In The Blogs

Is AIPAC Losing Its Mojo?

| Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:24 AM PDT

Since Barack Obama took office in January, his administration has been plagued by a number of contentious controversies. From the economic stimulus to health care reform, Obama has had trouble maintaining support among liberals and conservatives alike. But the president's most consistent critics have been Jewish moderates and conservatives worried that Obama is more likely to challenge Israel than past presidents have been.

But surging to power with the most impressive following since Ronald Reagan, Obama is well positioned to challenge the Israel Lobby's hard-line stalwart, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In his latest Mother Jones contribution, "Is AIPAC Still the Chosen One?" Robert Dreyfuss attributes the dwindling power of one of DC's most powerful lobbies to the popular new president and the recent rise of dovish advocacy groups such as J Street and Israel Policy Forum.

Advertisement

Emphasizing the growing influence of lefty pro-Israel groups, IPF's Washington Director M.J. Rosenberg recently announced that he would leave to join media watchdog website Media Matters as a Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy. In a statement announcing the move, Rosenberg wrote, "with Media Matters joining this fight, we can help progressives of all stripes understand that supporting occupation and settlements (or wars with various regional players) is antithetical to a progressive world view and, most important, is bad for America."

AIPAC's waning clout was underscored this past spring, when Rep. Howard Berman, chair of the House foreign affairs committee, stalled one of AIPAC's babies, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Why would this reliably pro-Israel California Democrat go against the AIPAC hegemony? Dreyfuss explains:

The first explanation is obvious: Like many Democrats, Berman is reluctant to stand in the way of President Obama's foreign policy objectives, including his overture to Iran and his push for US leadership toward an Israeli-Palestinian accord. But Berman's action also signaled a deterioration of AIPAC's power. It's begun to appear that "AIPAC is not the 800-pound gorilla everyone says they are," says Dan Fleshler, author of Transforming America's Israel Lobby. "They may be just a 400-pound gorilla."

Read the story for more on AIPAC in the age of Obama. As the administration continues to push for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it will be interesting (to say the least) to see how the myriad pro-Israel organizations and their leaders react. Either way, the right wing of the Israel advocacy universe may wield far less control over America's Middle East policy than it did during Israel's own long march toward statehood.

Ben Buchwalter is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

Comments

Washington Consenus

Submitted by Quisp (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 8:10 AM PDT.

I think we need to cut AIPAC and every other lobby loose as special interests, with lots of money to increase the power their "vote", undermine majority rule.

AIPAC = ARMS INDUSTRY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

Submitted by Something Stinks on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 8:57 AM PDT.

It isn't about the Jews or Israel. That is just a marketing ploy. It is about the arms industry. As long as we are at war, they run the government and the MSM.

Something Stinks!

J Dead End Street

Submitted by RONMOSSAD (not verified) on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 6:02 PM PDT.

Just because someone calls themselves “pro-Israel” doesn’t necessarily make it so.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/09/j-dead-end-street.html

In the end, J Street is a great “hope and change” alternative to real Israel lobbying. Hope for terrorists and change that reduces the support for the only real democracy in the Middle East.