Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the U.S. Congress. Despite once again rebuking the long-standing U.S. policy that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders with mutally agreed land swaps, Netanyahu was repeatedly applauded by Members of Congress (even moreso than Obama).

One reason the Israeli government has been able to secure such steady support for its policies, even when they conflict with U.S. policies, is due to the efforts of American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC’s lobbying network is considered one of the nation’s finest, and every year it holds an annual convention in Washington, D.C. that is heavily attended by members of Congress, usually drawing at least half of the members of the Senate, for example.

Over the past few days, ThinkProgress attended the AIPAC conference here in Washington, D.C. We interviewed a number of attendees and asked them what they thought about Netanyahu so publicly rebuking the United States and what they think about progressive Jewish advocates who are more critical of the Israeli government.

Attendees told us that they think it’s best for all Jews to simply back Netanyahu no matter what his policies do to Palestinians or to the state of Israel, that if Israel gave up land it would face genocide like the Native Americans, and some even compared progressive, anti-occupation, pro-Israel Jewish activists to traitors. Watch a video compilation of these remarks:

Thankfully, Americans who want to resolve the Middle East conflict and help establish a just resolution that includes two safe, secure, prosperous, and free Palestinian and Israeli states do not have to support a hardline organization like AIPAC. Groups like J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and Jewish Voice for Peace offer alternatives.

– Zaid Jilani and Ali Gharib

A day before delegates from AIPAC’s annual convention made their way to Capitol Hill to push pieces of pro-Israel legislation, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) re-introduced a bill that would green-light an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

The resolution’s list of 44 co-sponsors — including GOP Reps. Michele Bachmann (MN), Mike Pence (IN) and Allen West (FL) — tracks closely with last summer’s stalled version, which garnered much support among Gohmert’s colleagues in the Tea Party Caucus. Gohmert’s resolution gives Israel support:

to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

This appears to be a concerted effort to usurp President Obama’s prerogative to have sole provenance over making foreign policy. Obama’s preference in this matter seems clear — members of his administration and military leaders have spoken out against an attack — and he’s reportedly expressed his thoughts to Israel.

Speaking at AIPAC yesterday, Israeli national security analyst Amos Harel told the crowd that Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen delivered a message to Israel during a February trip there. Harel characterized Mullen’s message as: “You have a clear red light from us right now, not a green light, not a yellow light, but a red light.”

What’s more, the congressional resolution comes at a time when members of Israel’s security establishment — though notably not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — are dialing down their rhetoric on Iran.

Recently retired Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan, who is not known as a dove, recently said that the notion of Israel attacking Iran was the “stupidest thing (he had) ever heard.” Dagan warned of widespread regional conflagration — a scenario that would likely include attacks on U.S. forces and interests in the Middle East. His comments caused a flap in Israel and were subsequently defended by several other former heads of Israeli security agencies, some of whom backed his views on attacking the Islamic Republic.

Today, during his speech to a joint meeting of Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated himself for “publicly” committing Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state (with caveats) two years ago. He said it wasn’t easy, because it required giving up Jewish lands in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), which he claimed is not currently under occupation:

Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.

I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. You have to understand this, in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.

The West Bank is indeed under Israeli occupation. In fact, the West Bank is considered occupied territory under international law, something even former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged in 2003. “You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians,” he said. And as Media Matters recently noted, even President Bush considers the West Bank to be under Israeli occupation. Yet, seconds after Netanyahu said “the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers” of the West Bank, the U.S. Congress erupted with a rousing standing ovation. Watch it:

“Virtually the entire US Congress is reflexively applauding everything a foreign leader says — no matter how controversial,” one observer on Twitter noted. Indeed, Herb Keinon at the Jerusalem Post noticed a similar trend during Netanyau’s speech:

Netanyahu could only dream of such a reception in Israel. Even his wife, Sarah, received a standing ovation when she entered the hall. The prime minister was applauded some 30 times, many of those accompanied by standing ovations.

It’s one thing for members of Congress to applaud foreign leaders, but it’s entirely another when they praise statements that are not based in fact, U.S. foreign policy or international law.

Cross-posted at the Wonk Room.

Today, during his speech to a joint meeting of Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated himself for “publicly” committing Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state (with caveats) two years ago. He said it wasn’t easy, because it required giving up Jewish lands in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), which he claimed is not currently under occupation:

Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.

I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. You have to understand this, in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.

The West Bank is indeed under Israeli occupation. In fact, the West Bank is considered occupied territory under international law, something even former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged in 2003. “You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians,” he said. And as Media Matters recently noted, even President Bush considers the West Bank to be under Israeli occupation. Yet, seconds after Netanyahu said “the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers” of the West Bank, the U.S. Congress erupted with a rousing standing ovation. Watch it:

“Virtually the entire US Congress is reflexively applauding everything a foreign leader says — no matter how controversial,” one observer on Twitter noted. Indeed, Herb Keinon at the Jerusalem Post noticed a similar trend during Netanyau’s speech:

Netanyahu could only dream of such a reception in Israel. Even his wife, Sarah, received a standing ovation when she entered the hall. The prime minister was applauded some 30 times, many of those accompanied by standing ovations.

It’s one thing for members of Congress to applaud foreign leaders, but it’s entirely another when they praise statements that are not based in fact, U.S. foreign policy or international law.