Let's talk about AIPAC

AIPAC, or American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has been a large and powerful Lobbying group founded in 1951 with bipartisan influence.WIKI

Considering recently Representative Omar was called an anti-Semite for suggesting that this lobbying group gets pull by throwing out some Benjamins... It made me want to talk about it . I personally hate when some people attempt to make some subjects no-go areas, and my first inclination is to run to them faster.

I'll make this short, and largely source an Intercept article written by Ryan Grim below, and I'll add a link if something comes from somewhere else.

A DEBATE ABOUT the power in Washington of the pro-Israel lobby is underway, after Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded sharply to reports that Republican leader Kevin McCarthy was targeting both Omar and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan.

Omar quoted rap lyrics — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” — to suggest McCarthy’s move was driven by the lobby’s prolific spending. Asked specifically who she was referring to, Omar responded, “AIPAC!”

I love what she said, and people should be bringing it up. There should be no taboo subject as long as it is discussed properly. Looking back at all the examples, I haven't found where she references Jewish people as a whole, merely she talks about the sovereign state of Israel, and the results of their policy. If I took a look at her overall platform, my guess would be that I wouldn't agree with much or most of it.

But in this case she is doing her job.

I get the vibe that many people are more outraged that a Muslim said this, maybe I'm wrong, but even if that's the case, why can't Muslims have a voice or some form of representation?

Take note that I'm agnostic, but I think everyone has the right to believe what they wish, and all are as valid as the next so long as their rights don't infringe upon mine or anyone else's.

The article goes on to say-

The debate over the influence of pro-Israel groups could be informed by an investigation by Al Jazeera, in which an undercover reporter infiltrated the Israel Project, a Washington-based group, and secretly recorded conversations about political strategy and influence over a six-month period in 2016. That investigation, however, was never aired by the network — suppressed by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.

In November, Electronic Intifada obtained and published the four-part series, but it did so during the week of the midterm elections, and the documentary did not get a lot of attention then.

David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money doesn’t show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC.

Here is the Open Secrets profile of all official expendatures from AIPAC.

Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn’t able to enact its agenda. “Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money,” he explains.

I don't think that this would come as a surprise to most. And so long as they are not breaking any legality, and while I may dislike the end agenda, it is what it is. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it, or have an opinion on the end goal.

A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers wrote to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into “the full range of activities undertaken by Al Jazeera in the United States,” and suggesting that the organization be made to register as a foreign agent. Ultimately, Qatar bent to the pressure and killed the documentary.

I think this is one of the most alarming parts of the article, as it shows suppression of speech that a particular group doesn't like.

The point of all of this is not anti-Israel, as I am not. I think they have every right to be the nation they are, but if we are to support them financially and with our foreign policy, than I have every right to be critical of the end results of such.

Our official stance is a two state solution (Israel and Palestine), so I find it only fair to have conversations that reflect both sides of an issue that will continue on for some time. And I find it more important that we talk about how this influences our politics.

I didn't include much of the article in the effort to keep this as short as possible, but encourage people to do so. I think some leaps are made and opinions projected, I did my best to exclude such and not make any baseless claims.

The end result of this is that we all call out the weaponized PC and outrage culture when we can see it BS used to further an agenda and not to help a group of people. Both sides complain about it when used against them but gleefully use the tool against their opponents. It won't stop until we call it for what it is in every situation we can, even if that means defending those we don't agree with.

Muslims hate Jews.

Everything is always the Jews fault in the Arab world.

Now we have this backward ideology represented in Congress.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't CAIR a lobby group as well?

originally posted by: projectvxn
Muslims hate Jews.

Everything is always the Jews fault in the Arab world.

Now we have this backward ideology represented in Congress.

I wouldn't phrase it the same way as you but understand your message and wouldn't really argue with much other than the wording.

What complicates things is the OP isn't about Jews, it's about a nation and a lobbying group who's self proclaimed mission is to align US policy with said nation.

That nation happens to neighbor other nations with different religions.

If you really pressed me, I'd admit my culture in fact has more similarities with Israel than the other countries in the region.

But that doesn't mean I'll shy away from hearing their opinion put, even if I disagree with much of it.

Israel also isn't the only ideologic country with pull on our politics. I've also done a thread on Saudi Arabian lobbyist efforts in the US.

I try to be fair, honestly I just dislike other countries taking advantage (legally I should not) of our system for their agendas.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't CAIR a lobby group as well?

They are, but it doesn't appear they have much influence.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't CAIR a lobby group as well?

They are, but it doesn't appear they have much influence.

So it's not so much about lobbyists as it is the influence they have.

Could it also mean that we might have more in common with Israel than with Islam?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't CAIR a lobby group as well?

They are, but it doesn't appear they have much influence.

So it's not so much about lobbyists as it is the influence they have.

Could it also mean that we might have more in common with Israel than with Islam?

If you really pressed me, I'd admit my culture in fact has more similarities with Israel than the other countries in the region.

I didn't shy away from that, and I try to be as honest as possible.

But is it possible that much of our problems is because we dabble in other people's affairs too much?

Let me rephrase that, if we didn't use so much of our political energy and capital to further Israel's agenda, would we still have the same hatred aimed towards us from the Muslim community?

Could we still be allies with Israel in a different capacity without catching as much blow-back?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No.

We've been at war with Islam for centuries.

I believe Thomas Jefferson had a bit of a dust up with Islam a while back and there was no Israel then.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Israel OWNS the United States. We are just a state of the Zionist Empire.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think all these organizations that lobby on behalf of foreign nations should be required to register as foreign agents. All of them, whether they have much influence or not.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think all these organizations that lobby on behalf of foreign nations should be required to register as foreign agents. All of them, whether they have much influence or not.

No argument here.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

No.

We've been at war with Islam for centuries.

I believe Thomas Jefferson had a bit of a dust up with Islam a while back and there was no Israel then.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Let me ask though, is it anti-semtetic to point these relationships out?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Israel OWNS the United States. We are just a state of the Zionist Empire.

I think that is hyperbolic to say the least.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

No.

We've been at war with Islam for centuries.

I believe Thomas Jefferson had a bit of a dust up with Islam a while back and there was no Israel then.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Let me ask though, is it anti-semtetic to point these relationships out?

No.

But irony of ironies, if you do the same with CAIR or any other group like that, you're islamophobic.




For the record, I am a Zionist.
By definition of Zionism, I believe that there should be a state of Israel.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Muslims hate Jews.

Everything is always the Jews fault in the Arab world.

Now we have this backward ideology represented in Congress.

The Arabs think the Jews control the US military. I think they may be right. All foreign policy is controlled by the Council of Foreign Relations.

Here is a good article why the Arabs hate so much:

"To repeat: I have deliberately selected “low-end” estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the “best case” for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of “excess deaths” in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost."

Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

I've read estimates on the number of Arabs killed since 9/11 to be 1,000,000 to an high estimate of 6,000,000. Almost genocide numbers.

I fail to see how military action in the ME is making us safer. I fail to see what purpose anything we do in the ME. In terms of foreign policy, this is the only explanation I have found on why we drop 30,000 bombs per year in the ME for the last 10 years:

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

It would probably be cheaper for the US if we moved the entire country of Israel, all the people, all the buildings, and air-lifted them to some area in New Mexico or Arizona.

In the meantime, I think at some point we have to have some level of human rights for the lowly Arabs. If you believe this reporters report, as long as there are human rights violations as described we will continue to have nothing but hatred and violence in the ME:



One thing is for sure, there is no Jesus love in the ME.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No. But irony of ironies, if you do the same with CAIR or any other group like that, you're islamophobic.

I don't think that is fair either, and I have called out instances of that. But I don't think the solution to a problem is pushing back from the other end.

For the record, I am a Zionist. By definition of Zionism, I believe that there should be a state of Israel.

I'm indifferent. I wasn't around when it happened, so I can't really retro-act my opinion, and I don't have much skin in the region.

However they are here, so at this point they have as much a right to statehood as anyone else. Likely, anyone against the state of Israel would find more problems in dissolving it than maintaining.

Not sure where that puts me. I don't usually have a dog in the fight for other nation's who are not my own though, seeing as I'm agnostic and have no religious affiliations, that part has no pull with me.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Israel OWNS the United States. We are just a state of the Zionist Empire.

I think that is hyperbolic to say the least.

Is this less hyperbolic:



Do you think what she is saying is anti-Semitic?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

However they are here, so at this point they have as much a right to statehood as anyone else.

Careful now!

Radical talk like that might label you as well.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Do you think just talking about this is anti-Semitic:

"List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship

Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?
by Dan Eden

Someone wrote and asked me, "Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?"

Well, here's my take on this. I'd also like your views and opinions.

Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be "British" but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o'clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60's my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to "allegiance," we were all patriotic Americans. Period.

The word "allegiance" means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology.

When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their "allegiance" exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to "any and all foreign governments." That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.

Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of "dual citizenship," I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.

From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!

In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic's presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.

Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it's OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad -- most of them in the United States -- will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.

Security Issues

Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.

Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

Today's conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security -- the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.

Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.

A few classic examples can be cited here.

Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the "interests of my state" ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by "my state" he meant the state of Israel.

Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:

One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a "dual citizen" of America and Israel.

Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.

Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem's most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media."

And many more:

List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship

a reply to: dfnj2015

Being influenced and being a zionist state as you put it are two different things.