AIPAC rebroadcast through The Dish

Andrew mocks AIPAC:

In its press release in the wake of a rebuke even Binyamin Netanyahu has apologized for and which the Isreali press has raked him over the coals for, AIPAC calls on the US to make amends:

No, they said “defuse the tension,” not “make amends,” which implies something more like apologize. Netanyahu is also of course responsible for defusing the tension, and it’s obvious that both he and Israelis are aware of that responsibility. Here, Andrew’s quoting the AIPAC statement, and I emphasize some words for him to reprocess:

The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State… The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests. The escalated rhetoric of

Oops, “escalated rhetoric” may be what’s turning Andrew on right now. He might feel liberated from a heaviness in his chest if the United States publicly lashed out at Israel, regardless of whether it achieved anything, and argue that rhetorical blasts were a brilliant, welcomed part of Obama’s “outreach to the Muslim world.”

recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran’s rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

AIPAC would be a lot less persuasive force in Congress against a Total Freeze if the White House took AIPAC’s public statements at their word and switched from making unilateral demands to bilateral demands. Leave the pro-Likud members of AIPAC with egg on their face.

This should have been the approach Obama took in the first place — and may have been the approach Obama wanted to use to get the Total Freeze until Hillary got too boisterous.

I’ve also argued that Andrew do the same. He would look a lot less anti-Israel ( — I know he’s in his own world about this, cherrypicking emails and Gideon Levy columns to prove that he’s as pro-Israel as Abba Ebban was in the last century — ) if he took the approach of demanding a total freeze and demanding an end to state-funded antisemitic, anti-Israeli incitement in Palestinian media, schools and urban planning.

So simple, but animus and his anti-neocon witch hunts must have a way of blocking your ears to the simple meaning of words and your vision to finding a middle ground, protected from the maximalist identity claims of both sides.

%d bloggers like this: