[Peace-discuss] AIPAC Attacks on BernieBros Prove AIPAC Backs Annexation As Much & Soon As Possible

[Robert Naiman]

AIPAC Attacks on BernieBros Prove AIPAC Backs Annexation As Much & Soon As
Possible

What do Bernie Sanders, Jamaal Bowman, Alex Morse, and Ihssane Leckey have
in common?

They all “oppose BDS.” But they were all attacked by AIPAC anyway. AIPAC is
attacking Alex Morse and Ihsanne Leckey right now. Alex Morse and Ihsanne
Leckey’s position on “BDS” is that they personally oppose it but they also
oppose any attempts to legislate against Americans’ First Amendment right
to advocate for it, which is the same position as J Street, which is the
same position as the ACLU, which is the same position as the First
Amendment. Free Speech. The First Amendment. “It’s not a radical idea,” as
Uncle Bernie might say.

But AIPAC is going after these people anyway. Why the venom, when
supposedly “oppose BDS” is the radioactive litmus test for AIPAC?

Because it’s not about “BDS.” That’s a subterfuge, a misdirection. AIPAC’s
real Red Line lies elsewhere. They don’t want to say what their real Red
Line is where too many people may hear, so they’re using “oppose BDS” for
misdirection.

Their real Red Line is: enforce no legislative conditions on U.S. aid to
Israel that would effectively block Israeli annexation in the West Bank.
AIPAC doesn’t want to admit this publicly because as the *Times of
Israel* reported
on August 7
<https://www.timesofisrael.com/dems-seeking-house-foreign-affairs-job-would-restrict-israel-aid-over-annexation/>,
enforcing such conditions on U.S. aid to Israel is becoming a mainstream
position among Democrats in Congress, with all three candidates for the
chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee embracing it, including Brad
Sherman, who is perceived as being particularly “close to AIPAC.”

I saw the underlying situation with clarity when I was making If Not Now
phone calls for Ihssane Leckey in Massachusetts. I had read my talking
points. I knew what Ihssane Leckey’s position on BDS was. So when a voter
said, “I won’t support Ihssane Leckey because she supports BDS,” I said, no
that’s not right. Ihssane Leckey does NOT support BDS. I explained what
Ihssane Leckey’s position on BDS was. I had studied for the exam.

Well, the voter demanded, what is Ihssane Leckey’s position on Israel?

Ihssane Leckey supports leveraging U.S. aid to block Netanyahu from
annexing the West Bank, I said.

“That’s just as bad!” the voter cried. “There must be NO conditions
WHATSOEVER on U.S. aid to Israel. They can do whatever they want in the
West Bank, we have nothing to say about it.”

I asked others about this after the call, and they said yeah, AIPAC has
been telling people that Ihssane Leckey supports BDS.

So there you go. “Oppose BDS” is a code, it’s an AIPAC dogwhistle.
So-and-so “supports BDS,” means so-and-so “doesn’t support Israel.” But
what’s the real thoughtcrime that earns the “enemy” designation, at least
in a closely contested primary? Supporting enforcement of conditions on
U.S. aid to Israel that would block Israeli annexation in the West Bank.

AIPAC has been losing ground on this. AIPAC lost the ability to enforce
their line on this on Democratic Senators. As the HFAC race shows, AIPAC is
losing the ability to enforce their line on this on House Democrats. They
can’t even enforce their line on this on Brad Sherman.

This is why some actors have an incentive to muddy the waters about what
Greg Meeks’ position on this is. Greg Meeks is the Dem Establishment
candidate for HFAC Chair. Losing the ability to enforce the AIPAC line on
this on Greg Meeks would be a real blow. That’s why they’re pushing on Greg
Meeks and apparently trying to distort his position.

So AIPAC is losing among Congressional Democrats on this. But they’re still
trying to enforce their line on annexation on behalf of Dem Establishment
in Democratic primaries. They’re still trying to keep Alex Morse and
Ihssane Leckey out of Congress for the thoughtcrime of deviating from
AIPAC’s true Red Line.

Isn’t that fascinating? AIPAC is effectively trying to define “supporting
Israel” as “opposing any unnecessary obstacles to annexation.” Why is that?

I think Occam’s Razor is clear. AIPAC supports annexation. Not necessarily
today or tomorrow. Someday. When conditions are right, when the Israeli
government is ready, when the circumstances of realpolitik, of other U.S.
priorities and alliances, are sufficiently permissive, then annexation.
Until that day, no unnecessary obstacles. In particular, no pesky
Democratic Members of Congress trying to enforce conditions on U.S. aid
that would block annexation in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200821/c3759c78/attachment-0001.htm>