God, someone has publicly outed the "Israel Lobby." For those readers who do not closely follow the machinations in academia, let me explain. John Walt, the academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have written a blistering critique of the Jewish lobby, focusing primarily on AIPAC.

Their main complaint is that "the thrust of US policy in the region (the Middle East) derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'." There is much with which to disagree in the paper, including their assertion that Israel is not a vital strategic asset (there are many generals who would challenge that assertion). But there is also much truth, if we would only be honest with ourselves.
<snip>
Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right-wing, rich Jewish neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500 delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48 rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of the mainstream of Jewish thought.
________________________________________________

Comment: AIPAC exists. It has influence, it doesn't create a $15 million lobby with over 60,000 members for nothing, any more than the NRA does what it does for nothing. There can be debate as to whether that influence is good or bad or sometimes one or the other, but I don't understand the position of pretending that they do not exist. AIPAC and related-groups specifically work on U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine, but also seek to change US policy toward the entire Middle East, in ways they perceive to be good for Israel. for example, AIPAC has made a point of making much of the supposed threat of Iran (a nation without of nuclear weapons), and supporting heavily the so-called "Iran Freedom Support Act", that Rep. Dennis Kucinich called "a steppingstone to war". It seeks to prevent any discussion of the only nation that possesses nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel. It is also supporting a very restrictive bill that seeks to punish the Palestinian people for their election choice (or is conveniently using that as an excuse to punish Palestinians).

I am also at a loss to understand the lament that viewing AIPAC negatively somehow is anti-Semitic. Does actively opposing the agenda of the NRA mean that one hates White males?
Or does it mean that one merely disagrees with its work regarding gun laws?

AIPAC is a political lobby that promotes its agenda, and should not be seen as anything more or less than that.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Much ado about a crappy, poorly written screed...

What a shame that this "paper" is still being discussed as if it were a well-done piece.

[Tom Joad]

4. But nothing about the main point of what he wrote...

that AIPAC is bad for Israel and the United States, and represents a small number of people in the United States. He also suggests that many Jews do not support AIPAC's political views.
agree or disagree?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. agree and disagree

AIPAC is a lobbyist group. Sometimes they are good, and, sometimes, they really miss the mark. AIPAC does represent a small group, but it is amazing the amount of power they supposedly have. AS for the support of Jews, well, that is also dependant.

[Tom Joad]

28. So nothing wrong with calling them out when they "really miss the mark"

Right?
And as far as how much influence they really have, you need only listen to AIPAC to hear that they have much influence over US policy in regard to Israel policy.

"The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel." New York Times, as quoted on the AIPAC website.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Did I say I support AIPAC?

Why am I still here? Because I am progressive and liberal, but I just don't hate Israel with a passion like some here do...that is I stay!

[leveymg]

9. Then, I'd like to hear you condemn AIPAC

Please tell us, then. What don't you like about its program, agenda, leadership, and supporters?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I will...as soon as I hear you praise Israel.

Please tell us, then. What do you like about the country, its people, leadership, and supporters?

[leveymg]

15. Deep breath.

I have a fondness for Jewish culture and traditions, in its wonderfully variety and ancient roots, and Israel is an embodiment of that. A place of sanctuary is something to be cherished and protected wisely. There is still a progressive community within Israel, with a voice in domestic affairs, but it is a minority. Finally, loyalty to one's own is a virtue, but it's not unconditional. Love and duty sometimes require that the unwise need to be taken down, removed from positions where they harm themselves and others.

Those are the nice things that I think and feel about Israel, its people, leadership, and supporters.

Your turn. Please tell, what's wrong with AIPAC?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. ...

I feel AIPAC is interested in the security and continuation of Israel as a member of the international community and not be destroyed. However, I feel they, more often than not, take a more "hawkish" stance than need be. I also feel they don't always have Israel's best interest in mind, but what they think should be Israel's best interest. Sometimes, they have to take a hard stance, because so few will stand up for Israel.

Those are a few of the things I find disagreeable with AIPAC.

[leveymg]

17. Okay. So, what is too "hawkish" and how do they get Israel's best

interest wrong?

May I pose this to you. If AIPAC were to fold its tent tomorrow, more Americans would take a stand for Israel. The group is so extreme, that it does more harm than good.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Hawk

They supported the Iraq fiasco. They believed it was in Israel's best interest, despite the word coming from Israel. That is one example. The other, is that their actions are used by the far right and far left to justify anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-Semitism.

I don't understand your proposal. I disagree that if "AIPAC were to fold its tent tomorrow, more Americans would take a stand for Israel." I find that assertion absurd. Nothing would change. Personally, I think it would get worse, because there would be no voice for Israel. Even Israel, herself, would lose her voice.

[leveymg]

25. After the OSP-AIPAC case, AIPAC is damaged goods

You need to take into consideration the opinion of those in the American government, military, intelligence and law enforecement agencies, along with others who are well-informed, who know about AIPAC's role as a cutout for Israeli espionage inside the U.S. Their outrage is understandable, and it will be the undoing of the special relationship.

AIPAC no longer serves the interests of Israel in the eyes of those critically-important American elites. Ignore or defy them at your peril.

Better cut your losses, and fold up that tent.

[pelsar]

19. americans..

in general (the israeli supporters) tend to be on the hawkish side for whatever the psycho reason. As far as not having AIPAC around, its better to have AIPAC as the lightening rod for all the antisemetic and anti israeli (read new variation of anti semetism) hate out there. AIPAC is strong, it does have resources and it does much good for its interests, of which i am one of them.

If there is one lesson in jewish history its that being weak and divided and attempting to "please" the other, only makes it worse for us......its better with AIPAC than without.

and besides i enjoy being one of the tribe that "controls the world"

[Phx_Dem]

23. I don't think most americans even know what aipac is..

I would be surprised if aipacs demise led to more support for Israel. Personally I think aipac is out of touch with the average american jew.

[Tom Joad]

26. I know at least 537 Americans know what AIPAC is....

The entire membership of the House, and the Senate. It makes a difference.

[Tom Joad]

11. Amazing though, we post things by Jimmy Carter,

Amira Hass, Uri Avnery, the above Rabbi (published in a Jewish newspaper), and we are accused of "hating Israel with a passion".
Dissent = Hate?
Caring about human rights = hate?
Protesting U.S. policies in the Middle East = Hate?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Your point?!

"Dissent = Hate?"
"Caring about human rights = hate?"
"Protesting U.S. policies in the Middle East = Hate?"

Not always, but sometimes, it sure does! Besides, what you ask, has NOTHING to do with what I said.

On edit:

As a pro-Israeli...

"Dissent (to the "so-called progessive" stance) = Hate?"
"Caring about Israel = hate?"
"Protesting Hamas policies = Hate?"

That about right?

[Tom Joad]

12. Exactly, you did not say anything about AIPAC.

That is the what the original post is about. Care to share?

[Behind the Aegis]

14. The OP was started because of that stupid "academic" piece.

Which is why I made the comment I did.

[ShalachEtAmi]

21. Seems Like a lot of Democratic Party members support AIPAC..

I wonder if they are welcome at DU?


`For Politicians and Candidates, AIPAC Event is a Time to Shine`


`It also provided a rare opportunity for Democrats to showcase their support for Israel, and Democratic Jewish leaders seemed eager to seize the moment.`

`

`Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) was given a prime position as the Democratic speaker at AIPAC's gala dinner Monday. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) spoke to high donors at an off-the-record luncheon Monday, and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), the 2004 vice presidential nominee, addressed an open forum Monday morning.`


http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593

[Coastie for Truth]

24. Please

I support (and contribute to) Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and to the Tikkun Community and I contribute to both Mogen David Adom and Palestinian Red Crescent - and I have had job action taken against me because of my volunteer efforts for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Democratic Party -- and I find your comments totally out of place.

[anitar1]

2. Thank You , Tom Joad and thanks to Rabbi Warshal.

Good to see this.

[Hardrada]

3. Excellent that this has been given prominence.

I know the PNACistas will be ranting but we really need to know who has been leading us down the garden path to disaster.

[Tom Joad]

5. Wait to you see this space by Thursday afternoon

Ranting and raving right here before your eyes, right here at progressive DU. The profanities are the most fun. Count those.

[ShalachEtAmi]

32. Some people really like the `us and them` part of the whole debate..

But even here on DU the `them` seems to be almost fully loaded with Jewish peoples , and the `Us` seems to be a lot more people than I woulda thought in my short time on this earth.

Thats why AIPAC needs to be strong..a lot of people do not realize what they are up against both without the USA and within...

[pelsar]

38. yes we are the "them"

and much like in other subjects...if were not completely on "their side", if we see the complexity...well, then its seems we are pushed over to be the 'them"...

we were the "them' in the past no matter what, and we are the "them" now.....its called various names, and it has various definitions, and lots of intellectuals like to pretend its "something new...

its not, new package, new wrapping,...same old shit.

[Tom Joad]

40. It has nothing to do with "Jewish peoples", the topic is on

aipac and its supporters and its opponents, like Rabbi Warshal.

[ShalachEtAmi]

41. Thats where your wrong..Israel has EVERYTHING to do with The Jewish people

Worldwide...

[Tom Joad]

44. Superman, are you saying that

we should equate Israeli policies with all Jewish people everywhere? I disagree. There are Jews do not support Israeli policies. Many Jews who do not support AIPAC, and very much disagree with it.

Maybe you can clarify that for me.

[ShalachEtAmi]

47. My nick is ShalachEtAmi NOT Superman...

Look up what that means.... ( Shalach Et Ami )


btw I said ISRAEL has EVERYTHING to do with JEW`S


(you changed that into `Israel`s policies` thats not what I said .)

[Tom Joad]

50. Does Israel have anything to do with the 20% plus of its population

that is not Jewish?

[pelsar]

54. no...

we ignore them, burn down their churches, and mosques when ever the media is not looking. We dont let them into Tel Aviv, as we have secret screening cameras the pickup on their non jewish genes and we quietly send them back to their primitive villages.

and to answer so many of the accusations here: yes we are in the middle of genocide, both cultural and physical of the non jewish residents, which also includes those jews who arent as religous as they should be

does that answer the question?

[Coastie for Truth]

46. When questioning AIPAC - one should try to be surgical

sometimes the broad brush unintentionally hits liberal and progressive and civil rights/civil liberties groups.

BTW - I am not a supporter of AIPAC. I am a supporter of Bnai Brith and Hadassah and JCRC and ADL.

I think some complaints about the ADL and the JCRC are sui generis to the rather unique, superheated, super pressurized (autoclave?) political atmosphere of Northern California.

[Tom Joad]

55. Challenging JCRC & AIPAC is part of the First Amendment.

btw, I would like to point out that Northern California has nothing to do with this thread. The writer of the article cited is Rabbi Warshal. He lives in Florida I believe.

I would add that, the ADL and the JCRC is fully supportive of current Israeli governmental policies. A cause for celebration for some, and for others a cause of grievance. There is no doubt, however, or denial that these organizations support current Israeli governmental policies and work to influence others to do the same. These organizations are not apolitical.

Young Boston Jews hold Passover seder outside AIPAC, JCRC offices.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=124951&mesg_id=124951

JCRC, while claiming to speak for all Jews, invests enormous time and energy suppressing any voice of opposition to Israeli policies, especially Jewish voices. "Our generation has had enough of AIPAC's and JCRC's complicity in Israel's human rights abuses of Palestinians," said Hannah Mermelstein, another seder organizer. "Their support of these policies betray the libratory message of Passover." http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4638.shtml

Protesting and challenging the message of political lobbies is "part of the gosh darn First Amendment" that we all know by heart, and is reprinted here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Why should we challange AIPAC and its cohorts? Rabbi Warshal leaves us with these words:
"Beware of these self-appointed guardians of Israel and Jewish values. In the end they will destroy everything that makes Judaism a compassionate religion, and if in their zeal they do not destroy Israel, they certainly will not make it more secure."

[Coastie for Truth]

56. I am very familiar with Rabbi Warshal

My grandfather was the Assistant Rabbi (Bar and Bat Mitzvah Tutor) at a Temple (SW 24th Terrace in Miami) that was ultimately taken over and "rescued" (Torah scrolls, perpetual care of the memorial park) by Rabbi Warshal's Temple.

I think you would have found Grandpa interesting:

1. He maintained that Kashruth was just a step on the pathway to the "True Kashruth" of ovo-lacto vegetarianism.

2. He maintained that Marx's Communist Manifest was as "divinely inspired" or "divinely revealed" as the Torah.

3. Once Stalin died - he supported Birobidzhan as the proper place of refuge over the ME. (He had once been in a Czarist Prison there for political crimes against the Czar).

Rabbi Warshal officiated at a ceremony where the "new" Library was dedicated partially in Grandpa's memory.

My own study and reading and many many years of life experience leads me to most strongly disagree with your statement

I would add that, the ADL and the JCRC is fully supportive of current Israeli governmental policies. A cause for celebration for some, and for others a cause of grievance. There is no doubt, however, or denial that these organizations support current Israeli governmental policies and work to influence others to do the same. These organizations are not apolitical.

[Tom Joad]

57. Interesting family history. No references re ADL or JCRC

Here is a statement from the Jewish Community Relations Council.

http://www.jcrc.org/issues/middle_east_2005.htm
Basically supporting the Unilateral Convergence strategy of the Israeli govt. Just one example. We see JCRC in action whenever we bring up resolutions re Israel and concern for human rights in Palestine.

ADL Commends President Bush for Daniel Pipes Appointment to U.S. Institute of Peace
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4342_00.htm
Most people here think Pipes, like his appointer Bush, is militaristic and extremist.

And more to the point,
http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/glossary/default.asp?xflag=3
ADL works to defend Israeli policy.

I think to say that ADL or JCRC does "not" actively support Israeli policies is unfair to them.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. I worked with ADL and JCRC on school integration

in my birth town, where they defused a school integration crisis and pretty much knocked out a JDL backed GOP candidate for the State Legislature. This allowed an ACLU board member, who was the Progressive Club backed, Democratic candidate to win. And this was in the context of a Democratic Mayor who ran and won on fighting school integration.

[Tom Joad]

59. JCRC/ADL is also supporting current Israel policies.

You have not said otherwise, or provided ANY evidence otherwise. For most folks in the jcrc/ADL,, that would be a proud part of who they are.

I am not saying the JCRC/ADL has done, or is currently doing nothing else, only that is part of what they are doing right now.

[Coastie for Truth]

60. So, are you actually saying that

anything short of a Sharia governed, dhimmi following, single state solution is inherently and intrinsically evil, and that any Jew who supports anything short of such a Sharia governed, dhimmi following, single state solution is a Kahane following, PNACer, Likudnik, racist?



:sarcasm: :rant: :sarcasm:

[Tom Joad]

61. No. eom

[Coastie for Truth]

62. You are invited

Jonathan Bernstein, the Mid Pacific Regional Director of the ADL, will be principal speaker on "Is Anti-Zionism The New Anti-Semitism."

When: Monday, 6/12/2006, 7:00PM
Where: Temple Shir Hadash, 20 Cherry Blossom Lane, Los Gatos CA


RSVP to Carolyn Rosenfeld, [e-mail]
[phone], ext 226

Mearsheimer-Walt and Finkelstein are on the agenda, along with the blogsphere.

I sincerely look forward to seeing you there.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. yeah, some people thrive on it...

they're the sort of folk who seem to have some magical ability to know whether or not a DUer's Jewish, and then to divide DUers up into groups based on whether they are or not. Urgh...

Violet...

[ShalachEtAmi]

53. Its a cultural and ethnic thing that we have..

We know..with or without Mossads help.. :P



Kinda like what Gay guys call Gaydar.....

[Agony]

48. I am tired of the us and them.

After I heard David Baker (major israeli media guy, i don't have alink look him up) speak recently we were having a brief discussion afterwards and a young woman from Tel Aviv there said when asked "I don't think about the conflict very much" ... That struck me! Funny, I think about it almost every day. Why wouldn't she be thinking about it while living in the middle of it? I have to ask myself over and over. Why would someone on a bulldozer run over a person standing in the way of a house being demolished for security reasons, why not just come back another day? Why would someone blow themselves up in coffee shop and slaughter people wantonly, why not blow up a tank instead? (I know some of you will see those as apples and oranges)

Anyway, as i think about all of this I find myself searching for reasons and logic to all of this. How do I sort out who is telling the truth, and who is skewing things to some point of view. This is why I don't like AIPAC. I am interested in other sources of information any of you might know about. At the moment I go with Btselem.org... mideastweb.org also seems reasonable...

That was kind of rambling but the shit going on over there on both sides pisses me off every day.

[Agony]

49. I find myself falling into this trap

Maybe it is something about discussion forums. I used blitzer/aipac in a derogotory sense. well i don't likw wolf but not really because of his aipac connection, since i don't know what he wrote while working there.

[anoraksia53]

43. Yes I agree

And if PNACistas rant well they can rant......it's up to them.

The truth will come out whether we like it or not. The silence needs to be broken.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Can you believe how long it took to tame this wild elephant?

How many decades have we been prevented from open debate on these kinds of issues without the fear of being called anti-semites?

NOW do you understand why PC can be a bad thing?

[Coastie for Truth]

22. Mearsheimer and Walt's "blistering critique" of the Jewish lobby

will rank with David Pimentel and Tad Patzek's "blistering critique" of the environmental movement (even before their Shell Oil financed "ethanol study") and Lester Lave's "blistering critique" of economy cars and corporate average fuel economy standards. (Lave is a GM professor at Carnegie Mellon).

Just because someone puts "Doctor" after their name doesn't make them omniscient.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. A debate between Rabbi Warshal and Bennie Morris

See, for example , and Bennie Morris on the Mearsheimer-Walt Paper:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x124213

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x125402

[Coastie for Truth]

29. See "What seems to be missing/lost/ignored in the AIPAC threads"

See my append

[Tom Joad]

30. Misreading of above post.

Coastie says (in his link):
"What also seems to be missing/lost/ignored in the AIPAC threads is that 77% of the Jewish Vote went for Kerry"

Please read posts before appending.

Original Post, quoting Rabbi Warshal
Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right-wing, rich Jewish neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500 delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48 rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of the mainstream of Jewish thought.

Rabbi Warshal is making the point that many Jews have different views than AIPAC, and that they are out of the mainstream. So not only does AIPAC support policies that many Americans (Jewish and not Jewish) do not support, AIPAC also in many ways misrepresents Jews in this country. All the more reason to speak out and challenge AIPAC.

Coastie:
"I regard this incessant rain of "Jewish Lobby" threads as a deliberate attempt to divert attention from "Single Payer Universal Health Care" and "Clean Money/Clean Elections."

Note this: Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine

Reply: These are important issues. This particular Topic forum is about the Israel/Palestine conflict and U.S. policy-- it is naturally not going to focus on these topics.

It would seem odd, in fact, even rude and inappropriate, to go into a forum dedicated to health care and to say discussing the health care system (or how lobbies for drug companies sway congress from good solutions) is just a diversion from the urgent task of changing US policy in the Middle East. A forum about health care will mostly stay on health care, and those attempting to divert it will not be appreciated.

It is not either/or. I think policies need to change regarding how health care is delivered in this country, and i also think it is urgent we change direction regarding US support for Israel's colonization of Palestinian land and oppression of the Palestinian people.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. No - you are misreading

The append was not about health care -- but about where the so-called "Jewish lobbies" are working with other "Progressive Lobbies" SUCH AS health care, and clean campaigns.

What also seems to be missing/lost/ignored in the AIPAC threads is that and that this campaign against AIPAC - and "Jewish lobbies" generally is detracting from our campaigns for "Clean Money/Clean Elections" and "Single Payer Universal Health Care" and the Environment and Global Warming and a Fair Peace in the ME. These tangents about "Jewish Lobbies" are counter-productive. See my thoughts on this diversion .

THERE IS ONE HECK OF A LOT MORE TO THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA THEN ISRAEL-PALESTINE

[Tom Joad]

33. AIPAC is not fighting for universal health care.

AIPAC is supporting the next war against Iran.
AIPAC is supporting more billions for Israel.
AIPAC is supporting human rights abuses in Palestine.

Many Americans, of all backgrounds, oppose this agenda, including many Jews, which i have repeated a hundred times, and as Warshal makes clear. Those who oppose AIPAC priorities should not be silenced, not accused of anti-semitism, and i would expect would be encouraged by people who oppose this agenda. AIPAC should be judged on its own merits. Support it or not.

"There is one heck of a lot more to the progressive agenda then israel-palestine."
Who disagrees with this? Why the red letters and upper case, bold type?

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Every time someone goes "over the top"

and downplays or even absolves the "real parties in interest" (see, e.g.,the append about Uri Avnery, , and and Engdahl, "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order") it is necessary to bring some order into the chaos.

By the way, according to Klare and Simmons and Engdahl, the extractive industries are supporting the war against Iran (they need to move their ill-gotten spoils from the Caspian deposit - across Iran and Afghanistan- to the Indian Ocean).

[4freethinking]

35. Say what you

want it's still AIPAC overtly pushing for war with Iran and surprise the biggest lobbying group for US oil companies is opposed to a future war with Iran.

A top lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute suggested that the oil industry, which has close ties to the administration, was urging the White House not to go to war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-gas1may01,1,3546019.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Your link says

--

---snip---
A top lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute suggested that the oil industry, which has close ties to the administration, was urging the White House not to go to war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

J. Bennett Johnston, who opened a lobbying firm in 1997 after retiring as a Democratic senator from Louisiana, said that "saber-rattling" on Iran was among the factors driving up prices.

"We'd see gasoline prices above $5 or $6, crude oil above $100 if we bomb Iran," he said on "This Week."

According to January figures from Oil & Gas Journal, Iran has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Canada, and the second-largest proven natural gas reserves, after Russia.
---snip---
(emphasis added)

Hardly "the biggest lobbying group for US oil companies is opposed to a future war with Iran."

[4freethinking]

37. Okay then tell me

what part of the oil industry is lobbying for war like AIPAC?


How can a war be in their interest? They can look at Iraq and see that it's not. The Iraqi's can hardly even get oil out of their country let alone across a pipeline. What makes you think that any western oil company could do any better in what basically amounts to a war zone? How would Iran be any different? They won't have any stability to do anything in Iran. Good luck in getting people to do work in Iran(or a war zone for that matter) and getting to what amounts to a hostile work force to help you. Iraq is open for business to western oil companies and good luck to them in dealing with the almost totally unionized oil industry work force that favors keeping Iraq's oil industry nationalized. That will be the least of their worries.

[Tom Joad]

39. I do think there are other groups that support war with Iraq, and Iran

But still there is no question that AIPAC has also. See BTA's post #18 here.
AIPAC also supports current US military aid for the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
This is not good, from my point of view-- others may differ.

What is wrong with exposing and protesting this?
People seem to respond like we are protesting G*d, rather than a mere Washington Lobby group.

[Coastie for Truth]

45. At last - reasonable communication

There is nothing wrong with lobbying per se

See . Anecdotally, the First Amendment presents significant challenges to the "Clean Elections" movement, and to reigning in those lobbies and lobbyists and lobbying practices that we don't like.

There most definitely are other groups that support war with Iraq, and Iran

And two of these groups are under the umbrellas of
* "Christian Zionists" - who are no friends of the Jews and only see the "Ingathering of the Exiles" - with mass conversion or death - as a step to the End of Days.
BTW - The mainstream Jewish Community has asked Bush to, in effect, quit preaching to his Evangelical, Fundamentalist "Base" through Jewish Groups, see e.g. (See Note 1)

* "Big Oil" - No treatise. Just some links
* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=881259&mesg_id=881607
* www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345&sid=100
* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2573817&mesg_id=2573843

...and a lot more
* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2586745 (See note 2)


Neither "Big Oil" nor "Christian Zionist" have the interests of any segment of the Jewish Community as a motivational factor.


I will cite "Big Oil" as an example, (See note 3)


The inadvertent, rhetorical conflation of AIPAC with other broad based Jewish membership organizations (e.g., Bnai Brith, Hadassah, Jewish Community Relations Council, Anti-Defamation League, ORT) is dividing the Liberal-Progressive Movement


See the discussion above. And. also see-

* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=121486&mesg_id=121657

* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101570&mesg_id=101579 in response to www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101570&mesg_id=101570

* www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=955431&mesg_id=957299


And, as to the point raised in www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=125417&mesg_id=125480, it is not the single issue of "Single Payer Universal Health Care" or "Clean Elections" - it is the ad hominem attacks on anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1. - Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward.

Messages were passed to the White House through several channels, Jewish activists said. And it seems to have worked: Speaking before the annual conference of the American Jewish Committee in Washington last week — his most recent address before a Jewish audience — President Bush talked about America's commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and about his administration's commitment to Israeli security, but he did not link the two, as he has several times in recent months.

"We are basically telling the president: We appreciate it, we welcome it. But, hey, because there is this debate on Iraq, where people are trying to put the blame on us, maybe you shouldn't say it that often or that loud," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "Within the Jewish community there is a real sense of 'thank you but no thank you.'"

Communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the president's repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public declarations to that effect do more harm than good. Such statements, they say, create an impression that the United States is considering a military option against Iran for the sake of Israel — and could lead to American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an American strike against Iran.

Jewish activists are concerned that "there would be just like with Iraq: the idea that somehow the Jewish community and the neoconservatives have dragged the United States into a conflict with Iran," said Martin Raffel, associate executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a policy coordinating organization that brings together 13 national Jewish agencies and 123 local Jewish communities. "And if things go badly and our people are killed, then who is to blame?"

<<<snip>>>




2.
<<<snip>>>
Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"?
<<<snip>>>




3.
<<<SNIP>>>
The original boycott was xenophobic in that it represented a political and economic strategy to contain, isolate, monitor and eventually destroy what it perceived as an alien presence. Inviolable borders had to be maintained against subversive infiltration. It sought to preserve a hegemonic definition of territory as Arab, rejecting peaceful relations with an entity deemed fundamentally illegitimate. A boycott was a weapon to eliminate an "artificial" presence that had no right to exist.

Boycott officials in Damascus pored over corporate reports from around the world to identify both intercorporate links (e.g. did your company deal with another company that had dealings with Israel?) and Jewish agents of power. Routine administrative forms circulated to collect information on the religion and national origin of corporate employees. The Central Boycott Office issued "non-Jew" certificates to foreign organizations.

A Jewish name was enough to ensure that you would not be hired at large firms with major projects in Arab countries; a new class of closeted Jews appeared in response and there was a run on false baptismal certificates. (emphasis not in original)

The boycott's intellectual terms were changing, however. In 1975 came UN Resolution 3379 (repealed in 1991) equating Zionism with racism and apartheid, which served as the political analogy that would justify maintaining an isolation containment around that alien presence. The Arab League affirmed its solidarity with the then-rising anti-apartheid boycott and began conceptually re-positioning its own boycott. What changed was less the original purposes and methods of the anti-Israel boycott, more its rhetorical references that relied on stigmatizing one nationalism among all others.
<<<SNIP>>>


This refers to the petroleum industry.

[SeaBob]

51. M&W

I just read Mearsheimer & Walts Critique in the london review of books. I thought it was very well reasoned and quite insightful. Their reseach is top rate. Their conclusions, are not what I expected, they are extremely accurate. I especially enjoyed Dick Armey's Quote about his first duty in the area foreign relations being to protect Israel. M & W's response was classic. They wondered why a representive in our Government would not be to protect the US first. I can only encourage more prople to look at this article.

[Coastie for Truth]

52. It ranks with Pimentel and Padzek, and Lavie

Pimentel and Padzek, both PhD's, said that ethanol uses more energy to synthesize and refine then it yields.

Lavie, a PhD economist, said Priuses use more fuel then Camries - because if you have a Prius you will drive many more miles.

I have a PhD, too.

Ya know something - a BS is Bull Sxxt, an MS is more of the same, and a PhD is just piled higher and deeper.