This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
AIPAC's Ugly Agenda: by Stephen Lendman
What AIPAC wants, it gets in Washington.
AIPAC is an unregistered foreign agent representing Israel. Edward Said once called it "the most powerful and feared lobby in Washington."
Calling itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," it's represented Israeli interests since founded in 1953. In 1963, it was incorporated as a division of the American Zionist Council (AZC), its precursor.
For decades, it's been very successful subverting opposition to Israel's agenda. Virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so would be a career-ender.
Notably, it's had virtual veto power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms sales, enormous handouts to Israel, and all Middle East policies affecting the Jewish state under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.
Deferentially, politicians, presidents, their hangers-on, media scoundrels and others pay it due homage and the government it represents. As a result, everyone pays dearly.
On September 15, AIPAC published an anti-Palestinian broadside headlined, "PA's UN Statehood Bid Threatens Peace Efforts, Israel," saying:
"The Palestinian effort to secure recognition of statehood at the United Nations is a direct challenge to US interests and could have severe implications for the peace process."
Fact check
America represents Israeli interests. Israel wants Palestinians deprived of all rights under permanent occupation. There's no legitimate peace process because Israel and Washington won't tolerate it.
Yet AIPAC claims upgrading Palestine's status "could have serious implications for" Israel.
Fact check
Indeed so. Independent Palestine could ratify and have access to international conventions. As a result, it could sue Israeli war criminals in the International Criminal Court. AIPAC calls it "politicizing the court."
In addition, Israel's occupation would be threatened though not easily ended. The fate of settlers would be up for grabs. Notably, half are fed up and want to leave but can't for financial reasons.
Others would have a choice. Either become ex-pats in a foreign country under its laws, or leave. Moreover, settlement communities no longer could exclude non-Jews, besides other beneficial changes.
Israelis would have to learn to love or at least tolerate their new neighbors. Many, in fact, do now and would welcome them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
