“While the number and names of those going on the trips are being held as a closely guarded secret by the organizers, the delegations are expected to be among the largest ever.”–Jerusalem Post
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
I wonder if you might please provide a bit more context or even a link?
I found a recent piece in the Jerusalem Post that seems to refer to the same trip. I don’t see any reference to “covertly” in that piece, however.
My understanding is that it is common practice for members of Congress to avoid sharing plans for travel to Israel (and the ME in general) because of obvious security concerns. Are you suggesting something more nefarious?
I also note that above piece states that a delegation of Republicans is slated to arrive Friday, that the two groups will overlap for two days, and that the organizers expect a joint statement to be issued.
What meaning do you intend in your headline?
There may be legitimate reasons for not publicizing an itinerary. That does not apply to keeping the names of the participants secret.
When an interest group is providing something of value to elected officials there should be maximum transparency. Let’s see a list of the participants.
Is this trip a payoff for the anti-BDS vote in Congress a couple weeks ago? Is it a down payment for the next BDS vote? Inquiring minds want to know.
We should see a list of participants at the earliest possible time. Voters should be able to ask their representatives why they are going on this junket.
Understood.
The article provides an additional rationale —:
A website associated with #SkiptheTrip (hosted by actionnetwork.org) says (emphasis mine):
Participating in a summer junket that has been occurring for DECADES is much different from sneaking away in the dead of night.
Characterizing this as “covertly leaving the country” strikes me as an overreach. I also note that the original piece promises that a group of newly-elected GOP Representatives will also be making the pitch. So not only is this trip not “covert”, it also includes Republicans as well as Democrats.
I grant you that a headline like “First year Representatives repeating traditional visit to Israel” is not nearly as provocative as “Forty-One Freshman Democrats in Congress Covertly Leaving the Country”. I suggest, however, that it is more accurate. In particular, I think public attacks on elected Democrats like this do far more harm than good.
Your piece and commentary leaves me with the distinct impression that your motivation has rather more to do with your opposition to Israeli policy (which I share with your) than with “transparency”, bribery, or opposition to some imagined quid pro quo.
Maybe “discretely” is better than “covertly” would have been a better word. I’m surprised it’s legal for interest groups to pay for these. If these are truly fact-finding missions to help legislators understand the issues to do their jobs then they should be on the public dime.
That’s not the word your looking for, Christopher.
I think the point that you are (very badly) making is we need more transparent disclosure laws for things like this and you are of course correct.
And legitimate security concerns (announcing a bunch of US Congress members going to Jerusalem…not a good idea) should not be used to delay disclosure of this info in the fastest prudently possible way. I’m sure the the costs and who the Congress folks are will be disclosed by current law. I’d also beat that deadline is months away and we forget the story.
Discourser should be required 24 hours after the the trip is over (and the clock starts ticking when the flight is leaving the country, returning home.
I can dream, can’t I?
This has been going on for DECADES. I’m also sure that a long list of special-interest groups have been funding similar junkets for just as long.
It seems to me that if we are concerned about inappropriate lobbying by pro-Israeli groups, we should just say so. If we are concerned about the influence of special interest groups on Congress, then let’s talk about that instead.
I’m certainly not defending the general practice of special interest groups funding junkets like this, nor am I defending the specific example of AIPAC attempting to influence Congress to support Israeli abuse of its Palestinian neighbors and residents.
I don’t like the focus on Democrats in the headline, and I don’t like the false implication that this is some sort of nefarious and secret travel.
I think you are reading to much into “covert” which means “concealed,; secret; disguised” according to the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.
It’s true that I have more than one objection to these trips being done this way. I object to the loophole which allows special interest groups to buy influence by paying for junkets. I object to the policy that these particular trips are designed to promote. And I object to hiding the names of the Congress members in order to protect them from public scrutiny.
What’s the point of separating these objections and considering each one of them in a vacuum? To me they are all of a piece. Members of Congress to do not typically delay putting their names on things they are proud of..
I don’t doubt that there is a long history of influence peddling junkets involving lots of interest groups and Congress. That’s not a good thing, and calling it a “tradition” doesn’t change that fact.
I think we all understand the meaning of “covert”.
Whether we like it or not (and I’ve already written that I share you dislike of it), AIPAC has been bringing newly-elected Representatives of each party to Israel for decades. There is nothing concealed, secret, or disguised about this trip. All of the things you say you object to are just as true for the newly-elected Republicans going on the trip, yet your headline explicitly calls out “Democrats”.
I’m perfectly ok if you want to combine all your criticisms of AIPAC and Congress into a single piece, and if you had done that I’d have upvoted it — I agree with all the criticisms you cite.
It is the dishonesty of your headline and the gossipy innuendo of your thread-starter that I quarrel with. I think commentary like this makes it harder to voice legitimate criticism of the Israeli abuses of Palestinians and of the lobbying organizations like AIPAC that celebrate and enable them.
I probably should just leave this since you seem to agree with everything substantive I have said in this post.. But it also seems that you are so intent on picking a fight with me that you are willing to pick a fight with yourself.
You yourself found the quote which said that the organizers of the trip were withholding the names of the participants. Then you come up with ” There is nothing concealed, secret, or disguised about this trip.” C’mon, Tom, the identity of the participants is a secret. The identity of the participants is being concealed.
As far as protecting Republicans is concerned, your criticism makes no sense. You, or anyone else on this blog can (and should) call out the Republicans. I’m not stopping you. You might want to check out the Republican governor of Florida, while your at it.
I’d be perfectly to have my gossipy, lazy post drift into obscurity while well-researched trenchant posts on this subject dominate this site..
You posted a blind quote with no link and added a dishonest click-bait headline.
After doing your research for you, I found the Jerusalem Post piece from which you quoted without a link. I pursued the hashtag published in that Jerusalem Post piece (#SkiptheTrip) to find the group that appears to be organizing it. Prominently featured on that group’s website is the second quote I offered, showing that AIPAC has been hosting this visit for decades.
I’m intent on doing what I can to maintain a reasonable standard of honesty and reality on BMG.
When you post diaries that so egregiously fall short of that standard, I (and others) will continue to respond appropriately.
On the other hand, I quoted the dictionary definition of “covert” which you dismissed because you “. . . think we all know the meaning of ‘covert’. Not very honest of you.
And you claim, without the slightest proof, that this trip is no different from the trips that have been going on for “decades”..
Your own “research” shows that you are lying. This trip is different because the organizers are keeping the names of the participants secret in order to protect the participants from Code Pink, and If Not Now..
That is the difference between this trip and the trips that have been going on for decades (sorry DECADES). That’s why I labeled this trip as covert.. If you don’t like that word, too bad. It’s accurate.
@On the other hand …:
I stand by my criticism.
Bob you lose potential supporters with hyperbolic language like this and the language used in your last post on Israel. We get it, you dislike the Israeli government. So do the rest of us, with the possible exception of TedF who is like an inverted Bob Gardner. He sees antisemitism even in legitimate criticism of that increasingly rogue state, you see an Israeli conspiracy behind relatively banal and routine Congressional activity. For the rest of us, such hyperbole shuts down reality based debate.
Caveat to my uprate – I would not go quite as far as you in your assessment of tedf, and I would be cautious about invoking a BMGer who has not participated on the thread (and in fact once got scolded for it).
Okay, John, let’s unpack this.
1) My entire post was restricted to a quote (clearly identified, as per BMG rules) from the Jerusalem Post. Tom objected to my use of “covert” in the headline, but I provided the dictionary definition of that term. Where’s the hyperbole?
2) I did question whether there might be a quid pro quo. But that is nothing new. See this article about similar trips taken by Massachusetts legislators. https://www.bostonglobe.com/…/2017/…lawmakers-travel-israel-legislature…/story.html
3) My criticism was directed at Congress throughout. When I criticized Ayanna Pressley, I criticized her vote.
I’m offended that you pretend that anything I’ve written is hyperbole, or conspiracy mongering. You should know better.