AIPAC To Members: Don't Boo Obama

[Purveyor]

19 May 11 11:37, Dagoni and Lilach Weismann, Washington

AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg has sent an e-mail to delegates not to boo President Barack Obama during his speech to the AIPAC annual policy conference on Sunday. "We ask that you act and react to every speech, address, and briefing, that will be offered as part of the conference program in only the most positive manner," Rosenberg wrote.

Rosenberg's e-mail is clearly targeted at responses to Obama's speech, as there is no concern that the AIPAC delegates will heckle Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli speakers.

While top US administration officials (usually the president or vice president) always reiterate the US's commitment to Israel's security, calls for talks with the Palestinians, or to show flexibility, are liable to inflame some delegates. Whistles and boos, or alternatively a thunderous silence or weak handclapping, have been heard in past appearances.

AIPAC's leadership wants to avoid such spontaneous protests during Obama's speech, especially now, when no one knows what his message will be. As far as AIPAC is concerned booing the President would be a public relations disaster.

MORE...

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/

[craigmatic]

1. Let me get this straight. Our president is giving a speech to a foreign special interest group

and there's a chance that they'll boo him on US soil? Does this sound stupid to anybody else?

[monmouth]

3. Israel. You mean the country we send boatloads of money to? That Israel?

It does sound very stupid.

[frazzled]

8. It's not foreign: it's American

Just like La Raza, National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, which also lobby the government on our relations with other countries.

So it's not at all unusual for a president to speak at such a constituency group.

[kirby]

9. There is a difference...

I believe the AIPAC members are loyal to Israel first, not the USA.

[karynnj]

10. Not true

This may be true of some small fraction, but the majority of people who have "joined" AIPAC or donated money are Americans first. The commitment to Israel is incredibly strong and emotional, but they are not more loyal to Israel. I would bet I know far more AIPAC members than you do.

[leftynyc]

12. Ah - the dual loyalty card

Knew that was going to show up sooner or later. Piss off.

[kirby]

16. You misunderstood me...

I didn't say dual loyalty, I said loyalty to Israel first and foremost. The lobbying and policy positions they take bear that out.
I do not understand our unquestioned support for Israel. It is so unbalanced and unquestioning.

Kinda like the religious fundamentalists who declare God before Country.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. You presume loyalty to Israel equates to support of Israel's foreign policy

Which is kind of like saying loyalty to the United States means you had to support the Iraq War. There are plenty of Israelis who are loyal to Israel and don't support its foreign policy.

The fact is that AIPAC has too many neoconservatives. Which country they are primarily loyal to is irrelevant.

[BlueMTexpat]

22. Well said ... nt

[Exilednight]

26. No one presumed such a thing. What can be presumed, and AIPAC will admit, is that

support of AIPAC is support for Israel's foreign policy.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. The person I was replying to explicitly stated...

That they believed that due to AIPAC's support for Israel's foriegn policy that they were more loyal to Israel than the United States.

[Exilednight]

31. And that person was correct. Their many prominent members of AIPAC who

are more loyal to Israel than they are America.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Do you have proof of that?

[Exilednight]

37. Read the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Mearsheimer and Walt are Neorealists trying to explain away an anomaly in their worldview

Neorealism resounding rejects the idea that domestic politics plays a substantial role in international affairs. Furthermore, it argues that states always act in their own rational self interest in order to maximize their security. Therefore when presented with a blatantly obvious instance where domestic politics do play a role and a reasonable case that the US isn't acting in a manner that maximizing its own security by helping Israel, they try to explain it away by saying that it's a novelty due to the fact that Israel has essentially infiltrated the US government in order to make it act in the interests of Israel.

Of course there are far more instances where domestic politics play a substantial role in international affairs and I'm sure that if they were as blatant as the Israel case, Mearsheimer and Walt would be writing a book to try and explain them away as well. Furthermore, they completely ignore the fact that the Neocons think we're in an existential struggle with the giant boogeyman of "radical Islam" and that they believe we need to westernize the Middle East in order to win the war. If one does indeed believe that crap, then one would certainly believe that Israel is vital to advancing US interests.

[Exilednight]

42. Judging by your critique, it's obvious that you didn't read it. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Seems that somebody is accusing you of the same thing

[oberliner]

34. What prominent AIPAC members are more loyal to Israel than America?

Do you have any names?

[Exilednight]

38. As I stated to the other poster, read The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. n/t

[oberliner]

43. Nowhere in The Israel Lobby do the authors make the accusation you made

Have you actually read it?

At no point do they accuse any AIPAC member of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States.

In fact, the authors go out of their way to make it clear that they are not suggesting what you claimed.

In any case, would you be willing to identify any AIPAC member who you think is more loyal to Israel than to the United States?

[Exilednight]

44. Yes they did. There's an entire section titled Influencing Congress

"The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay...all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fufillment of bilbical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will."

One reason for the Lobby’s success with Congress is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002 that “  1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.”69  One would think that the number 1 priority for any congressman would be to “protect America,” but that is not what Armey said.  There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to make U.S. foreign policy support Israel’s interests.
 

[oberliner]

45. No they don't - nowhere in that section is any claim made about being loyal to Israel over America

You are explicitly stating that there are AIPAC members who are loyal to Israel over America.

At no point in The Israel Lobby do the authors make such a claim.

You are making a very specific claim that the authors of that book take pains not to make.

In fact, the authors make a point to stress that lobbying Congress is as American as apple pie.

The authors just believe that the direction of the lobbying is misguided.

If you would like to walk back your claim that there are AIPAC members who are loyal to Israel over America than feel free to do so.

If not, I would appreciate you identifying who these people are.

[Exilednight]

46. You just ignored an entire paragraph that quotes Dick Armey. Here it is again:

"One reason for the Lobby’s success with Congress is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002 that “ 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.”69 One would think that the number 1 priority for any congressman would be to “protect America,” but that is not what Armey said. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to make U.S. foreign policy support Israel’s interests."

The authors make specific the influence the lobby has over American politics and how pro-Israel supporters put Israel ahead of America.

[oberliner]

47. It doesn't say what you are imagining it says

Armey's comment came in response to a question (from 2002) about what the US should do if Iraq attacked Israel. He was also skeptical to the Iraq War. Was that the default pro-Israel position?

If you actually read the entire book, which I am starting to doubt that you have as you quote only the position paper upon which it was based, then you must be aware that one of the points made by the authors is that those in what they define as the Israel lobby believe that US and Israeli interests are the same. That they do not believe they are in any way more loyal to Israel over the US or working against what they believe to be US interests.

[Exilednight]

48. So your argument is "Armey said it, but he didn't mean it the way it sounded."

It doesn't matter if he was talking about Iraq or not, the number #1 priority for Congress is protecting America. Israel should have no impact on our foreign policy decisions.

[leftynyc]

21. Ah - even more revolting

You aren't worth my time.

[frazzled]

15. Would you say that of the National Council on US-Arab Relations?

If not, then your accusation of disloyalty to America is way out of line.

I disagree with the politics of AIPAC regarding Israel, but I would never question either their loyalty or their right to exist, just as I would not question any other American interest group, even when I disagree with them.

[tritsofme]

24. Plenty of bigots say the same thing about La Raza or National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations.

Not the best company to keep if you ask me.

[Exilednight]

25. It's foreign, not American. AIPAC is not a Jewish lobby group, it's an

Israeli lobby group. It's a lobby that looks out for the interests of one single state: Israel. US-Arab Relations covers an entire region, as does European groups.

AIPAC attempts to pass itself off as a Jewish-American lobby group, but it's not.

[leftynyc]

11. AIPAC is not a foreign group

It's a group of American Jews (and I suspect some others but mainly Jewish).

[Exilednight]

28. AIPAC is compromised of more than American Jews. n/t

[oberliner]

33. Yes, but there are no members who are not American

You have to be an American citizen to join.

[Exilednight]

39. You can also be a dual citizen. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

2. If they boo him, that means he did something right

:thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

4. Israel's Hardest Line Supporters, Sir, Seem Determined To Make It A Pariah

Should the thing come to fail in the end, a verdict of 'suicide while the balance of the mind was disturbed' would seem in order.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

6. I just don't understand the obsession.

It's even more sickening when so-called 'liberals' fellate the every action of rabidly far-right Israeli regimes because of a family link.. There are quite a lot of them - Dreadful, warped, and most damning of all, eternally boring people.

I don't see why one cannot express a fondness for Israel and hope for prosperity while recognising that the catastrophic blunders and outright savagery in that region are not all coming from ’the other‘ side. They are incapable of asking such questions, it seems.

[stevenleser]

18. I would wager that 95% of Jewish Democrats, like me, are opposed to Likud governments in Israel

and to their partners like Avigdor Liebermans "Israel Beiteinu" party.

Jewish Democrats tend to support Labor party leaders in Israel.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Some of the more fanatical people won't be happy until the President wraps himself un the Israeli fl

and runs through the Gaza strip giving a middle finger to the Palestinians. Even then they'll probably say that didn't show enough emotion while doing it.

[leftynyc]

14. And others wont be happy

unless he cuts off all aid (which is stupid because the large marjority of the money goes to buy American weapons) and tells Israel to go fuck itself. Two can play at that game.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

17. Given that there's 0 doubt who the US has favored all these years.

There's really not much of an argument. Nobody benefits from blind allegiance to a bunch of right wing Likudniks (well except of course the right wing fanatics and weapons contractors I guess). Palestinians have no influence in our congress unlike the Israelis.

[oberliner]

36. Big Oil has a huge influence in our Congress

And many of those lobby groups have some very particular ideas about what US foreign policy ought to look like in the Middle East.

[Exilednight]

50. You can zero sum it. Save the money by not sending it. It also cuts down on

thee number of weapons in the world. Truth be told, the money we give Israel is only about 5% of their national budget. They could easily cut the money and still buy our weapons.

[asjr]

5. The Pakistanis are booing him and

still accepting money from us.

[stevenleser]

19. Good point. n/t

[Thrill]

13. The fact that he is even going there

Speaks volumes about their power in this country.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

23. The fact that Obama wants 1967 borders speaks volumes about their lack of power over him

[Exilednight]

27. He doesn't want 1967 borders, he wants 1967 borders with land swaps. Furthermore, this is not a new

stance, Bush advocated the same thing, as did Clinton.

What will be new is if he publicly holds the position for more than two months.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

30. Then why are the Israeli's so pissed? They said Bush promised them this would not be the case.

>>>What will be new is if he publicly holds the position for more than two months.

You probably think Obama will announce cuts to Social Security in his next speech, too, huh?

[oberliner]

35. Some are pissed some are pleased

There is no single "Israeli" position on the matter. It's a country with some pretty diverse political views. Much like the US.

[Exilednight]

40. I don't know where you come up with Obama and SS cuts. Care to elaborate? n/t