Obama's Iran policy is opposed by AIPAC & Netanyahu...not "the Israel lobby" or "the Jewish lobby"

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:40 AM - Edit history (2)

or "Israelis" or "Jews".

And one of the last four terms in quote marks should never be used in debates on this issue(especially since there's no such thing as "the Jewish lobby&quot .

Neither AIPAC nor Netanyahu speak for "Israel" as an entirety. Neither speak for every group that lobbies Congress for or about Israel, or for American Jews or Jewish people in the Diaspora.

It's ONE group and one government. That's all.

It isn't bigoted "anti-Israel" or "anti-Semitic" to oppose either AIPAC or Netanyahu, and equally, it IS bigoted to assume that either AIPAC or Netanyahu and his government speak for anybody but themselves and their own political interests.

Netanyahu's government wants this war because his party and his part of the Israeli political spectrum cannot retain any significant measure of popular support(and thus cannot hope to stay in power) unless Israel is perpetually at war, perpetually facing a "existential crisis". It is exceedingly unlikely that an Israeli electorate confident of a peaceful, stable relationship with its neighbors would never re-elect a party like Likud and would never give support to the crazier parties in the current coalition, especially those parties who have destabilized Israeli security by continuing to push for the expansion of the illegal settlements.

AIPAC, representing the anti-peace right-wing of "pro-Israel" public opinion in this country, and probably having more supporters among evangelical Christians than anywhere else, cannot hope to maintain any influence on "The Hill" if Israel becomes a nation at peace. Its survival, and the large paychecks of its leaders, depend on the preservation of the atmosphere of crisis at any cost.

Therefore, Netanyahu and his hate-based government are obsessed with launching a military strike at Iran(which is the same thing as pushing for a full-scale war between Iran and an alliance of Israel and the U.S., since it is impossible to launch a military strike at Iran without causing an Iranian military response and once that has happened, it is impossible to end the confrontation without a massive war involving massive civilian casualties in both Iran AND Israel). There are many Israelis who oppose them on this objective, and many supporters of Israel who do so as well, believing that war with Iran cannot produce anything positive for anyone.

And, therefore, AIPAC HAS to push for confrontation-with-Iran at any price, because, like Netanyahu, it has tied its future as an organization to the notion that Israel must always be "defended" and is always vulnerable to attack, even if AIPAC itself has to help put Israel into greater danger of attack by sabotaging the excellent chance the Obama Administration negotiations policy has of ending Iran's nuclear program without the use of force.

This is why it is actually the more "pro-Israel" position to support President Obama's policy towards Iran and to oppose the "rush to war" being pushed for by AIPAC and the Netanyahu mob.

[MrBig]

1. Thank you for this post n/t

[DLnyc]

2. Well put.

Isrealis and Palestinians, by and large, like people all over the world, want to put food on the table and live peaceful lives. It is politicians and fundraising organizations that feed off of a climate of threats and fear. AIPAC, like any large organization, is interested in perpetuating itself. It was built on war, it thrives on war and it will, therefore, always push for war.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. This is true, but OTOH there is no Jewish or Israeli lobby other than AIPAC,

so it is in effect the same thing. It is AIPAC that funds campaigns and ends political careers, so its is the agenda that is enacted in DC.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. Check out J Street for some voices of reason.

http://jstreet.org/

I myself am not sure that a separate two-state solution IS the final or best answer, preferring instead to see one secular state, with freedom of religion, where ALL citizens are treated equally and have the same opportunities/freedoms, or a confederation of two states with more shared common interests/history than not. But it is after all, ALL the people who LIVE there who should make those decisions, rather than RW non-resident interests (both AIPAC and radical RW Christians) who impose their own views on the area.

That the Israeli government has shifted radically right wing in recent years is largely due to AIPAC and RW Christians in the US who have have found common ground for the time being in massive funding of RW special interests in Israel. It also has roots in the huge influx of refugees from the former SSRs in the 1990s.

[Ken Burch]

8. That, and read Tikkun(also, donate to it if you've got cash to spare)

(Michael Lerner has been struggling to keep the thing going since he lost most of his past financial backing).

[BlueMTexpat]

9. Tikkun is indeed great.

Thanks for the reminder.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I think you're 75% right and 25% wrong, or possibly 50/50.

I think that the terms "the Jewish lobby" and "the Jews" are clearly inaccurate in this context.

But I'm afraid I think that referring to the Israeli government and the most influential lobbying arm of Israeli interests as "the Israeli lobby" is entirely reasonable. While there are people who disagree with him, the head of government does speak for a nation, especially when he heads a coalition with a broad support base. The anti-peace right wing of Israeli public opinion represents most Israelis, sadly, and an even higher proportion of pro-Israel American lobbyists.

"The Israelis" is more debateable - the majority clearly oppose Obama, but a significant minority clearly don't. It's not a term I'd use, but given that "nation X" is sometimes used as a shorthand for "the government of nation X" I think it's more forgiveable than "the Jews" or "the Jewish lobby".

[sabrina 1]

6. ANYONE who is pushing this country into war with Iran is evil, imho. I really don't

care much about their religious, ethnic, political or economic positions. They MUST be stopped, they are a threat to world peace.

I am so wary of feeling any sense of hope after all the times when we have been betrayed. But I am hopeful that the Obama administration has had enough of the war mongers and is determined to block their blood thirsty lust for war using OUR troops I guess.

I don't know why anyone is paying any attention to them whatsoever other than to investigate them and their partners in crime, the Bush/Cheney gang who lied to the American people and as a result caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 6,000 American troops.

[Hekate]

7. There's much to consider in what you say, such as who in the US Congress wants this war...

Does the name John McCain ring a bell? That American warmonger and AIPAC ally is no more Jewish than my cat.

One thing I learned during Dubya's misbegotten adventures abroad: there are many Israelis and American Jews who very much want peace, and there are several organized groups in both countries working in the spirit of Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World).

Thank you for this post, Ken Burch.

[grantcart]

10. good points

(small typo first line. should read 'should never')

[Ken Burch]

12. Good eye on the typo(I've now fixed it). Thanks. n/t.

[anasv]

11. totally wrong.

Of course AIPAC is the Israeli lobby. I'll believe it isn't when it is repudiated by a significant portion of the Israeli public, which also supports nearly unanimously anti-peace activities of its government like the illegal settlements.

Not the Jewish lobby, although Israel calling itself the Jewish state makes that an easy mistake.