Is there an Israel lobby or not? The New York Jewish Week ought to be ashamed of itself for this piece attempting to discipline new Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for her mild comments re Israel that it regards as verboten.
In an interview
with the New York Observer’s PolitickerNY.com, she was somewhat
positive about the prospect Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu will become
Israel’s next prime minister, suggesting pragmatism may lead him to
“broaden his views.”
But just in case he doesn’t, she said she would be prepared to support diplomatic pressure on the Israeli leader.
“I think the president will use all the means and all the tools in
his toolbox to reach a solution for peace in the Middle East,” she
said. “And if he offers positive reinforcement or negative
reinforcement, that will be a strategic decision for the
administration and our secretary of state.”
That may not be a particularly radical thing to say, but in New York
Democratic politics it’s probably not the mark of political genius.
The headline for this article is, "Gillibrand comments on Israel jeopardize campaign contributions, votes." Yes, that's true, and proof of the Israel lobby that the Jewish press denied when gentiles asserted that it exists.
But aren't journalists supposed to provide intellectual leadership? Tell me what's wrong with Gillibrand's statement outside of the veiled threat the paper conveys? Do you believe, as Netanyahu does, in stealing other people's land for biblical reasons? This entire thing is the Jewish shame. The most powerful minority in the world acts at every moment in the U.S. to dispossess and dehumanize a faroff people on a religious/ethnic basis.
So working for peace in the Middle East is anathema to being pro-Israel, got it Gillibrand? Don't let it happen again.
What makes you think most journalists are capable of providing intellectual leadership?
Man are you thin skinned. I didn't sense they were making any kind of threat, but instead were spelling out the reality of the kind of politics she was up against. It sounded like a more neutral rendition of what you and your klan rant about here every day.
Are you sure you aren't pissed because they didn't instead talk about the New Dawn of Jewish bubbes protesting Gaza occupation?
Contrary to AIPAC's prevailing 'Israel right or wrong' mentality, the U.S. ought to be exercising a lot more leverage over Israel than it customarily has.
Gillebrand deserves plaudits, not criticism, for stating the obvious. Plenty of voters who are tired of being chiseled by importunate, insatiable foreigners will enthusiastically agree with her. If I were Senator, the formulation would be more like, 'For three billion dollahs a year, we frickin' OWN YOU.'
But it wouldn't be the mark of political genius in New York politics. LOL.
"you and your klan"?
"you and your klan"?
Suzanne didn't get the no-personal-insults memo.
Part of Suzanne's rant was possibly correct, IMO–rather than a threat, I thought the paper was confirming the existence of a lobby that acts vindictively towards any politician who isn't a kneejerk supporter of the Israeli far right.
" I thought the paper was confirming the existence of a lobby that acts vindictively towards any politician who isn't a kneejerk supporter of the Israeli far right."
Warm but not quite. That paper was certainly sending out a political signal. But I disagree that a Jewish voting bloc or lobby behaves any differently than any other. Y'll either don’t know democracy's political machinations very well, or you’re liars.
I could easily guess either one or both.
Suzanne, the "either… or.." formulation rules out the supposition that both might be true.
Only if it's definately one or the other. As a mentor, you suck, or you're just a moron. But you could possibly be both without conflict.
Yes, it is possible to possess two qualities without conflict. But not two opposite and contradictory qualities, which is what the "either … or…" formula indicates. Perhaps you should skip some of the hasbara 101 classes and take an elementary logic 101 course. You might want to check out if the local charm school is laying on any evening classes as well, unless your habitual resorting to foul mouthed insults is a product of Tourette's Syndrome or something similar, in which case I apologise.
@ Suzanne
"Warm but not quite. That paper was certainly sending out a political signal. But I disagree that a Jewish voting bloc or lobby behaves any differently than any other. Y'll either don’t know democracy's political machinations very well, or you’re liars."
For readers not convinced by Suzanne usual name calling, you might want to read M & W's book, The Israel Lobby, which discusses the unique nature of the Lobby. And here, for those with little time, is a snippet covering the subject written about five years before M & W's article/book came out:
"Most ethnic lobbies—of which the German and Irish diasporas were the most influential in the past—have based their power on votes, not money. (Most immigrant groups have been relatively poor at first, and have lost their ethnic identity on becoming more prosperous.) The influence of these lobbies has
usually been confined to cities and states in which particular ethnic groups have been concentrated—Irish-American Boston, German-American Milwaukee, Cuban-American Miami. The emergent Latino lobby is similar in its geographic limitation. The small U.S. Jewish population (about 2 percent of the total) is highly concentrated in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and a few other areas.
The Israel lobby, however, is not primarily a traditional ethnic voter machine; it is an ethnic donor machine. Unique among ethno-political machines in the U.S., the Israel lobby has emulated the techniques of national lobbies based on economic interests (both industry groups and unions) or social issues (the National Rifle Association, pro- and anti-abortion groups). The lobby uses nationwide campaign donations, often funnelled through local “astroturf” (phony grassroots) organizations with names like Tennesseans for Better Government and the Walters Construction Management Political Committee of Colorado, to influence members of Congress in areas where there are few Jewish voters."
And too additionally count the myriad ways the Lobby is unique, I suggest clicking on this link:
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/may2002/0205026.html
"But I disagree that a Jewish voting bloc or lobby behaves any differently than any other. Y'll either don’t know democracy's political machinations very well, or you’re liars.
I could easily guess either one or both."
You don't argue in good faith. There's a third possibility, which happens to be correct–I think some lobbies favor good policies and others do not. The Israel lobby, the rightwing Miami Cuban lobby, and the ethanol lobby are all examples of lobbies that favor bad policies. In the case of the Israeli lobby they argue for policies that are ultimately bad for Israel. That's how democracy works–people who favor noxious ideas are free to do so, along with the rest of us.
Sounds like perhaps some people judge lobby policies based on their own political biases.
In any case, I thought the paper overstated the case. I'm not convinced anybody in the Jewish voting bloc gave a flying bleep about what the Senator said about Bibi.
"Sounds like perhaps some people judge lobby policies based on their own political biases. "
Gasp. You think? Any other virtually tautological points you'd like to make?
you missed my point. You named lobbies you don't like. I think that might be your only criteria.