Showing posts with label AIPAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIPAC. Show all posts

Sunday, March 04, 2012

The President Speaks at AIPAC-2012

hat tip-3CHICS:




From The Daily Dish:
Obama At AIPAC

The bottom line:


Iran's leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon .... Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick.




I agree with Ackerman that Obama basically repeated his Goldberg assurance, reminded the Bomb-Iran-Now crowd of how substantively pro-Israel is administration has been, and refused to take the Israeli/Greater Israel lobby bait:


Israel wanted Obama to give Iran a red line not to cross. I would argue he did. “I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” That isn’t what Netanyahu wants to hear. As Noah Pollak incisively tweeted — yes, yes, snicker to yourselves, but he’s right — the Israelis want Iran not to be able to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama did not liquidate the disagreement.




Basically, Obama has refused to have the Greater Israel Lobby move the red lines to rendering Iran incapable of producing a nuclear weapon, rather than deciding to make one or actually making one. And this will be where the Greater Israel lobby shifts its support to the Christianist GOP, already committed to the Netanyahu-Lieberman position on Iran and the settlements, and now financed by Greater Israel fanatics, like Sheldon Adelson. (Here's a response to the Atlantic interview in an Adelson newspaper in Israel.) So no surprise to hear Liz Cheney was on a panel with this kind of reception:

 

Monday, May 23, 2011

The President and the 51st State

Why don't you caption this pic:


US President Barack Obama (R) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, May 20, 2011.
---JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images


I've made no bones about how I feel about the 51st state and America's seemingly blind allegiance to it, which gets us nowhere with the rest of the world.

I do think Andrew Sullivan gets it right about what's at stake here, and what the President is trying to do.

21 May 2011 02:32 PM
The Bibi-Barack Chess Game

Rick Hertzberg offers us a graceful, if pessimistic, guide. Money quote:

The President wants to make peace and presumably knows that it won’t happen without a huge and politically brutal American effort. Such an effort would probably provoke the Israel lobby (a better name for which would be the Likud lobby) into an all-out fight against his reĆ«lection. Netanyahu may not be personally and psychologically capable of making the necessary concessions. In any case he couldn’t make them without bringing down his own government, which relies on the extreme revanchist right for its survival, and forming a new coalition with opposition parties like the center-left/center-right Kadima. The rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas, though probably a precondition for an eventual settlement, makes it harder for the Palestinian side to make their own necessary concessions, at least in the short term. Meanwhile, this week’s mass marches along the borders suggest that the Arab Spring has finally come knocking at Israel’s door.


It has indeed been a remarkable week, and as the blog has shown, one that took me by surprise. I saw nothing that new in the president's speech on Israel-Palestine - just a minimal request directed to both sides based on a settlement everyone knows is the only equitable one, and that has been the cornerstone of US policy for a very long time. But the rank hysteria that immediately sprang from Jerusalem and quickly enveloped the far-right-wing-media-industrial-complex, revealed far more plainly than before that the gulf between Israel and the rest of the world is simply vast.

It appears that the maximum Netanyahu would allow in any two state solution are some kind of autonomous bantustans in the West Bank, surrounded by Israeli military and security forces and buffered at the Jordan border with IDF troops. Forget about Jerusalem and the right of return. If this is Israel's bottom line, there will be no peace, and there should be no peace, because of the rank injustice of this non-solution. More to the point, Netanyahu is no longer on the Israeli fringe. As we've tried to document in our series of posts "An Epidemic Of Not Watching", there is very solid and wide support in Israel for such a maximalist position, and in America, this is what most of the American Jewish Establishment has fatefully backed.


Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Documentary on the Influence of the Israel Lobby on U.S. Foreign Policy

This documentary is a couple of years old, but is still relevant to what is playing out today between the U.S. and Israel. The documentary centers around a policy paper written by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer back in 2006 critical of U.S. policy towards Israel. The two scholars later published a book expanding on the article (see links below).



Related Links

An in-depth discussion on the impact of the Israel Lobby

Reports from NPR

See the Full Walt/Mearsheimer Paper (available for download).

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Chickens Come Home To Roost For Jane Harman

Rep. Jane Harman, who was a staunch supporter of Bush's domestic spying programs, has herself been caught on NSA wiretaps, possibly attempting to cut a lobbying deal with AIPAC, the Israeli Lobbying group which had members under investigation for espionage.

From CQ:
Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

In return, the Israeli agent pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Now all of a sudden, Harman is "outraged" that she was caught on government wiretaps. Even though she was not the target at the time and approval for the wiretap was apparently legally obtained. But more important than that, Harman - A Democrat - had been a cheerleader for the Bush administrations domestic spying programs, including warrantless wiretapping.

From Salon:
Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as “the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee” to repeatedly praise the NSA program as “essential to U.S. national security” and “both necessary and legal.”  She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she “deplored the leak,” that “it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers,” and that the whistleblowers were “despicable.”  And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.




Hear Harman on NPR attempting to explain her involvement in the AIPAC case.

Investigators acknowledged that Harman "completed a crime" with her actions. However, she apparently was not pursued by the Bush Administration because she was seen as an asset for selling their domestic spying/surveillance program at a time when the case was receiving a lot of scrutiny and negative press.

This is what should happen when a member of Congress tries to work with a group like AIPAC for the interests of another government, even when that government is spying against that Congressmembers own Country. She should have been prosecuted. At a minimum, she should consider stepping down- if the reports turn out to be true.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Chas Freeman Forced Out!


Chas Freeman has been forced to pull his name out of consideration for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. I knew it was too good to be true.

Pressure from pro-Israel members of Congress, AIPAC, and the Israeli leadership turned out to be too much. Once again Israel has shown that it can control American politics. We might as well call Benjamin Netanyahu the President of the United States. Because in many ways... he, along with the Israeli lobby groups in this Country, determine U.S. policy. Obama is nothing more than Israel's poodle. Members of Congress are like Prostitutes working for another Country.

It's absolutely amazing to me that even with a Democratic House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate, and even with a popular President, Progressives still don't hold any sway in this Country. They have no say in the formulation of policy nor in determining who works for the President. They (Progressives) don't even have a platform to make any demands, since no media infrastructure exists. The airwaves are dominated - more like clogged and polluted - by Right wing zealots, religious Conservatives, and "Neo-Con Lite" Democrats who repeat Right Wing talking points...allowing the Right to control the narrative on damn near every media outlet in the Country... so it doesn't matter who you listen to.

The Rethuglicans claim there was a conflict of interest... that Freeman had too many Saudi business dealings. What about the Bush's? George H.W. Bush and Skull & Bones Jr. were basically sleeping with Saudi royalty... One of the younger Bush brothers, Neil Bush, was neck deep involved with the Saudi's.

Bush exchanging saliva with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia



Remember how Bush wanted to sell U.S. ports to UAE interests? They didn't have much of a problem with all of Clinton's MANY overseas dealings. For them, they made an accommodation... because they can tolerate Neo-Con Lite. But when Chas Freeman comes along, now all of a sudden these Conservatives come out of the woodwork claiming a problem. Of course none of this was the real problem.... the problem was Israel and AIPAC. It seems to me, they gave some folks an ultimatum on Freeman. And Joe Lie-berman - Senator from the State of Israel - couldn't be more disingenuous. Where were these jackass Republicans when Bush was selling us out? Go and read up on the Bush's and The Carlisle Group and their connections with Saudi Arabia. Chas Freeman's dealings pale in comparison... it's not even close.

It's almost enough to make me sick to my stomach.

Obama better grow a backbone and a pair of testicles and learn how to fight for something. All this caving has to stop.

__________________________

NPR story on Chas Freeman's nomination


UPDATE

See Freeman's statement from Juan Cole's Blog

Thursday, March 05, 2009

US Threatens Boycott of UN Racism Conference?

From Voice of America:

US Threatens Boycott of UN Racism Conference
By VOA News
28 February 2009K



U.S. officials say the United States will not participate in a United Nations conference on racism this year unless a draft version of the meeting's final report is drastically changed.

The U.S. State Department issued a statement Friday about the World Conference Against Racism, saying U.S. representatives will be unable to attend the conference, due to open in about two months (April 20-25) in Geneva.

The draft of a final document for the conference has already been circulated among U.N. member nations. The State Department said the draft in its current form is not salvageable. American envoys say it would limit freedoms of religion and speech and would unfairly label Israel's policies as racist.



Now, let me get this straight. We're threatening to boycott this conference because of ISRAEL?

ISRAEL?

G-T-F-O-H.

Here we go again, letting the 51st state dictate foreign policy for this country.

Why?

Because they were TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ISRAEL?

Why do I feel AIPAC's hands ALL OVER THIS?

Rahm Emmanuel's hands all over this?

Unfuckingbelievable.


Related articles:
U.S. May Boycott U.N. Racism Conference Over Document

U.S. will not attend U.N. conference on racism

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Nail Biter In Israeli Election

Shocking Upset?

One of the most important elections ever in the World is taking place in Israel. According to exit polls, the Kadima Party (the governing Party led by Tzipi Livni) shocked the world with a last minute win (keeping my fingers crossed). The final count won't be in for a couple of days.

If they can keep Netanyahu out... this may change the course of history in the Middle East & the World....or at least may prevent further war and catastrophe from spreading. A more peaceful Israel...or even a status quo Israel that is not being run by an out of control John Wayne Neo-Con like Benjamin Netanyahu will allow the Obama Administration to concentrate on other issues. The Kadima win -if it holds- may not allow Mrs. Livni to form a government without a coalition. Hopefully she will seek support from the other moderate Party (Labor)...although the two main right wing parties saw their support go way up...and they will demand positions in the government. I don't mind that so much... as long as that crazy Netanyahu is not calling the shots.

______________________

Additional Reports

Livni Surges

A Pivotal Moment in History

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Obama Will Soon Be Faced With A Serious Military Crisis

Livni, Netanyahu, Barak

And it will likely come from the Middle East.

One of the Most Dangerous Men In The World Is Close To Taking Power In Israel

Americans should be focused very closely on the Parliamentary Elections that will be held in Israel in a few days (Feb. 10). These elections will likely determine whether Israel drags the U.S. into a serious military conflict or not in the next couple of years. Why this isn't getting more coverage in the U.S. is a mystery to me.

The three main candidates vying for the Prime Minister post are former Prime Minister and current defense chief Ehud Barak, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Barak and Livni are from more Centrist Parties (Labor and Kadima respectively) and they are considered moderates when it comes to the Palestinians and Iran. However, Benjamin Netanyahu is a hardliner. I consider Netanyahu to be one of the most dangerous pro-war political figures in the World... (Donald Rumsfeld or John Bolton on speed). He's an extreme version of a Bush neocon...and a dangerous megalomaniac.

This is why I have stated on more than one occasion that Obama's biggest challenge will be his foreign policy.... not his domestic policy. If his foreign policy is in crisis, he won't be able to deal with the domestic problems we face... World events have the potential to drain his time, and the nations resources. This is why the make-up of his foreign policy team was so important. The U.S. needed a Secretary of State that could tell Israel "No"...and if necessary could tell them to go to Hell. Instead... Obama (like every other President since 1948) has set himself up to be a lapdog for Israel. That's going to be a very serious problem... probably within the next year or two.

It is very likely that Netanyahu will launch an attack on Iran, with or without U.S. backing. This will draw a military response from Iran (with the support of Syria and Russia). And of course as a lapdog of Israel, Obama will commit this Country to war once again...and it could put us on a collision course with the Russians. Russia will likely send ships, troops and equipment to assist the Iranians (because Russia has assets and interests in Iran). Russian military leaders (off the record) have already indicated that they may join the fight...alongside Iran in any military conflict with Israel or the United States. And it appears this nightmare might be setting itself up like many had feared.

Why voters in Israel want this.... I don't know. I don't understand their logic. They learned nothing from the war in Lebanon in 2006....or the latest conflict in Gaza.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Will Obama Be Another Lapdog for Israel?

Yet another story about this unhealthy alliance (unhealthy mostly for the American side). Israel calls the shots for U.S. policy... tells the U.S. how to vote in the UN Security Council. And the U.S. responds like an obedient, subservient slave and does exactly what it is told.

I suspect Obama will be another lapdog....and they'll probably have him on a short leash too.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The War In Israel and America's Double Standard


It was just 6 months ago that the Bush Administration was criticizing Russia for using disproportionate force against the Georgians in its effort to counter Georgian aggression against Russian soldiers and civilians in South Ossetia this past Summer.

But now the White House and the State department are not saying a word about the disproportionate force used by Israel in its current battle with Hamas in Gaza, where civilians are dying by the dozens. As of this posting, there have been more than 800 people killed and thousands wounded, including many women, children and elderly. On the Israeli side, there have been fewer than 20 dead at this point. Is that what the U.S. calls proportionate.... or a measured response?

Israel should have the right to defend itself, but it should not be allowed to use indiscriminate force or to violate international law. But once again, the green light from the U.S. to operate as they please, and this Country's efforts to constantly cover for Israel, has given the Israeli's carte blanche to do whatever they want, without fear of being held responsible by the international community.
In addition to the lopsided casualty figures, Israel has not been very picky about what targets to hit. So far they have attacked a clearly marked UN truck, killing the driver, and they have also bombed several UN facilities.... including UN schools, killing as many as 40 people at one school where civilians had sought shelter. Entire apartment blocks have been flattened. Israel is tightening its grip around Gaza city, and the number of casualties will likely begin to rise even faster.

All this for what? Yes, there are the rocket attacks from Hamas Terrorists. I am not defending Hamas... I am annoyed by both sides. But it seems as if Israel is falling into the trap of Hamas. Once again Israel is trying to destroy an ideology with tanks, bombs, warplanes, artillery, and helicopter gunships. But you can't kill an ideology this way. In fact, the rocket fire, which Israel had set out to stop, has continued despite the carnage. Israel should have learned after its disastrous war in Lebanon 2 years ago against Hezbollah, that these efforts rarely have the desired outcome. After the war in Lebanon, Hezbollah - in some ways - came out stronger. The same could happen with Hamas. Hamas strives on chaos and war. This is where Hamas derives its power and strengthens its legitimacy. Hamas uses Israeli military action as a billboard to its people saying- "look at what the evil Israelis are doing to us... they killed an entire family today". These events only serve as tools for recruiting more militants.

I waited for several days to post on Israel & the conflict in Gaza because I am fatigued by this conflict. That's on top of being exhausted by the political coverage of the past few months. This particular conflict is just draining and annoying to me. The constant state of chaos and conflict in the region can be traced back to 1947 and 1948 and Western colonialism, when Britain and the U.S. mishandled the "official" creation of Israel. The Palestinians, who have every right to their own land, have been alienated and exploited (often by their own) ever since.

It doesn't help when Israel is killing Palestinians with bombs, warplanes and attack helicopters from the U.S., nor does the fact that Israel receives billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money every year. In addition to that, the U.S. constantly protects Israel in the UN, no matter what Israel is accused of doing. This lack of balance has made it difficult for the U.S. to be respected in the region as an honest broker. This is why the U.S. has never been able to negotiate a lasting peace. Over the past 40 years, U.S. peace efforts have been only partially successful. As long as the U.S. is seen as being biased in favor of Israel.... seen as not being even-handed, then not much will change. The Bush administration's lack of leadership and Obama's silence this week have ironically been very revealing for me. Obama is signaling that his "Neo-Con Light" foreign policy team plans to maintain business as usual...in many ways a continuation of the last 8 years. Foreign Policy analysts are starting to pickup on what I have been saying here for months... that Hillary Clinton is a hawk, and that having her on Obama's foreign policy team will not be much of a break from the Bush Administration. Some say Clinton's foreign policy approach could be even more hardcore. Hear what Foreign policy analyst Hillary Mann Leverett had to say this week about Obama's silence and about what future U.S. foreign policy might look like under Clinton. Leverett is a former State Department Analyst and former member of the National Security Council, and she was commenting on Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC. I couldn't agree with her more.

"There is a lot of fear that Hillary Clinton and the advisers that she is bringing with her (as Secretary of State) will make us long for the Bush days"



This is what I have been saying here, even before the Primary elections, back in 2006 and 2007. This is why I am critical of Obama's sharp turn to the right, or his perceived turn to the right as compared with his campaign rhetoric. When you have Neo-conservative warmongers...and members of the dreaded PNAC with their crazy view of the world, praising your choice for Secretary of State and expressing fondness for your National Security team.... then it just proves the point that the Obama Administration may not be the Change that anyone had been hoping for.

Hear a great discussion from NPR's Onpoint, which describes in detail the political and socio-economic conditions for Palestinians in Gaza. Americans, and in fact, most Westerners, don't understand the blockade that Palestinians have been living under for the past several months.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Why Is Obama Losing?

Here is an excellent article by Rabbi Michael Lerner on the current situation concerning Barack Obama and his election prospects. The article echoes an essay that I have written (but have not published) entitled "Why This Black Progressive Cannot Vote For Obama".

But in addition to Obama's missteps, I believe that Race will be a determining factor in this election, at least for a significant number of voters; enough voters that it may likely swing the election to McCain (barring some miracle by Obama).

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Drum Major Instinct


I was going through my archives and ran across one of my favorite MLK Sermons - The Drum Major Instinct. This speech never gets old. With everything going on in the World, it always seems to be on target. Take a listen from one of my previous posts.

Unfortunately Barack Obama just doesn't seem to get it. John McCain? I don't expect him to get it... but I have been disappointed to learn over the last several months just how much Obama doesn't get it. (i'll be posting on that soon).

I wonder what MLK would think of Barack Obama if he were still with us. He would probably be o.k. with many of Obama's domestic policies.... but I am sure that MLK would have problems with Obama's hawkish foreign policy positions.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Congress Will Soon Pass An Iran War Resolution


You may have heard about the massive Isreali wargames conducted earlier this month that were aimed at Iran. But you may not be aware of the Iran War Resolution that is close to a vote in Congress. The Resolution (#362) will ask President Bush to impose a full Naval Blockade on Iran, including the blocking of gasoline imports. Now imagine if a Country decided that it would block imports of gasoline into the U.S.

Sure, Iran has plenty of oil, but it actually imports much of its gasoline, because the country does not refine enough oil for its own domestic fuel needs. Such a blockade would not be backed by the UN Security Council and would be an act of war. It would practically destroy the Iranian economy, and impact its Trade with other Countries. This (by design) would force the Iranian military to take action in response- exactly what the U.S. wants.

This idiotic legislation is being pushed by AIPAC, Israels most powerful lobbying group. This is probably the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. The Bill is supported by both the House and Senate, and appears to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama was quick to throw in his support. He jumped on the bandwagon long ago, promising AIPAC that he would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States. This is one of the main problems with the Democratic Party - it's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. The Democrats are essentially as hawkish as the Republicans. Foreign policy is one of the areas where Democrats and Republicans read from the same script. This is why I often refer to members of Congress as the "Republicrats". It is also one of the main reasons why I cannot fully endorse a candidate like Barack Obama. I can never fully embrace him as a real change candidate- NEVER. The way that he so eagerly co-signs with the imperialist pro-war U.S. policies of the past puts his change platform in doubt. On one hand he criticizes Bush for warmongering, then he reveals that he pretty much believes in the same kind of "Truman Doctrine" imperialism that has shaped U.S. Foreign policy for the past 50+ years; the same imperialism that drives the Bush Administration.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how ridiculous an attack on Iran would be. If the U.S. and Israel wanted to strengthen the Iranian government, they would launch an attack. An attack would be a gift to the Iranian regime. And such an attack would not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. So instead of solving a problem, the U.S. and Israel will only make matters far worse.

The U.S. and Israel are moving in the same familiar pattern here as they did leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They are both listening to Iranian exile groups who have a political agenda, just like they did before the Iraq disaster. The Iraqi exile groups turned out to be frauds, who admitted that they provided false information about Iraq's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. But here we are yet again.

An attack on Iran would be a disaster, and would accomplish nothing. Even the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that an attack would be a disaster for the region and would threaten World Peace and would impede his work. An attack on Iran could easily drag other nations into a much wider confrontation. Russia, for example, has invested quite a lot in Iran over the past few years, and has not only built one nuclear facility, but is in the process of building more. The two Countries also have several other military and business Trade links.

The U.S. wants the World to believe that Iran is doing something that is against international law with its nuclear research. That is a lie! The NPT agreement allows for peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology. That includes research of various kinds. What is tricky is that some of the activities have both civilian or military applications. Not even the IAEA is close to saying that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. And even if they were, that would not be illegal, although it would violate their previous NPT agreement. The NPT, however, is a voluntary agreement, not a compulsory agreement. There is no UN mandate that says anything about a country being attacked if they violate NPT or CTBT agreements. When the NPT was created, there were specific provisions included that allowed signatory States the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The real issue behind this nonsensical game that the U.S. is playing is the fact that Iran is a Muslim State and it does not want it to even have the technology or the ability to possibly make a bomb. Iran doesn't have to be close to actually making a nuclear weapon in order to be targeted. It is being targeted simply for doing research and for developing its own nuclear technology, peaceful or not (all legal under international law).

I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. (or through its proxy & 51st State Israel) is headed for a military confrontation with Iran - an event that could lead to regional war. While I don't think anything will take place in the immediate future (within the next few weeks or months), everything is pointing towards a military conflict in the longterm. The constant hawkish tone of Barack Obama gives me the feeling that he will be a lapdog for AIPAC and will allow Israel to make his foreign policy decisions, even if those decisions are not in my best interests as an American. If Bush doesn't launch this idiotic war, the next President likely will, no matter who wins in November. The major candidates are like two apples from the same poisonous tree, both heavily influenced by the Israel lobby.

You think gas prices are high right now? Wait until the war with Iran begins. You will be looking at gas prices of $6.00 - $7.00 per gallon or more. And that's not the only thing that you will need to worry about.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Discussion About the Impact of the Israel Lobby On American Politics

Hear a discussion with the authors of a new book entitled- The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy. The Authors, John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, are on target with their analysis regarding how U.S. foreign policy is being held hostage by Israel. The U.S. sides with Israel (automatically in most cases) even at the expense of our own best interests.

Anyone who even questions the U.S. relationship with Israel, or raises concerns about the Israel Lobby in this Country (AIPAC for example) is labeled anti-semitic.
The authors also discuss how American politicians, particularly the Presidential candidates, are afraid of the Israel Lobby.

Interesting discussion.

Listen Here (choose audio option at top of page)

_________________

Related Links

Website for Book

Analysis of Authors Positions