While the fate of the Senate’s Iran sanctions bill remains uncertain, one thing appears clear: AIPAC is alienating allies on Capitol Hill with its intense and self-destructive lobbying efforts.
That alienation has reached peak volume as a result of AIPAC’s bitter, partisan attack against DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the lobbying outfit’s most reliable allies in the House.
Why is she being attacked? Wasserman Schultz has yet to make a public pronouncement as to which way she leans with regard to the sanctions bill. And behind the scenes, it has been reported that she’s trying to dissuade Democrats from supporting the bill, which, given her appointment by President Obama to head the DNC, seems more than expected.
But it’s not so much that Wasserman Schultz has become an AIPAC target. It’s how ugly and partisan AIPAC’s attack against her has become for an organization which takes great pains to appear non-partisan. So what did AIPAC do? It sent out an action letter to her constituents in Florida which used, in its attack, a denigrating and speculative article by the right-wing Washington Free Beacon.
Even though AIPAC declined to comment for a Foreign Policy story on the matter, current and former AIPAC operatives and activists – alarmed by what’s transpiring – are speaking out:
“In the 40 years I’ve been involved with AIPAC, this is the first time I’ve seen such a blatant departure from bipartisanship,” said Doug Bloomfield, AIPAC’s former chief lobbyist.
[…]
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,” he said. “People can disagree on tactics, but Debbie is in a unique position as DNC chair and has the pro-Israel agenda deeply-rooted in her.”
And there are those on Capitol Hill who are speaking out as well, albeit anonymously, about how AIPAC is self-destructing over the sanctions bill:
AIPAC’s campaign in South Florida has also triggered rare anger towards the group on Capitol Hill, where some feel it has gone way too far.
“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.”
In reality, AIPAC is fanning partisan flames upon itself by using all its political might to oppose what the American public favors by a 2-1 margin: the Obama administration’s diplomatic inroads with Iran.
There is no indication that AIPAC plans to ease up on its unrelenting, full-court press to derail America’s diplomatic agreement with Iran. And the more it presses, the more it will fray long-standing relationships on Capitol Hill.
Will those fraying ties ever snap? That depends upon whether this latest sanctions bill fight is an aberration, or an indication of a new normal in an environment where boycotts and sanctions are beginning to squeeze Israel and the international community is moving more and more towards isolation as the settlements grow and the occupation wears on.
-ยง-
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Follow him on Twitter @David_EHG.
I agree with you, David, that AIPAC’s attack on Wasserman Shultz is an over reach (and that’s putting it mildly).
But, your condemnation of AIPAC, while accurate, conveniently leaves out that there are good, pro-Israel organizations that actively oppose the sanctions bill. Leaving that critical fact out serves no purpose other than to fan the flames of the Israel-hatred that you cultivate. It may help you to sell more books to those who hold those views, but you do a grave disservice to the cause of achieving a realistic, peaceful coexistence among Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighbors in the Middle East.
Hmm …
If you truly cared about this bill being thwarted, as I do, then you would have added, as the most important addendum to your comment, a link to J Street’s petition, as I did in my last piece.
But since you seem to have left that out, I’ll help you:
TELL YOUR SENATORS YOU OPPOSE S1881 – IRAN SANCTIONS BILL http://act.jstreet.org/sign/oppose_1881_nsc/
If your true purpose was to inform our readers, I would have applauded you. But unfortunately, your only motive in these comments – as they always are – is to (unsuccessfully) delegitimize the voice, not promote a message.
I look forward to your future personal attacks (unless you’re banned by site administrators for violating comment policies), as they always serve as evidence of those forces out there who champion conflict. Your name comes up a lot, as do a few choice others, as examples of all that is wrong in the American Jewish political world. Journalists and friends alike. In fact, your comments came up last night at Hillel, along with a few others. People don’t seem to like them very much, particularly university students.
I wonder why?
This is a good article, as far as it goes.
But, to my mind, its focus is too specific in that it fails to address, or even raise, the question of WHY.
Why is AIPAC over-reaching like this? I suggest that it has to do with the increasing dislike, throughout the world and even in the United States, of certain of Israel’s policies, especially the settlement building. This leads, I think, to increasing isolation of the Israeli government and, ultimately to the hint of desperation embodied in AIPAC’s latest stance.
But that’s just my take. I’m interested in what David and others have to say on the matter.
Why is AIPAC over-reaching?
While this is not a full answer to the question, one reason is that it is mirroring the over-reaching being done on the issue by the current Netanyahu government, which despite America’s remarkable support, has done everything in its power to publicly critique the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts (both with regard to Iran and Palestine).
Why is this happening? A multitude of factors that all revolve around one thing, I believe: an existential fear of being destroyed.
Given our history, it’s a wholly legitimate fear, but one that has precipitated reflexive, and self-destructive, decisions by those in power.
David:
Your original headline was that AIPAC is self-destructing. Do you think the same might be true, for the same reason, of the right-wing Israeli approach?
If so, then you end up saying that Israeli self-destruction is being brought on by a fear of being destroyed by others.
Personally, I feel that suicide and homicide, while perhaps not equally culpable, is equally final for the dead.
There are many, including myself, who have long viewed Israel’s right-wing desire for a “Greater Israel” and its reflexive militarism as among the most threatening elements to Israel’s long-term survival as a democratic, Jewish state.
There is much criticism for the BDS movement and international pressure being placed upon Israel, with the central critique being that these elements want a bi-national state, and thus the end of Israel as we know it. But if Israel’s right-wing elements are allowed to continue with their policies, they will unintentionally achieve the same result — a bi-national state, with West Bank Palestinians subsumed into a greater state.
That is, if they are to be granted full rights as citizens.
Doesn’t AIPAC regard as its duty to always support the wishes of the current Israeli government? So perhaps this comes from Jerusalem?
AIPAC represents an older generation of American Jews who lived and breathed Israel. Most younger Jews do not feel this passionate connection to Israel. Nor does Israel care all that much what American Jews think. So you have a shrinking circle of American jews who have strong views, one way or the other, arguing, slandering, and calling each other names. I’m sure the people in Congress have little regard for these arguments between American Jews.