It particularly bugs me that Christian fundamentalists who want to use Jews as pawns of biblical Armageddon prophesies resulting in horrific wars count as "pro-Israel", under that reading of the term.
The article to which you linked made the following reasonable point: military strikes that won't, in all likelihood, destroy Iran's nuclear program, but will, in all likelihood, destroy international support for sanctions on the country, entrench the more radical factions in Tehran, and make future conflicts in the Middle East more, rather than less, likely are likely not in Israel's interest and thus one is not necessarliy pro-Israel by advocating them.
What I do not see is how this means that AIPAC is necessarily wrong to focus on "military threats to Isreal." Such threats exist and have existed for decades; indeed, the only reason Isreal continues to exist despite the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars is that it and its allies took those threats seriously.
I agree with you if your point is that military power is not the only thing needed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I think you are mistaken to say that AIPAC "conflates safety with the ability to blow things up;" if it is mistaken, it is because it has "conflat[ed] safety with the ability to" stop other people from blowing "things up" in Israel.
The last half of the post itself, I think, offers an argument about what's wrong with focusing on militarism, Ideal.
As Andrew Bacevich points out in his terrific book The New American Militarism, preemptive and preventative wars makes strategic sense for Israel. But it's a mindblowingly insane strategy for the United States to adopt - and detrimental to Israel if the US adopts it.
I think the mistake is to give a fuck who's pro-Israel. The people best situated to figure that out are Israelis. If people want to argue with various representatives of the Israeli popular opinion about whether various US policies are good for Israel, they should definitely do so. But strong claims about our ability to judge what's good for Israel strike me as not compelling. We're better situated to sort out what's good for the US.
You don't seem to grasp the mind-set. Ever since Abe had his hallucinations subsequent hallucinators have insisted we adopt their beliefs or die. We've tried staying apart and that works for a little while and then someone tries to kill us or kick us out. We've tried assimilating and that works for a little while and then someone tries to kill us or kick us out. We've learned that we had better self-identify as our most dangerous enemy identifies us. We've learned that someone's boot is always on someone else's neck and it's better to be wearing the boot.
Given the history of the 20th century, the geographics, and the demographics, a modern Sparta supported by the diaspora makes perfect and inevitable sense. It will work for a little while, and then someone will try to kill us or kick us out. Then we'll try something else after the radiation levels drop.
I think its absurd to read AIPAC and ADL/SPLC influence on US political discourse as anything other that supportive of the most right-wing, militaristic and racist strains of Israeli politics. What's their position on settlements? On Israeli nuclear weapons? On extrajudicial assassinations? On administrative detention without trial? On interrogation techniques that frequently constitute torture under the Geneva Convention? On aggressive war? On every single one of those issues, AIPAC/ADL is significantly to the right, not only of mainstream US opinion, but also of mainstream Israeli opinion. As we've said here before, and as others have said many other places, it's ridiculous to look at the political tendency described above as seeking peace, unless by "peace" we mean an iron heel perpetually on the Palestinian neck.
I was confused by the "ability to blow things up" part. I would agree with Idealist here that Israel needs to preserve their ability to blow things up for national survival. There's a large gap between that and actually blowing things up, which is decidedly not in their interest.
What SCMT says in 5 is certainly quite true.
Ogged:
It concedes far too much to call AIPAC "pro-Israel." What it is "pro-" is the maximum politically feasible use of American-Israeli military force.
We've learned that someone's boot is always on someone else's neck and it's better to be wearing the boot. Given the history of the 20th century, the geographics, and the demographics, a modern Sparta supported by the diaspora makes perfect and inevitable sense.
AIPAC: Jewish Nationalist.
Or Jewish Militarist.
Or Jewish (mildly!) Expansionist (the practical effect).
Or Jewish Fascist. (Note: Nazi > Fascist. Look it up.)
m, war is the health of the state
Tsk: (Note: Nazi <> Fascist. Look it up.)
Also: Ever since Abe had his hallucinations
First though: 'Who? Abe Foxman? ... Abe Lincoln? ... ... Oooo, Abraham hisownself.'
m, whoopsie
11: Heh. I went through the same three names in the same order.
Suppose I believe that all government jobs should be apportioned by ethnic/racial background according to their respective proportion in the population. Thus, if 20% of the working-age population self-identifies in the U.S. Census as Black or African-American, 20% of all government jobs should be given to self-identified Black or African-American applicants. Then I would be about as "pro-diversity" as AIPAC is "pro-Israel."
When I said "New thread please!" in the last thread I didn't mean a new thread about Israel, for god's sake. New thread please!
Can I just hate on Peyton Manning, briefly, here? Thanks.
I've got a post queued up, just for you, slol.
Nazi > Fascist
I know those two words are supposed to clinch an argument, and they might if I understood your point. Which is?
If the current Israeli thinking is anything like that of the embassy people I met years ago, they'll do whatever they think it takes to survive as a state right where it is. And when I say "whatever", I mean nothing is beyond consideration. Given they are locked into military solutions and so are their opponents, it doesn't need genius to see where that's leading.
this is one of many reasons why I wish people would call AIPAC "AIPAC" or "AIPAC and similar organizations" instead of "the Israel Lobby" or "the Lobby."
Granted, there are other groups, but "the Israel Lobby" rubs a lot of very liberal anti-Likud Jewish people the wrong way due to its assoc. with the (IMO very bad) paper of the same name.
Given they are locked into military solutions and so are their opponents,
Oh, I say, but, dash it! You can't mean to say that you're unaware of the gigantic and well-financed Palestinian propaganda machine, the one that funds trips to the Occupied Territories for children, academics and politicians? The organizations that buy ad space in every issue of The Atlantic and Newsweek? The relentless barrage of diplomatic pressure on all of the great powers, designed to shame them into unquestioning support of each Palestinian outrage based on their previous reluctance to listen to Palestinian pleas? Why, those are just a few of the many non-military options that Israel's opponents employ!
22: All means to get the tools, It's boots and bombs that do the work. If rationality had anything to do with it, Herzl would have picked to Galveston. All else follows.