The Jewish Face of Congress
The Forward is worth checking out from time to time, in order to keep an eye on the machinations of American Jewry.
There would be enough members for a whole new minyan in Congress if all the Jewish candidates running for federal office were elected next month.
Regardless of the election outcome, Jews continue to be well represented, at least in terms of raw numbers, on Capitol Hill. Though Jews are only about 2% of America’s total population, Jewish lawmakers already represent nearly 10% of Congress. They include 29 Jews in the House and 13 in the Senate.
That means the Senate is 13% Jewish, since there are 100 members in total.
All but three — Virginia’s Eric Cantor in the House, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Norm Coleman of Minnesota in the Senate — are Democrats. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is considered an Independent, but he remains a registered Democrat despite his hearty support for Republican nominee John McCain.
That makes perfect sense in light of the fact that a full 50% of the Democratic party's political donations come from rich Jewish donors.
[Strategists] say that money from Jewish donors constitutes about half the donations given to national Democratic candidates (an extremely large pot of gelt long coveted by the GOP).
Seymour Hersh on Jewish money controlling the American political process, in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now:
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of -- right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because [Hilary Clinton is] smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I -- you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.
As for the Gentile majority in Congress, their pro-Israel dispositions are probably more attributable to AIPAC's deathgrip on the House and Senate than their philosophical positions and actual policy preferences.
It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano's cry of "AIPAC" was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.
So here we have even Congressmen and Senator's aides complaining publicly about AIPAC.
More about AIPAC and Congress from an article at The Nation:
In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.
As this event illustrates, it's impossible to talk about Congress's relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community's most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why.
On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.
AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."
But AIPAC aside, there's a significant Shabbat goy component sitting in the U.S. Congress, many of them having been groomed, courted and ultimately converted by AIPAC's brainwashing operation, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF).
In August 2007, nearly 10% of the House of Representatives visited the Apartheid State in just two weeks, funded entirely by the AIEF. And that's just 14 days out of a 365 day year. Nearly all of the Congress is sent to Israel for what Bradley Gordon of AIPAC describes as "educational programming". Referring to the August 2007 congressional mass exodus to the Terror State, Paul Craig Roberts writes:
According to news reports, another 40 are following these two groups during the August recess, and “by the time the year is out every single member of Congress will have made their rounds in Israel.” This claim is probably overstated, but it does show careful Israeli management of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
America is truly Israel's bitch.
How many cryptos in the Congress. Bush and Cheney aren't open jews, but they sure are cryptos.
It's more to do with AIPAC's deathgrip on Congress and its decisions than the philosophical positions of congressional leaders, I'd say.
More about AIPAC and Congress here:
But definitely there's a big Shabbat goy component operating in Congress, many of them courted and ultimately converted by AIPAC's brainwashing operation, the AIEF.
That comment of yours raised a good point Claymore, so I added that last bit about AIPAC and Congress to the blog.
By JOHN WALSH
"My fellow American," Howard Friedman, President of AIPAC, begins his letter of July 30 to friends and supporters of AIPAC, "Look what you've done"! After warning that "Israel is fighting a pivotal war for its life," by which he means Israel's wanton slaughter and all-out destruction in Lebanon, Freiedman condemns "the expected chorus of international condemnation of Israel's actions" and Europe's call for "a cease-fire immediately." Then he exults: "only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. . That nation is the United States of America--and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of America Jewry." (All emphases in the original here and below.) Here I must take issue with President Friedman since I bet that most Jewish Americans, in contrast to the AIPAC crowd, were horrified by the slaughter in Lebanon. In fact if anyone other than President Friedman wrote this, he would be accused of fabricating a Jewish plot and labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist and scurrilous anti-semite.)
"How do we do it"? President Friedman asks a little further on. The answer is "decades of long hard work which never ends." Not only is it hard work--but it's eternal. However, President Friedman is not content with generalities and gives us some of AIPAC's trade secrets. Here are two notables:
"AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship--so it's clear where they stand on the subject." (Would it not be great to see these "position papers"? I wonder how many candidates would release them? And what do the candidates get for all this effort? A pat on the back?)
"Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos. They are VERY busy people and they know that they can count on AIPAC for clear-eyed analysis.. We present this information in concise form to elected officials. The information and analyses are impeccable--after all our reputation is at stake. This results in policy and legislation that make up Israel's lifeline." (Another way to read this is that the pea-brained hillbillies who make up most of the Congress can be led by the nose if the memos are simple enough. Testimony to this fact enters my mailbox, as I write, in the form of a must-read interview with Noam Chomsky, which details just how distorted the discussion of Israel and the war on Lebanon has become in the U.S.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh08162006.html
That one's on my list. Here it is for the record
The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions
The Lobby As Juggernaut
AIPAC's Dangerous Grip on Washington
The Lobby Like No Other Wants a War Like No Other
AIPAC Does Represent the Government of Israel
GOP Convention Platform Was Drafted By AIPAC
Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society
AIPAC Report Reveals Long History of Activities Harmful to US
And The Winner Is ... The Israel Lobby
Sibel Edmonds Case: The Untellable Story of AIPAC
The Fear Factor That Silences
What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby?
The Israel Lobby Declares War on Gandhi
US Too Often Follows Israel's Lead
The Power of the Israel Lobby
Walt and Mearsheimer: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
Deadly Shell Game
Taking On The Lobby
The Hidden Cost of Free Congressional Trips to Israel
Israeli Spying in America File
The Israel Lobby, the Grassroots and the Radical Bush-Cheney Regime
How AIPAC warps US policy - Walt and Mearsheimer in Action (video)
AIPAC's Overt and Covert Ops
DOHA Debates - The Pro Israel Lobby (AIPAC) [Google video, 45mins]
Is It Time to Rein in AIPAC?
Them or Us: AIPAC on Trial
The Real Aipac Spy Ring Story -- It Was All About Iran
AIPAC's Power Base: America's Real Terrorists
The Influence of Israel and Its American Lobby Over U.S. Middle East Policy
A Declaration of Independence From Israel
The United States of Israel
"No American President Can Stand Up to Israel"
AIPAC: The Final Act of Submission
Inside America's Powerful Israel Lobby
The Lobby: Why is American Policy in the Middle East Skewed in Favor of Israel?
Does The Israeli Tail Wag The American Dog?
Israeli Lobby - The Report
Dissecting the Lobby
Can American Jews Unplug the Israel Lobby?
AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon
Paul Findley: The High Cost of Subservience to Israel
Why Condemning Israel and the Zionist Lobby is So Important
AIPAC Can't Stand the Light of Day
AIPAC on Trial: The Lobby Argues That Good Americans Spy For Israel
Nancy Pelosi: The AIPAC Girl
Whatever AIPAC Wants, AIPAC Gets: Democratic Defectors and the Israel Lobby
Powerful Israeli lobby threatens U.S. security: US paper
Israeli and US Interests Aren't Identical
The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for 2007
AIPAC and the Anti-war Movement: Missing in Action?
Keeping It Quiet: The Israel Lobby's Crushing of Dissent
Behind the Iran Crisis: The Israel Lobby's Campaign For War
The Israel Factor Infiltrates Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate
AIPAC and Espionage: Guilty as Hell
Why Bill Clinton Caved In To Israel
Is America's Support of Israel Unshakable?
Hilary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
Soros Slams AIPAC
Nancy Pelosi Gives a Pep Talk to AIPAC
There's No Such Thing as a Frank Discussion About Israel
Why Is The Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?
Challenging the Power of the Jewish Lobby: What Should Be Done?
Keys To The Kingdom: Debating Israel's Influence in the US
The Lobby, Dutch TV 2007 (Full Screen)
___________
I've stopped bookmarking / archiving articles on AIPAC now, unless it's news. They tend to contain a lot of the same information.
the AIPAC self-congratulations article deserves a post on its own...with a graphic picture of murdered lebanese babies courtesy of the IOF.
Congratulations israel!!!
remorseless MFs - may you burn in hell "eternally."
___________________________
"Money" has no value - people do.
Well researched and written. Please keep it up.
peace,
GD
This letter from former U.S. Senator James Abourezk to Jeffery Blankfort supports this statement of mine from the blog above:
Here's the letter in full.
Dear Jeff:
I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.
I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.
I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."
Jim Abourezk
I meant to flag you for the above comment but forgot to.