AIPEC is largely Zionist; not entirely. Certain members of the Neocons could be classified as Zionist; not the movement as a whole. Israel is not run exclusively on right wing Zionist policies. Israel is not a theocracy. They allow Muslim parties to campaign and allow Muslim representatives into their government. How is this Zionist?
What constitutes as a full Zionist and how do you distinguish them from a part Zionist? In any case, AIPAC is a very powerful organization with tremendous influence in the United States legislative branch, which passes our laws. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbyist can influence Senators and Representatives to pass laws that are in favor of Israel and at odds with the American public.
Israel legislative branch, Knesset doesnt have much Muslim influence, there are Jews that support the Palestinian cause, Im not saying that the Israeli government has banned everybody who doesnt agree with them, what I am saying is that the Israeli government is still run by Zionist who are at odds with the Arab world, that is fine by me, but when you have neo-conservatives with heavy influence in the executive branch of the United States federal government, then we have a problem because then our actions are in favor of these Israels right wing policies, which of course isnt in Americas best interest to support Likuds interest and that goes for Israels interest as well, the people there would rather have security then war.
The Israeli lobby is in part Zionist, of course, but not everybody is supporting Israel because it is the homeland of the chosen people. This is the problem that you continually make over and over and over and over and over and over again. You automatically assume that any support for Israeli policies is due to what Israel is, and not what Israel does; namely that is is the homeland of the Jews, and not because its policies coincide with many of the Western cultures'.
Here is a problem, there is a huge difference between supporting the Israeli government on key issues and turning a blind eye to their state sponsored terrorism against America, such as the Lavon Affair. Im not implying that every decision in favor of Israel is a result of their Jewish character.
Also, supporting their interest can come into direct conflict with American interest, for example, when they are at war with the Palestinians who are under military occupation, that is bad for American troops and our image especially when there is a human rights crisis, when Americas image is already associated with global domination and human rights violations, it only makes it worse when we step into Israels domestic affairs. Israel should allow the Palestinians to establish their own government and nation, then if the Palestinians fall into economic decay or suffer from a human rights crisis, then it cant be blamed on Israel.
Your blanket assessment of these groups I take issue with. It is inaccurate to brand them all with the Zionist tag when to make such a sweeping generalization is surely inaccurate, but you don't seem to have a problem with being inaccurate in this department to begin with. Again, I reiterate: Supporting the Israeli state is not necessarily supporting Israel as the homeland of the Jews, and thus Zionism. Sometimes we just agree with their policies, crazily enough, just as we agree with Saudi Arabian policies. Or 'agree' with, I should say, for the alliance between Israel and the US is taken on about as begrudgingly at times as is our associations with the House of Saud.
Ive never said that every single decision is a result of the Jewish character of Israel.
If you don't want to be pinpointed as an anti-Zionist, then I suggest you cease crying wolf on everybody that agrees with an Israeli policy and labeling them Zionists (as if that in itself would be an inherently bad thing any worse than support of any other religious practice).
Zionism is a political movement for a homeland for Jews, what is wrong with that? Nothing, Im against war, regardless of whoever pushes for war, from the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Islamic radicals, all the way to the neo-conservatives.
Israel is a nation firmly established, why ruin that and start all over again with more chaos and destruction, dismemberment, ethnic cleansing, rape, etc? That sums up war regardless of who is involved, white man, Jew, Arab, Asian
you name it.
The problem with your argument here is that you assume that the Mearscheimer paper actually made a valid argument that needed to be explicitly rebuffed point for point. The fact of the matter is that the points of contention proposed in the Mearscheimer paper were shoddily supported at best and simply embarrassing on an academic integrity level at worst. The paper in no way proved that the Israeli lobby's goals subvert US intentions any more so than does any other major lobby, nor did it even sufficiently state the base for the Israeli lobby being any more powerful than any of the other major players. The simple explanation for this is due to the fact that the Israeli lobby is not more powerful than the bureaucratic webs ejected by the oil, **************, tobacco, alcohol, and other major player industries with significant lobbying firms.
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer firmly supported their thesis that the Lobby puts Israels interest over Americas, one example they gave is the attempt by the American federal government to overthrow Islamic regimes and formulate Westernized governmental bodies to replace the old Islamic governments, something that has no benefit for the United States of America at all
nothing.
Apparently the lobby feels that it does help the Israeli government and their right wing ambitions, it takes away their enemies who could provide exceptional support for the Palestinian cause and also take international anger with Israel away and of course place that burden on Americas shoulders
just what every American needs. But what this does is put Israel at risk of terrorism, in contrast of the goals of the lobby and the world.
The Israeli Lobby paper dealt with other powerful lobbys, such as the National Rifle Association. They quoted an article that appeared in Fortune magazine where they asked Congressman (American lawmakers) and their staff to list the most powerful lobbys and AIPAC was in second place, here is the exact footnote.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washingtons Power 25, Fortune, December 8, 1997.
AIPAC was ranked number 4 in a similar study conducted in 2001. See Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Russell Newell, Fat and Happy in D.C., Fortune, May 28, 2001.
The Israeli lobby is a lobby. Its goal is to garner support for Israel in the grand scheme of US foreign relations. That is what the lobby sees as in the best interest of the country, just as the oil lobby sees things going their way as in the best interest of the country, and so on and so forth for
The Israeli lobby is a lobby. Its goal is to garner support for Israel in the grand scheme of US foreign relations. That is what the lobby sees as in the best interest of the country, just as the oil lobby sees things going their way as in the best interest of the country, and so on and so forth for every other lobby you will find in D.C. This is the function and functioning of lobbies. You are merely defining what a lobby is. What you are not doing is showing how the Israeli lobby garnering support for Israel is subverting US interests in favor of Zionist interests any more so than the oil industry is subverting US interests in favor of oil interests. And please don't tell me how they use "sound analyses" and "document [it] very well," because if their article is any indication of this soundness of analysis and wellness of documentation, then it is no more valid than a Pat Buchanan or David Duke book. They also use "sound analyses" and anally go about "documenting" their work, as if including ample footnotes has any bearing on the level of credibility on one's words, yet surely you would not deny that these men are fools and that their works are shoddy. Mearscheimer gets a pass simply because of his academic standing, when the reality is that his paper fares no better under the discriminating light of academic evaluation, as testified by several of his peers and other sources.
The Israeli Lobby paper didnt mention everything Israel and the Israeli lobbying has done against American interest. It didnt mention the attack against the USS Liberty or even the Lavon Affair which has been proven to be state sponsored terrorism against American installations. I havent read it in awhile, but I dont even think they mentioned the Israeli spies that were captured and released from federal investigators. This is odd, it would help their thesis that the Lobby looks out for Israels interest over Americas at times.
http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ndex.html?pn=1
I agree with you in large part here that we should not meddle in the affairs of other nations unnecessarily. The only problem here, however, is that in this modern society, it is impossible to be fully isolationist. The international community is so essentially interconnected that it would be damning not only to us, but to the world economy as a whole if the US were to go isolationist. It's an entirely folly and unrealistic approach, but the concept is respected. There are many degrees of foreign relations by which we as a nation have greatly overstretched our reach. We need to pull back and reevaluate not only our place in the world, but more importantly our standing domestically, as you say, for surely there is ample room for improvement. Such as doing away with lobbies.
We may not have to be fully isolationist, but we can stay out of conflicts as much as possible.
No I don't. The problem with your example of the USS Liberty is that one cannot possibly assert to know the truth of the matter. I did not explicitly say that in no way could the attack have been intentional, and you will see this if you go back and read my posts. What I did say was that it was foolhardy of you to assume that the attack was intentional because there is no concrete evidence suggesting that it was. It could very well have been an unintentional miscommunication error. Israeli forces unintentionally attacked their own forces a few days prior to the incident in question, thus making it well within the range of possibility that it was an accident.
Nor did I at any time "go out of [my] way to take Israel's side." I did no such thing. I am taking the side of the rationalist argument as opposed to the sensationalist. For the record, I do not support Israel, nor do I support the US's overwhelming and irrational support of Israel. However, I do not attribute this solely to Zionist forces in government. That is an absurd proposition which completely ignores the role that Israel plays in global politics. The US is not the only nation that regularly pays lip service to Israel. Once again, inferring that support of Israel on a practical level must be Zionist rather than pragmatic is a logistical error. If you truly want to make this assertion, you're going to need to have concrete evidence to back it up, which you nor anybody that you have cited or that I have seen independently has. This is not to say that no Zionist forces have at least a degree of influential power on governmental policy. However, this is not the same as state-sponsored Zionism.
That is the USS Liberty alone, the Lavon Affair was proven to be an attacked against American installations in Egypt formulated by the Israeli government at that time, not all Israelis were part of that, they were powerless to stop Pinhas Lavon.
Im not against Israel, Im against war, regardless of who the people pushing for it, like the fake memo the that appeared in the Weekly Standard, falsely claiming Bin Laden and Saddam had connections. The neo-conservatives have wanted this war for years, they even wrote a letter to Bill Clinton to formulate a policy to remove Saddam from power.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Im also against the Americans who foolishly support Middle Eastern wars just because they are Muslim, so therefore Americans and Middle Easterners must die for this arrogance.
You have yet to give a concrete example of state sponsored terrorism against America at the hands of the Israeli government that is any worse than any other incidental scuffle between allies that we have had in the past but have overlooked. Israel is not the first of our allies to spy on us, and I assure you that we spy on them, along with the rest of our allies.
No other nation in the world receives near as much diplomatic, financial, and military support from American then Israel. If the United Kingdom damaged our intelligence and sold it the way Pollard did, we would put the UK on our shit list, Pollards treachery caused us dearly in the Soviet Union. Also, Saddams government never attacked the US but the federal government took him out, the reason for that is because the neo-cons wanted him out.
If there was political movement in the US that was very anti Israel and had influence in Fox news and the federal government etc, then there is no telling what would happen to Israel. Im against any kind of war propagated by intellectuals with political agendas. There could possibly be an anti-Israel lobby in the feature, and I would be bitching up a storm against them if they decide to attack Israel and use the USS Liberty , the Lavon Affair, etc, as reasons for war.
Your pegging of Middle Eastern conflict as "Israeli wars" I must take issue with, however. The reason for this is twofold, firstly simply because there are no longer any regional conflicts in the world. All conflicts are global in impact, thus whatever is of regional interest is of global, and thus, US interest. If there is unrest in the Middle East, then it is an issue for the US as it is for the rest of the first world. Secondly, just as with any other ally, and "Israeli war" is our war as well in that we are allied with Israel. This is really quite simple to understand. If you don't realize why the US is concerned with Israeli issues other than to shout "Zionism!" from the rooftops, then I will ask you to kindly refrain from further conversation.
I must disagree with you here, Israels wars dont necessarily have to be Americas wars as well. Take a look at Americas war in Iraq
Israel isnt even a part of this war, they are on the sidelines, so why doesnt Israel join Americas war? It is the Israeli government that was eager for America to go to war with Iraq to topple Saddams government, so why didnt they go along side of us then? That goes for Iran as well, another war that is formulated by the neo-conservatives when we dont have the job in Iraq finished despite being their for years.
This has nothing to do with being a Jew, this has to do with the United States federal government attempting to political subvert the Middle Eastern world, they have been successful with the rest of the world and they are even successful in the Middle East at this, so the American government should leave it at that, Iran may not be Westernized, but they arent able to go against American interest or even Israels at this point. A radical Zionist who puts Israel over any nation shouldnt get ahead of his or herself, the problems in Iraq a far from resolved, we are running out of troops and bombs will not destroy the insurgency in Iraq, this is true with Iran as well, lets not get ahead of ourselves and bight off more then we can chew. I blame more then the Israel Lobby, I also blamed the bulk of American and other Western people who provide the man power to make this possible.