Netanyahu Address

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
From Fox News. May or not but accurate but thought it was worth posting---

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama, who has had a well-documented adversarial relationship with the Israeli leader.

The development comes as Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two television station this week that there were “governments” that wanted to help with the “Just Not Bibi” campaigning -- Bibi being the Israeli leader’s nickname.

It also follows a FoxNews.com report on claims the Obama administration has been meddling in the Israeli election on behalf of groups hostile to Netanyahu. A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican and chairman of the committee, declined comment, and aides to ranking Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, did not immediately return calls.

The Senate subcommittee, which has subpoena power, is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ chief investigative body with jurisdiction over all branches of government operations and compliance with laws.

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant told Foxnews.com.

But a source familiar with the matter confirmed for FoxNews.com that the probe -- undisclosed until now -- was both underway and bipartisan in nature.

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations.

A subsidiary of OneVoice is the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign, itself guided by top operatives of Obama’s White House runs, which seeks to “replace the government” of Israel.

“It’s confirmed that there is a bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee inquiry into OneVoice’s funding of V15,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity about the American group, which bills itself as working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his television interview, Netanyahu said the coalition seeking to oust him is generously funded by foreign donors who are also encouraging a high voter turnout among Israel's Arab and left-wing voters in a bid to replace the existing leadership.

He characterized the campaign against him as "unprecedented." While Netanyahu pointed the finger at “European countries and left-wing people abroad,” some observers note that he held back from openly criticizing Obama during his recent trip to the U.S. to address Congress on problems his government sees with administration-backed efforts to reach a nuclear weapons inspection deal with Iran.

“We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” Netanyahu told lawmakers -- while Obama refused to meet with the Israeli leader, and later criticized his speech as “nothing new.”

No direct link has been confirmed between Obama and the anti-Netanyahu campaign in Israel, but polls have shown that a large majority of Israelis believe the administration has been interfering in the election, set for March 17.

One expert told FoxNews.com earlier this month the State Department grants constituted indirect administration funding of the anti-Netanyahu campaign by providing OneVoice with the $350,000 -- even though State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.

Gerald Steinberg, founder and president of NGO Monitor, which tracks money flows to unmask non-governmental organizations that deviate from their stated human rights or humanitarian agendas, said even ostensibly unrelated grants keep an organization going during periods it is not engaged in political activity.

Indeed, by January, OneVoice – whose focus on Israel’s 1967 borders as a negotiating starting point reflects Obama’s thinking but is counter to Netanyahu’s – had announced its partnership with V15.

Around the same time, Jeremy Bird, who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director in 2008, and his national campaign director in 2012, arrived in Israel to help direct V15. Bird took with him additional former Obama campaign operatives to help V15 achieve its goal of knocking on one million doors to make the case for a change in Israel’s leadership.

OneVoice is barred from directly targeting Netanyahu by U.S. law regulating its tax-exempt status, and doing so would threaten that status.

One Voice spokesman Payton Knox denied claims the group is working with the administration in the upcoming Israeli election.

"OneVoice is eager to cooperate with any inquiry,” he said Saturday. “And after a fair examination, we are confident no wrong doing will be found.”

But the recent FoxNews.com investigation showed that the nonprofit, in its 2014 Annual Report, said its Israel branch would be “embarking on a groundbreaking campaign around the Israeli elections.” In partnering with V15, the two groups have operated from adjacent offices in Tel Aviv.

In addition to McCaskill, other Democrats on the subcommittee are Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Republican subcommittee members, who form the majority, are Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Rand Paul of Kentucky, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, in addition to Portman.

State Department documents say the grants to OneVoice were meant for the group’s work in encouraging both Palestinian grass-roots civic activism and Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. The State Department itself, meanwhile, denied any of the funds had been used for election campaign activities despite OneVoice’s backing of V15.

Launched in 2002 by snack bar mogul Daniel Lubetzky and boasting the star power of such celebrities as Brad Pitt, Danny DeVito, Rhea Perlman and Sir Paul McCartney among its honorary advisors, OneVoice was headed until November by Marc Ginsberg, who advised President Carter on Middle East policy and served as President Clinton’s ambassador to Morocco.

Ginsberg, who has described the administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “window of opportunity,” is now serving OneVoice as “special advisor” after resigning as CEO at a time that turned out to be just ahead of the early December announcement of the Israeli election.

“I resigned on November 11, 2014, because I had only committed to serve as CEO for one year and my resignation was effective December 19, 2014,” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “I agreed to be available after that as a Senior Adviser on an occasional basis to the organization…along with many others, but have had ZERO decision-making authority over personnel, budgets, programs, etc. That responsibility was transferred to the Executive Director of the OneVoice Europe organization after I resigned.”
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
From Fox News. May or not but accurate but thought it was worth posting---

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama, who has had a well-documented adversarial relationship with the Israeli leader.

The development comes as Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two television station this week that there were “governments” that wanted to help with the “Just Not Bibi” campaigning -- Bibi being the Israeli leader’s nickname.

It also follows a FoxNews.com report on claims the Obama administration has been meddling in the Israeli election on behalf of groups hostile to Netanyahu. A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican and chairman of the committee, declined comment, and aides to ranking Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, did not immediately return calls.

The Senate subcommittee, which has subpoena power, is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ chief investigative body with jurisdiction over all branches of government operations and compliance with laws.

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant told Foxnews.com.

But a source familiar with the matter confirmed for FoxNews.com that the probe -- undisclosed until now -- was both underway and bipartisan in nature.

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations.

A subsidiary of OneVoice is the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign, itself guided by top operatives of Obama’s White House runs, which seeks to “replace the government” of Israel.

“It’s confirmed that there is a bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee inquiry into OneVoice’s funding of V15,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity about the American group, which bills itself as working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his television interview, Netanyahu said the coalition seeking to oust him is generously funded by foreign donors who are also encouraging a high voter turnout among Israel's Arab and left-wing voters in a bid to replace the existing leadership.

He characterized the campaign against him as "unprecedented." While Netanyahu pointed the finger at “European countries and left-wing people abroad,” some observers note that he held back from openly criticizing Obama during his recent trip to the U.S. to address Congress on problems his government sees with administration-backed efforts to reach a nuclear weapons inspection deal with Iran.

“We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” Netanyahu told lawmakers -- while Obama refused to meet with the Israeli leader, and later criticized his speech as “nothing new.”

No direct link has been confirmed between Obama and the anti-Netanyahu campaign in Israel, but polls have shown that a large majority of Israelis believe the administration has been interfering in the election, set for March 17.

One expert told FoxNews.com earlier this month the State Department grants constituted indirect administration funding of the anti-Netanyahu campaign by providing OneVoice with the $350,000 -- even though State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.

Gerald Steinberg, founder and president of NGO Monitor, which tracks money flows to unmask non-governmental organizations that deviate from their stated human rights or humanitarian agendas, said even ostensibly unrelated grants keep an organization going during periods it is not engaged in political activity.

Indeed, by January, OneVoice – whose focus on Israel’s 1967 borders as a negotiating starting point reflects Obama’s thinking but is counter to Netanyahu’s – had announced its partnership with V15.

Around the same time, Jeremy Bird, who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director in 2008, and his national campaign director in 2012, arrived in Israel to help direct V15. Bird took with him additional former Obama campaign operatives to help V15 achieve its goal of knocking on one million doors to make the case for a change in Israel’s leadership.

OneVoice is barred from directly targeting Netanyahu by U.S. law regulating its tax-exempt status, and doing so would threaten that status.

One Voice spokesman Payton Knox denied claims the group is working with the administration in the upcoming Israeli election.

"OneVoice is eager to cooperate with any inquiry,” he said Saturday. “And after a fair examination, we are confident no wrong doing will be found.”

But the recent FoxNews.com investigation showed that the nonprofit, in its 2014 Annual Report, said its Israel branch would be “embarking on a groundbreaking campaign around the Israeli elections.” In partnering with V15, the two groups have operated from adjacent offices in Tel Aviv.

In addition to McCaskill, other Democrats on the subcommittee are Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Republican subcommittee members, who form the majority, are Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Rand Paul of Kentucky, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, in addition to Portman.

State Department documents say the grants to OneVoice were meant for the group’s work in encouraging both Palestinian grass-roots civic activism and Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. The State Department itself, meanwhile, denied any of the funds had been used for election campaign activities despite OneVoice’s backing of V15.

Launched in 2002 by snack bar mogul Daniel Lubetzky and boasting the star power of such celebrities as Brad Pitt, Danny DeVito, Rhea Perlman and Sir Paul McCartney among its honorary advisors, OneVoice was headed until November by Marc Ginsberg, who advised President Carter on Middle East policy and served as President Clinton’s ambassador to Morocco.

Ginsberg, who has described the administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “window of opportunity,” is now serving OneVoice as “special advisor” after resigning as CEO at a time that turned out to be just ahead of the early December announcement of the Israeli election.

“I resigned on November 11, 2014, because I had only committed to serve as CEO for one year and my resignation was effective December 19, 2014,” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “I agreed to be available after that as a Senior Adviser on an occasional basis to the organization…along with many others, but have had ZERO decision-making authority over personnel, budgets, programs, etc. That responsibility was transferred to the Executive Director of the OneVoice Europe organization after I resigned.”

...wouldn't be shocked. We've been playing those games for decades. But to try and overthrow leadership of an ally...that will have a lasting impact if it is true. Hope not.

Its funny...my view is our enemies used to have to worry what we were up to...and how we would screw with them next...

Now we seem to piss on our allies and spy on our own people...awesome. US foreign policy = monkey humping football.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
...wouldn't be shocked. We've been playing those games for decades. But to try and overthrow leadership of an ally...that will have a lasting impact if it is true. Hope not.

Its funny...my view is our enemies used to have to worry what we were up to...and how we would screw with them next...

Now we seem to piss on our allies and spy on our own people...awesome. US foreign policy = monkey humping football.


At least the monkey has a plan.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Netanyahu wins Israel election after sharp shift to the right | Reuters


BY LUKE BAKER AND JEFFREY HELLER
JERUSALEM Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:20am EDT

So we set out to help create a durable peace in the region, particularly as relates to Israel...the efforts have spanned a number of years. All of it appears to have gone up in smoke. Yes Mr. Netanyahu traded peace for a win...but it appears to be bad calculus on our part that has Israel now moving toward becoming an instigator in the region...not good.

For various reasons, some avoidable, the Iran negotiations alienated Israel, and it appears we may have had a hand in trying to unseat Mr. Netanyahu...this left only the far right with which he could ally and keep power...we must have assumed he would not do that, or that doing so wouldn't save him, however, we appear to have been wrong.

Looks like our clumsiness in foreign policy has set back relations in the region, AND made us look bad to current and future Allies. Seems a bit Ironic people would crow like roosters over Netanyahu's address to congress, and an open letter...but find it ok for us to try and flip an election on an ally. With friends like us...who needs Hamas. We suck.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
8,531
LOL at "durable peace in the region". If you really believe that there was ever really a chance for that in the middle east, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
LOL at "durable peace in the region". If you really believe that there was ever really a chance for that in the middle east, I've got a bridge to sell you.

...When people use that line..."I have a bridge"...I always laugh. If you knew me you'd laugh too.

Again most of my statement relates to Israel...not the entire middle east.

I believe we have made efforts and some progress particularly related to Israel. At one point we had a situation where Israel gave Palestinians what they asked for, and Arafat walked away. That agreement may have been the basis for durable peace. Probably not a perfect peace initially, but indeed a point of accountability that might lead to durable peace. Who knows.

The important issue is that things moved that far because of our involvement. That deal required Israel to accept some restrictions...they did. We had the credibility to help sell that to Israeli leadership and its people.

As of today, Israel appears poised to expand, and appears unwilling to discuss a Palestinian state. Even if that is all rhetoric, we seemed to have forced Netanyahu to ally with people who are not interested in any compromise...that certainly isn't going to help anything. And while I don't know yet, I feel we may not be viewed by Israeli people as a helpful participant. Thats not good if true.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Figured this thread was the best place for this:

US Declassifies Document on Israel's Nuclear Power - News from America - News - Arutz Sheva

Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Worst kept secret in the Middle East. I have a hard time seeing this release changing any of the relevant actors' perceived best interests, since they've all known about it for decades.

This was likely calculated to put Israel on the defensive diplomatically, in the hopes of reducing its ability to undermine the negotiations.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

Well, I would expect nothing less. I'm guessing the next escalation in this juvenile pissing fight will be leaking specific details regarding whatever the "thing" was that Israel divulged to congress that got their undies in a bunch...

...no idea what that was, but like I said, I think something was on the table that was a no-no.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Well, I would expect nothing less. I'm guessing the next escalation in this juvenile pissing fight will be leaking specific details regarding whatever the "thing" was that Israel divulged to congress that got their undies in a bunch...

...no idea what that was, but like I said, I think something was on the table that was a no-no.

This is pure speculation. And even if it's correct, you're OK with a tiny client state calling the shots on what's a "no-no" in American diplomacy? Washington is rolling in his grave.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Obviously, no great revelation that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. But certainly a good reason for the Iranians to want some nuclear weapons of their own.

It was pretty obvious why the U.S.A. was so anxious to invade Iraq and reluctant to do much that might offend the North Koreans. I suspect our reluctance to take a strong stand against North Korea is directly related to the fact that North Korea has nuclear missile capability. Is it any wonder that the Iranians want a nuclear option? The availability of the nuclear option is a strong deterrent to other countries interfering in your domestic affairs.

Israel's nuclear weapons program has been a strong deterrent to any concerted effort to attack it. North Korea has that same capability. Iran would like the same security against outside interference. And considering the actions of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and its long-term support of the Shah of Iran, the Iranians have a legitimate reason to fear military intervention from outsiders.

If we really want the Iranians to drop their nuclear program, we will have to guarantee that the United States will protect them from military attack. This could very well involve helping them defend themselves against an attack by the Israelis. Kind of ironic that we could end up defending an "enemy" from an "ally".

In the words of Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into."
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
8,531
Obviously, no great revelation that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. But certainly a good reason for the Iranians to want some nuclear weapons of their own.

It was pretty obvious why the U.S.A. was so anxious to invade Iraq and reluctant to do much that might offend the North Koreans. I suspect our reluctance to take a strong stand against North Korea is directly related to the fact that North Korea has nuclear missile capability. Is it any wonder that the Iranians want a nuclear option? The availability of the nuclear option is a strong deterrent to other countries interfering in your domestic affairs.

Israel's nuclear weapons program has been a strong deterrent to any concerted effort to attack it. North Korea has that same capability. Iran would like the same security against outside interference. And considering the actions of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and its long-term support of the Shah of Iran, the Iranians have a legitimate reason to fear military intervention from outsiders.

If we really want the Iranians to drop their nuclear program, we will have to guarantee that the United States will protect them from military attack. This could very well involve helping them defend themselves against an attack by the Israelis. Kind of ironic that we could end up defending an "enemy" from an "ally".

In the words of Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into."

But the Iranians have told us that they are not developing a Nuclear Bomb just nuclear energy, so your comments above seem irrelevant.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Obviously, no great revelation that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. But certainly a good reason for the Iranians to want some nuclear weapons of their own.

It was pretty obvious why the U.S.A. was so anxious to invade Iraq and reluctant to do much that might offend the North Koreans. I suspect our reluctance to take a strong stand against North Korea is directly related to the fact that North Korea has nuclear missile capability.

I'm not sure I follow this. North Korea is Chinese buffer state, the US would basically have to get permission from the Chinese to move on North Korea. Also the million or so dead South Koreans, from the missiles the North Koreans would lob on Seoul, is its own deterrent regardless of nuclear weapons.

But yeah I agree, possessing a nuclear weapon gets you treatment from the US one wouldn't otherwise receive, eg Pakistan.

For what it's worth, John Mearsheimer (I think) is of the opinion that the Bush plan was to make an example of Iraq/Syria/Iran and then point the guns at North Korea and basically force them to capitulate. North Korea's defensive deterrent is why they were last on the list, in my opinion.

Is it any wonder that the Iranians want a nuclear option? The availability of the nuclear option is a strong deterrent to other countries interfering in your domestic affairs.

Considering the Iranians are exponentially more capable than the North Koreans, I think there's a variable in the matter that is keeping the Iranians from actually building a nuke. Iran has been a theocracy since 1979, if their raison d'etat was to build a bomb to drop on Jerusalem, I honestly think they'd have done it by now.

I think the variable in Iran's nuclear calculation is that the moment they get nuclear capabilities Saudi Arabia will move to do so too (and maybe Egypt, Turkey, UAE too). That makes their Saudi-Iranian cold war more unstable; I think they might look at the tension/stakes in the Pakistan-India standoff and realize replicating that in their part of the world isn't in their interests.

But it does behoove them to inch closer and closer to the ability to make weapons should they want to.

Israel's nuclear weapons program has been a strong deterrent to any concerted effort to attack it.

Has it? I think their conventional capabilities speak for themselves.

North Korea has that same capability. Iran would like the same security against outside interference. And considering the actions of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and its long-term support of the Shah of Iran, the Iranians have a legitimate reason to fear military intervention from outsiders.

If we really want the Iranians to drop their nuclear program, we will have to guarantee that the United States will protect them from military attack. This could very well involve helping them defend themselves against an attack by the Israelis. Kind of ironic that we could end up defending an "enemy" from an "ally".

In the words of Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into."

I agree with all of this. There are certainly benefits to having nukes, but again I think the negatives outweigh the positives for Iran and this whole thing (ie inching closer) is leverage.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
This is pure speculation. And even if it's correct, you're OK with a tiny client state calling the shots on what's a "no-no" in American diplomacy? Washington is rolling in his grave.

Speculation is usually prefaced with "I think" or some similar qualifier. Of Course NONE of us have complete information...unless one of you got an appointment you didn't tell us about...then we all got bigger problems.

As I've said in earlier posts, the no-no, from my chair, would be something of substance congress did not know about, and would not be on board with, being on the negotiating table. ie I THINK there is a major delta somewhere that Israel identified, and that caused congress to freak out...not because Israel said "freak out"...but because there was a bonafide departure from congress' expectations of the negotiations.

The distinction that is not being made clear I guess, is that I don't presume congress was manipulated by Israel. I don't presume congress will be manipulated by Israel. I don't support being wagged by Israel, but at the same time I don't blindly subscribe to the school of thought that we are being wagged by Israel, so my particular brand of conjecture isn't offered from the typical "congress being wagged" perspective.

By the way...the point of view that congress is being wagged by Israel on this issue is as much conjecture...just much more broadly supported by media :)
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
You guys are spending more time on Israel then really is needed. Its been overblown and no surprise coming from this administration.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
You guys are spending more time on Israel then really is needed. Its been overblown and no surprise coming from this administration.

Guilty...we are at a point where everyone's predictions are in...if/when we know the truth, then we'll know if anyone was even close on this...
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The distinction that is not being made clear I guess, is that I don't presume congress was manipulated by Israel. I don't presume congress will be manipulated by Israel. I don't support being wagged by Israel, but at the same time I don't blindly subscribe to the school of thought that we are being wagged by Israel, so my particular brand of conjecture isn't offered from the typical "congress being wagged" perspective.

You certainly put your finger on our disagreement. The following comes from an article written by TAC's Scott McConnell titled "The US-Israel Politics Gap":

The ability of Netanyahu to supervise American Congress is all the more remarkable in view of how generally ambivalent the American public has become about Israel. This is not to say of course that most Americans are hostile to Israel; most are supportive. But recent polls indicate that most Americans generally want Washington to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians; one surprising recent finding was the surging number of Americans who favor a “one-state solution” in which both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have civil and voting rights in historic Palestine. It’s less shocking than it seems: Americans are making a go of multiculturalism at home, though its a route few of them would have chosen 50 years ago. According to a one recent poll, recently presented at the Brookings Institution by the University of Maryland’s Shibley Telhami, 73 percent of Americans favor either a two-state solution or one-state solution with equal rights for both peoples—a figure roughly three time times the combined number of those who favor either Israeli annexation of the West Bank or a perpetuation of the status quo of Israeli occupation, occasionally punctuated by bouts of let’s pretend peace talks.

...

The point however is not that the American public is divided—though it is, or that public sentiment is shifting inexorably away from strong support for Israel to a more neutral stance, though that is true as well. It is that the actual sentiments of Americans are almost completely unrepresented in the American Congress, which has recently vowed—by almost unanimous votes—to back Israel’s right-wing government whatever it does. Perhaps it is too much to now expect a Congressional resolution apologizing to the Israeli settlers for the efforts of American diplomats to investigate their destruction of Palestinian olive groves, but would such a resolution really be surprising?

Can you name another issue on which Congress is united in its opposition to American public opinion? I can't, and the most likely explanation is that AIPAC owns our Congress. Also from that article:

Israel’s relationship to the American Congress is truly something to behold. Visiting Israel over the break, Sen. Lindsey Graham came up with an interesting formulation to describe it. In an interview with Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli paper, Graham assured Israelis that the much-described chilliness of President Obama’s relationship with prime minister Netanyahu was actually of little consequence: “Presidents come and go. Bush 41′s administration had problems with Israel’s policies. In business terms, the anchor tenant is the Congress.” It’s a revealing metaphor, suggesting Israeli ownership of the American-Israeli relationship. Americans pay rent, which Congress is always willing to do.

Here are some quotes from AIPAC's own lobbyists:

Mearsheimer and Walt have collected and quoted some of the lobbyists' comments on their organizations' political capital. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt quote Morris Amitay, former AIPAC director as saying, "It’s almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government." They also quote a Michael Massing article in which a staffer sympathetic to Israel said, "We can count on well over half the House – 250 to 300 members – to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." Similarly they cite former AIPAC official Steven Rosen illustrating AIPAC’s power for Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."

Furthermore, the largest donors for both political parties are militant Zionists. So I don't "blindly subscribe to the school of thought" that the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog. I subscribe to it because the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that it's true.

By the way...the point of view that congress is being wagged by Israel on this issue is as much conjecture...just much more broadly supported by media :)

"Broadly supported in the media"? When was the last time you turned on cable news and saw a story about AIPAC's wildly disproportionate influence in American politics? It's never even alluded to, let alone seriously debated.
 
Last edited:

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
Speculation is usually prefaced with "I think" or some similar qualifier. Of Course NONE of us have complete information...unless one of you got an appointment you didn't tell us about...then we all got bigger problems.

As I've said in earlier posts, the no-no, from my chair, would be something of substance congress did not know about, and would not be on board with, being on the negotiating table. ie I THINK there is a major delta somewhere that Israel identified, and that caused congress to freak out...not because Israel said "freak out"...but because there was a bonafide departure from congress' expectations of the negotiations.

The distinction that is not being made clear I guess, is that I don't presume congress was manipulated by Israel. I don't presume congress will be manipulated by Israel. I don't support being wagged by Israel, but at the same time I don't blindly subscribe to the school of thought that we are being wagged by Israel, so my particular brand of conjecture isn't offered from the typical "congress being wagged" perspective.

By the way...the point of view that congress is being wagged by Israel
on this issue is as much conjecture...just much more broadly supported by media :)


"What is cognitive dissonance?, for $1000 Alex!"
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Can you name another issue on which Congress is united in its opposition to American public opinion? I can't...

-Balancing the budget.

-Discontinuing foreign aid for dictators of brutal regimes until our own domestic financial needs are met.

-Common sense governance.

-Elected representatives not being dumbasses.

:wink:
 

AvesEvo

Well-known member
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
372
-Balancing the budget.

-Discontinuing foreign aid for dictators of brutal regimes until our own domestic financial needs are met.

-Common sense governance.

-Elected representatives not being dumbasses.

:wink:

Generally getting things done.
 
Top