On Wednesday, the day after Barack Obama secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee for President of the United States, both he and his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, spoke at a conference hosted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The organization bills itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and "A Voice for the U.S.-Israel Relationship." It claims to be a "100,000-member national grassroots movement" that has "worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong."
AIPAC's web site features photographs of powerful political leaders of both parties (Nancy Pelosi, John (hic) Boehner, Junior Bush, Condi Rice, et alia) yucking it up with AIPAC mucky-mucks.
I'm puzzled. This is, ostensibly, an American organization and one would think that AIPAC would advocate positions that further American interests. But, just breezing through the web site, one detects a pronounced Israel-first bent.
For example,in the About AIPAC section of the web site, a list of AIPAC Achievements brags about how AIPAC secured $2.42 billion dollars in "military aid and refugee assistance" for Israel, "[s]trongly urging the [Bush] administration to take its decision to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist group," "[p]rohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with the Hamas-led P[alestinian] A[uthority]." In short, AIPAC seems to write US policy toward Israel and Palestine.
There is no deference toward American interests; judging from the web site, AIPAC is completely unapologetic in its assertion that Israeli interests are paramount and non-negotiable. I find it incredibly offensive.
And, apparently, I'm not the only one. AIPAC is surrounded by controversy. In 2006, a report written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, argued:
"The overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby...no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical."Whenever AIPAC is criticized, it seems to respond with shrieks about "anti-Semitism." And the plight of the Palestinians, who have, for 60 years, been systematically humiliated and abused, goes on unrestrained.
This enigmatic, blind and total support for Israel by the highest officials of both major parties, and by every American president since Harry Truman is outrageous. Barack Obama and John McCain have both already kow-towed.
I don't understand it. I resent it.
4 comments:
And, just when I wanted to get on the Obama bandwagon, he delivers a speech ensuring continued (and unquestioning) support of Israel. Then, apparently just to kick more sand in the face of oppressed Palestine, he added that Hamas should be "isolated."
Sounds like the samo-samo policies will continue with unreasonable deference to Israel no matter who's in office.
I find it interesting that Obama thinks democracy is good for the world yet he will not honor the fact that Hamas was democratically elected by Palestineans.
His speech to AIPAC was nothing short of a slap in the face of the suffering Palestineans.
And as he yapped on and on he sounded more like W.
His position on AIPAC and Israel is old establishment politics. AIPAC is losing more and more support among Americans and even among Israelis who are against the Zionist apartheid that describes Israel's policies toward Palestine.
Also, east Jerusalem is occupied territory that was mandated to be and international territory.
The US does not officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or that east Jerusalem is part of Israeli territory.
Obama's opportunistic support for a unified Jerusalem as Isreal's capital he goes against official US policy and the mandate of the UN.
He is more than out of step. And certainly not "change I can believe in" ... by far.
The good thing is that he is not about to win anything beyond the nomination of his party, in my view.
That leaves us with McCain and that is just as bad and even worse if one factors in his war
position(s).
Still, the ball must be thrown back at the domocrats who failed to bring forth candidates that are not just warmed over republicans.
Peace Dade and thanks for an excellent post.
Peace,
Ridwan
Hear Hear!
I find it interesting that Obama thinks democracy is good for the world yet he will not honor the fact that Hamas was democratically elected by Palestineans.
His speech to AIPAC was nothing short of a slap in the face of the suffering Palestineans.
And as he yapped on and on he sounded more like W.
His position on AIPAC and Israel is old establishment politics. AIPAC is losing more and more support among Americans and even among Israelis who are against the Zionist apartheid that describes Israel's policies toward Palestine.
Also, east Jerusalem is occupied territory that was mandated to be and international territory.
The US does not officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, or that east Jerusalem is part of Israeli territory.
Obama's opportunistic support for a unified Jerusalem as Isreal's capital he goes against official US policy and the mandate of the UN.
He is more than out of step. And certainly not "change I can believe in" ... by far.
The good thing is that he is not about to win anything beyond the nomination of his party, in my view.
That leaves us with McCain and that is just as bad and even worse if one factors in his war
position(s).
Still, the ball must be thrown back at the domocrats who failed to bring forth candidates that are not just warmed over republicans.
Peace Dade and thanks for an excellent post.
Peace,
Ridwan
Post a Comment