I’ve Seen This Movie Before
Stunning, isn’t it, how quickly the anti-Israel segment of the left goes into outrage mode whenever conflict breaks out in the long-running, tedious conflict between Israel and Hamas…here’s the pattern:
1. Radical group bent on destruction of Israel engages in clearly war-worthy provocations (kidnapping soliders, firing missiles into Israeli towns).
2. Israel responds, as any nation would under such provocations.
3. “International community”, overwhelmingly ‘liberal’ in viewpoint, heretofore silent when the missiles were hitting Israel, suddenly becomes outraged at the carnage wrought by Israel’s response (as if nations that use poor weapons that have a low chance of proving lethal are inherently morally superior to nations with modern, high-tech weaponry).
4. Under pressure, Israel withdraws in the face of universal condemnation.
5. Radical group continues racist, genocidal anti-Israeli rhetoric and continues lobbing missiles to renewed silence.
Other leftists, however, not content to merely voice their anti-Israel sentiments, feel compelled to whip up Jewish conspiracy theories hinting at sinister motives behind the long-standing American political consensus that we help our friends, including Israel. Take it away, Glenn Greenwald…
The bottom line is this: Hamas is an anti-Semitic hotbed of radicalism that, in its own charter, explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Contrary to postmodern notions of moral equivalence, that is evil, in and of itself (this is not to call Israel blameless, it is merely to face the issue with clarity). The Palestinians have supported Hamas in its mission, and most find it a more suitable face for their government that the largely toothless, much more moderate Fatah.
So be it…but you can’t attack a nation with missiles, no matter how primitive, and expect no reaction…and you can’t force Israel to commit suicide by giving up its defense militarily, or diplomatically, as with the farcical notion of a ‘one-state’ solution with a right of return that would quickly destroy Israel demographically.
Every rational person on the planet knows the two-state solution is the only viable option – and everyone knows that the Palestinians could have that solution within a matter of months if they wanted it. They don’t want it, they continue to play a deadly game, and while I’m sorry for the bloodshed and loss of life, this is entirely preventable whenever they decide to grow up and face the reality of the world as it is…
Nice even-handed, rational analysis, Mark. The repeated use of “anti-Israel” is a nice touch to show how calmly you’re examining the situation.
I’m going to have to agree with Fargus on this one. Clearly, those people (verbally) attacking Israel are actually pro-Israel. How dare you question their patriotism (of a country they don’t actually live in…)
*sigh*
How incredibly boring.
In the analysis I’ve read from the left, the frustration with Israel is not an endemic, ideological thing. It’s simply that this response seems disproportionate and, in the long run, not helpful to the goal (presuming it is the goal) of a sustainable peace in the region. How you spin that into “anti-Israel” is beyond me, unless we presume that you’re not actually interested in a conversation on the subject.
The pro-Israel lobby has been enormously effective in achieving its goals. It has been successful because of large political donations, a very strong lobbying organization, and a large number of supporters in key states like Florida who are single-issue voters the same way others vote based on a candidate’s view on abortion. AIPAC has been as effective as the NRA, the farm lobby, or any other advocacy group. As a result, American foreign policy has been far more pro-Israel than the general consensus.
I think Greenwald raises a perfectly vald question when he asks whether this is legitimate. If tobacco growers want to band together to support candidates who help their business, that’s the way politics work. However, there is something intrinsically different about foreign policy — especially when it involves warfare — and a strong case can be made that using lobbying to effect desired foreign policy goals is inappropriate. There is no other lobby similar to AIPAC. Russians don’t lobby to alter US policy towards Russians, or Chinese, or anyone else. It is not anti-Israel to ask if our policy towards Israel should be influenced by political pressure.
Greenwald is not being anti-Israel in asking whether its response should unquestionably be accepted. Nine Israelis were killed by rockets before the Israeli attacks, and hundreds of Palestinian citizens have died. It is perfectly legitimate to ask at what point the response is wildly incommensurate with the provocation. American money, arms, and expertise are being used to attack the Gazans, so it is hardly an idle question for us. If you accept the argument that the Israeli response is disproportionate, then it is logical to ask whether the political pressure exerted by the pro-Isreali lobby to support the response is appropriate. Greenwald’s point is that this discussion isn’t even being held, as leading politicians view everything that Israel does as automatically correct.
It is also legitimate to ask whether domestic Israeli politics is playing a role in the military response. The sitting government is trying to outbid Netanyahu in seeing who can be tougher on the Palestinians. Our government is giving unquestioned and absolute support to a process whose brutality could be magnified not by the exigencies of the situation but by politicians seeking to further their own interests. Without any discussion on the matter — automatically assuming that any Israeli military response is legitimate — our foreign policy is limited and short sighted.
I’m not making the case that Israel did the wrong thing — simply that its actions are the legitimate subject of debate, and Greenwald’s point that the strength of the pro-Israel loobby precludes this debate is unfortunate.
Right on cue the leftys here prove Mark’s point.
Reflexively anti-Israel while claiming they are not. Complete with dual loyalty accusations.
Peter: You really have no clue about what “disproportionate” means in international law concerning military response, do you?
Disproportionate is a term of art that you, like nearly all the anti-Israel critics, mis-use. It does not mean that if one side kills 1 and the other side kills 10, the side killing 10 is being disproportionate.
To quote someone not inclined to reflexive pro-Israel bias:
Luis Moreno-Orampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.”
The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians or when “the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.”
Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, The Hague, February 9, 2008, http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf
Hamas shoots off random rockets at civilian targets. They are committing a war crime.
Hamas puts its bomb making and rocket launching facilities in civilian areas. They are committing a war crime and are legaly responsible for civilains deaths that occur.
Isreal, so long as it targets Hamas facilities and personel, is not commiting a war crime when civilians die. So far, by the admission of the Palestinians and pro-Arab UN officials, a decisive majority of deaths are Hamas members including “police”. The civilian deaths are regrettable but not disproportionate.
Can we dispense with “anti-Israel” (Mark and Bob) and “pro-Israel” (Peter)? Everyone here is pro-Israel in the sense that we all basically agree Israel ought to exist (I say “basically” because I would have been opposed to the carving out of Israel in the 40s but am now committed to maintaining its existence for practical reasons). We just disagree on what’s actually good for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the world.
That said, I’m kind of in the middle on this one. Arguments like Bob’s are basically correct: Israel has the right (or, technically, the obligation) to defend its people, and Hamas has a habit of hiding behind civilians for PR reasons. There is little to nothing Israel can do to respond militarily to Hamas without catching civilians in the middle.
The problem stems from the fact that Israel (and her defenders here in the States, for that matter) doesn’t seem to *care* about catching civilians in the middle. Bob, for instance, calls it “regrettable” without indicating the slightest bit of actual regret. Mark tells Palestinians – an entire nation – to “grow up”. The implicit assumption made by defenders of the Israeli government in these conversations is that Palestinians are just not as important (in a moral sense) as Israelis, and it’s ugly.
And none of this has anything to do with what’s actually good for Israel. I think it’s a matter of extreme controversy (or should be) whether blowing up Palestinian civilians (intentionally or not) is good for the long-term safety of Israel. I’m inclined to believe it’s not, but I’m also inclined to believe that our entire policy in the region is not good for the long-term safety of literally anyone, so that’s just where we’re stuck.
It’s regrettable to see that Bob ends the year continuing to suffer from cranial rectal inversion. I said nothing about war crimes. I am not an anti-Israel critic.” I recognize that the first principle of the Israeli-Arab conflict is this: if the Arabs laid down their arms, the region would live in peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, they would all be dead.
Israel has every right to defend itself, and the fact that Hamas launches attacks from densely populated civilian areas makes them morally responsible for collateral damage. However, this does not mean that any action taken by Israel, no matter how brutal, is therefore moral or just. Somewhere between an eye for an eye and turning Gaza into a parking lot is a line which should not be crossed. If a kid fires a slingshot from an apartment building with a thousand residents and Israel flattens it, presumably even Bob would find that to be grossly wrong (although with Bob you never know.) I am not saying that Israel crossed that line. In the fog of war, neither I nor Bob knows what is really going on there. It may be that Israel has no alternative but to crush Hamas, regardless of the consequences. I don’t know and I’m not making the case one way or the other.. However, to insist that anything Israel does in response to Hamas is automatically justified is simply wrong, and to refuse to examine the propriety of Israeli actions — especially when they are supported by American arms and treasure — is short-sighted and against our national interest. If this refusal is the result of political considerations, then it is even more short-sighted and contrary to our interests.
Would someone please define what a “proportionate response” would look like? Please include the means by which Israel could more accurately identify their targets given:
A. The Palestinian military (Hamas, et al) do not identify themselves as such.
B. The Palestinian fighters hide themselves and their weapons stores among the population, including at schools, hospitals, etc.
If Israel would attack with an overwhelming force perhaps this conflict would end sooner. Of course, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and the majority of Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith in that they have sworn to abolish Israel, so other than bombing them into the stone age what other way is there to end this never-ending conflict?
One other thing. If the world community would respond with similar outrage and calls for the violence to stop when the Palestinians are lobbing their bombs into Israel and blowing up various and sundry Israeli shite, then maybe Israel could turn the other cheek and achieve some success. Perhaps if the world community spoke up, including the Arab nations of Egypt and Lebanon, Iran and Syria, to the Palestinian call and commitment to obliterate Israel, then maybe Israel could be convinced that diplomacy might work.
The modus operandi of Hamas and other groups who use human shields causes reasonable people to differ on what a proportionate response is. However, the fact that you can’t quantify proportionality doesn’t mean that some acts aren’t clearly justified and others are not. We can broadly agree that Isreali sharpshooters killing Hamas gunmen would be moral and the flattening all of Gaza is not. We may disagree on whether the current actions are appropriate. However, if — as Greenwald suggests — any discussion of whether they are justifiable is off the table, then we lose the ability to see the situation with clarity or orbjectivity.
Of course the actions Israel chooses are subject to discussion and need to be justified, but I would argue the justification of a particular level of force be based on the objective, not the opponent’s precipitating action. Thus the response would be measurably different in the case of Israel acting to punish Gaza for lobbing bombs versus the goal of bringing a definite end to the conflict.
I agree, but my point is that having this discussion is not tantamount to whipping up “Jewish conspiracy theories hinting at sinister motives behind the long-standing American political consensus that we help our friends, including Israel.”
There is a consensus that we should “help our friends,” but there is no consensus that this includes unquestioning support of everything which Israel has done. Nor is there anything “sinister” in examining the extraordinary role which AIPAC plays in American foreign policy — but there is something wrong in refusing to examine whether the political pressure brought to bear on behalf of Israel is counter-productive to our national interest.
Whether the Israeli actions are justified is a debate we ought to be having, especially because we are partly responsible for those actions because of our consistent and unstinting support of Israel. Automatically assuming that anything and everything which Israel does to defend itself is worthy of our support not only loses any leverage we have over Israeli actions, but it also makes it impossible for us to play the role of honest broker among the competing interests in the region.
For all the rhetoric, why is it I smell the stench of Anti-Israelism in comments like peter’s? Where is all this concern about “proportion” when the actions are from the other side? Where, pray tell? To answer my own question…non-existent.
Not at all. There can be no justification for what Hamas has done. Murder is murder. Read post nine. I think that is pretty clear.
DBrooks: As I said, “Reflexively anti-Israel while claiming they are not.”
Peter thinks it improper that Jews alone lobby for foreign policy changes. He forgets the Cubans and the Irish and the Greeks, among others. Because it destroys his point. Only Jews have dual loyalty.
I did forget about the Cubans: they do have an effective voice in our relationship with their mother country, and one which may not be beneficial to our national interest.
American Irish may have had an effect on our policy back when the IRA was an issue, but I don’t think that Ireland gets any special treatment now, if it ever did. Also, Irish issues have always been far less consequential than Israeli issues — I don’t think Ireland (or Greece) ever made it into the Top Ten Pressing Foreign Policy Concerns. Also, our policy towards Ireland, Greece, or anywhere else never led to adverse consequences for us such as an oil embargo or terrorist attacks on Americans.
AIPAC is not the only organization to lobby to affect American foreign policy, but it has been the most powerful and (with the possible exception of Cuban Americans) the most successful. I think it is legitimate to ask whether this power (for both the Israeli and Cuban lobbies) is in our best interests.
The reason I use the phrase ‘grow up’ with respect to the majority Palestinian position (an admittedly patronizing use of terminology, I grant you) is that it is predicated on the proposition that Israel will willingly commit suicide.
In the world I live in, that is complete nonsense. Israel as a nation has existed for 50 years now. That is the starting point of any serious negotiation. Any negotiation that presumes a world without Israel (and that means not just a geographic entity called ‘Israel’ but a Jewish homeland in its biblical cradle) is an immature and illogical one…
The political activities of American Jews causes terrorism against the US.
“Reflexively anti-Jew while claiming they are not.”
Peter, if our policies towards Israel cause terrorists to attack us, that is the fault of the terrorists. You don’t change a policy because your enemies don’t like it; instead, you judge it on its own merits.
I can think of no nation that has been a better friend to America than Israel, with the possible exception of England. There was dancing in the streets of the Palestinian territories on 9/11. I didn’t see that happen on the streets of Tel Aviv, did you?
It is entirely fitting that we support Israel. Does that mean the support must be blind? No, of course not – but it means that we begin from the standpoint of friends.
We don’t have to be automatically pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian on every issue. I remind everyone here that President Bush is the FIRST American president to explicitly call for a Palestinian state. We all see how far that, and American support of the moderate government of Fatah, brought us. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Palestinian people still cling to a vision of the world that is 50 years out of date. When they come to their senses, we can bring an end to this conflict in a matter of months, as I stated above…
American support of Israel has led to conflict with the Arab world, from the oil embargo — which started after American support for Israel in the Yom Kipper war — to the Achille Lauro to al Qaeda. Read what was said at the time by the Gulf oil producing states, the PLO, and bin Laden. If we were willing to throw Israel to the wolves, few if any of these events would have occured.
Bob: this is not to say that American Jews caused terrorism — terrorists caused terrorism. It is simply to recognize that American foreign policy, which has been heavily influenced by the pro-Israel lobby, has given people like bin Laden and Arafat the fuel they need to recruit people to kill Americans. These are simply facts, whether you accept them or not.
While being wrong about the facts is something you are accustomed to, I find it offensive to be called “reflexively anti-Jewish.” First, I said nothing at all about Jews. Secondly, the pro-Israel lobby has lots of non-Jewish supporters, including evangelical Christians. Finally, I happen to be Jewish. I’ll be at our synagogue Friday night and Saturday morning, and my daughter is becoming a bat mitzvah in February. The fact that I’m Jewish is irrelevant (or should be irrelevant) to how I would look at Israeli actions. It would be like saying that a Catholic would be anti-Catholic if he opposed some of the Vatican’s acts in World War II. To say that I’m “anti-Jewish” because I do not enthusiastically and uncritically support everything the sovereign state of Israel does is emblematic of your limited view of the world.
Mark: you are, of course, correct in writing that “if our policies towards Israel cause terrorists to attack us, that is the fault of the terrorists.” However, the second sentence does not follow from the first. I never said that we should change our policies. In fact, I said repeatedly that Israel may well be justified in doing what it is doing. However, that is not to say that our support of Israel should blind us to its adverse consequences, and simply noting the fact does not (as Bob would have you believe) make one anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli.
The context was whether the pro-Israeli lobby is sui generis. I believe that it is, and one of the reasons it is different than similar efforts on behalf of Cubans, Greeks, and Irish is that none of the putative changes wrought by those lobbies on American foreign policy has led to the adverse consequences we have had because of changes wrought by the Israeli lobby. This is not to say that our support of Israel is wrong — only that this support has caused us difficulties which our support of other nationalities has not.
Peter congratulations to your family and your daughter.
I’m a bit confused with your support of Greenwald on this issue – why is there anything more inherently suspect about AIPAC than about any other lobbying group, and why must we assume that politicians support Israel only because of AIPAC? I support Israel mainly, I suppose, out of a feeling of collective guilt and/or sympathy over the historic treatment of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, if I am completely honest with myself, and because of its close ties with our country, and I suspect most politicians would support Israel for similar reasons, even if there was not an AIPAC…
American support for Israel has not resulted in our present conflict with Al Qaeda. The classic Arab opponent of Israel is the PLO, which is not an Islamist — or even an Islamic — organization, at least historically speaking.
Al Qaeda’s rise is a backlash against globalization. It’s ideology is based upon the writings of Sayed Qutb back when his native Egypt was a British Mandate (as was “palestine”). Bin-Laden and the others in the AQ leadership only started using anti-Israel rhetoric only after their initial selling point — “The US should be attacked because it’s stationing troops in Saudi Arabia.” — didn’t go over so well in drumming up support. Do you think the US was in Saudi Arabia to protect Israel?
Mark:
1) Thanks for the congratulations!
2) “why is there anything more inherently suspect about AIPAC than about any other lobbying group?” See post 5 paragraph 2: I think there is a case to be made against any lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, of which AIPAC is the most prominent. If domestic issues are influenced by lobbying, so be it. However, its legitimate to ask whether political pressure by lobbying groups should end at the water’s edge.
3) “Why must we assume that politicians support Israel only because of AIPAC?” Many politicians would support Israel regardless of AIPAC, but AIPAC has helped make American support consistent and nearly always absolute. Similarly, many politicians would oppose gun control regardless of the NRA, but the NRA has pushed Congressional opposition to gun control strongly in that direction.
Aaron:
You are certainly correct that al Qaeda has other grievances (if that is the right word) besides the Arab Israeli conflict. However, it you count the number of times they reference “crusaders and Zionists,” or include Israel in their jihad, it certainly seems to me that opposition to the state of Israel is chief among their agenda.
Another answer to post 23 is this:
Much ado was made about Middle Eastern interests contributing to the Clinton library and paying him generous speaking fees, as well as his agreement to have future activities vetted by the Obama administration. This is because it would be wrong to have a foreign government in a position to influence State Department policy by cash contributions to the husband of the Secretary of State.
However, you have members of Congress who receive cash contributions from allies of foreign governments — including but not limited to Israel — and only a fool would argue that these contributions have no influence on how much money Congress allocates in aid, whether it places restrictions on arms sales, what treaties we sign, or any other of the myriad ways in which Congress affects foreign policy.
What’s the difference?
Well, as so often, we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing illegal about AIPAC, and we can’t blame Israel for taking advantage of the game within the rules.
Similarly, Greenwald is just flat wrong that there is no consideration given to the moral consequences of the struggle – the papers are FULL of it, and I’m quite certain that even politicians sometimes pick up a newspaper.
To consider something is not the same as agreeing with it. Here is Alan Dershowitz in the Christian Science Monitor:
Greenwald’s grievance is not that there is no study of the issues among the politicians and chatter classes, no matter his protests to the contrary – it’s that his preferred conclusion is not the one reached…
And in response to your #26: are politicians corrupt? My heavens, yes, far too often. Yet even a corrupt politician can sometimes reach the right conclusion.
To me, the issue is this: is Israel entitled to self-defense? The answer appears self-evident. Proportionality is a smoke-screen, since Israel is ALWAYS pulled back by the international community before it can decisively cripple its foes. Israel has always relied on a heavy hand, because its only defense, surrounded by enemies on all sides, is to make would-be attackers think twice because of the high price they will pay for their belligerence…
Now, because I reach this conclusion, does this mean I haven’t considered the issues? That I am blind to Israel’s transgressions? That I am unfair or corrupt? Or could it mean I have considered both sides and decided Israel is in the right?…
Let me add some word of congratulations for Peter.
My daughter was Bat Mitzvah two weeks ago. It’s a very special time. Mazel Tov.
And, just so Bob can add my name to the list of lefty anti-Semites, let me add that i think that this assault on Gaza does not serve the strategic interests of Israel. I believe it is driven by domestic political concerns (the desire of the Kadima Government to appear “tough”, in the face of upcoming elections, in which Netanyahu’s Likud party looks strong).
Indeed, I’d go further, and say that Israeli policy vis-a-vis Gaze, for most of the Olmert Government, has been counterproductive, and has severely undercut Sharon’s “vision” in withdrawing from Gaza.
As to AIPAC, I think the perception that they have dominating influence on US foreign policy is more damaging to US (and, ultimately, to Israeli) interests, than whatever “good” they manage to do in lobbying on behalf of Israel. The US is more useful to Israel, when it can serve as an “honest broker”, and mediate progress towards peace.
Right now would be an excellent time for an honest broker …
Well, I continue to think that the incapacitation of Sharon was actually, in one of history’s little ironies, the biggest blow for peace in that region in my lifetime, because Sharon, perhaps alone among Israeli politicians, had the bona fides re:toughness against Israeli’s foes, to actually pull off a withdrawal and, no less important, win the battle against the more intransigent settlers.
What unfortunate timing, to the continued detriment of the world…
And congrats also, Jacques, to your family and your daughter…and a Happy New Year to you all!…
Mark: I agree that “There is nothing illegal about AIPAC, and we can’t blame Israel for taking advantage of the game within the rules.” My point is simply that perhaps we ought to consider changing the rules.
And just as “even a corrupt politician can sometimes reach the right conclusion,” I think that you are more likely to reach the right conclusion when the corrupting influence of money is not an issue.
Jacques: thanks for the kind words!
Yes, well, I argued precisely that with my early and strong condemnations of Barack Obama’s evisceration of campaign finance reform, to what amounted to a collective yawn from my readers on both the right AND left…
I am sorry for the “Reflexively anti-Jew while claiming they are not.”
I am now amazed, however, that a Jew can make the comments about political activities of American Jews that you are making. You are repeating the dual loyalty slander. This gives aid and comfort to our enemies. You should re-consider.
BTW, my daughter is becoming a bat mitzvah next January. Any non-Jews here at all?
Who knew I had such a large Jewish readership?
I’m Irish…I think…way, way back, that is…
Oh, and congrats to your family and daughter, too, Bob…and it’s officially 2009 now, thank God – glad to get THAT year over with!…
“Any non-Jews here at all?”
I am not Jewish, and you will note my use of “anti-Israelism.” Just as the United States is full of anti-USA “Progressives,” the globe is full of anti-Israel Jews. It can be overly simplistic to attribute such attitudes to anti-Semitism, etc., as there seems to be no limit to the apparent self-loathing/self-doubting of modern day “LIBERALISM.” And what a sad joke that term has become.
When is “Coffey Break” or whatever it is called coming?
Hey, that’s a good name…I’ve run into a few holiday-related delays, but soon, very soon…
Bob: apology accepted. Also congratulations to you and your daughter!
To be clear: I have no problem with the political activities of American Jews. Given the way the system is set up, they (we) have every right to contribute to causes they believe in, and AIPAC has every right to lobby politicians. My point is simply that I think the system should be changed so that foreign policy is not subject to lobbying.
The system of lobbying rewards the highest bidder, not necessarily the side which best advances our interests. Let’s suppose that oil was still at $145 a barrel and the Gulf States are filled with cash, and Bernie Madoff ran away with the collective wealth of American Jewry. Let’s further suppose that the Saudis could outbid AIPAC and tilt foreign policy in the other direction. How would you feel about that?
DBrooks: my first loyalty is to my country, not my religion. Why should my religion take precedence over my country? Why does being Jewish force me to uncritically accept everything Israel does? Should an American Muslim support everything that Iran does? Would he be anti-Islam if he criticized the mullahs?
I am a big supporter of Israel and, as noted in post nine, I see no equivalence at all between Israel and its enemies. However, there is a distinction to be made between looking at Israeli actions critically — as one should look at any government’s actions, including our own — and being an “anti-Israel Jew.” Can you not see this? Lots of Israelis criticized their government for the military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Are they anti-Israel Jews also?
Mark: with all these Jews on your site, can we get some kind of discount?
Yes. To celebrate the New Year, all my Jewish readers can enjoy half off their subscription dues if they renew by midnight Central time…
One little quibble with your analysis: I don’t think you can separate lobbying anymore into “domestic” and “foreign” policy. Globalization has taken care of that. You wouldn’t quibble with oil companies being able to lobby, would you? Yet doesn’t the price of oil, access to oil, etc., affect our foreign policy?
Should textile makers be able to lobby? Doesn’t that affect our relations with China?
Or is any foreign policy in trade matters open to lobbying, and not military matters? Where do you draw the line? Doesn’t it overlap?
Nope, sorry, AIPAC is fine with me…or else get rid of lobbying entirely. One can’t exclude foreign affairs from legitimate lobbying activity in the 21st century…
Well, I can tell you what the desired state is, but I can’t tell you how to get there. Not only would it be difficult to draw distinctions between domestic and foreign spheres, but it would be even harder to prevent the money from flowing through other channels.
We’re all pro-Israel, so we’re OK with AIPAC’s activities, because the good guys are winning. My concern is what would happen if the tables were turned. In an ideal world money would have no role in politics, but in the world we’ve got, we could at least minimize its bad effects. Since foreign policy involves matters of life and death, my suggestion would be to find ways (however imperfect) to minimize the ill consequences of money buying political influence.
Kevin Heller on Dershowitz.
Jacques, your link didn’t work, but I presume you meant this link…