Look, I've had my disagreements with Jim Moran over the years. For instance, I strongly disagree with his sponsorship of a really, really bad bankruptcy bill. I don't like his strong support for so-called "free trade" agreements. I didn't like his flippant comments about how, if he became chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies he would proceed to "earmark the shit out of it."Overall, though, I think Jim Moran has done a very good job for his district, for federal workers, and for America. Which is why I was concerned when I opened the newspaper this morning and read Colbert King essentially calling Moran an anti-Semite (for criticizing the right-wing "pro-Israel" group AIPAC).
Look, I'm pro-Israel. But I'm pro-Israel like most American Jews, from a liberal point of view -- a two-state solution, Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank, peace and security guaranteed for everyone in the neighborhood. On these issues, and also on the Iraq War, AIPAC is often out of step with the majority --- even the VAST majority -- of American Jews. For instance, a Gallup poll in February 2007 indicated that Jewish Americans were the religious group in America most strongly opposed to the Iraq War. In contrast, AIPAC has appeared gung-ho about the war since the beginning. AIPAC also is very much in sync with the Bush Administration and the right-wing Likud in Israel, very much unlike the vast majority of American Jews. Actually, AIPAC is far, far closer to the views of conservative Christians on Israel than it is to the views of American Jews.
Anyway, getting back to Jim Moran: were his remarks in the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun anti-Semitic? I suggest you read them for yourself, but personally I didn't find anything particularly offensive. But here's where some people, especially AIPAC supporters, might have taken offense:
...Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans. But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful-most of them are quite wealthy-they have been able to exert power.
Essentially, Moran's argument is that AIPAC is not in tune with the vast majority of American Jews. With regard to the Iraq War and to AIPAC's support for the Bush Adminsistration, Moran is correct. Now, as far as the "wealthy" comment, that comes uncomfortably close to classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, but in this case it looks to me like Moran is specifically referring to AIPAC, not to American Jews in general. Same thing with Moran's reference to the media influence; again, he seems to be referring specifically to AIPAC, not to American Jews in general.
In sum, I don't see any anti-Semitism here. Do I agree with Moran's votes regarding Israel? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But do I think Jim Moran is an anti-Semite? Unlike President Bush, I don't have the ability to look into peoples' hearts and souls, but based on Moran's remarks to Tikkun, I don't see any evidence to support such a claim.
AIPAC's not going away, and I don't see any constitutional way for AIPAC to be prevented from trumpeting its views. There's a lot that could be done to reform the financing of campaigns (I'm a public funding guy myself). Ultimately, of course, it's up to the voters. It really doesn't take much effort to educate oneself on the issues. If people did a little more thinking for themselves, their votes would be more aligned with their interests, and we wouldn't have the types of conundrums (conundra?) that confound Moran to the point where he says things that offend. For an extreme (and extremely funny) example of such a conundrum, check out maxblumental.com's video at a conference of pro-Israel evangelical Christians.
I'm mainly trying to solicit good things about Moran, seriously. I deplore the positions of AIPAC, and I'm probably to the left of Lowell on Israel. Though I was raised Jewish, I'm not particularly religious. I don't think I'm self-loathing. In any event, bash me if you will, but I think if Dems don't arrange for a cushy retirement for Moran, his eventual departure may be under circumstances more detrimenal to the party, nationally and in VA.
After his clumsy comments a few years back blaming Jewish leaders for the Iraq War, he should've stopped while he was ahead and dropped the issue, forever.
I agree with Moran on many issues, but the man spends so much time with his foot in his mouth that I don't understand how he can walk.
And then there is AIPAC, funded in part by, and endlessly supported by corporate big money interests, even public officials like Senator Lieberman Iwho attends evangelical conventions). Evangelical support of AIPAC hinges on AIPAC support of the rightwing Likud party's effort to establish a Greaater Isarael, which Likud regards as the God-given birthright of Jews, and the evangelicals regard as a precursor to Armageddon and the Second Coming. Who is using whom here?
I agree with Lowell, that Moran said nothing anti-Semitic. I also am concerned that he may be on the downard slope politically speaking, after all these years, for many reasons. However, he has been a strong (if not ALWAYS consistent) voice for progressive issues, he has enormous Congressional experience, is a canny manipulator of the House of Representative's arcane procedural rules, and at this crucial juncture in our constitutional history he is very much worth keeping.
There is the question of succession, however, since we are all being frank here. Succession is a delicate question, and applies across the board to every office. One of management's primary functions, I always say, is to train their own replacement--- and then get the heck out of the way so the trainee can move up and replace oneself. Training someone to become one's successor in elective office is a problem we need to work out, and not just for Moran.
The trial of Rosen and Weissman will expose Americans to AIPAC in a way that the Franklin trial only hinted at. Together with the Iraqi disaster, the Palestine disaster, and the drumbeat to war in Iran Israel is endangered by the coming backlash against Israel's meddling in the security of the United States. Any non-Jew that dares speak out against the reach of AIPAC is reflexively labeled anti-Semite. Which should tell you something about the authoritarian leanings of this group. Any US Congressman's staff can tell you how much "wealth" AIPAC can maneuver, for, and against an American politician. No other lobby has so much power over US foreign policy - bad policy as we see.
Whatever benefits that AIPAC delivered to Israel and the Jewish people in general - they have over-reached and out-lived their usefulness. AIPAC will increasingly become a stone around Israel's neck as the US sorts out the middle east disaster. All friends of Israel should lead, not follow, the effort to curb the influence of AIPAC in the US Congress.
It seems that AIPAC at times wants the public to believe they represent all Jews the way the Christian extremists want the public to believe they represent all Christians.
And like a few women and blacks who have used the affirmative action rules to abuse the system and bring unfounded lawsuits, misusing terms like anti-semitism and discrimination hurts those who have legitimate issues and should be protected.
A clear majority of American Jews oppose/opposed the war with Iraq. These lobbyists defy and undermine their values and interests. It is becoming clear that they defy the interests of the United States.
Folks like Barry Jacobs, and Haim Katz (who got AIPAC President David Steiner fired by taping his boasts of political control of the US Government) are American heroes. As Mr. Katz said: "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews."
Let me guess, you think we Jews (and I use the word "we" to make sure I exclude you) run the banking system, control the media and the government, and that it's a bad thing that the percentage of Jews in elected office exceeds the percentage we have in the general population?
Haim Katz vs. AIPAC here courtesy of an anti-AIPAC site: http://www.whatreall...
Some guy running AIPAC boasted about his access to Clinton. BFD - lots of people boast of access to government officials when soliciting money. However this story got twisted to "proof" that AIPAC controls our government.
It's not far from that type of comment to stuff like this Fox news story:
http://www.informati...
Per that story - Israel knew of 9/11 in advance you see, and that's why there were no Jews at work in the twin towers (tell that to the families of the Jews who died that day) and evil Jews and Israel (who are both in control of the entire world's politics) allowed those Muslims to kill thousands of innocent Americans.
How much more anti-Semitic can you get?
-Fred
1) Read the transcript of the Harry Katz tape. It details AIPAC President David Steiner's efforts to influence American politics on behalf of Israel. This is about more than access. He claims credit for influencing ME policy, and directing billions in foreign aid, and weaponry, to Israel.
http://www.wrmea.com...
2)AIPAC is an agent of the Israeli government. Yet they continue to portray themselves as an American lobby. The trial of AIPAC Director Steven Rosen and AIPAC Iran analyst Keith Weissman will show how they participated in the espionage of Larry Franklin with the Israeli government. This is treason and a small part of an ongoing conspiracy. American Jews should insist that AIPAC be registered as a Foreign Agent under the FARA statutes. Otherwise Americans may rightfully assume that American Jews support and fund this sort of illegal behavior.
3)Those links you found should be enough to convince you how crazy this thing could get if the American Jewish community doesn't gain control of AIPAC and bring it into compliance with American law. The evidence is damning. That is why Harry Katz is an American hero - he is an American who recognized the subversive activities of AIPAC, and did something about it.
And I've been called worse than anti-Semitic, so stow the name calling along with your naivety.
AIPAC Pres. David Steiner, claimed to have delivered $3Billion a year in foreign aid to Israel (with billions more in military aid). He claimed access to the highest levels of government. He could be lying, but what other developed country gets that sort of aid?
Now substitute Israel in that statement. What would suggest to you that criticism, even my strong non-conventional criticism of Israel government policies would be "anti-Israel"? That is an emotional reaction to something you don't want to hear. Everything that I have stated is true, is deeply disturbing, and can be confirmed in the public domain. But I will not push it to daylight where it is not welcome.
Out of great respect for you and the good work you do here, I'll drop the subject immediately. We will not speak of Israel or her American lobbyists again. Peace.
AIPAC "members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it's a two-edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and to individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating."The "ties to . . . the media" bit caught my attention.
It suggests an alignment between AIPAC and journalists that conspires to influence news and opinions about Israel. And that AIPAC, through its newsroom and editorial board alliances, can bring hell to bear on wayward politicians.
Having made those charges, Moran is obligated to provide evidence supporting them. He should start by naming names.
Which "newspapers and magazines" are tied to AIPAC, and how? Who are the "individuals in the media" with AIPAC ties? What does that mean, anyway?
The canard that a powerful Jewish lobby controls the media is a well-known anti-Semitic staple.
King has a very valid point. If Moran wants to come as close as he has to another "Jews run the media" canard, then he owes it to us (his constituents) to start naming some names. I would like to know which journalists that I read have been bought.
I think you're making a tortured defense of Jim Moran. If this was Bob Goodlatte, Randy Forbes, or Virgil Goods, I doubt anyone in our camp would be this forgiving. At a certain point, after having offended others and disgraced yourself publicly over a certain issue, you lose the right to the benefit of the doubt. Just as someone like Jim Inhofe deserves no benefit of the doubt when it comes to gay rights, Jim Moran has similarly forfeited that benefit when it comes to issues involving Israel and the American Jewish community.
King is right: he ought to put up or shut up.
How many times are we going to have to apologize for, explain, correct, or clarify the remarks and actions of our Congressman before we decide to cut him loose? There are a ton of Democrats in the 8th who would vote the same way and offer constituent service at least as well as Jim does and without the constant baggage. Jim Moran can never assume a prominent role in the Democratic Caucus because his history is too checkered. He can never be called upon in the way that Jim Webb was able to call upon Donald McEachin or Tim Kaine was able to call upon Mark Warner, because no one would want Jim Moran as a public face to their campaign.
This district is too Democratic to require the resources necessary to defend Jim Moran and to also not offer an incumbent who can provide meaningful help to other Democrats. Jim Moran is a waste of a good congressional seat.
As far as media discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict, from what I've seen it's at an extremely superficial level that pretty much tells you nothing. How can you possibly cover such a complex issue in 30 seconds or whatever? Short answer: you can't. (one notable exception: the PBS NewsHour does an excellent job of presenting in-depth coverage on the Middle East, all sides covered fairly...)
Do you wonder why the central radical Islamic grievance - Israel and the US treatment of the Palestine problem, get so little debate? Not news time, debate. When was the last time that you saw a serious US media analysis critical of Israeli policy? What US politician has EVER criticized Israel's foreign policy - and not be labeled anti-Semitic?
It most probably represents a threat to Israel.
Yet the United States is preparing plans for a unilateral attack on Iran. How would this better secure the United States of America?
Most people agree that invading Iran would be a huge disaster for America, is unsustainable, and would rally Islamic extremism around the world. We can't sustain OIF, and yet talk of war with Iran.
I guess the question is; Do you see Israel securing her peace militarily? No negotiation with Hamas, no negotiation with Iran? The failings of Bush are linked to those of Sharon and Olmert and they all relate to our relations in the Middle East and Palestine in particular. Why do you speak out against the Bush government, but not its partner in the ME? We could effect great changes if we settled the Palestinian problem. We don't in large part because of Likud, AIPAC, and it's influence in Washington.
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that's extremely complex, and I certainly don't agree with your last sentence, paragraph, or really anything you've written so far on this entire subject. To the contrary, I find it disturbing, especially coming from someone who I've learned to respect.