The Independent in UK says, The lobby cut Obama's hamstring muscles:
The victory of Mr Obama, who as a child lived in a Muslim country,
raised hopes that he would see the Middle East through radically
different eyes. But the new administration's deeds have been cautious.
The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has hewed to a conventional
line, while Dennis Ross, her special adviser for Iran and Gulf issues,
is seen as sympathetic to Israel.
raised hopes that he would see the Middle East through radically
different eyes. But the new administration's deeds have been cautious.
The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has hewed to a conventional
line, while Dennis Ross, her special adviser for Iran and Gulf issues,
is seen as sympathetic to Israel.
Times of London is also routinely using the term, The Israel lobby here.
But The Weekly Standard says there is no lobby. They ransacked Capitol Hill and no one there says they've ever been pressured. Whew.
And what about when Ford wanted to reassess the relationship in light of the colonization of the West Bank? Or when Bush I challenged Shamir over the colonies 15 years later? Or when Bush I and Clinton ran against one another in '92 both offering support for the colonies? Was that the American interest talking? Or the lobby?
Reminds me of the term "plausible deniability," the concept that while underlings did the "wetwork" of a professional assassination of Chas Freeman's character, AIPAC protected the Senators and Congressmen from scrunity by "taking no official position" on the matter. Even though we know Josh Block of AIPAC provided talking points and opposition research which got into the hands of the elected officials so they could push Chas under a bus, it is "plausible" that the elected officials could "deny" they were influenced by The Lobby.
Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard inadvertently published a bizarre quote from Alcee Hastings. “I’m close to AIPAC. If they did come out against Freeman, I was not in the loop because no one called me to say a word about Charles Freeman,” said Hastings.
Hastings is close to AIPAC and acknowledges it?? Where the heck is 60 MINUTES when the country has been overtaken by a foreign power?
@ Oscar
60 Minutes hasn't been able to make up their mind if they can bear the assault from Zionist racists of being labeled anti-Semetic and terror lovers.
As soon as they get over their fear they will come around.
There is no clear Israel Lobby.
The element that I dislike about your repetitive approach on the "Israel Lobby", Phil, is that it is as relentless and therefore insensitive, as those that you criticize.
"There is no clear Israel Lobby."
We know. It's very murky.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070934.html
Nasrallah vows Hezbollah will never recognize Israel
By Haaretz Service
Tags: israel news, britain
Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Friday that his organization will never recognize Israel.
In a speech delivered from his secret hiding place and beamed via video to thousands of Hezbollah followers in Lebanon, Nasrallah said his organization will never officially accept Israel, which in his words represents "a rapacious, racist, and illegal entity."
Anyone here think this is a helpful position? Do you think establishing an unconditional state of war with Israel is a good path?
Anyone here think this is a helpful position? Do you think establishing an unconditional state of war with Israel is a good path?
Posted by: Richard Witty | March 13, 2009 at 09:28 PM
————————————-
And to think, after all the overtures of peace from Israel and its willingness to recognize Hezbollah, Nasrallah acts the ingrate!
"Anyone here think this is a helpful position?"
Richard, weren't you paying attention during those 22 days in January?
When Richard says there is "no clear Israel Lobby", what does he mean?
I understand that different organizations and people within a lobby may not be engaged by exactly the same issues, may be more or less extreme in their positions than others and may disagree about tactics, strategies and substantive policies, but that is true of most lobbies that are not encompassed within a single organization. When I worked on the Hill, the business lobby included both the National Association of Manufacturers (generally, fairly sensible) and the American Chamber of Commerce (more ideological, tending toward crackpot). Same can be said for different groups constituting the environmental lobby, banking lobby or labor lobby.
I really don't get the objection to W&M's thesis regarding the Israel Lobby. Everyone in D.C. has known it for decades and it's obviously not just AIPAC. I'm not sure why this lobby has acquired a "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" status for some people, especially in D.C. (e.g., Hiatt, Diehl, Lane, Milbank). I don't think that's healthy for anyone, and in the long run is counterproductive for any lobby regardless of its merits.
"There is no clear Israel Lobby" writes Richard Witty
In an organizational sense perhaps but not in an ideological sense surely Mr Witty?
John
"The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/417420?rel=hp_picks
I saw that "tongue in cheek" quote from Freeman too.
But, honestly, Richard, to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby approaches sophistry in my opinion. The Israel Lobby includes Pipes' group and J Street too (it's not monolithic by any means). The opposition to Freeman was directed by the middle and extreme ends of the Israel Lobby, but there is no question that he was done in by it.