It's actually funny. Imagine the logical twists necessary to make this into a sentence: American needs to be a "trusted mediator and devoted friend to Israel."

As a lawyer, I can tell you that no such mediator would be trusted.

reading those excerpts from the hoyer/cantor letter is so nauseating it makes me want to VOMIT. for the us to return to sanity in regards to the middle east, aipac needs to be vomited out of the body politics like a cat vomits a hairball.

My favorite bit in the letter is the line about how it's been proven that secret deals work the best....

In a related note, Laura Rozen links to a WSJ piece by Elliot Abrams which is basically a guide to detailed tea-leaf reading of the upcoming bibi/Obama meeting. She calls it "worth a read" and for those who understand that the enemy often supplies valuable information, it really is.

Elliot Abram's interpretations of the results of the meeting in the months ahead will largely reflect the Israeli/neocon pov so are worthwhile within that context.

With the recent grumblings and sniping about National Security Advisor General Jim Jones emerging from the state dept, the NSC, the Lobbyistas, the MSM lackeys etc, the following passage is instructive:

"The physical details of the meetings will be carefully noted by both sides as well. Who attends, or perhaps more importantly, who is left out? Is Mr. Mitchell there? Dennis Ross, the new special adviser on Iran?Who from the White House staff accompanies National Security Adviser Jim Jones?Who speaks up, and who stays silent? To whom does the president turn for advice or information? And on the other side, who is with Mr. Netanyahu and whom does he appear to trust? How is he treated? Does he get lunch? And if so, in the West Wing, or "at home" in the East Wing residence? Or does he just get a plain-vanilla meeting in the Oval Office, and go away hungry?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182437320102371.html

Why does Abrams focus on the identity of Jones' escort one may ask? Why indeed?

Some (too few) of the operatives within the Obama administration are considered questionable at best and Jim Jones is on the hit list because among other things, his work in the WB has caused him to differ substantially from the Israeli pov in regards to the security/economic needs of both sides. With luck, Mr Abrams will let us know if Jones' minder gets a thumb up or a thumb down.

(The business about who speaks up could be related to the whisperings about Jones keeping his own counsel in discussions which is frustrating the hell out of his intramural enemies)

Abrams also rather hopefully warns that the Jewish dem vote can be less than reliable; Even the Jews, loyalists for the Democrats, can change their votes., by using the examples of GHWB and Carter's diminished Jewish support during their re-election efforts.

Well, Elliot, that was then and this is now. Things do change, buddy, and past victories don't provide a roadmap to future outcomes.

Thank you for revealing this disgraceful affront to common sense. The time-honored diplomatic wafflery of this letter is a very thin veil over the same old endlessly recycled and utterly biased absurdity that the Palestinians "must" do x,y and z, while Israelis must do absolutely nothing. You are providing a valuable public service with communiques such as this, MJ. Please keep at this timely and important informing.

I intend to write my Congressional representatives and insist that they publicly denounce this unAmerican piece of crap letter, and I hope every other commenter does the effective equivalent in her or his own words.

Best Freudian slip:

"No doubt our two governments . . . "

I thought we only had one government. But then, sometimes you wonder . . .

Should have been "No doubt our government and the Israeli government" . . . or maybe not?

We seem to be getting back in touch with reality.

Between the presidential election and the abolition of Charles Freeman, I remember a clear case of Panglossism involving Mr. Rosenberg, repeated announcements that Americans, and especially American Democrats, had already reached the point where "to thwart the President's efforts" and wag Uncle Sam by the tail was out of the question.

Today we find the bipolar patient in his depressive phase, it looks like:

This letter is a disgrace. Any Democrat who signs it is undercutting his own President to appease a powerful interest group.

I detect no hint that this sort of ‘disgrace’ can not go on forever.

Yet quite possibly it cannot.

In light of the actual situation of the Tel Avîv government, especially vis-à-vis Iran, is it not likely that any ‘appeasement’ will prove to be the bad sort of appeasement, the sort that only leads to more and bigger demands? And eventually to demands so immense and damaging to US that there can be no question of compliance?

***

In the previous phase, I never clearly understood what sort of breakdown Mr. Rosenberg foresaw for AIPAC and a’ that, though I formed a vague impression that he figured we would suddenly all get tired of being swung by the tail.

From today's piece, I get an equally vague impression that MJR now expects the President to more or less ignore Congress -- perhaps because most of them won't really believe the resolutions they pass? -- and do something sensible about the Palestine Puzzle by himself.

Two problems: (1) I have no idea what this sensible thing would be (if it's anything the least bit likely to work), and (2) that the unilateral Executive Branch modus operandi is a big part of what made Bush and Cheney so detestable.

Happy days.

The Cohen-Boustany-Carnahan letter is a much better one: if enough reps sign, it could be a much-needed antidote to Hoyer-Cantor.

The fact that Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, has substantially more supporters in America than in his own country, should ring warning bells in Washington.

There are, here in the US, powerful, non-elected lobby-groups who have overt financial, political (and allegedly, covert espionage) links with a foreign state.

The activities of these self-interest groups, is prejudicial to the democratic process and is arguably un-American in that undue pressure is brought to bear on political figures in both Houses and in the judiciary and that that pressure is contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights and of the Declaration of Independence.

Foreign states should not be allowed to influence US domestic or foreign policy by the activities of ethnic-minority, political cells or lobbies, resident in the US.

Whilst ordinary lobbying is integral to democracy, this type of political and financial pressure from powerful minority groups, who represent a mere two per cent or so of the electorate, is unacceptable. And for over 90% of Americans to be bound by the agenda of such a tiny minority, is intolerable.

This is not the freedom that the American soldier fought for in World War 2. This is not the democracy for which so many thousands laid down their lives on the Normandy beaches or in Viet Nam. This is a political nightmare that can only be resolved by firm government action. These powerful, unelected lobbies should be proscribed and government taken back by the elected administration of Barack Obama.

This is the change that is urgently needed and we can do it. Yes we can

i like this:
Obama warns Netanyahu: Don't surprise me with Iran strike

On Monday, May 18th, the man who is the new figurehead of AIPAC, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be meeting with President Barack Obama in the White House. Netanyahu, of course, lives in Israel, but his most powerful constituency is right here in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This unelected body has a claimed membership of 100,000 which is approximately just 0.032% of the overall population yet is said to be the most powerful lobbying organization in America. How can that be?

Just a few short months ago, the electorate voted in an administration headed by Barack Obama, a man of unquestioned integrity, who has made a commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. However, his visitor, Netanyahu, is on public record as saying the opposite and denying that an autonomous Palestinian state will ever be established.

The problem is that Israel confidently believes that through its creature lobby, AIPAC, it can impose its own agenda upon America, which is: no Palestinian state and no peace in the Middle East - but a continuation of the US as Israel’s most import market for bilateral trade including military hardware. How does it do that?

The US is committed to a closing down of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Israel is committed to the expansion of these illegal settlements. But how is it possible for Israel to act against the wishes of its supplier, customer, mentor and financier?

Why is Israel, and its lobby, AIPAC, so supremely confident that they can make the White House do whatever they ask and bow to their every bidding? Why should our government be running scared of this tiny, Mediterranean state? Anybody know?

What does the US get in return? Answer: zilch, other than to make it a laughing-stock as the dog that is wagged by a tail from half way across the world in the Middle East.