Israel Thread

[dgs49]

I guess it might be counterproductive to introduce this topic again, but I keep wondering if my take on Israel is based on misinformation.

Bibi is a little more transparent than most, but regardless of who is in power in Israel, the fundamental policy seems to be:

(1) pretend to want to negotiate a "two-state solution" with the Arab population in the area the world knows as "Palestine" (which includes Israel proper), but

(2) do everything possible to prevent this from ever happening.

The international community is virtually unanimous in recommending and assuming that the situs of the "Palestinian State" will be the West Bank, including part of greater Jerusalem, plus Gaza. And yet, the Israeli's have been conducting a decades-long campaign to confiscate and occupy every arable or otherwise desirable square meter of land in those areas.

Clearly, no viable state can exist in the remaining portions of the West Bank, and just as clearly, Israel will never abandon and forcibly remove the Israeli "settlers" who live there.

So while they pretend to want a "lasting peace," they blatantly undertake actions which will prevent it from ever happening. They say they are willing to negotiate, but they effectively change (enhance) their negotiating position constantly through their activities on the ground. And none of this could happen without the support of the U.S.

There is no question that establishing a conventional, militaristic Palestinian state in the entirety of the "occupied territories" would be an existential threat to Israel, and one cannot blame them for trying to prevent this possibility. Still, the U.S. has dropped the ball in not taking the initiative to propose measures that would alleviate that threat through other means, rather than basically approving everything Israel has done - and continues to do - to prevent the "two state solution" that the world wants.

As painful as it would be to establish "Palestine" as a U.N. "Protectorate," or some such thing, at least it would be a solution, and not a program for perpetual hostilities, which appears to be the Israeli path forward.

This is truly an area when any U.S. President could make a tremendous positive impact, if he were willing to stand up to the Jewish lobby.

Guess I answered my own question.

[Sue U]

I guess it might be counterproductive to introduce this topic again, but I keep wondering if my take on Israel is based on misinformation.

***

This is truly an area when any U.S. President could make a tremendous positive impact, if he were willing to stand up to the Jewish lobby.

Guess I answered my own question.

You obviously have no clue as to the actual political life of Israel, the limits of an American president's ability to influence another country's politics, nor the the role of the American Jewish community in U.S. politics or with respect to Israel. It would be charitable to characterize your ignorance and prejudice as merely "misinformed," considering you are probably able to operate the google and actually educate yourself before spouting off, but you seem to prefer just making shit up to fit your own preconceived notions. There is far too much going on to fit into your simplistic view, or to fully ealborate on in this forum, but here is a brief beginning so that you might go on to actually learn something:

In the first place, Israel has numerous (40-something, at last count) and rather fluid political parties representing widely divergent views on almost everything -- including issues regarding Palestininan territories. Some in fact do advocate dismantling settlements and a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. And by the way, the current largest party in Knesset is the "centrist" Kadima created by Ariel Sharon specifically to back his policy of complete unilateral withdrawal from Gaza -- including removal of the so-called "settlers" from Gaza and several settlements in the West Bank. This was exactly why he left (or was kicked out of) Likud, which has traditionally opposed Palestinian statehood, supported continuing occupation and encouraged expanding settlements. Kadima's platform affirms a two-state solution under the so-called "road map for peace" but it insists on Israeli control of Jerusalem and large settlements in the West Bank. It would require the Palestinian Authority to create a "terror-free" territory before it will accede to the establishment of a Palestinian state. But despite winning the most seats in 2009, Kadima failed to form a government and Likud got enough right-wing coalition partners, plus what was left of Labor, to sign on with it. As a result, there is not enough consensus within the current government to take bold action. Other political parties that identify with the Peace Now and B'Tselem movements, and whch strongly support a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal, were marginalized in 2009 largely (I think) because of the political drama in the Likud-Kadima-Labor wrangling.

And although it obviously comes as news to you, the issue of Palestinian statehood is not the only -- or even the most important -- political question on the minds of most Israelis. Security generally (which goes to issues far beyond Palestine), water and (not surprisingly) the economy have been every bit as, and often more, important.

How is it, exactly, that you think an American president can solve the domestic political questions of a foreign country? Should the president of France be solving America's issues along its border with Mexico? And what is he supposed to do about the political disarray among the Palestinians that prevents them from advancing the process on their side?

As for American Jews, there is no such thing as a "Jewish lobby" that has any monolithic opinion on Israel, other than general support for its continued existence. And as both Jim and I have pointed out in previous threads, one can be a supporter of the State of Israel without supporting the policy choices of the particular government in power at any given time. AIPAC tends to a rather conservative view and tends to draw from a significantly older demographic of American Jews; its members are overwhelmingly Democrats, but it is not an advocate for any Israeli political party or movement. The rising political voice of American Jews is at J Street, a pro-Israel pro-peace lobby that advocates for Palestinian rights and statehood and against settlement in the West Bank.

ETA: Here are links to an American group I support (Meretz USA) and the Israeli poitical party it is affiliated with (I will not vouch for the google translate function.)

Meretz USA (now called Partners for Progressive Israel)

Meretz

You might want to read up on former Meretz Chairman and MK Yossi Beilin, who did more work to advance the peace process than anyone in history.

If you want to actually learn something about Israeli politics and society generally, so that you don't sound quite so ignorant, you could start by reading Ha'aretz.

[dgs49]

(1) I am aware that there is a very broad spectrum of political parties in Israel, and yet, when you check the map of settlements in "occupied territories" over the years, the number of dots on that map increases every couple years, doesn't it? The latest news that that a kibbutz in Israel proper has taken it upon itself to "occupy" 300+ acres in the Territories for its own agricultural use. There are new apartment buildings being built right now in parts of Jerusalem that are, shall we say, "in dispute." It is my personal belief that actions speak louder than words, and in spite of the level and variety of opinions in Israel, its action-speak has been quite consistent over the decades.

(2) I've really had it up to here with people proclaiming that there is no "Jewish Lobby." Horse shit. Any time an American President says anything that is in any way critical of something Israel is doing, he has to give the then-current Israeli PM a virtual blowjob to make up for it. Every presidential candidate since Eisenhower has had to bow to the feet of various Jewish organizations, perennially making an ass of himself to avoid them thinking he is slightly less pro-Israel than every other candidate. The same is true of the Cuban vote in Florida (though not to the same extent). The political influence of Jews in the U.S. is grossly disproportional to the percentage of "Jewish" voters (a category that is increasingly hard to define) in the national voting population, and it's really rather stunning that any cogent American would dispute this, in good faith.

(3) If the American President - whoever it is - cannot exert any influence on Israeli political positions, then shame on him. Politics is all about leverage, and Israel would not exist without American support. If that doesn't buy some influence then something is wrong.

[quaddriver]

Interesting, there are a number of books and research papers on the J-A lobby, and the MIL, (being a past member of the same law firm who also counted as its members an ex Pa gov whose name rhymes with 'fridge') also seems to feel that although 2% of the population, American Jewry count for 25-50% of the power brokers in the USA - depending on which particular power you are discussing.

small excerpt:

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture." -- Michael Medved, well-known Jewish author and respected film critic.

For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.

"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [note 1]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful." [note 2]

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence -- vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.

As Jewish author and political science professor, Benjamin Ginsberg, has pointed out: [note 3]

"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations."

Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked.

Jews are only two percent of the nation's population yet comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry." [note 4]

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [note 5]

"During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."

The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [note 6]

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [note 7]

this "lobby", disputed existance or not, is one of the PRIMARY reasons various arab/moslem factions dislike us so as they perceive the US power to be under direct influence, and hence Tel Aviv by association.

In my own sphere of life, this has been true and unwavering for the 30 years since I was first taught it in HS.

[Sue U]

(1) I am aware that there is a very broad spectrum of political parties in Israel, and yet, when you check the map of settlements in "occupied territories" over the years, the number of dots on that map increases every couple years, doesn't it?

You might want to correlate the actual settlement expansions with which party was running the government at the time.

(2) I've really had it up to here with people proclaiming that there is no "Jewish Lobby." Horse shit.

Because, of course, the US is secretly run by a cabal of Jews.

Any time an American President says anything that is in any way critical of something Israel is doing, he has to give the then-current Israeli PM a virtual blowjob to make up for it.

Really? How, exactly, are "The Jews" demanding these virtual blow jobs?

Every presidential candidate since Eisenhower has had to bow to the feet of various Jewish organizations, perennially making an ass of himself to avoid them thinking he is slightly less pro-Israel than every other candidate.

You want to provide some actual examples of a presidential candidate "bow[ing] to the feet of various Jewish organizations"? And just as a matter of curiosity, are you equally appalled by the candidates who bow down to the Roman Catholic church and to Christian fundamentalists, vowing to impose their religious priorities on the citizens of the United States?

The political influence of Jews in the U.S. is grossly disproportional to the percentage of "Jewish" voters (a category that is increasingly hard to define) in the national voting population, and it's really rather stunning that any cogent American would dispute this, in good faith.

Ah, the Jewish cabal again -- now with voters increasingly hard to define!

(3) If the American President - whoever it is - cannot exert any influence on Israeli political positions, then shame on him. Politics is all about leverage, and Israel would not exist without American support. If that doesn't buy some influence then something is wrong.

And what influence did George Bush wield over the Sharon/Olmert governments -- particularly during the disastrous 2006 war in Lebanon, or even the Second Intifada? What influence did Saint Ronald Reagan exert on Israel during the 1982 war in Lebanon and the First Intifada? What influence did Richard Nixon exert on Israel during the initial years of occupation of the territories? And by the way, your history (as usual) is wrong. Until 1967, Israel's closest ties both militarily and strategically were to France -- from whom the Israelis obtained nuclear power. And speaking of France, it was Eisenhower who led the international effort against Israel, France and Britain to return the Sinai to Egypt after they had seized it in the 1956 Suez war.

The fact is, Israel has its own domestic and foreign policy that responds to its own electorate and their own interests -- that's why it's a democracy. Further, Israel has been an extremely valuable strategic asset for the US, both during the Cold War and now in the "War on Terror," both in terms of intelligence and operations. I seriously doubt we'd get that kind of information and cooperation from Egypt, Syria or even our good friends in the House of Saud. How much of that are you willing to give up? And to the extent that Israel is "probably" a nuclear power, you'd really want to factor that into any foreign policy calculations.

[Sue U]

Interesting, there are a number of books and research papers

Seriously, quad? I note you didn't provide a source. Is that because this "research paper" you're quoting is produced by well-known racist, white supremacist, anti-Semite and professional Holocaust-denier Mark Weber?

More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weber has warned against America's becoming "a sort of Mexicanized, Puerto Ricanized country. . . . I don't believe it's possible for Black Americans to be assimilated into white society."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.

Weber's more openly extremist commitment to white supremacy has not abated during his pyrrhic ascendancy through the IHR ranks. Throughout the 1980s, he maintained his contact with the National Alliance, serving, according to official documents, as treasurer of that organization's "Cosmotheist Church."

Similarly, in 1987, graduating seniors at four private high schools in Atlanta received copies of a 584-page racist and anti-Semitic book, The Dispossessed Majority, with a letter signed by Weber which stated, "... You and your classmates may expect to face grave political, economic and social problems. There will be outright discrimination against you as you compete for admission to the better colleges. Less-qualified nonwhites with lower academic standing will be pushed ahead of you by means of racial quotas and four-year scholarships."

In 1989, several ROTC cadets at Auburn University received an identical mailing from Weber. In the same year, Weber was interviewed by The Sower, a student newspaper at the University of Nebraska. In the interview, Weber stated, " l'm concerned about the future of (the white) race and I'm concerned about the future of our country." He also warned against America's becoming "a sort of Mexicanized, Puerto Ricanized country.... I don't believe it's possible for Black Americans to be assimilated into white society."

Nonetheless, it is as a Holocaust-denier that Weber has found his niche on the radical right, and it is through the IHR that he has found the platform to pursue his increasingly solitary, yet persistently hateful propaganda mission.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/weber.asp

[quaddriver]

I notice that you didnt actually dispute his claims.

His book isnt a good source?

mebbe the old standby wiki

not going to bother quoting from you, you can read it - or not, it refutes everything you have said about the Jewish american Lobby.

or maybe i will

The Washington Post summarized the Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data and concluded that "Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[46] In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990–2006) period.[47]

J.J. Goldberg wrote in his 1994 book Jewish Power that 45% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees.[48] Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, updated those figures in 2006 citing figures of 60% and 35% respectively for the Democratic and Republican Parties. According to the Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources

those are not trivial numbers.

but those are american numbers, cant trust the americans. How about the uk

they say (among other things)

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders).

which oddly, covers 2 key points Dave brought up that you went after him on.

and the non existent J-A lobby:

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.

or how about yet another source?

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Its job is to maintain America’s support and favourable opinion towards Israel.

It has an annual budget of US$60 million, a staff of 275, and is backed up by over 100,000 grassroots members. It also has an endowment of $135 million and a new $80 million headquarters on Capitol Hill.

AIPAC is smart, wealthy and organised, and is arguably the most powerful lobby group in America.

Almost every major US politician including Barack Obama has spoken at their conference.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker this week, backed up by Tony Blair.

Israel actually copped some criticism from Clinton in her speech, to go with the unhappy remarks from the White House last week over its settlement building.

However, such criticism is rare. The US was even quick to reaffirm the strong relationship between the two countries in an almost apologetic manner.

This begs a simple question – why is the mighty United States so scared of little old Israel?

They reason is the determined influence of the Jewish lobby.

Indeed, the influence is so strong that to publicly criticise Israel is a social and political taboo.

Journalists and academics have quickly learnt that being pro-Israeli in the US makes it a lot easier to further your career.

But it’s the politicians who have the most to fear.

It is now commonly held knowledge in the halls of Washington that if a politician ever spoke out for the rights of the Palestinians on the Congress or Senate floor, that would be the end of their career.

They would be shunned by other politicians, making any legislation they propose, particularly for their state, almost impossible to get passed.

But more significantly, their opponent in the next election would be flooded with political donations, and an advertising campaign would likely label them a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of Israel.

The advertising and anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) accusations from the opponent, not to mention the lack of progress in Washington, would collectively make the election unwinnable.

Seem far-fetched? It happened to Alabama congressman Earl Hilliard in 2002.

The threat is a reality for politicians thanks to AIPAC’s highly organised band of followers.

AIPAC does not fund campaigns themselves. Instead they provide their followers with voting statistics on congressmen and advise which candidate to support and donate money to.

And their followers are not just Jewish Americans. Some of the staunchest supporters of AIPAC and Israel are evangelical Christians – a quarter of American voters.

All over the country Christian preachers are telling their congregations they must support Israel because the Bible says so.

So what does all this support mean for the Middle East?

The US in turn uses its power over Arab countries in the region to silence their criticism. It also blocks any legal condemnation by using its veto in the UN Security Council.

And lastly, the US gives US$3 billion a year to Israel – making it the largest recipient of foreign aid in the world. This reinforces Israel’s financial and military superiority over the Palestinians.

But this support is beginning to backfire – if only a little.

Last week, General David Petraeus, America’s highest military commander, told the US Congress that America’s favouritism towards Israel had caused anti-American sentiment to the point that it was no longer in America’s interests.

Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson agrees, saying Israel is now a strategic burden on America.

And AIPAC is beginning to lose its monopoly on Israeli lobbying. In 2008 an Israeli lobby group called J Street started up as a voice for more moderate Jewish Americans.

They campaign for Israel’s security and right to exist, but do so by promoting the return of Palestinian land to the 1967 borders – essentially what the Arab and international community wants.

But J Street is still a minor player compared to AIPAC. And although President Obama gave them legitimacy by inviting them to the White House, they still have a long way to go before having any real influence on America’s approach.

Indeed, the influence AIPAC has on America cannot be underestimated. It’s akin to Israel having the referee on their side in a soccer match against the Palestinians.

So until America and the world wakes up to this silencing act, there is little hope for peace and justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since I am the only one quoting sources in this thread (quelle surprise!) I am going to stop as I dont have the time and this BBS does not have the bandwidth to store the 2million responses from a directed google search.

suffice to say, the jewish american lobby is real, well funded and is ranked by everyone else not named Sue as the most powerful in the US, perhaps world. so we can dispense with that and address Daves points - or not - or insult him more - or insult me - or derail into a discussion about the walking dead...your call.

[quaddriver]

You want to provide some actual examples of a presidential candidate "bow[ing] to the feet of various Jewish organizations"?.

Odd that no one spoke up on this. I have read, and/or been told that the US has blocked 32 UN resolutions or call for a resolution or vote on Israeli censure and/or other punishment of some sort.

Im not going to count them. I dont care if the number is 31 or 33, the point is, the US voice in the UN, as a permanent voting member and one of the most powerful ones has taken a pro-israel stance.

Im sorta thinking that the resolutions (whatever) were not about the bagels being a little stale.

Now we all know, or should know, that the president and no other person sets Us policy. therefore we can conclude that at any date the Us delegation to the UN voted to block, the sitting president gave the order.

So, it would seem to be a fairly academic excersize to find the dates of the 32 (or 31 or 33) votes and search the handy dandy POTUS chart to find presidents that did exactly what Dave has suggested.

As we have also seen form incidental sources I have posted, elected people in our govt have stated that to oppose the APIAC is a death wish for their continued employment.

You spoke of a monolithic mindset - again curious. From the world stage, we see that the 34 or 43 or 6 and a half parties in Israel only differ by fav color of jelly bean.

Israels actions have indeen been monolithic in the fact that they continuously piss off the arab nations. and the UN. In ways exactly as Dave (and my quoted sources) have enumerated.

the lobbyists in America have indeed been monolithic as they cause the US to do one thing: never oppose Israel.

Each election cycle the democrats talk big how they are going to ignore the american jewish lobby and clamp down on israel, but the reality is, the american jews support the democrats more than any other group nationwide (see another quote I sourced). Candidates know where the feeding hand is located.

[dgs49]

SOS. If you point out the grossly disproportionate influence of - whatever you want to call it - the "Jewish Lobby" - you must be an anti-Semite.

And I can't recall many instances where politicians' catering to the interests of fundamentalist Christians or the RC Church has resulted in general contempt of the U.S. from the EU or - dare I say it? - tall buildings in New York being blown up, as has been the result of our sometimes-irrational support for Israel.