Benjamin Netanyahu Gives Declawed AIPAC Little To Fight For

'It's All Fuzzy' on Peace and Iran — Loyalists Moan

getty images

By J.J. Goldberg

Published March 06, 2014, issue of March 14, 2014.
  • Print
  • Share Share
  • Multi Page

Something was off-kilter in Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 4 appearance before the annual Washington policy conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse.

After five years of raging that the Obama administration was too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran, the Israeli leader faced a record crowd of 14,000 activists ready to storm the barricades for him and told them that things were, well, pretty okay.

It was a startling message to deliver to the thousands of citizen-lobbyists from across the country, moments before they were to head to Capitol Hill for their annual day of hands-on lobbying: There’s not much for you to do.

Certainly, Israel faces grave challenges. Iran is to retain some nuclear enrichment capacity at the end of the current six-power negotiations. This leaves the threat of an Iranian bomb intact. Unfortunately, AIPAC had been forced a month earlier by fierce White House opposition to give up trying to legislate stiffer negotiating terms. The agenda the delegates were bringing to Congress was, as one staffer said in a briefing session, “just a letter” requesting tougher terms. No teeth, no drama.

Beyond that? Negotiations with the Palestinians sounded more hopeful than usual. The prime minister looked forward with almost Peres-like enthusiasm to a new Middle East as Arab states embraced Israel after a Palestinian peace deal. Israel is still threatened by boycott, divestment and sanctions, but this isn’t fundamentally a legislative issue, and therefore not on the agenda of a lobbying organization.

Something was missing, and folks noticed.

“It’s all fuzzy,” said Charles Jacobs of Boston, a pro-Israel militant who founded The David Project and now heads Americans for Peace and Tolerance. “There isn’t a specific thing that they’ve planted a flag around, that gives a strong sense of direction.”

It was a revelatory moment in what’s shaping up to be a period of wrenching transition, for Israel and AIPAC alike.

Israel is being buffeted by regional unrest and by mounting international pressure over settlements. AIPAC, whose mission is to smooth Israel’s path and soften its blows, has received painful lessons in the limits of power. Times like these, when so much is uncertain, call for caution and patience, qualities for which neither Israel nor the lobby are well known.

Netanyahu had spent the previous day in talks with the president, vice president and leaders of Congress. They were discussing the two historic negotiations orchestrated by America that will determine the contours of Israel’s future. For Israel the two negotiations — one over Palestinian statehood, the other on Iran’s nuclear project — are life or death questions. For America they are two items among many on the government’s plate, both abruptly overshadowed just before Netanyahu arrived by the Ukraine crisis.

Activists come to the yearly AIPAC conference expecting to be energized, thrust for a moment onto the world stage as actors in the drama of Israel’s struggle for survival. They’re treated to two days of fiery rhetoric by senators, administration officials and Israeli ministers, then bused to Capitol Hill for a day of face-to-face lobbying with lawmakers. Their message is whatever legislative agenda AIPAC gives them — weaponry, aid, counter-terrorism programs.

This year’s conference program and legislative agenda were to focus on a single, urgent priority: fixing the flaws in the interim nuclear agreement signed in Geneva last November between Iran and the P5 plus 1 powers. The agreement called for Iran to freeze much of its nuclear effort in return for a relaxation of sanctions while talks commenced on a permanent deal. It also set a goal in final negotiations of limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity. Critics — principally the Netanyahu government and congressional Republicans — wanted to shore up the weakened sanctions and define an end goal of dismantling Iran’s enrichment, not just limiting it.

Legislation along those lines was drafted by a pair of senators, Democrat Robert Menendez and Republican Mark Kirk, working closely with AIPAC. Through the winter, Senate signatures were gathered, aiming for a veto-proof two-thirds majority. The climax would come at the AIPAC conference in March, when 14,000 citizen-lobbyists would flood Capitol Hill in a triumphant push for final passage.

But the strategy collapsed January 28, when President Obama delivered his State of the Union address, vowing to veto the bill if it came to his desk. Democratic support for the bill abruptly dissolved, eliminating the possibility of a veto override. On February 6, pressured by Democratic members, AIPAC itself announced that it no longer sought a Senate vote on the bill.

The humbling didn’t end there. The sanctions battle revived the longstanding liberal accusation that AIPAC is a de facto ally of the Republican Party.

It was never really true. The lobby’s initiatives always receive bipartisan sponsorship. Democrats outnumber Republicans among the members.

It’s true, though, that the organization’s goals are often in sync with neoconservatives and Republican hawks. That’s only been exacerbated during the Obama presidency by suspicion among pro-Israel hawks that the president isn’t a friend.

Now, after challenging Obama and losing, the organization is under pressure from Democrats to demonstrate centrism. The result at the conference was a constant drumbeat of assurances from the organization’s officers that AIPAC is bipartisan. But if it were obvious, it wouldn’t have to be said.

Pressure comes from the grassroots, too. Liberal Democrats have come in recent years to see themselves as a distinct faction within AIPAC, and not an empowered one. The fact that the organization has staffers responsible for outreach and shepherding of liberals, and programs like “The Progressive Case for Israel” are written into the schedule of the annual conference, only reinforce the sense among liberals that they’re outside the mainstream.

“This year the conference seems more bipartisan, but in some years the tone of the politics here gets so hostile,” said Fran Grossman of Los Angeles, a self-described liberal Democrat. “It’s a fluid thing.”

What happens to AIPAC now? Speakers at past conferences were always a careful balanced of Democrats and Republicans. The principal speakers this year were Republican John McCain and four Democrats, Menendez, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. In the rush to mend fences, caution was thrown to the winds.

Striking, too, was the tone of debate from the rostrum. Usually the organization is able to present a single, clear message uniting Democrats and Republicans. This year’s speeches were exchanges of insults aimed at each other. Lew and Kerry strongly defended the administration’s Iran strategy. Menendez criticized it and defended his bill. McCain simply savaged the president. Schumer, speaking just before Kerry, took potshots at his handling of the Palestinian negotiations.

An advocacy organization can’t function without unity in its ranks and anger toward its foes. A chastened, polite AIPAC, thrashing out the issues in public and avoiding insult, is a crippled pro-Israel lobby. Even critics of its policy choices shouldn’t welcome that.

Contact J.J. Goldberg at goldberg@forward.com


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.