8/9/2019 Tide Ethnic Cleanser Ac

1/3

DistBettendorf HW

TIDE ETHNIC CLEANSERAC

My partner and I affirm [the topic, Resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm thagood.]

To clarify, we define:

Organized political lobbying as, [groups that] to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officialsand esp. memba legislative body on legislation from Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law1.

Our thesis is that political lobbying by pro-Israeli interest groups in the US does more harm than good. We offer thcontentions:

1. The Israel lobby exerts an undue influence on the US government.2. A pro-Israel policy is detrimental to US national safety.3. Israel has been untrustworthy as an ally.

First, the Israel lobby exerts an undue influence on US government. John Mearshimer2, a professor of political scie

at the University of Chicago, writes in a 2007 book:

AIPACs [or the American Israel Public Affairs Committees, who call themselves Americas Pro-

Israel Lobby has a strong]ability to influence elections helps ensure that Israel gets generous aid each year and makes it dangerous for senators or representatives to utter even mild critof Israels conduct. But itsinfluence on Capitol Hill goes even farther. Lobbying groups of all types exercise influence not merely by direct persuasion and by using campaign contributo gain access, but alsoby providing a legislative subsidy to sympathetic lawmakers and supplying overworked staffswith directassistance in analyzing issues, framing legislation, and offering talking points and speeches to give to constituents. Not only doe

every member of Congress receive AIPACs biweekly newsletterNear East Report, its personnel are also available to help staffers when issues affecting Israel arise.In other words, AIPACinserts itself directly into the legislative and policy-making process with considerable frequency , as we expmore detail in Part II.

And the Israel lobby has a direct influence on the executive branch, Professor Mearshimer continues:

Yetthe Bush administration was unable to persuade Jerusalem to change its policies, and Washingtoninstead ended up backing Israels hard-line approach toward the Palestinians. Over time, Bush and his lieutenants also adopteIsraels justifications for this approach, and US and Israeli rhetoric became similar. A Washington Postheadline in February 2003 summarized thsituation: Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy. The lobbys influence was one of th

central reasons for this shift.

This undue influence on the legislative and executive branches materialized in a scandal involving AIPAC and theClinton administration, Professor Mearshimer elaborates:

But there is an even more obvious way to shape an administrations policy: the lobbys goals are served when individuals who share its perspective occupy important positions in the executive branch. In a notoriousincident in 1992, for example, the New York businessman Haim Katz, calling as the potential donor to pro-Israel candidates, secretly taped a phone call with AIPAC President David Steiner. In addition to describing

AIPAC [President] had helped direct campaign contributions to friendly politicians,[David] Steiner toldKatzthat hehad met personally to cudeal with Secretary of States James Baker for $3 billion in foreign [military] aid to Israel, [a $10 billi

loan,] plus a billion dollars in other goodies that people dont even know about . More to the point, he told [abusinessman] Katzthat we have a dozen people in [Clintons] campaign, in the headquarters.andtheyre all going to get big jobs.

1"lobbying." Def. 1a. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. 7th ed. 2003.

2Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print.

-

8/9/2019 Tide Ethnic Cleanser Ac

2/3

DistBettendorf HW

TIDE ETHNIC CLEANSERAC

Israel is already a major military and economic power in the Middle East that has no need for foreign aid or militarequipment. Israeli lobbying has directed money that could have been used domestically or for more needy foreign aissues, and the influence of the Israel lobby is far wider and reaching since pro-Israel politicians hold jobs in theexecutive and legislative branches.

Our second contention is that a pro-Israel foreign policy has been inciting terrorism against the US, including the 9

attacks. Professor Mearshimer writes:

More important, claiming that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backward. The United States did not form an alliance with Israel because it suddenly realize

it faced a serious danger from global terrorism and urgently needed Israels help to defeat it. In fact, the United States has a terrorism problem in good pbecause it has long been so supportive of Israel . It is hardly headline news to observe that US backing for Israel is unpopular elsewhere in the Middle Eastthat h

been true for several decadesbutmany people may not realize how much Americas one-sided policies have cost it over the years. Not have these policieshelped inspire al Qaeda, but theyhave also facilitated its recruitment efforts and contributed tgrowing anti-Americanism throughout the region.

The 9/11 Commission confirmed that bin Laden and other key al Qaeda members were motivated bot

by Israels behavior toward the Palestinians and by US support for Israel . A background study by the commissions staff notes thaLaden tried to accelerate the date of the attack in the fall of 2000, after Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharons provocative visit (accompanied by hundreds of Israeli riot police) to the Temple Mount in Jerusalesite of al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the three holiest sites in Islam. According to the staff statement, although bin Laden recognized that [Mohamed] Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the United States to b

their flight training, the al Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel . The following year, wheLaden learned from the media that Sharon would be visiting the White House in June or July 2001, he attempted once more to accelerate the operation. In addition to informing the timing of the 9/1 attacks, bin Ladanger at the United States for backing Israel had implications for his preferred choice of targets. In the first meeting between Atta, the mission leader and bin Laden in late 1999, the initial plans called for hitting the UCapitol because it was the perceived source of US policy in support of Israel. In short, bin Laden and his deputies clearly see the issue of Palestine as central to their agenda.

The 9/11 Commission also notes that Khalid Sheikh Mohammedwhom it described as the principal architect othe 9/11 attackswas primarily motivated by the Palestinian issue. In the commissions words, by his own account, KSMs animus towthe United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel. It is hard to imagine more compelling evidence of the role thatsupport for Israel played in inspiring the 9/11 attacks.

Our major terrorist threat, al-Qaeda, has stated it has been only our pro-Israel policies that have gave reason for theto attack the US. Without 9/11, we wouldnt be in the middle of an escalated conflict against fundamentalists in Iraand Afghanistan, in addition to dealing with domestic threats.

And finally, our third contention is that Israel has been untrustworthy, helping our enemies and potential threats.

A final reason to question Israels strategic value is that it sometimes does not act like a loyal ally. Like most states, Israel looks first and foremost to its owninterests, and it has been willing to do things contrary to American interestswhen it believed (rightly or wrongly) that doing so wadvance its own national goals. In the notorious Lavon affair in 1954, for example, Israeli agents tried to bomb several USgovernment offices in Egypt, in a bungled attempt to sow discord between Washington and Cairo. Israemilitary supplies to Iran while US diplomats were being held hostage there in 1979-80,and it was one of Irans main military suppliers during the Iran-Iraq War, even though the United States was worried abouand tacitly backing Iraq. Israel later purchased $36 million worth of Iranian o il in 1989 in an attempt to obtain the release of Israeli hostages in Lebanon. All o f these acts made sense from Israels point of view, but t

were contrary to American policy and harmful to overall US interests. In addition to selling weapons to Americas enemies,Israel has transferred American technologto third countries, includingpotential US adversaries like China, actions that violated US laws and threatenedAmerican interests. [Sold drones to China in 2004]

By giving Israel military aid, our technology is at risk of being transferred to potential threats like China and anyother nation Israel wishes to trade with. All the while, we cant retaliate since the pro-Israel lobby has such astronghold on our political process.

Since the Israel lobby exerts a coercive influence on US politics, created the rationale behind terrorist attacks on theUS, and proved itself to be a military threat to the US, political lobbying does more harm than good, and you affirm

-

8/9/2019 Tide Ethnic Cleanser Ac

3/3

DistBettendorf HW

TIDE ETHNIC CLEANSERAC

Conversation text3:

HK: Let me tell you, I was planning, I was planning to, to . . . Inouye, by the way, is in real trouble? He's bethere forever. . .

DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can't believe aour friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not beenpopular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. Igot, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wantsto hear. . .

HK: Right.

DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in militaryaid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.

HK: Such as?

DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going to give to Isra$200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; pthem in the global warning protection system; so when if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advancenotification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercisesI've got a whole shopping list of things.

HK: So this is from Baker?

DS: From Baker and from the Pentagon.

3Federal Bureau of Investigation and Haim Katz. "Unexpurgated AIPAC Tape." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Jan 1992. Web.

-