General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAIPAC Spent Millions to Defeat the Iran Deal. Instead, It May Have Destroyed Itself
http://www.thenation.com/article/aipac-spent-millions-of-dollars-to-defeat-the-iran-deal-instead-it-may-have-destroyed-itself/The powerful Israel lobby has been badly damaged, and thats good news for both Palestinians and Israelis.
By M.J. Rosenberg
It is hard to exaggerate the damage inflicted on AIPAC by the congressional defeat of its efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal. It is not as if AIPAC wont live to fight again, because it will, but this defeat has ruptured the status quo, possibly forever.
The extent of its efforts to defeat the deal was unprecedented even for a lobby known for its no-holds-barred wars against past White House initiatives it considered unfriendly to Israel, going all the way back to the Ford administration. AIPAC, and its cutout Citizens For A Nuclear Free Iran, reportedly budgeted upwards of $20 million for a campaign that included flooding the airwaves with television spots; buying full-page newspaper ads, arranging fly-ins of AIPAC members to Washington, organizing demonstrations at offices of AIPAC-friendly members of Congress who were believed to be wavering, and ensuring that problematic legislators were officially warned by precisely the right donor. Rank-and-file AIPAC members were largely irrelevant to the process. Money did the talking, and also the yelling and the cursing when necessary. As one congressional staffer put it to me, Taking money from AIPAC is like getting a loan from the mob. You better not forget to pay it back. They walk into this office like they own it.
....................
Good news for the world!
spanone
(135,802 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)AIPAC will remain a powerful force behind terrible US policy. If AIPAC is able to help defeat one of the Democratic senators who voted with the president, its influence will be increased. Some of those senators will have a decline in donors as retaliation.
The good news is AIPAC lost this one. For that we can be thankful. The bad news is that AIPAC is still very influential and will remain so.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)minds must be crushing and would not have gone unnoticed by anyone who used to cower before them.
Obama counted 42 Senators before he negotiated the Iran deal Senate legislative procedure 3 months ago.
42 today.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Wow - that's really how you see it, huh?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)And that Israel is more than an ally or a friend, but family.
He has expounding at length about how the agreement is, in fact, good for Israel.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is a direct quote from President Obama.
Full interview here:
http://forward.com/news/320091/read-the-transcript-of-forward-editor-in-chiefs-interview-with-barack-obama/
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Like the argumentative and bigoted family member during the holidays: trying to cause a rukus.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's definitely not what President Obama is saying.
Maybe read the actual interview?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)In context, it still could be interpreted different ways...words are funny things, semantical tangles at times.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's a difference of opinion regarding whether or not the deal is a positive one in terms of Israel's security.
Those who support the deal agree with Obama that it is.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to diplomacy by nature, not by situation.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The World doesn't unanimously agree with anything.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)the biggest taxpayer money laundering scheme the world has ever known. They will be protected by all of the US legislators on their payroll.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And by "republican" I mean any candidate running with an "R" after his name, plus Hillary Clinton.
still_one
(92,110 posts)isn't it
tularetom
(23,664 posts)If you had actually listened to the speech she gave at that right wing neocon think tank last week, she spent about 30 seconds saying diplomacy was important and 15 minutes detailing all the nasty shit she was gonna do to Iran if they even thought about reneging on the deal.
She's still trying to convince us that she's more macho than that wussy Obama.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)Obama can't do anything about it. candidates to succeed him should certainly say what their plans are.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She has made it very clear what her plans are and I oppose them.
Furthermore, we have five partners to this deal who might have a thing or two to say about her eagerness to start a war with Iran - the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council - (China, Russia, France, UK) plus Germany. I don't think she will be able to unilaterally implement military action against Iran without the full agreement of all parties, but I wouldn't put it past her to try.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)dembotoz
(16,796 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)fracking, TPP free trade agreements, drone killings, XL Pipelines, Arctic drilling, and kill Social Security. The neocons love H. Clinton. I wonder why.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)he pulled the trigger on this one. Animosity over Israel's attempts to dictate US policy finally came to a head,and our President appointed Mr.Kerry point person to shut the AIPAC Yammering Stooges up once and for all. War Mongering Bibi got his come uppin's. Notice Chuckie Schumer is all quite. The only real noise is from the Republican peanut gallery and the D.C. Pundtocracy. There is more dollars to be made working with Iran than keeping with the poking a stick in their eye. Pisses the Cheney Neo-Cons off,but what the hay.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Could it be they allowed their religious allegiances to overwhelm their political allegiances and so they have no defence?
It happens.
It should not.
erronis
(15,216 posts)Schumer (NY)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
Manchin (WV)
(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/09/us/politics/lawmakers-against-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when Reid leaves. Shows that he's working against party and the country's interests when lobby groups like AIPAC come calling! We can't afford that in the next Senate session.
Actually these senators voted for cloture on the bill that was against the deal, but I know what you meant.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)tblue37
(65,269 posts)voted out of office in the next election.
padfun
(1,786 posts)IT showed who was aligned with the USA and who was with Israel. We really need to remove the traitors from our midst. We need what is best for the USA and not what is best for Israel.
Recently, I read something where the CIA considers MOSSAD one of their greatest spy threats. And make no mistake, they are VERY good at what they do. Hopefully this should open more eyes (I doubt it.)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What the hell?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But I'm not sure the language has yet evolved a term for members of government who seek to start a war between their nation and another solely for the benefit of a third.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Ya gotta feed the beast.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Time is a flat circle.
Martin Eden
(12,859 posts)How is this agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program unfriendly to Israel?
I'm not talking about opposition to the deal by Netanyahu; I'm talking about Israel's actual security.
If this deal were to fall apart, Iran wouldn't have to give up so much of their fissile material and means of production. If they are indeed intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and it is Netanyahu's goal to prevent that, he should be in favor of the deal.
More likely what he's really trying to prevent is the revitalization of Iran's economy and normalization of relations with the rest of the world that will come with the lifting of sanctions. The issue isn't nukes so much as Iran's backing of Hezbollah and Hamas. I think AIPAC's lobbying has more to do with the I/P conflict than with nukes.
I also think Israeli hardliners see war between the US and Iran as a positive development -- and it's much more likely without this nuclear deal.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Martin Eden
(12,859 posts)Like I said, I think it has more to do with local conflicts than nukes -- and a desire for war with Iran at US expense.
Duval
(4,280 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)tblue37
(65,269 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)When people are grasping for power, they hold onto every evil idea that has ever been born. And the evil becomes immortal...
procon
(15,805 posts)It's bad enough that Americans have take a backseat to the wealthy corporate lobbyists and billionaires who buy the representatives we elected to fix our local problems. It's unconscionable that we also have to compete with the millions that the state of Israel and other pro-Israel interests are throwing around to bribe our -- admittedly -- greedy and self serving American politicians. Israel doesn't care about what's best for America, nor should they, any more than Americans should put the interest of any other foreign country ahead of our own. I don't want to advance the warmongering and apartheid policies of Israel, and I certainly don't want any other foreign government trying to meddle in the government processes of America and making it even more corrupt than it is already.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)not to do take their share of the merchandise offered for sale!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There is the Foreign Agents Registration Act that is supposed to make a distinction between a foreign lobbyist and a foreign agent http://www.fara.gov/
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Thanks!
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)However, I think AIPAC will come back like an infection where you didn't use up all your antibiotics.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)USS Liberty after being struck and strafed with cannon fire by Israeli fighters and torpedo boats despite the huge American Flags and US ID numbers plainly visible from any side.
This was no accident.
http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
roscoeroscoe
(1,369 posts)I am amazed how few Americans know about the Liberty attack
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)the GOP-Israel (like how the Tories remade themselves into GOP-Canada)
90% of its money (and voters, the joke goes) come from the US now
instead of AIPAC being allowed to determine who is or isn't acceptable in both parties, now Israeli politics has made itself dependent on the US's good graces in a way that browbeating Washington for more money never had before
Turbineguy
(37,312 posts)asking this question in 1789 too. "Are those colonists ready for sovereignty?"
Jason Huh
(36 posts)Same goes for Netanyahu.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)ut oh
(893 posts)legally.
Seems they lobby for Israel, not American Jews/American-Israeli....
Isn't that a foreign nation exercising influence on American politics? I thought the GOP and conservatives in general seem to never want foreign influence except when it helps their side...
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jason Huh
(36 posts)Netanyahus animus came to a head when his ambassador to the United States arranged for him to speak to a joint meeting of Congress about Iran this past March, without even letting the White House know that the prime minister was planning a visit. Netanyahu came andhow else to put this?dissed the president of the United States in his own capital.
In 2014, it was hard to find a single Jewish member of Congress (not even Senator Bernie Sanders) who would break with AIPACs support for Israels war on Gaza. One year later, nine of 11 Jewish senators and most of the Jewish House members are bucking AIPAC and the Israeli government on, of all things, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We might get our foreign policy back for the first time since 1967!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,843 posts)I think the Iran deal is the best thing for the U.S. and Israel, not to mention Iran. It's probably not the best thing for the Likud Party and their desires for domination in the Middle East, but Likud doesn't represent most of Israel. I think it's possible to come up with a deal in which all parties can be winners, and I think this agreement comes the closest to that end.
malaise
(268,845 posts)What did Bill Maher say about Obama again - Obama will fuck you up!!
Well done.
mtasselin
(666 posts)It didn't cost them any money it was American tax payer money, did they get some bruises, yes, but they will come over and ask for more money and they will get it and the cycle continues.