Maybe his dramatic opposition to the deal was a deal-making ploy?<\/p>\n
Many Jewish organizations such as AIPAC have fundraised for millions by opposing the deal. <\/p>\n
NYTIMES.com<\/a>: JERUSALEM \u2014 In the week since it became clear that Congress would not block the Iranian nuclear deal he loathes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has largely toned down his rhetoric on the issue and pivoted to others.<\/p>\n He did not utter the name of his nation\u2019s nemesis in a pre-New Year\u2019s toast to his office and the national security council on Monday, nor at the induction of his new military secretary on Tuesday. In a brief public statement before meeting with his British counterpart in London on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu did mention Iran \u2014 but not in the usual context of its nuclear program posing an existential threat to Israel, only as a leader of \u201cmilitant Shiites.\u201d<\/p>\n And even that was ticked off between two other priorities: Mr. Netanyahu reiterated his readiness to restart negotiations with the Palestinians (though he rejects their conditions for doing so) and he boasted of Israeli innovation, \u201cespecially in cybersecurity.\u201d<\/p>\n David Horovitz, the editor of The Times of Israel news site, observed, \u201cHe is not particularly interested in playing up the fact that a deal he bitterly opposed is going through.\u201d Mr. Horovitz added, \u201cAlthough he\u2019s not saying that the cause is lost, if he hammers away at the same level, he reminds everybody that it\u2019s been lost.\u201d<\/p>\n FORWARD.com<\/a>: The second major battle took place in 1991, when president George H. W. Bush conditioned a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel on freezing building in West Bank settlements. The Israeli government, led by Yitzhak Shamir, refused, and AIPAC took to Congress to fight against the condition. This led Bush to famously describe himself as \u201cone lonely little guy\u201d fighting the powerful pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC lost this battle, too, but once again suffered no adverse consequence. Maybe his dramatic opposition to the deal was a deal-making ploy? Many Jewish organizations such as AIPAC have fundraised for millions by opposing the deal. NYTIMES.com: JERUSALEM \u2014 In the week since it became clear that Congress would not block … Continue reading
\nFundraising, in fact, leaped upward after each incident, as it did following the 2007 publication of a book by prominent political scientists Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer that critically depicted the pro-Israel lobby. Fundraising also increased after the arrest of two of the group\u2019s top lobbyists on espionage charges that were later dropped, and following the formation of AIPAC\u2019s dovish rival, J Street.
\nAIPAC now has an enormous $110 million budget and has launched a five-year plan to double it.
\nInsiders foresee no financial hit for AIPAC. Those opposed to the deal, an official with a major Jewish organization said, will appreciate the effort and keep on supporting the lobby, and those undecided will also likely maintain their support. \u201cThey\u2019re not going to go over to J Street,\u201d the official said, explaining that for the centrist and hawkish pro-Israel crowd, AIPAC is the only option.
\nA bigger issue is the damage, if any, to the lobby\u2019s political clout. But if history offers any clue about the future, the lobby will emerge unscathed, mainly because of the administration\u2019s reluctance to take revenge on a still formidable organization.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"