The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) needs to acknowledge that the post-Soviet era definition of “pro-Israel” has never been suitably re-cast. Communism, once the driving oppositional force, has been replaced by the ravenous 1,400-year-old political movement of radical Islam.
Together with a president and a former secretary of state who have reflexively rejected connecting the words “radical” and “Islam,” AIPAC has failed to connect the disastrous Iran nuclear deal with radical Islam, allowing members of Congress to bypass the strongest evidence of Iran’s nefarious intent. Ignoring radical Islam’s bloody 1,400-year-old track record enabled the cunning mullahs to effectively dissociate themselves from it. It should have been more about the heinous global ideology, not just debate about technical details.
AIPAC should use this failing as an opportunity to redefine “pro-Israel.” It should be underscored that Israel is the only nation in the region that is not susceptible to radical Islamist influence, making Israel our primary landing pad. Because radical Islam sits menacingly at our doorstep, Israel’s experience as a front-line player provides the true basis for redefining what it means to be pro-Israel. Failure to support pro-Israel policies is tantamount to enabling the endangerment of Americans.
AIPAC can no longer dance around the fact that virtually all of Israel’s strategic challenges are driven in some form by the radical Islamist agenda. Members who are not attuned to the dangers and insidious workings of this agenda will not be capable of upholding pro-Israel policies — policies that confront the surge of radical Islam.
Falling into this new basket would be the double-dipping beneficiaries and supporters of J Street, who opposed AIPAC’s efforts to foreclose on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, choosing instead to empower the most dangerous Islamist force on the globe. Or the unrepentant Cory Booker who, after stiffing AIPAC by defiantly withholding his opposition to the Iran deal, then strutted into the State of the Union address (1/12/15) with the Muslim Brotherhood associate, Ahmed Shedeed, as his guest.
In the event of a Clinton victory, AIPAC will need to get used to being in an “un-cozy” spot with the administration. As vociferously as President Obama denies the existence of radical Islam, Hillary does so with equal gusto. Hillary (through the Clinton Foundation) has been the beneficiary of vast amounts of wealth from Arab nations. It’s hard to believe that such a wellspring of benevolence could not possibly have taken the edge off of Clinton’s appetite for the aggressive pursuit of radical Islam. Her well-known charade of apologizing for the murderous acts of Islamic terrorists in Benghazi by blaming their violence on an anti-Islam video speaks for itself.
Her closest aide, Huma Abedin, has family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her campaign chairman, John Pedestal, promoted the publishing of the Islamophobia Network which effectively attempts to explain away the well-established link between radical Islam and terrorism by fraudulently pushing the radical Islamist agenda under the protective veil of the First Amendment.
In order to continue to act as the mouthpiece of the “pro-Israel” community, AIPAC must recommit to the pursuit of molding bipartisan majorities that are based in strategic reality. The practice of garnering bipartisan majorities by stripping down strategic realties to fit unrelated political agendas is no longer affordable. AIPAC must re-emerge with a truly pro-Israel agenda defined by the interdependence between Israel and the U.S. that radical Islam’s aggressive agenda dictates.
