Right Wing of Israel Lobby Says They Will Primary "Anti-Israel" Rep. Donna Edwards
American Likudniks are threatening Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) with a primary because she did not support a House resolution hailing the disastrous Gaza war.
Politico has the story and it's all bluff. Donna Edwards, who is incredibly popular in her Maryland district, is not going to face a primary. And certainly not one based on her support for Obama's position on the Middle East and not Netanyahu's. If she did, she'd win 90% of the vote -- including the Jewish vote.
Anyway, Edwards is pro-Israel. She just believes that America should work harder for peace. She is also too smart to support meaningless one-sided "Israel is always right" resolutions which come up on the House floor every so often. She thinks for herself, which is why the voters of her district chose her when she challenged longtime (Israel is always right) incumbent, Al Wynn. If her constituents wanted the same old tired politics, they could have stuck with Wynn.
Edwards does not have to worry about re-election. And she certainly does not have to worry about Jewish voters in her district. They are liberals, proud to be represented by a young African American woman whose concern for human rights extends even to the Middle East.
The Jews who don't like her didn't (and don't) like Obama either. He got 78% of the Jewish vote. She will do even better.
One last point. The only reason I posted this story is not because Rep. Edwards needs my help. She doesn't. My point is to show how the politics of intimidation works on this issue. These guys know they can't beat her. They hope they can shut her up. Lotsa luck with that, boys.
The White House simply must respond to these threats with more emphatic hemming and hawing, waffling and dodging, and huffing and puffing.
Earlier generations of Americans really understood the power of a good haw and a well-timed huff. Aren't we made of the same sturdy stuff? Let's encourage Obama to put the old American meal back in "mealy-mouthed"!
June 1, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That word, 'intimidation' is the problem. It means, variously: to threaten, frighten, scare, bully, coerce or terrorize.
Such lobby groups, with self-serving agendas, are acting undemocratically by intimidating our elected representatives, and is clearly wrong. Very wrong.
To bribe, coerce or even terrorize in order to conform to the will of the lobbyist, works against the will of the people - the electorate as a whole - and such behavior should be totally unacceptable in 21st century America.
Now is the time for ordinary people, in every State of the Union, to reject such intimidation that threatens the very political foundations of America.
June 1, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing undemocratic about it. The right to petition the government and to engage in political activism on behalf of one's cause is fundamental to American democracy. The only kind of "terror" the lobby inflicts on representatives is the terror of losing the next election. I only wish my side was as effective as Aipac and its associates in bringing to bear the same degree of electoral "terror".
June 1, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right: It is not at all undemocratic to try to unseat a Congressperson at the ballot box.
However, it is also not reasonable or fair to condemn a Congressional rep. for failing to support an utterly asinine terrorist-settler propaganda resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza” by slaughtering hundreds of Palestinian children.
There is really no need to tear one's hair out about intimidation, or to practice intimidation. There is a need, however, to not be intimidated, and to condemn the intimidaters.
The essential information necessary is in the article linked to in MJ's post above. It specifies the guilty (note the names):
PRO-West Bank terrorist-settlers:
Ron Halber, executive director, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington.
Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt of the B’nai Tzedek synagogue in Potomac, Md.
Rabbi Ari Sunshine of the B’nai Shalom synagogue of Olney, Md.
Larry Fishbein, president and publisher of the Jewish Week
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio),
Artur Davis (Dem-Alabama)
Herman Taylor (Dem, Maryland Assembly)
PRO-US:
Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street
Brian Baird (Dem-Washington)
For more info on the lopsided Congresssional vote for the anti-American Gaza resolution, see this link:
http://capwiz.com/adc/vote.xc/?votenum=10&chamber=H&congress=1111&voteid=12903981&state=US#sponsors
For more info on who joined in, who stood aside from, and who rejected the lopsided Congressional vote for the anti-American Gaza resolution last January, see this link:
http://capwiz.com/adc/vote.xc/?votenum=10&chamber=H&congress=1111&voteid=12903981&state=US#sponsors
June 1, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right: It is not at all undemocratic to try to unseat a Congressperson at the ballot box.
As a bald statement of fact - that is obviously true. However, is we qualify the assertion by asking by what method and which methods are acceptable in a democratic society, then the conclusion will necessarily be different. If you request someone to vote for your motion and he asserts his right to decline, that is one position. If you demand he/she votes for your motion and reinforce your demand by, for instance, hitting him on the head or threatening to kidnap his daughter - then that is clearly unacceptable. The latter is called 'intimidation', or coercion and is intended to produce a desired effect by fear. Is that, in your book, democratic? I call it unlawful and, therefore, criminal behavior. And that is what, I opine, we have in America today.
June 2, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are in close agreement on the severity of the disease, Colin, but differ on the nature of the ailment (and thus probably on the treatment).
The behavior that falsely equates the interests of a brutal and fanatical minority in a foreign country with the interests of one's own country, and wages deceit and trickery-based propaganda campaigns against any elected official in that own country who fails to subscribe to such nonsense is unethical and quite unacceptable, I agree. That does not automatically make it either undemocratic or illegal. These are three very separate and distinct things.
Something is not unlawful simply because you or I or even 95% of the world's people find it reprehensible and outrageous. Under rule of law, no individual can "call" something illegal. Legality and illegality derive from laws established passed by constitutionally sanctioned public authorities responsible to voters, written down in codes, and in cases of ambiguity interpreted by judges and courts within a regulated and limited system with built-in protections for fair trials, against self-incrimination, with rights of appeal, etc.
If the rabid rabbis et al in the Washington DC area were stuffing ballot boxes or falsifying voter registration records, that would be undemocratic (and illegal). Were they to resort to violence or kidnapping, that would be illegal. There is no evidence presented here of anything either illegal or undemocratic.
By way of analogy, Cheney's invasion of Iraq was legally and democratically authorized under U.S. law. International practices are a different matter, but supposing (contrary to actual historical fact) there had been a full UN authorization for everything the chickenhawks did in Iraq, and that Geneva conventions had been fully adhered to here. The cocked-up cakewalk would still have been an abominable travesty of American traditions and a monstrous blow to American interests.
Nearly every thing that went wrong in the Iraq invasion did so for reasons not having to do with illegality or lack of democracy. The voters and Congress in 2002-03 were duped and frightened by fear-mongering, there was an organized spin campaign of selective "evidence" of WMD and Al-Qeada Saddam connections, the press was cowardly and lazy, the Congress full of cowards, and given a ridiculously unnecessary blank check, Cheney and Bush then took incompetency and hypocrisy to great new heights. Not illegal, not undemocratic, simply unwise, reckless, myopic, and disastrous for America,
June 2, 2009 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm .... here in the UK, bullying and/or intimidation, in the workplace, are illegal and fines have been imposed by the courts of up to $200,000 against those ultimately responsible.
In the political arena, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario whereby Members of Parliament were regularly bribed to vote according to the wishes of a small political lobby. Such an eventuality would be impossible on any substantial scale as the constituencies represented would deselect any such representative and replace them with another who would accurately represent their wishes.
Although here in the UK they are at present in the midst of an expenses scandal, in Parliament, there has never been any suggestion of a fundamental malfunctioning of democratic rule as a result of widespread corruption.
AIPACISBADFORDEMOCRACY.COM
June 2, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here in America election campaigns are funded by private donations, and political action and lobbying efforts are routinely organized by groups seeking to pool their social and economic resources and power to either elect or defeat candidates for Congress, based on the issues of the group's choosing. It doesn't help us much to whine about what "bullies" these groups are, or fret about whether or not their actions are "fair". Yes, if someone literally hits a representative on his head or threatens to kidnap his daughter, that's illegal. But if the bullying and threats consist only in threats to yank the candidates' funding, or to denounce the candidates' views or positions or morals in the media, or to tell the members of one's organization to vote for a different candidate, well then that is politics fair and square - in the American style at least.
Incessant complaints about unfairness, meanness, or whatever are of little avail. It's not a sporting match, and unless your opponents do something blatantly illegal, there are no referees to come in, call a foul and bail you out. To counter the power of an organized political lobby, one must organize a coalition with an offsetting amount of power on the contrary side. Short of that, you lose.
There are a lot of Americans who are deeply skeptical and sometimes bitterly opposed to US policy in the Middle East. Their job is to show their numbers and colors, give evidence of their passion, find ways to get their message out and recruit more to their side and convince their representatives that this is an issue that matters, and that they are prepared to vote on.
June 2, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. I realise that US politics is not 'a sporting match' and that it is useless to talk of unfairness .... and that democracy American style is, or was, about money, period. That's how US presidents are always elected - the more money to throw at your campaign the greater the chance of being elected. But, hey, Obama doesn't come from that sweaty environment, so things can and do change once John Doe is made properly aware of the issues and of his own personal power as a voter!
What is needed now is a US wide program to galvanize the American people to elect representatives on the same basis and the same issues that they elected Obama - who beat the opposition hands-down in spite of AIPAC, its dire threats and its thousands of dollars.
The electorate are really interested in jobs, climate change, price of oil, education and medical charges etc., not on sending another tranche of tax dollars to Likud to bomb Palestinians.
Real democracy is about real issues not fabricated ones.
June 2, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...unless your opponents do something blatantly illegal..." nah even then -- these guys can change the rules.
June 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colin, I think you are getting it now.
Sand, I think you do not get it. AIPAC, et. al. don't need to be illegal or change the rules. They have been quite successful working legally within the rules - why should they disrupt what has been so effective for them?
They have made blind support for Israel, no matter who in Israel does what, into a "3rd rail issue" like unrestricted buying of handguns or social security through the following sleight of hand:
1. West Bank settlers = Israelis
2. Israelis = Jews
3. Jews = Jewish voters in the U.S.
THEREFORE:
4. Condemn settlers = lose the Jewish vote and be viciously attacked as an Anti-Semite or worse
MJ and his buddies know all too well where the weak links are in this chain of intimidation and trickery. They need put away their dancing feathers, and reach out for the industrial-strength bolt cutters.
June 2, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you don't think AIPAC was doing anything illegal by underhandedly having lobbyists pass on classified documents to the Israeli embassy? Or that there's nothing fishy with Israel's latest spy getting off with a mere slap on the wrist?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8075029.stm
Also, you don't think AIPAC is basically joined at the hip with the Israel Likud party which is now in government, and so should be maybe registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act? Which means at least we could find out who 'funds' this war shop.
P.S. Does anyone know if AIPAC has paid Rosen his *cough* damages yet?
June 2, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
By all indications these are isolated exceptions. Focus on them and you win a few brownie points while AIPAC laughs all the way to lopsided resolution after lopsided resolution in the U.S. Congress rubberstamping the agenda of the SETTLERS (worse than simply Likud).
June 3, 2009 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't 'focusing' on them -- it was a passing comment.
I realize the problem is 'systemic' and complex and definitely not just about campaign money anymore.
June 3, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are lobbies in the UK too. Also they've had their whiffs of scandal, but it just hasn't got to the level of looking like Israel is actually running foreign policy when it comes to the ME -- like here.
e.g.
--Cash for honours row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4828286.stm
The real guts and news worthy stuff in that story got swept swiftly under the carpet.
"...Labour Friends of Israel is a Westminster based lobby group working within the British Labour Party to promote the State of Israel. Founded in 1956, LFI is today one of the largest interest groups within the Labour Party, with wide support from MP's MEP's and Peers..."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030801165548/www.lfi1.dircon.co.uk/about.html
There's a special lobby for the conservatives and liberals too...
--Cameron stands encircled by zealous Anglo-neocons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/22/conservatives.comment
June 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that here in the UK, we may have parliamentary problems from time to time BUT AT NO TIME HAS AN ETHNIC OR OTHER MINORITY EVER SUBVERTED OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A FOREIGN STATE.
If so, they would be charged with treason.
June 3, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...NO TIME HAS AN ETHNIC OR OTHER MINORITY EVER SUBVERTED OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A FOREIGN STATE..
Ok then, but just asking, so how would you categorize 'Cheney' and that little thing over the Downing Street Memo?
Panorama Transcript
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/iraqtonyandthetruth.txt
BTW -- I love the Brit show Spooks -- especially the one where MI5 meets with the media.
June 3, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Likud Lobby wants to primary Donna Edwards for not endorsing the Gaza war which most of the world has condemned as a likely war crime? The Lobby is becoming way too much like the Club for Growth for my tastes. The GOP has now largely disavowed the Club for Growth for its unproductive tactics that hurt the GOP's goals.
I wonder if this threat forebodes another pretextual war that needs to be endorsed in the near future? We all know the answer to that is probably yes.
June 1, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am Jewish, and I am "pro-Israeli" in the sense that I want to see Israel survive as a Jewish state. But I do not think the hawkish, militaristic bent of the right-wing Israelis, or the right-wing American-Israeli lobby is helping the situation. Israel has done itself tremendous damage, both morally and politically, in its war against Hezbollah in Lebenon, and in its vicious attacks on Hamas in Gaza.
The best thing the United States can do for Israel is make it clear to the country that the U.S. will not continue to support their hawkish, right-wing, militaristic, fascist, attacks on the Palestinians. The Israelis need to close down the settlements in the West Bank, and they need to pursue a peaceful path.
Thank you Mr. Rosenberg for your continually lucid comments and analysis on this issue. Keep up the good work.
June 1, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
from Politico:
“We consider her to be extremely pro-Israel,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a pro-Israel organization that endorsed Edwards in her 2008 race and favors a dovish approach to the Middle East conflict. “She is very interested in finding a way to bring peace to Israel through diplomacy.”
Perhaps it is very important to have "J Street". to give cover for the accusation of being "not responsive to concerns of Israel". In a primary fight, quotes like that can make a difference.
Somewhat morose news is that it is a bit unfair to talk about "Likud lobby" when the policies of Kadima and Labor are not all that different from Likud (what did they do about settlements? and who made war in Gaza?) But the good news is that American Jews are indeed evolving toward J Street position, and this adds a new dynamic. Fat cats funding AIPAC are Alpha and Omega anymore.
June 1, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel lobby, Likud Lobby..whatever suits but the big story in Politico is Ben Smith's. The _____ Lobby is pushing back against Obama's settlements stance
Reports of the ______ Lobby's demise appear greatly exaggerated
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23207.htmlJune 1, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Politico has the story and it's all bluff."
MY COMMENT: "Politico" is a joke. A very bad joke!
June 1, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right: It is not at all undemocratic to try to unseat a Congressperson at the ballot box.
As a bald statement of fact - that is obviously true. However, is we qualify the assertion by asking by what method and which methods are acceptable in a democratic society, then the conclusion will necessarily be different. If you request someone to vote for your motion and he asserts his right to decline, that is one position. If you demand he/she votes for your motion and reinforce your demand by, for instance, hitting him on the head or threatening to kidnap his daughter - then that is clearly unacceptable. The latter is called 'intimidation', or coercion and is intended to produce a desired effect by fear. Is that, in your book, democratic? I call it unlawful and, therefore, criminal behavior. And that is what, I opine, we have in America today.
June 2, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
About those Israel-is-always-right resolutions Politico reports
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23207.html
that AIPAC got 329 legislators last week to sign some noxious document gently urging Obama do let Israel do what it wants as to settlements. Some nominally pro-Obama legislators, speaking in openly dishonest code of the security "fence," tried to limit the scope of anti-settlement policies, pre-supposing that everything inside Sharon's "fence" would stay with Israel so no need to look further on anything there, while "compromise" was needed elsewhere. "Compromise" has always meant gutting the policy, of course. Other throwback legislators had "concern" that we were "pressuring the wrong party." I love that line, talk about proposing a sure fire recipe for failure and never-ending war striking hard againts U.S. intersts! Thank you for putting U.S. interets in the back seat, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.); you're AIPAC payoff money will be increased!
So it's still a pretty hideous mess the President has to deal with, on top of everthing else on his plate. This is what Bibi/AIPAC want, too, the think to look just too hard to deal with given other priorities.
June 2, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and don't miss this depressing article from NYT -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/world/middleeast/02mideast.html?hp
Settlers rioted on Monday, others explained how they will continue to build, Bibi very sympathetic and after all his hands are tied by politics, blah-blah. Bottom line: Sorry but no change is possible, Mr. President. We win, and if terrorists bomb you over it, we just go to AIPAC (and Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)!), and buy ourselves more time while you bury your dead.
June 2, 2009 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC got 329 legislators last week to sign some noxious document gently urging Obama do let Israel do what it wants as to settlements.
How depressing is this, 218 years after the Bill of Rights was introduced? How do you like living in a manipulated and controlled society? Good? Relaxed? Or would you rather your children and grandchildren grow into mature adults in a real democracy where there is government by the people through their elected representatives who should be incorruptible?
June 2, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows hyper v, openfiler iscsi windows
March 29, 2011 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability clustering
April 28, 2011 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink