Is AIPAC trying to silence criticism of Israel?

[Turk182]

“This cycle, they are going even bigger. AIPAC is expected to spend $100 million across its political entities in 2024, taking aim at candidates they deem insufficiently supportive of Israel”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/aipac-israel-spending-democratic-primaries-00144552

This is a very powerful group and we can see that within the Democratic Party itself, people are afraid to criticize Israel, and those that do are demonized and primaried by this group. This group will give money to an election denying Republican If they support Israel, they will also give money to a Democrat if they support Israel. Why take money from this group?
They seem to be a single issue group, and their issue is not America’s issue.
Please take note that I fully support Israel and their people, but at this point in history their leader and their lobbying groups have lost their way. And it should be OK to point it out and not be labeled with some Internet smear.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for your consideration, you will find the alert button below.

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Contributions equate to influence. Surprising to me oil money from somewhere isn't on the other side.

[jimfields33]

35. Cori bush voted no on critical president Biden's agenda.

Perhaps that’s the reason she lost. Maybe her constituents wanted her to vote yes.

[Think. Again.]

2. Yes.

It couldn't be obvious.

[SocialDemocrat61]

3. Of course they are

Their stated purpose is support for Israel.

[karynnj]

4. Yes and that has ALWAYS been what they see as their role

In 2006, both JStreet and AIPAC send representatives to speak to a synagogue senior group I was in. We had wanted them to come the same day, but AIPAC refused. The contrast couldn't have been greater. JStreet came with answers on their positions and politely engaged with everyone including a few who had been influenced by AIPAC for years.

The woman from AIPAC actually told us they had no positions, they just backed whatever Israel was doing. She was shocked when many of us pointed out that we felt a responsibility to speak out against our own government when we thought it wrong and we certainly did not have blind loyalty to a foreign country. The conversation was contentious enough that she left in a huff and did not take the sign in sheet.

Possibly influenced by my DU posting, I took a copy of that sign in sheet and sent links from the NYT etc to back things others and I had said that she countered as not true. I intentionally included her email. She emailed me back doubling down on their belief that it was better for American Jews to speak with one voice. ( even though they always seem to support the Likkud position, no matter who the PM was.)

[Nanjeanne]

5. Yes

[TwilightZone]

6. It's an American pro-Israel lobbying group.

I find it odd that some act surprised when AIPAC supports pro-Israel politicians and policies.

It's right there in the name, and it's their stated purpose.

Do some just not understand what AIPAC is or what the acronym stands for? Neither is some big secret.

"their issue is not America’s issue"

Only if one believes that America has no interests in the Middle East.

[Turk182]

9. Strange thing is

That their stated purpose is to advance the goals of Israel , Before the US goals and interests.
why shouldn’t they have to register as a foreign agent?
A politician would have to.

[jimfields33]

36. Groups don't have too.

[Turk182]

38. Of course they do

Any “individual or entity“ that requests a group keep doing their actions falls under FARA

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. The US Govt. disagrees with you regarding AIPAC violating the terms of FARA. nt

[Turk182]

43. US Government also...

Enacted a Muslim ban, I disagreed with that instead of falling in line with whatever my government said.

The churches are also not allowed to endorse or preach from the pulpit, the fact that they are not held being held accountable to this is also wrong, and I do not agree with it. It doesn’t matter if you tell me that the US government doesn’t agree with me, I don’t let them tell me what is and what isn’t.
I suspect that we both agree that the churches are now preaching from the pulpit and endorsing candidates, which is not allowed, and we both agree the US government is not holding them accountable.
Some people might want to shrug their shoulders and fall in line because the government says so, I am someone that will never do that.
I guess we disagree on this issue

[MarineCombatEngineer]

45. One more time, the bottom line is that the Govt. disagrees with your assertion that AIPAC is

violating FARA and AIPAC has been around since 1954 which would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is no violation, but do carry on with your rant, it's entertaining.

[Turk182]

46. I get your point, the government disagrees with me

The government is also telling you and I that the churches are not preaching politics and endorsing candidates from the pulpit, yet here you and I sit, staring at straight in the face, it’s time to stop denying it….. just cause the government says so.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

47. Welp, have fun with that. nt

[Turk182]

48. I was just wondering if your response would be the same

If somebody told you they were against the Muslim ban, or they were against preachers, endorsing from the pulpit.

Would your response still be “well the US government disagrees with you, have fun with that“
Perhaps before the Iraq war when somebody said, I don’t think Iraq was behind it, your response could have been “well the US government disagrees with you“
You don’t have to answer that question, I was just wondering about it allowed.

[Mosby]

73. That's a lie.

WE ARE more than 3 million pro-Israel Americans from every congressional district who are working to strengthen bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
https://www.aipac.org/about

Why are you engaging in deceptions about Israel?

What's your agenda at DU?

[Turk182]

74. ?

What’s my deception ?

[Mosby]

75. Right here

That their stated purpose is to advance the goals of Israel , Before the US goals and interests.
why shouldn’t they have to register as a foreign agent?

The bolded section is not true, its nothing but your ill-informed opinion.

Claiming its their stated purpose is a bald-faced lie.

[iemanja]

113. Can you point to examples

Where they are critical of Netanyahu or Likud?

[progree]

141. That person does not have an agenda at DU. Not any longer

What's your agenda at DU?

[Mosby]

143. 👍

[Mad_Machine76]

29. They seem a bit extremist about it though

Like I get that they're supportive of Israel and that's fine but their attempts to silence any and all criticism and attack politicians deemed (by them) of being insufficiently loyal to another country no matter what is what bothers me about them.

[Turk182]

63. But is there a distinction?"

“ I find it odd that some act surprised when AIPAC supports pro-Israel politicians and policies”

Do you see a distinction in supporting pro Israel policies, as opposed to trying to silence criticism?

Cause there is a difference.

[dsp3000]

7. unequivocolly yes.

When normal people say that pretty much all politicians are bought, AIPAC is the first buyer that comes to mind, and they buy both republicans and democrats. This is not an attack on just Democratic party politicians but it's a reality of US Politics the last 50 years. It's why american politicians refuse to look further into the true apartheid society of israel, overlook their illegal settlements and instead strongly advocate for "our strongest middle east ally's defense no matter what" tag line.

[Mosby]

80. AIPAC isn't even in the top 20 in lobby groups spending.

You're creating a strawman.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/257344/top-lobbying-spenders-in-the-us/

[CincyDem]

8. "Lost their way"...in whose opinion.

AIPAC is 61 years old and has had a single minded purpose…to lobby members of congress on issues that impact The State of Israel.

They’ve perused this mission consistently independent of leadership in the US and, importantly, leadership in Israel.

The harsh reality of today’s post Citizens United ruling world is that money is a pervasive (and persuasive) force in politics.

It appears you disagree with Israel’s current government, as do I quite honestly. But AIPAC has every right, as a lobbying group pooling money from American citizens to advocate (through their spend) for any cause they like…just like AJP-Action or AMP. Never heard of them? They’re lobbying groups who some may say support a terrorist regime in Gaza.

Please take note I fully support Gaza and its people but at this point in their history, their leader and lobbying groups seem to have lost their way…should we silence them too?

Disagree with them I do, but spend their money to make their case too they should ( said in my best Yoda voice).

[Turk182]

12. Why shouldn't they be registered as a foreign agent?

“AIPAC is 61 years old and has had a single minded purpose…to lobby members of congress on issues that impact The State of Israel.“

The truth is, they are moving the Democratic Party to the right by demonizing and attacking the liberal/progressive wing.

[CincyDem]

14. Because they are funded by American citizens, not a foreign government.

[Turk182]

16. Is that really required?

Or The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 requires individuals or entities to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) if they are acting as agents of a foreign principal in the United States and engage in certain activities?

Where does it say they are exempt if the funding is American?

[Turk182]

20. Does that fact change your mind?

The fact that funding doesn’t play a part, just the stated mission?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. If you're so concerned, then by all means, file a complaint to the proper channels

and see what happens.
I suspect you'll be highly disappointed in the reply you get.
Considering that AIPAC has been around since 1954 leads me to believe that your ridiculous assertation has already been challenged and found to be in accordance with the law.
Cori Bush lost not because of AIPAC money, but because her voters didn't believe that she was representing their interests and ousted her for someone whom they believe will better serve their interests.

[Turk182]

24. That doesn't make sense

“ Cori Bush lost not because of AIPAC money, but because her voters didn't believe that she was representing their interests and ousted her for someone whom they …”

Implying that outside funding, or even funding from within the state doesn’t matter to a campaign isn’t entirely accurate.
I think we both agree that how well a campaign is funded matters. Or do we agree?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. It all comes down to what her constituents believed

and apparently, they believed that they would be better served by someone else.
Cori Bush did herself no favors by opposing key components of the Biden admins policies and her ongoing troubles with her alleged mis use of campaign funds.

[Turk182]

33. So

Why fund campaigns then, it makes no difference, it doesn’t help hire staff, it doesn’t help open new headquarters, it doesn’t help printing literature or travel or any other expensive things related to a campaign.
I just don’t buy that, I believe how well campaign is funded DOES have an effect on the election.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. I really, really don't care what you buy, it's irrelevant.

The US Govt has apparently deemed AIPAC within the law and that's all that counts in this instance.

[Turk182]

39. The US government also...

Enacted a Muslim ban.

I certainly don’t fall in line with anything the government says, I decide for myself.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. And yet, the bottom line is that AIPAC is not violating FARA according to the Govt.

but as I said, feel free to file a grievance against AIPAC with the Govt and see where that leads.

Cori Bush lost because of her constituent's dissatisfaction with her performance, that's cut and dried.

[Turk182]

44. " AIPAC is not violating FARA according to the Govt."

And the churches are not preaching politics and endorsing from the pulpit…

According to the government

And yet here you and I sit staring it straight in the face.

[GumboYaYa]

71. I am in this district and the difference in campaign resources was stark

Wesley Bell had way more mail and TV ads. He was on TV early and often. Cori had very few TV ads run. I got multiple mailings every day from the Bell campaign. I would get a Cori Bush mailer once or twice a week. He had a campaign office in one of the highest rent most trafficked areas of the district. The money definitely made a difference in this race.

[Nixie]

118. Cori was an incumbent. She wasn't unknown.

Her constituents didn't like her priorities, is more like it.

[betsuni]

135. I thought running against an unpopular incumbent and winning was The Will of the People and earning votes

and sending a message.

Now it's impossible, inconceivable, it's not me, it's you. I am right about everything and everybody knows it, I don't have to explain any of my actions in a coherent or logical way. PACs, corporations, oligarchs, billionaires, my opponent in the race, all will stop at nothing because they are terrified of me and my righteousness! Then comes the concession speech of grievances, CTs, threats and burning bridges.

[JohnSJ]

32. She obviously didn't serve her constituents well. She voted against the infrastructure plan,

Child care support, etc.

Some want to ignore those issues.

Her constant push of the "defund the police" did not help either.

[The Magistrate]

105. You Do Know What Being An Agent Is, Sir?

An agent is someone one person, the principle, engages to act for them, in their stead and at their direction. Neither the Israeli government, nor any known Israeli citizen, has hired AIPAC to act for them, or directed AIPAC to do this or that. There is no sense whatever in which AIPAC is an agent of Israel, under the FARA statute. An organization's support for someone or something, does not make it their agent. Not even if the support is effective, and one wishes it was otherwise....

[DeepWinter]

15. FARA

Foreign Agents Registration Act ("FARA&quot "...anyone who acts on behalf of a “foreign principal” to, among other things, influence U.S. policy or public opinion."

"On behalf" is what get hung up in court. If the foreign entity does not officially endorse or encourage them, or even recognize them, is it "on behalf". It becomes very subjective to personal opinion if that does or does not count. FARA has been amended several times over they years, and it's still imperfect in it's definition if you look at how it inconsistently plays out in the courts.

[Turk182]

17. That's what i thought

No mention about funding.

[onenote]

21. AIPAC isn't required to register under FARA. The law is pretty clear

AIPAC is not acting as an "agent" of Israel. Under FARA an “agent” is an individual or entity that acts “within the United States” at the order, request, direction, or control of either: (1) a “foreign principal”; or (2) a person “any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a “foreign principal.” Moreover, under FARA, an “agent” is typically identified through practical indicators, such as contractual language, reporting lines, payment streams, and statements found within emails, internal files, and work product that appear to indicate one party is working for another.

See fara.us

[Turk182]

23. I see a problem...

“ at the order, request, direction, or control of either: (1) a “foreign principal”; or (2) a person “any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a “foreign principal.”

This sure sounds like Israel is asking them to keep doing what they are doing…sounds just like a request.

“ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Keep doing a great job. Thank you.” - Benjamin Netanyahu
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-transcript-of-netanyahus-aipac-address/amp/

[MarineCombatEngineer]

25. You see a problem, yet the US Govt. doesn't, so,

whom do I believe, the US Govt or an anonymous person on an internet chatboard?
That's an easy one.

[Turk182]

28. Decide for yourself...

It’s not a choice between me and the US government.

Choose for yourself, Bibi made that speech, you don’t have to believe me or the US government.

OJ was guilty, who you gonna believe? The US justice system backed by judges and jurors? Or me? … claiming OJ is guilty cause some court and jury told you is a dead end… the unknown guy on the internet is right.
Bibi clearly made a request.
Just decide for yourself.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. It is a choice between what you believe and what the US Govt believes,

you believe that AIPAC is violating FARA, but according to the US Govt, they're not.

Like I said earlier, if you truly believe that AIPAC is violating FARA, then by all means, file a complaint with the proper authorities and see where it goes.
Good luck with that.

[Turk182]

76. " It is a choice between what you believe and what the US Govt believes,"

That’s true.
And when someone tells me Iraq didn’t attack the USA on 9-11 , I don’t respond back by saying… “well, the US government doesn’t agree with you, have fun with that”

I look at the facts and choose for myself, and I decided that Iraq did not attack the United States on 911
, That the US government was lying.
I do not automatically defer to the US Government, but that’s just me.
You carry-on as you were.

[onenote]

26. No problem

Four words expressing gratitude for AIPAC's support of Israel ( "Keep doing a great job" ) at the end of speech given 10 years ago isn't even remotely enough to meet the standard for finding agency, which was spelled out in my comment but ignored in your reply. I'll repeat it: "An “agent” is typically identified through practical indicators, such as contractual language, reporting lines, payment streams, and statements found within emails, internal files, and work product that appear to indicate one party is working for another."

[BrianTheEVGuy]

88. You don't see anything NT

[Turk182]

13. " Lost their way"...in whose opinion."

Check the streets of Israel, you might find the answer there.

[CincyDem]

18. Agree completely...but that's what elections are for.

Like it or not, Israelis voted this government in…just as they have for the past 75 years. And, if all those people in the streets vote and the numbers go their way, this government will be voted out.

The great thing about democracies is that people get to take to the streets…there isn’t another country for a thousand miles where demonstrations like this would be allowed.

I suspect come October ‘26 bibi will be out. Until then, the coalition won’t break and we’re stuck with him…and AIPAC will support him lie they have every other Israeli government for 60 years.

[Turk182]

19. ??

“ Agree completely...but that's what elections are for.”

Then why would you ask me “whose opinion“
When we both hold the same opinion?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. "Independent of ... leadership in Israel"? Is that really true?

They seem far more supportive of right wing Israel governments, like the current extremist one, than the Israeli mainstream. I suppose that could be because it's the right wing governments that do all the objectionable stuff, and thus need a ridiculous stand from Americans to support them. When there are moderates in charge of Israel, they don't need a massive financial operation in other countries to make them look acceptable.

[Celerity]

10. Yes, of course. nt

[JCMach1]

11. Of course, and I am probably anti-Semitic

For saying that (per AIPAC).

My disclaimer is I give the Israeli government a lot of on ramp given the over the top nature of the last terrorist attacks. No government on this planet was going to take that sitting down.

But, do I support genocide/ethnic cleansing adjacent actions by a RW government trying to white knuckle power after a huge security failure? Hell to the no.

I want to see both Netanyahu and Hamas gone for good. How about that for a cease fire plan?

[B.See]

95. Exactly. A two state solution and a lasting peace for

Israel and Palestine. Some don't believe it possible. And some (apparently) don't even WANT it to be... ever.

Peace and an END to authoritarian despots, there, in the Middle East, and EVERYWHERE.

"you may say I'm a dreamer..."

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Hmm - no

Cori Bush was extremely problematic.

Too much grandstanding and not enough legislation - and this is what happens. The 1st MO gave her a chance, she didn't produce - and now they are trying something different.

That said - I hope AIPAC throws a ton of money at the GE in November.

This targeting of AIPAC is equivalent (to me - as an AfAm woman) to targeting the NAACP.

[Diraven]

52. But the NAACP supports Americans

[B.See]

96. EXACTLY

(as an AfAm man) I don't see the comparison.

[betsuni]

54. I agree. Voters decide. But more fun to get people all worked up and frightened, helpless victims

of secret forces manipulating and corrupting everything. I'm sure they're enjoying screaming and hiding their eyes during the scariest scenes of the horror movie "The AIPAC Under the Bed."

[B.See]

97. Though not quite as scary, I'm sure, as

a political organization in support of and working of behalf of a foreign entity, and backed by conservative money, growing so powerfully "big in the britches" that they decide to start dictating foreign policy to presidential candidates, or else.

[betsuni]

98. "dictating foreign policy to presidential candidates"? Who? How? What proof is there of that?

Or else what? It's a PAC, all they do is fund candidates. It's just people, not supervillians with superpowers from a movie, or the mob.

This is like how another group of people who mostly do funding, the DNC, was an enormously powerful shadowy evil establishment rigging elections and controlling everything. That conspiracy theory helped a great deal to depress the Democratic vote and get Trump elected. AIPAC is the new DNC! Ridiculous.

[B.See]

108. I think you got the gist of my response. Nonetheless

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2024, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)

the second part of your response seems to me a straw man argument, or maybe I just don't get the reach.

Besides which, I don't recall any conspiracy theory like the one you referenced and have no clue as to how it would've "depressed the vote" etc etc. anyway.

As for the possibility of powerful PACs trying to dictate policies, foreign or domestic, to any candidate (via financial backing, endorsement, influence, etc.) it happens all the time, last I looked.

[Zipgun]

109. But they are not "under the bed" They are skirting election financing laws and throwing millions of dollars into

elections trying, and succeeding, in influencing those elections and politicians to support a foreign government.

[betsuni]

119. How are they skirting election financing laws? How are they influencing politicians?

Can you give an example of a politician who has been influenced? I don't get it.

AIPAC didn't force voters to chose Wesley Bell. How could they? If constituents like their representative, they vote for them and that's what happened here obviously. No fancy conspiracy theory needed.

[Zipgun]

124. By timing very large last minute donations to go out after disclosure and reporting laws will be able to show exactly

how much money was put into a race will not happen till after the election. Is it technically legal? yes, but it violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. Flooding races with money, recruiting last minute candidates who are flush with money after doing zero fund raising, targeting politician's family who are in races that have no impact on congress, but meant to punish members of congress. Yeah, these kind of unethical things are legal thanks to Justice Powell and his blueprint on how the corrupt elections by stacking the courts with pro-business and pro-money judges, but are exactly the kind of thing that distorts the system and opens it up to abuse. And that was Powell's goal. I don't want any lobbying organizations or individuals to be able to do these kind of thing, even groups or individuals I agree with or like. If you think that politicians and causes that you support are immune, think again. If you think that it has no effect on politicians, how many other countries have laws proposed, some passed, that limit speech critical of or actions to not support, such as divesting funding of, that country? Zero. The only one I know of is Israel. And that has nothing to do with support of the existence of Israel in general, but everything to do with crippling criticism of, or withdrawing support from a particular governing party or individual politician. Tisk, tisk Bibi, here have all the money and arms you want and we will silence protest against your actions by our citizens, is something I do NOT, cannot support. And even though I am of German and English descent, I would not support similar actions, laws or lobbying on behalf of any government of those countries either.

When Iran sent the barrage of drones to Israel, I am glad the US was able to help defend Israel. The money we spent on doing that is money well spent. I do not, and never will, see Hamas as a legitimate political entity. I do not see a future with out the state of Israel, but I want it to not only be safe and secure, but one that is not a pariah state what we support only for security interests, but as a honorable country. How we get there can be a matter of a difference of opinion, and that has to be allowed. So must our ability to withdraw support of particular actions, individual politicians and parties and be critical of them. And I think that is what AIPAC aims to go after. As for individual politician, Wesley Bell. There is one.

[Zipgun]

116. What if that ton of money is spent on GOP candidates? Will you be so happy then? They are not here to support democrats

so there is no reason they will necessarily spend money to help democrats. They may spend money only in a) tight races to influence those races. or b) in sure thing elections so they are guaranteed to support the winner and get to have direct contact with them. But in either case, their support of democrats is a byproduct of their goals. So they could decide that a Trump win and GOP control of the house and senate is what best achieves their goals. We should always keep in mind what the goals of a lobbyist group is. If the Democratic Party ever abandons equality and equal rights, then the NAACP may switch support, but we know what they want and it is inline with party principals. Support for the long term health and prosperity of Israel is not exactly the goal of AIPAC, continued support of the Israeli government is. Now they many believe that the two are the same, yet any opinion to the contrary is going to be attacked by them. So I could support the existence of Israel and want the US government to take actions that will in the long run benefit Israel and its people, but be contrary to the current Israeli government, and AIPAC would deem that anti-Israel and anti-semantic. And that is problematic and needs to always be kept in mind.

[Rob H.]

31. Of course nt

[malaise]

40. Duh!

Yes - that is all

[Rubyshoo]

49. Yes, And They End Up Causing Division

not helpful.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

51. Nah

Jewish Americans don't mind criticism of Israel. We do a fair bit of it ourselves.

When people are waving Hamas flags, smashing synagogues, physically blocking Jews from entering public spaces, assaulting Jews in Jewish neighborhoods, vandalizing Holocaust memorials, and calling for the wholesale destruction of Israel, however, we are going to mobilize to challenge and defeat them in a democratic way.

The problem that people who are losing primaries on the far left have is that their "horseshoe theory" alt-right-adjacent ideas about Jews, Israel, and the unique standards they demand of both -- but nobody else -- are deeply unpopular and far out of the mainstream of our party.

When they're put up to a vote for Democrats, they consistently lose.

That's democracy at work.

If you're "afraid" of speaking your mind, it's because you know that your ideas aren't popular. And if you cannot articulate those ideas in a way that doesn't delight the alt-right, you've got a problem.

[Turk182]

53. There it is, that train is never late...

“ When people are waving Hamas flags, smashing synagogues, physically blocking Jews from entering public spaces, ”

All aboard.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

55. Thank you for the example of the problem

The trivializing of the targeting of Jewish people and institutions with violence is just like what the alt-right does as well, and underpins why you guys keep losing with actual Democrats.

It's often hard to tell posts about Jews from Andrew Tate, Jack Poseibic or Nick Fuentes apart from "far left" people. Your values are antithetical to what our party stands for, which is why we keep voting "no."

[Turk182]

57. Excuse me ?

This thread is about AIPAC, you hijacked it with your Hamas accusations.
We probably agree on a lot of things concerning Hamas, but you should start your own thread instead of using it as an excuse when somebody brings up criticism of Israel. At this point, it just feels like an automatic knee-jerk reaction.
Start your own thread and I will Recommend it

[BrianTheEVGuy]

58. No person has "ownership" of a thread

But we are certainly accustomed to the "no Jews allowed" demand that is implicit in your reply.

And please don't pretend that posting an eye-roll and violin playing emoji set in response to my observations about violence against Jews isn't trivializing violence against Jews.

You seem to want our party to be an exclusionary echo chamber and reject opportunities to learn from the people you hate... Which is probably why you keep losing primaries.

[Turk182]

60. WTF

“ But we are certainly accustomed to the "no Jews allowed" demand that is implicit in your reply.”

I’m suggesting you delete that post, I am highly offended.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

62. That's a shame...

But you don't seem to consider the offense you're causing in others.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

66. Oh dear NT

[sarisataka]

82. OMG

?si=LSQW76tPPKmGYh1x

[Turk182]

65. I'll bite.

Post just ONE thing I posted that is offensive…
Waiting.
I asked you to delete

[BrianTheEVGuy]

67. I'm not going to waste time in an extended thread

You basically stated that anybody who disagreed with your objectively false assertion should not participate in your thread.

Since the vast majority of American Jews would disagree with your thread, it's pretty easy to "reduce the fraction."

[Turk182]

69. Wow.

“ you basically stated”

Cause you said so?
Cause you’re twisted interpretation?
Can you please delete that offensive post?

[Cha]

86. No he didn't "hijack it".. Hamas is part of Bush's history

in Congress. She voted against legislation that barred members of Hamas from entering the USA.

[yardwork]

90. So you're fine with all that?

And again, a vaguely threatening reference to "trains."

I see you.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Interestingly enough, there is another "that train is never late" comment that applies.

Chris Rock

[Torchlight]

92. I'm betting $10 you fail to see the irony on your making that assertion

[Cha]

87. TY.. And you Didn't "hijack the thread" Hamas is part of Bush's History

in Congress.. maybe part of Why she Lost to Wesley Bell.

She voted against legislation that barred members of Hamas from entering the USA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. You appear to be trying equate Jewish Americans with AIPAC

which is ridiculous.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

99. Uhhhhh

AIPAC is by far the largest Jewish American political organization. It's like saying that it's ridiculous to equate Black Americans to the NAACP or LGBT Americans to the Human Rights Campaign.

Just like hostility to the NAACP is usually driven by anti-Black racism, and hostility to the HRC is typically driven by homophobia, most opposition to AIPAC is motivated by antisemitism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. See, this is the problem. The 'I' in AIPAC stands for 'Israel'. There's no 'J' in it.

It is not a Jewish American organization. It is an organization to get support for another country. It is not designed, in any way, to be supportive of Americans; it's for Americans to support Israel. Its ethos is "Israel, right or wrong".

I'll post this again:

‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist Republicans

In December, Aipac launched a political action committee that enables it for the first time to spend money directly supporting congressional candidates in this year’s midterm elections. Earlier this month the committee released a list of 120 political endorsements that includes 37 Republicans who voted against certifying Biden’s victory after the January 6 storming of the Capitol.

Among them are two members of Congress, Jim Jordan and Scott Perry, who plotted with Trump’s White House to overturn the election result. Perry has also publicly promoted racist “white replacement” conspiracy theories.
...
The former head of the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, described the endorsements as a “sad mistake”. The former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, called on Aipac to reconsider the move and “do the right thing for America”.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America and a former national security adviser to then Senator Kamala Harris, said that Aipac’s endorsements suggest that, at times, “one must compromise support of America’s democracy to support Israel”.

“This is a patently false dichotomy rejected by the overwhelming majority of American Jews,” she wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/aipac-pro-israel-group-backs-insurrectionist-republicans

[BrianTheEVGuy]

101. Are you Jewish? NT

[Celerity]

103. Are you?

[BrianTheEVGuy]

107. Yes.

And you obviously aren't.

It's rather inappropriate of you to tell us what is or isn't Jewish. Stay in your lane.

[Celerity]

111. Number one, I am of partial Sephardic Jewish descent from my mum's side. Number two, do not EVER tell me to 'stay in my

lane'. Finally, number three, I did not tell anyone what is or isn't Jewish so I do not know what you are talking about.

So you saying this:

And you obviously aren't.

It's rather inappropriate of you to tell us what is or isn't Jewish. Stay in your lane.

is 100 per cent wrong and/or way out of bounds.

Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

117. There is no "of Jewish descent"

One is Jewish or one is not Jewish.

Are you Jewish?

[Celerity]

120. Of course there is. You asked the other poster (and apparently confused me with them) as if was was some sort of

gotcha question, some sort of litmus test, as if only people who meet your qualifications can comment.

You do not have the right to come up on this board and after a very short time here demand people to give you answers about very personal things, especially when the question was designed to try and falsely delegitimate.

I have always been open about my life's multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-national (born in the US in Los Angeles, raised in west London, now live in Stockholm Sweden, and as my father is Swedish, I have tripartite citizenship) background over my 6 plus years here on DU.

My grandmum (she is, as is my mum, from Barbados) is half Sephardic (via Portugal, through her mum, my great grandmother) Jewish and is a practising Jew. My mother and I are both atheists, so are not practising.

You do not have the right to try and take away my self-agency, my right to self-definition.

And I repeat, do not ever tell me to stay in my lane again, on any issue. I do take orders from you.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

121. So you're not Jewish, and you're lecturing Jews on what is Jewish. NT

[Celerity]

122. For the second time, where did I lecture Jews on what is Jewish? This is the 2nd time you've falsely accused me of that.

Clearly you either have me confused with another poster or you are just making up things out of whole cloth.

Number two, I, as I already explained, I am not a practising Jew, but I absolutely am of partial Jewish descent, which I also already explained.

You do not get to define me, nor can you wipe out a major part of my family tree, it really is that simple.

I absolutely reject, out of hand, your attempts to try and put me into (or take me out of) some straightjacketing box of delineation and boundaries you create.

Same thing goes for you trying to play ethno-religious reductionist, legitimacy-sapping, 'gotcha' attempts with the other poster.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

123. Weasel words

I'm Jewish. Others are Jewish.

"Of descent" is weasel wording.

Telling us what Judaism is when we are Jewish, and you have made an active decision not to be, is inappropriate.

[Celerity]

125. Bollocks, & you refuse to show yet again your false accusations where I told/lectured anyone about what's Jewish.

You falsely accused me here:

It's rather inappropriate of you to tell us what is or isn't Jewish. Stay in your lane.

and here:

you're lecturing Jews on what is Jewish.

And now a third time:

Telling us what Judaism is when we are Jewish

I never did any of that. You just made it up.

Plus you are now bringing Judaism the religion into the mix. I never commented on Judaism either.

Bad faith false accusations on parade.

Plus, (from the first quote above of your own words) the hubristic command from you telling me to 'stay in my lane', as if you have the power to bring posters here to heel.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

127. Lanes are real

White people shouldn't "explain the Black experience" to Black people.

Men shouldn't "explain female biology" to women.

Gentiles shouldn't tell Jews what is or is not Jewish.

Simple concept that most Democrats understand pretty easily.

[Celerity]

131. 4 times now with made-up false, evidence-free accusations against me. Going for 5?

Bad look, bad faith from your end.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

132. It's not about you

It's about lanes.

Non-Jews (including those "descended from Jews" ) shouldn't be lecturing Jews on what's authentically Jewish, just as men (including those "descended from women" ) shouldn't be lecturing women on what is legitimate female experience.

The whole point from the start -- which I think you know and are scrambling to avoid discussing -- is that some Gentiles are lecturing Jews on AIPAC and other Jewish institutions "not really being Jewish." They should stay in their lane, as they are not qualified to determine the "Jewishness" of anything and simply must defer to actual Jews in that matter.

[Celerity]

137. You have tried to re-write this entire colloquy

this is how it actually happened, in order:

1. You asked a question to another poster.

2. I asked you the same question (and said nothing more).

3. You then, with no evidence either way:

(A) said I was 'obviously' not Jewish (funny thing that, as I have not said anything that would lead you to claim that, as you have been on the board for 12 days or so and we had never interacted before this, at least not that I can recall),

(B) falsely accused me of trying to tell people what is or isn't Jewish (I had done no such thing, and never have)

and

(C) then said 'stay in your lane' based off no knowledge of me, and certainly did NOT have the right to issue commands to me.

All I had done up to that point was to ask you a simple question, the exact same one that you had asked another poster.

You have since went on to continue to falsely accuse me, over and over, of something I never did, never have done.

Your entire FIRST reply to me employed supposition, a false accusation, and then an attempt at big-footing me ('stay in your lane') all based upon no evidence.

You STILL have not shown where I (you accused me of this in your first reply to me, and have since repeated it) said anything that pertained to your initial accusation:

It's rather inappropriate of you to tell us what is or isn't Jewish.

I never once told anyone on this thread 'what is or isn't Jewish'.

You just made that up from the beginning, and continue to double, triple, quadruple down.

I was false the first time you made the accusation, and it is false now, despite you repeating it over and over.

And no, I will choose whatever lane I damn well wish to chose. You are not the arbiter of what area I can delved into, nor are you the controller of what I can or cannot say on this board. I will never, ever seed my agency to you.

[Diraven]

56. I think a big problem is

That it is so closely tied to the Israeli right-wing Likud party, and has essentially become a tool for wealthy right-wing Americans to help them remain in power. Personally I don't think that's in the best interest of either country.

[Sky Jewels]

59. Is water wet?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

61. Kind of off topic, but growing up, my dad had a case of dehydrated water, on the side of the cans

it said just add water.

[Bucky]

70. That's kind of their whole purpose as an organization

Well see how they act when there's a Labor government. They're definitely pro-Likud, maybe to their right

[ibegurpard]

72. Yes

Hamas are terrorists.
The Netanyahu regime is right-wing authoritarian.
Israel has a problem with an ascendant right wing just like the United States does.
Criticism of Israel does not equate to anti-semitism.
There are lots of disruptors and genuinely ignorant tunnel-vision protesters pushing anti-semitic propaganda.
AIPAC is a lobbying organization specifically to promote the interests of Israel. Lobbying is obviously a problematic issue with the political system in our country.
Cori Bush had other issues besides her anti-Israel stances.
All these things can be true at once.
Stop playing alert gotcha people. It's getting really tiresome.

[RandiFan1290]

77. Yes

Same people that called us antisemitic for being against the Iraq invasion.

[TheKentuckian]

106. I got called all kinds of vile shit for opposing that invasion

but never once was I called antisemitic nor do I recall such used at all.

I'm not saying it didn't happen to you but that is not even vaguely my experience.

[Mosby]

78. This thread reminds me of that infamous cali OP.

Most people here won't get the reference.

Lots of changes that day.

[H2O Man]

79. Reminds me of

Three Billy Goats Gruff.

[yardwork]

85. Yep.

[sarisataka]

83. I can hear it

[yardwork]

84. What a ridiculous post.

Plenty of Democrats - including many Jewish people - criticize Israel all the time. Nobody demonizes them.

And your vague fear-mongering about a PAC is noted. "Not America." Noted.

[iemanja]

112. Of course they do

As Israelis criticize their government’s actions. AIPAC, however, seeks to enforce absolute fealty to Likud— perhaps because it currently controls Israel’s government.

[H2O Man]

115. Walt Starr

has arisen.

[Bettie]

89. Of course they are

it is what the organization was created to do. it lobbies for Israeli interests, even if those goals are contrary to the interests of the US.

[B.See]

94. "Is AIPAC trying to silence criticism of Israel?" Do bears..........?

[JanMichael]

102. Obviously yes

[Iggo]

104. LOL.

[iemanja]

110. Do birds fly?

[AntiFascist]

114. Netanyahu has turned this into a binary choice...

either you support Hamas and the destruction of Israel or you support Israeli government and the destruction of the Palestinian threat. There is nothing in between.

The real solution is to remove Netanyahu.

[CincyDem]

133. Unfortunately, we don't get to make that choice.

Israel is stuck with Bibi until October 2026 in the same way that we were stuck with Trump until Jan 2021. Until then, in absence of the proverbial act of god, so is the world. Hopefully, the masses protesting in the Israeli streets turn into votes. Unfortunately, Israel has been dominated by center-right to right-wing coalitions for almost 30 years.

The issue often seems to be the inability of the left to form a governing coalition among the 20+ political parties vs. the right’s willingness (really Bibi’s willingness) to reach further and further right to create a coalition.

What most of us don’t realize in the US is the Bibi, for all his immeasurable faults, is the furthest left in his coalition government. The rest of those guys are so far right it’ll make your hair curl. So that coalition isn’t going to fall anytime before the scheduled election for any reason.

So there is no “remove Netanyahu” option…any more than there was a “remove Trump” option. Sure - on paper those paths exist but in the real world, where politics matter…not happening.







_

[AntiFascist]

138. Netanyahu is highly dependent on military support from the US...

and, as such, is dependent on the balance of power in the US Congress as well as the US presidency. AIPAC understands this, but do they really have a stake in the best interests of the Israeli people or are there other forces at work? Notice how Trump kowtows to US oil interests, and there has always been the longstanding greed over controlling Iran's massive oil reserves which are the 4th largest in the world.

[obamanut2012]

126. Yes, I do

I am glad Cori Bush lost her primary, but yes.

[RandySF]

128. No

[osteopath6]

129. Nope.

Nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

130. Yes. They are Netinyahu's "influencers"

One can see it on message boards and other internet media.

It's not really a secret.

[David__77]

134. AIPAC should be shunned. Shameful

[Bobstandard]

136. Ya think?

I know this must have been said upthread, but, what else is their mission? No hard feelings but that’s what they do!

[Grins]

139. "Is?" When have they not?

Going back to the Truman administration! Israel has effed with our elections as much as Russia.

[JoseBalow]

140. "Thank you for your consideration, you will find the alert button below."

Account status: Flagged for review

[progree]

142. Might not be coming back from this one any time soon

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=26575

See last 2 paragraphs