AIPAC’s agenda, in their own words

Taken straight from AIPAC’s site.

Their agenda is clear, and if you peruse the AIPAC site, the most consistent theme is lobbying the US to pursue actions against Iran for the Israeli regime.

I especially like this line in the last paragraph :

“AIPAC ‘educates’ all of them about the importance of the US-Israel relationship”

In my mind, the word “educates” can be easily replaced with “coerces” and the sentence still has fluidity.


5 Responses to “AIPAC’s agenda, in their own words”

  1. Logipundit Says:

    I don’t see anything particularly damning in this document. Hamas is undoubtedly not good for Israel (or Palestine in my opinion), and Iran not getting nuclear weapons is pretty consistent with anyone who considers themselves in favor of “non-proliferation”. Hypocritical or not, Iran getting nuclear weapons is pretty simply nuclear proliferation. The rest is “help promote and defend Israel”.

    If I was representing a lobbying group that by its definition was looking out for Israeli interests, I think all of these points would be quite reasonable.

    Some don’t feel like the group should exist at all, and they would have a good argument in that there are very few lobbying groups specifically representing the interests of one particular country. Actually only found one with a quick search:

    And I will grant that this one is much more touchy-feely and “let’s all get along” than AIPAC’s. It would be interesting to see which one has the most support from their respective countries’ governments. I think I know the answer, but just a hunch.

    The two groups do have one thing in common: They both support democratic efforts in Iran.

    If you’d like to see the decidedly libertarian (and very reasoned) view, I’d recommend taking a look at this post on

    Good and Bad Lobby Groups

    Which starts (obviously given its name) on lobbying groups in general, but ends with a discussion on AIPAC. It comes to the conclusion that AIPAC is a bad lobby group, but for more general, non-interventionist reasons. Good read. Mr Roseff also links to Ron Paul’s (a true Libertarian in Republican clothing) position on foreign aid and policy:

    Foreign policy of Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty.

    Spoken in the House in Sept of 2002, Paul conveniently fast-forwards through a little history, but it’s overall a good read.

    His position on unilateralism within globalism is a little confusing. For instance he constantly refers to Washington’s assertions against “foreign entanglements” but ignores his position that U.S. interests take ultimate precedence within those entanglements. He also never really answers his “are we safer due to our involvement in…” questions, and instead uses the old and tired, “creates more problems than it solves” argument.

    I sincerely find that argument weak. To take the extreme non-interventionist approach…even if you were to go back as far as WWI, then I think it’s reasonable to also ask the question, “What if we had done nothing?”. The results would have been much worse in many (maybe not all, but many) cases, and it’s a little simplistic to just say, “It caused more problems than it fixed”.

    That being said, in an ideal world, his conclusions on how to convert from the “World’s Policeman” to a non-interventionist country are interesting.

  2. scottie Says:

    I did not post this because it was damning, rather that it was very clear about Iran and the other facets where the agenda clearly states that it intends to educate politicians about the US-Israel alliance.

    The agenda is clear, so lets not obfucscate the agenda by entertaining ridiculous arguments that there is no such thing as an Israeli lobby, a point that critics of Walt and Mearsheimer pointed out (complete rubbish by the way)

    Just wanted readers to know its in their agenda on the internet that this is what they want to do.

    So when you see an AIPAC sponsored candidate issuing rhetoric in line with this agenda, do not think that he/she is doing so out of patriotic duty.

  3. Logipundit Says:

    “Arguments that there is no such thing as an Israeli Lobby”? Where is that? I’m not critiquing Walt and Mearsheimer; but (like you) the AIPAC agenda.

    “Coerces” is your word, and if you have to substitute words then does it not mean that their agenda is NOT clear?

  4. scottie Says:

    butch, you are way too defensive !

    walt and mearsheimer critics, not you, have uttered such nonsense that there is no such thing as an israeli lobby, meaning aipac’s role is minimal in influencing foreign policy.

    the post was meant for people who have read stuff like this, not meant so much for people who realize that there is a powerful lobby that does influence foreign policy.

    aipac’s site is very clear that it intends to follow their agenda issues, and again my point is that people argue that aipac doesnt do such things, then i counter by saying read their own agenda. it’s clearly stated.

  5. Logipundit Says:


    LOL…no dude…just misunderstood what “let’s not obfuscate” meant.

    And I’d defer also to my comment on Scott Ritter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: