[Toshi]

http://www.blackcommentator.com/8_hilliard_interview.html

background: earl hilliard was a representative from alabama, outspoken against the pro-israel faction that dominates the current american political landscape. he soundly defeated arthur davis in 2000. in 2002, davis was the beneficiary of huge campaign contributions by pro-israel groups. this is significant because, in hilliard's own words, it sends the message of "Vote for Israel or face possible defeat" to our elected officials. is this right?

Who are these corporations [who donated over a million dollars to Hilliard's opponent in the primary elections]?

Not just corporations, but organizations like AIPAC [American Israel Political Affairs Committee]. Mostly Republican operatives and Jewish operatives that were sent by different organizations and groups and corporations. None of this is in writing anywhere that I have been able to pick up. But I've talked to people who met these people, who talked to them, who dealt with them. [Toshi's comment: see CNN quoted passage below to back up hilliard's shaky words here]

The only thing I know for sure, that I saw in black and white, is $1,098,000 that [Davis] reported. You can't take money from corporations, so that came from Jews and Republicans. There's no question where that money came from. Admittedly, it came from Jews and Republicans.

...

The pro-Israel contributors made no secret of their support for your opponent. Was it their intention to make a public display of wealth?

Oh, definitely - the seed of fear. It sends a message to every member of congress.

What is the message?

Vote for Israel or face possible defeat.

additional commentary on the hilliard defeat:

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2002/jul/020702.lohr.html

LOHR: Hilliard was criticized for a trip to Libya he made in 1997, and more recently for voting against a resolution that endorsed Israel's conduct in its war on terrorism. Zogby claims that all the money going to Davis from Jewish groups is proof that they were trying to buy the election. Not so, says Abraham Foxman with the Anti-Defamation League.

Mr. ABRAHAM FOXMAN (Anti-Defamation League): One candidate tries to show to certain groups, to certain interest groups, why they are more in tuned, more inclined with them. Hilliard did the same thing with Arab groups. That's part of the American democratic process. There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing sinister about it. There's nothing ugly about it. It's not buying votes. It's permitting people to have an opportunity to make a decision.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/28/alabama.congress/

Hilliard said Davis, a Harvard-educated lawyer, used out-of-state money from New York to score a lopsided victory in Tuesday's congressional primary.

Hilliard was targeted for often siding with the Palestinians. More than half the $306,482 in individual donations that Davis received came from New York. Hilliard said much of that money came from Jewish contributors upset about his support for Palestinians.

 

[Changleen]

The parts that annoy me most are the out-of-state contributions, and of course, somewhat redundantly these days, the influence of religious groups and money in politics in order to secure their desired outcome. This is not specifically undemocratic, but it certainly stretches the definition.

Secondly, I, as always find the demonization of Palestinians unexcuable. It really is sickening the depth of ingrained, anti-Arab prejudice that occurs in America these days, and as normal anything more than a cursory examination of the facts will reveal it for the hypocritical sham that it is. Willful ignorance. It's sad that even expressing support for the Palestinians is reason enough to be 'targeted'.

 

[fluff]

Secondly, I, as always find the demonization of Palestinians unexcuable.

how do you feel about demonization of Israelis?

 

[Lennox]

how do you feel about demonization of Israelis?

in north america ur not aloud to feel that.... or ur labeled anti-Semitic

 

[Silver]

Man, Hilliard comes off as a bit of a paranoid crank, don't you think?

 

[Toshi]

Man, Hilliard comes off as a bit of a paranoid crank, don't you think?

agreed, he is over the top. the greater point is still valid, however, that campaign donations from the new york elite greatly affect outcomes in races all over.

 

[Silver]

Yeah, but you could say the same thing about left wing out of state donations. George Soros wasn't giving money away for nothing...

 

[Toshi]

Yeah, but you could say the same thing about left wing out of state donations. George Soros wasn't giving money away for nothing...

so start your own paranoid thread about it :eviltongu . i think the pro-israeli lobby is a more pernicious threat because their interests are fundamentally foreign (as israel is a foreign nation, at least until we adopt it as the 51st state, shortly after all teaching of evolution is banned in public schools by nutjob fundamentalists). furthermore, swelling of the welfare ranks is a much more benign image than of the bloodshed that results in the middle east as a result of our pro-israel policies, except to those who have an intimate connection with their pocketbook i suppose.

 

[Changleen]

how do you feel about demonization of Israelis?

By whom?

 

[Lexx D]

Some feel that the day that we no longer help israel is the day god takes his hand away from the us.

 

[Toshi]

Some feel that the day that we no longer help israel is the day god takes his hand away from the us.

some people feel that such insanity should not dictate american foreign policy, as the trouble it causes has already made itself abundantly clear. if fundamentalists wish to tithe a-plenty and wait for the rapture at the stoplight in their minivans, more power to them, but when their irrationality leads to bloodshed it must be stopped.

 

[Silver]

Ahem...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

 

[Changleen]

Some feel that the day that we no longer help israel is the day god takes his hand away from the us.

And others feel that it might be slightly more sensible for the largest and most powerful country in the world to base its foreign policy on demonstrable facts rather than irrational beliefs.

 

[fluff]

By whom?

By anyone.

 

[Changleen]

By anyone.

You mean me of course. I don't really think Israel are demonised anything like as much as the Palestinians but if making people aware of their actual practices and actions in occupied Palestinians has the effect of 'demonising' them, then I guess that's what they deserve.

 

[Toshi]

if any of you are bored (which you probably are if you're reading this), read the parallel thread i started on the MacNN forums:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=236509

it's 98 replies as of this posting, as the crowd there is a bit more feisty

 

[Changleen]

MacNStein and CreepingDeath are wankers.

 

[Toshi]

as are Zimphire and aberdeenwriter. CreepingDeth (whatever Deth is) is the only one of the bunch not on my ignore list

 

[fluff]

You mean me of course. I don't really think Israel are demonised anything like as much as the Palestinians but if making people aware of their actual practices and actions in occupied Palestinians has the effect of 'demonising' them, then I guess that's what they deserve.

If the cap fits...

But your response is revealing, it does not imply a balanced view. Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed atrocities, be it killing of civilians in Jenin or Jerusalem. That you condemn demonisation of one group whilst allowing it for the other (for the sake of expediency) means you are biased. If you are biased then you cannot have a balanced view of which side is demonised more, your statement is empty.

 

[Toshi]

If the cap fits...

But your response is revealing, it does not imply a balanced view. Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed atrocities, be it killing of civilians in Jenin or Jerusalem. That you condemn demonisation of one group whilst allowing it for the other (for the sake of expediency) means you are biased. If you are biased then you cannot have a balanced view of which side is demonised more, your statement is empty.

if i am reading his statement correctly, he is not condemning demonization of either group. he was stating that the palestinians are already demonized, so it's fair play to apply the same standards to the israelis.

 

[fluff]

if i am reading his statement correctly, he is not condemning demonization of either group. he was stating that the palestinians are already demonized, so it's fair play to apply the same standards to the israelis.

He stated that he found the demonisation of the Palestinians as 'inexcusable' and then stated that 'if making people aware of their actual practices and actions in occupied Palestinians has the effect of 'demonising' them, then I guess that's what they deserve'. So whilst it is inexcusable to demonise Palestinians he finds an excuse to demonise Israelis.

Pretty clear to me.

 

[fluff]

if any of you are bored (which you probably are if you're reading this), read the parallel thread i started on the MacNN forums:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=236509

it's 98 replies as of this posting, as the crowd there is a bit more feisty

To pick up the only theme worth exploring from there...

I do think that the Palestinians need to give up on the right of return, they should get compensation instead. Independent West Bank and Gaza, fair enough, but they should realise they're not going to get it immediately, East Jerusalem, yeah fair enough.