Opinion

February 9, 2012

Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war?

by MJ Rosenberg, Foreign Policy Matters

Tweet

Share

Counterpoint: Now is the time for a determined course of action on Iran

These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a possible war with Iran. It is clear that the Israeli government and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it (in which case we would be forced to join in). But the idea of another war in the Middle East is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.

Still, the conventional wisdom holds that it can, because this is an election year and the assumption is that no one will say no to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Netanyahu will, if the past is any indication, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met with stony silence.

From the convention center, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three “asks” for Members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that “containment” of a nuclearized Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the U.S. stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile. A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will inevitably demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu’s policy of the moment happens to be. I’ve sat in on those meetings where the AIPAC “asks” are developed, and it was always clear that the substance didn’t matter all that much.

The goal of the “asks” is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the “ask” is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven’t already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.

All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress objects.

One Member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC “ask.” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all U.S. contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.

In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a terrorist supporter and warned that her behavior “would not be tolerated.” In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologized.

McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.

As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics — but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC’s arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests “asks,” they are, in fact, “tells” — and “no” is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove, which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do.)

Despite all this, I do not think that either Netanyahu or his lobby are all that eager to go to war. After all, Israel’s intelligence community opposes it for a host of reasons starting with the fact that it would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. There is also the fear that Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border, have tens of thousands of missiles that they can let fly if Iran is attacked. Above all is the understanding that no one knows if an attack would make Israel safer or threaten its very existence.

So here’s a theory: Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it’s not like we don’t know).

As for Obama, he may just be playing along with Netanyahu and AIPAC because he understands their strategy. Perhaps he knows that it isn’t war they want but the illusion of control.

Only, it’s not an illusion. And it certainly won’t be if Netanyahu gets the president he wants in November — a Republican who will fight the war Netanyahu wants but isn’t eager to fight himself. Surely Mitt or Rick or Newt will do it for him.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

I don’t think the title of this article has much integrity, but then neither does it’s author.
Why does a Jewish magazine publish a writer whose sole perspective is in alignment with those who are actively working to destroy and discredit Israel.

Comment by Lou Adams on 2/09/12 at 1:41 pm

You took a whole page to write “who knows”?

Comment by phil zelman on 2/09/12 at 2:03 pm

Lou should learn how to read, instead of imaging what he wants to read, before complaining.

The writer is not “in alignment” with those who seek to destroy Israel.  The writer is a Washington insider who has witnesssed first hand strong arm tactics of AIPAC.

Lou may not like the political pressure described, but that does not make Rosenberg an enemy of the state of Israel.  Just an enemy in Lou’s state of mind…narrow.

The title does reflect the article, but is dramatic.

This is one of the more clear explications of what the militray “option” is about…the appearance of control.

It’s too suble and complex an issue for people who like easy answers.

Comment by The Logician on 2/09/12 at 2:32 pm

I’m so relieved. I will sleep much better tonight now that MJ Rosenberg has demonstrated the evidence that Iran is not the next Nazi Germany.  Evidently all they postulating of the Iranian mullahs about their commitment to annihilating Jews in general and Israel in particular is just a silly fraternity prank.

Comment by Deborah Rudy on 2/09/12 at 3:09 pm

Is Journal Journal INSANE? How can you let M.J. Rosenberg write for you? This is a guy who spends his entire life promoting all the “destroy Israel” hatemongers in the world. Rosenberg WORSHIPS mondoweiss, max blumenthal, ben white and the most disgusting “one-state solution” maniacs on the internet.

Somethng is really wrong with you guys if you continue to let this person write. I will immediately urge everyone to stop donating to you or anyone you support if you give this nut a voice

Comment by Steve on 2/09/12 at 3:38 pm

This is a cynical view of the democratically elected leader of Israel and AIPAC as only motivated by a desire for control over the U.S. President, using dishonest and manipulative tactics. Does Rosenberg rule out the simple explanation that the consequences of allowing Iran to complete its development of nuclear weapons could be fatal to the Jewish State?

Comment by Mel Aranoff on 2/09/12 at 3:43 pm

We were once slaves of Egypt. Never again. Once becomes a slave by being a pacifist toward aggressors. The red line is not, as Rosenberg suggests, “should Iran get the bomb”, rather before Iran can make it. Israelis voted for leadership who will not allow half the Jews of the world to have a nuclear gun aimed at them with Ahamadnutjob’s finger on the trigger. The People of Israel depend on Bibi with AIPAC’s support to prevent this at all costs. Obviously Rosenberg believes that Iran won’t do it. Such devout faith is admirable. I suggest, however that he put his blind orthodox pacifist faith in the goodness others to the test by swimming with Piranhas.

Comment by abbushuki on 2/09/12 at 3:45 pm

Khamenei calls Israel a “cancer that must be removed”, former Iranian officials openly write plans about how to annihilate all Jews in Israel, and MJ Rosenberg finds fault only with… you guessed it, Israel.

Comment by Mark Kerpind on 2/09/12 at 3:46 pm

So this post promotes the most pervasive anti semitic lie of the generations: that a secret Jewish cabal (AIPAC) reflecting the views of a Jewish foreign power (Israel) runs the US government.  Disgusting.

Comment by george on 2/09/12 at 3:58 pm

Lou, what were you expecting from a liberal,peace at all cost,  Don’t you want the world to lie Jews?

Comment by Honey Bee on 2/09/12 at 4:03 pm

Thank you lou,
You made Rosenberg’s unscrupulous intensions (due to lack of judgement or pure naivete), very clear.

Comment by Asher Arom on 2/09/12 at 4:15 pm

Despite recent Iranian calls not only for the destruction of Israel, but the genocide of all the earth’s Jews, Rosenberg remains the idealist pacifist.

Were this 1938 he’d have titled his article, “Will AIPAC and Churchill get their war?” And he’d have followed that up with, “But the idea of another war in the Europe is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.”

To Rosenberg, “never again” means, “that depends on those who would perpetrate another holocaust, because we people of principle are just too nice to stop them.”

Comment by Steve on 2/09/12 at 4:29 pm

This article sounds as if written with the agenda in mind to diss AIPAC and Israel’s current gov’t. It is as distasteful as the agenda and methods it reports upon.

Comment by Samir on 2/09/12 at 4:59 pm

What an imbecilic headline.  What a horrible, distorted, slanderous article.  What an imbecilic writer. As Mr. Adams asked above, why does a Jewish site publish this writer?  In other writings I’ve read, he clearly does not have either Israel’s best interest nor America’s best interest at heart.

This is a disgraceful and disgusting piece of work, perhaps it tops the list of bad anti-Israel articles that the JJ has published; certainly the headline does.

You should be ashamed.  Rosenberg will never be ashamed for he apparently does not know the meaning of the word.

Contemptible.

Comment by Grantman on 2/09/12 at 5:03 pm

It is articles such as these that make me happy that I no longer subscribe and pay good money for this junk.  THEIR WAR???  I see.  Only Jews and Israel have a stake in this impending holocaust brought on by Muslims?  How anti-Semitic, in addition to anti-Israel can you get?

Comment by Roberta on 2/09/12 at 5:28 pm

It’s worse than that Lou! Rosenberg & cohorts go on demonize the top Republican Presidential candidates, maintaining they WILL INDEED give Bibi “the war he want’s.

JJLA NOT a Jewish Magazine Lou,  its a Progressive mag giving majority of readers what they want to see. Example-author Rosenberg chooses Rep. Betty Mccallum to discredit Aipac. Check out Betty “leading The House in Pledge of Allegiance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXaiG16qSX4. Next check-out her real identity by googling “Betty on Al Queda.”  The article’s poster-politico is a sellout to CAIR-denying all evidence Al Queda remains our enemy. Congrat’s JJLA!        Aunty Mame

Comment by Mr. Againster on 2/09/12 at 5:44 pm

As a former AIPAC employee, Rosenberg’s analysis carries great weight for Americans who continue to wonder why the lobby isn’t properly regulated under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act, like its parent, the AZC, was.

Comment by AIPAC Critic on 2/09/12 at 6:52 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with Lou Adams! With Yids like MJ Rosenberg who needs enemies.

Comment by michael siegel on 2/09/12 at 8:53 pm

When MJ Rosenberg speaks about AIPAC and it relations to both Congress and to Israel, he knows what he’s talking about and nothing he says would likely be disputed on Capitol Hill. That the JJ is publishing his commentaries is to its credit. If anyone’s integrity is subject to question it is those who wish to silence the truth.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 2/09/12 at 9:39 pm

Surly, with a writer as Mr. Rosenberg, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
It’s a shame that a Jewish Journal publishes an anti-Israel propaganda.

Comment by aaron sabah on 2/09/12 at 10:28 pm

Shame on the Jewish Journal for publishing this malicious article.

Comment by Leon Presser on 2/09/12 at 10:41 pm

Netanyahu is a combat veteran who lost his brother at Entebbe. So, no, I don’t think that “his lobby” ( Julius Streicher couldn’t have said it better ) is looking forward to war.

Comment by Bill Pearlman on 2/10/12 at 1:32 am

Thank God you are not in Israeli leadership. You sit here, safe in the US and advise Israelis how to defend (or not) their country.
And if Iran manages to smuggle a small nuclear device through one of their surrogates into Israel and cause massive destruction, I suppose that you, perhaps in a sympathetic moment, might help to raise funds for the victims.

Comment by Bill Bender on 2/10/12 at 9:24 am

MJ Rosenberg, and those of his ilk, are the same kind of people who did not take Hitler and Germany seriously before WW2. Admendinijad has made his intentions perfectly clear. Should the world remain silent again in the face evil? I say no. Congress feels the same way too. And if Aipac has anything to do with the way Congress legislates on this matter I applaud the Aipac-Congressional relationship. The western world, including the United States, Europe and Israel must do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons which will tip the balance of power in the middle east, at the very least.

Comment by sjm on 2/10/12 at 12:53 pm

Not surprisingly, none of Rosenberg’s critics and would be censors has been able to contradict a single statement that he made so what he get is an attempt to shoot both the messenger and the publicatio that delivered it.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 2/10/12 at 1:09 pm

WHen one reads the postings, all one can say is “OY!”

With defenders like those above, who needs enemies?

And who needs to waste time with their paranoid accusations and naive sense of geopolitical forces?

Comment by The Logician on 2/10/12 at 1:50 pm

Rosenberg,Logician and Hollywood Jeff three snakes in the grass!

Comment by Honey Bee on 2/10/12 at 3:52 pm

Rosenberg is a fool, his POV is totally ignorant and incorrect.  Has he forgotten Iran’s repeated threats against Israel?  His article is a farce because it is flat out dishonest and one sided.  Shame on him.

Comment by Aldebaran on 2/11/12 at 4:52 pm

Getting to your article late, I’m upset that I didn’t react sooner: Eshman and the Journal show unbelievable arrogance (left-wing “chutzpah” in the worst sense) to highlight this politicized see-no-hear-no-evil drivel at this critical time(yes, at the edge of apocalyptic times), God forbid). David Suissa, where are you when we need you!?
Irving S. White, PhD

Comment by Irving S. White on 2/12/12 at 11:24 am

During Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister he proclaimed that Iran would have a nuclear weapon by 1998.  He clearly was wrong.  14 years later he has returned and is making the same claim.  There is now a sense of urgency because if Israel or the U.S. doesn’t attack Iran before the U.U. presidential election, they may not get the necessary support if Obama is re-elected.  If Obama wins, Netanyahu will look like the warminger he is if another 4 years go by without the Iranians proving to be the existential threat that he claims they are.

Comment by Bill on 2/12/12 at 11:47 am

This situation is an abomination but totally the result of the American people’s willfull ignorance. No Congress person would dare vote what AIPAC tells them to if the American people told the Congress person not to.

Comment by Archie1954 on 2/12/12 at 12:27 pm

Just as the lunatic Right wingnuts accuse the author of being a traitor to Israel, Archie wisely points out that any representative who votes against his constituents wishes becuase of AIPAC is equally traitorous.

Representatives mayu indeed swim up the stream of their home turf if they have a well reasoned position, but if that position is derived from a threat by AIPAC then they are clearly serving a special interest group.

These people have no sense of objectivity.  But then who could see a mirror through the frothingly rabid ravings coming from their faces?  No resepct for process, logic or a more global perspective.

Comment by The Logician on 2/13/12 at 10:07 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?