Can there be any serious argument with the statement that Congress is Israeli Occupied Territory when even the Lion of the Senate is forced to lie down like a lamb?
When Kennedy spoke before the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations on January 28, 1980, he attacked President Carter, accusing him of an "on again, off again flirtation" with the PLO and of holding "pro-Palestinian positions," (NYT 1/29/80), this about a man who had only a year earlier negotiated the Camp David Treaty between Israel and Egypyt.
Kennedy told his audience that "I know that in advocating Israel’s cause, I am inevitably advancing the cause of America," and he asked, rhetorically, "what sort of a settlement can Israel expect from this president electorally unfettered in his second term? How often have threats and pressures, veiled and explicit, been used by this Administration in attempting to coerce Israel?"
The Times reported that Rabbi Alexander Schindler, a former president of the conference and the president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, said that the Kennedy commitment was the most unequivocal he had heard from any Presidential candidate.
[image from Deego at flickr]
{ 10 comments }
And still, relative to what Phillip defined as the most important agenda for AIPAC, the reason that Phil started this blog in the first place (or the reason for it being), Kennedy voted AGAINST the Iraq War resolution.
How do you explain that, if he is a lamb?
Witty, I highly doubt Phil ever went so far as to claim that. Can you substantiate you claim, or are you bearing false witness again here?
Who the hell is Phillip?
Easy, there was enough leeway since AIPAC did not make any official policy statements
regarding the need to attack Iraq. That is, it did not obviously affect Israel in the eyes of a moron. He had cover and could make that stand, protected by AIPAC’s own self-proclaimed reason for existence.
In this context, he could ignore all the AIPAC pundits in the MSM, and did not have to
stand up and say, ” I know that in advocating Israel’s cause, I am inevitably advancing the cause of America.”
The issue here whether we are talking about Kennedy or not is the fawning and servile nature of those who are supposed to be representing all of the American people. It does not matter who they are scraping and bowing to, the relationship is not conducive to the so-called calling – it needs to be cut off immediately. Now, if some what to say their supporters are in vital areas of our interest (banks, media, whatever) than cleanse those areas also – don’t be held ransom by a few, it is not acceptable. It is the people who have to deliver this to their elected representatives, if the representatives refuse to listen than they get tossed. If them being tossed causes a crisis in whatever area of the vital interest of the country, either economic or not, foreign or domestic, than those areas get rearranged immediately. Remove everyone from the halls of power, they belong to the people – if they do not like this stance from the people, and the system is not reformable (which I believe is the case, it will cause violence literally to maintain a status quo) than it has to face the furious people and will not stand.
True when their term is up, senators and representatives can be tossed to the curb,
but due to gerrrymandering and campaign financing, when it comes to our policy
respecting Israel no matter who replaces whom, they will sing the same tune. This can’t be stopped by initiating term limits. The issue then dissolves to finding and selling an effective campaign finance reform package. This might include a net tax offset for campaign funding on one’s 1040, plus devotion of a set of public TV channels
to third party candidates at the state and local election levels. Any more ideas?
I mean at the federal, state and local election levels. There could also be a net tax offset for campaign finance funding on state income tax forms and municipal too.
Additional seats, increase the number of representatives in proportion to the numerical populations of states? The result would be: more interests would have a chance for representation, it would obviate gerrymandering, as currently maintained, and offset the influence of money. Arguably.
Mondoweiss – thanks for including Kovel and Blankfort. Their knowledge and intellectual integrity will be a real boost to the discussions here, and will help revitalize this comment section. I hope they are amenable to making further contributions.
Comments on this entry are closed.