Why is AIPAC Suddenly Part of the Syria Strike Push?

September 10, 2013
Rosen wrote about AIPAC’s desperate effort to ensure that no one would blame “the Jews” for pushing the U.S. into a war with Iraq: AIPAC never openly endorsed the authorization; AIPAC organized a letter from 16 members of congress swearing that AIPAC did not take an official position on the war and never lobbied them on the war; former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned George W. Bush that attacking Iraq was a mistake. Of course, none of those efforts to prove non-participation bore any fruit.  The Jews, by whatever name people chose to use – the Israel Lobby, the Jews, or the Neocons – were and still are blamed for pushing the U.S. into a massively unpopular war with Iraq. (That’s the Big Blame Theory)(MORE)

Report: #Hagel Said #Israel Headed Toward #Apartheid, #Netanyahu a ‘Radical’

February 19, 2013
(Report: Hagel Said Israel Headed Toward Apartheid, Netanyahu a ‘Radical’ | Washington Free Beacon)

BY:
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Time for some more research into what really happened here


NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof retweets message comparing pro-Israel group to pigs

January 16, 2013

columnist (Nicholas Kristof )is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as “the 2 most pig like lobbies” in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as “pigs.”
“OBAMA told the 2 most pig like lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to drop dead in same month. Next: Chamber of Commerce,” Rosenberg wrote.
The missive was then retweeted by Kristof and a slew of others.

this apparently went on the same day that the New York Times attacked Morsi in an editorial criticizing the Egyptian leader for comparing Jews to Apes and Pigs


More Controversy At Democratic National Convention On Support For Israel

September 5, 2012
“Peace and Good Will” at  Democratic National Convention 1872
Credit: Wiki Commons

Now DNC lies about AIPAC?(Daled Amos): More Controversy At Democratic National Convention On Support For Israel

In addition to the controversy surrounding Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that Israeli Ambassador Oren thinks Republicans are dangerous, the Democratic Platform is another issue raising doubts about the Democratic Party’s support for Israel.
I blogged yesterday asking Can You Guess What Israel Points Are Missing From The 2012 Democratic Platform?, noting omissions from the Democratic Platform first pointed out by the Republican Jewish Coalition both on Twitter and on their website (Democrats Strip Critical Pro-Israel Language from Platform)
In an effort to blunt criticism of their plaform, Democrats have attempted to give it the seal of approval of a major Jewish group: DNC Israel Platform Reviewed, ‘Loved’ By AIPAC, Sources Say. The result has been another debate on what was actually said.
According to the post, it is true that the 2004 and 2008 platforms had stronger pro-Israel platforms:

But the aide and a second source affiliated with the party — both of whom were not authorized to speak on the drafting process — added that officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the hardline pro-Israel interest group, had reviewed and approved the language prior to its finalization.
“They loved it,” said the aide who worked on the platform.

But the question is whether in fact AIPAC actually reviewed and approved — let alone loved — the 2012 Democratic Platform.
AIPAC says they didn’t.
Instead, their version of the story is very different, namely that AIPAC Not Consulted on Final DNC Platform:

Officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were not consulted on the final version of the Democratic National Committee’s controversial language regarding Israel and the peace process, a revelation that calls into question numerous reports that the pro-Israel juggernaut was pleased with the party’s platform, according to a source close the group.
“AIPAC officials were not in the room when the platform was drafted,” the source told the Free Beacon Tuesday evening. “AIPAC was never provided with a full draft of the Middle East section of the platform.”
…“Jerusalem as the capital is Israel was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee,” the AIPAC source said.

The source claiming AIPAC approved and “loved” the platform is — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz — sticking by their story.


Obama makes a bold statement in front of AIPAC. And then takes it back

March 8, 2012
(Daled Amos)Once again, Obama makes a bold statement in front of AIPAC. And then takes it back.

In case you missed Netanyahu at AIPAC

March 8, 2012

(Boker Tov)

Anonymous threatens AIPAC

March 7, 2012
(Carl) The hackers’ group Anonymous is threatening AIPAC.
Let’s go to the videotape.
I hope AIPAC has Israeli security on their computers. It’s the best that’s available.

Media_httpuploadwikim_aheoi…I’m so confused with Anonymous. some of their videos are Pro Israel and Muslim Brotherhood sites were shut down by Anonymous.  It is very obvious that the media and blogosphere needs to be very careful in accusing the hacker group of some kind of centralized command. Anonymous has no leader… and because of this… it can be co-opted by a hateful element.