Nathan Newman wrote:
> And yet a large majority of those "rapid" pro-Israel Congresspeople voted
to
> make Bonior the second-ranked Dem in the House. AIPAC was obviously
asleep
> that day, and every two years after that when Bonior was reelected.
-It's amazing how you can seize on a footnote to a footnote and declare that -it's the big story. Can you tell me what practical effect Rep. David -Bonior's election to the post of House minority whip has exerted on the -course of US policy in the Middle East?
Combatting anti-arab racism in the US has a demonstrable effect on US policy, since its a precondition for US arab-americans to be able to have a public voice in our debate. And Bonior has been critical in that effort.
But Presidential-obsessed folks look only at the short-term balance of power, which Presidential elections always reflect, not where changes at the electoral grassroots will change policy in the future. If the President of the US was pro-Palestinian, we would have already won the public debate for that election to have occurred. The question is what to do when you have a minority of public support? How do you expand it?
That Bonior in 1982 was willing to give Congressional endorsement to direct talks with Arafat is far from a footnote in Middle East history and his continual campaigning against anti-Arab and anti-muslim discrimination is critical to setting the stage for changing public opinion.
But folks who are top-down oriented think only the Presidency matters. But that is short-term thinking. But then so much of the left has only short-term vision, so it's hardly surprising.
-- Nathan Newman