Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

2 Responses to “AIPAC Blows Smoke…Again”

1. Josh says:

   January 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

   Actually, AIPAC is a consensus organization.

   AIPAC is composed of constituent groups. These include both the far right Zionist Organization of America and the leftist Americans for Peace Now.

   And you simply misrepresent AIPAC’s position on the Israel-Syria backchannel negotiations (as well as Remba’s own article). AIPAC hasn’t opposed backchannel negotiations with Syria. Remba’s own article says that AIPAC simply said it did not believe in pressuring Israel to take one course of action or another.

   The .pdf file you link to concerns American engagement with Iran and Syria. AIPAC simply points out that if the U.S. decides to engage, it should “proceed with caution” because Iran and Syria are not particularly trustworthy. This was in the context of the Baker-Hamilton report, which basically recommended that Israel should be treated not as an ally, but as a bargaining chip. It’s understandable why AIPAC, or anyone who purports to support Israel, would be wary. Under the circumstances, AIPAC’s response is in fact remarkably restrained.

   AIPAC’s position is pretty straightforward. It doesn’t oppose peace initiatives, but it doesn’t think that the U.S. should coerce Israel into making any such deals.

   Given that Israel and Syria have been conducting back channel negotiations for two years, and as recently as the Syria supported Lebanon war, your insistence that Olmert is the one holding things up is just silly. When the terms of the negotiations became public, both Israeli and Syrian leaders issued quick denials. That’s not surprising. Most likely such a deal offers possibilities, but neither side is completely satisfied with details or ready to sell it to their constituencies.

   I know it’s very convenient for you to blame the Israeli government and AIPAC for every ill under the sun. But it doesn’t jibe with reality.

   Reply
2. Richard Silverstein says:

   January 25, 2007 at 9:43 PM

   Actually, AIPAC is a consensus organization.

   AIPAC is composed of constituent groups. These include both the far right Zionist Organization of America and the leftist Americans for Peace Now.

   Why don’t you include the link to the AIPAC site fr. which you quoted this PR pablum. You didn’t read what I wrote carefully enough. Yes, AIPAC includes MEMBERS from many organizations. But the power and decision making derives completely fr. a narrow set of leaders and staff who share a common political orientation. The best analysis of this issue is Michael Massing’s incisive dissection of AIPAC power. It shows both AIPAC & you up for what you really are.

   AIPAC hasn’t opposed backchannel negotiations with Syria.

   You’re not doing yr homework as usual. Read the goddamn pdf file I’ve linked to here. There are 82 reasons listed by AIPAC why Israeli negotiations with Syria are a TERRIBLE idea. This is a document featured prominently at AIPAC’s own site. I’ll lv. my readers to be the judge of why an AIPAC analysis would feature scads of reasons why talking to Syria is a terrible idea and not come up w. a single good one. Readers will judge for themselves whether AIPAC is taking a position or not.

   AIPAC simply points out that if the U.S. decides to engage, it should “proceed with caution” because Iran and Syria are not particularly trustworthy.

   You’re merely twisting their real goal which is to prove that the Syrians are a bunch of no good lying scumbags with whom neither the U.S. nor Israel should have any business whatsoever.

   Here is some of AIPAC’s anti-Syria hysteria quoted from this policy analysis (and by the way, almost all of the following arguments are either lies or severe distortions of the truth):

   Syria has repeatedly reneged on key commitments it has made to the United States and other international leaders.

   Syria grudgingly joined the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Despite its commitments, Syria contributed little to the war efforts, actively worked to undermine U.S. post-war efforts in Iraq in 1991 and continues to this day to support terrorism.

   Syria rejected the far-reaching efforts of President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999 and 2000 to negotiate a peace agreement between Damascus and Jerusalem. [an outright lie--the true story, that Barak backed out of the deal, has been confirmed in the Israeli media by Daniel Levy, who participated as an Israeli government official in these same negotiations]

   Engaging Syria while the investigation of its role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other prominent critics of Syria is still ongoing could undermine the democratic forces in Lebanon and relieve the international pressure on Damascus to end its destructive actions. [as if AIPAC CARES about "democratic forces in Lebanon!"]

   Dear Reader–you be the judge.

   the Baker-Hamilton report…basically recommended that Israel should be treated not as an ally, but as a bargaining chip.

   Aren’t you the one for howlers tonight! What bugs the shit out of you is that the Baker Hamilton report said that U.S. pressure on both Israel, the Palestinians and other front line states to resolve the I-P conflict is essential to improve U.S. standing in the Arab world. So you run crying like a baby: “Ooh, dat bad man, Jim Baker, he not nice to Israel.” The nerve of that man not to bow down to the Israel lobby and pay his respects at what he should know is the font of power. How dare he advocate that Israel return to ’67 borders. Imagine the nerve!

   Under the circumstances, AIPAC’s response is in fact remarkably restrained

   AIPAC’s response is NEVER restrained. It’s their hallmark. When they inveigled Larry Franklin to share secret government documents about U.S. policy to Iran they were NOT restrained. When AIPAC donor Haim Saban attempted to pressure Nancy Pelosi to reappoint Jane Harman to the House Intelligence Cmttee it was NOT restrained. When AIPAC’s Minneapolis volunteer leader threatened Betty McCollum & warned her she was promoting terror by refusing to bend to the AIPAC line on the Palestinian Do-Nothing Anti-Terror bill, it was NOT restrained. When Morrie Amitai accused Dems of being anti-Israel in pre-election ads, this longtime former AIPAC director was NOT restrained. I could go on.

   AIPAC’s position is pretty straightforward. It doesn’t oppose peace initiatives

   Not true. But even more important, AIPAC doesn’t SUPPORT peace initiatives. When Sharon asked the American Jewish leadership to support Gaza disengagement he met an ear splitting silence. Neither AIPAC nor the Conference of Presidents would take a position. It was only after tremendous lobbying and arm twisting on Sharon’s part that they finally acquiesced unwillingly and released a mild statement of support.

   And you know as well as I based on the lies and half-truths about Syria written above, that were Olmert to take leave of his senses (at least in AIPAC’s view) and open direct negotiations with Syria (or final status negotiations with Abbas for that matter) AIPAC would be apoplectic. It would all over it. At best, it would be silent. At worst, it would actively lobby whoever it could to stymie such initiatives.

   your insistence that Olmert is the one holding things up is just silly.

   For the love of God, man, Eldar has written FIVE articles in Haaretz in which Olmert’s chief of staff and other ministry officials have admitted that Olmert torched the initiative. Where have you been??

   Most likely such a deal offers possibilities, but neither side is completely satisfied with details or ready to sell it to their constituencies.

   You’re really shoveling the shit tonight, aren’t you. Both the Syrian and Israeli negotiator along with the Swiss ministry official who chaperoned the talks ALL say that Syria was always ready to do the deal & that it remains ready to do so.

   You understand nothing of the Mideast or international diplomacy if you think a government involved in backchannel negotiations which are made public would ever overtly confirm them or embrace the terms as publicly outlined. So Israeli & Syrian denials are simply true to form and follow a time honored tradition in diplomatic terms. But that means nothing in terms of proving that Syria never was willing to make peace.

   Reply