When she's right, she's right

 

Slowly they turn

 

Foushee is a Democrat from North Carolina.

Too far for even AIPAC

 

Another reason Israel banned the Congresswomen

From a Lee Fang (Intercept) email:

After every congressional election, Democratic leaders pressure newly elected lawmakers to visit Israel on a trip paid for and organized by the nonprofit arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the lobby group known as AIPAC.

So after last year’s Democratic victory, I reached out to freshmen lawmakers like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and asked if they would go on AIPAC’s trip.

Many of the incoming freshmen hadn’t yet heard about it, so I shared documents and records of past trips and the one-sided perspective they provided for lawmakers.

Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress, responded to my inquiry by publicly rejecting the AIPAC trip and announcing her own delegation — to give lawmakers an opportunity to see firsthand the conditions in Gaza and hear from a broad range of voices.

  

She didn't want the Potemkin tour.

Most media outlets see congressional support for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza as business as usual and don’t report on it. But reporting on AIPAC’s influence is a vital part of The Intercept’s commitment to expose the powerful forces shaping U.S. foreign policy.

The Intercept broke the story of Tlaib’s delegation last December, making waves within the Democratic caucus. In the same story, which I wrote with Alex Kane, she came out in support of the movement to boycott, sanction and divest from Israel as a response to its ongoing occupation.

This week, the Israeli government made the unprecedented decision to bar Tlaib’s delegation from entering the country, making headlines across the globe — and citing her support for BDS in its decision.

For years, AIPAC’s delegations have gone on with relatively little scrutiny. Human rights experts have long argued that the little-known junkets are a major factor in tilting the scales toward policies that reflect the interests of the Israeli government over Palestinians.

We dug into the numbers, exposing how AIPAC quietly wields power with party leaders and how much the group spends per year to fly lawmakers and staff on luxury junkets to hear from Israeli military and political elites.

This summer, we exposed the political underbelly of the trip, reporting on the strong-arm tactics used by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to pressure new Democrats into accepting AIPAC’s invitation. Had Tlaib’s trip gone forward, we would have been one of the only U.S. outlets accompanying the lawmakers to document the journey.

Well, we can't have that.

Impeach the motherfucker

Israel on Thursday announced that it would deny Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) entry during an upcoming overseas trip, citing the lawmakers' past comments critical of the country.

The decision was announced moments after President Trump tweeted that it would show "great weakness" for Israel to allow the two congresswomen into the country, calling them a “disgrace.”

[...]

“It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. “Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!”

[...]

It marks a reversal from last month, when Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer said that the Israeli government would not deny entry to members of Congress.

[...]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a lengthy statement later Thursday standing by the decision and disputing accusations that rejecting Omar and Tlaib entry would cause a broader rift in U.S.-Israeli relations.

He cited Israeli law that prohibits entry into the country for individuals who support a boycott of Israel.

[...]

The prime minister added that if Tlaib filed a request to see her family members in the West Bank, Israel would consider granting her access on humanitarian grounds.

[...]

The congresswomen have supported Palestinian rights and backed the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Both have been accused by other members of Congress of using anti-Semitic language, but leaders of both parties had said they should be allowed to visit Israel.

  The Hill

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Thursday broke with Israel's decision to bar Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) from visiting the country, saying "every member of Congress should be able to visit."

"We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand," AIPAC tweeted Thursday.

  The Hill

UPDATE:  Stephanie Grisham is learning what it means to be tied to Trump.

"The Israeli government can do what it wants," press secretary Stephanie Grisham said, adding that reports Trump told Netanyahu he thought the two congresswoman should be barred were "inaccurate."

  CNN

One hour later:

Can't feel sorry for Grisham.  She knew what she was getting.

UPDATE:

Just say no to AIPAC

The liberal group MoveOn is calling on Democratic presidential candidates to skip this year’s AIPAC policy conference, citing the pro-Israel group’s links to the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu and charging that AIPAC has flirted with Islamophobia.

The move underscores a growing willingness on the left to criticize Israel and its staunchest Washington supporters, particularly since freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) bashed supporters of Israel in terms widely condemned as anti-Semitic.

“It’s no secret that that AIPAC has worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively involved in human rights violations to its stage,” Iram Ali, campaign director at MoveOn Political Action, said in a statement provided first to Politico. Ali said the move should “give a clear insight to 2020 candidates on where their base stands instead of prioritizing lobbying groups and policy people who rarely step outside of D.C.”

MoveOn’s move may be largely symbolic, as there is no evidence candidates planned to attend this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, which begins Sunday. In past political cycles, presidential candidates have tended to appear at the annual conference during election years rather than off years.

  Politico

But their declaration not to attend does carry consequences with voters. Any bets on Booker and Gillibrand?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Surprise: Muslim and black makes for a big target

On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders will mete out one form of punishment [to Representative Ilhan Omar]: Spurred by outrage over Ms. Omar’s latest comments suggesting that pro-Israel activists “push for allegiance to a foreign country,” they will put a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on the House floor.

[...]

“It really hit a nerve, and the grass-roots Jewish community in South Florida is not one to treat it as an ostrich, putting their heads in the sand," [said Stephen Fiske, AIPAC activist.]

[...]

Ms. Omar’s insinuation that money fuels American support for Israel — “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” she wrote on Twitter, specifically citing Aipac — revived a fraught debate in Washington over whether the pro-Israel lobbying behemoth has too much sway over American policy in the Middle East. The backlash to Ms. Omar’s tweet was fierce, with even Democratic leaders accusing her of trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes. The congresswoman apologized.

[...]

Has Aipac — founded more than 50 years ago to “strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship” — become too powerful? And with that power, has Aipac warped the policy debate over Israel so drastically that dissenting voices are not even allowed to be heard?

  NHYT

That's easy: Yes!

Those questions have grown louder with the controversy around Ms. Omar and will grow louder still in the run-up to this month’s annual Aipac policy conference — a three-day Washington confab that is expected to draw more than 18,000 people, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and leaders of both parties in Congress. To critics, Ms. Omar had a point, even if it was expressed with unfortunate glibness. Aipac’s money does have an outsize influence.

“It is so disingenuous of some of these members of Congress who are lining up to condemn these questioning voices as if they have no campaign finance interest in the outcome,” said Brian Baird, a former Democratic congressman from Washington State, who became a vocal critic of Israel, and Aipac, after a constituent of his was killed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in 2003.

[...]

Unlike the National Rifle Association, the Human Rights Campaign and other powerful grass-roots advocacy organizations, Aipac, which is bipartisan, does not endorse or raise money for candidates. But its members do, with the organization’s strong encouragement.

[...]

Countless individual Aipac members and other pro-Israel donors give on their own — including megadonors like the billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a onetime Aipac backer who has started a harder-line rival to the group [the Israeli-American Council].

[...]

Aipac does not lobby on behalf of Israel; it is sensitive about being characterized as an agent of a foreign power, as Ms. Omar suggested it was during her talk in Washington last week. But it almost always sides with the Israeli government, no matter who is in charge. (In a rare exception, the group rebuked a right-wing party in Israel last month, prompting a backlash from Mr. Netanyahu.)

[...]

Today Aipac boasts 17 regional and satellite offices, a gleaming headquarters building near the Capitol and an annual budget so hefty that its chief executive, Howard Kohr, earned more than $1 million in salary and benefits in 2016. Traveling to Israel on a trip financed by Aipac’s education arm is practically a rite of passage for freshman members of Congress.

Aipac’s secret has always been an impressive system of “key contacts,” local volunteers — preferably friends, community leaders or former classmates of lawmakers — assigned to cultivate each senator and House member.

[...]

But in a recent article in The Nation, M.J. Rosenberg, who worked for Aipac in the 1980s and is now a critic of the organization, described how “Aipac’s political operation is used precisely as Representative Omar suggested,” including during policy conferences, when members gather “in side rooms, nominally independent of the main event,” to raise money and “decide which candidate will get what.”

[...]

In 1982, Aipac activists organized to oust Paul Findley, an Illinois House member who had embraced the Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat. The To Protect Our Heritage PAC, run by Aipac activists in Skokie, Ill., backed Richard J. Durbin, according to Marc Sommer, a PAC official.

Two years later, Aipac activists mobilized to replace Senator Charles Percy, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a backer of a deal allowing the sale of sophisticated military planes called Awacs to Saudi Arabia, with the Democrat Paul Simon. Mr. Simon wrote in his memoir that Robert Asher, an Aipac board member in Chicago, asked him to run.

[...]

In the more than three decades since, Aipac has helped create and maintain a staunchly pro-Israel Congress, producing bipartisan support for foreign aid and military and intelligence cooperation, most recently $500 million for missile defense and $3.3 billion for security assistance. Aipac spent $3.5 million last year on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign expenditures.

[...]

But the increasing willingness of Democrats like Ms. Omar to accuse Israel of human rights abuses — coupled with the far-right policies of Mr. Netanyahu and his embrace of President Trump — is challenging Aipac’s claim to bipartisanship. Some liberal Democrats, including young Jews, are abandoning the organization.

[...]

When Israel demolished Palestinian communities in the West Bank last year, Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, gathered signatures from 76 members of Congress to criticize the move. Aipac was silent.

When President Barack Obama secured a nuclear accord with Iran over Aipac’s vehement opposition, Senate Democrats delivered for him, despite the work of an Aipac spinoff that vowed to spend $20 million to oppose it. (Mr. Trump has since backed out of the deal.)

And when the Senate last month passed an Aipac-backed bill aimed at crippling the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to hurt Israel’s economy, roughly half the Senate Democrats — including most of those running for president — voted against it.

[...]

But other lawmakers bristle at Aipac’s tactics. In 2006, Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, who has advocated humanitarian aid for Palestinians, wrote an angry letter to Mr. Kohr saying Aipac would be barred from her offices until it apologized for the behavior of one of its representatives who had berated her chief of staff, Bill Harper, and said Ms. McCollum’s “support for terrorists will not be tolerated.”

Mr. Harper said he took it as an effort “to intimidate” Ms. McCollum, “including threatening to take care of her in the next election.” He said Aipac’s members subsequently stopped donating to her.

Aipac instructs its volunteers never to bring up politics or donations in lobbying meetings. But Mr. Baird, the retired House member, said it was “a fairly common experience” for three or four members of a state congressional delegation to be invited outside the Capitol to meet with “some potential high-dollar individuals affiliated with Aipac.”

“And if one were to say, ‘You know, this is a pretty complex issue; I think the Palestinians have some legitimate concerns,’ your pile of envelopes at the end of the event would be substantially smaller than the next guy’s envelopes,” he said.

[...]

In Florida, Mr. Fiske said it was time for “pro-Jewish voices to speak up” about Ms. Omar and two other Democratic freshmen who have been critical of Israel: Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

And he offered a prediction: “They are three people who, in my opinion, will not be around in several years.”

I wouldn't bet money on it, Steve.

In case you missed it, here's a recent interview with Congresswoman Omar about her statements and beliefs.

UPDATE:

Pod Save the World

Tommy and Ben explain why Trump's second North Korea summit was a total disaster. Then they discuss escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, Justin Trudeau's troubles in Canada, a can't-miss rant about Jared Kushner and Netanyahu's indictment.

Click here to listen

No room to talk

I hadn't posted anything about this, because I don't think it deserves the uproar it's getting.  But I must comment on Trump's response.



She's Muslim, so Dems and Republicans alike are jumping on her for suggesting the US is beholden to Israel.  And Trump doesn't even give so much as a lame apology for his nasty shit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Good On Them

On Sunday, hundreds of mostly young, American Jews rallied in Washington, D.C., during the first day of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2017 Convention, to protest the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

“We’re protesting [AIPAC] en masse as Jews to say that to be Jewish in America at this moment doesn’t mean to support Israel unconditionally,” said 25-year-old Yonah Lieberman, one of the co-founders of the anti-settlement group IfNotNow, which spearheaded the protest in Washington D.C.

Lieberman described Sunday’s march as “the biggest ever Jewish-led protest of AIPAC.”

  HuffPo

US Senators Urge Obama to Get Behind Netanyahu

The news that many progressive US senators as well as vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine signed on to an Israel lobby letter designed to limit President Obama’s actions against the Israeli occupation, now nearly 50 years old, has been widely reported, but the plain facts need to be stated.

Yesterday the Israel lobby group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, flexed its muscle against President Obama and on the side of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by posting a letter signed by 88 senators warning President Obama not to back any international measures that would pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories.

[...]

The letter was circulated by NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and got many progressive signatures: Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Ron Wyden, Tammy Baldwin, Chris Murphy, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Ed Markey, Jack Reed, right along with John McCain, Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham and John Barrasso.

[...]

The letter is entirely consistent with the Democratic Party platform pushed through by Hillary Clinton in July, which removed references to occupation and settlements; Cornel West said then that the party was “beholden to AIPAC.”

  Mondoweiss

Indeed.

At Tablet, Yair Rosenberg reports that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse all did not sign the letter because it didn’t go far enough in support of Israel (and against the two-state solution, in Cruz’s case).

[...]

The brave senators who did not sign this letter [presumably because of disagreement with Israel's policies in Palestine] include Democrats Patrick Leahy of VT, Bernie Sanders, Tom Carper of Delaware, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Here We Go

What's with the dismissive quotes around the word occupation, New York Times? That's what it is.

Dr. West said that while he recognized the necessity to provide for the security of Jews, who for thousands of years have been a “hated people,” he thought that the platform needed to bring more balance to “the plight of an occupied people.”  NYT

Whoa! Radical.

Dr. West accused the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of “war crimes” and said that “the role of money and lobbies makes it difficult for there to be a candid dialogue” on Israel.

[...]

“I have always and will always be 100 percent supportive of Israel’s right to exist and live in peace and security,” [presidential candidate] Sanders wrote in a statement. “I also believe that lasting peace in the region will not occur without fair and respectful treatment of the Palestinian people. I believe that most Democrats agree with that position and that a strong consensus will be achieved at the Democratic National Convention.”

[...]

As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton has been less inclined to criticize Israel, emphasizing that it had a right to defend itself.

As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton has been "less inclined to criticize" Israel, emphasizing that it had a right to defend itself. There. I fixed that for you.

Three of his five choices for the platform committee strongly suggest that Bernie has made the Israel-Palestine issue central to his desires for the Democratic party platform.  Very upsetting to the Democratic party ruling class.

Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said  [...] that the presence of other representatives of Mr. Sanders on the platform committee, including Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a Muslim who has supported the rights of Palestinians, raised concerns that the party could “adopt positions that could be seen as hostile to Israel.”

Malcolm Hoenlein warned the Jewish alliance in the US and Israel will make sure it will be seen as hostile to Israel.

There. Fixed that for you, too.

Dr. Zogby dismissed such critiques as emanating from the “sky is falling” crowd. He then noted, “They are not on the platform committee.”

[...]

The presence of Dr. Zogby and Dr. West on the 15-member panel, which also has six appointees of Hillary Clinton and four from the party chairwoman, does not guarantee their views will prevail. But it raises the prospect that one of the party’s most sensitive issues will be open to public debate while Mrs. Clinton is in a fight to unify her party and appeal to voters turned off by Donald J. Trump.

Ain't that a bitch? And The Trump is (currently) more in line with Dr. West on the issue.  And, not just The Trump.

According to a Pew Research Center survey in April, self-described liberal Democrats were twice as likely to sympathize with Palestinians over Israel than they were only two years ago. Forty percent of liberals sympathized more with Palestinians, the most since 2001, while 33 percent sympathized more with Israel.

Hillary's looking more backward all the time. What will she do? My guess: whatever it takes, which includes making a left turn on the campaign trail and then, if "elected", turn back hard right.

Now, that's how you properly use the quote marks around a word in a sentence, NYT.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway..

UPDATE 6PM:

article

Probably because a lot of people follow Glenn Greenwald these days.

And They Call Themselves Progressives

Remember Neera Tanden, CEO of the self-described "progressive public policy research and advocacy organization" CAP (Center for American Progress)? (Hint: She's tired of freeloaders.)

As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent put it earlier this year: CAP “is poised to exert outsized influence over the 2016 president race and — should Hillary Clinton win it — the policies and agenda of the 45th President of the United States. CAP founder John Podesta is set to run Clinton’s presidential campaign, and current CAP president Neera Tanden is a longtime Clinton confidante and adviser.”

[...]

[E]mails, provided to The Intercept by a source authorized to receive them, are particularly illuminating about the actions of Tanden [...] , a stalwart Clinton loyalist as well as a former Obama White House official. They show Tanden and key aides engaging in extensive efforts of accommodation in response to AIPAC’s  [...]  vehement complaints that CAP is allowing its writers to be “anti-Israel.” Other emails show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred in bombing Libya, on the grounds that Americans will support future wars only if they see that the countries attacked by the U.S. pay for the invasions.

[...]

In 2012, a former AIPAC spokesman, Josh Block, launched a campaign to brand several young, liberal writers at CAP’s blog, ThinkProgress, as anti-Semites due to their writings on Israel, Palestine and Iran.

[...]

Rather than stand behind its writers, top CAP officials, led by Tanden, applied constant coercion to stifle content upsetting to AIPAC.

[...]

Most of the CAP writers accused of Israel heresy were gone from the organization within a short time thereafter, and several have publicly revealed that they had been censored on matters pertaining to Israel.

[...]

In October 2011, a CAP national security writer, Benjamin Armbruster, circulated a discussion on CNN about whether Libya should be forced to turn over its oil revenue to the U.S. as compensation and gratitude for the U.S. having “liberated” Libya.

After one CAP official, Faiz Shakir, noted how perverse it is to first bomb a poor country and then make it turn over its revenues to you for doing so, Tanden argued that this made a great deal of sense.

[...]

Tanden’s twist on the argument — that Americans will continue to support foreign wars only if they see the invaded countries forced to turn over assets that the U.S. can use to fund its own programs — is singularly perverse, as it turns the U.S. military into some sort of explicit for-profit imperial force.

  Intercept

Well?

“CAP’s top donors include Walmart and Citigroup,” and also “include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents leading biotech and bio-pharma firms, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.” Other large CAP donors include Goldman Sachs, the Em­bassy of the United Ar­ab Emir­ates, Bank of America, Google and Time Warner.

Here's an exchange between Neera and Glenn Greenwald two days ago:

The Intercept Tweeted today that Hillary named Tanden to her DNC platform team. I haven't been able to confirm that, but it's not like The Intercept to put out something prematurely. (UPDATE: She did. It's here.)

So much for "progressives".

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

How Dare He!?!

And, good on Bernie.   (UPDATE 3/24:  Bernie told Cenk Uygur that he really wanted to make the AIPAC conference, but he was on the West Coast and couldn't.)

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will skip next week's AIPAC conference, making him the only presidential candidate in either party not to address the major pro-Israel conference.

The Vermont senator said in Friday letter to AIPAC head Robert Cohen that he could not make the conference in Washington.

"I would very much have enjoyed speaking at the AIPAC conference. Obviously, issues impacting Israel and the Middle East are of the utmost importance to me, to our country and to the world," he wrote. "Unfortunately, I am going to be traveling throughout the West and the campaign schedule that we have prevents me from attending."

Sanders said that he would send remarks to AIPAC on Monday and asked the group to give those remarks to conference-goers.

[...]

Sanders is the only Jewish candidate in the race and is running to become the first Jewish president.

  The Hill

No. No, he's not. He's running to become president. If elected, he will be the first Jewish president, but that's not why he's running.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

AIPAC Lobby

They must be getting bargain basement prices.

AIPAC - Friends of Israel

On July 23rd, officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—the powerful lobbying group known as AIPAC—gathered in a conference room at the Capitol for a closed meeting with a dozen Democratic senators [to get approval for an immediate payment of $225 million for Israel’s defense program].

[...]

At one point, Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, asked about conservative trends in Israel, a participant recalled. “He said that he supports Israel, but he’s concerned that Israel is headed toward a one-state solution—and that would be so damaging and dangerous for everyone involved.”

Charles Schumer, the senior Democrat from New York, interrupted. Turning to address the room, he said, “It troubles me when I hear people equate Israel and Hamas. That’s wrong, that’s terrible!” Kaine protested, “That’s not what I meant!” [Robert Cohen, the president of AIPAC] simply repeated that Hamas was to blame for everything that was happening.

  New Yorker

The New Yorker reports that two attempts to package the money with other bills (immigration and wildfires), and one on the Iron Dome money alone, failed to take hold, blocked by “budget hawks.” And the next day, Congress went to recess. Almost.

The next morning, with the halls of the Senate all but empty, an unusual session was convened so that McConnell and Reid could try again to pass the bill; Tim Kaine was also there, along with the Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. “There were five senators present and literally no one else!” the staffer said. “They reintroduced it and passed it. “

[...]

“Not only are we going to give you more missiles—we’re going to be a better friend,” Graham said [in a press conference]. “We’re going to fight for you in the international court of public opinion. We’re going to fight for you in the United Nations.”

While AIPAC is devoted to the Israeli agenda, The New Yorker quotes a Pew Center survey finding that only 38% of American Jewish citizens believe Israel is truly interested in peace and only 25% of Americans under the age of 30 think Israel is justified in its actions against Gaza. Can we wait for these people to get to the helm in this country for things to improve? Will they get there? And, if they do, assuming they are dependent upon dollar contributions to do so, will they still hold the same opinions?

The article continues, outlining AIPAC’s interference and influence in US foreign policy, for instance, in dealing with Iran sanctions.

AIPAC worked to mobilize its friends in Congress. Mark Kirk, a Republican senator from Illinois and a major beneficiary of AIPAC-related funding, began pressing to pass a new sanctions bill. “He was saying, ‘We’re in negotiations with a wolf in sheep’s clothing!’ ” a former Senate aide recalled. The bill, co-sponsored by Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, was drafted with considerable input from AIPAC. This was the first time in decades that the lobby had challenged the sitting U.S. President so overtly.

The Obama Administration was furious. “It’s one thing to disagree on some aspect of the peace process, on things that are tough for Israel to do,” the senior Administration official told me. “But this is American foreign policy that they were seeking to essentially derail. There was no other logic to it than ending the negotiations, and the gravity of that was shocking.”

It also describes the history of AIPAC.

[In the 1980s, the AIPAC] lobby created four hundred and thirty-five “congressional caucuses,” groups of activists who would meet with their member of Congress to talk about the pro-Israel agenda.

[...]

Despite its name, AIPAC is not a political-action committee, and therefore cannot contribute to campaigns. But in the eighties, as campaign-finance laws changed and PACs proliferated, AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs. By the end of the decade, there were dozens.

[...]

AIPAC representatives tried to match each member of Congress with a contact who shared the congressman’s interests. If a member of Congress rode a Harley-Davidson, AIPAC found a contact who did, too. The goal was to develop people who could get a member of Congress on the phone at a moment’s notice.

[...]

Republicans knew that they would never get more than a minority of the Jewish electorate, but AIPAC members convinced them that voting the right way would lead to campaign contributions. It was a winning argument. In 1984, Mitch McConnell narrowly beat AIPAC supporters’ preferred candidate, the incumbent Democrat Walter Huddleston. Afterward, McConnell met with two AIPAC officials and said to them, “Let me be very clear. What do I need to do to make sure that the next time around I get the community support?” AIPAC members let Republicans know that, if they supported AIPAC positions, the lobby would view them as “friendly incumbents,” and would not abandon them for a Democratic challenger.

[...]

[Tom Dine, former AIPAC executive director*,] estimated that in the eighties and nineties contributions from AIPAC members often constituted roughly ten to fifteen per cent of a typical congressional campaign budget. AIPAC provided lavish trips to Israel for legislators and other opinion-makers.

[...]

“The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.”

[...]

“When key votes are cast, the question on the House floor, troublingly, is often not ‘What is the right thing to do for the United States of America?’ but ‘How is AIPAC going to score this?’ ”

[...]

Nevertheless, the lobby did not endorse or rank candidates. “We made the decision to be one step removed,” Dine said. “Orrin Hatch once said, ‘Dine, your genius is to play an invisible bass drum, and the Jews hear it when you play it.’ ”

Several instances are recorded where Tom Dine and AIPAC got a politician replaced, including Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percey, whom AIPAC decided was not favorable to Israel.

In the next election, Paul Simon, a liberal Democrat, won Percy’s seat. Dine said at the time, “Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politicians—those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire—got the message.”

[...]

In 1995, AIPAC encouraged Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, to support bipartisan legislation to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem [a move certain to infuriate Arabs]. [...]In October, the bill passed in Congress, by an overwhelming majority. President Bill Clinton invoked a national-security waiver to prevent its enactment, and so has every President since.

[...]

“They always want to punish the Arabs,” [former Justice Minister of Israel, Yossi] Beilin concluded. “They are a very rightist organization, which doesn’t represent the majority of Jews in America, who are so Democratic and liberal. They want to protect Israel from itself—especially when moderate people are Israel’s leaders.”

Even the President of the United States apparently won’t cross AIPAC. When two of its members were caught giving state secrets to Israel, they were merely dismissed from AIPAC. No charges were brought.  And "Bibi" Netanyahu has more than once shown his ability to and propensity to brag about his superior position to Barack Obama.

In a meeting with young Likud supporters last spring, which one of them transcribed online, Netanyahu boasted of defying Obama’s pressure to halt settlements; 2013 was a record year for settlement construction in the West Bank.

[...]

After Obama endorsed the 1967 [Israel-Palestine] borders, AIPAC members called Congress to express outrage. “They wanted the President to feel the heat from Israel’s friends on the Hill,” a former Israeli official recalled. “They were saying to the Administration, ‘You must rephrase, you must correct!’ ” When Obama appeared at an AIPAC policy conference three days later, he was conciliatory: “The parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. [...] AIPAC had e-mailed videos to attendees, urging them not to boo the President; they complied, offering occasional wan applause. The next day, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress and received twenty-nine standing ovations.

Pwned.

There’s lots more interesting information on AIPAC in the New Yorker article. Read it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.


*For more on Tom Dine:

But step back to 1982, when Dine, figuratively speaking, picked up veteran Illinois Representative Paul Findley by the lapels and slammed him against the wall of electoral defeat--to make an example for any other members of Congress who might want to take even a half-step away from AIPAC's rigidly pro-Israel orthodoxy. (Four years earlier, Findley had met twice with PLO leader Yasir Arafat, eliciting from him a statement that offered guarded support for a two-state solution and, according to Findley, "de facto recognition" of Israel.) Dine was also the man who, as he told me recently, spent many Saturday mornings sitting with Secretary of State George Shultz, conferring closely--no aides present--on key aspects of US Middle East policy, especially arms sales.

[...]

Dine left AIPAC in 1993 and has moved noticeably toward the peace camp since then. Recently he worked with the broadly dovish Israel Policy Forum (IPF), which advocates a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. And for the past year, Dine has been heading a small group dedicated to improving US-Syrian relations.

  The Nation

While He May Win the Southern Biggots...

...I think Newt just blew it  .Because if you don't show the proper respect for Israel, you are doomed.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday was caught on camera sleeping during the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, according to ABC News.

Video shows Gingrich nodding off during the conference and occasionally waking himself up.

“Listening to Panetta is not a relaxing experience,” Gingrich said after being awoken at one point.

After finally being introduced, Gingrich seemed unprepared for the speech he was scheduled to give to the AIPAC crowd.

“I understand you have a panel,” he said. “I look forward to any questions.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is not a panel,” the announcer responded, after 12 seconds of awkward silence. “Please do continue, sir.”

  Raw Story

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

And speaking of Israel. They can't just sit back and wait for Iran.

Israeli troops entered northern Gaza on Wednesday, briefly sealing the Erez border crossing between the Palestinian territory andIsrael, Hamas officials said.

“Occupation forces moved into the northern Gaza Strip and began bulldozing work and closed the Erez crossing to travellers,” the interior ministry of the Islamist movement Hamas which rules Gazasaid in a statement.

Witnesses told AFP that two Israeli bulldozers accompanied by three tanks had moved into the area and were levelling land near the border.

  Raw Story

AIPAC, Super PAC, and the Slimey Newt

Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, [Sheldon] Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills.

  

As Stephen Colbert has been gleefully pointing out.

[Adelson] and his allies have been campaigning for war with Iran for years, not only here but in the Middle East. Adelson is a major financial backer of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Likud party, which calls in its platform for a “Greater Israel,” and he has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. [...]He supports the extremist – and increasingly violent – “settler” movement, and is the money-bags behind the “Clarion Fund,” which is responsible for flooding the US with anti-Arab propaganda.

[...]

Newt didn’t always believe the Palestinians are a figment of their own imaginations: this idea coincided with Adelson’s generous donations to Gingrich, Inc.

In a 2005 article for the Middle East Quarterly, Professor Newt opined that the Palestinians are “a relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people,” who are “in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world.”

[...]

”“The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people’s right to have a decent amount of land. The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements.”

[...]

Upon receiving a record amount of $13 million from Adelson – the latest installment was a check for $5 million from Miriam Adelson, his Israeli-born wife – Newt the Historian woke up one morning to discover that there are no Palestinians – only a horde of drooling Orcs trespassing on Israeli land.

In related news, but on the positive side (mark your calendars!):

On Monday afternoon, [U.S. Senate candidates Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Scott Brown in Massachusetts] signed an agreement. Republican Scott Brown described it as a “bold statement that puts super PACs and other third parties on notice that their interference in this race will not be tolerated,” and Democrat Elizabeth Warren added, “Both campaigns will need to remain vigilant to ensure that outside groups do not try to circumvent what is an historic agreement.”

According to the congressional newspaper, The Hill, “The pact signed by Warren and Brown on Monday imposes a financial penalty whenever an outside group intrudes on the race. If an outside group places a television or Internet ad supporting a candidate, the candidate would be required to donate 50 percent of the cost of the ad to a charity of the opponent’s choosing within three days. Negative attack ads would also trigger the penalty, with the candidate whose rival is attacked being forced to forfeit half the cost. Also included in the accord are written requests signed by both candidates to broadcast station managers imploring them to voluntarily enforce the pledge.”

[...]

The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak told Mother Jones magazine, “While we cannot take directions from any candidate on our independent activities, we are inclined to respect the People’s Pledge agreed to by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown and we hope that Scott Brown will honor his end of the deal when Crossroads and the Koch Brothers inevitably break it.”

  Bill Moyers