AIPAC puts Menendez-Kirk on the shelf

Now that AIPAC has backed off from Mendendez-Kirk, are we going to hear that the orgnization is indifferent to the survival of Israel?

As 42 Senate Republicans push for a quick vote on the Mendendez-Kirk Iran sactions bill – guaranteed to derail the current negotiations if it were to pass – Sen. Menendez follows most of his Democratic co-sponsors in asking that consideration of the bill be delayed to give the diplomats a chance. And guess who’s on his side? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

We agree with the Chairman that stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support and that there should not be a vote at this time on the measure.

Considering the hate mail I got when I suggested that RBC readers should oppose Menendez-Kirk, I am no less puzzled than pleased to find AIPAC taking essentially the same position. Has the organization been taken over by a bunch of kapos? Is it now headed by self-hating Jews indifferent to the survival of Israel?

Footnote Commenting on that earlier post, an RBC reader wrote:

I think that you cannot underestimate the power of the incumbent Jewish establishment on people like me.
I live in a mid-sized city with a compressed and insular Jewish community.  I practice law.  I require clients to practice law and make a living. I am fairly open about my progressive political views and probably lose clients as a result.
But, were I to be as open about my views on the Mideast, which views are just a tad to the left, but would certaintly be within the mainstream in Israel, I would lose many friends and a significant portion of my referral/client base. A great disincentive to speaking out.
Or, as Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller once said, “You can remain in good standing as an American Jew if you doubt the existence of God, but not if you doubt the wisdom of Bibi Netanyahu.”

 

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

4 thoughts on “AIPAC puts Menendez-Kirk on the shelf”

  1. Considering the hate mail I got when I suggested that RBC readers should oppose Menendez-Kirk, I am no less puzzled than pleased to find AIPAC taking essentially the same position.

    AIPAC doesn't oppose Menendez-Kirk, it wants it brought up when it can pass with a bipartisan veto-proof majority. The 42 Republicans don't mind so much if it fails, as long as the Democrats pay a price for opposing it.

  2. I think a significant amount of the "support" the Kirk-Menendez Iran-sanctions bill garnered was more for show than for serious policy reasons: WV's Senator Joe Manchin was a little more honest about his "support" than most:

    Manchin said he intended the bill to send a message of support for Israel and underscore a goal of upending Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. But he said that a vote could actually cost his sponsorship of the bill.

    "I never intended for that bill to come to a vote and debate," he said. "If they start moving it forward I might need to start making a decision about whether I stay on the bill or not."

    A real profile in courage: but he can't be the only one……

  3. Since when is expressing a concern about the timing of a vote on legislation confused with not supporting the legislation? AIPAC has in no way diminished its support for the bill.

Comments are closed.