News

Capt_ayhab

who said Israel is always right. I never said it. It is the double standard by which Israel is being singled out for action committed against it by thugs like Hamas. yet, no one seem to say anything to condemn homicide bombing of Israeli civilians by Hamas and al aqsa.

When they commit such horrible crimes, oh well pundit are quick to remark, These "poor" people are just  "resisting" a non existing (Gaza) occupation. While when Israel mobilizes its forces into Gaza or WB to stop the Pals - then Israel is wrong.

If you wish to live in peace with me, I suggest you to hold Hamas, IRI & Hizbollah  equally responsible for their actions against Israel.

Update

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/03/18/obama-...

Excerpts:

Right now Obama is faced with domestic
economic difficulties greater than he would have thought, during most of his campaign, could conceivably happen as rapidly as they did. But he is also faced with a military-industrial complex that is now pushing
for ever larger military expenditures and more aggressive foreign policies, among other things as a way to help solve US economic
difficulties. In addition to this, Obama is faced with the prospect of an Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu that is even more right-wing than the present one, supported by that portion of the
Israel lobby led by AIPAC. This part of the lobby is probably the strongest ally of the military-industrial complex in supporting more
wars and more aggressiveness in US Middle East policies. Obama showed his support for the lobby throughout his campaign and, most recently, did nothing to oppose the lobby’s successful trashing of Charles Freeman, a fine candidate for a senior intelligence position whom the lobby charged with being anti-Israel. Since a majority of US voters generally support Israel without thinking much about it, the disorganized justice and peace movement in the United States is not very effective in opposing either the military-industrial complex or the right-wing Israel lobby.

Obama has by now clearly shown that he does not want to be the American leader who loses the American empire. In general, most European
governments, most of the Arab governments, and the Japanese government as well, will not oppose him. Public opinion in these countries, in contrast to the governments, will be somewhat stronger in opposing US policies of empire, but it is doubtful that the publics in these countries will be able to accomplish very much.

End Excerpt

-YT

Derakhshandeh

It is appropriate for me to say that I love your civil and insightful arguments. Although we do not agree on some principles but I find your arguments supported and none emotional.

I appreciate it and do not stop sharing your wisdom.

Regards

-YT

mazloom

you are right, entire world lies except Israel, because they are chosen people right? No one else has the right to exist but Israel right?
Just say it and lets be done with it.

How racist

-YT

capt - get real will you.

Here we go again. you littler the blog with a whole cylopedia, which I doubt too many
Enter text here.will read the whole thing.

It is a well know fact Israeli pundits use that famous trick I call the "S & T" (slice & tear) tactic. slice a narrow sentence from your opponents thesis to defeat his own argument. That is an old and discarded trick. I have yet to see any scholar in any civilized country will write a respectable paper questioning the legitimacy of his own country. Israeli scholars are no different.

I will however reply to one causation. "Israel had evicted Arabs from their homes". While it is true many Arabs WERE evicted from their homes. The manner by which they left is hilarious. I already wrote and posted a whole blog to that effect.Here read it again.

//iranian.com/main/blog/mehdi-mazloom/dav...

This is a true story nonetheless.

Derakhshandeh - Gaza & WB

on my book, Gaza & most of WB are Palestinian land. Jerusalem is a unified city,and c the Capital city of Israel, It is however a religious center to Judea and Christianity, and some part of this magnificent city is considered by Muslims as their "3rd holiest place". I will leave it at that.

The only thing remain is for PLO & Israel to negotiate some type of land swap for those large settlements built in WB. Most other ones away from Israel's pre-1967 border should be given back to the Pals, as part of overall peace agreement.

In regard to your claim, Israel considers Gaza as future "resort town". The answer to that, one can find in Hamas's own charter drafted back in 1988. Make sure to read chapters 6,7, 12 & 14.

These fanatic idiots literary shoot themselves on the foot. Giving all the excuses in the world to Israel defeat their dreams of some day to have their own state of Palestine. I encourage you to read that manuscript, then sit back and ask yourself. If I am an Israeli, would I agree to terms and condition which Hamas is stipulating with me to have peace and harmony.? 

Capitan why such long comments?

You can blog about it instead of here.

power of the aipac lobby

For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized
by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United
States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue
to do so? In March 2006 the American political scientists John
Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published
the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In
it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to
support and protect present-day Israel. The documentary sheds light on
both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the
strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it
and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises
to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military
and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
(Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's
influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.
With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby
organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt,
Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson,
Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and
investigative journalist Michael Massing.

-YT

Lets not distort the history

[As patronizing as it may sound. Israelis will not ask the permission,
nor the approval of anyone, whether they are allowed to live on the
land of their ancestors. A land which was accorded to them by UN back
in may 14, 1948. A land which they were evicted from twice before, and
never ever gave up the hope of some day to return to.]

“The first UN General Assembly resolution—Number 194— affirming the
right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed
on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight
times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a
person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is
acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of
return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on
any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be
compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal
before the law with a Jewish Israeli.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

“The fact that the Arabs fled in terror, because of real fear of a
repetition of the 1948 Zionist massacres, is no reason for denying them
their homes, fields and livelihoods. Civilians caught in an area of
military activity generally panic. But they have always been able to
return to their homes when the danger subsides. Military conquest does
not abolish private rights to property; nor does it entitle the victor
to confiscate the homes, property and personal belongings of the
noncombatant civilian population. The seizure of Arab property by the
Israelis was an outrage.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

-YT

Bit of history

“The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the
State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of
it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About
700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send
regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only
the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan.
But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central
command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan’s King Abdullah] promised
[the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the
only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting
with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the
moment when the young state of Israel fought off “the overwhelming
hordes’ of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive
against the Palestinians intensified.” “Our Roots Are Still Alive,” by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

“Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On
December 19, 1940, he wrote: ‘It must be clear that there is no room
for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has
been fine and good in its own time, and could do with ‘land buying’ —
but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all
at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the
Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs
from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except
maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a
single village, not a single tribe’...There were literally hundreds of
such statements made by Zionists.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

“Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was
able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical
separation between the two peoples — achievable only by transfer and
expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to
attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators.
But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: ‘With
compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I
support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it,’” Israel historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

“Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the
Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his
colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October
[1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and
Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion
orders; he preferred that his generals ‘understand’ what he wanted
done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the ‘great expeller’
and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a
morally questionable policy...But while there was no ‘expulsion
policy’, the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by
far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than
the first half of the war.” Benny Morris, “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949”

“Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the
Palestinian exodus of 1948 was ‘self-inspired’. Official circles
implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli
action — whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or
indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin
massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine.
However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set
straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or
political responsibility for the refugee problem it — or its
predecessors — actively created.” Peretz Kidron, quoted in “Blaming the Victims,” ed. Said and Hitchens.

“The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle
Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by
a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum.
There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation
from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside
Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab
appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put.” Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“That Ben-Gurion’s ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab
population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if
only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his
purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the
eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in
the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality,
as promised in the Declaration of Independence.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”

“During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give
permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the
destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of
achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took
Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was
leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely
demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also
leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab
villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable.”
Benny Morris, “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

“The first UN General Assembly resolution—Number 194— affirming the
right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed
on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight
times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a
person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is
acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of
return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on
any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be
compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal
before the law with a Jewish Israeli.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

“The fact that the Arabs fled in terror, because of real fear of a
repetition of the 1948 Zionist massacres, is no reason for denying them
their homes, fields and livelihoods. Civilians caught in an area of
military activity generally panic. But they have always been able to
return to their homes when the danger subsides. Military conquest does
not abolish private rights to property; nor does it entitle the victor
to confiscate the homes, property and personal belongings of the
noncombatant civilian population. The seizure of Arab property by the
Israelis was an outrage.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“[At Lausanne,] Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians were
trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war—a
Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however... [preferred]
tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve
territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of
refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians’ right to
self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main
source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth Of Israel.”

“The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12
May the [UN’s] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only
success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the
framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time
accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the
internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere
exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel’s
international image...Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation,
[stated]..’My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12
May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for
admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been
reported to the Secretary-General and the various governments.’” Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, “The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947-1951.”

“The Preamble of this resolution of admission included a
safeguarding clause as follows: ‘Recalling its resolution of 29
November 1947 (on partition) and 11 December 1948 (on reparation and
compensation), and taking note of the declarations and explanations
made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad
hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said
resolutions, the General Assembly...decides to admit Israel into
membership in the United Nations.’

“Here, it must be observed, is a condition and an undertaking to
implement the resolutions mentioned. There was no question of such
implementation being conditioned on the conclusion of peace on Israeli
terms as the Israelis later claimed to justify their non-compliance.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“The winter of 1949, the first winter of exile for more than seven
hundred fifty thousand Palestinians, was cold and hard...Families
huddled in caves, abandoned huts, or makeshift tents...Many of the
starving were only miles away from their own vegetable gardens and
orchards in occupied Palestine — the new state of Israel...At the end
of 1949 the United Nations finally acted. It set up the United Nations
Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA) to take over sixty refugee
camps from voluntary agencies. It managed to keep people alive, but
only barely.” “Our Roots Are Still Alive” by The Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman,
regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’
but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless
justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and
quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to
make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided
to attack him.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The
Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He
knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

“Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in
1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the
firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and
the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan
Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated]
‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send
a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in
the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would
start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to
advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and
shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and
that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not
a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997

“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce
Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We
shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries
of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no
external factor will be able to limit them.” David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“The main danger which Israel, as a ‘Jewish state’, poses to its own
people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically
motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of
wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever
repudiated Ben-Gurion’s idea that Israeli policies must be based
(within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of
Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state.” Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years.”

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt’s personal diaries, there is
an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows:
“[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument
with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension.
Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this
it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all —
let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may
finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.” Quoted in Livia Rokach, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.”

“Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should
guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with
armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the
borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this
arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of
arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance. As Israeli
troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the
West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel
would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest
would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The
proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. ‘The whole affair
disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. ‘The
Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997.[Ed.—This was one of many such proposals]

“In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52
percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip
for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to
1982, Israel’s military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes
on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were
detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces. “Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation,” ed. Lockman and Beinin.

“Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains
from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other
states to Israel’s occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that
even if Israel’s action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self
determination and hence a ‘serious and increasing threat to
international peace and security.’ “ John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

“A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the
Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that
many families frequently go five days a week without running
water...The study goes further to report that, ‘water quotas restrict
usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli
settlers have almost unlimited amounts.’

“A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean
desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water
inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks
at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement.
Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of
children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality.” Betty Jane Bailey, in “The Link”, December 1996.

“You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or
more have experienced — some many, many times — the [Israeli] army
breaking into the home, beating relatives, destroying things. Many were
beaten themselves, had bones broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had
these things happen to siblings and neighbors...The emotional aspect of
the child is affected by the [lack of] security. He needs to feel safe.
We see the consequences later if he does not. In our research, we have
found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to be more extreme
in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs.” Dr
Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health
Programme, quoted in “The Journal of Palestine Studies,” Summer 1996,
p.84

“There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a
35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal
day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for
his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find
that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli
bulldozer. When I asked why this was done — the land, after all, was
his — I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli
soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where
else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied
them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never
Palestinians. This is apartheid.” Edward Said, in “The Nation”, May 4, 1998.

“The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the
existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of
this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it
finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory.
This prohibition is found in the convention’s Article 49, which states,
‘The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.’” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

“Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:

1988: ‘Many avoidable deaths and injuries’ were caused because
Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not
present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs
and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or
resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to
have died from beatings...’

1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security
personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists
without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been
subdued...

1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published
‘detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of
Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers.” Former Congressman Paul Findley, “Deliberate Deceptions.”

“Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser
points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day
War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command
Chief Rehavan Ze’evi. The line he drew ‘took in not only the five
square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem — but also 65 square
kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which
never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part
of Israel’s eternal and indivisible capital.’” Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.

//www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

-YT

Mehdi we don't have much to exchange

In this thread in terms of "occupied land" Gaza and dotted West Bank are not Israeli lands, are they?

Perhaps Israel considers them future Israeli resort towns but at the moment they are inhabited by Palestinias with Israeli tanks running through the streets at their discretion.

Derakhshandeh - speaking of "occupied land"

well my good man / woman. you seem to allude that the enire state  of Israel is an occupied land. Please correct me if  I am wrong. If you think  in those term, you and I as an Israeli have nothing to exchange.

As patronizing as it may sound. Israelis will not ask the permission, nor the approval of anyone, whether they are allowed to live on the land of their ancestors. A land which was accorded to them by UN back in may 14, 1948. A land which they were evicted from twice before, and never ever gave up the hope of some day to return to.

I could go on and on demonstrating to you that, the  same land which you call "occupied" was not legally owned by the Arabs who were living in mud houses before many of them were stupid and listened to their leaders back in 1948 to pack and leave their homes. A tragic war which they had waged n 1 day old Israel, and lost.

If you wish to know the real occupation in the ME. It is the 1400 year old occupation of hate and intolerance of non-Muslims, Sense of hopelessness and oppression instilled in the heart and mind of innocent Muslim throughout the region by their own religious leaders.

Mehdi you are cherry picking

Yes you agreed with some of the things I said but you go on to say that a "few" condemed Israel. I disagree.

You think the wars in Lebanon and Gaza makes Israel a safer place. I disagree.

You think Isarel can defend itself. I say hogwash. Free billions of aid dollars every year is for interior decorating?

The question of how much is too much should be asked of Israel. How many wars are enough to get serious about peace?

7000 rockets? This cycle of violence is not going to stop with the same policies. In case you are forgetting Israel is the occupier and they occupy the land where the rockets come from! No one else drives tanks through these areas - the refugee camps.

Israel is practically breeding homemade terrorists in their occupied lands.

Double messages from Derakhshandeh

At first you wrote:

On the common sense side when you have a nut case like Ahmadinejad
saying Holocaust is a myth and shake hand with David Duke in their own
Holocaust seminar you're lobbying against yourself. Clearly that is
ammuniation for AIPAC. That is like free publicity. An advantage that
money can't buy. Priceless!

What do you think I was saying?. This exactly what I wrote. No one does better job on behalf of Israel and its supporters then the idiots in Tehran Gaza & Beirut.

Israel and AIPAC just want USA to go to war for them (like Iraq) so that they do not have to spend the aid money USA gives them.

Israel never asked, nor expected anyone to fight military combat to protect itself against its enemies. 2003 war on Iraq was not waged to "fight for Israel". We all know by now Bush's own motives to invade Iraq. Oil, personal vendetta against Saddam, or whatever. Israel was not one of them. Israel is perfectly capable to defend itself against any hostile enemies. 

The recent wars Israel has initiated in Lebanon and Gaza destroying
their infratructure and in their own words, turn their clock back more
than a decade, is horrible and unjust. As condemned worldwide.

perhaps you and other pundits should be reminded that, it was Hizbollah, and Hamas which declared their intent to destroy Israel. It was their thugs who crossed the Israeli border in 2006 and kidnaps Israeli solders, not the other way. 

Yes, Israel was "condemned" by few. At the same time, the same people also seem to be totally apathetic to the suffering of Palestinian who provoke the Israelis in the first place.

In regards to Gaza. After all, it is you who constantly ask the question "how much is too much". And my question is "when enough is enough?" Does 8 years of constant provocations and 7000 rockets onto Israeli cities and towns constitute "enough is enough", before Israel was forced to go in and try to stop the senseless rockets.

One important element many of you need to realize that, it is the methodology by which a small group of extremist is able to terrorist large portion of civilian population, which Israel is trying to fight and discourage. Today it is Israel, tomorrow it could be any other state.

If this type of warfare is allowed to continue, no one will be immunes to it. And if you think Iran itself could not face the same ominous prospect, think again.

This type of cheap and inexpensive and insidious warfare must be met with harsh measure to discourage other would be "liberators" from even think of using them in other places throughout the world. Period.

Israel lobby or AIPAC is't

Israel lobby or AIPAC is't important "news" in the media. First of all loyalty to Israel is a litmus test like Abortion litmus test in all political elections and appointees.

How many times did you hear news anchors time and time again ask the candidtates, what about Israel, will we go to war if Iran attacks Israel, and so on. No one even talks about Freeman on the news! Where have you heard anyone talk about it in TV? or cable?

This lobby is not going to change. We need to go to plan B. Perhaps find someone with less rhetoric. Perhaps someone like George Mitchell.

Derakhshandeh

Don't mind Agha Mehdi, he repeats that like on every thread.

Back to the subject, as I said I have no problem with issues you raise regarding the possible [harm] from ANY lobby group. take a look at this latest from LA Times.

//www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-...

What i like for you to glance over are the comments in particular.

Excerpts:

» Discuss Article

(40 Comments)

Pity the poor readers whose exposure to the Chas Freeman appointment brouhaha was limited to The Times’ March 12 editorial.
Not only would they be under the mistaken notion that the entire
controversy was a proxy fight between those who "believe that Israel
should be immune from criticism" and those more enlightened. They'd
also have no inkling whatsoever that many of Freeman's critics took
issue with what the would-be National Intelligence Council chairman has
said about two far less liberal countries with nary a kibbutz between
them: Saudi Arabia and China.

The Times editorialized: "Vehement objections came from several of
Israel's most loyal supporters in Congress, from some journalists and
lobbyists known for their strong support of the Jewish state, and from
other members of what some would no doubt call, well, the Israel
lobby." That description leaves out a few people. For instance, a
non-insignificant Californian named Nancy Pelosi, who, Newsweek reported,
"was incensed about public remarks that Freeman once made that seemed
to justify the violent 1989 Chinese government crackdown on democracy
protesters at Tiananmen Square."

What non-L.A. Times-reported remarks were those? Try this:
"For myself, I side on this ... with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not
believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its
national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the
normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their
propaganda may be." Bonus points for those who recognize the
endorsement of America's shameful Bonus Army episode.

Freeman and his hyperbolic supporters claimed, lamely, that such quotations were  being taken "out of context," a charge ABC News' Jake Tapper rightly termed "perplexing,"
since "so much of what critics objected to were Freeman's statements,
in full context." Because the vast majority of this debate took place far away from the august pages of newspapers, hyperlinks to original sources were the rule, not the exception. And as the Washington Post's Charles Lane observed, reading whole speeches didn't help. There are only so many times one can stomach praise for Saudi "introspection" juxtaposed to the bashing of American lack thereof without wondering, at minimum, about a man's analytical skills.

Was this all about "the Israel Lobby," as Freeman charged in a ranting, paranoiac, post-resignation statement that The Times merely characterized as "blunt"? Ask Human Rights Watch. Or maybe these 87 Chinese dissidents. Or those of us who have been tracking the nauseating commentary from former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia
for quite some time now. It really is possible to object to an
individual on an individual basis, without concern for where he stands
on the future of East Jerusalem.

By portraying this solely as a debate over the debate over Israel, The
Times paradoxically narrows the, well, debate. Readers deserve better.

1. this is more damage control by the israeli lobby.they are obsessed
with keeping this "special relationship" with the u.s. going
strong.they get to steal more land (settlements),free weapons from
us,largest recipient of our foreign aid of any country.this tail
wagging the dog act really has to stop.freeman would be a balance to
our lopsided support of israel.
thank you L.A. Times
Submitted by: patrick stringer
3:41 PM PDT, Mar 16, 2009

2. I see you got your 30 pieces of silver for this nonsense, huh Matt!
Submitted by: Uncle Ernie
1:35 PM PDT, Mar 16, 2009

3. I think your comments are way off the mark. Watch this video--this man is not a "ranting paranoiac".
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=e88M2RUfSWs
Submitted by: hana
1:10 PM PDT, Mar 16, 2009

4. I am VERY surprised this appears in the LA TIMES. Being first cousin
to the NY TIMES, I figured the TIMES of LA would not allow any sensible
comments about the august, erudite, and totally arrogant and wrong
headed Freeman appear within its hallowed and bankrupt pages. KUDOS to
LA TIMES for picking up on this. MAYBE there is some small chance that
newspapers might once again report facts rather than left wing opinion
ONLY.
Surprised....very surprised!

5. If we're worried about Saudi ties, why is Hillary Sec of State? Bill
Clinton accepted far more money from Saudi sources than Freeman, yet
she's OK for a far higher position. But she would "obliterate" Iran on
behalf of Israel.
Since when is diplomatic service in Muslim countries grounds for
disqualifying one from moving to a higher position in public service?
That is Welch's point. Freeman served in Saudi Arabia; thus, he's unfit
to serve elsewhere in the US gov't. If Freeman had been as critical of
Saudi Arabia, would Welch have objected? Of course not. Only the most
disarming used-car salesman could say yes with a straight face.

6. Chas Freemans withdrawal was precipitaded by the assault of the
Lobby. The allegations regarding China and the Saudis are a smokescreen.

7. Who did or does Charles Freeman work for? I thought that he was paid
from a Saudi foundation?
I am sure that would not prevent him from being biased in reviewing
intelligence from that region. Nor has he ever been critical of any of
the Arab states. But he did not mind expressing his thoughts about
Israel.

8.
Matt, I believe the truth of the matter is well known in this instance.

9. Mr. Welch has chosen to ignore the fact that the push to dislodge
Chas Freeman came from individuals and organizations that exist
primarily to support and defend Israel. As such it is not unreasonable
to conclude that they were concerned about his view vis-a-vis Israel.

10.
If you believe this mularky, yuo'll also believe the moon is made out of green cheese.

-YT

I do not agree with Mehdi

I do not agree with Mehdi Mazloom's summarization of my comments. It is a half hazzard way of blaming Israeli's wrong policies, which harms themselves, on Palestinians, Hezbollah and IRI.

Israel and AIPAC just want USA to go to war for them (like Iraq) so that they do not have to spend the aid money USA gives them.

The recent wars Israel has initiated in Lebanon and Gaza destroying their infratructure and in their own words, turn their clock back more than a decade, is horrible and unjust. As condemned worldwide.

"Anytime a lobby group can

"Anytime a lobby group can buy and sell legislature body, i.e senators and house members, anytime they can sway [domestic] policy which in long run harms the interest of US citizens, i,e, [prescription drug] war, possible [healthcare reform] war, then it is way too big."

Sounds familiar? It is not AIPAC. The issues in bracket are just one of many. Put all lobby groups together, foreign and domestic, which lobby is the most powerful? Hint, it is not AIPAC.

Washington Post is definately not "ultra conservative". If you look at candidates they've endorsed they have almost always been Democractic, be it national or local.

The point about Ahmadinejad is beaten to death. Does Limbaugh want Obama to fail? Wipe Israel off the map was just the icing on the cake.

Smear tactic on Freeman while unjust is nothing new. Again, remember smear tactic on Hillary, as the First Lady, during her healthcare reform initiative.

The point is AIPAC lobby is strong because it can. NIAC has admittedly fashioned itself after AIPAC. They don't lobby IRI but when it comes to peddling influence they want what AIPAC has and in at least one occasion, dissuading Congress in rejecting the Straight of Hormuz resolution backed by AIPAC and Obama himself, they were successful.

Capt - Hamas in their own words.

Derakhshandeh went through rather lengthy monologue and tried to explain to you in plain language, that true Iranian patriots, have lot more to worry about the future of Iran, then worry about a group in one country 17,000 km away, which lobbies for another country 1200 km from Iran's own borders. How does it affect the standard of living in Iran?. 

Your obession with Israel take the better part of your coherent judgmental. You look at the trees, and miss seeing the Forrest. Just imagine, if the Akhooda would get off their pompous ass, and form peace and full diplomatic relationship with all its neighbors. Then take the role of mediator (like Egypt & Turkey) and peace maker between the Israelis and the Arab, Iran strategic and economical condition would have bee much much batter then, today.

As Derakhshandeh aptly alluded that, no one in this world does a better job at lobbying the rest of the world on behalf of Israel, then Hamas, Hizbollah and more then anyone else - Mullahs in Iran. After all these idiots talk about their intent to commit another holocaust on the "Zionists". That is the very reason no one gives a hoot to their bogus cry of victims and deprived by the Israelis - even if some of their cry on behalf of the Pals is true.

These Mullahs harm the casue of the Pals, even more then the right wing elements in Israel could ever dream of. 

In my jusdgment, with their stupidity, Hamas acts like an agent of the Israeli Mossad. They are hell bent of destroying the PALESTINIAN dream of haveing their own state.

You are missing

You are missing the point here. 

1. I am referring to Ahmadinejad alleged statement about [Wiping out Israel from map] . take a look at this video and you will see my point.

As to his statement regarding gays, he did make that statement, I saw the interview myself, but that is totally irrelevant to  this thread. That subject has nothing to do with AIPAC's smear tactics on Freeman, does it?

2. On issue of Washington Post, that is true that once in a blue moon they might publish something near truth, but generally speaking they are ultra conservative to say the least.

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Notice the writer of the article.

How big is too big?

Anytime a lobby group can buy and sell legislature body, i.e senators and house members, anytime they can sway foreign policy which in long run harms the interest of US citizens, i,e, Iraq war, possible Iran war, then it is way too big.

-YT

"I am not going to get into

"I am not going to get into the dialogue of whether Ahmadinejads words been taken out of context or not."

No they have not. His exact words and intent was that Holocaust is a myth regardless of what has happened since Holocaust. Same is true about we don't have gays in Iran. The guy doesn't even backtrack.

"But even if it was not, then they would have found something else to demonize Iran with." Well they didn't so let's go with what they used.

I'm not saying they are not sinister and the Freeman case is not a good case. It is out there for everyone to see. It is a big lobby. How big? Again how big is too big?

Do Israeli and American interests always match? Do Tobacco industry and American interests always matched? Do healthcare industry and American interests always match?

Washington Post is not an AIPAC mouthpiece. I have read several editorials against AIPAC. I believe their editorials are pretty much same as here. You have both pro and against Israelis.

I am definately against Israeli policies and against support for such policies. My point is to ourselves about stop fixating on AIPAC and how much power they have. They have a lot of power, both legitimate and illigitimate. Now what? That's all I have to say here.

Now if someone says I am pro-Israeli then you know whose interest s/he is pro about!

video

-YT

Derakhshandeh Jan

Another interesting blog about AIPAC, I specially recommended the comments:

//current.com/items/89888057/obama_caves_to_i...

-YT

I doubt it as well

Israel has proven time and time again that its existence depends on having an evil out there that is working on destroying them. I am not going to get into the dialogue of whether Ahmadinejads words been taken out of context or not. But even if it was not, then they would have found something else to demonize Iran with.

I have been following the Freeman case, not because I am personally found of him, but because it has taken such an ugly shape. It is one of those cases that American interests has taken back seat to Israeli interest. And sad part is that Obama been so silent about it.

I recall, as you mentioned, one of his platforms was to rid the legislature form Lobbying groups. Question is, whether we will be alive to see it?

-YT

P/S, knowing that Washington Post is the biggest mouthpiece to AIPAC, I suggest you taking a look at its articles, and most importantly comments that are lefts by readers, which are mostly American and guys like myself.

Latest on Freeman Case

//www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=95...

Bob Dreyfuss has a postmortem on the scuttling by the Israel lobbies of the Chas Freeman appointment
to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. Dreyfuss
shows that well-known figures in the Israel lobbies openly led the
charge against Freeman, crowed at how they had succeeded, and then
simultaneously denied their own existence. He argues that the lobbies
were forced out into the open, which is bad for them, since lobbies
thrive in obscurity. And he foresees their problems in shaping the
Obama administration’s policies toward Israel, as well as great
difficulties in putting lipstick on the pig of the forthcoming
Netanyahu-Lieberman government, which consists of soft fascists and
outright racists.

Dreyfuss is a long-time observer of the
Neoconservatives and of the less savory activities of the Israel
lobbies, but he is likely wrong.

The Israel lobbies and the
Neoconservative element among them in particular want the US to do to
Iran what it did to Iraq, i.e. attack it, put it to the flames, and
break its legs for decades to come.

The National Intelligence
Estimates of the 16 US intelligence agencies on Iran of 2005 and 2007
were greeted with howls of outrage by the Israel lobbies. The first
concluded that Iran was at least a decade from having the technical
capacity to create a nuclear weapon, even if the international
community let it freely import all the equipment it would need for that
endeavor. The second concluded that there is no good evidence Iran even
has a nuclear weapons program at all, or has done any weapons-related
experiments since early 2003. (That is, the likelihood is that Tehran
was afraid of Saddam’s (non-existent) program, which the US had hyped,
and gave up the experiments when they saw that he was about to be
overthrown).

Freeman would have been in charge of editing future National Intelligence Estimates. As Andrew Sullivan rightly hinted, the Israel lobbies did not want someone there so unsympathetic to their conviction that Iran
is an imminent and existential threat to Israel, and so unlikely to
report out conclusions that would underpin a US war on Iran, or US
permission to Israel to strike Iran. The NIC chairman’s tenure can last
for a decade, and the Israel lobbies’ best hope for a war on Iran would
come if the Republicans regained the presidency and at least the Senate
in 2012. They would want cooked-up NIEs ready to go, as the deeply
flawed 2002 Iraq NIE supported that war.

As for the idea that
the Israel lobbies have been weakened by the affair, that does not
follow. They have been operating in the open for decades. They
torpedoed George Ball for secretary of state way back in the Carter
administration, and everyone knew it then and knows it now. AIPAC set
up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy explicitly to offset
the then perceived even-handedness toward Israel of Brookings, and
WINEP directors went on to hold highly influential and even decisive
positions in the Clinton and W. Bush administrations. WINEP head Dennis
Ross has a position in the Obama administration related to Iran policy,
even though the WINEP web page hosted articles urging the bombing of
Iran. These appointments are not made despite the WINEP connection, but
because of it.

The strength of these lobbies comes from their
passionate commitment to their cause, from excellent organizing skills,
and from their ability to unify around it across religious and
ideological boundaries, and above all from ability to leverage support
serially on issues from likely allies. Thus, the leadership can arrange
for millions of protest emails to be sent by evangelical Christians as
well as by Jewish congregations. The New Republic takes the same side
as Commentary. They succeed even though their most passionate projects
are not supported, and are even opposed, by probably a majority of the
American Jewish community. I doubt much hangs on money per se; real
lobbying is often a relatively inexpensive affair. But
behind-the-scenes concurrence of big players like the
military-industrial complex on the desirability for a war is crucial if
you are a lobby trying to get up a war for other reasons. They are very
good at getting their way, and can think and plan carefully a good
decade out, and have virtually no effective opposition, which is the
real secret of their strength. Did Obama get even 5,000 emails
complaining that he did not stand by Freeman? And that would be a tiny
number compared to what Freeman’s opponents can muster.

Since it
is obvious that the Israel lobbies are working toward a war on Iran,
and since I believe that a US or Israeli war on Iran would have
extremely damaging effects on the US and on Israel, I am very worried
about these lobbies’ efficacy and proven track record in accomplishing
their goals.

Gen. Jones should seek someone as level-headed on these issues as Freeman who has not expressed himself so publicly.

End Article

-YT

Lobby groups lobb!

Yes the groups you mentioned, such as NRA, earlier tobacco lobby, defense industry lobby, coal mining lobby, oil lobby, porn lobby, alchohol lobby, healtcare, insurance, at one time underground and above ground IRA lobby and others; all lobby.

The lobbying issue always come up in the elections and then it is the same dog and pony show again. This time Obama is restricting Govt employees not to become lobbyists again until one year after their Govt employment ends. One year?! whoppie! Lobby problems solved.

From lobbysts perspective, they represent jobs and what is more important in American politics than jobs? These days American jobs are proven to be the barometer for entire world economy. Seriously.

Now as I said some lobby groups such as tobacco lobby, once the most powerful lobby, have to abandon their lobbying because being overcome by events. Has Israeli lobby reached its limit? No. For as long as there is a chant of Death to America there is little or no ear for listening.

There are some lobby groups such as PETA or environmentalist who have little money and can't buy their way up. From time to time Washington politicians throw them a bone for photo ops.

We are more sensitive to this Israel issue because it affects us and we are more familiar with it. You ask a Swedish-American or Mexican-American or Australian-American does Israeli lobby groups have too much power they are likely to say no. They have their own issues which we don't know about.

Derakhshandeh jan

Your point is well taken, particularly when it comes to us Iranians blaming others for our problems.

However my question was to influence of lobby group as a whole, and AIPAC in particular when it comes to US policies, whether being internal or external policies.

Lobbying, in my opinion is nothing but legal bribery. In the case of hardcore Israeli supporters, AIPAC owns these politicians. Any time I read about these guys[AIPAC] it reminds me of a scene from The Godfather, where him and the TURK[drug dealer] were talking about his power and he says[you have all the politicians and police in your pocket].

Take other lobby groups, such as NRA[Gun Lobbying group] or Tobacco lobby, and etc. These lobby groups pay large sums of money to the campaigns of the politicians, and once they are elected, they are expected to return the favor. In most cases, these favors do work against public interest, which we have seen time and time again.

In the case of AIPAC,  money is not the only mean that is used as power toll, but dirty tactics, as we see in the case of Chas Freeman. AIPAC is so notorious, even late Shah spoke against them. 

//iranian.com/main/blog/capt-ayhab/late-s...

It seems though, by glancing in the blogs, that public is becoming aware of the amount of the powers these lobbying group exert over US politicians. Most notably are the comments and blogs in Washington Post.

-YT

Whether or not Israeli lobby

Whether or not Israeli lobby has too much influence is based on how much influence a lobby can buy. A lobby is based on both monetary (for politicians) and basic common sense.

On the common sense side when you have a nut case like Ahmadinejad saying Holocaust is a myth and shake hand with David Duke in their own Holocaust seminar you're lobbying against yourself. Clearly that is ammuniation for AIPAC. That is like free publicity. An advantage that money can't buy. Priceless!

It is very difficult for any American politician to side with Iran. Even when Obama talks about political dialogue with Iran he is the one taking the initiative and biting the bullet. Iran is well Iran. Let's not taroof.

Now on the subject of lobby money; since money does find influence it is not a surprise, it shouldn't be. How much should the politicians like Schumer or Emanuel swim in money? How much is too much?

Capitan jaan I sincerely believe it is time we Iranians inside and outside Iran put this conspiracy and AIPAC lobby politics aside. We should concentrate in trying our own approachments. The fact that Israel and US have a special relationship is well known in the world.

So bottom line unless Iran and others get off their high manbars no one in their right mind is going to side with them. Blaming others for our own shortcomings while may be true, does not answer Zakaria's question. I believe the answer to his question is no. If Iran, Palestinians and other Arab countries had accepted Israel with open arms do you think AIPAC would still be spending this much money lobbying? It would be a moot issue!

Derakhshandeh jan

You question has at least 2 possible answers. One would be my own personal assessment, and the second would be from national political perspective.

I by no means am an expert in the arena. With that in mind, anytime any organization which can wield so much power which can intimidate politicians, or easily as in this case can run an unfair smear tactics then one can comfortably say that YES it has amassed too much power.

From national political view, I did watch the Fareed's show on CNN and i enjoyed it very much. allow me to post some excerpt from another article that might shed some light on the matter:

//www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/...

[....This coordinated attack fits Aipac’s modus operandi to a tee.  First, you will probably not hear the group’s name directly associated with the assault.  The phone calls go from Aipac headquarters to their mostly Republican minions on the Hill.  But it’s entirely possible that unlike the Manchurian Candidate, Aipac doesn’t even need to activate
their operatives.  They’ve been so indoctrinated that the Congress
members know what is expected of them and they start the campaign themselves.

And by the by, Jim Lobe notes that most of the seven Congress members who signed a letter asking for an investigation of Freeman were heavy recipients of pro-Israel campaign donations closely affiliated with Aipac.

Even Chuck Schumer, now New York’s leading pro-Israel political leader after Hillary’s promotion to State, is getting in on the act.  He picked up the phone to call his good friend and fellow pro-Israel Dem., Rahm Emanuel, to rail about Freeman  What’s especially significant about Schumer’s involvement is that until now the opposition was led by straight neo-con Republican forces and
the pro-Israel right: Steve Rosen, Michael Goldfarb, the Republican Jewish Coalition, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mark Kirk, Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin, etc.  Schumer is the first Democratic leader to get into the tussle.

This is Aipac laying down a marker, telling Obama that if he wants to stray from the fold on Israel this is what he can expect: war by
attrition and death of policy by a thousand paper cuts.  The Israel lobby desperately wants to slow down the train that is Obama’s Israel policy.  They don’t want it to get to its destination and they’re willing to throw Chas. Freeman under the wheels as part of a long-term strategy.

End Excerpt

Other Links: //theplumline.whorunsgov.com/white-house/schu...

//www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid...

//aipac.capwiz.com/bio/id/402

//crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/lone-israel...

-------------------------------

Record is crystal clear about Steve Rosen, who is under indictment for espionage AGAINST America . It is such a total shame for these high caliber Senators to be in bed with a known Israeli spy.

Hope I answered your question, now will you kindly share your thoughts with me?

Regards

-YT

capitan answer this question

Listening to the show and all the rest that you have read, do you believe groups that lobby on behalf of Israel have too much influence? Or do you think this is a bogus, even scurrilous charge?

This is the question of the week in CNN. The followup show is next Sunday 1 and 5 PM ET.

//www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps...

My answer is somewhere in between. If US wants Israeli lobby to influence them it is their choice. AIPAC is certainly lobbying. Too much? How much is too much?