OK---but did either Packwood or Wyden ever get in any kind of trouble on this score?

This story does not change my vote.

Has he stated any positions contrary to these?

Must be at Tortilla Coast. You know....foreign.

A few thoughts.

First of all, there is no appreciable difference between the positions of Merkeley and Novick because the views of both candidates are well within the mainstream.

(a) Nearly everyone in American politics recognizes the important strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

(b) All serious peace proposals involve a two-state solution with Israel's capital in Jerusalem.

(c) The vast majority of thinking people also support Israel's right to build a security barrier (which is about 90% fence and 10% wall) on its border (in fact, no one opposes Israel's fence that has for decades surrounded the Gaza Strip). The genuine controversy about the Security Barrier is that Israel has built parts of it within the West Bank. Many peace advocates support the fence in principle, while opposing the precise route it has taken. This is completely consistent with Merkeley's policy statement.

Second, there is no evidence that Merkeley has been speaking from both sides of his mouth on this one. In fact, just the opposite. He appears to be the one who initiated a meeting with Hala Gores to return her contribution. He released a pubic statement on his policy views about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clearly, some pro-Palestinian activists in Portland were projecting their views onto him.

Third, it's remarkable that more people are not expressing support for what Merkeley did. After coming across a statement by Hala Gores where she accused the Israeli government of being terrorists, Merkeley expressed his disapproval of this view by returning her contribution. Agree with him or not, this sounds like a stand-up thing to do.

Finally, some of the commenters on this thread seem to have lost sight of the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization (recognized as such by Canada, Japan, Jordan, Australia, and the U.K.) that sends Palestinian teenagers to bomb buses filled with Israeli women and children. Although President Carter announced last week that Hamas leaders support the two-state solution, Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal clarified that Hamas would never recognize Israel. The Hamas Charter expressly rejects any peace with Israel. So think what you will, but let's not start talking like Jeff Merkeley (not to mention Steve Novick) has done something wrong by recognizing that the path to peace lies in strong ties between the U.S. and Israel.

Read the book that exposes and discusses that entire affair:

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on Farrar, Straus and Giroux in New York.

Readers won't believe how conservative Israeli governments and their American proxies have played the US Congress for critical secular votes. AIPAC is far, far more destructive to the American poilitical process than any K Street drug, oil or defense lobbing firm.

Who cares about the actual underlying issue. What's more revealing is Merkley's amateurish response to it. Now both sides on this issue can find chinks in his armor: pro-Israel folks who question why he took the donations in the first place (and personally rejected them to "win"), and pro-Palestine folks who question why their donations were rejected.

This type of flip-flopping all in the name of vote-getting underlines Merkley's machine politician carbon copying and lack of spine.

Before taking the time to read the whole Mearsheimer and Walt book, you might consider perusing the reviews:

From the Wall Street Journal: "Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are 'understandable.' This approach paints a highly misleading picture."

From the New York Times: "If the lobby and Israel called the shots the way Mearsheimer and Walt and so many other Middle East experts insist, the United States would not have sold all those arms to the Arabs and never would have leaned in private toward a Palestinian state."

From the Washington Post: Their credentials in the academic establishment -- and, indeed, the imprimatur of their publisher -- supply intellectual legitimacy to a blatantly slanted, inherently biased worldview. . . . Having withdrawn from all of Gaza in 2005, Israel received a steady barrage of rocket attacks, which undermined public support for further disengagement from portions, at least, of the West Bank. The authors do not have to concur with the Israeli reaction to those events, but they prove their intellectual dishonesty in barely even mentioning them.

Focusing on Hala Gores is a bit of a red herring because it represents only a part of the issue and she is not the only one who is angry by any means. There is more than one chapter to this drama.

The anger against Merkley is because he did not make his real position known to a community that had strong feelings about an issue. He had enough contact with that community that he could, and should, have requested their input before coming out with the document and statements that he did. On top of that, community members put their personal reputations on the line relating that Merkley would be a good candidate to support and he knew it. So, coming to the house party and getting the funds under those circumstances created a tremendous amount of anger. One Palestinian with whom he had a personal relationship was trying hard to contact him about the document he was working on before it came out. He didn't consult her or any other member of this community before it was presented to the Jewish Federation and if we hadn't attended that forum, we probably would have never learned the extent to which he supported the other side.

He had a meeting with this group of angry folks and offered absolutely nothing in terms of reconciliation, apology, or ways they could resolve this issue with dignity.

The result was great anger and feelings of betrayal.

1. I don't understand why Merkeley's supporters who are pro-Palestinian activists felt entitled to be consulted on the drafting of Merkeley's policy statement? Shouldn't his policy statement reflect his views, not the views of his supporters?

2. PMiller's explanation confirms my earlier statement: "Clearly, some pro-Palestinian activists in Portland were projecting their views onto him." There doesn't seem to be any allegation here that Merkeley lied about his views to anyone. This looks to me like a group of people who took Merkeley's sympathetic ear and acceptance of their financial support to mean that he agreed with all of their views. Obviously, they found out this assumption was incorrect. Sounds to me like Merkeley didn't really do anything wrong here.

Patsy - So its ok for Israel lobby folks to work closely to draft Merkley's document and not ok for Palestinians to have any input at all? Because that is what has happened.

So it is ok to have "private" agreements and position papers with certain interest groups on important international issues and keep them away from other groups? Because that what it looks like to me.

Having input doesn't necessarily mean getting all your way, it just adjusting the scales of justice so they are more even between a powerful interst group with a lot of political clout and a weak interest group.

Steve, just a small correction, the Constitution does not grant exclusively vest foreign affairs in the executive branch. Constitutionally, powers are actually divided between Congress and the President. For example, only Congress can declare war or grant letters of marque and reprisal (the later was very important back in the 18th Century, not so much anymore). It is a combination of tradition (vesting the cabinet in the President and not the Speaker of the House) and statute (the War Powers Act, the Logan Act, etc.) that give the President so much power over foreign affairs.

So its ok for Israel lobby folks to work closely to draft Merkley's document and not ok for Palestinians to have any input at all? Because that is what has happened.

PMiller--

When a candidate releases a policy paper, he is announcing his views on an area of policy. If working with his pro-Israel supporters produces a policy paper that is the most accurate reflection of Jeff Merkley's views on the subject, then that is what he should do. This is not some kind of no-bid contract. When Jeff Merkley writes a policy paper stating his views on drilling in the Arctic, I expect he will consult environmental organizations and not Big Oil interests, because they more accurately reflect his views. Constructing a policy statement is not a democratic process, nor should it be.

It sounds to me like Merkley isn't the one who made the mistake here; it's these pro-Palestinian campaign donors who were in error when they made incorrect assumptions about his views.

This whole thing seems like a complete non-issue to me.

Patsy, read the book by the authors, not the spin by its critics...

The bottom line is this; what other nation in the world gets $5B in aid each year from the US taxpayer with no strings attached? The answer is, of course, none. Your sympathetic quotes are red herrings and off-topic. The discussion is about the Israel lobby and American foreign policy not the Jewish State's security.

Patsy - Knowing our positions and passions, Merkley shouldn't be taking our money and asking us to have house parties for him when he has no intention of treating us with the respect he obviously showed the Israel lobby.

What if environmental activists are invited to hold a house party for a candidate and the candidate knows full well their position on global warming and indicates his understanding of the subject. Then 2 months later he presents his position paper in front of an oil company the denies and minimizes the effects of global warming as his official position. Maybe they don't deserve anything, but they WILL be mad as hell.

I guess I still can't get used to the idea bending over and taking it from politicians with unprincipled positions just in order to be an obedient little democrat machine.

I want better from my politicians, I want some backbone and some principles and I want to be able to know where they actually stand on important issues. I want them to have rational, critical thinking and principles and stands over stances and positioning. I want them to be willing to be challenged head on and not sit there and smile nicely, nodding their heads.

If its such a non-issue then why is it on AP?

Andrew Plambeck:

I never said Mearsheimer and Walt were anti-Semites, and neither do the book reviews I cited. Their scholarly work has been roundly panned by credible thinkers -- not just marginal figures like Derschowitz. You should actually read the reviews I cited, rather than responding to a straw-man.

j_luthergoober:

Not sure what our foreign aid to Israel has to do with anything. I'm reluctant to even respond, since it is so off-topic.

In fact, Israel is not the biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid -- Iraq is. Israel is second. And who's next? Egypt (a close third), then Afghanistan, Columbia, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. We give aid based on where our government perceives its interests to be. What do Egypt, Jordan, and Israel all have in common? Certainly the "Israel Lobby" is not pushing Congress to allocate more aid to Egypt and Jordan. What the three have in common is that they are all close U.S. allies and they are all of strategic importance to the U.S. But, like I said, this whole discussion is beside the point.

Pmiller:

You wrote, "Knowing our positions and passions, Merkley shouldn't be taking our money and asking us to have house parties for him when he has no intention of treating us with the respect . . . ."

I beg to differ. It's not the candidate's job to vet his supporters; it's the supporters' job to vet the candidate. Look, as I argued above, Merkley's positions are well within the mainstream. He probably welcomed the support of pro-Palestinian activists because he sees himself as more moderate (and therefore more in line with their interests) than Gordon Smith.

You add, "If its such a non-issue then why is it on AP?"

It's because the news will print anything with a whiff of controversy.

If its such a non-issue then why is it on AP?

Yeah. The AP would NEVER push a non-issue. No way. No how.

Why Jeff Merkley does not support a Palestinian State.

Jeff Merkley says that he supports a Palestinian State. A lot of people say they support a Palestinian State. Ohmert, Bush, Rice all proclaim it. But unless there is also support for the conditions required for a viable Palestinian State and demands that Israel (not only Palestinians) abide by those conditions, these proclamations are simply empty words.

Jeff Merkley's positions on a number of key issues shows that he does NOT support the conditions required for a Palestinian state.

First, many agree that a Palestinian state must have East Jerusalem as its capital and this fact is enshrined in various peace proposals, like the Geneva Accords. This is critical not only for national pride and religious reasons, but also because East Jerusalem is the economic and social heart of the Palestinians. Without it, the state will be an economically truncated and unviable entity. Not only does Merkley say that he supports Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and by that he means ALL of Jerusalem for Israel and none for the Palestinians) but he ignores the facts on the ground Israel is rapidly creating, in violation of international law and human rights, to make this a concrete fact. He is also pre-empting negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis by interjecting the political will and opinions of the US political elites upon the situation.

Second, the wall that Israel is building for its defense is ALSO being used as a means of confiscating Palestinian land, dividing Palestinian communities, and ensuring that the settlements that are built on Palestinian lands will be annexed, de-facto, into Israel. This wall does spectacular harm to the chances for a socially and economically viable Palestinian state, the International Court of Justice has ruled that it is illegal where it is built on Palestinian lands, and Jeff Merkley supports it unconditionally.

Third, in his public statements at the Mittleman Jewish Community Center, he stated that there was no Palestinian partner for peace. The Israeli government uses this false canard, as it has done frequently in the past, to legitimize the status quo: no real negotiations, no change to the facts on the ground, continued growth of settlements and walls and Israeli only roads. Obviously, this attitude and these actions will make a Palestinian state impossible.

Finally, Jeff Merkley holds Arab countries and Iran accountable for their actions and he demands tough sanctions, punishments but does not apply the same standards to Israel's behavior. Our experiences with meddling and forcing people in the Middle East to meet our constant demands has not worked out well at all, but Merkley's stance basically continues a long tradition of bullying countries like Syria on behalf of Israel without understanding all the underlying issues, an understanding necessary for reconciliation and peace. For Israel, it is unconditional economic, military and political support. Israel's actions, which are so detrimental for future peace and destroying the chances for an actual Palestinian State, are not held to account one bit.

PMiller--

You are attributing to Jeff Merkley things he has not said. For example, you write that he opposes a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. But Merkley's statement never says this. The only thing he says on the subject is that he supports a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital, but as you know, all serious peace proposals, like the Geneva Accords, endorse a division of Jerusalem, with the Palestinian and Israeli capitals in their respective portions of the city. This is totally consistent with Merkley's statement.

You also write that he supports the Security Barrier (which you call a "wall," even though 90% of it is a fence) "unconditionally." On what basis have you drawn this conclusion? His statement only says, "This barrier has been successful in significantly reducing the number of terrorist bombings inside Israel." This is just a statement of fact. Many peace activists fully support Israel's right to build a barrier along its border, but oppose the particular route where the Barrier has been built. (In fact, this is exactly what the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court have held). Israel should build the barrier, but it should not divide Palestinian communities. This, too, is completely consistent with Merkley's statement.

The line about there not being a Palestinian partner for peace is hardly even debatable. The Palestinians elected Hamas, a terrorist organization that has bombed Israeli buses for the past 15 years, to run its government. Although Israel continues to negotiate with President Abbas, he is basically impotent. Are you prepared to argue the Hamas, whose charter says it intends to destroy Israel, is a "partner" in the peace process?

Your last point, about holding Israel accountable on par with Syria and Iran, is just silly. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, Israel is the only country in the middle east where female Arab citizens can vote in their country's parliamentary elections. Although Israel is far from perfect, it is not in the league of Syria and Iran.

I, too, appreciate Blue Oregon publishing this story. It reminds me of the kind of story, however, that if it were about Novick, a lot of people around here would take the opportunity to bash Novick incessantly. I guess they must think they must go negative in order to win.

Personally, though I care deeply about the Middle East (this summer, I'll have a book out on the subject), I don't care for all these stupid made-up scandals. So even if (hypothetically) Merkley said something to the Muslim community that, in hindsight, he shouldn't have said, I'm going to choose not to make a big deal of this.

The whole point of the Obama candidacy -- and yes, I unabashedly supported him even when Edwards was in the race -- is that we need to get past the politics of "gotcha" and mudslinging. I support Novick over Merkley because Novick's upsides dwarf Merkley's, in my opinion. It's not because anything Merkley has said or done has me "fearful" about a Merkley candidacy. Merkley may not have Novick's talent, but he would be a fine enough Senator, and this year, Smith could be defeated by either candidate.

patsy: "He released a pubic statement..." how embarrassing, that's why it made AP I'm sure.

ok, now it comes down to this: do we want a guy in office who changes his mind when surrounded by a roomful of Jewish lawyers, or a guy who is ONE OF the (part-)Jewish lawyers, toughing it out in Congress? I guess I just handed Novick a few votes since he would be obviously advantaged, and playing on a level field there. just kidding.

torridjoe wrote, "That's absurd and I think you know it. It is THE sticking point for peace (or perhaps right of return). The ONLY reason you mention a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital is to declare that it should be ONLY the capital of Israel. It's already a joint capital, so what's the point of making an explicit statement to say 'I believe things should stay exactly the same?'"

This is bizarre on so many levels. First, Jerusalem is NOT currently the joint capital of both the Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinian capital today is in Ramallah.

Second, you insist that Merkley would not have bothered to express his support for the status quo, but in fact most of his statement is nothing more than an expression of his support for the status quo. He advocates maintaining America's "special relationship" with Israel, sustaining U.S. foreign aid for Israel, continuing along the "Roadmap" course of diplomacy, etc. All of these are statements of support for things how they are today.

Finally, many world leaders have expressed support for a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the divided capital city of both Israel and the Palestinian state. Although I don't know for sure, I would guess that this is what Merkley actually envisions, since it is the point of consensus of almost every serious peace proposal. Given the fact that Merkley was addressing a pro-Israel audience, I'm guessing he intended to be reassuring his audience that he would not support a plan to move the Israeli capital back to Tel Aviv, which is what many Palestinians demand. Expressing one's support for a two-state solution with Israel's capital in Jerusalem is absolutely not exclusive of support for a Palestinian state with its capitol in East Jerusalem.

"If you're going to take that view, it's not the capital of either country, since Israel's is really Tel Aviv (where the embassies are)."

This is idiotic. The seat of the Israeli government is Jerusalem. The seat of the Palestinian government is Ramallah.

You and PMiller are doing a lot of work reading between the lines of Merkley's statement. I would tend to trust what the statement actually said over what you insist it meant.

Chris Lowe,

I actually agree with about 95% of what you have written. (A few of the details of your post, like your assertion that Israel has never recognized the Palestinians' right to have a state, I think are without basis, but I actually agree with the overall gist of your analysis.)

My point throughout this thread has been: I don't see any evidence from Merkley's statements or the accounts of his conduct that his views are inconsistent with what you've written.

You suggest that there was something dishonest about going to fundraisers with pro-Palestinian activists and not immediately explaining all of the points on which he disagreed with them. Having worked for a number of elected officials, I think this is just silly. Politicians often attend fundraisers with lobbyists and groups of activists with whom they disagree, and yet they accept financial support from these people without argument. (When Obama and Clinton attend fundraisers with gay-rights groups, do you think they discuss their opposition to full-marriage rights at these events? Of course not! They discuss only their points of agreement.)

Like I said above, Merkley probably assumed that whatever his particular views, pro-Palestinian activists support him as a preferable alternative to Gordon Smith. Also, as you observe in your post, it sounds like some of what occurred here resulted from personal friendships Merkley has had with some of these people. Often people who throw fundraisers perceive themselves as buying "access" or currying favor with a politician -- maybe Merkley assumed that this sentiment motivated these fundraisers.

I have not heard anything deceitful about what he did. In fact, as I argued in my first post above, the fact that he initiated contact with one of these people, Hala Gores, to return her contribution based on offensive statements that she made, seems like a completely above-board and forthright thing to do.

Guess we know why Schumer stuck his nose into our primary.

OUTTA MY STATE UNTIL 5/21 SCHUMER! We can pick our own nominee.

An excellent article "No Middle East Peace Without Tough Love" by Henry Siegman, in support of my proposition that Merkley's statements taken together (like those of many American politicans) demonstrate that he does not really support a Palestinian state, but is simply indulging in "Israel's pretense."

Siegman states: "As long as Israel knows that by delaying the peace process it buys time to create facts on the ground that will prove irreversible, and that the international community will continue to indulge Israel's pretense that its desire for a two-state solution is being frustrated by the Palestinians, no new peace initiative can succeed, and the dispossession of the Palestinian people will indeed become irreversible."

<h2>http://www.auphr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3561&Itemid=44</h2>