placing the palestinian struggle

[Naji Dahi]

> This particularly response is actually one of the red flags for exactly
what
> I was talking about, since you deny that there is even real unique
prejudice
> against Jews, so you play games with words.  No anti-arab discrimination
> group in the US uses the word "antisemitism" to describe anti-arab
> discrimination.

What are you talking about? Are you reading what I am writing? When did I
ever deny that there is prejudice agianst Jews? I really do not give a damn
what Arab groups use or do not use when they refer to anti-Arab
discrimination. The fact is that I am a Semite just like any other Jewish or
Arab person. And to go and accuse me of anti-semitism because I believe that
AIPAC controls US policy towards Israel is totally out of line. It is the
same bloody tactic that is used by JDL and other groups to discredit genuine
debate on the issue of US-Israel relations.

> Yes-- and Jews have all the money as we all know.  The focus on money
coming
> from Jews as the source of Israeli support is exactly the problem with the
> whole argument, sincce it denies the political support Israel gets for all
> sorts of other reasons from non-Jews.

AIPAC is an interest group that uses its power and resources to secure
support for Israel in the US. Why is this so outrageous to you? This is the
same as saying that AARP uses its power and resources to secure support for
social security from the US administration. That is not so hard to
comprehend is it?? AIPAC and Jews are not one and the same. AIPAC does get a
large summ of its money from Jews, but not all of it. You seem to believe
that just because I said AIPAC, I also implied Jews. That is a poor
assumption on you part since I said no such thing.

> At Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org), they track contributions from both
> PACs and individuals specifically targetted through pro-Israel groups.
The
> totals for the 2000 election cycle from pro-Israel sources were just over
$6
> million (see http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q05)

6 million is more than enough to buy influence on the key foreign relations
committees in the House and the Senate. I challange you to find one rep or
senator on  a foreign relations committee in the house or the senate that
has dared criticize Israel for what it is doing in the West Bank and Gaza.
Find just one to prove me wrong. No one dares criticize Israel on these key
committees. It is a career death warrant to be critical of Israel on a
foreign relations committee. When it comes keeping the foreign aid faucet
fully open to Israel, AIPAC gets the job done. Israel gets more aid from the
US than the entire African continent. If I was an Israel supporter I would
be proud of this achievement.

> Sure, New York primaries are strategic and money doesn't hurt, but if
Israel
> didn't have support from religious conservatives and sectors of the
defense
> establishment for their own purposes, Israel wouldn't get support from the
> US.

The alliance between religious conservative protestant groups and Israel is
more recent. The power of AIPAC predates that alliance. I am not denying
that AIPAC has struck strategic alliances with other interest groups to keep
the support for Israel strong. What I am saying is that when it comes to
setting US policy to Israel, AIPAC is in the driver's seat and not the US
administration.

Let me give you the most recent case. Let us assume that the US national
interest is served by attacking Iraq and removing Saddam from power and
installing a puppet democratic regime. This is at least the official line
that the Bush camp gives us. If that is the US policy then the Bush camp
should do their best to secure Arab allies to help them carry that mission.
In order to secure Arab Allies the US must distance itself and get tough
with Israel on the West Bank and the Gaza strip. What does the Bush camp do
instead? Bush issues a statement syaing that not only is Arafat is to blame
for the recent violence but als the ARAB states. HUH!!!

This statement that Bush made does not make sense if the Empire was really
in control of its policy towards Israel, but it makes perfect sense since
AIPAC is actually in control of the US policy to Israel. This statement was
also made after the Arab states collectivelly offered to make peace with
Israel in exchange for enfrocing UN resolution 242. If the empire was really
in control, it should have welcomed the Arab initiative and put pressure on
Israel to enforce it. This would have split the Arab camp and gave the
Empire allies that allow it to carry its plan against Iraq.

In this case you find the empire giving up on its own national interest, no
matter how ill defined it is, in order to stay on good terms with AIPAC and
win more seats in the congressional election and ultimately the presidential
elections. Keep in mind that Bush is still an illegitimate president and
this can come back to haunt him. He needs to the support of AIPAC more than
AIPAC needs him.

Naji

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin