AIPAC and Iraq

One of the odder notions to take hold in recent years is that AIPAC specifically, and the so-called "Israel lobby" more generally had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War, and that anyone who says otherwise is an anti-semite. As John Judis writes for The New Republic, however, this is just false:

At the time, a Senate staff person with a responsibility for foreign policy told me of AIPAC's lobbying. But I don't have to rely on my memory. AIPAC's lobbying wasn't widely reported because AIPAC didn't want Arab states, whose support the Bush administration was soliciting, to be able to tie Bush's plans to Israel, but it lobbied nonetheless. In September 2002, before Congress had begun considering the administration's proposal authorizing force with Iraq, Rebecca Needler, a spokeswoman for AIPAC, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "If the president asks Congress to support action in Iraq, AIPAC would lobby members of Congress to support him." Then at an AIPAC meeting in New York in January 2003, before the war began, but after Congress had voted to authorize Bush to go to war, Howard Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, boasted of AIPAC's success in lobbying for the war. Reported the New York Sun, "According to Mr. Kohr, AIPAC's successes over the past year also include guaranteeing Israel's annual aid package and 'quietly' lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq."

And, obviously, other institutions of the hawkish "pro-Israel" establishment -- the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Saban Center, JINSA, The New York Sun, The New Republic, etc. -- all advocated strongly in favor of invasion. That's not to say that "the Jews caused the war" (I think Bush, Cheney, Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. had a little something to do with it) but it's still true.

Comments

I don't see how having a U.S. trained military under the command of radicl Shiite fundamentalists just a few days march from Tel Aviv has made Israel safer.

Posted by alphie | October 3, 2007 5:09 PM

Matt,
In you obsessive need to blame everything on Israel, you omit several key facts.

1. Israel originally lobbied against the Iraq war with the Administration trying to persuade it was the bigger threat.

2. It wasn't until the Bush administration made it clear it was going to invade that Israel got on board so as not to get on the bad side of the administration.

3. Then and only then did AIPAC lobby for the invasion.

I love the scare quotes around quietly and the editorializing by calling it a "boast".

You clearly aren't antisemetic, but you are obsessive in your need to see fault in Israel. Maybe you feel the need to constantly reafirm your progressive bonafides by bashing Israel, but, bnly you and your psychiatrist can say why.

Posted by Dave | October 3, 2007 5:15 PM

And at the time of the Iraq war vote, Jewish-Americans supported the war by lower margins than the population at large, just as they have at all times since. More proof of Walt and Mearshimer's thesis.

Posted by Steve | October 3, 2007 5:15 PM

I meant to say

1. Israel originally lobbied against the Iraq war with the Administration trying to persuade it THAT IRAN was the bigger threat.

Posted by Dave | October 3, 2007 5:16 PM

Good point, alphie. One of the reasons I was against the war, in fact. The power vacuum we'd create was always going to be filled by those guys, not by Ahmed Chalabi. And here we are, supplying guns to them and training them how to use them. That's even worse than I imagined.

Posted by Vanguard | October 3, 2007 5:19 PM

Dave,

Interesting claims. Matt's provided evidence (via Judis) for his. What's the evidence for yours? I'd be interested to see it.

Posted by Ryan | October 3, 2007 5:19 PM

From their interviews --- I haven't read the book but it appears to have backed off some of the allegations in the article, which I did read --- Walt and Meerscheimer seem to define the Israel lobby as including US Jews, generally. But a healthy majority of US Jews seem to have been against the invasion of Iraq, no matter the viewpoint of AIPAC, and Israeli politicians for that matter. (That's OK....I ignored them when they told me I should vote for Nixon, because he would be good for Israel, too.) Organizationally, the Union for Reform Judaism, representing more than 900 congregations across the country, has been vocally against the war.

If Congress believed that AIPAC represented the Jews of this country on the issue, they just weren't listening.

Posted by Barry | October 3, 2007 5:19 PM

As proof of my points. Also from TNR

Last month, in an interview, Lawrence Wil- kerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, and who is an adversary of administration neo- conservatives, told me that Israel had been consistently warning the administration that Iran was the main threat, not Iraq. "The Israelis tried their best to persuade us that we were focused on the wrong enemy," he said, "and that they were very leery of destroying the balance of power in the Middle East. But once they understood that we were going to war, come hell or high water, they weren't going to get on the wrong side of the president of the United States."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20071008&s=goldberg100807&c=4

Posted by Dave | October 3, 2007 5:20 PM

AIPAC is a PAC. That means money. Money talks, particularly to Congress folk. Some Jews of a particular political bent favored this war; that's not a knock on all, or even on many, other Jews. As Matt quite correctly says.

Posted by David in NY | October 3, 2007 5:23 PM

I also know that Matt read the TNR article I linked or at least pretended to because he wrote about it here. Somehow he forgot those key facts stated by Colin Powell's chief of staff.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/for_the_record.php

Posted by Dave | October 3, 2007 5:26 PM

One of the odder notions to take hold in recent years is that AIPAC specifically, and the so-called "Israel lobby" more generally had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War,

Indeed, this is very odd ... considering that in the run-up to the war, the AIPAC drones (e.g., on your local college campus) were eagerly trying to convince their fellow Jews that

(1) the war would be good for Israel

(2) isn't it wonderful that the US under GW Bush was fighting Israel's war for it

(3) if you don't support this war, which is good for Israel, you must be an anti-Semite

That being said (c.f. Dave @ 5:15 PM), n.b. that Matt is referring to the Israel Lobby not Israel itself. The war against Iraq, for various reasons including that if Saddam Hussein did have WMDs invading Iraq would leave Saddam Hussein with no reason not to use them against Israel (c.f. his attacking Israel in the first Iraq war), was patently a bad idea as far as Israel is concerned. The point is not that the war was done to benefit Israel (which is arguably false), but that the Israel lobby was involved in promoting the war (which is obviously true ... and it's duplicitous for AIPAC et al to deny a role they embraced).

Personally, I think the role of the Israel lobby was much more than convincing a few Jews with more money and power than sense that good Jews support invading Iraq. It was more than even convincing Christian Zionists that this war would help get their armeggeddon on. Part of the role of the Israel lobby was to make sure that not only certain Jews and fundies, but also anti-Zionist moonbats would view this war as being done for the sake of Israel, thus allowing opposition to the war to be portrayed as being motivated by anti-Semitism. Rove did know how to cover more than one base at a time, eh?

Posted by DAS | October 3, 2007 5:35 PM

It wasn't until the Bush administration made it clear it was going to invade that Israel got on board so as not to get on the bad side of the administration.

Then and only then did AIPAC lobby for the invasion.

So does AIPAC do everything the Israeli government wants? (Are they the Israel lobby literally?) And if the Israelis were right that (as I have always thought and as it has proved) it was a dangerous idea to upset the balance of power in the Middle East, creating a vacuum into which a radical government would be likely to move, why did the Israelis and AIPAC actively support the war, especially when making it clear that it was against Israel's interests would have turned some important votes in the Senate? If they thought the war was against their interests but didn't want to offend Bush, couldn't they have just stayed quiet, instead of pushing for a disaster?

Something here does not make much sense, but I'm not sure what.

Posted by David in NY | October 3, 2007 5:37 PM

AIPAC is a PAC. That means money.

Actually, AIPAC is not a PAC.

Posted by Steve | October 3, 2007 5:38 PM

This quote from Lawrence Wilkerson answers your question (from my post above"

"But once they understood that we were going to war, come hell or high water, they weren't going to get on the wrong side of the president of the United States."

Posted by Dave | October 3, 2007 5:41 PM

Barry,

I got the impression from their interview on Fresh Air (maybe they toned down their rhetoric when speaking to a, pace Gene Simmons, Jewish interviewer?) that they certainly do not view all US Jews as being part of the Israel lobby. In fact, they were even getting awfully close to reaching the conclusion that the Israel lobby is neither good for US Jews nor good for Israel.

Indeed, arguably, the behavior of the so-called Israel lobby in promoting the Iraq war is indicative of how much what tripe the lobby is pushing really isn't about Israel but it's own position in the power structure (c.f. David in NY). And the behavior of the Israel lobby in promoting the war is an example of how the Israel lobby really does behave exactly as anti-Semites fear we Jews will behave.

So what kind of mental kronk causes a person to behave according to the stereotypes held about that person by someone who hates the group to which that person belongs? Is there a drug to treat it? If so, can we start giving that drug to Jewish neo-cons?

At the very least, Jewish neo-cons should stop acting as if they were Elders of Zion and then complaining that those describing their actions are "bringing up old stereotypes straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". It reminds me of an old proverb about pissing in the wind and rain ... as so much of reactionary behavior does.

Posted by DAS | October 3, 2007 5:41 PM

I have quoted Mr. Wilkerson previously. Apparently, the neocons and the Israeli Government don't always see eye to eye. Big surprise. The question remains, was AIPAC supporting the attack on Iraq because they really believed it would benefit the State of Israel or were they merely trying to curry favor with the administration which was going to invade Iraq regardless of the position of AIPAC or the Israeli Government or anybody else for that matter? Clearly, the initial position of the Government of Israel was correct; the invasion of Iraq increased the security of the State of Israel not a jot or a tittle (nor did it increase the security of anybody else in the Middle East). In fact, by removing Iraq as a potential threat to Iran, the security of Israel and other US allies in the Middle East was reduced, not enhanced.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 5:55 PM

Sharon's government and AIPAC indeed viewed Iran as "larger threat", and they were helping in starting war with Iraq under the understanding that this is a preliminary stage for "reorganizing Middle East on a rational basis".

I recall a representative of Israeli inteligence making a show on 60 minutes (20/20? my recolection is a bit hazy) about connections between Saddam and terrorists, that was the title of the segment, but ca. 2/3 of the presentation was about Iran. Even so, it was reported that Sharon organized a "personal" inteligence unit (like Rumsfeld) to produce fake (stovepiped was the word) inteligence supporting the war with Saddam. Perhaps the uranium papers were done by those people, but that is a sheer speculation (but why Italians would do it, Berlusconi notwithstanding?).

Recapitulating, the true goal of this helping and lobbying was an enterprize roughly three times more insane that what we actually did. Iran has 3 times larger population, 5 times larger territory, better weaponry, larger percentage of political supporters of the regime, more stable institutions (no decapitation could be contemplated). Strategically, rather than being in a blockaded position, Iran has secure connection to Russia and China through Caspian and Kazakhstan, while it is in the position to blockade us (Strait of Hormuz) and lobying rockets on our command centers in Bahrein and Qatar.

Last but not least, while the diplomatic case against Saddam was phony, it was nevertheless documented, compiled etc., while against Iran we had nothing, zip, nada.

So, AIPAC guys (and Sharon) were truly insane. Of course, the Iraq war is pretty bad for Israel in the longer run, but they somehow failed to predict it. As far as lobbying for the sake of Israel's interests, it was rank malpractice.

Posted by piotr | October 3, 2007 6:09 PM

Since AIPAC does not represent American Jewry, and since it funnels no monies - where do its magical powers come from ?

Posted by Ron | October 3, 2007 6:21 PM

Dave, MY is attacking AIPAC in his post, not Israel. Your confusing of the two is practically ripped from AIPAC's propaganda.

"Since AIPAC does not represent American Jewry, and since it funnels no monies - where do its magical powers come from ?"

AIPAC helps to raise money through social connections more than raising it directly. Think of the social connections between people at the Department of Defense, AIPAC and members of the Israeli government that are behind the espionage scandal. In addition, Congresspeople are stupid cattle. Many live in parts of the country where it is not uncommon to still believe that Jews have horns because they've never met anyone Jewish before coming to DC. If AIPAC tells them that they represent Jewish-Americans and everybody else in DC seems afraid of them, then they will believe AIPAC. AIPAC is also rather successful at smearing its opponents as anti-Semites. According to a poll of members of Congress, AIPAC is the second-most powerful lobby in DC behind the AARP.

Posted by Reality Man | October 3, 2007 6:31 PM

According to Mr. Wilkerson, Sharon thought that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, at least at first. As he always did, when it became clear that the invasion was going ahead, he fell into line and supported it, not because he thought it was a good idea but because he was sucking up to his pal Bush.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 6:39 PM

AIPAC's lobbying wasn't widely reported because AIPAC didn't want Arab states, whose support the Bush administration was soliciting, to be able to tie Bush's plans to Israel

It's interesting to contrast this with how America loudly sings the praises of any regime change we happen to like, thereby discrediting the regime in question and setting ourselves back.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 3, 2007 6:42 PM

1) Maybe it would clear things up by defining who we think is in the Israel Lobby -- which I define largely as those Americans who advocate strongly for use of US military and economic power on Israel's behalf, whose advocacy goes beyond what I think is reasonable for a US citizen to push, and who have bought disaster down upon America in a major way by their political advocacy.

2) This eliminates most American Jews, in my opinion. While some of them feel some ties to Israel and to fellow Jews abroad, the ones I know do not let those feelings lead them into disloyalty to this country. Plus, neither their votes, their political influence, nor their political donations are that significant.

3) No, the people on my list are mostly billionaires --some Jewish, some not -- and those political pundits/politicians/publishers who make a living by trying to lead (mislead??) US citizens into supporting what their billionaire patron's agendas -- into supporting what those billionaires think is best for Israel.

Even though many Israeli citizens themselves would disagree with these Americans. After all, those Americans are largely safe from Palestinian suicide bombers and do not suffer the associated costs (security, economic decline,etc.)that goes with sabotage of peace talks.

4) Those who have seen my past posts know of some on my list. Certainly Haim Saban -- the Israeli billionaire with dual US citizenship who was the largest donor to the Democratic Party in the 2000-2002 timeframe (Almost $14 MILLION.) Who has raised over $1 Million this year for Hillary. Who , in a Dec 2006 interview with Haaretz stated his strong loyalty to Israel, his belief that "every Jew" should serve in the IDF, his view that American support was one of the two pillars of Israeli security, and his view that it was his duty to ensure that nothing interferes with that American support.

5) Haim's influence, in my opinion, explains why so many Democratic leaders --including Hillary -- rolled over and spread their legs when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld decided to sacrifice our soldiers to seize the oil deposits of IRaq. Why few to no Democrats supported Senator Bob Graham --Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee --when he said the intelligence did not support the judgement that Saddam was an imminent threat. Why Bob Graham retired shortly thereafter.

5) Haim Saban's sock puppets include two of the Directors --Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk --employed at the think tank Haim funded at Brookings -- the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Kenneth Pollack put out a bestselling Book in 2002 which assured America that he had access to the intelligence and the situation was dire. That Saddam was working feverishly to get the nuclear bomb and was likely close to success. Kenneth was on Bill Clinton's National Security Council, as I recall.

Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, joined with Kenneth in writing a LA Time Oped assuring us that Saddam had WMDs and we needed to got to war to stop him. See http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

6) I have some more names --but I will first let other posters weigh in.

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 7:35 PM

Re SLC's comment "According to Mr. Wilkerson, Sharon thought that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, at least at first. As he always did, when it became clear that the invasion was going ahead, he fell into line and supported it, not because he thought it was a good idea but because he was sucking up to his pal Bush."
---------
SLC and I have discussed this subject before and he knows the situation is more complex than that. As I recall, Dave was in on that discussion. The government of Israel's hands are not clean of the blood of our 3700 dead soldiers.

Sharon's envoy --Netanyahu -- and Sharon's spokesman -- helped Bush lie the American people into the Iraq war. See
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/why_aid_to_israel.php#comment-497273

and my posts which follow that.

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 7:42 PM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams keeps repeating the big lie that Bibi was Sharons' envoy and spokesman. Like his sockpuppet Richard Steven Hack, he, like Josef Goebbels believes that if he tells a big lie loud enough and often enough, people will come to believe it. The fact is that Bibi is a lose cannon and has always been a loose cannon; that's one of the reasons he was a failure as Prime Minister. The only reason Sharon kept him around was so that he could be blamed for any inconveniences caused by the economic policies that the government was instituting. Bibi is what the late columnist Stuart Alsop used to refer to as a phony tough (referring to Watergate felons like John Dean and Jeb Stuart Magruder) as opposed real toughs (like Watergate felon Gordon Liddy). As proof, one only need refer to his performance in the Khalad Maashal affair. Now unless Mr. Williams can present proof that Mr. Wilkerson is a liar, then one is forced to conclude that Sharon and various members of the Israeli military and intelligence branches thought that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, regardless of what Bibi, who had no say in the matter, thought.

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 8:13 PM

Dave, SLC and others:
You seem to intentionally mis-understand the basics of what is being discussed here.
1) Aipac is an organization of !00,000 U.S. citizens who actively promote their idea of Pro- Israel policies by lobbying the U.S. Congress.
They are an effective and powerful lobbying organization. Visit their website, they'll tell you.
2) Aipac does not represent, or speak for, the Jewish people as a whole in America.
3) Aipac is not part of, and does not speak for, the elected government of Israel.

In my opinion, Aipac has a right wing, militaristic viewpoint that is shared by some members of the Israeli government and our own Neo-Cons at The American Enterprise Institute/The Project for a New American Century . They all work together as a coalition of the willing.
Buzz

Posted by Buzz | October 3, 2007 9:58 PM

Re SLC's comment "Mr. Williams keeps repeating the big lie that Bibi was Sharons' envoy and spokesman"
----------------
1)No --what I keep citing are MULTIPLE NEWS REPORTS and THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL's OWN WEBSITE stating that Natanyahu was speaking in Washington on Sharon's behalf --and quoting the words Natanyahu spoke to America in April 2002. The "big lie" is, in my opinion, is SLC's. Since I see him providing NOTHING in the way of evidence to contradict me.

2) Again, from the link I gave above, here is what Sharon's OWN OFFICE said was Bibi's role in his visit to the US in April 2002:
"PM Sharon meets Binyamin Netanyahu.
(04/04/2002)
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met today (Thursday), 4.4.2002 with Binyamin
Netanyahu. The meeting went well and continued longer than planned.

The meeting dealt mainly with the diplomatic-communications campaign in the United States and Europe.

Binyamin Netanyahu responded positively to Prime Minister Sharon's request to energetically contribute to efforts to ward off the
international pressures on Israel in its just struggle against terror. "
Ref: http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Press+Releases/2002/04/Spokesman5444.htm

3) And what did Natanyahu tell the American people when he appeared before our Senate in April 2002? As a representative of Ariel Sharon's Government?

A transcript of the speech is available here:
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/10/se.02.html

Extract 1:
NATANYAHU: "First, I must state clearly that the need to topple Saddam is paramount. I think the commitment of America and Britain to dismantle this terrorist dictatorship before it obtains atomic bombs, before it obtains nuclear weapons, deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments and all sane people around the world. "

Extract2:
NATANYAHU: "I must tell you that the charge that Israel, of all countries, is hindering the war against Saddam is woefully unjust, because I think that my country, more than any other, has done more to make victory over Saddam possible. 21 years ago, Prime Minister Menachem Begin sent the Israeli Air Force on a pre-dawn raid hundreds of miles away, on one of the boldest military missions in our nation's history. When our pilots returned, we had successfully destroyed Saddam's atomic bomb factory, and crippled his capacity to build nuclear weapons. Israel was safer, and so was the world. "

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 10:36 PM

In August 2002, Voice of America reported that Sharon and his subordinates were encouraging Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein. See
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2002-08/a-2002-08-16-29-Israel.cfm

An extract:
"Israel is urging the United States to move swiftly and decisively against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying that delay will only give him more time to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sent a message to Washington this past week, telling the Bush Administration that any delay in dealing with Saddam Hussein will only give him more time to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Sharon spokesman Ra'anan Gissin said Israeli intelligence officials believe the Iraqi leader is stepping up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons.

In an interview with the American cable television network, CNN, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres had much the same message. Mr. Peres said a military operation against Saddam Hussein will be dangerous, but he said it would be more dangerous to postpone such action. "

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 10:39 PM

What was Ariel Sharon's own spokeman, Ranaan Gissin, telling the American people in Aug 2002? From
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml

"Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack
Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam

JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
(CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction "
----------
Again, I ask the Government of Israel: Where are the WMDS you assured us were there?

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 10:43 PM

I must say that these Jewish-activist types are the most remarkably blatant pathological liars...

I wonder if it's a simple genetic characteristic, perhaps closely linked to their general insanity...

Posted by RKU | October 3, 2007 11:05 PM

Unlike SLC, who's a lying POS, Dave is correct in the sense that Israel DID try to get the US to attack Iran FIRST, THEN Iraq, rather than the reverse.

Only when Israel was assured that the plan was to attack Iraq, then Syria, then Iran (or vice versa with regard to Syria and Iran) did the Israelis then jump on board and support the Iraq war big time.

The difference between what the Israelis told Colonel Wilkerson and when they jumped on the bandwagon was exactly the difference between early 2002 and later 2002 and 2003. This is the point that SLC continues to deliberately ignore in order to repeat his rabid notion that Israel did not support the Iraq war.

Barry, no, M&W do NOT "include US Jews generally". I don't know where you got that impression. They very explicitly deny that. They include only those Zionist organizations who are "Israel firsters".

RKU: "I must say that these Jewish-activist types are the most remarkably blatant pathological liars...I wonder if it's a simple genetic characteristic, perhaps closely linked to their general insanity..."

No. it's ideological. They're Zionists - and this is how Zionists think and behave. At least, the "Zionists" who run Israel and support everything Israel does. There are "other" "Zionists" like MJ Rosenberg who don't do that. But they're considered "self-hating Jews" by "real" Zionists like SLC and Dershowitz and their ilk.

People need to remember that neocons are not Zionists IN GENERAL (although some, even many, most certainly are), and Zionists are not necessarily neocons.

What they have in common is their INTENTIONS and to a lesser degree, their MOTIVATIONS. BOTH of them want power and money. Both of them want to get it by means of war and conquest and "legal" means of coercion.

They're really no different in kind than any other statist scumbag - just in degree. And in the degree of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice that they apply to the subject.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 11:36 PM

I'll add to that.

The really amusing thing about the Zionist zealots (hmmm, where did the term "zealot" come from, eh?) is that sooner or later - probably sooner - they're going to make the term "anti-Semite" a matter of pride rather than condemnation.

After all, as the rest of the world comes to realize what scumbags the Zionists are who are running Israel, and how Israel is a rogue, terrorist, pariah nation - second only to the US in such characteristics - and as the Zionists continue to pervert the English language by coming with nonsense like "New Anti-Semitism" (look it up in Wikipedia), it will become clear to people that being an "anti-Semite" is actually a badge of honor.

The term will become "co-opted" by people who are against war and terrorism - which almost by definition means being against Israel.

After all, as Anton LaVey once said, "If you have the Devil's name, play the Devil's game."

I think somebody once defined "anti-Semite" as: 1) someone who hates Jews; or 2) someone hated by Jews.

The latter could become the standard definition.

Given the behavior of your average Zionists, eventually everyone is going to recoil in disgust at being associated with such paragons of intellectual dishonesty, intellectual cowardice and outright thuggery.

These guys makes the Mafia look like nice Italian guys.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 11:45 PM

The Zionists in the Bush Administration had advocated war with Iraq long before 9/11, as in, for example, the infamous "Clean Break" paper, plus letters to President Clinton, etc. Then they fixed the intelligence to promote war, as described in the Mearsheimer/Walt book, aiming to replace Saddam, who had sent scuds into Israel and financed the rebuilding of Israeli-bulldozed Palestinian homes, with Chalabi, who (p.252) had promised good reltions with Israel including a pipeline from Mosul to Haifa, once he took over Iraq. These plans obviously have backfired, and now The Lobby is pushing war with Iran.

Posted by courtney squires | October 4, 2007 12:57 AM

Haven't read the whole thread, but MattY, generally speaking, the honest one.

Cheers, Matt

Posted by sofia | October 4, 2007 1:06 AM

100,000 members ?! That's a drop in the sea.

The AARP has 40 million.

Posted by Ron | October 4, 2007 3:07 AM

Buzz, and more generally Don Williams, are correct.

This is very hard for outsiders to understand, and it's all rather specific, but having worked as an AIPAC intern at one point, I believe I can with at least a little authority say that the Walt/Mearsheimer and Judis takes on AIPAC are about right.

It's important to understand that AIPAC has always been a lobbying organization which worked to promote Israeli interests and influence AS SEEN BY AMERICAN JEWS. Through the '70s and well into the '80s, this was seen by American Jews as a simple and unitary task. But during the course of the '80s and early '90s, AIPAC was effectively "captured" by those American Jews who backed the Likud -- the more anti-Palestinian faction among American Jewry. There was very little support at AIPAC for the Oslo accords, even under Rabin.

Over the past 20 years, American Jews have been riven by a split between Peace Now sympathizers and the more right-wing AIPAC folks. Today, it is probably safe to say that there are more Peace Now sympathizers than AIPAC supporters. But the AIPAC supporters tend to be those who devote more of their political energy (and more cash) to the Israel issue; and for many, many years, American Jews who criticized Israeli government policy on settlements and the Palestinians were silenced by the argument that you weren't entitled to criticize Israel unless you faced the risks of living there. It's typical for the most extremely nationalistic elements of an ethno-political "identity" lobby in the US to dominate the political sphere out of proportion to their numbers. Just look at how the IRA issue worked among Irish-Americans, or how right-wing anti-Communist "no compromisers" still dominate Vietnamese-American and Cuban-American political discourse -- even though a majority of both groups (overwhelming in the Vietnamese case) favors renewing ties and reducing hostility towards the mother country.

AIPAC does the same thing. So you have to understand that the claim isn't that AIPAC represents all American Jews, or even that it effectively represents Israel's best interests. Rather, it represents the coinciding interests of Israel's right wing and of Jewish-nationalist, anti-Palestinian American Jews. Many of the latter group are Reagan Democrats, with broadly liberal domestic views but hard-line foreign policy views, which makes them a swing vote; and that is part of what makes the Israel lobby so powerful.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 4, 2007 3:16 AM

Someone asked Sy Hearsh why he thought was motivating Hillary Clinton to take the line she was taking on Iran and he said "Jewish Money".

He didn't sit around for three hours and flesh out what he meant by it, and throw out caveats and disclaimers and a billion other things and everyone knew exactly what he meant. She's a NY politician and if she had views that weren't fairly in lockstep with Kahanist style viewpoints on all matters involving middle east foreign policy it would be noteworthy.

Maybe it only works for Sy because he's Jewish but the world didn't collapse around him for noting an obvious cause and effect relationship, no one acted like god had shat on everyone and the Nazi's were getting ready to goosestep down Main St. if everyone didn't denounce this foul blasphemy. I wonder if they had a wrote a paper that stuck with laying out their case and just stowed all the olive branches and hand-wringing if the reaction would have been the same.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 4, 2007 3:46 AM

This is hilarious.

The vote for the war was a foregone conclusion, with public support at close to 70%, and Dems fearful of a massacre in the mid terms.

Claiming that AIPAC had anything to do with it- is like some minor union endorsing Hilary and then claiming credit for her win.

Interest groups don't back losers.

Posted by David | October 4, 2007 6:24 AM

Someone asked Sy Hearsh why he thought was motivating Hillary Clinton to take the line she was taking on Iran and he said "Jewish Money".

Amy Goodman on DemocracyNow a couple of days ago.

I don't know, there are plenty of corporations managed by people of all races and ethnicities who profit from wars and war-mongering; arms dealers, security contractors, oilmen, etc. So, I suspect AIPAC might be financed and supported, in part, by people who have no interest in Israel whatsoever. It's a convenient organization and it gets the job done.

Posted by abb1 | October 4, 2007 8:18 AM

Great comment there by brooksfoe.

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 9:20 AM

1) I concur with brooksfoe.

Karl Rove/Dick Cheney showed great cunning in figuring out that they could help Big Oil grab the oil deposits of Iraq by casting it as an overthrow of an enemy of Israel -- and hence court some of the major financiers of the Democratic Party in order to kneecap any Democratic opposition. Could, in fact, make the Democratic leadership accomplices in a very sleezy operation.

2) To do that, they used American opinion-shapers who are strong supporters of Israel's right wing Likud.

The Israeli journal Haaretz explained:

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical ...

...Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. "

Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

3) But what is interesting is that those opinion-shapers are NOTHING in and of themselves. They have influence only because they are seen as spokemen for the very wealthy people who fund them. Democratic politicans don't give a damm what Kenneth Pollack personally thinks -- but they watch his statements so that they don't (inadvertently) get crosswise of Haim Saban.

4) William Kristol's Weekly Standard would have gone bankrupt years ago if not subsidized by Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

Plus , Murdoch's Fox News put out far more misleading/deceitful propaganda beating the drums for war on Iraq --for war on the heathern "Islamofascists" than AIPAC. Murdoch is not Jewish.

5) The only motivation I see for Murdoch promoting US imperialism is (a) to make money (b) to do favors for people who help him make money and (c) to ensure the US military stays extended around the world --and US defense spending stays high -- because Australia's 20 million people are overshadowed by 3 BILLION Asians and Australia is toast if the US ever retreats into isolationism.
Oh yes -- and (d) to elect Bush/Cheney so Rupert could get plenty of tax cuts and wouldn't have to worry about FCC regulation on behalf of the public interest.

Rupert Murdoch, in fact, is the one who gave Haim Saban his $billions -- with Fox's purchase of the Power Rangers franchise. Strange to pay so much for a few guys in tights whose lines consist largely of "Blue Power"! "Red Power"!

6) By contrast, one of the few people to strongly oppose the Neocons was Jewish billionaire George Soros --with his funding of Moveon.

Posted by Don Williams | October 4, 2007 10:19 AM