Obama, Clinton and most of the Democratic candidates seem agreed on two points. Israel needs the means to protect itself, and they will all try to reach out to the globe in order to re-create a international approach to global problems.

It is a shame that so many people don't understand that yes AIPAC is often too belicose and too shorsighted. However, all in all AIPAC and most of the American People are on the same page.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Obama states the framework under which Clinton operated for eight years. Furthermore, although American leadership is necessary, it is way far from sufficient. Clinton tried hard and Yasser was preparing for another uprising with all its suffering for the Palestinians and Israelis.

As for Iraq, the Iraq Study Group was a huge exercise in laziness and old thinking. After all, if you think that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is at the center of the Iraq problem you must also believe in a flat earth.

This does not mean that building the largest embassy in the universe, American in Baghdad, is short of semi official occupation forever.

Gettysburg,

One of the leaders of the fundamentalists passed away a few weeks ago. Maybe there will be just a little less to worry about, now that Falwell is gone. There are other radical fundamentalists, though, like the hard right Likudniks. Oh wait, they’re aligned with the neocons. Hmmm, that’s weird.

"...We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral...."

I would have preferred if Obama had put different weights on this trio.

Although we are doing our best to break our military, it is far and away the world's strongest and most efficient. Diplomacy has been horribly ineffective -- I'd say negative. In moral leadership we are, whether we like it or not, in the toilet. The whole world tells us so. Doesn't matter how we delude ourselves.

First, and most importantly the US needs to reascend to moral superiority, illusion or not, by clear declarations and changes in policy -- no torture, restored habeas corpus, due process, open and honest government, etc.

Secondly, we need to put our diplomacy back on the track of the last 50 years to 2001: internationalist, co-operative, multilateral. It worked then and would still be working if it had not all been pulled down and apart so petulantly.

If we spent half as much on the military it would still be 33% of the world's total and larger than Russia, China and India together. We could still go it alone if really necessary, and more likely to go with allies.

The savings could be directed to the deficit, social security, medicare, and honestly and effectively directed foreign aid.

Reading his article, I could hear Obama's voice, same as ever, generalizations and nice sound bites, but teeth?

Here's one American who is most definitely NOT on the same page - and I vote.

Israel's security has no priority over anyone else's. Israel has no greater right to "protect itself" than the Palestinans, particularly when Israel's chosen method of "protecting itself" is to provoke wars so as to conquer territory and ethnically cleanse civlians from their homes. And yes, that is precisely what has been going on, no matter how hard the Israelis try to paint themselves as the victims of aggression.

In June 1955, Moshe Sharett [in his Diaries] wrote: ‘Dayan said, “above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire space.”’

Another of Sharett’s Diary entries for June 1955: ‘Ben Gurion himself said it would be worthwhile to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.

If Obama is really HONEST then he can start by cutting off US aid to Israel. US aid to Israel constitutes the largest peacetime transfer of wealth from one nation o another - in excess of the Marshall Plan used to rebuild Europe after WWII.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

I'm sure that the Palestinians and the rest of the people of the Mideast would love it if the US started paying attention to other issues and stopped providing 1/3 its foreign aid budget to the state of Israel so Israel could continue to murder Palestinans and steal their land.

No. I'd be with you on that one, abdul-hass.

It has been an assumption in the US that they are above and beyond international law when it comes to violence against others. Especially if it is "just" a "surgical strike" with "acceptable collateral damage" rather than outright invasion; although that has never stopped us either.

There is a moral question about assassination of criminals -- as long as we define them as terrorists in our self-defined "war" -- being condoned, especially when there is risk to others. I always wonder how many deaths of their wives and daughters the Combined Chiefs of Staff and their aides would find acceptable. Surely this is the acid test, not undefined and unseen mothers and children obliterated in a foreign land.

Gettysburg,

My question is: Who is the true enemy here, Ahmadinejad, Islamic Fundamentalists, or Neocons?

Long answer, those who seek the destruction of genuine liberal Enlightenment ideals.  Short answer, all of the above.

And while I'm nitpicking: Though the mistake is understandable, it's a courtesy to people to spell their name the way they themselves spell it. When they may be the next president of the United States, it's also wise punditry. The name of the junior senator from Illinois is Barack Obama.

I'm sorry, but I don't see Obama's middle east foreign policy as particularly noteworthy or insightful.

Let's take his perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, hottest of hot buttons:

Obama's criticism of the Bush Administration's neglect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is refreshing. It demonstrates that he apparently appreciates the broader implications of that neglect for US interests and for regional security. He calls on the US

... to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years.

Neglect? Neglect? What neglect may I ask. Bush has never neglected the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Rather, he's run interference for Israel in the UN, supported it at every step, provided money and munitions in abundance, and endorsed settlements as facts on the ground. Bush has responded to Hamas legitimate election by cutting off funding and organizing a worldwide boycot. America has done everything it possibly can to destabilize a Hamas government or Hamas coalition, just as, previously, it did everything in its power to neuter abbas.

What is characterized as 'neglect' is a very active and aggressive policy of supporting the most extremist positions and actions of Israel against the Palestinians.

What did Bush say of the problem: "A little violence can clarify relationships."

Bush, and Rice's viewpoint on Israeli/Palestine issues is very simple. Israel is strong and should be supported at every turn. Palestine is weak and can safely be disparaged. Palestinian resistance arises because the Palestinians fail to understand just how screwed they are. This is in part because they have illusions of international support which misleads them into thinking that their position is stronger than it is. Ergo, the Palestinians must be abused, humiliated, subjugated, bombed, shot and starved in order that they realize their true negotiating position, abandon resistance and accept whatever deal that Israel deigns to offer, on the terms Israel deigns to offer.

Does that sound like neglect to you? To me it sound like some intermediate state of war. The United States isn't actually dropping bombs on Jenin, but pdc.

Only an idiot or someone fundamentally dishonest would characterize Bush's position as one of neglect.

But this is just what Obama does, because otherwise, he wouldn't be able to go on and say:

For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain.

Again, Obama is long on commitment while short on specifics. ....
It is not yet time to be dusting off medals of courage and bravery for candidate Obama, but his call on the Israeli-Palestinian issue for "sustained American leadership for peace and security," and him making this a "personal commitment for the President of the United States" should be music to the ears, not just of sensible folk in the region, but also of Americans who understand the way the region fits together, and who should be sick and tired of being told that there ain't much American diplomacy can do to fix the situation.

Frankly, I'm not going to dust off any medals at all. I liked that passage wherein he harkens back to America's 'role' as an honest broker in the middle east, and regretfully notes that this role has gone by the wayside.

But Obama's got a fundamental dishonesty going when he characterizes the abandonment of this role, such as it was, with neglect. The truth is that the United States through Bush chose sides, went partisan, got hard core and stopped playing honest broker.

Here's the thing. If its just neglect... ie, the US has gotten distracted by something bright and shiny, then obviously, America can return to its old role as honest broker.

On the other hand, if America is a full fledged partisan, then that role is done for.

Possibly not done for, but a key element of resuming such a role would be acknowledging the breakdown, something Obama refuses to do. How does he propose to restore America's credibility? His personal assurance as President... it is to laugh.

In the end, his position comes down to some wooly version of Rodney King's 'Can't we all get along.' But in the Obama version, that plea is coming from one of the police officers inflicting the beat down.

In terms of broader middle east perspectives:

Obama goes on to call for "tough-minded diplomacy" with Iran and Syria, and a counterterrorism that "draws on the full range of American power, not just our military might."

In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy. We need to deepen our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism.

Hmmmm. 'combating prophets of fear'? We need to deepen our knowledge? It seems that Obama has already made up his mind, even as he suggests that it might be a good idea to learn a bit more. I dunno, this paragraph's logic seems almost Orwellian in its circularity.

And what are we to make of the call for 'tough minded diplomacy' on traditional whipping boys, and the 'full might of American power.' It just seems to be cribs from Condoleeza Rice's lecture notes.

Finally, we come to this:

We must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people.

And now he's channelling John Kerry, circa 2003-2004. To call this insubstantial would be an exaggeration. Certainly though, this remarkable phrase (hardly a statement), seems to betray no particular insight or appreciation of the Iraq situation, nor does it describe any kind of insightful approach.

This is more 'Rodney King pleading', which seems disingenuous when compared to hawklike rhetoric elsewhere.

In the end, what are we to make of all of this.

I don't think that there's any real understanding on display of the problems of the region and America's role or options in respect of same.

But then again, should we expect this? Is he really an insincere, possibly violent, boob? Or is he merely speaking to an audience and uttering empty platitudes that are safe and utterly inoffensive? Is this a genuine lack of nuance and insight, or is this simply a politician covering his ass?

I'm struck by how remarkably little there is here. There literally is no 'there' there. Obama may have real contributions to make on the foreign policy discussion, but he isn't making them here.

Frankly, even Levy himself grudgingly but repeatedly admits that Obama is short on detail and long on sentimental platitude. He seems to take is as a majorly good sign that Obama's not actually foaming at the mouth.

But perhaps the better construction is to simply acknowledge that the piece, whatever its sentimental aspirations is without insight or nuance, and amounts to platitudes, whispers and murmurs and babble, but as in MacBeth, a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

I dunno. Sends a certain kind of message, doesn't it?

Ah, but you see, we are agreeing with the Israeli position. We've agreed with the Israeli position all the way down the line.

Maybe the thing to do is to rub the Arabs noses in it. A nice symbolic gesture to go along with all the practical actions and positions, to really just make it clear as to where everyone stands, who is up, who is down, and who needs to be on their knees.

While we're at it, perhaps at the next international summit, George W. Bush could get up on the conference table, walk over to the section of some Arab nation, whip out his dick and urinate all over their table and briefing papers. That will really show them where they stand with the United States.

Or perhaps for best effect, it should be Condoleeza Rice hiking up her skirt and squatting over Saudi Arabia's position papers?

Ah, the subtlties of Arab humiliation.

.

Who the hell do you think pushes this piece of naval gazing, superiority grandstanding piece of legislation in the first place --- ? Why not push the agenda a little further down the throats of congress members when the whole of the ME is practically in flames...

You might not know what we are talking about, but I assure you many of us here do.

No offense, Pfakin, but I don't think that holds up.

It's generally a condition of American foreign aid that the recipients have to buy American. Quite often to buy more American, directly or indirectly, than they receive in aid.

So if you're going to draw that line in the sand, then you're arguing that the United States isn't actually contributing anything to anyone.

More to the point, however, its pretty much a solid fact that Israel does receive the lion's share of US foreign aid, and has done so for decades.

This site, for instance, suggests that US aid and benefits to Israel between 1949 and 1977 total almost 85 billion.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Then there's this interesting table from the Jewish Virtual Library, that gives detailed year by year, category by category breakdowns, including discussing such carefully ambiguous subjects as 7.9 billion in loan guarantees...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Israel has since at least the 1970's, has always been the largest single recipient of US foreign aid... a proportion that ranges from 25% to 11%. When you consider 'Israel-centric' foreign aid policies that are intended to support Israel's security, such as arrangements with Egypt, that proportion rises higher.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6yAk8D25XSgJ:www.norpac.net/events/TalkingPoints2007.doc+%22US+foreign+aid%22+Israel+proportion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca

I don't think that there's any realistic debate over the subject. Israel is in fact the largest recipient of US aid in the world, over a very long period. Israel's economy and lifestyle are heavily propped up by America contributions. Without it, Israel's economy and standard of living would materially worsen.

We can argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. We can argue about whether this is an effective use of American resources, perhaps we should be subsidizing schools for poverty stricken children in Bangladesh, or perhaps it would be better to subsidize swimming pools in Tel Aviv.

But that kind of thing is the stuff of debates.

The facts, however, are immutable.

Exactly! I think it would send the right message if we could just start bombing Arab capitals randomly. Then there'd be no uncertainty as to where they stand with us, and they'd know that they had to make nice.

I like the 'all caps' thing. It's just so manly, it makes me all quivery. You must be so butch, especially on drag night.

I agree that US Aid to Israel is not going to end in the forseeable future, no matter who is elected.

But this isn't because 'whazzisname' represents a view of a tiny minority.

Indeed, the pro-Israel, give them billions lobby, is a tiny minority. But they're an extremely influential tiny minority with commanding access to media and a lot of lobbying money and skill.

The average American probably doesn't see a lot of merit in subsidizing swimming pools in Tel Aviv, and might rather the money go to starving ethiopians. But the truth is that the average American isn't all that involved in the details of foreign aid, wouldn't be strongly animated by the subject one way or the other, and doesn't really care.

Under these circumstances, and influential lobby really does have the keys to the piggy bank.

It's not just the Israeli lobby of course. It's all over the place. It's the systemic corruption of the American political system. It's working so well for the people benefitting from it, that I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Actually, Obama's article goes to show that when it comes to dealing with Israel, US presidential candidates are fearful of breaking rank.

Cost of Marshall Plan to rebuilt Europe: $13 billion

Total estimated US aid to Israel: $80-91 billion.

Why?

Why should contributions to Israeli "charities" be tax-deductible in the US, where as contributions to other charities in say Canada or Germany are not?

You're right, but Barak Hussein Osama sounds so much better (snark)

I wish I could be enthusiastic about this essay, because I'm enthusiastic about Obama for many other reasons.  However, here, I read "same old, same old," in form and substance, and as sensitive to nuance as I am (believe me, I'm sensitive to nuance) a butterfly falling into the Pacific would make as much impact on the Hudson estuary as this makes on a perception of American Policy in the Mid East.

It begins with the obligatory homage to Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.  It includes all the boilerplate adjectives one comes to expect (with dread, in my case)... visionary leadership, new vision, fundamental insight, painful truth, festering conflict, strong commitment (oh yes, clear and strong--mustn't forget clear must we?) immeasurably harder, strong international coalition, aggressive diplomacy. . .I'm already exhausted and I've only recorded the first three pages (missing a few repeats in the process).  Oh yes, the meaningless adverbs are all there, as well.  Sound and fury, signifying nothing.  (I refrained from saying absolutely nothing).

It takes genius to cloak unconventional ideas in conventional language, and whomever wrote this essay for Obama is no genius.  One only hopes that he is emulating Roosevelt in a different manner.  If one reads the language of Roosevelt's first campaign for election, one finds a striking similarity... the campaign rhetoric was primarily conventional, as well--few, if any, hints of the trailblazing and inventive tools of governance and policy he created to meet the great depression.  But I'm afraid I shan't expect brilliance in the campaign run-up, at least in foreign policy.  I shall have to be satisfied with crumbs--no permanent bases in Iraq, and the like.

<sigh></sigh>

aMike

I'm talking about 2007! Why are you going off into 1922?

I'm talking about the realities of our foreign policy today. The individuals who are setting the agenda today, and the $$$ that pushes that agenda. And I don't think those that set the agenda, control the agenda believe that Charleton Heston parted the Red Sea.

It strikes me that there's something peculiarly shifty about your style of argument.

You keep wanting to compare Aid to Israel to the costs of U.S. military committments in South Korea or Iraq. Isn't this apples and oranges? You could just as easily compare U.S. aid to Israel to expenditures by the Department of Education, or on highways. For all I know, you will. But is this a meaningful standard of comparison?

You accuse the United States of being stingy. Well, that may be true. But it still remains that Israel receives the lion's share of American aid, and its economy is subsidized by the United States.

Look at your own figures on population. The United States is 300 million. Israel is 6. That's 2% or one fiftieth (the proper proportion). A 3 billion a year committment by the United States would proportionately represent 150 billion a year. That's a pretty key committment.

I would agree with you that Israel can and should stand on its own feet economically and financially. If that means fewer swimming pools in Tel Aviv, so be it.

But it hardly seems worth the effort to natter on and on about facts which are profoundly uncontroversial in the nature of their existence.

?? In 2004 Korea wasn't even on the list for foreign aid?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

Oh and with Israel we even PAY for Israeli military training bases. Note, not bases for US military personnel. Do we do that in Korea for the Koreans?

http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20051206-103905-7457r

Its not Israeli expatriots who are subsidizing Israel - its American taxpayers who haven't the faintest clue how much of their money goes to Israel or how.

Here's an example: See, most countries that receive foreign aid from the US recieve it in increments over the course of a year. Israel, on the other hand, receives it in a lump sum - which they use to purchase US bonds and then they receive interest from the US on the money that they got from the US for free. Yes, they get the principle, and the interest.

THen, there's the case of Israeli charities. Donations to Israeli charities can be tax-deductible - though donations to charities in other foreign countries are not.

The US also provides "loans" to Israel - which automatically become gifts after a few months. There's a law that requires that to happen.

They have their hands so deep in our pockets there's no telling how many other ways.

So anyone who creates a tabletop war game involving potentially real scenarios of country X invading country Y is a war criminal? Give me a break.

Senator Obama doesn't have the authority to declare war, and the language used by the Nuremberg Charter are imprecise enough that it'd be a stretch to convict Bush of war crimes, much less someone who has no authority over such matters.

There's no strict definition of "war of aggression" defined. Was invading Afghanistan a war of aggression? What about Bosnia? What if Turkey made intrusions into Northern Iraq to fight the PKK? Would invading Iran because they refuse to allow nuclear inspections as demanded by the UN be a war of aggression, even if done unilaterally?

Nor is there a threshold set for what is considered "planning". Is saying that, "Attacking Iran is an option" considered planning? It's a little hard to argue that, though it is possible. But the quote from Obama doesn't even mention "war" or "attacking". All it says is, "All options are on the table." Which invites the reader/listener to form their own interpretation of what "all [the] options" are. Bombarding Iran with nukes certainly qualifies as an "option", but I somehow doubt that's something Obama was including in his "all options" umbrella.

Oops. Sorry I blocked you.

"Individuals" and "money" who "control" the agenda? You think AIPAC has enough money to bribe or threaten every congress member? No, we do not live in a James Bond movie. Congress does not vote overwhelmingly zionist because it's "controlled" by AIPAC. Congress votes overwhelmingly zionist because it's controlled by American voters. American voters are overwhelmingly zionist because zionism is a huge part of the anglo-american evangelical religion. That's what you need to overcome if you want to make American foreign policy less zionist, not just AIPAC or Jewish congress members.

Gary Sugar: "Individuals" and "money" who "control" the agenda? You mean like:

Haim Saban (huge AIPAC dude): ">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.htmlei=5088&en=9eb8c2a72c2b5e7d&ex=1252123200&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position">"I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel," he said in his first extensive interview in years. "...To that end, he has become one of the largest individual donors in the country to the Democratic Party and its candidates, giving millions over the past decade - $7 million in just one donation to the Democratic National Committee in 2002. --- "..Fox Network revealed over the weekend that Saban has donated approximately USD 13 million to various candidates..." --- Jane Harman (D-CA 36th): "...When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq...."

Gary Sugar: "You think AIPAC has enough money to bribe or threaten every congress member?..."

AIPAC & the rest of the Israeli Lobby, I believe, has enough $$$ and strategic clout to dominate certain positions:

Former Senator: "...The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one's opponent..." --- "..In states such as Florida and New York, Jewish voters are a large enough percentage of voters to play a crucial role in election outcomes. In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources. Any significant reduction in the financial support will weaken Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party organizations." --- "...More important than the question of winning Jewish votes, though, is the question of winning Jewish dollars and Jewish political energy. "The primary emphasis in the Republican Party has not been to win Jewish votes but to attract major Jewish giving and, at a minimum, to deprive Democrats of that giving," says Douglas Bloomfield, a Democratic former legislative director for AIPAC. Even a moderate shift of 20 percent in Jewish giving to the Democrats could have a devastating impact on the party, says Forman. Already in 2000, Bush had won the votes of 53 percent of the Jews who earned more than $150,000, according to Cohen's study..."

AIPAC'S Whip/vote + PAC (+ K-St) go-to Guy:

Steny Hoyer (D-MD 5th) . A congressional staffer noting: "he might as well be on the AIPAC payroll," His Sister Bernice Manocherian is the AIPAC Chair in New York. New York being an important state for both candidates and Democratic Party campaign contributions.

Hoyer (now Majority Leader) likes to 'whip' the pro-israel votes..."...Hoyer has implemented a multiprong plan to make support for Israel a touchstone of Democratic policy, say lawmakers, aides and party operatives.

In addition to leading a 29-member congressional delegation to Israel last August, Hoyer has urged non-Jewish Democrats to voice support for Israel. At the same time, he has sought to dissuade lawmakers — mostly members of the Congressional Black Caucus — from casting “protest votes” on nonbinding, but nevertheless highly symbolic votes critical of Israel. Hoyer, along with many Democrats, privately worried that last December’s House vote on solidarity with Israel in the fight against terrorism — along with President Bush’s vocal support for Israel — might trigger a realignment of Jewish voting loyalties..."

And what happens it Congress members, or past-Presidents don't toe the line:

"...Price (aide to Nancy Pelosi), a former Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) official, played a major role in formulating strategy and lining up supportive statements and op-eds by Democrats in response to potential crises—including pre-election leaks about an inflammatory new book on the Middle East by former President Jimmy Carter. “That was one we dreaded because we feared it could go mainstream,” Dorf said this week. Statements blasting Carter [!] from Democratic leaders like Pelosi and Dean, as well as Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a leading Israel critic, helped prevent that from happening. “We were able to get in front of the story,” Dorf said. Members of the team headed off another crisis during the summer by convincing the DNC to kill a resolution calling on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who enjoys iconic status in the Jewish community, to drop out of the Senate race [BARF!] when it became apparent he would lose to anti-war newcomer Ned Lamont, who won the August primary. “If the DNC had done that, it would have been a tremendous problem for the Democrats” because of Lieberman’s stature, Dorf said..."

...and then there's Betty McCollum's experience with AIPAC.

"...The only safe thing to say is I support Israel." In April a representative from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum's vote against a draconian bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority "support for terrorists."

Gary Sugar: No, we do not live in a James Bond movie. Er... well...

The AIPAC Spy Story: "...In the almost two [more than two years now] years since Rosen and Weissman came into the public limelight as spy suspects, AIPAC has successfully fended off adverse publicity by mobilizing leading politicians, party leaders and senior members of the Bush Administration to give public testimonials on its behalf. It dumped Rosen and Weissman and pushed ahead with lining up the US Congress with Israel's pro-war agenda against Iran. And then out of the blue, Rosen and Weissman threaten to blow their cover "as just another influential lobby" working to promote US and Israeli mutual security interests..."

Update: AIPAC after firing Rosen and Weissman's are now (May 2007) picking up both Rosen and Weissman's legal bills. -- [Isn't that nice of AIPAC]

Link: AIPAC Spy Story Timeline

Link: "The lobby argues that good Americans spy for Israel (May '07)" and...

"...In the view of Ze'ev Schiff, national security correspondent for the Israeli daily Haaretz, the AIPAC probe is part of the CIA's effort to wrest control of Middle East policy from the pro-Israeli officials at the Pentagon..." -- [CREEPY!]

Gary Sugar: Congress does not vote overwhelmingly zionist because it's "controlled" by AIPAC. Congress votes overwhelmingly zionist because it's controlled by American voters. American voters are overwhelmingly zionist because zionism is a huge part of the anglo-american evangelical religion. That's what you need to overcome if you want to make American foreign policy less zionist, not just AIPAC or Jewish congress members.

I don't think the majority of American even know what being a Zionist means. I still believe there's large amounts of 'Democratic' pro-Israel money (in proporation to other contributions), that are directed and used by a small number of American voters to heavily influence our Congress, especially when it comes to Israel - our Democratic congress.

I think Gary does have an important point. Public and Congressional support for Israel and Zionism has a powerful ideological component which would exist whether or not there was a powerful lobby adding more pressure. Much of the ideological support is connected to various forms of Christian Zionism. Even before there was such an identifiable movement as Christian Zionism, Zionism benefitted from an ideological resonance in the US, whose own historical mythology is fill of references to the US as the "new Zion" and such. There is also a perverse sort of mutual national empathy between the two countries based on the fact that both countries were formed and established through the aggressive removal of native inhabitants.

True, AIPACC is toxic in its influence in the particular sphere of the middle east.

On the other hand, consider the disproportionate influence of the Cuban Expatriate Lobby based out of Florida, which for generations has distorted American Caribbean and Latin American policy.

- Five decades of pointless sanctions, assassination attempts and covert ops against Cuba.

- A nearly starring role in WWIII via the Cuban Missile Crisis.

- Ongoing terrorism, a la Luis Posada.

- Forming the core of an extremist right wing Latin American network which endorsed Operation Condor in the 70's.

- Forming the backbone of Reagan's dirty wars in Central America in the 80's.

- Founding a remarkably selective Pro-Cuban, Anti-Haitian policy on boat people.

AIPACC isn't particularly unique, its just better funded, better connected, and more influential.

But it is merely a symptom, its not the ultimate problem.

I might add that the sense of a mission, of having some special destiny or place in the world, is shared by Americans and Israelis. It's maybe not specifically Zionism that Americans embrace--but we continue to have the sense of a "manifest destiny," an almost divine mandate to become a "shining city on a hill."

Of course, this kind of religious fervor about oneself makes me (as an American) a bit uncomfortable--and I'm not sure it would totally make all of our founding fathers comfortable. But it is certainly a strong current in the American psyche and it does make it easy for Americans to connect with Israel. That, and our generally high degree of religiousity.

"Zionism is not a huge part of religion in America."

Well, let's see. A huge majority of Americans believe the biblical myth of the Promised Land, that God promised Israel to the Jews. 64% even believe that "the story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt is literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word." And 31% believe "that Israel must have all of the promised land, including Jerusalem, to facilitate the second coming of the messiah." These lunatic beliefs are the main reason why Americans consistently side by a greater than three to one ratio with Israel against the Palestinians. I promise, AIPAC has not bribed 200 million Americans.

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion2.htm
http://www.cnionline.org/learn/polls/czandlobby/index.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

You guys are right that AIPAC is a big part of the problem; but it's not the whole problem or even the biggest part of it. Besides belief in the myth of the Promised Land, there's also Americans' racial and cultural sympathy with the Israelis, and even more importantly, the American foreign policy elite's miltary alliance with Israel as part of American military dominance in the Middle East for control of the strategic energy resources. Again, AIPAC is part of the problem, but not the whole problem or the biggest part.