Salon: New left-leaning Israel lobby to take on AIPAC?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday December 20, 2006
A new, left-leaning lobby made up of well-organized philanthropists could seek to take on the powerful, conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Salon is reporting.
"[M]ost American Jews ... do not see eye-to-eye on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the most hawkish, knee-jerk Israel supporters in the U.S. government -- even if their presumed leadership, represented by AIPAC, often appears to do so," writes Gregory Levey. "Moreover, AIPAC's influence in Washington may soon begin to decline, as a powerful new alliance of left-leaning friends of Israel has begun to emerge, with the express aim of reshaping U.S. strategy on the region's most intractable problem."
Levey mentions billionaire George Soros, former Clinton adviser Jeremy Ben-Ami, and Daniel Levy, former adviser to Israeli PM Ehud Barak, as key figures in what could be the creation of "a new, well-funded, well-organized, left-leaning Israel lobby, as an alternative to AIPAC."
The new organization would, according to one left-wing activist involved in early discussions, "[organize] systematically to affect U.S. foreign policy." Another advocate tells Levey that "the right-wing orientation in the community is losing people by the droves, particularly young people. ... Most U.S. Jews support peace in the Middle East, and don't want to shoot down doves anytime they appear."
Excerpts from the ad-sponsored article follow:
#
Many American Jews, it seems, have similar feelings. Eighty-seven percent of them voted Democratic in the recent midterms -- the highest number since 1994 -- belying the oft-repeated claim that the Bush administration's staunch support for Israel would move the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote toward the Republicans...
...
If the Bush administration decides to seriously reevaluate its strategy in the Middle East in the wake of the Iraq Study Group's recent report -- and among its recommendations is prioritizing a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- it will have to deal with a minefield of interest groups. That will surely include AIPAC, a juggernaut that the New York Times has called the "most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."
...
AIPAC suffered a relatively small but symbolic defeat this past year -- one that may prove to have been a turning point. Earlier in the year, AIPAC put all its muscle behind a congressional bill called the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which even some pro-Israel observers called "draconian." Going beyond even the Bush administration's own hard-line stance on the Hamas-led Palestinian government, it would have essentially cut off all American contact with any element of the Palestinian leadership, and hampered the U.S. government's ability to strengthen Palestinian moderates.
A group of small, left-leaning Jewish lobby groups, including the Israel Policy Forum, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, banded together to battle AIPAC on the issue, and in the end were successful. A watered-down version of the bill was passed, with what they saw as the problematic language stripped away. An AIPAC official recently told me that AIPAC was satisfied with the softer bill's passage -- but it is quite clear that the incident represented a defeat for the organization.
monte cargo wrote
Quote:The author's point is not to slam these Jews like Allan Colmes for their anti-Isreal positions, it is to point out that in these people, there is a tactic of saying "My viewpoint is better than a Gentile's because I'm Jewish and I'm against Israel, so when I am against Israel, that really means something more than if I just say I am anti-Israel." It is this tactic, and not the person that Shapiro is discussing, pointing out, and it is useful information.
Actually, the author's point is precisely what you deny. It is to slam Jews when they speak out against some Israeli government policy - a very particular class of Israeli government policy...expansionist, pro-settlement, Palestinian and arab-antipathetic policies.
It's the second prong of a two-pronged propaganda thrust. Prong one: criticism of these policies from someone who is not Jewish is labelled as axiomatically anti-semitic. But because that thrust doesn't apply to someone in disagreement who is Jewish, they become "self-hating jews". And that's prong two. The design and function is to label criticism (of a government policy) from absolutely anyone as an instance of jew hating. There's no other option conceivably available, is there?
The "better than gentile" bit is an attempt to distract with a further attack (quite irrelevant) on the criticizer. When
you criticize an American government policy on some board like this (a Clinton era policy, say) and add that you are an American, it hardly follows that you are therefore also claiming you are therefore better than a Frenchman or a Canadian. You have added the relevant information as to your group membership so as to belay the impression that your criticism might be driven by "anti-Americanism".
This writer is a serious shitheel and he's playing you.
MizunoMan wrote:Hamas and the PLO have been occupied (excuse the pun) for the past few days trying to kill each other. Reminds me of how well the Iraq-Iran war seemed to have kept two troublesome countries occupied.
Say - I think an idea's brewing here.
I'm sure that's what our government was thinking when they decided to arm Fatah.
FreeDuck wrote:MizunoMan wrote:Hamas and the PLO have been occupied (excuse the pun) for the past few days trying to kill each other. Reminds me of how well the Iraq-Iran war seemed to have kept two troublesome countries occupied.
Say - I think an idea's brewing here.
I'm sure that's what our government was thinking when they decided to arm Fatah.
Let them both kill each other off, then (as they're doing). It'll end one drain on US "foreign aid".
Here is an excellent article from the Times :
Quote:Why won't the Israelis give peace a chance?
Amos Oz
Bashir Assad, the President of Syria, has repeatedly offered peace talks with Israel. Most recently he has added that he has no preconditions for negotiations - he is not even demanding that Israel promise in advance to return the Golan Heights. The response of Ehud Olmert has been astonishing. We can't, Israel's Prime Minister says, act against our friend, George W. Bush, who has no interest in an accommodation between Israel and Syria.
Therefore, Israel refuses to grasp the hand that Syria has offered.
There were times - when Israel still behaved like an independent country, rather than as a client of the United States - that the demand for direct, unconditional talks with the Arab countries was the heart of Israel's policy. Ben-Gurion, Sharret, Eshkol, Rabin and Begin all offered to sit at the negotiating table with Arab leaders without any preconditions on either side. That's no longer the case.
Today, Israel has presented a list of preconditions. Syria must expel Hamas's leadership. Syria must cut its ties with Hezbollah. Syria must stop harassing our US allies in Iraq. Syria must end its alliance with Iran. Syria must desist from its military build-up on the Golan front. It must do all this before negotiations begin.
If Syria met all these preconditions, Israel would have no reason to negotiate with it on the Golan. In fact, if Syria accepted all Israel's demands, peace would be superfluous. In 1967, in response to a Syrian attack, Israel occupied the Golan Heights. From that time on Syria has demanded the return of its territory, while Israel has demanded that the Damascus regime recognise Israel, cease hostilities and live in peace with the Jewish state.
Today Israel demands, as a precondition, that Syria give all it has to give, even before sitting down. This is unreasonable. All the more unreasonable is Israel's justification for spurning Syria's outstretched hand: we can't negotiate with Syria because it would put President Bush in a bad position in the internal US debate about Middle East policy.
Why does Israel have to set aside its own supreme national interest - peace with all its neighbours - in favour of the niceties of its relations with a foreign government? This is the first time that an Israeli prime minister has acknowledged, and even taken pride in the fact, that an Israeli decision of huge importance has been placed in the hands of foreigners.
We've been here before. On the eve of the Yom Kippur War Anwar Sadat of Egypt offered Israel peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai. Golda Meir's incompetent Government ignored the offer for reasons similar to the ones given by the Olmert administration. Then 2,700 Israeli soldiers were killed in the war that followed. After the war Israel received from President Sadat the same offer he'd made before the war: peace in exchange for territory.
Haven't we learnt anything?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2512106,00.html
Israeli society unmoved by state theft of Palestinian land
http://www.haaretz.com/
This is very silly and anecdotal. There is, of course, a percentage (small, I think) of Jews who think that Israel is wrong regarding the Pals, et al. As you know, there is a percentage of Americans who think the USA is wrong regarding its activities in Arab countries, especially Iraq. So what?
Thankfully, Jews and Americans have freedom of thought and expression, and both have varied opinions.
Advocate wrote: Thankfully, Jews and Americans have freedom of thought and expression, and both have varied opinions.
However, those same rights are not afforded the Palestinians in Israel. Palestinian teenagers, 14, 15 and 16 year olds, were recently killed by the ISF for "peacifully" demonstrating.
Palestinian teenager killed by Israeli air raid
Palestine-Israel, Military, 10/3/2006
One Palestinian teenager was killed on today in Israel's air raid on Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip.
According to Palestinian media, Naji Barduel, 22, was severely wounded when he was at home with his brother and died in hospital.
Barduel's home is situated at al-Atara zone, Khan Younis camp where his brother, Mohammad, 17, also was seriously wounded.
Tanks of the Israeli army also attacked the Palestinian homes at al-Amr area in Beit Hanun setting a textile factory on fire.
In the meantime, in the infighting between Palestinian groups, Palestinian Liberation Movement (Fatah) and Palestinian resistance movement (Hamas) on Monday night two Palestinians were killed and 18 others wounded.
The fighting erupted last night after a rally of members of Fatah movement and al-Aqsa martyrs brigade from the military wing of the group to condemn the incidents two days ago which led to killing and wounding large number of Palestinians and in protest against the Interior Ministry guards for opening fire on strikers.
Last Sunday, the guards of the Interior Ministry clashed with the workers of the Self-Rule government who had staged demonstrations demanding their salaries.
It caused deaths of nine Palestinians and injury of over 100.
Human rights report on 'appalling' conditions for ordinary Palestinians
Palestine-Israel-UN, Politics, 9/27/2006
Describing a "tragic" human rights situation for ordinary Palestinians living in the occupied territory, an independent UN expert yesterday presented his report to the newly established Human Rights Council, sparking criticism from the Israeli representative that the work was one-sided and imbalanced.
John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said that he wished to speak only about Israeli actions against ordinary, non-militant, non-activist Palestinians who simply wanted to lead a good life, educate their children and enjoy the basic amenities of life.
The human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory had deteriorated since 2001, and was intolerable, appalling, and tragic for ordinary Palestinians, he was reported as saying by a press release from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
In response, Israeli Ambassador Itzhak Levanon said there could be no value in a report that follows a one-sided and imbalanced mandate that did not conform to the reality on the ground and which prejudged key issues. He said that, like its predecessors, it was characterized by errors of omission as well as distortions of both fact and law, a press release issued by the UN Information Center (UNIC) here on Wednesday said.
While it had been Israel's intention to disengage from Gaza only to return to it, clearly Israel had the fundamental right and duty to defend and protect its citizens, Levanon said, adding that any Palestinian government should renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Also speaking on behalf of a "concerned country," Palestinian representative Mohammad Abu-Koash thanked the rapporteur for his report and warned that the Middle East was in turmoil while no genuine effort had been expended to address its root cause, namely, ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese territories.
Chris McGreal in Rafah
Thursday May 20, 2004
The Guardian
Israeli forces fired tank shells into a peaceful Palestinian protest during the ongoing assault on Rafah refugee camp yesterday, killing at least 10 people - mostly children - and critically wounding many others.
The army described the incident as "very grave", claimed it had only fired "warning shots" and said there was no intention to harm civilians. But it attempted to shift responsibility for the carnage to the several thousand demonstrators by saying some were armed.
However, no weapons were visible as the crowd walked through the heart of Rafah trailed by children.
Witnesses described seeing children soaked in blood and men with their intestines hanging out.
The dead included 12-year-old Waleed Abo Kamir, Mahmoud Mansour, 13, and Mobark Hasbash, 15. Doctors said that four other bodies brought to the morgue and not immediately identified appeared to be teenagers.
The Israeli army has killed 33 Palestinians in Rafah over the past two days, some of the highest casualties of the present intifada. More than half of the dead are civilians and at least seven of them children.
I think it would be good if they continue the peaceful protests, and even better if the idea catches on in all Palestinian areas. Some people will be killed, but that would happen anyway (sadly) so they are better off doing it this way and hopefully getting more international support, not to mention more attention to their situation.
MizunoMan, It doesn't make it less true or less dead. It's the pattern of the ISF> or haven't you been keeping up with the news about the last war in Lebanon? Do you understand anything about overkill? Prolly not.
MizunoMan, If you have something to say, say it.
cicerone imposter wrote:MizunoMan, It doesn't make it less true or less dead. It's the pattern of the ISF> or haven't you been keeping up with the news about the last war in Lebanon? Do you understand anything about overkill? Prolly not.
So you meant to post an article from 2004?
Overkill. Similar to what's going on right now with the paleos trying to exterminate each other? Think they're much concerned if any kids get hurt in the crossfire? Hell, they kill their own, one way or another, nearly every day. Yeah, I see a pattern alright.
MizunoMan, Do you know how many Americans kill each other off every day? Prolly not.
Rates of deadly violence --- U.S., Israel, Gaza
10/23/2005
TEL AVIV --- While the U.S. homicide rate declined slightly in 2004, it was more than 25 percent higher than Israel's combined rate of deaths from crime, suicide bombings and intifada-related military casualties.
Homicide rates in 2004 in a number of major U.S. cities including the nation's capital exceeded rates of Palestinian fatalities at the hands of Israel's army in the past year.
These are among the facts that emerge from data released October 17 in the yearly Uniform Crime Reporting program of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
cicerone imposter wrote:MizunoMan, Do you know how many Americans kill each other off every day? Prolly not.
What's that got to do with what's going on in Gaza? The retards are killing each other (including their own children) at a record pace and don't appear to be all that worried about it either.
And you want me to feel sorry for them?
And you think they're ready for a State?
They're certifiable and anyone with half a brain can see that.
It's "tragic" to be sure, but they and only they can be held responsible.
If you are so concerned about what's happening in Gaza, what are you doing about it? Why did you have to mention Gaza? Any particular purpose or reason? Do you think it's a problem only in Gaza? Did I say anything about "feeling sorry for them?"
