Hillary Clinton and the Pro-Israel Lobby (Joshua Frank)

[Tace]

The Semiotics of Iniquity

Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

Jan. 22, 2007 -- George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous", reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn’t the least bit happy about the compromise.

In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted is was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the United States and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make as many as 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=862&Itemid=1

[xultar]

1. And she would be different from anyone else on this issue becuzzzzz

[Tom Joad]

3. you're right, not much different, though she seems to have special devotion to militarism

in the middle east, as does aipac.
She may not be much different than the other candidates in supporting Israeli militarism, but she is out of tune with a growing movement of liberals and progressives.

This June 10th there will be a massive march on Washington DC to protest 40 brutal years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Hieghts. It will be joined by Progressive Democrats of America, United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action (largest peace lobby in the USA)

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1281

[itsmesgd]

2. you used the "I" word see ya later

it's off to the specific discussion forums with you

[Jim Sagle]

4. Israel RRRRRRAWWWWWWXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!

[leveymg]

5. There are those with one toe in the tub, and those who live in it.

Hill's used to being in hot water.

[confludemocrat]

6. AIPAC shills abound in both parties, but yes Clinton & Kerry are shills in our camp

what's particular nauseating is that while we can expect todying to AIPAC by Repubs and war-loving talk and threats to Israel's opponents by Repubs, we should expect an alternative to blindly pro-Israel stances from more Dems, but we get virtually none and Clinton and Kerry are two egregious examples of this

[The Magistrate]

7. Locking

Material relating to the Israel v. Palestine confluct is to be posted only in the I/P forum.