The Liberty

[CMike]

The documentary also refers to one of the Israeli pilots who was in the first attack wave ( I think it was the flight leader ) idertifying the ship as an American Ship and his request for clarification of the attack orders. He requested clarification twice actually and both times he was told to follow his orders, not worry about it and attack the ship !!! Seems pretty deliberate to me.

I watched a chunk of the so called documentary.

It's mostly wild conspiracy theories based on nothing but hearsay.

On the other hand I provided sworn testimony and the actual documents.

Also the conclusions of at least six government investigations.

 

[MikeK]

Israel is not only a US ally, it is America's most important strategic ally. At a time during the Cold War when the US seemed to be losing everywhere, without any US help, Israel defeated two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, in the ME, forcing the Soviet Union out of the ME and through its alliance with Israel, the US was able to establish itself as the dominant power in the ME without risking any American lives and without the huge expense of stationing troops in the region. No other US ally, Britain included, has ever provided such a great service to the US.

The decision was made to become Israel's most important ally late in the 1973 war specifically for the purpose of being able to influence events in the ME through leverage over Israeli policy instead of with US military muscle. Our alliance with Israel, the dominant regional military power even before it became an important US ally, is still an important part of the foundation of US stature and influence in the ME.

If the US had another ally as capable as Israel on the Persian Gulf, we would not have had to fight in Iraq and Iran would be kept in check without having to risk US lives or spend huge amounts of money stationing military forces there. If the US had another ally as capable as Israel in Central Asia, we would not have had to fight in Afghanistan. America has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting wars to protect our other allies in Europe and Asia, but no American soldier has ever lost his life fighting in any of Israel's wars.

AIPAC does not lobby Congress on behalf of Israel. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and since there are so few Jewish Americans that means most of those who support Israel, who are American Zionists, are not Jewish. It is on behalf of these American Zionists, Jewish and Christian, that AIPAC lobbies Congress.

"AIPAC does not lobby Congress on behalf of Israel?"

That boldface lie characterizes your entire commentary, which is nothing but a four paragraph, hyerbolic gob of disinformation. And here is the fact that proves it:

(Excerpt)

For decades, AIPAC—together with Washington's broader Israel lobby, which distributed more than $22 million in campaign contributions during the last election cycle—has had a well-earned reputation for getting what it wants. And many expected the same when, during the May conference, thousands of AIPAC foot soldiers fanned across Capitol Hill to talk up the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, a bill designed to throttle Iran's economy by restricting its ability to import gasoline (which it doesn't have much capacity to produce domestically). The legislation is a top priority for AIPAC, which views Iran's nuclear enrichment push as an existential threat to the Jewish state.

(Close)

Read the whole article here: Is AIPAC Still the Chosen One? | Mother Jones

 

[MikeK]

I watched a chunk of the so called documentary.

It's mostly wild conspiracy theories based on nothing but hearsay.

On the other hand I provided sworn testimony and the actual documents.

Also the conclusions of at least six government investigations.

"Conspiracy theories?"

Sworn testimony by members of the crew who witnessed and survived the attack and statements by respected military and government officials are conspiracy theories?

CDZ Edit You need to be reminded that you are an American citizen, not an Israeli, and this issue concerns an American naval vessel which was attacked without provocation by a foreign nation that poses as our "ally."

The statements made in the documentary are not opinions of idle bystanders. It is the testimony of victims who should and who do know a deliberate attack from an accident.

It is not my intent to condemn all Israeli citizens, many of whom would not approve of what their government has done in this situation. My grievance is against the Israeli government which is brazenly protecting the identity of those individuals who authorized this attack and is concealing the reason why it was done.

My concern, which is the concern of all who persist in condemning the attack on the Liberty, is to pressure the Congress into conducting the formal investigation which should have been conducted long ago. We want to know who is responsible and why it happened.

What Israel and its loyalists in America have to say about it is irrelevant. We want a formal investigation by the U.S. Congress in which all witnesses and concerned parties may be heard and all testimonay and evidence may be publicly examined. And we want to know why the Congress has not conducted the appropriate investigation.

Is that asking too much?

 

[Swagger]

I won't argue that. Myself, I support Israel as a Close Ally.

In what sense is Israel an "ally." I do not recognize any such alliance. Britain is an ally. Israel is a protectorate and our relationship with that troublesome little piece of land in the Middle East is and has been a one-way street in which we give to Israel and get absolutely nothing in return but major problems -- the USS Liberty being just one.

And I'd like to know why a foreign country, Israel, is allowed to routinely lobby our Congress (via AIPAC).

Israel is not only a US ally, it is America's most important strategic ally. At a time during the Cold War when the US seemed to be losing everywhere, without any US help, Israel defeated two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, in the ME, forcing the Soviet Union out of the ME and through its alliance with Israel, the US was able to establish itself as the dominant power in the ME without risking any American lives and without the huge expense of stationing troops in the region. No other US ally, Britain included, has ever provided such a great service to the US.

The decision was made to become Israel's most important ally late in the 1973 war specifically for the purpose of being able to influence events in the ME through leverage over Israeli policy instead of with US military muscle. Our alliance with Israel, the dominant regional military power even before it became an important US ally, is still an important part of the foundation of US stature and influence in the ME.

If the US had another ally as capable as Israel on the Persian Gulf, we would not have had to fight in Iraq and Iran would be kept in check without having to risk US lives or spend huge amounts of money stationing military forces there. If the US had another ally as capable as Israel in Central Asia, we would not have had to fight in Afghanistan. America has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting wars to protect our other allies in Europe and Asia, but no American soldier has ever lost his life fighting in any of Israel's wars.

AIPAC does not lobby Congress on behalf of Israel. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and since there are so few Jewish Americans that means most of those who support Israel, who are American Zionists, are not Jewish. It is on behalf of these American Zionists, Jewish and Christian, that AIPAC lobbies Congress.

Despite avoiding getting ourselves entangled in the disastrous war in Vietnem; though the SAS was pivotal in familiarising U.S. special forces in the art of jungle warfare, we've marched shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in just about every military operation they/you have embarked upon. Two World Wars, the Cold War and we've followed you guys into the sandbox twice in Iraq and Afghanistan. What part did Israel's armed forces play in those conflicts, exactly?

 

[MikeK]

That's not a fact, it's an unsubstantiated allegation, and a sleazy one at that. If you read the sentence carefully, it says AIPAC has a reputation for getting what it wants but it carefully separates AIPAC from the clause in which it alleges a broader Israel lobby made $22 million in political contributions. The sentence is technically accurate in that it does not claim AIPAC made any political contributions, but it is obviously intentionally misleading by trying to associate AIPAC with organization that did make political contributions.

AIPAC is not a political action committee and it makes no political contributions or political endorsements. It's influence in Congress is based solely on the fact that the overwhelming majority of US voters support Israel and AIPAC gives US politicians a high profile way of showing their constituents that they, too, support Israel.

Of course -- and you will attempt to argue that night is day and black is white and there will be those who are stupid enough to believe you. But here is some more "unsubstantiated allegations" about AIPAC. And if you wish to deny this I have more. Plenty, in fact.

(Excerpt)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, /'e?pæk/ AY-pak) is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current President of AIPAC is Michael Kassen from Fairfield, Connecticut.[3]

Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby",[3] AIPAC is a mass-membership, American organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."[4] It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence.

(Close)

Go here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

 

[toomuchtime_]

In what sense is Israel an "ally." I do not recognize any such alliance. Britain is an ally. Israel is a protectorate and our relationship with that troublesome little piece of land in the Middle East is and has been a one-way street in which we give to Israel and get absolutely nothing in return but major problems -- the USS Liberty being just one.

And I'd like to know why a foreign country, Israel, is allowed to routinely lobby our Congress (via AIPAC).

Israel is not only a US ally, it is America's most important strategic ally. At a time during the Cold War when the US seemed to be losing everywhere, without any US help, Israel defeated two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, in the ME, forcing the Soviet Union out of the ME and through its alliance with Israel, the US was able to establish itself as the dominant power in the ME without risking any American lives and without the huge expense of stationing troops in the region. No other US ally, Britain included, has ever provided such a great service to the US.

The decision was made to become Israel's most important ally late in the 1973 war specifically for the purpose of being able to influence events in the ME through leverage over Israeli policy instead of with US military muscle. Our alliance with Israel, the dominant regional military power even before it became an important US ally, is still an important part of the foundation of US stature and influence in the ME.

If the US had another ally as capable as Israel on the Persian Gulf, we would not have had to fight in Iraq and Iran would be kept in check without having to risk US lives or spend huge amounts of money stationing military forces there. If the US had another ally as capable as Israel in Central Asia, we would not have had to fight in Afghanistan. America has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting wars to protect our other allies in Europe and Asia, but no American soldier has ever lost his life fighting in any of Israel's wars.

AIPAC does not lobby Congress on behalf of Israel. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and since there are so few Jewish Americans that means most of those who support Israel, who are American Zionists, are not Jewish. It is on behalf of these American Zionists, Jewish and Christian, that AIPAC lobbies Congress.

Despite avoiding getting ourselves entangled in the disastrous war in Vietnem; though the SAS was pivotal in familiarising U.S. special forces in the art of jungle warfare, we've marched shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in just about every military operation they/you have embarked upon. Two World Wars, the Cold War and we've followed you guys into the sandbox twice in Iraq and Afghanistan. What part did Israel's armed forces play in those conflicts, exactly?

The two WW's were European wars in which nearly 500,000 Americans lost their lives defending our European allies, and the Cold War in Europe was again about the US defending Europe. While Britain has been a loyal ally, it has also been a very costly ally in terms of American blood and treasure. On the other hand, by defeating two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, during the Cold War without any US assistance, Israel secured US interests in the ME without requiring a single US soldier to be put at risk. If the US had had an ally in Europe as capable as Israel is, perhaps the US would not have had to lose so many lives fighting Hitler's Germany.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's not a fact, it's an unsubstantiated allegation, and a sleazy one at that. If you read the sentence carefully, it says AIPAC has a reputation for getting what it wants but it carefully separates AIPAC from the clause in which it alleges a broader Israel lobby made $22 million in political contributions. The sentence is technically accurate in that it does not claim AIPAC made any political contributions, but it is obviously intentionally misleading by trying to associate AIPAC with organization that did make political contributions.

AIPAC is not a political action committee and it makes no political contributions or political endorsements. It's influence in Congress is based solely on the fact that the overwhelming majority of US voters support Israel and AIPAC gives US politicians a high profile way of showing their constituents that they, too, support Israel.

Of course -- and you will attempt to argue that night is day and black is white and there will be those who are stupid enough to believe you. But here is some more "unsubstantiated allegations" about AIPAC. And if you wish to deny this I have more. Plenty, in fact.

(Excerpt)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, /'e?pæk/ AY-pak) is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current President of AIPAC is Michael Kassen from Fairfield, Connecticut.[3]

Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby",[3] AIPAC is a mass-membership, American organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."[4] It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence.

(Close)

Go here for more: Help:IPA for English - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is nothing in this that contradicts anything I have said. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It makes no political contributions or endorsements. It's influence in Congress is based entirely on the fact that an overwhelming majority of US voters support Israel and AIPAC provides US politicians with a high profile way of showing their constituents that they, too, support Israel. This means that when AIPAC lobbies Congress on issues, it is representing the views of the majority of US voters who support Israel.

 

[PaulS1950]

Toomuchtime,
Perhaps your point would be better understood if you defined the difference between a "political action commitee" and a "lobbying group".

 

[MikeK]

There is nothing in this that contradicts anything I have said. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It makes no political contributions or endorsements. It's influence in Congress is based entirely on the fact that an overwhelming majority of US voters support Israel and AIPAC provides US politicians with a high profile way of showing their constituents that they, too, support Israel. This means that when AIPAC lobbies Congress on issues, it is representing the views of the majority of US voters who support Israel.

What percentage of those who read what you are posting here do you think are stupid enough to believe it? The simple fact is the vast majority of those ordinary Americans who presently believe the pro-Israel propaganda they are exposed to would reverse their position immediately upon learning the truth. Which is, regardless of the cleverly evasive manner in which it conducts business, AIPAC is an insidious organization which is devoted to bribing the U.S. Congress to promote Israel's interests -- many of which are diametrically opposed to U.S. interests.

(Excerpt)

AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation related to Israel. AIPAC regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. AIPAC is not a political action committee, and does not directly donate to campaign contributions. Nevertheless, according to The Washington Post, "money is an important part of the equation." The Washington Post states that AIPAC's "web site, which details how members of Congress voted on AIPAC's key issues, and the AIPAC Insider, a glossy periodical that handicaps close political races, are scrutinized by thousands of potential donors. 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."[13]

(Close)

Read the whole article here: American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeK]

Toomuchtime,
Perhaps your point would be better understood if you defined the difference between a "political action commitee" and a "lobbying group".

In the example of AIPAC, a rose is a rose.

AIPAC's purpose and action is to distribute money to American politicians on behalf of the interests of a foreign nation -- Israel. The way it is done is via surreptitious evasion of existing regulations, which are ineffectively weak and need to be revised and strengthened.

(Excerpt)

Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. In the working paper and resulting book they accuse AIPAC of being "the most powerful and best known" component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that distorts American foreign policy. They write:[51]

AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. ... The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.

AIPAC has also been the subject of criticism by prominent politicians including Representative Dave Obey of Wisconsin,[52] former Senator Mike Gravel,[53] and former Representative Cynthia McKinney.[54]

Democratic Congressman Jim Moran from Northern Virginia has been a vocal critic of AIPAC, causing national controversy in 2007 and drawing criticism from some Jewish groups after he told California Jewish magazine Tikkun that AIPAC had been "pushing the [Iraq War] from the beginning", and that "I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful – most of them are quite wealthy – they have been able to exert power

(Close)

Read the whole article here: American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Swagger]

Israel is not only a US ally, it is America's most important strategic ally. At a time during the Cold War when the US seemed to be losing everywhere, without any US help, Israel defeated two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, in the ME, forcing the Soviet Union out of the ME and through its alliance with Israel, the US was able to establish itself as the dominant power in the ME without risking any American lives and without the huge expense of stationing troops in the region. No other US ally, Britain included, has ever provided such a great service to the US.

The decision was made to become Israel's most important ally late in the 1973 war specifically for the purpose of being able to influence events in the ME through leverage over Israeli policy instead of with US military muscle. Our alliance with Israel, the dominant regional military power even before it became an important US ally, is still an important part of the foundation of US stature and influence in the ME.

If the US had another ally as capable as Israel on the Persian Gulf, we would not have had to fight in Iraq and Iran would be kept in check without having to risk US lives or spend huge amounts of money stationing military forces there. If the US had another ally as capable as Israel in Central Asia, we would not have had to fight in Afghanistan. America has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting wars to protect our other allies in Europe and Asia, but no American soldier has ever lost his life fighting in any of Israel's wars.

AIPAC does not lobby Congress on behalf of Israel. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and since there are so few Jewish Americans that means most of those who support Israel, who are American Zionists, are not Jewish. It is on behalf of these American Zionists, Jewish and Christian, that AIPAC lobbies Congress.

Despite avoiding getting ourselves entangled in the disastrous war in Vietnem; though the SAS was pivotal in familiarising U.S. special forces in the art of jungle warfare, we've marched shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in just about every military operation they/you have embarked upon. Two World Wars, the Cold War and we've followed you guys into the sandbox twice in Iraq and Afghanistan. What part did Israel's armed forces play in those conflicts, exactly?

The two WW's were European wars in which nearly 500,000 Americans lost their lives defending our European allies, and the Cold War in Europe was again about the US defending Europe. While Britain has been a loyal ally, it has also been a very costly ally in terms of American blood and treasure. On the other hand, by defeating two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, during the Cold War without any US assistance, Israel secured US interests in the ME without requiring a single US soldier to be put at risk. If the US had had an ally in Europe as capable as Israel is, perhaps the US would not have had to lose so many lives fighting Hitler's Germany.

Would you kindly explain how, why and when?

Although WWI was largely a European war in which the vast majority of fighting was conducted by sons and daughters of European nations/empires, WWII was a global conflict. Nobody forced Japan's hand in Pearl Harbour.

The Cold War had next to nothing to do with "the US defending Europe." It was all to do with establishing and defending America's position in the Arms Race and, ultimately, its ascendance to the position of the world's #1 superpower.

Britain's intimate relationship with the United States (which runs deeper than anything Israel could ever dream of) has never been "costly" in terms of the expenditure of blood and treasure, in the sense that our unique partnership has cost America a disproportionate loss of personnel and resources.

By going to war with Egypt and Syria, Israel was securing her own future, as opposed to the notion that they were acting in America's "interest."

 

[CMike]

Big deal. There are numerous pro-Arab lobbying groups as well.

Funny how only the Jewish one gets mentioned. Why is that?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Despite avoiding getting ourselves entangled in the disastrous war in Vietnem; though the SAS was pivotal in familiarising U.S. special forces in the art of jungle warfare, we've marched shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in just about every military operation they/you have embarked upon. Two World Wars, the Cold War and we've followed you guys into the sandbox twice in Iraq and Afghanistan. What part did Israel's armed forces play in those conflicts, exactly?

The two WW's were European wars in which nearly 500,000 Americans lost their lives defending our European allies, and the Cold War in Europe was again about the US defending Europe. While Britain has been a loyal ally, it has also been a very costly ally in terms of American blood and treasure. On the other hand, by defeating two Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, during the Cold War without any US assistance, Israel secured US interests in the ME without requiring a single US soldier to be put at risk. If the US had had an ally in Europe as capable as Israel is, perhaps the US would not have had to lose so many lives fighting Hitler's Germany.

Would you kindly explain how, why and when?

Although WWI was largely a European war in which the vast majority of fighting was conducted by sons and daughters of European nations/empires, WWII was a global conflict. Nobody forced Japan's hand in Pearl Harbour.

The Cold War had next to nothing to do with "the US defending Europe." It was all to do with establishing and defending America's position in the Arms Race and, ultimately, its ascendance to the position of the world's #1 superpower.

Britain's intimate relationship with the United States (which runs deeper than anything Israel could ever dream of) has never been "costly" in terms of the expenditure of blood and treasure, in the sense that our unique partnership has cost America a disproportionate loss of personnel and resources.

By going to war with Egypt and Syria, Israel was securing her own future, as opposed to the notion that they were acting in America's "interest."

Certainly Israel secured its own interests by going to war with Soviet client states Egypt and Syria in 1967 and 1973, but in the process forced Soviet influence out of the ME and relieved the US of having to confront it directly as it was doing everywhere else in the world at that time and in that way secured America's interests in the region. Nations become allies largely because their interests coincide or complement each other, and this was a case where Israel's interests and America's interests clearly coincided. During the 1973 war, the US explicitly recognized how closely US interests in the ME and Israeli interests coincided and made the decision to become Israel's most important ally because by keeping the USSR out of the ME and keeping states such as Nasser's Egypt and Assad's Syria at bay, Israel would be relieving the US of having to use its own troops to maintain peace and stability in the ME.

If Britain had been as capable as Israel in proportion to its size, the US might not have had to fight the war in Europe just as it had not had to fight in the ME to keep Soviet influence out.

 

[PaulS1950]

Weren't we talking about the Liberty incedent and lost sailors?
At least that was a friendly fire shootout.

 

[CMike]

Here are the conclusions of the US Court Of Inquiry.

A Court of Inquiry is not an investigation. It is at best a convenient means by which inconvenient facts may easily be ignored or altered by the convening authority. If you read Jim Ennis' book, or if you watched the video posted in the OP, you would know that Admiral Kidd was obviously delegated to suppress facts and alter circumstances. He is a typical politician in uniform who would happily trade a truckload of dog-tags for a promotion.

I don't care what people wrote in a book or give their opinion in a documentary,

They have no accountability for what they say. They aren't under oath. They can lie with no consequences.

What I do care about is sworn testimony and actual documents.

This is what I provided vs nothing but hearsy and wild conspiracy theories.
The Court Of Inquiry conducted an extensive investigation. Below is from the document.

The court is directed to inquire into all the pertinent facts
and circumstances leading to connected with the armed
attack damage resulting ??? ??? ??? of and injuries to naval
personnel. After ??????mntoin the Court shall submit its
findings of fact. The duty of the Court to designate

[1]

individuals as parties to the inquiry during the
proceedings, when appropriate, is set forth in section
0102(?) of reference (a). The Court is directed to take the
testimony of witnesses under oath and to submit(?) a
verbatim record of this proceedings. Military witnesses
will be warned of their rights in accordance with article 31
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prior to the taking
of their testimony.

 

[CMike]

The documentary also refers to one of the Israeli pilots who was in the first attack wave ( I think it was the flight leader ) idertifying the ship as an American Ship and his request for clarification of the attack orders. He requested clarification twice actually and both times he was told to follow his orders, not worry about it and attack the ship !!! Seems pretty deliberate to me.

It may have referred to it but it in no way documented it. In other words, it doesn't exist IMO.

Also the "documentary" conveniently left out that the first people to come to the sailors' rescue were not American ships, but Israeli helicopters that came about 10 minutes after the incident.

Odd it left out that detail, no?

 

[CMike]

Below is a link to the document that gives the actual transmission of the Israeli pilots where they clearly believe it's an Egyptian ship.

Israel was in an active war with Egypt. The ship was off the Egyptian coastline. It's very easy to understand how it was an accident.

The US made many communications mistakes as documented by the US Court of Inquiry transcripts. It shouldn't have been there.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/audio_trans_104.pdf

 

[CMike]

This document shows the transcripts of the Israeli pilots as they are trying to determine the nationality of the people on the ship.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/audio_trans_105.pdf

 

[CMike]

Arab lobby in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Association of Arab-Americans ("NAAA"), founded in 1972, was a political advocacy group whose goals were "to strengthen U.S. relations with Arab countries and to promote an evenhanded American policy based on justice and peace for all parties in the Middle East."[6] In the early 1970s there was growing anti-Arab sentiment related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the 1973 oil embargo, leading to government investigations, executive orders, and legislative provisions to combat terrorism. These especially impacted on Arab American rights and activism. The response was the creation of groups like the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab American Institute.[2]

For many years these groups worked together on the Palestinian issue, including through newspaper, direct mail and advertising campaigns against U.S. loan guarantees to Israel and states' purchase of Israel bonds, condemnation of Israeli human rights and calls for the U.S. government to pressure Israel, as well pro-Palestinian protests and letter-writing campaigns. They also offered testimony to congress and criticized Israel's congressional and organizational supporters, sought to pass pro-Palestinian resolutions in state and national party platforms; offering pro-Palestinian testimony before Congress and attempted to sue Israel in U.S. courts. After the Palestine Liberation Organization had reached an agreement with Israel, there was some division among the groups, however they continue to lobby for Palestinians.[7]

[edit] Formal Arab lobby

Many of the players in the Arab lobby are paid directly by Arab governments, the New York Times describes them as an "elite band of former members of Congress, former diplomats and power brokers who have helped Middle Eastern nations navigate diplomatic waters here on delicate issues like arms deals, terrorism, oil and trade restrictions."

Powerful lobbyists working on behalf of the Arab lobby include Bob Livingston, Tony Podesta, and Toby Moffett. Arab governments have paid "tens of millions of dollars" to "top" lobbying firms that work to influence the American government.[8] This includes the Saudi Arabia lobby, Egypt lobby and the Libya lobby.

In the wake of 9/11, Saudi Arabia hired the lobbying firms Patton Boggs and Qorvis, paying $14 million dollars a year.[8][9]

Lobby fees paid by Arab governments to individual firms "commonly" reach levels of $50,000 and above. In 2009 alone the United Arab Emirates spent $5.3 million. The Emirates were seeking nuclear technology. In 2009 Morocco spent $3 million and Algeria spent $600,000 on Washington, D.C. lobbyists, and Turkey spent $1.7 million. According to Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, "“These kinds of regimes have a lot of money at their disposal, and that’s a great attraction.”[8]

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) was started in 1980 by United States Senator James Abourezk. It is the largest Arab-American grassroots civil rights organization in the United States. Former US Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar is the current president. ADC is at the forefront in addressing anti-Arabism - discrimination and bias against Arab Americans. It also advocates what it calls a more balanced US policy towards the Middle East.[10]

The Arab American Institute ("AAI"), founded in 1985 by James Zogby, is a non-profit, membership organization and advocacy group based in Washington D.C. that focuses on the issues and interests of Arab-Americans nationwide. The organization seeks to increase the visibility of Arab-American involvement as voters and candidates in the American political system. It issues "Action Alerts" and encourages individual lobbying and participation in an annual national lobby day. It has promoted actively professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.[11]

According to ProPublica, 4 of the top 10 governments lobbying in Washington are Arab, in terms of spending. The United Arab Emirates places first, having spent $10,914,002 in 2007 and 2008. Iraq, Morocco and Saudi Arabi also each spent over $3 million, and the non-Arab, middle Eastern nation of Turkey also spent over $3 million.[12]

[edit] Informal Arab lobby

According to Mitchell Bard, author of 2010 book The Arab Lobby, the informal Arab lobby includes tens of millions of dollars donated to American Universities for Islamic studies, because these funds flow only to universities that teach courses and hire scholars whose work meets with the approval of the oil states, courses are not offered and research is not pursued on the ideology or structure radical Islam, Arab anti-Americanism, or Arab anti-Semitism, instead, courses are taught and studies pursued on such themes as Zionism as an illegitimate political movement, or form of European imperialism, and Jewishness is a largely mythological and invented history.[5][13]

[edit] Power of lobby

Mitchell Bard, author of 2010 book The Arab Lobby and a former editor of the "Near East Report", a weekly newsletter published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, writes that "from the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in organization."[4] Academics Ali A. Mazrui and Nabeel A. Khoury have also written about the virtual non-existence of an Arab lobby in America.[14]

In a 2007 State Department Foreign Press Center Briefing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute denied Arab Americans lobby for Arab governments. He told an audience: "There are many Arab lobbies. Each Arab government hires lobbyists to do their work for them. And we Arab Americans are not an Arab lobby. I think that the thing in the Jewish community that's interesting is that the Jewish community is supportive of Israel and the Israeli Government works very closely with elements in the American Jewish community around a convergence of ideas and issues and interests, and that has created the sense of an Israel lobby." Zogby also said "The reality about Arab Americans is that we are emerging as a political group."[15]



In 2010 lobbyists paid by the government of Egypt succeeded in preventing the Senate from passing a bill calling on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses.[8]

 

[MikeK]

Big deal. There are numerous pro-Arab lobbying groups as well.

Funny how only the Jewish one gets mentioned. Why is that?

Because the "Jewish one," Israel, is the only one who enjoys the protective support of the U.S. military.