It is time America stops being held hostage by Jewish lobby.

[Gryphons Eyre]

Concerning the issue, "Pro-Israel Lobbyists Push to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill"

I am appalled at how blatant the Jewish lobby has become in America. It has come to the point that anyone who questions the motive or even the consequences of our policy concerning Israel and the Middle East is branded anti-semitic.

As was the most telling reason for going to war in Iraq was the "a clean break for Israel" paper written by Douglas Feith for Binyamin "bibi" Netanyahu in 1996 so too is the obvious intension of war with Iran spelled out in this paper "A War for Israel."

This is more then an indictment of how American policy is being manipulated by a foreign government, it is absolutely critical to the survival of the United States and the world. This is already referred to by Israeli/American neocons and hawks as WWIII and it will be unless congress has the courage to stand up for America for a change.

g

[The Sushi Bandit]

1. Agreed

nuff said...

[ima_sinnic]

2. my sentiments exactly.

but good luck dodging the inevitable bullets that will soon fly here.

[babylonsister]

3. I agree, and this will get shunted off to the I/P group, but I do think

it's a big gorilla in the room that needs to be discussed. It's just hard for many people to do without giving or taking offense; it's a very emotional issue. I just wish we could keep it soley political.

[MADem]

4. American policy being manipulated by a foreign government

The Saudis do that, too--they turn the spigot on and off, depending on how well we dance to their tune.

The Chinese are getting the spirit, as well.

We aren't much of a superpower anymore. We're more like a tethered giant.

[DemBones DemBones]

50. So true. We should discuss all of the countries that

exert strong influence on our country.

[Lost-in-FL]

5. IBTL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:popcorn:

[wryter2000]

30. Me, too

Pass the :popcorn:, and I'll pour you a :beer:

[youngdem]

6. Yep...You better don that flame suit though

It's gonna get hot in here once the blind apologists show up and start telling you how Israel is immune from international laws and norms and cannot under any circumstances be accused of anything at all untoward, otherwise you are an unapologetic anti-Semite.

Our friendship with Israel is one sided and dangerous for us and the world. Israel needs to learn to play nice with their neighbors, and having the US bully backing them up everyday gets us no closer.

[LeftishBrit]

22. I am NO blind apologist for Israel, and I agree that they need to follow international laws and

norms, and that they are doing a lot of things that are untoward.

However, accusations of Jewish conspiracies, or implying that all Jews -even or especially those outside Israel - have some sort of all-powerful lobby that are exerting some sort of sinister influence on the world *is* anti-semitic.

[patrice]

31. Lobby probably IS a bad choice of words.

Not that there isn't a lobby, but that lobbying alone doesn't account for where we're headed. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; it has a life of its own at this point, so it doesn't need a conspiracy.

[wryter2000]

32. Ding, ding, ding

We have a winner. Pro-Israel is not the same thing as Jewish. There are lots and lots of fundies who are pro-Israel, and it isn't out of love for Jewish people.

[maggiegault]

118. I'm A Jew. I'm Not Offended.

The pro-Israel lobby IS something for every American who wants peace in the Middle East to be concerned about.

Telling the truth is not anti-Semitic.

[villager]

121. Note you said "pro-Israel" lobby and not "Jewish lobby..."

n/t

[Ghost Dog]

183. "Telling the truth is not anti-Semitic."

Thanks very much, maggiegault. You speak truth.

If "Hellenic-Romano-Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture needs to understand anything, it should understand that historical Truth.

(With respect towards more "Eastern" family & friends).

Just ask, for example, Pythagoras (or Euclid).

[villager]

7. sorry, the Israeli Lobby is not the "Jewish lobby"

Why do so-called liberals always -- always -- think it's okay to conflate all Jews, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-like, with the excesses of Israeli government or military policy?

those of us who are Jewish, and critical of Israel, are really "homeless" in this debate, since apparently, the "Jewish lobby" is a single, monolithic entity -- you know, when we're not busy running all the banks or controlling all the media...

[NYCGirl]

9. Or, as Mel Gibson might suggest,

we're busy starting all the wars.

[villager]

12. apparently, the OP is suggesting the same thing!

n/t

[wryter2000]

34. Please accept this apology from a non-Jew

I can't believe I saw something like this on DU, and I feel sure it'll be shut down quickly.

[annabanana]

15. You are right about this: Language Matters...

It is important that we make the differentiation between the Israeli Lobby (which is accurate), and the "Jewish Lobby" (which is not) abundantly clear.

To conflate the two ties us to the radical right that is ALWAYS more than happy to scapegoat Jews.

[villager]

20. very well put

n/t

[ToolTex]

18. Why homeless? Are you not an American?

[villager]

21. well, thanks, and indeed I am. Though I guess being "Jewish"

trumps that, according to the OP.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[villager]

28. you mean, "special needs" the way any lobbying group does?

As for the "numbers" thing -- so our mideast policy should be calibrated solely on how many Jews there are in the world?

[Mind_your_head]

37. Absolutely not to this comment:

"so our mideast policy should be calibrated solely on how many Jews there are in the world?"

No. That's not what I'm saying at all (and I think you know that).

[villager]

42. frankly, I didn't know that, but I appreciate the clarification.

Thanks!

[Robson]

163. Middle East Policy

In my humble view our Middle East policy should be what is in the interest of the USA at large. I believe it should be 100% neutral between all parties so that we can be an effective arbiter. We should end carte blanche support for Israel, including our most advanced weapons systems. Our billions in foreign aid payments to both Israel and Arab countries should end. We're the last of the big time spenders and we can no longer afford it, because it's all going on a credit card from China and Europe and Japan.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Sorry, I will attack any attempt to imply that ANY ethnic group is exerting excessive and sinister

power just as an ethnic group, or that it has loyalties that trump those of its country, or that it is responsible for a lot of the world's evils!!!

I oppose the attempts in the UK and elsewhere to blame everything on immigrants and asylum-seekers, and to imply that they cannot be fully loyal to Britain.

I oppose the Bush government's tendency to blame everything on 'Islamo-fascists' and to imply that Moslems are attempting to take over the West.

I oppose the attitude of right-wing Israeli politicians that Palestinians are by nature terrorists, and that the way to ensure Israeli security is to crush them.

And I oppose the idea that there is a powerful and monolithic Jewish lobby that is leading America by the nose, and wants to drag them into World War III.

I will oppose racist policies and racist conspiracy-theories, and resentments directed at any ethnic group, wherever they come from, and whoever they may concern. This is not a 'special need' of any particular ethnic group: it is a basic right of ALL individuals and ethnic groups.

[robinlynne]

58. Get this straight. the special interest pro-israel group is not JEWS. or even

Jewish. Some are. some aren't. This is a very specific rightwing political organization. That is like substituting the words white women for republicans. Two distinct groups of people.

[rinsd]

69. Your kidding right. Jews have control therefore anti-semticism is justified?

[WildEyedLiberal]

94. Well they do control the banks and Hollywood

:eyes:

Seriously, the anti-Semitism here is vomit-inducing.

[villager]

125. what's astonishing is when you consider the slight "offenses" the mods pounce on...

yet the original topic heading here: hunky-dory!

[LeftishBrit]

26. Great post, Villager!

[villager]

29. thanks -- surprised I was the first to say it, but it needs saying...

n/t

[rodeodance]

46. I understand that, Yet. wehn people say "Dems" or Repugs or women or

the US or Islam or whatever broad category, there are always people withing these groups that do not fit the 'meaning' of the category.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Yes. And for that very reason...

I would *also* strongly oppose any attempt to imply that 'women' or 'Moslems' or the 'US' are holding the world or my country hostage. (And by the way, in many ways Bush - NOT the US - HAS been exerting a bad influence on my country's government. But I can distinguish between the nationality and the government!!!)

Republicans and Democrats are in a slightly different category as they are purely political entities, which people belong to by choice as a means of influencing policy, rather than representing genders, religions, ethnic groups, or countries to which people belong by birth or chance rather than by choice.

[independentpiney]

49. It always amazes me

how some people slide so seamlessly between 'Israeli', 'Zionist' and 'Jewish' in their language and mix valid criticism of Israeli policy and lobbying with conspiracy theories, and then can't figure out how they could be called anti-semitic.

[BonnieJW]

63. You have to keep it separate.

Jewish is a religion. Israel is an independent state. Zionism is a philosophy. bush is an idiot.

[MADem]

60. And don't overlook

baking that bread with the blood of Xtian babies, either!

It is an odious thing, to "lump" in that fashion. It's also the most un-liberal thing anyone could possibly do. It makes debate impossible, because there's no parsing, no nuance, to be had.

[Recursion]

106. Because

Why do so-called liberals always -- always -- think it's okay to conflate all Jews, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-like, with the excesses of Israeli government or military policy?

Because the state of Israel has used its essentially Jewish character as a bludgeon against all critics for several decades now, and as far as I have seen ** the Jewish and Israeli left have done almost nothing to counteract that.

** I'm sure plenty have done a lot, but very little has reached my ears and eyes.

[Morgana LaFey]

135. I'm a so-called liberal (to use your terminology) and I don't fit your

characterization at all. Further, I know a lot of people just like me.

I'm not any happier about being insultingly lumped into a group like you describe than you claim to be about being "homeless." In fact, you've just called me an anti-Semite, and I rather resent that.

It makes me madder than I'd otherwise be since I'm also fed up to here of being bullied by folks who are rabidly pro-Israeli/AIPAC lobby, and who ALSO want to call me and those like me anti-Semites because we dare criticize the Israeli state, or Likudniks or dare to think Palestinians could be treated just a wee bit better by their keepers.

Your gratuitous and wrong-headed slur frankly erodes any potential support of mine for what you are otherwise saying. Put another way: Yep, no home for you here at my place, either, since you insist on insulting me that way.

[kestrel91316]

8. Yikes.

:popcorn:

[Ralpho]

11. Maybe Borat was right.

[Esra Star]

103. Ralpho, welcome to DU. What an interesting thread to post on

so early. I am just sitting back watching. So far it is all predictable.

[patrice]

10. Strongly agree. The fact that many Americans want to see Israel survive

is becoming an affirmation of WWIII. And if you asked all of those Americans who respond that the Muslim world should not destroy Israel whether that should include WWIII if "necessary", they'd most likely say No.

A self-fulfilling prophecy has been built on the history of murder between Israel and Palestine: "Israel/Palestine wants to kill us, therefore we must kill Palestine/Israel first" which makes Israel/Palestine want to kill Palestine/Israel. Certainly it isn't the whole population of both countries that think this way, but that doesn't matter anymore.

[patrice]

13. Is there ANY chance of ANY candidate saying, "Free Palestine"? n/t

[Greyhound]

55. An excellent one, in fact. We already have one and his name is Dennis Kucinich.

"Congressman Kucinich not only supports statehood for the Palestinians, thus removing the single greatest source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim world, but is the only candidate that has a clearly- defined plan for ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing our troops home within 90 days of his election. Dennis Kucinich is also the only candidate that has a plan for creating a just and lasting peace in both Iraq and Palestine." - http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/Feb/28%20o/Kucinich%20on%20Palestine%20By%20George%20Karsa.htm">By George Karsa - Al-Jazeerah, Feb 28, 2004

Once again, DK is on top of it, on the right side of the issue, and with a plan to make it happen.

[DemBones DemBones]

Kucinich will be McKinneyed then.

This country is so screwed. I'm beginning to think the fundies, neo-cons, and Israelis will succeed in bringing on the end of the world.

Disclaimer: I do not include ALL fundies, ALL neo-cons, or ALL Israelis in that statement. Wait, I DO include all neo-cons.

[demnan]

14. I prefer the term Pro-Israel Lobby

I know a lot of Jews who don't sanction what goes on over there, there are some non-Jewish people who are a big part of it too.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. .

[Recursion]

130. I feel the same way about non-right-wing Jewish people...

...that I do about non-right-wing Christian people:

If you're going to stick with an identity that so many absolute stark raving nutcases have turned into an excuse for bloodshed and horror, you shouldn't expect me to respect that decision. And you shouldn't expect me not to take others who willingly keep that sullied mantle to task for what their correligionists do.

I think religious and ethnic identities are a combination of crutches and yokes that very powerful people perpetuate to keep their power. I don't particularly respect people who buy into them as a rule, though there are some who have overcome that judgment from me. I think if in this day and age people are still orienting their identity and morality around the mistranslated scribblings of insane shepherds about their imaginary friend from millenia ago, I don't really owe them much but contempt. Particularly if they're insane enough to actually base policy in the international arena on those scribblings.

[Ghost Dog]

16. ...The breaking of the ancient Western code... (L. Cohen: "The Future"):

LEONARD COHEN LYRICS

"The Future"

Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it's lonely here,
there's no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that's an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I'm the little jew
who wrote the Bible
I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It's over, it ain't going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil's riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder

Things are going to slide ...

There'll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin'

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder

Things are going to slide ...

When they said REPENT REPENT ...

[patrice]

27. I can actually hum the tune to that one. n/t

[onenote]

17. Concerning the issue? Link please

The OP refers in quotes to the "issue" of "Pro-Israel Lobbyists Push to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill".

This appears to be a reference to a news article or opinion piece, but there is no link. It would be nice to see the story that underlies the issue that is cited by the OP.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Funny how a group that represents ONE faction of opinion in Israel...

is being treated as 'the Jewish lobby'.

I suppose that Peace Now in Israel, and Jewish Voice for Peace in America and internationally, are NOT Jewish lobbies?

As I understand it, American Jews are on average more anti-war than most other groups in America. The Christian Right has FAR more leverage in American politics than any Jewish lobby.

FWIW, I have an intense dislike of the current Israeli government, and I do feel that the current American government is biased in its approach to Middle Eastern politics. But it seems to me that the current Israeli government is much more manipulated by Bush, than manipulating him. Bush wants to control everything that happens in the Middle East, and Israel is currently useful to him (just as Britain has been useful to him).

The idea that there are a lot of dangerous powerful Jews controlling the world is just the sort of thing that led to pogroms throughout history, and the rise of Hitler and ultimately the Holocaust. It reminds me of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Criticize the Israeli government, and the American government's Middle Eastern policies, all you want - I will mostly do the same - but please attribute these policies to their perpetrators, rather than to some sinister and shadowy Jewish conspiracy.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

25. I think you mean Israeli lobby. n/t

[stellanoir]

33. My fantasy is to bring in the Swiss Guards (gotta love their outfits). . .

turn Jerusalem into and International Zone and amusement park (multidenominational of course) for ten years until all the hot heads get over it and then figure it out.

[patrice]

36. We do need a link GE, to the Pelosi bit. Please & Thanks.

And Welcome to the DU :hi:

[babylonsister]

39. Here, patrice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3153131&mesg_id=3153131

[patrice]

40. Thanks babylonsister, I'm seeing my representative tomorrow,

along with a couple of friends, and maybe I should ask him about this. Must read up.

[bonito]

38. Pro Israel lobby, wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac

[struggle4progress]

41. What a disgustingly anti-semitic post. Are you unable to distinguish between ...

... (1) people who are (a) culturally or (b) observantly Jewish, (2) people with Zionist political views, and (3) people who live in Israel? And is there any credible reason to believe that some hidden cabal of conspirators loyal for some reason to a foreign power controls US government policy?

[annabanana]

45. Please read the thread... the distinction has been made there.

We know the difference.

[ToolTex]

43. " AIPAC came in 2nd - ahead of, for instance, the AFL-CIO and the NRA, but behind the AARP."

Wonderful. The most powerful influence on our government is an insurance company marketing to old people; and the second has as their primary interest a foreign government.

By definition, doesn't a pro-Israeli lobby have as their primary interest the interests of a foreign government? So shouldn't Americans supporting such an organization, in this time of our national war on terra, be considered treasonous?

[onenote]

52. rather bizarre notion of treason

Are you assuming that the interests of any foreign government are adverse to those of the US. Officially, Israel is considered an ally of the US, so the notion that it is treason to promote their interests seems somewhat extreme.

[ToolTex]

68. No. You inverted the supposition. But whenever a foreign interest might not be

in the best interest of the United States but so lobbied. Can we be assured that this situation can never happen? So then what should we conclude about American supporters?

[onenote]

74. So would those who don't lobby on for a foreign government

but take the same positions as AIPAC also be traitors? If so, then what does lobbying for a foreign government have to do with it?

[robinlynne]

44. I am jewish. I am an atheist. I am against the iraq war. have always been. i am against the right

in israel, the same way as I am against the right in the US. actually, no. Much more worried about the US right, who are MUCH more dangerous.
This post made me want to vomit. before I even read it. more so now. I immediately thought it was from a freeper, and I'm sad to see that it is not.

[LeftishBrit]

48. Ditto here RobinLynne!

[wryter2000]

51. Mega-dittoes n/t

n/t

[robinlynne]

53. Right on Brit. Racism is bad stuff. you can feel it right in your gut when it comes at you.

[Greyhound]

57. You do realize that all sides in this issue are Semitic people, don't you?

I'm just asking, because, you know, it's true.

[rockymountaindem]

65. Please, not this shit again

Read a history of the word "anti-Semitic" before you bring that whole "everybody's a semite" into it.

[robinlynne]

66. what issue? the issue is that of a specific lobbying group in washington who

is for a war with Iran. neocons? white conservative christians? orthodox jews? I really don't know who is in the lobbying group we are talking about.

[Greyhound]

79. The issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the inevitable charges of racism

that follow. How can racism be a factor when everybody is of the same race?

Just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, the knee-jerk charge racism is the refuge of those without an argument.

[robinlynne]

96. I'm not in a discussion about the arab-israeli conflict. neither is anyone else on

this board.

[rinsd]

84. And you do realize that is a canard which was hatched by the RW

Anti-semiticism as a phrase was not coined to describe bigotry towards all Semitic people's but rather Jews specifically.

It has always meant that. The meaning has not changed over the years. The "true meaning" has not been lost. Its revisionist BS.

[bonito]

54. I agree this is sad, off the cuff without thought

As much of the world sees us through the actions of the neocons.

[Virginia Dare]

47. Saudis too...

what the Saudis are doing to us is nothing short of blackmail.

[Greyhound]

62. Another great observation. Imagine, looking at facts and stating them,

right out in the open, even. I have noticed that those who have this habit of objective observation and statement of fact, constitute a small minority here, the same names over and over.

Congratulations, I salute you:patriot:

[DemBones DemBones]

129. Yes way upthread MADem posted about China and Saudi Arabia

and Israel ALL having too much control over the U.S.

I'm glad you mentioned it again.

[Unvanguard]

56. Um... what "Jewish lobby"? n/t

[JohnLocke]

59. Fuck you.

You're an antisemitic moron.

[rinsd]

64. Well for one you could refer to the group as pro-Israeli instead of Jewish

Maybe then you wouldn't come off as anti-semitic.

[robinlynne]

70. not just pro-israel, but a specific group of rightwing lobbyists....

[rinsd]

72. Exactly beyond pro-israel. More like fanatical right wing pro-Israel (nt)

[ProudDad]

67. Your subject line should have been

It is time America stops being held hostage by the zionist Israeli lobby...

A large minority of Israeli's would agree with that sentiment...

[GoneOffShore]

71. Are you going to be posting a link to

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

:sarcasm:

There is no "Jewish" lobby, there IS an Israeli lobby.

Perhaps you should consider that before posting threads that perpetuate slurs against everyone who is Jewish.

[rockymountaindem]

73. What the hell is this thread doing not being locked at this point?

Again, it's the Jews who started the Iraq war, it's the Jews who want war with Iran, etc...

It never ceases to amaze me how our little band of 13 million people continually get the blame, from some people, for practically everything that goes on in the world that is to the dissatisfaction of said people. News flash, genius, Jews are the most solidly anti-Iraq war group in the US, and voted 87% for Democrats in the last election. Just because there are a few Jewish neocons doesn't mean that "The Jewish lobby" is in favor of more and more war.

Also, I really like threads like this in which everybody else has loads and loads of solutions for all the issues facing the Jews of America and the world today, because obviously we aren't qualifed to make up our own minds about what's in our best interest, vis-a-vis Israel or any other issue. It's always "Israel/the Jews need to do this..." Come on everybody.

Oh, and fuck you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. Right on

:applause:

Every single Jew I know is anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, and pretty much the opposite of a neocon. And I know a lot of Jews, so it kind of stands to reason I'd know at least one or two pro-Bush ones, right? Wrong.

All I can say is that Jews must be the most intimidating people on the planet since they terrify both right and left wing fanatics to the point of hysteria. :eyes:

By the way, rockymountaindem, don't forget to attend your Zionist World Conspiracy meeting so you can set into further motion the global Zionist New World Order.

[rockymountaindem]

168. Well, since this POS thread still ain't locked for some reason

(gee, I wonder what that could be :sarcasm: ), I'll just say that sometimes I wish the progressives who want "less Jewish influence" could get their wish for one election cycle. Since it's not right that we Jews have such a disproportionate influence, I think that for awhile Jews should make sure that their representation in the political system is more proportional. Thus, I propose the following...

Rep. Waxman, Rep Nadler, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, Rep. Wexler and Rep. Emmanuel and all but three of the Jews of the US Congress should resign. Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Feingold, Sen. Sanders Sen. Wyden and Sen. Boxer should all resign. Senator Wellstone's name shall no more be spoken. Spielberg, Geffen, Soros and all of the "big Jewish money" should all stop giving donations to Democratic candidates and progressive causes. All them Jewish lawyers, same thing. The ACLU, whose director is Jewish, should fold up shop. Most of all, Jews should only allow members of their community to vote in proportion with the overall US voter turnout, so instead of having way above average voter turnout, we should allow no more than 55% of Jews to vote. Say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of Jewish votes in key areas.

So, say goodbye to all our fine Jewish Democrats in Congress, the Jewish leadership of groups important to the Democratic and progressive causes, and plenty and plenty of votes. After all, we wouldn't want the Jews to be disproportionately represented in our society or our movement. That would be bad, wouldn't it?

[sellitman]

175. Rockymountain....

Thanks! You spoke my mind.

Sometimes the Anti-Semitic rhetoric on DU is astounding.

[ToolTex]

75. Might the confusion here be because AIPAC occasionally supports the interests of Israel

over the interests of the United States, and that the majority of Jewish American's support AIPAC?

[rinsd]

77. Therefore its okay to conflate Jews with Pro-Israel rwers?

The only confusion is deliberate muddying of the waters.

This is why the left has been geeting a bad rap about anti-semiticism.

The inability of some on this side of the aisle to seperate a political belief from a people.

Would you conflate all Muslims with some of the more fanatical branches that wish to install Sharia by just saying Muslim lobbying group seeks Sharia law installation?

Do you not know of the history of the accusations leveled against Jews as a people that have led to great suffering on their part?

Do you not understand why this is a sensitive issue?

[robinlynne]

81. the majority of jewish americans support AIPAC? Where did you find

that little tidbit?
Personally I never even heard of AIPAC until today.

[ToolTex]

90. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government in favor of maintaining a close US-Israel relationship. Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," it is a mass-membership organization including both Jews and non-Jews. AIPAC was formed during the Eisenhower administration, and since then has helped secure American aid and support to Israel. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked Congressmen to rank the "25 most powerful" lobbying organizations in DC. In 2005, the National Journal did the same. Both times, AIPAC came in 2nd - ahead of, for instance, the AFL-CIO and the NRA, but behind the AARP. In 2001, it came in 4th on the Fortune list, cementing its reputation for effectiveness.

This thread is relevant now because it is being reported that AIPAC is strong-arming Dems in Congress against war stopping legislation.

[NYCGirl]

91. Where does it say anything about the "majority of Jewish Americans"? NT

[ToolTex]

95. You are right, it actually doesn't. As 2nd most powerful mass-membership lobby,

somebody must support it, probably Muslims, ya think?

[NYCGirl]

97. Perhaps it has to do with money and not with numbers. I'd say that most

American Jews don't even know what AIPAC is.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

117. Maybe its all those christians? seeing that jews are a whole, what 2% of the US?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

76. ohhhhh those evil jews! killing christian babies for their blood to make matzah

:eyes:

[David Zephyr]

78. What an ignorant thread and originating post.

I don't even know where to begin. You might look for another website other than the DU to post such nonsense.

[villager]

110. and yet 30 recommendations, and the original subject header stands...

Makes you wonder about DUers...

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

80. its anti-christian on DU when you generalize the crazy Evangelicals to represent all christians

it is anti-semitic when you generalize "Pro-Israel Lobbyists" to the "Jewish Lobby"

[robinlynne]

83. rightwing pro-israel lobbyists. I am pro-israel. I am definitely against any

aggression against Iran, Iraq, or any other country! Israel has a left and a right just like all countries.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

88. I was pointing out that the article the OP is referencing has "Pro-Israel Lobbyists" in the title

but he found it necessary to change it to "Jewish Lobby"

[robinlynne]

93. got it.

[smoogatz]

82. Crudely reasoned, crudely put.

Too bad there's no "subtract-a-rec" button. Still, there's a kernel here--I think many anti-war Americans are aware of the well-documented link between the pro-ISRAEL lobby (AIPAC, particularly) and the invasion of Iraq. To the extent that it's possible to know what Bushco's true motivations were for the invasion, I think it's safe to say oil and Israel were the top two, in that order. Beware lumping the entire Jewish community in with those who espouse Zionist expansionism, though--you'd find a great many Jews who reject expansionism, and a great many American evangelicals in very powerful positions who embrace it.

And can I say--I'm kind of shocked that this thing even made it to the greatest page, let alone garnered 25 recs. Shameful.

[rockymountaindem]

85. Yep, shameful

But it seems there's a large body of people on this website who think that a great deal of RW lunacy originates with "Jews" who are "acting on behalf of Israel" or somesuch. It doesn't even take anything to bring it up, just a post like this. Reminds me of this summer, unfortunately.

[Cameron27]

86. Here's were a negative rating would come in handy,

but locking this damned thing would be best.

[robinlynne]

87. oil, and money were the top two reasons. Not in that order.

[smoogatz]

89. Oil=money.

Listing them as two separate reasons would be redundant.

[robinlynne]

92. no. the iraq "reconstruction". billions for halliburton et al. Additional billions for

the building up of the military which was a PNAC plan independent of big oil. As you know, the neocons and big oil are two separate groups working together. All profit in different ways. so oil does not equal money. keeping Iraqi oil unused is one of MANY money producing plans.

[smoogatz]

104. Chickenfeed.

Iraq's oil reserves are worth $12-16 trillion, with a "t." The windfall for Halliburton is the icing, not the cake.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

99. Why did you feel it necessary to change "Pro-Israel Lobbyists" to "Jewish Lobby"?

[DemBones DemBones]

100. Why do liberals always

shout "anti-Semitism" when someone tries to discuss the power that AIPAC has? Can anyone deny that it is essential to have AIPAC's support to be elected to public office in the U.S., at least at the national level?

AIPAC is the pro-Israeli lobby. Is it bad form to call it the Jewish lobby? Let's think about it.

"Jewish lobby" could mean "lobby made up mostly or entirely of Jews" OR it could mean "lobby in favor of the Jewish people having a homeland in Israel," which seems to me to be basically the same as "pro-Israeli."

When people say they're "pro-Israeli," they're not thinking about the Christians and Muslims who live in Israel, but about the Jews who live in Israel, aren't they? Israel was established in 1948 as a Jewish state. I think "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Jewish" often mean the same thing to people who intend no offense to Jews or Israel.

We don't know which meaning for "Jewish lobby" the OP intended. He/she did use the term "Pro-Israel Lobby," too. This is a new poster so I think it's safe to say that most of us know nothing about his/her intentions about any issue. The poster never said "Jews control all the banks" or "control the media," he/she never mentioned a "cabal" or the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- other people, alleging anti-semitism, threw those terms into the thread.


All the indignation about anti-Semitism has become a red herring that distracts from the poster's thesis, which I read as:

1) a foreign government should not have as much power over our government as Israel does over the U.S.

2) a lobby supporting a foreign government should not have as much power as AIPAC does in the U.S.


MADem made the point early in the thread that Saudi Arabia and China also have too much influence on the United States. Is that an anti-Saudi or anti-Muslim statement? Is it a statement that is anti-Chinese, anti-the various religions and ethnic groups in China? Or is it just a statement of political and economic fact that influences our lives?

If we all agree that AIPAC is a pro-Israeli lobby made up of Jewish and Christian people, and agree not to mention "the Jewish lobby " or "the pro-Israeli lobby," using "AIPAC" exclusively to refer to the lobby, could we discuss the influence AIPAC has on U.S. politics?

Could we also discuss the influence that China, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have on the U.S., in a separate thread?

Could we have another thread discussing anti-Semitism and not bring it into the other two threads?

Or do we just want to have a circular firing squad?

[robinlynne]

102. no. when you want to talk about a specific rapper who said a specific thing, can

you say "black people' speak a certain way?
when you want to talk about the christian right, do you say "americans"?

Do not say that a rightwing lobbyist group represents me or my family. no matter how you want to come to that conclusion. we are not all the same.


Al Gore represents me. Conyers represents me. Russ Feingold represents me. and I don't even know if they like lox.

[DemBones DemBones]

107. Where did I say Jews were all the same?

Where did I say AIPAC spoke for all Jews? Where did the OP say any of that?

Please, take a few deep breaths and read what I actually said again.


I like lox, by the way, but I like latkes and hamantaschen (sp.?) better.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

114. By starting a thread with the title America is in the grips of the "Jewish Lobby"

when what they are referencing has a title of "Pro-Israel Lobby"

[DemBones DemBones]

116. So the OP is confused -- shall we kill him?

Or is he/she allowed another chance?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

120. Maybe if he stuck around to defend his points we would know,

but from what I see, saying a lobby represents an entire religion of people is pretty offensive

[DemBones DemBones]

164. I wish that

you could see that a person may reason this way:

A) Israel is a Jewish state

B) AIPAC is a pro-Israeli lobby

therefore

C) AIPAC is a Jewish lobby

It's an error in logic. It's a false conclusion.

But it's a further error in logic to conclude that the OP is an anti-Semite. He could just be someone who made an error in logic. You posted that his wife's a DUer and he's new to the forums. Considering that his wife is a DUer, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt, unless you know for sure that the wife is anti-Semitic.

I do understand that this is a sensitive issue for you. I'm Catholic and Catholics are maligned here at DU on a regular basis. It's hard not to get angry even when the maligning is fairly mild. I am on your side when posts are clearly anti-Semitic. I alert on posts that show obvious prejudice against any group.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

172. Am I confused If I say all Arabs are terrorists? or Faggot isn't offensive?

I think we all live in an age when its clear what is meant behind language. He made a conscious decision to title his post Jewish Lobby. I appreciate your sentiment. But I just don't buy confusion as excuse.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

128. And if I started a thread saying, DAMN ALL THOSE CHRISTIANS

but then in the body spoke only spoke of Fred Phleps' Chruch, would I just be confused?

[Behind the Aegis]

140. I bet your "bones" would get jumped on for that type of "confusion!"

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

142. oh the confusion, my fingers slipped and I wrote Jew instead of Pro-Israel

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

148. heehee....

I am thinking he forgot where he was posting. :evilgrin: I am sure David Duke would agree with his post (as do others here, sadly).

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

152. .

10 recs. for Pro-Israel Lobby
33 recs. for Jewish Lobby holding America hostage

[Behind the Aegis]

154. Scary, huh?

Yet, it is all in our head (anti-Semitism on the left). :eyes:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

161. its unbelievable and it saddens me

x(

[Behind the Aegis]

166. You do remember this, yes?

DU group proposal: Jewish group

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

174. oy.

sadly, I put it out of mind...maybe I shouldn't have

[DemBones DemBones]

185. No, you'd be far more confused. nt

[Flarney]

115. What?

I'm confused. So do you think it IS or IS NOT ok to discuss the issue of whether or not a foreign-based lobbying group (of whatever ethnicity/nationality) has too strong an influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the United States?

I think it was pretty clear that DemBones was not conflating Jewish/Israeli, nor was he/she excusing doing so.

[DemBones DemBones]

171. Thank you for actually reading what I wrote.

You may be the only one who has. :peace:

[smoogatz]

112. It's fine to argue that AIPAC and the Israeli government

have too much influence on U.S. foreign policy. It's the OP's blanket identification of AIPAC and the current Israeli government's expansionist agenda with everything/everyone Jewish that's offensive. You can support Israel and believe in its right to exist without agreeing with everything its government does (and without being Jewish), just as you can be a loyal American while rejecting our current foreign policy. That's not so hard, right?

[robinlynne]

124. Thank-you.

[smoogatz]

134. No thanks necessary.

This stuff ought to be self-evident. Cripes. If I hadn't seen this thread with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. Damned demoralizing--as is the mods' evident decision to let it stand. Makes me feel like a bit of a stranger here, suddenly.

[DemBones DemBones]

182. Thank you for actually reading what I wrote.

If the OP intended to be anti-Semitic, he is wrong. Since the thread hasn't been locked, I'm guessing the mods don't think the OP was anti-Semitic.

A person may reason that:

A) Israel is a Jewish state

B) AIPAC is a pro-Israel lobby

therefore

C) AIPAC is a Jewish lobby

It's an error in logic. It's a false conclusion.

But I think it's also a false conclusion to say that equating "pro-Israeli lobby" with "Jewish lobby" definitely shows anti-Semitic sentiment.

[ToolTex]

101. I guess we could really blow the servers by asking here

just who the hell was responsible for electing crummy Joe Lieberman?

Just like lying Joe, you can't have it both ways. When they differ, you are either primarily for America's best interests, or primarily for Israel's best interests. Best interests do not always coincide and to try to force them to align can have awful consequences.

[LeftishBrit]

179. OK - a serious answer to your question

"Who was responsible for electing crummy Joe Lieberman?"

From Wikipedia:

Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 1988, by a margin of 10,000 votes. He scored the nation's biggest political upset that year, after being backed by a coalition of Democrats and unaffiliated voters with support from conservative Republicans such as William F. Buckley, Jr. who were disappointed in three-term Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker's moderate voting record and personal style. Lieberman ran especially well in conservative areas of the 5th District, where Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis received fewer votes than George H.W. Bush. During the campaign, he received support from Connecticut's Cuban-American community which was unhappy with Weicker, who was known as a supporter of Fidel Castro. Lieberman has since remained loyal to the anti-Castro cause.<18>'

So, apart from the general Democratic vote, it seems that he owed his election originally to: (a) a right-wing Catholic journalist and his colleagues; and (2) the anti-Castro Cuban-Americans.

But it's easier to blame the all-powerful Jews for everything.

[Behind the Aegis]

105. Anti-semitism, not just for right-wing kooks anymore!

I don't know which is MORE appalling, the OP or the fucking justification for this shit I see by "long timers?!" :puke:

[smoogatz]

108. Note that the OP is long gone.

Flame-bait R Us. Oy, as my father-in-law would say.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. I clicked on the profile and it still shows he is here.

Is there a gltich going on?

On edit: dur! You meant a 'drive by!' My bad!

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

111. its was just a post and run...generalize about a whole group of people

but don't stay around for the flamefest that will obviously follow :eyes:

[villager]

122. also note the OP's low post count...

n/t

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

126. He's actually the husband of a DUer, and he recently joined

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=6253560

[villager]

127. we should get him out of the house to meet some actual Jewish people, then

n/t

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

131. but they're all busy controlling the government

[villager]

133. shh... we can't let that get out in the media we own!

n/t

[smoogatz]

137. And the international banking system, don't forget.

Those crafty Jews!

[ToolTex]

119. The issue is War not anti-semitism. Whoever supports AIPAC

better figure out a way to quickly reign in AIPAC's strong-arm pro-war pressure being exerted on our Democratic Congress persons. It would be nice to reserve the term hubris for the Bush administration and not add the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC.

[Behind the Aegis]

123. Wrong.

The way the OP is worded is blatant anti-Semitism. Want to discuss the pro-Israeli lobby, AIPAC? Fine, have it. But, DO NOT conflate Jews with the pro-Israeli lobby! That post reads like it came from David Duke's site!

[ToolTex]

136. OK, bang your head against that anti-semitism wall all you want.

Then when you get finished figure out how to reign in AIPAC so we can get the gd war stopped!

[Behind the Aegis]

138. Bigotry is bigotry.

Although, I guess some don't seem to mind it too terribly.

[ToolTex]

159. I am an open gay man living in East Texas. I recognize bigotry by its taste and feel.

This is a place for politics, not religion. Even if inadvertently, bigotry is here a red herring. The issue is truly supporters of a foreign country trying to pressure our elected Congress persons from legislating us out of a war. And their black-mail is powerful.

[Behind the Aegis]

170. And? I am gay too. Note the damn avatar!

It is a place for politics, therefore the OP should have said "ISRAELI LOBBY," not "JEWISH LOBBY!" Why is that distinction so difficult for you to comprehend?!

[ToolTex]

178. It isn't! I agree with you. Now move on to the important issue the pro-Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

[robinlynne]

139. To get the war stopped, we need to reign in OUR GOVERNMENT!

[ToolTex]

144. Yes Robin, and AIPAC is in the way right now.

[Behind the Aegis]

150. Let me put this to you veeeeery simply....

AIPAC = pro-Israeli Lobby
AIPAC (does not) = JEWISH Lobby!

See the damn difference?!

[ToolTex]

173. Of course, I see the difference. And who comprises the membership

of the mass-membership-organization, AIPAC, the second most powerful lobby in America?

[Behind the Aegis]

176. AIPAC, the second most powerful lobby in America

According to whom? We hear that all the time, where's the proof to back it up?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

180. So tell us, who comprises the membership of AIPAC? I want to know!

Im not a member, but would love to hear who are, you seem to be alluding to it in several posts on this thread. I'd love to know.

[DancingBear]

184. This, then, brings forth an interesting question

To wit:

Do you support the goals of AIPAC?

Are you a contributing member?

Be honest.

If you do (and are) it blurs the lines.

[Behind the Aegis]

186. ...

No.

No.

Anything else?

[DancingBear]

188. Nope

Then your line of argument, whether one believes it or not, has merit.

[robinlynne]

158. ok. so you have been writing and calling to your congressman, joining in protests,

going to the congressional sitins, joined code pink, vets against the war, pda, dfa, and moveon? Have you read Greg Palast's armed madhouse? Have you read about the Carlyle Group? Have you seen how many times we let BinLaden go? You are aware of current events? And you think AIPAC is the reason our dems are spineless?

[Robson]

113. Mearsheimer - Walt Report

I'd like to know why Mearsheimer Walt Report never received air time on CSPAN or debate elsewhere? It was published then pushed under the carpet.

Debate and discussion is always needed. When the sun doesn't shine mold and bad stuff grows.

http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-fairbanks14may14,0,3078249.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


edited: spelling

[immoderate]

132. There is no Jewish lobby! Unless you mean the one at Gossinger's.

You might mean the Israeli Lobby -- AIPAC, which is loaded with neocons, both Jew and Gentile. They don't lobby for Jews though. They are the unwitting accomplices to the Rapture crowd.

--IMM

[PaDem]

141. What's most troubling here is the fact that if you had..........

used the word pro-Israel lobby instead of your poor choice of words (Jewish Lobby), you still would have received most of the vitriol that you received in this thread. Using the term Jewish lobby sort of implies that the AIPAC line is indicative of the way all Jews feel, which of course it isn't. I wish you'd have stuck with Pro-Israel Lobby, because the thread that would have followed wouldn't be a great deal different from the one you see here. Would have been instructive.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

145. Thats bull. I wouldn't be here if he used Pro-Israel Lobby or AIPAC

[Behind the Aegis]

146. Actually, you are incorrect.

See, in this VERY forum, where the 'pro-Israeli' lobby is being discussed. It only has 21 posts, and nothing of this sort. Basically, it shoots your "theory" dead!

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

147. LINK:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3153131&mesg_id=3153131

[PaDem]

153. figured I'd get a quick response...........

I've read threads on the I/P issue on this forum for several years now. I don't need a link to a 21 post thread to tell me that three years of observation have led me to come to the incorrect conclusion. Carry on.

[Behind the Aegis]

155. Then, perhaps, you should read the IP rules.

Because this shit wouldn't be allowed there! Nor, should it be allowed here!

[PaDem]

165. what shit??

I don't agree with the OP and his silly generalization. Is that the "shit" you are referring to?

[Behind the Aegis]

167. Yes.

[onenote]

156. Yep, wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your observations

:sarcasm:

[robinlynne]

160. actually, read before you speak. his link is right on.

[Lena inRI]

143. What's really holding us hostage is HENRY KISSINGER. . .

and all those who will carry on hs legacy when he dies. IMHO, KISSINGER et al in his power elite, crossing national borders, have and will continue to consolidate their power by denying Palestinian nation-restitution.

Meanwhile, Kissinger et al would laugh their asses off reading this thread and any other combative discussion about Jewish versus Israeli lobby because WE, the collective conscience, are divided and conquered by racist suspicions, while these power-mongers maintain their consolidated power over the Middle East. Kissinger's unapproachable POWER is OUR problem, NOT HIS JEWISHNESS.

WHY DO I FEEL THIS WAY? Read this long historical analysis by Kathleen Christison who worked for 16 years as a political analyst with the CIA, dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle East for her last seven years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the CIA, she has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0715.html

". . .What this cumulative build-up of a frame of reference totally focused on Israel meant is that the more the Palestinians did to bring themselves to world attention, the more strenuously the United States tried to ignore them. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger was so nonplussed at the notion of having to legitimize the Palestinians by talking to them that he ignored several overtures from Yasir Arafat that might have been productive had they been explored."

"There has never been much room in American political discourse, at any level, for the Palestinian perspective. But after years in which the Palestinians had begun to be accepted by public opinion as legitimate participants in the peace process, the extent and intensity of the poisonous atmosphere in the wake of the intifada and of September 11 are startling. The United States has always been blind, and is today even more blind, to the Israeli occupation as the root of the present conflict and therefore refuses to accept the Palestinian perspective on the conflict as having any merit. As always from the beginning, Palestinians and their concerns are essentially invisible to U.S. policymakers.

In the end, what has this singular U.S. focus on the Israeli perspective meant, for the Palestinians and for the Middle East in general? The failure to take the Palestinian perspective into account, I believe, has perpetuated the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, at every step along the way. In every war in the last half century, including the 1948 war, you can point to a U.S. failure to anticipate, or to understand the issues involved, or to probe openings that might have prevented conflict. And this has generally always been because

we looked at the problem with one eye closed.

If anything, this inclination is intensifying under President Bush, and this does not bode well for the future."
************

KISSINGER ET AL are happy to keep us as one-eyed jackals biting off each others heads as we label each other racists.

I want a U.S leadership that'll stand up to the KISSINGER power elite!


:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[madrchsod]

149. this is still in gd-p?

wow amazing this is`t in i/p forum

[Behind the Aegis]

157. No, what is amazing is that shit like this is still here and has 33 fucking reccs!

[madrchsod]

177. well i agree with you on that.....

if i remember correctly, i have agreed with you a few times! yes the 33reccs is amazing!

[sellitman]

181. Aegis....This post and the sad people who reccd it make me want to puke.

What really boils my oil is that these same people NEVER have any problems with what Israels enemies do. No matter how heinous.

[Mass]

151. Did you mean the AIPAC lobby?

May be making the distinction would help not being called antisemitic.

If this is what you mean, we agree partly. Actually, the US politicians are a lot more supportive of AIPAC than most Jewish people I know and than a large part of the Israeli population.

[robinlynne]

162. exactly. reason. how simple it is.

[Bjorn Against]

169. I agree we need to stop being held hostage by the pro-Israel lobby, but...

I don't like hearing it called the Jewish lobby. There are many Jews who want peace, and to suggest that AIPAC speaks for the Jewish people is misleading. So please in the future always refer to it as the Israel lobby and not the Jewish lobby.

[rockymountaindem]

187. Already?

Good grief mods. What the hell took you so long? Did someone finally use a racial slur or something? Hopefully we can all mark this as a low point and move on.

[Behind the Aegis]

189. it shouldn't have been moved. It should have been LOCKED!

[rockymountaindem]

190. It will be now that it's down here in the I/P dungeon

where hardly anybody new will see it and it's not based on an article. I guess they figured that leaving it locked up in GD: P after so much shit has already gone down in this thread would be even more embarassing.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

191. It's still against I/P Rules

New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.

The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.

[undergroundrailroad]

192. Locking per I/P Guidelines

Not a recent article or op-ed.


Undergroundrailroad
DU Lead Moderator
I/P Forum