Colbert King asks Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) to ‘put up or…you know the rest’ regarding his comment that AIPAC “has pushed this war from the beginning . . . They are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.”
Discussing AIPAC is a third-rail of American politics, and to deny that is to stick your head in the sand. I don’t want to get into a discussion of AIPAC’s influence or how they go about wielding that influence. I just want to present some facts.
The 107th Congress had 10 Jewish Senators and 25 Jewish Congresspeople. All I want to do is examine how they voted on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. Here is the Senate Roll Call, the House Roll Call, and the list of Jewish Members of that Congress. I am not speculating on why they voted the way they did.
Among the twenty-five (of whom 23 were Democrats) Jewish members of the House, eighteen (72%) voted to authorize the war. This compares with an overall rating of 40% for the Democrats. Among non-Jewish Democratic members of the House, 35% voted to authorize the war.
The Senate tells a different story. Nine of ten Jewish senators were Democrats (Arlen Specter being the exception). Five voted for the war, five voted against. Here’s the breakdown. For the war: Diane Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter. Against the war: Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, Paul Wellstone, Ron Wyden. Seventy-seven percent of the Senate voted for the war. Only fifty percent of the Jewish members did so.
Now, Jewish-Americans are the most anti-Iraq War religious group in America. So why did 72% of the Jewish members of the House (92% of whom were Democrats) vote to authorize the war when only 35% of the non-Jewish Democratic members did so?
Maybe Colbert King can contemplate an answer to that question that doesn’t involve AIPAC. I’m willing to listen to his theories.
As for the bigots, the reverse trend was found in the Senate. Why did that happen? And again, Jewish Americans are the most anti-Iraq War religious group in America.
It’s really tough to criticize Jewish/Israel lobbying groups because Judaism is one of the most persecuted religions on the planet. (Full disclosure: I’m Catholic.) I think groups like AIPAC have started using Jews’ historic victimhood to shield them from criticism even when (as you point out) they take positions far outside the Jewish majority. With any kind of religious extremism the most effective push comes from within, so in this case that would mean mainstream Jews calling b******* on AIPAC.
Please distinguish the religion, the nationality, and the politics of one party within the political spectrum.
AIPAC isn’t Judaism; it isn’t even representative of the majority political position in Israel or here. They just want you to believe they do. There is a lot of money invested in creating the impression–especially among legislators–that they represent the only opinions that count. I live part of the year in a 80% Jewish community in South Florida, and I can assure you that there is more progressive thought here than AIPAC would have you believe.
In Israel, there is a complete range of political opinions and the majority (at least now) is far more moderate and far more interested in peace than the AIPAC lobby here. It would be very, very positive if American blogs could feature more honest information about political debate in Israel and about options other than bombs to create lasting MIddle East peace.
Michaela – my point is that AIPAC influences policy and that has a big role in determining what people think the mainstream Jewish opinion is. The lack of a countervailing lobbying presence means the spectrum of opinion as represented in DC is…AIPAC. In that sense (and no other!) it doesn’t matter if the South Florida community you live in is 100% against the war – the progressive Jewish voice has no champions in the capitol.
Jews who argue against AIPAC’s influence (such as Eric Alterman) are labeled self-hating and denounced by AIPAC supporters as being anti-semetic.
AIPAC pisses me off as a Jew. They claim to represent me, but they do not. They are a group of right wingers who have been very successful in getting the impression of influence and power when in fact they represent a very small demographic.
Great post booman, I think you addressed the relevant issues quite well. It is rather interesting that at least on the Iraq war issue, Jewish Senators are more liberal than Jewish Representatives, is this true on other issues and is it true of other demographics in the otherwise more conservative Senate?
Posted this elsewhere:
This article from Alternet this morning may be relevant:
For American Jews, Dissent Against Israel Has Become Mainstream
By Tony Karon, Tomdispatch.com. Posted September 15, 2007.
“The exceedingly narrow range of “correct opinion” on Israel for American Jews isn’t holding together like it used to. Is a Jewish glasnost coming to America?”
http://www.alternet.org/stories/62618/
Yet more substance that tends to undermine your assertions below.
Yet more substance that tends to undermine your assertions below.
Not at all. Even Booman’s title suggests that there are some inhibitions concerning the discussion of this topic.
You seem to blowing trumpets that contradict what Booman is actually saying by his title. You’re just not getting it.
Ha. You’re funny. See comments below.
Thanks for the link, its very interesting.
It’s a sample size problem. Feingold, Boxer, and Wyden are some of our most liberal senators. Certainly Bernie Sanders adds to that group. But, on most issues, the Jewish caucus (if we can call it that) of the House is very liberal. Lantos and Waxman are very, very liberal.
I think there was a perception, back in 2002, that taking out Saddam was going to be good for Israel…or, at least, there was a lot of pressure on the caucus to support it. I can’t really find another explanation for a 72% rating.
As a group they are not noticeably more hawkish that the rest of the House. In fact, I’d be tempted to say they are less so (certainly less so that the Blue Dogs).
Lets think for a moment what unites our Jewish legislators aside from that label. Most have a strong respect for civil rights, and liberties. They range from several of most liberal Democrats (Feingold, Boxer, Waxman) to one of the most conservative (Lieberman) and include one of the few Repulican moderates in Specter.
One of the factors often ignored when considering Jewish voters, or legislators is the differences between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. Like most faiths, the more Orthodox you are and thus the more receptive to authoritarianism, the more likely you are in recent years to vote Republican.
This trend is somewhat less strong for Jewish Orthodox than it is for Protestant Orthodox, but it is still there. Jews who are that religious see themselves as somehow more Jewish than the rest of us. Personally I reject that labling, especially as politically the more Orthodox they are the less the vote like the rest of the American Jewish demographic and more like fundamentalist Christians.
Also note that the one Jewish legislator who is well known for supporting neo-conservative policies also identifies as an Orthodox Jew.
It is hard to believe that right wing Zionist lunimaries like Lieberman, Foxman, or Wolfowicz are particularly religious, or for that matter, the entire Likud or Likud-Lite Kadima party come out of strong Judaic tradition.
I recall an article written by Uri Avnery recently contrasting the right wing Zionist like Wolfowicz with the Judaic person like Wolfenson, both of whom want to help Israel albeit in different ways. The latter wanted to facilitate a fair and just peace, which meant honoring the rights of the Palestinians, before he resigned (forgot what his formal position was) due to the brutal treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza.
(I contrast right wing Zionists who support a no state or a bantustan Palestinian state solution with soft or left wing Zionists, who support a sovereign Palestinian state, just to make clear my use of the term, right wing. Unfortunately, failure to support the right of return might suggest that soft means moderate in this context, as I apply it to Avnery.)
Thanks for frontpaging this, Booman. I think that the influence of AIPAC and other members of the Israel Lobby bears scrutiny. With the release of Mearsheimer and Walt’s book, I hope more people will be asking these questions (I’m only about halfway through the book and I highly recommend it).
AIPAC applies pressure on all Democratic politicians, not just Jewish ones. I do not know why the percentage of Jewish Democrats who voted for the Iraq War resolution is so much higher than that of other Democrats in the House — although, considering the voting patterns of the CBC, I would be interested in seeing how it compares with the percentage of non-Jewish, non-Black Democrats who voted for the war authorization. I’m more inclined to think that the difference in percentages of House and Senate Jewish politicians reflects polarization in House districts. If some, though not all, Jewish politicians come from districts with a high percentage of Jewish voters (like say, Robert Wexler’s district in South Florida), then they might be more easily swayed by AIPAC’s claims that it represents the views of most Jewish voters in their districts (even though AIPAC is more hardline than the majority of Jewish voters).
Wow. Does this mean that shergald needs to revise his theories about leftwing blogs?
No.
Everyone knows that AIPAC and its allied groups do not represent mainstream Jewish American thought. It represents a small but highly vocal minority of right wing Likud supporters, and when people like Foxman of the ADL attempt to conflate criticism of Israel with antiSemitism, as he recently did with his criticism of the Mearsheimer and Walt book, they run into the reality that most Jewish Americans are not Likudniks.
This from Alternet this morning may be relevant:
For American Jews, Dissent Against Israel Has Become Mainstream
By Tony Karon, Tomdispatch.com. Posted September 15, 2007.
“The exceedingly narrow range of “correct opinion” on Israel for American Jews isn’t holding together like it used to. Is a Jewish glasnost coming to America?”
http://www.alternet.org/stories/62618/
Umm, you missed the point. Here’s a leftwing blog directly addressing concerns about AIPAC on (gasp) the front page. See my point now?
I responded elsewhere on the point. Can you deny that it is rare to see such stories on the frontpage of liberal blogs?
I think not. I have been around for some time waiting to see a direct assault of this pernicious influence on American politics called AIPAC.
Ariel Sharon instituted the “dunam by dunam” policy for wrestling the West Bank from Palestinians, which involved IDF-settler teams making life miserable for the Palestinians, destroying their homes and farmlands and orchards, in order to steal their lands after they leave. 90,000 Palestinians leave the West Bank every year because they cannot feed their families, cannot survive. In fact, there is an Israeli or military law which states that if Palestinians do not plant on farmland for three years, it may be turned over to the settlers. It can be appropriated.
Let me announce the “word by word” policy of counterpropaganda, where in small steps, the American public is apprised of the truth, and eventually there will be an uprising against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in our name, and with out money. This frontpage story is one small step.
And yet you reference another fresh post above. Fascinating.
Sorry Boran, but you have now become so content aversive that I am about to accuse you of the slaying the messenger tactic often used by the right wing Zionists to deflect Israel criticism.
But I won’t.
Saying in essence “I would say this, but I’m not going to” so that you can get credit for being above an attack while still making the attack is pretty close to troll behavior. The two rating is about your tactics here not the content of your arguments.
Guilty as charged. Mea culpa.
If you will give shergald a two for his post – surely you will give boran a two for every single post of his above shergald’s, which have the both the substance & tone of “baiting”.
Surely you will be that just.
If I don’t agree totally with shergald, well, I must be undermining his message. That is your favored time-honored tactic and fallback position. I’ve seen it too many times, you’ve accused me of same previously. But, once again, you’ve chosen to accuse the wrong individual. I’ve never undermined your content, I’ve only addressed your continuing claims that the very blog at which you post (MBT) doesn’t cover the issue(s) with which you are concerned. Will you actually be addressing this claim?
Furthermore, you are apparently the one who is “content aversive”. You regularly (nearly every day) state that left wing blogs fail to cover your favored topic. Then, you immediately thereafter reference a fresh post elsewhere. This would seem to undermine your own argument. I haven’t the time to google, but I would suspect that this is not the only such fresh post in the LWB.
BTW, I write (when able) about agency failure with respect to environmental issues, a topic with which I am actually involved. It receives little, if any, attention. When I do post such items, readers seem interested, just as they do for your regularly recommended posts. Yet, I don’t constantly bitch and tear apart my fellow bloggers for not addressing these issues. I simply continue to post.
Why exactly is it that you believe that BMTers have a desire to see you fail? Check the graphics, they’re not orange.
It is the proverbial elephant in the room that is never discussed in the context of foreign policy where it belongs, or its role in moving Congress toward supporting a right wing Republican foreign policy agenda like the invasion of Iraq. The role of foreign lobbies in US government needs to be discussed, especially if they are having an influence. There are many local essayists far more capable than me in bring these issues to the fore and discussing them competently.
That is my gripe, and it seems universal on liberal blogs of any worth, not just on BT. It is not a gripe about diary content permitted on BT, which seems open. That is laudable. And I have not torn apart anyone as far as I can tell, even though some people like yourself have taken it personally. Don’t. It is not personal.
the annoying thing is that he hijacked the thread so that no one, besides Luam, is asking questions about these numbers and what might explain them.
Hijack? Me? I think all of this talk is important to the numbers you presented and explaining them. I certainly did not raise the issue of AIPAC on the frontpage as proof of BT fairness in discussing it. Boran did.
I’m happy to see AIPAC there on the frontpage.
Boran’s point is that you constantly bitch and moan about the content of blogs, to the point that when I write about your issue, you use it to bitch and moan about the content of blogs…which is ANNOYING.
Don’t agree. My first post was,
This article from Alternet this morning may be relevant:
For American Jews, Dissent Against Israel Has Become Mainstream.
Then Boran2 came on and the dialogue deteriorated from there, beginning with how your essay contradicted what I stated a few days ago.
Your title however supported what I stated about a more generalized prohibition affecting liberal blogs. So who is bitching and moaning. It is an appropriate title: Can We Ever Talk About AIPAC? You did. Wonderful. I said so. Goodbye.
Sorry, BooMan, I guess that I did post the first comment.
Ahh… There’s no need to apologize. Your comment stimulated discussion. What the hell are places like Booman for? It is common for commentary to sometimes deviate from the main point of an essay. So what? Have a nice afternoon. The Yanks are in Boston for their second game. Is that important?
A group of astronomers recently estimated that there were 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. The time necessary to traverse the Milky Way, our own galaxy, whose diameter has been measured to be about 100,000 light-years, is 100,000 times 9.46 trillion kilometers. One light year is the distance at which light travels in a year. Then an astronomer recently reported that he discovered an empty space in the distant Universe that would take one billion years to across at the speed of light, or 1,000,000,000 times 9.46 trillion kilometers.
Only through spirits and magic or Hollywood screen writers could one conceivably traverse such distances. So just how important is your apology when measured against such distances?
Voting or not voting for the Iraq War is probably not a good measure of the influence of AIPAC on the Congress. Whether Senators or Congresspersons are or are not Jewish likely had little to do with their voting preferences since, afterall, they do represent large constituents of mostly nonJews and a Left Wing political viewpoint. Joe Lieberman is probably the only Jewish American Senator who was tuned into AIPAC, and still is, given his speeches to Christian Zionist orgs, who are distinctly right wing Likud supporters.
Booman, this phrase pretty much sums of the difficulty:
“Discussing AIPAC is a third-rail of American politics, and to deny that is to stick your head in the sand.”
It is also difficult for left wing blogs to feature stories about it. Take Daily Kos. Ford did not rap Kos with the “Jewish American” comment because it was true, but because the DLC is is better understood as the DLC/AIPAC faction of the Democratic party. As you once suggested, Kos cannot provide an blog environment filled with Israel criticism that would discourage Democratic candidates from posting on Daily Kos, even though that criticism is fully consonant with Democratic liberal thinking. It is fear of AIPAC.
Thus, the voices in support of human rights in Israel-Palestine have been largely silenced. Palestinian and Palestinian-American voices, in particular, were dangerous, given their tendency to unmask the censorship and propaganda that has been focused on America these past few decades, and the injustices that the US government has been complicit in.
This essay, on the other hand, is tame enough not to draw too much negative attention.
In the late eighties and early nineties there was a spying operation, first governmental, then lateraled off to the ADL, then exposed, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The group spied on Nazi-like groups, but they also spied on leftist bookstores, student groups (like anti-apartheid groups), public television stations, Demo politicians (I recall Boxer and Pelosi being targets) and labor unions, including mine. When they were caught they were caught the main spy (an SF undercover cop who did work for the CIA in Latin America) disappeared to the Philippines and Abe Foxman came out and said we were all anti-American.
I was an officer for the letter carriers. I know I’d signed a petition asking the thugs in El Salvador to stop kidnapping and torturing unionists, and our union took a stand with CISPES at the time. Tell me how the anti-defamation league benefited by spying on mailmen.
I guess my point is that at some point conservative Judaism in the US decided to throw in with the Right in exchange for furthering Israel, much like Israel did. Organizations, especially those that lose perspective about right and wrong when seeking power, tend to become reactionary and make alliances with the people they should be fighting against.
For some reason most of the people I spend any voluntary time with are Jewish. All of them strongly oppose Israel’s expansionist policies and behavior. All of them show a degree of contempt for Zionism that I would hesitate to reveal in public. OTOH, I live a couple blocks from an Orthodox neighborhood that is, judging by the signs and political contributions, strongly Zionist.
Seems like there’s a parallel here: the most extreme religionists tend to ally with the imperialist right, whether it’s Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anybody else. They also gain strength from organized fanaticism. In the case of Jews, the rightwing clique has an extra weapon in the sorry history of persecution they can utilize, much as the Christian fundies keeps the followers revved up with their claims that the godless atheist commies are trying to keep Jesus from coming back, or the similar scams from the ayatollahs of Iraq and elsewhere.
With the Zionists there is also the power of Nationalists too self-interested to actually go to and work/fight for their country and instead pool money and influence to become an effective foreign agent opposing the more democratic and diffuse mainstream. Here the most obvious parallel would be the Miami Cubans.
Judging by personal experience and the polls, the AIPAC imperialist types constitute a small minority of Jews. They win by intimidation. Non-Jews face a real dilemma in opposing them because they run a real risk of giving aid and comfort to the real antisemites of the “Protocols” kind, which are still very much with us.
I think all non-Jews can do is work against “religious” fundamentalism of all stripes and do what we can to support Jews who try to empower the majority.
I appreciate your willingness to bring this up, BooMan. It’s obviously a touchy…often volatile subject. But very important to American politics.
But, I must say I am rather shocked, as I’ve scanned all the entries here, not to have found any discussion….or mention even….of neo-conservatism. That “philosophy” if it can be called that has some very specific tenets to it that adherents follow and believe in. Jewish and/or non-Jewish. THAT, in my mind, is the real problem.
I’d be interested in knowing how many AIPAC members and Congresspeople believe in neo-conservativism and support what it stands for….including the agenda it has been pushing.
Justin Raimado is a controversial source, but it’s worth a read. It’s from 2004.
Excellent, BooMan, thank you. Helps make my point exactly. When the discussion is framed in terms of criticism of the AIPAC alone — without any discussion of the neo-conservative movement and what its believers are after — then it’s easy for it to become ….or appear to be….an attack on Jews. It is NOT!!!
The attack and criticism and worry has to do with the far-right extremist FANATICS who have an agenda and are pushing it…and have been successful with this administration in doing so. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) — their policy statement/agenda, etc. etc. The latest would be Norman Podhodertz’ long article in Commentary calling for an immediate ATTACK ON IRAN. (Which, btw, Chimp and Darth are getting ready to carry out….to the detriment and further destruction of this country and everything we hold dear….)
Again, neo-conservatives are not just Jewish people! Donald Rumsfeld? George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? and on and on….
In addition to the above you’ve cited, I would add these as well:
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2004/a_tragedy_of_errors
A TRAGEDY OF ERRORS
a review of David Frum and Richard Perle’s “An End to Evil”
By Michael Lind, New America Foundation
The Nation | February 23, 2004
About a decade ago, I invented a game with a colleague of mine who, like me, had once worked for Irving Kristol. We called it NEOCONSERVATIVE bingo. The idea was that the cliches of neoconservative discourse would be arranged in various combinations on bingo cards: “The World’s Only Superpower”; “The New Class”; “The China Threat”; “Decadent Europe”; “Against the UN”; “The Adversary Culture”; “The Global Democratic Revolution”; “Down With the Appeasers!”; “Be Firm Like Churchill.” The free space in the center of the bingo card would be “The Palestinian People Do Not Exist” (nowadays it would be “No Palestinian State” or “All Palestinians Are Terrorists”). As you read an essay or a book by a neoconservative, you would check off each slogan on the card in the order in which it appeared.
We never printed our neocon bingo cards. But THE NEOCONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO by David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil, which is more a collection of talking points than a coherent argument, can serve just as well…..” (clip)
And, interestingly, Congressman RON PAUL tried, early on, to introduce America to the NEOCONSERVATIVE movement and what it stands for:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/neo_conned.htm
“NEO-CONNED” – speech by Congressman Ron Paul Addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
July 10, 2003