Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

AIPAC: Bibi’s Voice or His Victim?

Instead of elevating AIPAC’s stature, Benjamin Netanyahu has completely upstaged it.

Print Friendly


The once-mighty American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has had the illusion of its formidable political influence shattered by none other than the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Long regarded as the second most powerful lobby in the U.S, AIPAC may have gone from being Netanyahu’s voice to being his victim.

Instead of elevating the stature of AIPAC’s 2015 Policy Conference currently (March 1-3) taking place in Washington DC, Netanyahu has completely upstaged it. Rather than drawing attention to AIPAC’s clout, Netanyahu much preferred to demonstrate his own.

Overshadowing AIPAC

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has overshadowed AIPAC’s annual paean to its own power and influence. Last year AIPAC boasted that its 2014 Policy Conference drew a record-breaking crowd of 14,000 “pro-Israel activists.” This year, 16,000 are reportedly in attendance, but mainstream media sources don’t seem to care. Attention has focused almost exclusively on who will and who will not attend Bibi’s speech to Congress, while the media has largely ignored the question of who is and isn’t coming to AIPAC this year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who scheduled a fundraiser to piggyback on Netanyahu’s congressional speech today, dared to address what he apparently considered AIPAC activists’ justifiable feelings of neglect and displacement from the spotlight by Netanyahu. Referring to Netanyahu as a “politician’ and a foreign leader during a panel discussion with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) on Monday morning, Graham said he was more interested in hearing from AIPAC activists than from Netanyahu. One of the sponsors of a bill requiring congressional review of any Iran deal, Graham said he’d listen to Netanyahu but would prefer to base his decisions on what he heard from AIPAC activists.

“To my AIPAC friends, you’re going to make more difference than any speech that any politician can make,” Graham said, although, as the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Ron Kampeas observed wryly, no one was telling him he had to choose. The distinction Graham drew between the views of Netanyahu and the AIPAC conferees, however flattering, was apparently not appreciated by the AIPAC audience, as measured in decibels of applause.

The scheduling of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on the last day of the AIPAC conference usurps prime time on AIPAC’s Lobby Day, normally hyped as both the raison d’etre and grand finale of any AIPAC conference. Netanyahu effectively undercut the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of AIPAC “activists” from various states and congressional districts climbing into a fleet of chartered buses, heading to the offices of their elected representatives, and waving their lists of talking points drafted and crafted by AIPAC’s leadership.

Lobby Day appointments are normally scheduled between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. But Netanyahu begins speaking to Congress at 11:00, immediately followed by Graham’s fundraiser lunch where he’ll be soliciting support from Republican mega-donors for a possible presidential run in 2016. Even extending Lobby Day to 4 pm, as AIPAC has reportedly done, can’t guarantee that the hallmark Policy Conference event will attract much attention this year.

Netanyahu’s in-person speech to AIPAC on Monday morning, which otherwise would have been a highlight of the Policy Conference, was merely a warm-up rehearsal for his address to the members of Congress today. Its objective was to tantalize, not to satisfy.

AIPAC’s Other Challenges

The image of AIPAC’s preeminence in the pro-Israel community has been challenged and battered in the past several years. Many of the founders and funders of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which became increasingly ambitious and aggressive during the Bush 43 years, have little patience with AIPAC’s upbeat “big tent” bi-partisanship. Many of AIPAC’s top lay leaders have usually leaned Democrat in their personal politics, although officers and board members are expected to be generous to pro-Israel incumbents who meet AIPAC’s benchmarks of support for the Jewish state, such as votes, signing letters, and speaking out in favor of more crippling Iran sanctions.

At the same time, Congress has become increasingly polarized along party lines, a challenge to AIPAC’s cheerful bipartisanship. The expressed views of some House members on social and environmental issues have become more extreme—and repugnant to the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans. Is AIPAC’s uncritical support of American politicians just because they wrap themselves in the Israeli flag sustainable in the long run?

As for Israel, AIPAC supports the government there, regardless of who heads it. It does not interfere on issues of Israeli domestic politics, a claim that annoys deep-pocketed mega-donors who believe they know better than Israelis do about what is best for the Jewish state. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, for example, broke with AIPAC in 2007, saying, “I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump.” AIPAC’s seeming acquiescence to ongoing talks between Israel and “moderate” Palestinians that might ultimately lead to a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict disgusts territorial maximalists opposed to Palestinian statehood in any shape or form. Even the stiff-to-crippling sanctions against Iran advocated by AIPAC are considered necessary but insufficient. Avoiding war between Israel and Iran is counterproductive in the eyes of pro-Israel hawks pushing for military action by the U.S. and/or Israel.

Adelson, along with other Republikud stalwarts and disillusioned Democrats, have established and/or funded far more red-meat ideological organizations—the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)Freedom’s Watch,  the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), to name just a few—with whom AIPAC must compete for hearts, minds, and prestige. This time last year, Lee Smith, senior editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, used the Jewish cultural online magazine Tablet to berate AIPAC as a weak and ineffectual has-been:

[B]ecause AIPAC cannot, or will not, punish its enemies, there’s no risk in defying the lobbying group, either. The days of the pro-Israel lobbying group striking fear into the hearts of members of Congress are over—even if a few wonky academics and overheated opinion columnists and bloggers will continue to insist that a Jewish cabal secretly controls American foreign policy. AIPAC never held such power—but the suggestion that it did was itself a form of power. Now that no one on Capitol Hill or in the White House believes that AIPAC controls anything, the lobbying group has to do some hard thinking about its own survival.

AIPAC’s outreach to Christian evangelicals who uncritically support Israel has succeeded—perhaps too well. Christians United for Israel (CUFI), headed by Rev. John Hagee, now bills itself as “America’s largest pro-Israel organization.” When the controversy over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress first erupted, CUFI issued an action alert to its members to email their elected representatives asking them to attend the session. It received more than 10,000 responses within five hours.

Dual Showdowns

With all the attention focused on what Netanyahu will tell Congress, the lone ripple of excitement in the hours leading up to AIPAC’s Policy Conference was the speculation over how hostile the reception would be for National Security Adviser Susan Rice, despite pleas for civility from AIPAC’s leadership. Vicious ads defaming Rice began appearing after her AIPAC appearance representing the Obama administration was announced on Thursday. They appear to have backfired, as did an appeal to AIPAC delegates to boycott her speech. Rice received a largely positive reception from AIPAC attendees, although her more hardline statements concerning Iran drew the most vigorous applause.

Today AIPAC’s 2015 conference—in its third and final day—wraps up and is already old news. Lobby Day can’t compare with the drama taking place on Capitol Hill, as Netanyahu gives his address to Congress. Chemi Shalev of Haaretz described it as “a potential ratings blockbuster, the best show in town, a one-on-one, High Noon style showdown between Netanyahu and President Obama, tense political drama of the kind that House of Cards writers can only dream about.”

Once AIPAC once would have been the site where such high drama was staged. Not this year.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, has been selected by President Trump to replace National Security Adviser McMaster, marking a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

The Institute for the Study of War is a D.C.-based counterinsurgency think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

New NSA John Bolton represents an existential threat to the Iran nuclear deal and any hopes for peace in the region.

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.