Congress and the Israel Lobby
By William Cook
Shakespeare’s Caesar caustically commented, “Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but once.” Curious how our lawmakers huddle behind their sophistries, their voice votes, their parliamentary play acting to avoid the daring feat that would force them to confront the moral consequences of their obsequious pandering to the lobbyists who pad their pin striped suits with the means to stay in office, all the while selling their souls to their executioners. Every day they die another death; every day a new resurrection to fulfill their obligation to their puppeteers. How different from their forebears who understood the valiant feast on liberty, even in the face of death: “Americans! Liberty or Death” rang through the hills of Massachusetts and all the colonies as the Revolution loomed, a fervor marked by foreigners because they could see the Americans really meant it. But how can our representatives be free if they are at the mercy of a foreign lobby? (David Fisher, Liberty and Freedom, Oxford University Press, 2005). Consider the last annual gala held by AIPAC where Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. Nev.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky) appeared as keynote speakers to an audience that included half of the U.S. Senate and more than half of the House, an event that took place just as the newly constituted Congress of Democrats was asserting its response to the American electorate with a provision to require the President to get the Congress’ approval before he took any action against Iran. By the end of the week AIPAC had successfully pressed for removal of this bipartisan provision from the bill (“Jewish News Weekly of Northern California,” Ron Kampeas, 3/16/2007). David Corn, reporting in Nation magazine noted that keeping that provision in the bill “would not be to the liking of AIPAC, the powerhouse pro-Israel lobby, which has declared the Lantos bill a top priority (Lantos’ bill pushes legislation to intensify sanctions against Iran). “In a recent speech AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr said that legislation restricting Bush’s options would be ‘a sign of weakness.’ Asked if he can point to a political fight lost by AIPAC recently, Representative Larson replied, ‘Not to my recollection.'” (Corn, Nation 4/23/2007). Pat Buchanan, four days later wrote “Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer. She was ‘under pressure from some conservative members of the caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,’ writes John Nichols in the Nation.”
M. J. Rosenberg, in a commentary on the Mearsheimer and Walt study of the influence of the Israeli lobbies on our representatives offered this reflection, an observation that came from his own experience serving representatives over the years: “Once again, Presidential candidates are being told that in order to earn the ‘pro-Israel’ label, they must heartily endorse the status quo. That means that when asked what they would do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the candidates must state unequivocal support for Israeli policies. They must never use the words ‘even-handed’ or ‘honest broker.’ There is a script and candidates must not deviate from it.” (“W-M’s Best Seller: Why the Hysteria?” 09/07/07).
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11072007.html