Why do Americans consider Israel their closest ally?
- Thread starter GG2
- Start date
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.The US gives about $3 billion in aid to Israel each year and a good chunk of that makes its way back into AIPAC, which has been accused of spying and is the only such agency that isn't qualified as a foreign entity and ineligible for funding American politicians. AIPAC is the largest donor to politics in the US, as posted above at 45-60% of Democratic funding and as such have incredible pull. They've been so ingrained into American politics that no party can afford to not do what they say.
I had thought this Jewish conspiracy talk was nonsense, but really, its all out in the open for anyone to check out. Its not a conspiracy, its the way things are.
Otherwise Israel has nothing of strategic value, unless you count them as the only nuclear armed force in the middle east and worthy as an ally on that basis. But the amount of grief if gives American's through the world hardly makes it worthwhile, one could argue.
1. AIPAC is not the largest donor to US politics by any measure.
2. AIPAC does not fund 45-60% of the Democratic party.
I don't know where you are sourcing these lies, but that is what they are. I guess now we can see how much you hate Jews and Isreal that you have to lie about them. Pathetic.
How about a quick trip to wikipedia, Rid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Campaign_donationsAIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says “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 US-Israel relationship – so it’s clear where they stand on the subject.”[42]
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by Center for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the US Republican party since 1996.[45] The Washington Post summarized the Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data and concluded that "Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[46] In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990–2006) period.[47]
J.J. Goldberg wrote in his 1994 book Jewish Power that 45% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees.[48] Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, updated those figures in 2006 citing figures of 60% and 35% respectively for the Democratic and Republican Parties. According to the Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources.[49]
Not only are you dishonest you are monumentally stupid.
Let's look at what you have posted and the facts behind it.
Your first claim:
Now let's assume you are just sloppy and used the figures for the entire pro-Israeli lobby when you said AIPAC (which would be a massive and stupid error...but in your case possible.)
But the pro-Israel lobby in 2008, their biggest year was only 31st on the list of lobbies:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2008
(I think they were 29th in 2002 but donations were smaller then).
And here is the list of the all time largest donors to US politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Your math simply does not work.
Let's look at what you have posted and the facts behind it.
Your first claim:
Wikipedia claim:AIPAC is the largest donor to politics in the US, as posted above at 45-60% of Democratic funding and as such have incredible pull.
So AIPAC does not donate to candidates and by definition cannot be the largest donor.AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right.
Now let's assume you are just sloppy and used the figures for the entire pro-Israeli lobby when you said AIPAC (which would be a massive and stupid error...but in your case possible.)
AIPAC, the United States' most powerful pro-Israel political group, does not make campaign contributions. But pro-Israel entities spent $3,235,486 on lobbying for pro- in 2008, and AIPAC accounted for nearly $2.5 million of that amount.
More money was contributed from pro-Israel groups to federal campaigns in the 2008 election cycle than in any year prior. The total amount of campaign contributions nearly doubled between the 2004 to 2006 election cycles – reaching almost $11 million. In 2006, Israel entered into a conflict with Lebanon, for which the United States supplied additional financial and military aid.
About $8.6 million, or 63 percent, of the funds supplied by pro-Israel groups as federal campaign contributions in the 2008 election cycle went to Democrats, and about 37 percent to Republicans.
The political action committees JStreetPAC and NorPAC contributed the most pro-Israel money to federal campaigns in the 2008 election cycle, to the tune of more than $370,000 each. For JStreetPac, 99 percent of its campaign contribution funds went to Democratic lawmakers.
But the pro-Israel lobby in 2008, their biggest year was only 31st on the list of lobbies:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2008
(I think they were 29th in 2002 but donations were smaller then).
And here is the list of the all time largest donors to US politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Your math simply does not work.
Yes, I wrote it and composed it 100% myself in the space of time that it took to write.Great post! Great writing.
I enjoyed that so much I had to put it through a plagiarism checker, and you passed 100%!
I am such a doubting Thomas...
Not only are you dishonest you are monumentally stupid.
Let's look at what you have posted and the facts behind it.
Your math simply does not work.
Your reference doesn't work.
Your first link went to industry donations and your second link doesn't include AIPAC members.
What it does show is that none of those contributed more then:
Its true that AIPAC itself doesn't do the donations, but its members do and they are included in those above numbers.Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group, and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Between the 2000 and the 2004 elections, the 50 members of AIPAC's board donated an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political action committees."[15]
Now you are just being obtuse. The first link lists Pro-Israel as an industry and it is 31st largest, not the first.Your reference doesn't work.
Your first link went to industry donations and your second link doesn't include AIPAC members.
What it does show is that none of those contributed more then:
Its true that AIPAC itself doesn't do the donations, but its members do and they are included in those above numbers.
Your problem is that the Center for Responsive Politics produces and maintains the open secrets website and their numbers do not support your claim of Isreal being the most important lobby. Look at the numbers for a minute and try to use your brain. The legal lobby donated 131 million to campaigns in 2008 alone! It more than doubles the 1990-2006 pro Israel lobby payout in a single year.
That link shows PAC's, not individual donations, its part of donations but not all as the wiki sources have said.Now you are just being obtuse. The first link lists Pro-Israel as an industry and it is 31st largest, not the first.
Your problem is that the Center for Responsive Politics produces and maintains the open secrets website and their numbers do not support your claim of Isreal being the most important lobby. Look at the numbers for a minute and try to use your brain. The legal lobby donated 131 million to campaigns in 2008 alone! It more than doubles the 1990-2006 pro Israel lobby payout in a single year.
Its when you combine them with individual donations on behalf of AIPAC members and supports that it gets you up to the 45-60% numbers.
You are mathematically challenged. And I suspect badly biased.That link shows PAC's, not individual donations, its part of donations but not all as the wiki sources have said.
Its when you combine them with individual donations on behalf of AIPAC members and supports that it gets you up to the 45-60% numbers.
56m all sources over 16 years, versus 131 million in one year one source.
Learn some math, read the sources, think about it. You will see the % you like are fundamentally flawed.
Obama is on track to have a billion dollar war chest for the next election. If you took all the pro-Isreal money ever given to the Dems at the federal level it would not be anywhere close to your jewish conspiracy percentages for a single presidential election. He raised about 750m for his 2008 campaign. All the pro-isreal money according to your source for 16 years prior at the federal level would have been about 7%.
Right after his ESL lessons.You are mathematically challenged. And I suspect badly biased.
56m all sources over 16 years, versus 131 million in one year one source.
Learn some math, read the sources, think about it. You will see the % you like are fundamentally flawed.
Obama is on track to have a billion dollar war chest for the next election. If you took all the pro-Isreal money ever given to the Dems at the federal level it would not be anywhere close to your jewish conspiracy percentages for a single presidential election. He raised about 750m for his 2008 campaign. All the pro-isreal money according to your source for 16 years prior at the federal level would have been about 7%.
Anyone who cant formulate a factual argument just keeps repeating the same insensibilities.Any politician in the States who tries to promote a fair and unbiased position on the Palestinian-Israeli issue is smeared by a vicious attack by the jewish lobby.
It is clear to anyone that wants to looks see that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies are nowhere near the top spenders in Washington. In fact the oil lobby (read Saudi Arabia) is much higher on the list.
How hard it it for the anti-Israel crowd to realize that the US supports Israel because it makes sense.
Important notice to all politicians:
MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS TURNED OFF!!!!!
MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS TURNED OFF!!!!!
The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"
The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.
The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.
The oil lobby is higher on the list, but it matters little to some of the anti israel crowd as they are driven by hatred.In fact the oil lobby (read Saudi Arabia) is much higher on the list.
How hard it it for the anti-Israel crowd to realize that the US supports Israel because it makes sense.
Again, you are narrowing the focus to skew the results.You are mathematically challenged. And I suspect badly biased.
56m all sources over 16 years, versus 131 million in one year one source.
Learn some math, read the sources, think about it. You will see the % you like are fundamentally flawed.
Obama is on track to have a billion dollar war chest for the next election. If you took all the pro-Isreal money ever given to the Dems at the federal level it would not be anywhere close to your jewish conspiracy percentages for a single presidential election. He raised about 750m for his 2008 campaign. All the pro-isreal money according to your source for 16 years prior at the federal level would have been about 7%.
The stats come from combining formal and informal lobbying, and not just to Obama.
Looking at the stats from just the formal lobbying and comparing is disingenuous at best, similar for looking only at Obama's fundraising.
Look at the big picture, not just those sections.
To be clear nations don't have friends they have interests. The US has interests in the Middle East, it has security interests (it seems to be ground zero for nuts), energy interests and a long time ally. As flaky, self centered and down right rude as Israel can be to the US (while suckling on the US tit) Israel is the least ugly chick in the bar and thus the winner.... says more about the other chicks than it does about Israel.
You'll notice how quickly the POTUS was silenced for saying even the most moderate of things (a two state solution would be based on the 67 boarders) when it comes to Israel. He can't raise a billion dollars without the Jews on board. He's losing wall street, he can't lose the rest of the money trail. Not politically correct to say, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
OTB
You'll notice how quickly the POTUS was silenced for saying even the most moderate of things (a two state solution would be based on the 67 boarders) when it comes to Israel. He can't raise a billion dollars without the Jews on board. He's losing wall street, he can't lose the rest of the money trail. Not politically correct to say, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
OTB
His point was that Obama's fundraising eclipses AIPAC many, many times over.Looking at the stats from just the formal lobbying and comparing is disingenuous at best, similar for looking only at Obama's fundraising.
And if by "lobbying" you don't mean "lobbying" what the hell do you mean? Are you claiming that there is secret cash being handed over? Where's your proof?
Why not just admit you were wrong and go away?
Basically it's about all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made in the ME and GOPers are all about fattening their fat cat pals pockets in the MIC. Therefore Israel and even some Arab countries become perfect 'tools' to that end....:eyebrows:And why does it matter?
Why do Americans, in particular Republicans, get up and cheer whenever a politician (such as the Republicans running for President) mentions that Israel is America's closest ally and friend? It's such a bizarre spectacle to watch.
Am I misinformed? What is the significance of American and Israeli ties?
Again, you are narrowing the focus to skew the results.
The stats come from combining formal and informal lobbying, and not just to Obama.
Looking at the stats from just the formal lobbying and comparing is disingenuous at best, similar for looking only at Obama's fundraising.
Look at the big picture, not just those sections.
You are a lying on this issue.
I took your number for all donations, individual and group, for the pro-Israeli number over 16 years and compared it to fundraising for one presidential election. That gives the maximum benefit of the doubt to your thesis, which has now been mathematically proven wrong. You have abandoned the real world for one of hate fueled fantasy.
I guess your hate of jews and Israel overwhelms any belief you have in honesty.
It means that your assertion about a massive jewish conspiracy to control US politics with historically unprecedented funding is a lie.
Go back to reading the protocols of Zion and leave the adults alone.
Rid, can you do me a favour and tone down your responses?I took your number for all donations, individual and group, for the pro-Israeli number over 16 years and compared it to fundraising for one presidential election. That gives the maximum benefit of the doubt to your thesis, which has now been mathematically proven wrong. You have abandoned the real world for one of hate fueled fantasy.
i have no issues with hate, I'm just in favour of human rights and a political system for the people by the people.
I'll trim out the parts that aren't related to the discussion for now, but really, the language is a bit uncalled for.
Now, I'm going to admit that I'm not going to waste a few hours researching into the funding of US politics, I really do have better things to do. I understand your $750 million fundraiser for Obama skews the results, but probably where you'd really want to look is the fundraising of all members of congress and the senate, not just the president. I'm still trying to track down the original Richard Cohen article to find out where he got his 60% from, it does seem very high, but regardless of wasting hours debating funding, funding rules, accounting and definitions of lobbying, the point is that the Israeli lobby in the US wields excessive power, relative to the population and importance of Israel.
There is a bill tabled in the US that really exemplifies the problem.
That's from Al Jazeera, by the way.The House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new "crippling sanctions" bill that seems less designed to deter an Iranian nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.
The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill's supporters comes in Section 601:
(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT - No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organisations.
(d) WAIVER - The president may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the president determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
Preventing diplomacy
So what does this mean? It means that neither the president, the secretary of state, nor any US diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy of any kind unless the president convinces the "appropriate congressional committees" (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not permitting the contacts would pose an "extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States".
Why is it that AIPAC is sponsoring a bill that prevents diplomacy and handcuffs the President?
