I don't agree with your sense of the conflict (4.00 / 1)

AIPAC was "the elephant in the room" when the peace process collapsed in 2000?  Really?  

Sure, domestic US politics matter, and misguided (or absent) US leadership will always makes things worse in the Middle East than they would be with good leadership.  But conditions on the ground in the region itself matter a lot more.  

---

by: Haggai @ Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 20:00:30 PM UTC

Is AIPAC actually an independent force, further right than Israeli politics itself? (0.00 / 0)

That is the question.

If AIPAC just ensures that the US can never do anything Israel doesn't care for, but Israel chooses an actual workable concessions-inclusive peace, then that's ok.  That's the direction Israel seems to be moving as a polity, even if Netanyahu appears likely to win the election.  

If AIPAC is "more Catholic than the pope", and more ardently in support what it sees as "Israeli interests" than Israel itself is, then that could be a problem.

I don't know which of those two is more accurate, but I bet someone here could tell us.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 22:11:10 PM UTC

AIPAC can't let themselves be seen as actively undermining any Israeli govt. (0.00 / 0)

That would be the quickest path to irrelevance for them, and they know it.

---

by: Haggai @ Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 22:34:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're neither, or rather, it doesn't matter (2.00 / 2)

What is this obsession with AIPAC? My goodness, they've got to be the only medium-sized advocacy organization in Washington that's had an entire bestselling book written about them, and an entire political movement (ours) obsessed with them. I'm certainly no supporter of AIPAC, but many of my friends are, and I've worked and been around several generally pro-Israel members of Congress. AIPAC is no agenda setting monster; it's not even very powerful by standards of DC lobbying outfits. It couldn't be. Just think about it for a second: It speaks for and to a small group of strongly pro-Israel Jews (many of whom are otherwise liberal, btw, perhaps the majority of them). They are a significant voting bloc in perhaps a dozen districts nationwide, almost none of which are competitive, and Jews usuaslly vote the same way anyway (for Democrats). They have no electoral power; what influence they have only comes by virtue of relationships with Executive Branch officials. Which is to say, no one's scared of them. Their reputation is ridiculously over-hyped by a lot of progressives who need boogeymen.

I'm not sure why, but many progressives have a difficult time understanding the emotional attachment American Jews have to Israel, and to American organizations advocating on Israel's behalf. That's fine, but then they exacerbate the misunderstanding by creating this 600 pound gorilla, this AARP-like lobbying hurricane out of a modest little organization (and it is very modest, about the size of a smallish industry umbrella group).

---

by: ColoradoDemocrat @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:30:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hm. Sketchy answers include: (0.00 / 0)

1) The Iraq War probably soured a lot of people on AIPAC.

2) AIPAC does have more of a Likud approach than a Labor approach to I/P issues, which is interesting since almost all American Jews are closer to Labor than Likud on most political matters including I/P.

3) Sibel Edmonds says that AIPAC is a massive money laundering operation corrupting American politics.  Not the only one, of course, but one.  (She also implicates the American-Turkish Committee.)

I/P is not one of my political interests, really, except as it touches on American oil imperialism and energy issues more generally.  Consequently, I don't have much organized to say about AIPAC, nor any strongly held opinions.  Those are some places to start in understanding the progressive angle on AIPAC though.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:03:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't agree with you, but this doesn't deserve a troll rating. (0.00 / 0)

So, I'm just compensating this. No misunderstanding, pls.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 21:16:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton's Challenge: Israel (0.00 / 0)

The left and Right of Israeli politics is defined by one thing. Ones position relative to the Palestinian problem. rightly or wrongly It's become the touchstone of Israeli politics. Nobody--on either side of the divide--will say it in quite that way, but it's true. Until that simple fact becomes secondary to Israel's aspirations for the perpetuity of Israel, nothing is going to resolve their (and, by extension our) problems in the Middle East.
How to alter that dynamic is a question eliciting comments from all sides, and in many ways. However, it is pondered as if it were a sidebar to the "real" problem.
I'm not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of the myriad issues involved with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I'm informed as well as most any layperson can be, and I have to say there's enough fault to go around-- and go further than the Israelis and Palestinians.
But, I must say, when an entire body politic is defined by the status of a third party, an outlook for a positive outcome seems almost negligent, doesn't it?----greegy

---

by: greggy44 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:41:26 AM UTC

Hillary Clinton is the last person from whom we should expect a moral foreign policy (0.00 / 0)

Stephen Zunes has been writing about this for quite some time now. HRC voted for cluster bombs, voted against the International Criminal Court, and supported the last invasion of Lebanon.  Here is a relevant article:

http://www.alternet.org/audits...

Once again, we were presented with a choice of bad or worse, wrapped up in the pretty rhetoric of change and hope.  

---

by: jcr @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM UTC

International Criminal Court (2.00 / 2)

You may wish to reconsider your position on International Criminal Court[s]. Were we to agree to participate in such a court, American soldiers would be subject to such courts.  Good you say, "Americans should be accountable for their actions." Well, I agree, in a perfect world, that would be true. Unfortunately the world is far from perfect. When nations are involved, courts--in all forms--are political; by definition they impede justice in the interest of the state. Such courts don't find--and, some would even argue, don't seek--justice, they want a remedy that most favors their nations objectives. And if an American soldier stands between a given states' objective and justice are you prepared for that soldier to be of your blood?

---

by: greggy44 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:17:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see, so in a "perfect" world, (0.00 / 0)

one is accountable for one's actions. But since the world isn't "perfect," one shouldn't be. If the question is whether I am willing to have American soldiers prosecuted for war crimes, the answer is yes. The ICC was founded in Rome and is based in the Hague. Your generalities betray you.

---

by: jcr @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 15:13:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perfect Worlds (0.00 / 0)

Accountability is not my issue, fundamental fairness is. I was speaking in "generalities" because I didn't wish to loose my point to specificity on the relative benefits of formats for world courts, but at least I didn't employ "generalities" in an attempt discount one's argument and think nobody would notice.
In any event, the point was this: World courts are subject to opinions political and divorced from justice. Moreover, "justice" is itself is different to different nations/cultures. And as long as we (Americans) are asked/compelled to play our current world role--which I might add will shortly begin to evolve to humanitarian interventions--we can't permit others to pass judgment on us for doing a job they are unable, to say nothing of unwilling, to take on for everybody else.
Is there a rash of untried crimes going unaddressed that our military or congress is not pursuing that I'm unaware of? Americans--the present administration  excepted--is more accountable to the world than any other nation on earth. Quit fighting the last war. Obama is going to do great things, why subject him to a higher standard than Bush was held because Bush is an idiot?

---

by: greggy44 @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:33:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In a "perfect" world, comments wouldn't be trollrated... (4.00 / 1)

just because you disagree with the opinion of that other guy. Honestly, I don't like greggy's comment here at all, and I think it's based on prejudices about the ICC in The Hague, but there is nothing in it that deserves a trollrating. This isn't the first time you misused the rating feature as a way to show your disagreement. Pls stop that. For your information: It has already happened before that commenters were banned because of regular abuse...

---

by: Gray @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ICC (0.00 / 0)

I'm not against the ICC per say, I just don't know how it can work.It may be okay for some smaller issues, but heady issues such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and the like, I don't see how it holds any legitimate position. Not that it's not meant to offer creditability to an inherently unsavory--not to mention incomplete--part of international law. We'll never see an American before such a court for any action, right or wrong, taken in the name of the United States, and too pretend there is a chance is, at best misleading. Not to mention such a court has the flavor a "victors tribunal"
And if that's the case, how do we convince other countries the courts okay for them, just not us? That is, in fact what we're trying to pull off. That won't last and Americans won't change their mind either. So it's just a matter of time before everyone else figures out that our rhetoric is all postering.

---

by: greggy44 @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 22:56:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]