Juan Cole: If It’s Going to Push Us to War, Is It Time for AIPAC to Register as a Foreign Agent?

[marmar]

by Juan Cole





So the umbrella group of lobbyists supposedly dedicated to representing Jewish Americans, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, is lobbying for the deal, right?

Wrong.

It not only is sending lobbyists to the offices of all US congressional representatives and putting them under heavy pressure to reject the Vienna accords, but it or its subsidiaries are flooding the airwaves with vicious disinformation in an attempt to confuse the American public.

So my question is, on whose behalf is AIPAC intervening in American domestic politics? Even if the J-Street and LA polls are flawed, how likely is it that they are hiding an overwhelming and vehement opposition to the deal among American Jewry (the vast majority of whom vote for the Democratic Party and strongly supported Barack Obama for president)? Or that the gap between Jewish Americans and other Americans on this issue, discovered in the same polls, doesn’t actually exist?

The only logical possibility is that AIPAC is acting on behalf of the Likud government of Israel. .............(more)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_its_going_to_push_us_to_war_time_for_aipac_to_register_20150811

[geek tragedy]

1. ordinary Jews are a lot more liberal and interested in peace than the Jewish establishment

organizations, which get funded by %1ers.

[Octafish]

2. It's one thing to push for peace.

War is another thing.

What Netanyahu had to say re: Iraq invasion 2002:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region…the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.” -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, Likkud leader

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/31/1117211/netanyahu-iran-iraq/

[Fast Walker 52]

11. Netanyahu also said that the 9/11 attacks were a very good thing for Israel

http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

He's a really twisted, demented dude.

[DetlefK]

3. There is a growing political disconnect between israeli Jews and foreign Jews.

An israeli think-tank found that out lately but buried it deep in its report and left it out when giving a presentation to the Knesset.

They also found out that the recent anti-jewish sentiment is mainly anti-israel sentiment and not antisemitism, but even daring to think that is guaranteed to get you into trouble with israeli rightwingers, so they also left this out in their speech while mentioning it in the report.

[leftynyc]

4. As far as I can see

AIPAC merely wants the WHOLE story told. That the relief from sanctions will allow Iran to further finance their hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad pals like they've always done - or do you call that viscous disinformation? I think it was as good as agreement that you were going to get the mullahs to agree to but let's not pretend there aren't real problems with it. Jews are used to the dual loyalty charge and juan cole isn't new at it either - he's meaningless to them. BTW - just a bare majority of support hardly looks like the overwhelming support for the deal you seem to wish there was.

[leveymg]

6. AIPAC wants the story told only from Bibi's hard-line perspective.

AIPAC may have been a big tent at one time, but now it is solidly under the control of the hard-liners. As is Israel.

AIPAC does not represent me. Bibi does not speak for me, and I am in good company among many, if not most.

AIPAC and Bibi are operating against the best interests of the Democratic Party and the United States.

[leftynyc]

7. They don't think they are

working against the best interests in the US. I'm not a member and have no desire to be a member but I do understand their concerns. Thinking ALL of Israel is hardline is just as misleading as saying ALL of the US was hardline during the Bush administration (and frankly, Bush got a MUCH higher percentage of voters than Bibi did). Has the President or anyone pushing so hard for the deal (which I'm completely agnostic about - I could argue either side) even mentioned Iran's history of financing terrorism?

[leveymg]

12. Bibi and AIPAC simply have decided to trade off damage they do to US good will toward Israel

for short-term political gain inside Israel that comes from stirring up public anxiety about Iran and other Shi'ia neighbors.

A permanent war exists inside Israel, but it is largely a myth that facilitates a detente of convenience with the wealthy Sunni Gulf states. Israeli political and commercial elites are kept afloat by this war, but it is one they will lose in the long run, when American good will and patience runs out. Our patience has a limit, because it is not in the US national interest for Israel to continue to abuse its monopoly as the sole nuclear power in the region, and it is not in Israel's interest to continue its de facto nuclear blackmail of its larger partner that dates back to the 1967 war. This opinion piece sums it up pretty well. Here's an excerpt: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/08/era-israel-relationship-150808105744195.html

However extraordinary this strategy is, Israel's campaign against president (Obama) reflects a deeper malaise at the heart of Israel-US relations.

The consequences of this increasingly bitter estrangement have yet to unfold, but they promise to be far broader than the issue of Iran's nuclear programme. The strategic partnership - now imperilled by Israel - was borne during Jordan's Black September in 1970, when Israel deterred Syria from invading Jordan as the Palestine Liberation Organization in exile (PLO) was fighting against the Jordanian state.

The relationship was built upon close relations that followed in the wake of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's defeat during the Six-Day War in June 1967.

. . .

A central component of the alliance was what is today described as the US commitment to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME).
The first step in this direction was taken in 1968 when a deal for US supply of F-4 phantoms was initialled. Those planes were, at the time, the most advanced aircrafts in the Western arsenal.

There was also a nuclear dimension to this relationship.

In return for Washington's commitment to maintain Israel's conventional superiority over any combination of regional threats, Israel promised to keep its nuclear bombs - now said to number more than 200, ready and "in the basement", improved and modernised but undeclared - where they have remained for many decades since.

[leftynyc]

16. LOL - I promise

I wont post from the Jerusalem post (again) if you refrain from posting from Al Jazeera. I see they're still whining about things done in the 1970s so I guess I could list all the terrorist attacks from hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad for the last 40 years with no objection from you, can't I? So many here just seem to get it. This country will NEVER side with the Palestinians over Israeli's. You want to know why? Well I guess I'll just post this story from TODAY:

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Exclusive-Muslims-harass-Congressmen-visiting-Temple-Mount-411782

Like I said, I'm agnostic about the deal - one senator in my state is supporting it, the other is not - I'm not planning on punishing either one. But you STILL seem loathe to admit that Iran is not the historical non-violent entity you wish to pretend it is.

[geek tragedy]

14. No, neither Obama nor supporters of the deal have EVER talked about

Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

NEVER happened.

Lol.

[eridani]

20. So what? Israel created both of those groups

They funded Hamas as an alternative to the secular PLO to divide Palestinians on religious grounds. Hezbollah formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1980. Both are political parties. If Iran aiding foreign political parties is a bad thing, where do the US, Western Europe and Saudi Arabia get off doing the exact same thing?

[geek tragedy]

13. No, AIPAC wants the agreement destroyed. That is AIPAC's explicit goal, to destroy the agreement.

One can speculate as to why AIPAC wants to torpedo the only hope for a negotiated settlement, but that's what they want.

They are not merely trying to "tell the whole story." Please. You insult our intelligence with that ridiculousness.

The sanctions that would be lifted would be nuclear-related sanctions. Now AIPAC et al want to move the goalposts because the real problem isn't the nuclear weapon, it's funding Hezbollah, in their game of Calvinball.

[Fred Sanders]

5. And Schumer and any Democrat voting against the Iran deal should be a registered foreign agent of the lobby.

[leftynyc]

8. That's very fascist-like

They disagree with you and the President so that makes them foreign agents? Seriously? Is that really a road you want to travel down?

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Hmm, they disagree with their president and their base, but they agree with a foreign power.

Who do they work for?

[leftynyc]

10. So disagreeing with the President

and their base means they're foreign agents? I'll ask again, is that really a road you wish to travel down? How about when there is a republican in the white house? Will you be okay with them naming YOU as a foreign agent for not agreeing with them? If Schumer's constituents are angry, they'll vote him out. You got a problem with that kind of democracy? It sure sounds like it.

[leveymg]

15. F-word? AIPAC is very much a lobbyist for a foreign power. It's ridiculous to deny that.

Do you simply throw out insults and label other DU-members as fascists because they disagree with you?

[leftynyc]

17. LOL - spare me the hysterical outrage

This poster is talking about registering AMERICAN CITIZENS as foreign agents because they don't agree with the President. If that isn't fascism, what the fuck is? I'm not the one favoring the mccarthyite position of the US GOVERNMENT making a list of enemies because they disagree with the current administration.

[leveymg]

18. Most registered foreign agents in DC are US Citizens.

Most work for big U.S. law firms with lobbying operations that represent foreign states. AIPAC has long been spared having to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act as a simple political accommodation (part of that dwindling reservoir of good will that excuses a great deal, as I was trying to communicate to you). You are not a good emissary for your cause.

[leftynyc]

19. I have zero desire to be an emissary

for any cause. I don't care enough about what DU thinks about this issue. I simply point out DU doesn't represent Americans as a whole and not the Democratic party as a whole. Seems they need to be reminded from time to time. You also use a lot of words there that completely ignore what that poster was recommending. That has not gone unnoticed. And Juan Cole is an asshole with a long history of Israel bashing - you want to consider him reliable, knock yourself out.