Steve,

Or perhaps they're too scared to vote? My family lives around Tel Aviv, I'm waiting for a call from them to let me know about the situation. I'll gladly pass on whatever I hear.

Nothing says participatory democracy like staying away from the polls. Is it any wonder that governments fall under the control of miscreant madmen and of course, women. Maybe if our world had some half decent leadership, there would be more participation in elections. Merely a theory.

Is this the disease of the West? As the political parties in just about every democracy become more clown-like, voter turnout plummets. Israel appears to be adopting more and attributes of its primary sponsor. What's next: hate radio and rampant morbid obesity?

As the political parties in just about every democracy become more clown-like, voter turnout plummets. Israel appears to be adopting more and attributes of its primary sponsor. What's next: hate radio and rampant morbid obesity?

Steve, out here in the hinterlands, we really don't care very much about Israeli elections. However, I know that to DC insiders they are a very big deal. Perhaps this should give us a clue as to why:

http://tinyurl.com/r78hp

For Politicians and Candidates, AIPAC Event is a Time to Shine

By Matthew E. Berger

WASHINGTON, March 7 (JTA) -- The upcoming Israeli election was not the only race for head of state on the minds of participants at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

The three-day gathering this week featured major policy addresses by four likely American presidential candidates in 2008, all of whom have been out of the foreign-policy spotlight in recent years. Without contentious political issues on the pro-Israel lobbying agenda, the conference provided all of them with an opportunity to condemn Hamas and Iran, and win standing ovations.

It also provided a rare opportunity for Democrats to showcase their support for Israel, and Democratic Jewish leaders seemed eager to seize the moment.

While AIPAC does not allow active political challengers to address its annual policy conference -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was notably absent in 2004, when President Bush gave the keynote address -- it served this year as a key forum for undeclared candidates.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) was given a prime position as the Democratic speaker at AIPAC's gala dinner Monday. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) spoke to high donors at an off-the-record luncheon Monday, and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), the 2004 vice presidential nominee, addressed an open forum Monday morning.

AIPAC officials said the men were chosen because of their expertise and political stature. It was clear that all relished the opportunity to give a major foreign-policy address.

"For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran," Edwards said. "While we've talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, we've largely stood on the sidelines as the problems got worse. I believe that for far too long, we've abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans. That is not the way to deal with an unacceptable threat to America and an unacceptable threat to Israel."

Vice President Dick Cheney also spoke, telling the audience, "We will not abandon our belief in democracy, we will not abandon our opposition to terrorism, and we will not abandon our commitment to the security of our friends and allies."

He added, "Israel can count on the United States of America."

"...AIPAC delegates do not like to speak about their donations to political candidates. But one donor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the conference provided him the best opportunity to hear from aspiring White House occupants outside of New Hampshire, which holds the nation's first presidential primary.

Following Monday's dinner, the NJDC put on its own show, highlighting pro-Israel senatorial candidates, particularly Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, who is running against incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Santorum has garnered some Jewish support for his pro-Israel leadership, but remains controversial because of his conservative views on many social issues. NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman said Casey is an alternative whom supporters of Israel should consider.

"We want to show that there is a pro-Israel candidate choice in Pennsylvania," he said."

According to Juan Cole:

"AIPAC is not a political action committee and does not give out money itself. But it is a sort of central coordinating committee that tips Jewish American organizations as to where it thinks campaign contributions neeed to go. Because a lot of wealthy individuals contributed to Hilliard as individuals, the true amount AIPAC directed his way was probably double the conservative estimate above. Fleischauer writes, "Davis' receipts skyrocketed. By May 15, 2002, Davis was up to $446,821. Of the 517 individual contributions to Davis in the weeks surrounding the fundraisers, only four came from Alabamians."

The reason for AIPAC's New York-based raid on an Alabama congressional race? Davis's opponent in the Democratic primary, Earl Hilliard, took a more even-handed position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than AIPAC would stand for.

Fleischauer writes of Hilliard,

' He said Tuesday he believes pro-Israel money won Davis the 2002 election. The congressman-turned-lobbyist said his main concern is that pro-Israel money tends to crowd out the voice of Arab countries, a result he said could eventually lead to more wars in the Middle East.'

It ought to be illegal for congressional contests to be interfered with to this extent by money from another state. The technique of targeting congressmen for un-election has given enormous power to all single-issue lobbies, and not just AIPAC. But Hilliard is entirely correct that AIPAC's activities do contribute to bloodshed in the Middle East. By arranging for the far rightwing Likud coalition to have a free hand in dispossessing millions of Palestinians, AIPAC contributes to the hatred for the United States in the Muslim world that breeds terrorism against US citizens.

There is a long hit list of US politicians who were insufficiently obsequious toward the policy of Israeli hawks in the Occupied Territories, whom AIPAC helped unseat by encouraging donations to their opponents. The Charles Percy case became legendary in Congress, and discouraged senators and congressmen from taking on AIPAC."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0907-12.htm

Susan -- I care about the Israel elections as they are enormously important regarding what options exist for an eventual solution with the Palestinians. Without the Palestinian problem essentially resolved, I don't think America and Europe can have a credible Middle East strategy that is long term.

Thanks,

Steve Clemons

Steve, I, too, would like to see peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. In working toward this goal, it is imperative that Americans be given factual information.

While coverage is getting better, I don't think our media has done a very good job of providing us with unbiased news. In an effort to provide coverage that is compatible with our Israeli policy, I think that much information related to this conflict has gone under reported. In addition, with groups like AIPAC demanding fealty from our politicians, how do we even begin to play the role of honest broker in this crisis?

Here are some interesting statistics:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4543.shtml

Israeli and Palestinian voices on the US op-ed pages
Patrick O'Connor, Palestine Media Watch, 13 March 2006

I. Executive Summary

In the US media, Palestinians generally aren't allowed to speak for themselves or to articulate their historical narrative. Israelis, however, are permitted to speak, to explain the Israeli experience and even to explain about Palestinians. As a result, the Israeli story is known in the US while Palestinians are dehumanized.

This report exhaustively details the extent to which Palestinian voices have been silenced in the op-ed pages of major US newspapers for the past five years.

This report compares the number of opinion pieces published by Israeli writers with those published by Palestinian writers between September 29, 2000, and December 31, 2005, in the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post, the five US newspapers with the greatest circulation.

The analysis reveals the following:

Over the five year and three month period, the five newspapers published 680 op-eds on Israel/Palestine. 214 were written by Israeli writers and 86 by Palestinian writers, an average of 2.5 Israeli writers for each Palestinian writer.

The Wall Street Journal has the most lopsided five-year record, averaging 5.1 op-eds by Israelis for every one op-ed by a Palestinian writer.

The New York Times has been the least balanced over the last three years with anaverage of 4.3 Israeli op-ed writers for every Palestinian.

The Los Angeles Times published 2.3 Israeli writers for every Palestinian writer.

The Washington Post (1.4/1) and USA Today (0.8/1) are near parity between Israeli and Palestinian writers.

The relative balance at The Washington Post and USAToday indicates that a bias towards Israeli writers is not inevitable, but is a result of the choices made by the editors at The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times.

In short, a consistent reliance on establishment voices explains which writers are published and what issues are addressed on Israel/Palestine in the US op-ed pages, not journalistic standards of balance or a concern to represent a variety of views. Establishment Israeli writers echoing the official Israeli narrative dominate the US op-ed pages, privileging a point of view that is already generously represented by syndicated American columnists like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Jeff Jacoby, Mort Zuckerman, Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks and Max Boot, to name just a few.

By deciding whose voices are heard, the US mainstream media plays a powerful role in shaping the US public's understanding of Israel/Palestine. Palestinian terrorism is presented continually as the dominant issue in the conflict. In contrast, the US media only occasionally addresses issues like Israeli military occupation, the on-going seizure of Palestinian land and international law. Almost never raised are Israeli discrimination against its Palestinian citizens, Palestinian refugees' rights of return, Israeli state terrorism, nonviolent Palestinian resistance, and important debates over two states vs. a bi-national state, and over divestment from Israel.

Media bias is not inevitable. It is the result of deliberate editorial choices. If the US media truly aims to present the public with all relevant information and points of view, op-eds and other coverage cannot disproportionately rely on the voices of one side at the expense of the other."

Finally, syndicated columnist Norman Solomon said this: "The Reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian cycle of violence is badly skewed by an endless cycle of media bias." Solomon writes that this bias is enforced through a "not-so-secret weapon" that is brandished as a pre-emptive threat: the charge of anti-Semitism. "Any Americans who speak out against Israel's extreme disregard for human rights are liable to be in the line of fire."