Israel Is Learning the Price of Contempt


The New York Times reports that AIPAC has lost several highly public battles with the White House over the past year:

Its top priority, a Senate bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, has stalled after stiff resistance from President Obama, and in what amounts to a tacit retreat, Aipac has stopped pressuring Senate Democrats to vote for the bill.

….But Aipac’s headaches go beyond Iran. In September, it threw an army of lobbyists behind an effort to win a congressional mandate for Mr. Obama’s threatened military strike on Syria. Facing certain failure in Congress, the president pulled the plug on the effort. Earlier last year, it came under fire from the right for not publicly opposing Mr. Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, because of what critics said was his anti-Israel record.

OK, I guess that’s surprising. But what makes it really surprising is the context. Here’s the story’s lead:

The last time the nation’s most potent pro-Israel lobbying group lost a major showdown with the White House was when President Ronald Reagan agreed to sell Awacs surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia over the group’s bitter objections.

That was in 1981. Basically, AIPAC hadn’t lost an important fight in over three decades. Now they’ve suddenly lost two—or maybe even three, if you count the Hagel confirmation.

With any luck, this will provide Israel with some incentive to take John Kerry’s peace initiative more seriously. They just can’t treat an American administration with the contempt that they’ve treated Obama’s and expect to retain broad public support here. When Israel’s leadership becomes practically an extension of the tea party, as it has over the past few years, they’re going to start bleeding domestic support. AIPAC’s recent losses are a canary in the coal mine.

The really astounding thing about all this is how gratuitous the Netanyahu administration’s contempt has been. They could have given Obama nearly everything he’s asked for, and it almost certainly wouldn’t have made a difference since the Palestinians are unlikely to agree to any plausible deal that Kerry can cook up. And yet the contempt has not just continued, but escalated. That’s been a huge mistake.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest