Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Israel lobby will force the US to a broader war - says a House staffer

Posted 4 years ago on Sept. 4, 2013, 6:22 p.m. EST by gmxusa (274)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

EXCLUSIVE: House Staffer Tells Me What AIPAC Is Doing

SEP 4 The media today is full of stories about AIPAC and its decision to push for a “yes” vote on Syria to ensure that President Obama initiates the war it really wants, with Iran. Check out this Washington Post story.

There is simply no way AIPAC and its camp followers would do this for Syria. Israel has no problem with the Assad regime. Like their dearly departed fellow former strongman Hosni Mubarak, both Hafez and Bashir Assad scrupulously kept the peace with Israel since 1973. As for chemical weapons, Israel not only has used them in Gaza but is one of seven countries in the world (Syria is another one) that has not ratified the treaty banning their use. Additionally, any regime likely to succeed Assad’s is likely to be more militantly anti-Israel and more trigger happy than the current regime.

The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran. As AIPAC admits in its own statement of support for the Syria attack:

This is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah — both of whom have provided direct and extensive military support to Assad. The Syrian regime and its Iranian ally have repeatedly demonstrated that they will not respect civilized norms. That is why America must act, and why we must prevent further proliferation of unconventional weapons in this region.

America’s allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability. Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country’s credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country’s security and interests and those of our regional allies.

To put it simply, AIPAC fears that if it if lets President Obama go wobbly on Syria, it is impossible to imagine that he would undertake a war with Iran that could ignite the entire Middle East and lead to the commitment of U.S. troops in a third major Middle Eastern war in a little over a decade.

And that is why AIPAC and its satellites are turning the screws on Congress, especially on progressive and liberal Democrats who tend to be antiwar except when AIPAC comes knocking. (Republicans are more immune to AIPAC because they do not rely on AIPAC-directed campaign dollars given that they have so many other sources. Besides they tend to be hawks on their own, without pressure).

So what does AIPAC pressure feel like? How does it work?

I called a friend who is a foreign policy aide to a House member and, after I promised not to identify him in any form, he told me this.

First come the phone calls from constituents who are AIPAC members. They know the Congressman and are nice and friendly and just tell him, or whichever staffer the constituent knows, just how important this vote is to him and his friends back in the district.

Then the donors call. The folks who have hosted fundraisers. They are usually not only from the district but from New York or LA or Chicago. They repeat the message: this vote is very important.

Contrary to what you might expect, they do not mention campaign money. They don’t have to. Because these callers are people who only know the Congressman through their checks, the threat not to write any more of them is implicit. Like the constituents, the donors are using AIPAC talking points which are simple and forceful. You can argue with them but they keep going back to the script. Did I mention the rabbis? We only have a few in our district but we get calls from all of them and from other rabbis from around the state.

Then there are the AIPAC lobbyists, the professional staffers. They come in, with or without appointments. If the Congressman is in, they expect to see him immediately. If not, they will see a staffer. If they don’t like what they hear, they will keep coming back. They are very aggressive, no other lobby comes close, They expect to see the Member, not mere staff.

Then there are the emails driven by the AIPAC website, the editorials in the one Jewish newspaper we have in our state. And then the “Dear Colleague” letters from Jewish House members saying how important the vote is for Israel and America. They also will buttonhole the Members on the House floor. Because my boss is not Jewish, he tends to defer to his Jewish colleagues. It is like they are the experts on this. And, truth be told, all the senior Jewish Members of the House are tight with AIPAC. Also, the two biggest AIPAC enforcers, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his Democatic counterpart, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, are fierce AIPAC partisans, and they make sure to seek out Members on the floor to tell them how they must vote. On anything related to Israel, they speak in one voice: AIPAC’s.

My friend concluded:

Obviously, there is no counterpart to this on the antiwar side. No anti-AIPAC to speak of. AIPAC owns this issue. It gets what it wants. It will get this and, sad to say, my boss, who hates the idea of using more war as a means to end war, will probably vote “yes.” He says he will never support an attack on Iran but, when the time comes, this Syria push will look like nothing. Syria is just a tactic for AIPAC. But its #1 goal, at least from the vantage point of Capitol Hill, is war with Iran.

Yeah, it’s scary. http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/04/exclusive-house-staffer-tells-me-what-aipac-is-doing/



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 years ago

the US cannot be forced into war

[+] -4 points by Narley (272) 4 years ago

OK, then, It can be prodded and pulled into war. It’s just a matter of semantics. No matter what you call it we can be led into war.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 years ago

it's a matter of owing up to actions one is responsible for


[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 4 years ago

It's bigger than AIPAC. The big banks want this war;


[-] -1 points by superomenna (-4) 4 years ago

Larry Summers is a Jewish Zionist.

AIPAC Is A Grave Threat To World Peace

By Gilad Atzmon

Israeli Ynet reports tonight on AIPAC’s relentless efforts to push America into a war.

“Though US Congress is pressured by the American public to vote against a US military intervention in Syria, Israel’s most ardent supporters in AIPAC urge Congress representatives to vote in favor of an intervention”.


Ynet writes that in the past Israel has “refrained from pushing US into war, and Jerusalem and AIPAC have thus far kept silent regarding Syria, but in recent days Israel decided to voice its support of an attack.

Ynet reveals the operative plan. “Some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists, intend to storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution authorizing US strikes against Syria.”

For the first time in modern history, in the open, the Jewish Lobby together with the Jewish State are pushing for a war that can easily escalate into a global conflict. Yet, I am slightly perplexed, as to whether these war mangers grasp what could be the consequences of such a war: do these Jewish campaigners really want to bear responsibility for the death of many innocent people? Can’t they see that they pressure the American Congress to act against the will of the American people? Are they still concerned with antisemitism, because their acts can bring total disaster on their fellow Jews

Watching the scale of the Jewish pro war campaign should lead us to consider the possibility that Jewish politics (not just Israeli politics) is a grave threat to world peace.


[-] 0 points by gmxusa (274) 4 years ago

The majority of Israelis approves Netanyahu policies. Who voted the Likud to power?

[-] -1 points by Catelonia (51) 4 years ago

I never said that liberal Jews were the majority in Israel. I am unaware of the per centage of Jews who support the Likud party's agenda in this country. But I do know that there are Jews in Occupy, and that a Jewish organization in lower Manhattan was archiving the Occupy movement, early on at least.


[-] 2 points by gmxusa (274) 4 years ago

You might like to see this interview with former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney describing the pressure she felt while in office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeVBa4lSscw&feature=share&list=FLRpZrY2XGRQaOYa96r_h6zA


[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 4 years ago
[-] 0 points by Catelonia (51) 4 years ago

No that wasn't the guy I was thinking of, but that was a really good clip. What courage former Congressman Findley has. We need more people like him, and not just in Congress. If more people only knew how Israel has us do their bidding, and the extremely detrimental effects it has on our country.....

Everyone should call their reps multiple times, and be adamant about it, NO War In Syria!! NYC tomorrow for me.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 4 years ago

Calling the reps can't hurt any, but my money's on the attack going ahead regardless. It's been the plan for a long time, and I can't see TPTB listening to the little people this time.

Good luck tomorrow, and be sure to come back and tell us about it. I, for one, would like to hear about it.


[-] -2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 4 years ago

I don't put a lot of stock in any of Obama's speeches. From what I've seen so far, he's just another lying politician. And when he mentioned how Syria is a danger to our security, that of course was political-speak for our access to the steady flow of oil. That in itself doesn't bode well in my opinion. It's always good to try and read between the lines when politicians speak.

You're right, though, all resistance is good. And the multitude of voices speaking out against this is a good sign, too. Maybe the tide is turning in this country, finally.