RSS
Using PayPal
Chuck Hagel: Israel vs. Arab Nations A False Choice for U.S.
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Jul 28 2006, 10:55AM
Chuck Hagel is giving an important, brave speech today.
Here is his full prepared speech:
"A Defining Time for 21st Century American Leadership"
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery at the Brookings Institution
July 28, 2006
I am honored to be invited to speak here today as a part of the Brookings Institution’s 90th Anniversary Leadership Forum. Brookings has been at the center of every important policy debate in this country for 90 years. Thank you to Strobe Talbot, Carlos Pascual and all the men and women of Brookings for your continued contributions to our national debate. I see Martin Indyk and Ken Pollack in the audience. Thank you for the fine work you do with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
As we recognize the 90th Anniversary of the Brookings Institution, it is instructive to reflect back on the world of 1916 when Brookings was born. . .then known as the Institute for Government Research. In 1916, the world was in a period of wrenching and bloody transition. War raged in Europe. It was a war triggered by a series of tragic misjudgements stemming from decades-old resentments and shifting European alliances. It was a war fueled by the Industrial Revolution. . .the most deadly war the world had ever known. Within one year, the United States would shake-off its historic isolationism and engage in its first global conflict.
The Treaty of Versailles brought an end to the fighting, but it did not bring resolution. The United States retreated from a position of world leadership and back into its shell of irresponsible isolationism. . .the world economy collapsed, and lingering global resentments continued to heighten. Roughly twenty years later, harsh post-war reparations and arrogant nationalism gave rise to an even deadlier period of global transition: World War II.
America’s leaders following World War II learned from the failed and dangerous polices of the first half of the 20th century. After World War II, the United States became the indispensable global leader. Along with our allies, we created organizations of global interests and common purpose like the United Nations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization), NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and dozens of other multilateral institutions. Leaders like Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Hull, Vandenberg and Eisenhower led in the rebuilding of Europe and Japan.
Ninety years after the creation of the Brookings Institution, we live in a different world. . .but once again a world in transition. The lessons learned after World War II still apply. American leadership is still indispensable in the world. . .and the institutions and alliances formed after World War II are as vital today as when they were formed.
For decades, the United States used its power and influence to help forge international consensus on vital issues. America’s leadership inspired the trust and confidence of a generation of governments and nations around the world. . . because we pursued common actions that reflected common interests with our allies. . .because we remained committed to global engagement. . .and because we exercised our power with restraint. We made mistakes. It was imperfect. There were differences with our allies. But despite the imperfections and shortcomings, the United States and its allies contributed to world stability and the spread of freedom and prosperity.
Today, the world and America are in deep trouble. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations last November, I warned that the world’s trust and confidence in America’s purpose has seriously eroded. America is increasingly not seen as the well-spring of consensus that for decades helped create alliances and coalitions grounded in common objectives and common interests.
This is in contrast to a very troubling trend toward isolationism that is emerging in America today – a trend that was reflected in this week’s New York Times/CBS News poll of Americans about our country’s role in the world. This trend is a looming concern that may not be obvious but is manifest across seemingly unconnected events and issues. We must avoid the trap of limiting our power by allowing ourselves to become isolated in the world. America must not allow itself to become isolated through mindless isolationist remedies to difficult and complicated problems.
In the 1930s, the threat of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany was not taken seriously. Most did not recognize this threat until World War II was upon them. But there was a voice sounding an alarm. Throughout the 1930s, Winston Churchill urged his countrymen and Europe to see the world through the clear lens of reality – not through the blurred lens of misplaced hope. On October 3, 1938, the House of Commons debated the Munich Agreement that Prime Minister Chamberlain had negotiated with Hitler. Many saw this agreement as the assurance of peace with Germany. Churchill disagreed. He said:
Can we blind ourselves to the great change which has taken place in the military situation, and to the dangers we have to meet? This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Today, there is no such threat to world order. Global threats today are less defined than Hitler. However, the challenges are more insidious, more difficult to comprehend and identify, yet more interrelated, more dynamic, and more dangerous. In the 21st century, we are confronted by a universe of challenges, threats, and opportunities unlike any that we have ever known. The margins of error for miscalculation are less than ever before. Dramatic shifts in security, stability and prosperity can occur in weeks or even days.
On April 16, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors that we now know as the “Chance for Peace” speech. In the aftermath of the death and destruction of World War II and the ongoing war in Korea, the world then was confronted with the threat of the Soviet Union and communism. A different time. A different generation. Yet, Eisenhower’s words and wisdom still ring true today. He said:
No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Just as Eisenhower said in 1953, America’s security, prosperity and freedom cannot be separated from the dangers, challenges, and opportunities abroad. There are no national boundaries from terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, environmental degradation, and despair. No nation, unilaterally, possesses the power to defeat the threats of the 21st century. A global society underpinned by a global economy is our world today. The world’s problems and dangers are interconnected. Nowhere are these realities clearer than in the Middle East.
The Middle East is a region in crisis. A continuous and escalating volley of violence has the potential for wider regional and global conflict. Centuries-old religious, ethnic and tribal hatreds and tensions are being manipulated by Islamic extremists for their own unholy purpose. The Middle East is today as combustible and complex as it has ever been. More than fifty percent of the world’s proven oil and natural gas reserves reside in this troubled land. . .at a time when the world’s six and a half billion people rely on these resources in an interconnected world economy. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken governments of the Middle East. Economic stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair and wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed. An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in the region, creating more regional instability.
America’s approach to the Middle East must be consistent and sustained, and must understand the history, interests and perspectives of our regional friends and allies.
The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the world.
Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital, resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an “us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and influence, further isolate Israel, and prove to be disastrous for both countries as well as the region.
It is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.
Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have experienced devastating violence in the last couple of weeks. The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all states.
Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who strive for lasting peace in the Middle East. This threat must be dealt with, as Israel’s military operations continue to weaken Hezbollah’s capacity for violence.
However, military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas. Extended military action will tear apart Lebanon, destroy its economy and infrastructure, create a humanitarian disaster, further weaken Lebanon’s fragile democratic government, strengthen popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepen hatred of Israel across the Middle East. The pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.
To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle East peace, the United States must use the global condemnation of terrorist acts as the basis for substantive change. For a lasting and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese government and army, backed by the international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive militias and terrorist organizations.
President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can build a consensus of purpose among our regional and international partners.
The Rome meeting of the Lebanon core group this week must be the beginning of a very intensive diplomatic process -- at the highest levels -- with the objective of ending the military conflict, securing the Israel-Lebanon border, and invigorating the political track. To lead and sustain U.S. engagement, the President should appoint a statesman of global stature, experience and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the region who would report directly to him and be empowered with the authority to speak and act for the President. Former secretaries of Secretary of State Baker and Powell fit this profile.
America must listen carefully to its friends and partners in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others -- countries that understand the Middle East far better than we do -- must commit to help resolve today’s crisis and be active partners in helping build a mechanism to move toward realizing the already agreed-upon two-state solution.
A robust international force deployed along the Israel-Lebanon border will be required to facilitate a steady deployment of a strengthened Lebanese Army into southern Lebanon to eventually assume responsibility for security and the rule of law. The UN Security Council should negotiate a new binding resolution that strengthens its demands to disarm militias and to remove Syrian influence from Lebanon that were made in UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and commits the international community to help Lebanon re-build its country.
The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support, continuing to undermine America’s standing in the region, and the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others -- whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.
The United States should engage our Middle East and international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or some version of it, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March 2002. In this historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel’s right to exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-state solution and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though Israel could not accept it as written, it represented a very significant “starting point” document initiated by Arab countries. Today, we need a new Beirut Declaration-type initiative. We squandered the last one.
The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated Beirut-type declaration would re-invest regional Arab states with a stake in achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. This type of initiative would offer a positive alternative vision for Arab populations to the ideology and goals of Islamic militants. The United States must explore this approach as part of its diplomatic engagement in the Middle East.
Lasting peace in the Middle East, and stability and security for Israel will come only from a regionally-oriented political settlement.
Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once observed that in the Middle East a process is necessary because process absorbs events. . .without a process, events become crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the Middle East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no substitute for sustained, day-to-day engagement.
America’s approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied to Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly involved in the latest Hezbollah and Hamas aggression in Israel, both countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine stability and security. As we work with our friends and allies to deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to further corrode the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, both Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly.
As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence recently wrote in the Washington Post:
Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria -- two countries that bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis -- leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United States. We will have to get over the notion that talking to bad guys somehow rewards them or is a sign of weakness. As a superpower, we ought to be able to communicate in a way that signals our strength and self-confidence.
Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement. For this dialogue to have any meaning or possible lasting relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues.
There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today. Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq toward civil war. The U.S. announcement this week to send additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad. . .and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S and the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the realities of the rest of Iraq.
The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the future of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of governing and security will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. As I said in November, this is not about setting a timeline. This is about understanding the implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being determined by Iraqis -- not Americans. America is bogged down in Iraq and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options. The longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the deeper the damage to our force structure -- particularly the U.S. Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on an already dangerously over-extended force structure that will further limit our options and public support.
The Cold War, while dangerous, created a fairly stable and mostly predictable world order. That is no longer the case today. The challenges of the 21st century will be more complex and represent a world of greater degrees of nuance, uncertainty and uncontrollables than those of the last 60 years. America’s policy choices will be more complicated than ever before.
We must be clear in our principles and interests, with friends and foes alike. But framing the world in “absolutes” constrains our ability to build coalitions and alliances, alienates our friends and partners, and results in our own isolation. No country will view its interests as coinciding exactly with ours; nor will countries simply subsume their national interests to maintain relations with America. U.S. policies that are premised on such assumptions will be flawed, with little likelihood for success, and ultimately work against our national interests.
In pursuing our objectives, America must always be mindful of the risks of sudden change and the dangers of unintended consequences. Rarely will America succeed if its actions seek to impose its objectives on others, or achieve change and reform through power alone. America is always strongest when it acts in concert with friends and allies. This approach has enhanced our power and magnified our influence. The Middle East and other regions of the world have been left behind and not experienced the political and economic reform that many other regions have enjoyed in the last 60 years.
The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger, but it is also an opportunity. Crisis focuses the minds of leaders and the attention of nations. The Middle East need not be a region forever captive to the fire of war and historical hatred. It will can avoid this fate if the United States pursues sustained and engaged leadership worthy of our history, purpose, and power. America cannot fix every problem in the world -- nor should it try. But we must get the big issues and important relationships right and concentrate on those. We know that without engaged and active American leadership the world is more dangerous.
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union Address on January 6, 1945, he counseled the United States and the world to look beyond the immediate horror of war to the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. Roosevelt understood the requirements of U.S. leadership and the essence of alliances and partnerships. He said:
We must not let those differences divide us and blind us to our more important common and continuing interests in winning the war and building the peace. International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a one-way street. Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, and international cooperation and progress are not helped by any nation assuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.”
Over the last 60 years since Roosevelt’s remarks, the United States has been a force for peace and prosperity in the world. Decades of investment in geopolitical security, economic stability, political freedom, innovation and productivity have resulted in a 21st century of both cooperation and competition. This is a defining time for 21st Century American leadership. With enlightened American leadership this century offers the world the prospects of unprecedented global peace, prosperity and security. . .if we are wise enough to sense the moment, engage the world and share a nobility of purpose with all mankind.
-- Steve Clemons
» Next Article - Senator Hagel: NOW UNDECIDED ON JOHN BOLTON
Reader Comments (37) - post a comment
Well if Chuckie is serious about his Israel vr. Arab Nations is a false choice for the US...
He has his work cut out for him:
Lawmakers form pro-Israel caucus
A bipartisan slate of lawmakers is forming a pro-Israel caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Reps. Dave Weldon, (R-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) on Thursday announced the formation of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus.
The caucus’ formation comes in response to a 2004 initiative launched in the Knesset to develop lines of communication between Knesset members and Christian groups and denominations around the world.
The U.S. caucus plans to join with the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus and caucuses in other legislatures to “support Israel’s right to live in peace within safe and secure borders,” a press release from Weldon’s office said."
I am aware there are various caucus in congress like the Black lawmakers caucus and etc...but does anyone know if there one formed for the interest of a foreign country like this one?
I'd be interested to know if there is...
Carroll: The job of identifying which Representatives to strip of their security clearances just got easier.
Has anybody ever calculated the true cost of America's allegiance to Israel? If you add up the direct foreign aid to Israel, impact on the oil price, impact on military deployments in the region, impact on our status as world leader (and the instability associated with a diminished U.S.), impact on military budgets and budget deficits (and cost of money), etc., the total cost must be unthinkably high. If the American public understood the direct and indirect impact to our national wealth (not to mention our security), I wonder how many American pundits would attack critics of Israel (and call them unpatriotic!).
Doo-doo-doo-doo, doo-doo-doo-doo. (To the theme from Twilight Zone.)
Let's see how to characterize this:
Too little, too late?
Reprint of the laundry list?
Many other similar choices. Take your pick.
My substantive questions:
1. Who, but who, in the entire world, has a scintilla of stature to be dubbed a "statesman of global status?"
2. What country would be nuts enough to provide troops on the border of Lebanon & Israel, when the IDF can't hack it? (Actually, in Lebanon, not on the border, which tells you much of what you need to know.)
Don't those make any (laughingly-referred-to-as) plan a nonstarter?
I do like the way Hagel & W are characterizing this mess as an opportunity--making bombade out of bombs, I guess.
It's a pretty good speech, and I like Hegel. But, like so many Americans of goodwill, he sounds naive and over-optimistic at times.
For example:
"For a lasting and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese government and army, backed by the international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive militias and terrorist organizations."
That would be lovely, but is it realistic? Hezbollah is Lebanese, too. They have the support of 35-40% of the population, maybe more now. How is the Lebanese central government, which is quite weak, going to disarm them? I think, instead, that they decided to leave Hezbollah alone and cede them the south a long time ago.
Keep in mind, too, that Lebanon is not as democratic as it might be. Power is divided among the communities according to a 1950s formula that exaggerates the role of the Christians. If this were fixed, Hezbollah's political power would grow.
Hegel is right, of course, that everything would be better if there were a settlement between Israel and the PA. But does Hezbollah want this? My guess is that they use the Palestinian issue as a pretext to fight, just as they use Shebaa Farms as a pretext. This is also what their paymasters in Iran want.
So, if Colin Powell goes over as US envoy, will Hezbollah talk with him? Will the talking be sincere?
"The job of identifying which Representatives to strip of their security clearances just got easier."
what a ridiculous statement!
why should the members of a Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, which "supports Israel’s right to live in peace within safe and secure borders," be stripped of their security clearances?!
this is demagoguery. exactly the kind of BS that MP was criticising in another thread.
Joseph R. McCarthy would be proud of You, Matthew!
anon, whoever you are, in a sane world what Matthew said makes sense. Treason, you know.
But actually, I think Matthew was probably prophesying that, when they get around to it, the admin will strip all congresscritters who do NOT sign up for the committee.
Pardon my tongue in cheek, but your anonymous sanctimony is underwheming.
Taiwan to Get Caucus in U.S. Congress
By Haley Chang
Taiwan News, Dec. 21, 2001
--------
Why can you anti-Israel guys use Google?
Anon: Your righteous anger is unconvincing. The strongest pro-Israel argument SHOULD be this: Helping Israel is good for America. And you know what? If supporting Israel is so obviously in America's best interest, then why all the lobbying? Why, pray tell, is this caucus even necessary?
Yep...it's downright amazing how these foreign caucus are popping up....and the same names are involved in both of them....gee, I don't know how on earth our US reps keep all their fences strattled between all their far flung interest...you know it does seem that some people are trying their best to turn the US into a sort of shopping bazzar or stateless passthru bank for internationals instead of a country with an identity. Wonder who they could be and why they would want to do that?
A "Taiwan Caucus" in the U.S. House of Representatives has been formed and will be formally announced in January when the next session begins, hoping that such a group will serve as an official channel for legislators from both the U.S. and Taiwan to exchange ideas, a U.S. congressman said yesterday.
Robert Wexler, a Florida-elected Democratic congressman, in an interview with the Taiwan News yesterday, said that the Taiwan Caucus will take the leading role in advocating any issues relating to Taiwan, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship as well as in the future hopefully arrange official trips for congressmen and congresswomen to visit Taiwan.
The congressman, one of the founding members of the Taiwan Caucus, said that the caucus was formed by himself, Sherrod Brown, a Democrat Representative from Ohio, and Republican Representative Steve Chabot, also from Ohio. The caucus, Wexler stressed, will be officially announced during the next session in Congress in January.
As most caucuses are issue or racial-oriented, not many of them have to do with particular countries, Wexler said.
"The purpose of setting up a Taiwan Caucus is to give Taiwan a formal address or to give the discussion of issues relating to the U.S.-Taiwan relationship a formal address in the U.S. Congress," he added.
ICJP elects Congressman Gary Ackerman as head
JERUSALEM, JANUARY 10, 2006 – The International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians (ICJP) has unanimously selected Congressman Gary L. Ackerman as its first president. Ackerman, a member of the US House of Representatives from New York, will now chair the body's executive and preside over the ICJP's next meeting, which will take place in 2007 in Washington. Ackerman, along with a group of 12 vice-presidents from around the world, was elected at an ICJP assembly in Jerusalem, which ended on Tuesday. Lord Janner of Braunstone, a Member of the British House of Lords, convened the Jerusalem conference and will continue to serve as one of the members of the ICJP executive. The ICJP is a newly established global forum of Jewish parliamentarians and legislators which convened officially
I seem to have hit a nerve.
I'm not angry, matthew. I merely pointed out how ridiculous your statement was. Care to explain why these representatives should have their security clearances revoked simply for being members of a Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, which "supports Israel’s right to live in peace within safe and secure borders,"
What planet are you living on this constitutes treason "DonS"?
Joseph r. McCarthy, fascists, if the shoe fits...
and pardon me "DonS" but what does the anonymity of my sanctimony have to do with anything???
As if your unlinked "DonS" screen name makes you any less anonymous?! wow. some scary logic there for ya...
This crew is insane. Every bit as bad as the right wingnuts!
fyi: look at all the TREASON! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus
Current list of caucuses
This is the complete list of Congressional Member Organizations of the 109th United States Congress as listed by the U.S. House Committee on House Administration. (For earlier CMOS, see 107th Congress and 108th Congress). Other current caucuses, not listed with the Committee on House Administration, are included at the end.
2015 Caucus
* Rep. Clay Shaw
* Rep. Collin Peterson
21st Century Health Care Caucus
* Rep. Tim Murphy
* Rep. Patrick Kennedy
4-H Caucus
* Rep. Richard Pombo
* Rep. Marcy Kaptur
9/11 Commission Caucus
* Rep. Carolyn Maloney
* Rep. Christopher Shays
Addiction, Treatment and Recovery Caucus
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
* Rep. Patrick Kennedy
Afterschool Caucus
* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
* Rep. Nita Lowey
Alzheimer's Disease Congressional Task Force
* Rep. Edward Markey
* Rep. Christopher Smith
Anti-Value Added Tax Caucus, The (Anti-VAT Caucus)
* Rep. Wally Herger
Appalachian Caucus
* Rep. Bob Ney
Army Corps Reform Caucus
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus
* Rep. Jim Langevin
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
* Rep. Major Owens
* Rep. Nancy Johnson
Bipartisan Working Group on Disaster Recovery and Response, The
* Rep. Bob Ney
* Rep. William Lacy Clay
Blue Dog Coalition
* Rep. Jim Matheson
* Rep. Jim Cooper
* Rep. Dennis Cardoza
* Rep. Mike Ross
Building a Better America Caucus (BABC)
* Rep. Gary Miller
California Democratic Congressional Delegation
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Caribbean Caucus
* Rep. Bob Ney
* Rep. Donald Payne
Center Aisle Caucus
* Rep. Timothy V. Johnson
* Rep. Steve Israel
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force
* Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
* Rep. Chris Van Hollen
* Rep. Tom Davis
* Rep. Robert Scott
Children's Environmental Health Caucus
* Rep. Rush Holt
* Rep. Jim Saxton
Coalition on Autism Research and Education
* Rep. Christopher Smith
* Rep. Michael Doyle
Community College Caucus
* Rep. Brad Miller
* Rep. Michael N. Castle
* Rep. David Wu
Community Solutions and Initiatives Caucus
* Rep. Mark Green
* Rep. Harold Ford
Congressional Arts Caucus
* Rep. Louise Slaughter
* Rep. Christopher Shays
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
* Rep. Michael Honda
* Rep. Eni Faleomavaega
* Rep. Ed Case
* Rep. Madeleine Bordallo
Congressional Automotive Caucus
* Rep. Dale Kildee
* Rep. Fred Upton
Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus
* Rep. Solomon Ortiz
* Rep. Curt Weldon
Congressional Battlefield Caucus
* Rep. Steve Israel
* Rep. Gil Gutknecht
* Rep. Bart Gordon
* Rep. Gary Miller
Congressional Bike Caucus (CBC)
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Congressional Biotechnology Caucus
* Rep. Bobby Rush
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte
* Rep. John Shimkus
Congressional Bipartisan Cerebral Palsy Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
Congressional Black Caucus
* Rep. Melvin Watt
* Rep. Corrine Brown
* Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick
* Rep. Danny Davis
* Rep. Barbara Lee
Congressional Boating Caucus
* Rep. Clay Shaw
* Rep. Gene Taylor
Congressional Border Caucus
* Rep. Solomon Ortiz
* Rep. Henry Bonilla
Congressional Brain Injury Task Force
* Rep. Bill Pascrell
* Rep. Todd Russell Platts
, Congressional Brazil Caucus
* Rep. Phil English
* Rep. Bill Jefferson
* Rep. Kevin Brady
* Rep. Jim Davis
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues
* Rep. Joe Knollenberg
* Rep. Frank Pallone
Congressional Caucus on Central America
* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Congressional Caucus on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
* Rep. Frank Pallone
Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety
* Rep. Robert Wexler
* Rep. Steve LaTourette
* Rep. Sherrod Brown
Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues
* Rep. Michael Bilirakis
* Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch
* Rep. Adam Schiff
* Rep. Judy Biggert
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans
* Rep. Frank Pallone
* Rep. Jerry Weller
Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans
* Rep. Robert Wexler
* Rep. Ed Whitfield
* Rep. Kay Granger
Congressional Caucus on Uganda
* Rep. Christopher Smith
* Rep. Edolphus Towns
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues
* Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite
* Rep. Hilda Solis
* Rep. Lois Capps
* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Congressional Caucus on Youth Sports
* Rep. Mike McIntyre
* Rep. John Shimkus
Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus
* Rep. Diane Watson
Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine
* Rep. Ken Calvert
* Rep. Leonard Boswell
* Rep. Chris Cannon
* Rep. Rick Larsen
Congressional Children's Caucus
* Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
Congressional China Caucus
* Rep. J. Randy Forbes
Congressional Climate Caucus
* Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
* Rep. John Olver
Congressional Coalition on Adoption
* Rep. Jim Oberstar
* Rep. Dave Camp
* Sen. Larry Craig
* Sen. Mary Landrieu
Congressional Coastal Caucus
* Rep. Clay Shaw
* Rep. Frank Pallone
Congressional Complementary and Alternative Medicine Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
* Sen. Tom Harkin
* Rep. Dennis Kucinich
* Rep. Orrin Hatch
Congressional Constitution Caucus
* Rep. Scott Garrett
Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus
* Rep. Ted Strickland
Congressional Croatian Caucus
* Rep. George Radanovich
* Rep. Peter Visclosky
Congressional Diabetes Caucus
* Rep. Diana DeGette
* Rep. Michael N. Castle
Congressional E-911 Caucus
* Rep. John Shimkus
* Rep. Anna Eshoo
Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus
* Rep. Sam Graves
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy
* Sen. Larry Craig
* Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
* Rep. Curt Weldon
* Rep. Sherwood Boehlert
* Rep. Steny Hoyer
* Rep. Rob Andrews
Congressional Fitness Caucus
* Rep. Zach Wamp
* Rep. Mark Udall
Congressional Food Safety Caucus
* Rep. Rosa DeLauro
* Rep. Sherrod Brown
Congressional Forest Task Force
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte
* Rep. Collin Peterson
* Rep. Greg Walden
* Rep. Mike Thompson
Congressional Former Mayors Caucus
* Rep. Michael Turner
* Rep. Michael Capuano
Congressional Fraternal Caucus
* Rep. Pete Sessions
* Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Congressional French Caucus
* Rep. Jim Oberstar
* Rep. Tom Petri
* Sen. Mike Crapo
* Sen. Mary Landrieu
Congressional Friends of Denmark (CFD)
* Rep. Jim Nussle
* Rep. Steny Hoyer
* Rep. Tom Lantos
Congressional Gaming Caucus
* Rep. Jim Gibbons
* Rep. Shelley Berkley
Congressional Gulf of Mexico Caucus
* Rep. Katherine Harris
Congressional Hearing Health Caucus
* Rep. James Walsh
* Rep. Lois Capps
* Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
* Rep. Jim Ryun
Congressional Hispanic Caucus
* Rep. Grace Napolitano
* Rep. Joe Baca
* Rep. Raul Grijalva
* Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard
Congressional Hispanic Conference
* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
* Rep. Luis Fortuno
Congressional HUBZone Caucus
* Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
* Rep. Alan Mollohan
Congressional Horse Caucus
* Rep. John Sweeney
* Rep. Ben Chandler
Congressional Human Rights Caucus
* Rep. Tom Lantos
* Rep. Frank Wolf
Congressional Humanities Caucus
* Rep. James Leach
* Rep. David Price
Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus
* Rep. Tom Tancredo
Congressional Insurance Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
Congressional Intelligent Transportation Systems Caucus
* Rep. Mike Rogers
* Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus
* Rep. Adam Schiff
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte
Congressional Internet Caucus
* Rep. Bob Goodlatte
* Rep. Rick Boucher
Congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus
* Rep. Tom Osborne
* Rep. Kay Granger
* Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Congressional Kidney Caucus
* Rep. Mark Steven Kirk
* Rep. Jim McDermott
Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus
* Rep. Linda Sanchez
* Rep. Stephen Lynch
* Rep. Mike Michaud
Congressional Life Science Caucus
* Rep. Sam Graves
Congressional Management Caucus
* Rep. Todd Russell Platts
Congressional Manufacturing Caucus
* Rep. Donald Manzullo
* Rep. Tim Ryan
Congressional Manufacturing Task Force
* Rep. Marty Meehan
* Rep. Sherwood Boehlert
* Rep. Mike Doyle
* Rep. Steve LaTourette
Congressional Medical Professionals Caucus
* Rep. Phil Gingrey
Congressional Mental Health Caucus
* Rep. Grace Napolitano
* Rep. Tim Murphy
Congressional Mentoring Caucus
* Rep. Tom Osborne
* Rep. Betty McCollum
* Rep. Ric Keller
* Rep. Susan Davis
Congressional Mine Warfare Caucus
* Rep. Solomon Ortiz
* Rep. Ander Crenshaw
Congressional Mining Caucus
* Rep. Jim Gibbons
* Rep. Jim Matheson
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus
* Rep. Mark Foley
* Rep. Bud Cramer
Congressional Morocco Caucus
* Rep. Phil English
* Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
* Rep. Steve Rothman
Congressional Organic Caucus
* Rep. Ron Kind
* Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
* Rep. Peter DeFazio
* Rep. Sam Farr
* Rep. James Walsh
Congressional Pakistan Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Congressional Port Security Caucus
* Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
* Sen. Susan Collins
* Sen. Daniel Inouye
Congressional Real Estate Caucus
* Rep. Mark Foley
* Rep. Richard Neal
Congressional Rural Caucus
* Rep. John E. Peterson
* Rep. Allen Boyd
* Rep. Tom Osborne
* Rep. Lincoln Davis
Congressional Rural Housing Caucus
* Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
* Rep. Artur Davis
* Rep. Rick Renzi
Congressional Scouting Caucus
* Rep. Ike Skelton
* Rep. W. Todd Akin
Congressional Savings and Ownership Caucus
* Rep. Phil English
* Rep. Jim Cooper
* Rep. Chris Chocola
* Rep. Harold Ford
Congressional Second Amendment Caucus
* Rep. Marilyn Musgrave
* Rep. Virgil Goode
Congressional Serbian Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
* Rep. Rahm Emmanuel
Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus
* Rep. Jo Ann Davis
* Rep. Gene Taylor
Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus
* Rep. John Sweeney
* Rep. Mark Udall
Congressional Singapore Caucus
* Rep. Solomon Ortiz
* Rep. Curt Weldon
Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus
* Rep. Christopher Smith
* Rep. Bart Stupak
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
* Rep. Leonard Boswell
* Rep. Adam Putnam
Congressional Steel Caucus
* Rep. Phil English
* Rep. Pete Visclosky
Congressional Stop DUI Caucus
* Rep. Shelley Berkley
* Rep. Jon Porter
Congressional Submarine Caucus
* Rep. Rob Simmons
* Rep. Jim Langevin
Congressional Taiwan Caucus
* Rep. Robert Wexler
* Rep. Steve Chabot
* Rep. Sherrod Brown
* Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
Congressional Taskforce on International HIV/AIDS
* Rep. Jim McDermott
Congressional Tourism and Travel Caucus (CTTC)
* Rep. Mark Foley
* Rep. Sam Farr
Congressional TRIO Caucus
* Rep. Mike Simpson
* Rep. Donald Payne
Congressional Ukrainian Caucus
* Rep. Curt Weldon
* Rep. Marcy Kaptur
* Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
* Rep. Sander Levin
Congressional United Kingdom Caucus
* Rep. Diane Watson
* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus
* Rep. Ted Poe
* Rep. Katherine Harris
Congressional Waterways Caucus
* Rep. Mike McIntyre
* Rep. John Doolittle
Congressional Western Caucus
* Rep. Chris Cannon
* Rep. Jeff Flake
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease
* Rep. Carolyn Maloney
* Rep. Lane Evans
Congressional Zoo and Aquarium Caucus
* Rep. Spencer Bachus
* Rep. Julia Carson
Delaware River Basin Task Force
* Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick
Democratic Israel Working Group
* Rep. Henry Waxman
* Rep. Gene Green
* Rep. Alcee Hastings
* Rep. Linda Sanchez
Duma - Congress Study Group
* Rep. Curt Weldon
* Rep. Steny Hoyer
E-waste Working Group
* Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
* Rep. Mike Thompson
* Rep. Louise Slaughter
Economic Competitiveness Caucus
* Rep. Todd Tiahrt
Electronic Warfare (EW) Working Group
* Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
* Rep. Norman Dicks
* Rep. Mark Kirk
* Rep. Rick Larsen
* Rep. Joseph R. Pitts
Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus
* Rep. Judy Biggert
* Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
Flat Tax Caucus
* Rep. Michael Burgess
Friends of Norway Caucus
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy
* Rep. Martin Olav Sabo
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
Friends of Scotland Caucus
* Rep. Mike McIntyre
* Rep. John Duncan
Friends of Switzerland Caucus
* Rep. Tammy Baldwin
* Rep. Rob Portman
Future of American Media Caucus
* Rep. Maurice Hinchey
* Rep. Bernard Sanders
* Rep. Jay Inslee
* Rep. David Price
* Rep. Sherrod Brown
Global AIDS Emergency Task Force
* Rep. Mark Kirk
* Rep. Jim Leach
* Rep. Barbara Lee
* Rep. Jim McDermott
* Sen. Richard Durbin
* Sen. Gordon Smith
Great Lakes Task Force
* Rep. Vern Ehlers
* Rep. John Dingell
* Rep. Mark Kirk
* Rep. James Oberstar
Historic Preservation Caucus
* Rep. Brad Miller
* Rep. Michael Turner
House Aerospace Caucus
* Rep. Dave Weldon
* Rep. Norm Dicks
House Agriculture Energy Users Caucus
* Rep. Steve King
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy
* Rep. Sam Graves
House Army Caucus
* Rep. John McHugh
* Rep. Chet Edwards
House Baltic Caucus
* Rep. John Shimkus
* Rep. Dennis Kucinich
House Beef Caucus
* Rep. Bob Beauprez
* Rep. Dennis Cardoza
House Biofuels Caucus
* Rep. Tom Osborne
* Rep. John Shimkus
* Rep. Lane Evans
* Rep. Dennis Moore
House Military Depot and Industrial Facilities Caucus
* Rep. Solomon Ortiz
* Rep. Walter Jones
House Oceans Caucus
* Rep. Tom Allen
* Rep. Sam Farr
* Rep. Jim Saxton
* Rep. Curt Weldon
* Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
* Rep. Jay Inslee
House Reading Caucus
* Rep. Anne Northup
House Recycling Caucus
* Rep. Frank Pallone
* Rep. Paul Gillmor
House Republican Israel Caucus
* Rep. Tom Reynolds
* Rep. Tom Davis
* Rep. Eric Cantor
House Rural Health Care Coalition
* Rep. Greg Walden
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy
House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus
* Rep. Vern Ehlers
* Rep. Mark Udall
House Trails Caucus
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Hudson River Caucus
* Rep. Nita Lowey
* Rep. John Sweeney
Hungarian American Caucus (HAC)
* Rep. Ernest Istook
* Rep. Christopher Shays
* Rep. Steny Hoyer
* Rep. Tom Lantos
Indonesia Caucus
* Rep. Dan Burton
* Rep. Robert Wexler
International Conservation Caucus
* Rep. Edward Royce
* Rep. John Tanner
* Rep. Clay Shaw
* Rep. Tom Udall
International Workers Rights Caucus
* Rep. Lane Evans
* Rep. George Miller
Interstate 69 Caucus
* Rep. Tom DeLay
* Rep. Roger Wicker
Kenya Caucus
* Rep. Gregory Meeks
* Rep. Tom Tancredo
Law Enforcement Caucus
* Rep. Bart Stupak
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Cooperation Caucus
* Rep. Pete Sessions
* Rep. Gregory Meeks
Medical and Dental Doctors in Congress Caucus (MDC)
* Rep. Phil Gingrey
* Rep. Vic Snyder
Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force
* Rep. Allen Boyd
* Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite
Medical Technology Caucus
* Rep. Jim Ramstad
* Rep. Anna Eshoo
Metro Congestion Coalition
* Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Military Veterans Caucus
* Rep. Michael Bilirakis
* Rep. Charlie Norwood
* Rep. Collin Peterson
* Rep. Mike Thompson
Modeling & Simulation Training Caucus
* Rep. Randy Forbes
National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus
* Rep. Steve Buyer
* Rep. Gene Taylor
National Service Congressional Caucus
* Rep. Christopher Shays
* Rep. David Price
* Rep. Tom Osborne
* Rep. Harold Ford
Navy-Marine Corps Caucus
* Rep. Susan Davis
* Rep. Randy Forbes
New Democrat Coalition
* Rep. Ellen Tauscher
* Rep. Ron Kind
* Rep. Artur Davis
North America’s Supercorridor Caucus
* Rep. Sam Graves
* Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition
* Rep. Steve LaTourette
* Rep. Marty Meehan
Northern Border Caucus
* Rep. Bart Stupak
* Rep. John Sweeney
Nuclear Issues Caucus
* Rep. Joe Knollenberg
* Rep. John Spratt
Open Space Caucus
* Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick
Oral Health Caucus
* Rep. John Linder
* Rep. Charlie Norwood
* Rep. Mike Simpson
Passenger Rail Caucus
* Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
* Rep. Rob Andrews
Patriot Act Reform Caucus
* Rep. Jeff Flake
* Rep. Bernie Sanders
* Rep. Ron Paul
* Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Pell Grant Caucus, The
* Rep. Ric Keller
Public Broadcasting Caucus
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
* Rep. Paul Gillmor
Qatari-American Economic Strategic Defense, Cultural, and Educational Partnership Caucus
* Rep. Nick Rahall
* Rep. Carolyn Maloney
* Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
* Sen. John Sununu
Recording Arts and Sciences Congressional Caucus (RASCC)
* Rep. Mary Bono
* Rep. Steny Hoyer
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus
* Rep. Mark Udall
* Rep. Zach Wamp
Republican Study Committee
* Rep. Mike Pence
* Rep. Sue Myrick
* Rep. John Shadegg
* Rep. Dan Burton
* Rep. John Doolittle
* Rep. Ernest Istook
* Rep. Sam Johnson
Research and Development Caucus
* Rep. Judy Biggert
* Rep. Rush Holt
River of Trade Corridor Congressional Caucus
* Rep. Ralph Hall
Sex and Violence in the Media Caucus
* Rep. Joe Baca
* Rep. Tom Osborne
Saudi Arabia Study Group, The
* Rep. Bob Ney
* Rep. Nick Rahall
Sexual Assault Violence Elimination (SAVE) Taskforce
* Rep. Paul Gillmor
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy
Shellfish Caucus
* Rep. John Larson
* Rep. Thelma Drake
* Rep. Bobby Jindal
* Rep. Henry Brown
* Rep. Brian Baird
* Rep. Mike Thompson
Silk Road Caucus
* Rep. Joseph R. Pitts
* Rep. Gary Ackerman
* Sen. Sam Brownback
* Rep. Mary Landrieu
Special Operations Forces Caucus
* Rep. Jeff Miller
* Rep. Mike McIntyre
* Rep. Jim Davis
* Rep. Robin Hayes
State Maritime Academy Caucus
* Rep. Dave Camp
* Rep. William Delahunt
Sudan Caucus
* Rep. Tom Tancredo
* Rep. Donald Payne
* Rep. Frank Wolf
* Rep. Michael Capuano
Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare
* Rep. Eric Cantor
TEX-21 Congressional Caucus
* Rep. Randy Neugebauer
* Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
* Rep. John Culberson
* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
Unexploded Ordnance Caucus
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Upper Mississippi River Basin Task Force
* Rep. Jerry Costello
* Rep. Gil Gutknecht
* Rep. Ron Kind
* Rep. James Leach
U.S.-Afghan Caucus
* Rep. Bob Ney
* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
U.S.-China Working Group
* Rep. Mark Steven Kirk
* Rep. Rick Larsen
U.S.-Mongolia Friendship Caucus
* Rep. Joe Wilson
* Rep. Joseph R. Pitts
U.S.-New Zealand Congressional Caucus
* Rep. Jim Kolbe
* Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Victory in Iraq Caucus
* Rep. Joe Wilson
Youth Challenge Caucus
* Rep. Richard Baker
Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus
* Rep. David Dreier
* Sen. Richard Shelby
Source: Committee on House Administration
[edit]
I'm so sorry, steve, but I have to say it:
What a bunch of fools and anti-semites you've collected here. Good luck building anything near a Democrat majority with this constituency.
Anon: You still didn't explain why this pro-Israel caucus is necessary? I repeat: If supporting Israel is so obviously in America's best interests, then why do we need this Caucus? Your silence is deafening....
P.S. Thanks for showing how many stupid groups Rep. Ros-Lehtinen is associated with.
To all: Notice Anon's final salvo: He dresses down Steve for allowing all the "anti-Semites" to post on this site. Implication: Steve, you go to all these insider events in Washington and you don't want that entree limited because the "whackos" get to question US policy on your page. When you can't convince, threaten.....what a wonderful microcosm of how AIPAC interacts with the government.
Yea..anon...I don't see a single "Pro-" attached to any of the few that related to another country,
they are mostly identified as study groups.
Odd though that they would form this caucus now all of a sudden, I mean they have AIPAC already to write all their ME policy for them ...maybe they realize the growing anti-israel feelings in the public.....
anon, now you've gone and hoit my wittle feewings.
BTW, my "screen name" has been the same, and my views, opinions, etc. public and claimed by me for at least four years on a variety of sites. "Anon" seems a bit more, well,anonymous. I've argued, like you, in the past, that its the view that matters, not the name of attribution. But the blogoshpere has become more sophistocated and identities do mean something here.
Also, I demurred as tongue in cheek, but, by God, there is a serious underlying argument about dual loyalties that ought to dog the neocons and Israel lobby. I imagine your familiar with it.
Well, I think I'll do the short form.
The problems in government in the mid-east mainly arise from the oil industry, and resemble the problems seen in any other petroleum oligarchy. The major role Israel plays in these problems is to serve as a scapegoat for the anger felt by the mideastern peoples towards the oligarchies that rule them.
We see clearly now that because of (global warming, peak oil, our dangerous dependence on a substance we don't have enough of- choose any that you agree with) it's time to cut back on our oil consumption.
The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stone, and the Oil Age will end before we run out of oil.
Moving directly to solar power means we get to spend our money here, and still improve our world standing there. Not needing the product always improves the buyer's position with respect to the seller.
But I suppose we must learn this the hard way.
What, exactly, is the relevance of the International Congress of Jewish Parliamentarians here? Is this organization illegal? Nefarious? Un-American?
Next up, the secret minutes of the ICJP subcommittee on world domination, previously known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
anon is right, Steve.
"Anon: Your righteous anger is unconvincing. The strongest pro-Israel argument SHOULD be this: Helping Israel is good for America. And you know what? If supporting Israel is so obviously in America's best interest, then why all the lobbying? Why, pray tell, is this caucus even necessary?"
Regardless the merits of support for Israeli policy, that may well be the stupidest comment I've seen on this site.
By the way, why is there never any discussion of the substance of the actual post (here, Hegel's speech)?
Some of you are so Pavlovian: you see the words "Israel" and "United States" and go right into your reflexive response.
I would find it tiresome, even if I agreed with you.
Hal, I didn't comment on it because I'm in the process of responding to it elsewhere, but the short form is that although lacking in specific remedies for the epidemic insanity of his colleagues, it's as excellent a recapitulation of a common sense foreign policy as one could hope for from someone who intends to run for president as a statesman despite accomplishing nothing on the foreign affairs front.
Weldon,
I like that comment, including the elegant little slap at the end.
I still don't see what Hezbollah would want to negotiate about, since they're so heavily invested in military confrontation with Israel.
Look, if anything, our politicians will never let an opportunity pass, in organizing caucuses which, in the never ending struggle for obtaining supporting resources for their reelection, is thought to be a diamond in the rough. The perks that go with it, e.g., trips to Taiwan, Israel, the VIP treatment in the environment the caucuses provide, is just too juicy to pass up by not joining . So give them credit for correctly "guilding their lily", and recognize the rare occurance of congress doing something wrong the right way. Not like the invasion of a sovereign country, Iraq, that did us no harm.
I will admit though, the effort to parallel AIPAC's reason for existance, makes our country look to the world, even more ludicrous as an honest broker in ME peace talks . But then, who said there were statesmen in the US congress?
"why should the members of a Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, which "supports Israel’s right to live in peace within safe and secure borders," be stripped of their security clearances?!"
Need I once more start posting the facts as to Israel's repeated and ongoing acts of espionage directed against the United States????
I'm guessing that 'anon' was sent along by the World Union of Jewish Students' 'Megaphone' software, which is essentially a Bat-signal for trolling kneejerk accusations of anti-semitism. Oh, and comment-spamming, too.
I'm going to take issue with Hagel's characterisation of Churchill, but that's a shared misconception across the United States. (Geoffrey Wheatcroft discussed it in Harper's not so long ago.) That aside, Hagel has an honest sense of how one discusses 'root causes', as opposed to the weasel words of Bush and Blair. Blair's poodlery is especially disheartening, given that it's essentially an abandonment of the position he took towards Northern Ireland, where a ceasefire without a settlement was a way to change the conditions on the ground, and thus improve the chance of that settlement.
British newspapers have also noted that there remains an opportunity to use diplomatic means that are politically unavailable to Bush: that is, contacts with Iran and Syria. Alas, Blair's abandonment of an independent foreign policy with respect towards the Middle East makes this impossible, and we all suffer as a result.
Matthew writes to Anon: "You still didn't explain why this pro-Israel caucus is necessary? I repeat: If supporting Israel is so obviously in America's best interests, then why do we need this Caucus? Your silence is deafening...."
It seems to me this whole argument is circular. If the Israel caucus is necessary because no one believes in this cause, then the Israel Lobby really doesn't have the US in its pocket. And, if it has the US in its pocket, it wouldn't need to spend so much on lobbying or this caucus except to "top up" support.
It's easy and straightforward to argue, as Anon basically did, that ALL special interest groups lobby and help form caucuses that will further understanding of, and support for, their cause. Most of them would say, I think, that if they had the US in their pocket there would be no (or much less) need for lobbying. It's pretty obvious that some do a much better job than others do. The NRA, we'd all agree, does a great job of getting its way.
(POA will remind me that the NRA doesn't represent a foreign country. But I don't think it matters for this narrower point. The point that any of this treasonous is balderdash.)
You're on firmer ground, I think, if you just argue whether or how much or in which situations the US should or shouldn't support Israel.
Also, polls and public opinion are notoriously fickle. If you argue that most Americans don't support Israel, then I'll point to other polls from previous times when most Americans did. I'm not sure what any of it proves. Despite what POA has said, public policy shouldn't be conducted by referendum or polling.
And I most certainly agree that it shouldn't be conducted by Bushco.
MP, perhaps you have noticed that it is a race to the bottom, shamefully enough led by the Dems of late, to see who can pander to the "Israeli" cause the most. In this context, the sudden "need" for this caucus become patently obvious.
That the U.S. Congress already tilts virtually unanimously towards Israel should reinforce the superfluity of a causus for all but window dressing, etc.
I so agree with DonS...he puts it more "politic' than I...
"MP, perhaps you have noticed that it is a race to the bottom, shamefully enough led by the Dems of late, to see who can pander to the "Israeli" cause the most. In this context, the sudden "need" for this caucus become patently obvious.
That the U.S. Congress already tilts virtually unanimously towards Israel should reinforce the superfluity of a causus for all but window dressing, etc.
Posted by DonS at July 29, 2006 06:34 PM
We absolutely, positively, have to get control of our foreign policy....and this Israeli bent in congress and campaigns is affecting everything the US is doing..in the ME, in the UN, in our relationships with other nations.
It's way,way,too out of whack. The boat is sinking from everyone sitting one side.
MP: I enjoyed your post, but I must respond that your argument, unfortunately, is also circular. You contend, quite reasonably, that no amount of lobbying can make a really unpopular position popular, so the pro-Israel caucas can only "top up" an otherwise popular position in the face of a fickle electorate. I think we have lots of contrary evidence. For example, Saudi Arabia uses lobbying to buy much more influence in Washington than they have in the country at large. They are certainly not "topping up" their support; they are manufacturing it. AIPAC's threatening manner indicates to me that Israel's support is also being manufactured, although, obviously not to the extent of Saudi Arabia. Many Americans are committed to Israel. That's fine. I just think the intense lobbying--and the suppresion of alternative views, i.e., limiting Palestinian representatives from traveling around the US--indicates that the level of support is artificial.
I agree with much of what Hagel says, but I fear it's just more rhetoric because he plans on running for president. He is always saying one thing and then voting the opposite.
The Bush Adm. has pretty much ignored the Israel-Paletinian conflict since he took office and this is the result.
The key to ME peace is settling the Israel-Palestinian dispute. Israel and American actions are just fueling more hatred and boosting the popularity of the terrorists.
I used to believe that Israel was being mistreated, but not anymore. All they've done since having their country established in 1948 is steal other countries land and expect them to like it. I wouldn't be surprised if there true intention is to take Lebanese land from the Listani River to their border before this is said and done.
When your ally is doing something wrong like Israel is doing (deliberately targeting civilians in areas where Hezbollah doesn't exist) you need to sit your ally (Israel) down for a chat and demand a cease fire from both sides. Instead, we encourage the bombing and love seeing it go on for at least another two weeks.
If people in northern Lebanon didn't support Hezbollah before they will now because their country is being terrorized by Israel. Hezbolloah did have 40% support mostly in southern Lebanon. I'd be willing to bet they have much more support now.
In other words, our policy is turning the world against both Israel and the U.S.
AIPAC was caught spying on us and yet we still support them and give Israel over $3 B hard earned American dollars every single year.
Cut Israel off until they can negotiate for peace in ernst.
I could go on, but it's useless because I suppose many of you support what Israel is doing regardless.
You must talk to your enemies whether you like it or not, but that is not Bush policy. Hagel is right about that.
Whatever. The bottom line is that the two sides, Arabs and Israelis, are in fact, diametrically opposed to one another.
The United States can avoid condemning one side or the other in a general sense, but it cannot avoid taking sides on particulars.
Any talk that attempts to skirt that fact is nonsense.
Hagel is an ass.
Weldon: I'll take the fact that your post only contained a personal attack--and no argument--as evidence that you, indeed, have no argument.
Matthew writes: "AIPAC's threatening manner indicates to me that Israel's support is also being manufactured, although, obviously not to the extent of Saudi Arabia. Many Americans are committed to Israel. That's fine. I just think the intense lobbying--and the suppresion of alternative views, i.e., limiting Palestinian representatives from traveling around the US--indicates that the level of support is artificial."
Good post, M. Here are some things I'd say: 1) You say that American's support for Israel is "fine." However, on this site and elsewhere, it's not considered fine; it's considered treasonous and even meriting deportation. 2) The intense lobbying is a function of Jewish fear that the State is in jeopardy, not the artificiality of support for it. I believe this fear is overdone But it's not altogether clear that it is, in some ways. It was only in 2002 that the Arab brought itself to offer Israel a cessation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hizbollah and Hamas explicitly call for Israel's destruction in their charters as the PLO did before them. The fact that Hamas uses "small" rockets (as Juan Cole calls them) and Hizbollah uses bigger ones, but not as big as the Israelis' is small comfort. In listening to the debate about proportionality, one almost gets the feeling that folks would feel bettter if Israel, too, used small rockets. Or Hamas had big rockets. But when you feel (and maybe are) fighting for your life, you're not interested in a fair fight.
As you recall, prior to 1970, the US did NOT support Israel all that much, despite intense American Jewish support for it. Nixon (who didn't care too much for Jews) threw his weight behind the state when he discovered that Israel could kick ass on its own in a way that was useful for America. So, in that sense, you're right; American support for Israel isn't a given.
But isn't that true of EVERY cause, just or not? Blacks had to keep pressing even though many, if not most, Americans (and certainly in the south) did NOT support their cause? Did that impugn the rightness or legitimacy of their cause--the fact that they had to fight hard for it? I think this line of argumentation is weak.
3) SA, as you point out, has given huge sums to this country, particularly on college campuses and so the Arab/Palestinian position is gettting a pretty good airing. The destruction in Lebanon and Arab public opinion is getting huge play in the major papers. Even way back in the 1970s, when I was at college at Georgetown, the Saudis were moving in big time with their money. Need we mention Bandar Bush or the Arabs' very own "AIPAC," the oil companies?
4) On this site and elsewhere, it is taken as an article of faith that Israel and a band of Jewish neocons control America's foreign policy. Aside from the fact that this argument is a direct decedent of the charge by noted anti-Semite, Charles Linberg, that it was the Jews who were trying to get the US into WWII--I don't think it stands up to even modest scrutiny. Kosovo was in support of a Muslim population. Gulf War was in support of one, probably two, Arab and Muslim states. And Iraq IMHO was primarily about oil, which means it was about all the oil-producing states in the Gulf. Not protecting Israel (whether Israel or AIPAC supported it or not).
It's a version of the old argument that Jews control the world. Please, how is it possible that .0001% of the population of the US or the world can control the whole of it? It must mean that the rest of the world or US is exceedingly stupid or feckless. Something I don't believe and nor should you.
5) Nor is it clear to me that the US's support for Israel makes it a target for terrorism, again, as has been argued on this site (though not necessarily by you). OBL wanted us out of SA. SA funds the madrassas, etc. Israel (and Jews unfortunately is always the covenient scapegoat when things are going bad.
When I finally read the M&W piece, I was shocked at what a mess it was. A rehash of age-old rants against the Jews and tons of factual errors that have been repudiated.
Hi, very interesting site. I really like it.
http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/board_free_hosting_message/ board free hosting message http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/ecommerce_web_page_development_and_hosting/ ecommerce web page development and hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/free_php_mysql_hosting/ free php mysql hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/free_remote_image_hosting/ free remote image hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/best_web_hosting/ best web hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/video_hosting_provider/ video hosting provider http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/image_hosting_free/ image hosting free http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/domain_hosting_phpbb/ domain hosting phpbb http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/1_dedicated_hosting_solution_web/ 1 dedicated hosting solution web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/asp_asp.net_free_hosting_mysql_web/ asp asp.net free hosting mysql web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/directory_free_hosting_web/ directory free hosting web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/access_asp_free_hosting_web/ access asp free hosting web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/cheap_web_hosting_company/ cheap web hosting company http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/personal_web_hosting/ personal web hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/free_web_hosting_with_php_support/ free web hosting with php support http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/free_hosting_msn_web/ free hosting msn web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/discount_web_hosting/ discount web hosting http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/banner_free_hosting_no_web/ banner free hosting no web http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/web_design_hosting_services/ web design hosting services http://coolhosts.awardspace.com/adult_free_guide.com_hosting_web/ adult free guide.com hosting web
Hoodia Gordonii Plus is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, fat burner and energy enhancer all in one. This is a supplement if you are looking for more than just an appetite suppresent.
Leave a comment: