Skip to main content

AIPAC is now one of the major threats to Israel's security by going all-out political in the US Congress on both:

1.  Blanket support for Israeli settlements, and
 2.  Opposition to negotiations with Iran.

AIPAC is damaging Israel's security and economic interests.  AIPAC's position on Iran would prevent the critical negotiated limit in Iranian fuel processing to 5% concentrations. And AIPAC's position would eliminate  the presence of new international inspectors in the plants.  These extreme positions are supporting the case for boycotts agaist Israeli economic interests.

And by targeting the consistently pro-Israel Debby Wasserman-Shultz over  the Dead on Arrival  Iranian Sanctions bill (S. 1881), the Financial  Press  is reporting that AIPAC is losing its mojo on Capital Hill.

"AIPAC has really over-reached on this one and alienated key allies on the Hill over what really boils down to a small tactical difference over sanctions timing," said a congressional aide who has worked closely with AIPAC. "It's hard to come to any other conclusion that they aren't deliberately flaming the partisan flames for their own political benefit."
Also reported by FP is the unsophisticated approach by AIPAC here.
Michael Adler, an AIPAC activist and prominent Democratic donor, said targeting Wasserman Schultz for not supporting new sanctions legislation is misguided given her value to the pro-Israel community. "The bill is only a litmus test for the unsophisticated in the pro-Israel community,"
So blindfolded by its singleminded hawkish doctrine, AIPAC presents a real danger to Israel.  And then by using fear to enforce it in the Congress, it makes especially Democrats look weak and ill-informed.

Stand with pro-Israel J Street. Don't let S. 1881 torpedo diplomacy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

    by oregonj on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:11:17 PM PST

  •  They luged, they missed. (8+ / 0-)

    It really feels like they have finally lost some of their grip.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:20:51 PM PST

    •  Lunged, derp. (6+ / 0-)

      One reason AIPAC has had such clout has been that they have a chorus in the Pentagon pulling for them.
      But this time, the Pentagon does not want another war in western Asia.
      That may be why AIPAC is losing this round.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:23:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Curious strategy (4+ / 0-)

        It is curious why AIPAC chose the Iran Sanctions bill as their strategy.  It is a failed tactic that cannot ever get past a presidentail veto.  It parallels the technique of the Republicans in shutting down the US government in an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act wihile Obama is President.

        I have frequently disagreed with AIPAC.  But now I am losing my respect for them as political operatives..

        "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

        by oregonj on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:31:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They thought they could get a veto proof passage (9+ / 0-)

          and spank Obama for not cooperating with Bibi.
          And they almost made it.
          I think one of the things that blunted their drive was when Feinstein pointed out that it would allow Israel to commit US to war against Iran.
          Americans, up to and including the DoD and the WhiteHouse do NOT want another war in west Asia. We've had two of the longest, most expensive and least decisive wars in our history, one is still dragging on and we're sick of it.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:48:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Neocons? We don't need no stinking neocons.. (0+ / 0-)

        We ain't got no stinking neocons."

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:51:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno (0+ / 0-)

        The Pentagon, including the last two Secdefs have been subtly critical of some aspects of Israel's situation related to our national security posture.

        •  But only subtly critical and very limited issues. (0+ / 0-)

          AIPAC is the lobbying arm of the Israeli MIC. Israeli companies supply crucial software to run things like the Aegis Missile System and the drones. Without that software, whole swaths of our hardware goes dark. It's proprietary, so we can't easily reverse engineer it.
          Not wanting to lose the capabilities that our Israeli built systems provide, the Pentagon wants to keep AIPAC happy and vice versa.
          And between them they tag team Congress.
          Until this recent move.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:53:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  When I see ten or more Democratic senators joining (7+ / 0-)

    with Republicans to undermine President Obama of national security and foreign policy matter, and a major last ditch effort to achieve peaceful diplomatic means rather than war to achieve a goal, it really distresses me and makes me angry.

    To then add insult to injury an attack DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who has been about the strongest ally Israel has in the US, crosses a line where AIPAC has to be redefined as an enemy of the Democratic Party, peace, and American national security.

    I agree with your point that AIPAC extremism in this case not only damages their own reputation, and Israel's best interests, but also damages many other worthy causes. They now legitimize question of "dual loyality," and to certain extent their own efforts to define both this and ZOG as automatically antisemitic.

    What is increasingly clear is that extreme right-wing Likud efforts to define opposition to their their extremist view as equivalent to anti-Israeli bias, and both as automatically antisemitic as a strategy to manipulate domestic U.S. politics in a right wing direction has to be directly opposed by Democrats, those who favor diplomacy and peace over war, and those who believe foreign government and agencies should not meddle in U.S. national security.  

    I've been troubled about what to do about these Democrats that are undermining President Obama.  My first instinct is to work to get rid of all of them, but sadly, several have many redeeming virtues, and we need every senate seat we have.  What can we do?

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:37:42 PM PST

  •  AIPAC just ain't good people (8+ / 0-)

    I realized that when they embraced the wingnut charlatan John Hagee and his profitable band of End Timers. That was way back in 2006 or '07.

    Nice little film by Max Blumenthal on Hagee's creepy Christians United for Israel extravaganza back in 2007:

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:17:13 PM PST

  •  HRC has been very close to AIPAC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DownstateDemocrat, jarbyus

    I wonder how she will triangulate this.

  •  AIPAC will make Democrats regret this! (0+ / 0-)

    Because since when does AIPAC lose?

  •  AIPAC marches in lockstep w Bibi's extremist Gov. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Lepanto

    AIPAC might as well be run by Israel's racist Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman since there is no daylight between their positions on Iran.

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:25:54 PM PST

  •  AIPAC - a bunch of misguided greedy warmongers (0+ / 0-)

    They profit from conflict

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site