As 42 Senate Republicans push for a quick vote on the Mendendez-Kirk Iran sactions bill - guaranteed to derail the current negotiations if it were to pass - Sen. Menendez follows most of his Democratic co-sponsors in asking that consideration of the bill be delayed to give the diplomats a chance. And guess who’s on his side? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
We agree with the Chairman that stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support and that there should not be a vote at this time on the measure.
Considering the hate mail I got when I suggested that RBC readers should oppose Menendez-Kirk, I am no less puzzled than pleased to find AIPAC taking essentially the same position. Has the organization been taken over by a bunch of kapos? Is it now headed by self-hating Jews indifferent to the survival of Israel?
Footnote Commenting on that earlier post, an RBC reader wrote:
I think that you cannot underestimate the power of the incumbent Jewish establishment on people like me.I live in a mid-sized city with a compressed and insular Jewish community. I practice law. I require clients to practice law and make a living. I am fairly open about my progressive political views and probably lose clients as a result.But, were I to be as open about my views on the Mideast, which views are just a tad to the left, but would certaintly be within the mainstream in Israel, I would lose many friends and a significant portion of my referral/client base. A great disincentive to speaking out.
Robert McDougall says
Considering the hate mail I got when I suggested that RBC readers should oppose Menendez-Kirk, I am no less puzzled than pleased to find AIPAC taking essentially the same position.
AIPAC doesn't oppose Menendez-Kirk, it wants it brought up when it can pass with a bipartisan veto-proof majority. The 42 Republicans don't mind so much if it fails, as long as the Democrats pay a price for opposing it.
Jay C says
I think a significant amount of the "support" the Kirk-Menendez Iran-sanctions bill garnered was more for show than for serious policy reasons: WV's Senator Joe Manchin was a little more honest about his "support" than most:
Manchin said he intended the bill to send a message of support for Israel and underscore a goal of upending Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. But he said that a vote could actually cost his sponsorship of the bill.
"I never intended for that bill to come to a vote and debate," he said. "If they start moving it forward I might need to start making a decision about whether I stay on the bill or not."
A real profile in courage: but he can't be the only one……
melaw says
Since when is expressing a concern about the timing of a vote on legislation confused with not supporting the legislation? AIPAC has in no way diminished its support for the bill.