December 28, 2005, - 2:57 pm

“Pro”-Israel Group AIPAC Refuses to Condemn “Munich”

Why won’t AIPAC–the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the self-styled pro-Israel lobby in America, take a stand against “” or even take any stand at all?
You would think a group that claims to be pro-Israel and also claims to be American would have two reasons to denounce this fictional movie that morally equivocates terrorists and victims and denounces the war on terror: 1) as Americans AND 2) as supporters of Israel. But you would be wrong.
AIPAC refuses to make a statement about “Munich.” It’s an outrage that a group that markets itself, using a New York Times description of it as “The most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel,” won’t condemn this movie, when even the government of Israel did denounce the film. AIPAC’s silence on this is deafening and outrageous.

Read this exchange sent to me by a justifiably upset AIPAC member (whose name and e-mail have been removed to protect his identity):

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:13:31 -0600
From: [Name and e-mail address redacted]
To: Debbie Schlussel
Subject: Silence on Munich from AIPAC
I just can’t figure out how an org like AIPAC that claims to advance
Israel’s interest in America stays silent on such a damaging movie (see below).
Any ideas?
[Name redacted]
From: Membership
Date: Dec 28, 2005 12:57 PM
Subject: munich
To: [E-mail address redacted]
Mr. [Name redacted]
AIPAC is not issuing a statement on the movie.
Thank you
From: [Name and e-mail address redacted]
Posted At: Monday, December 26, 2005 10:35 AM
Posted To: AIPAC Update
Conversation: Munich
Subject: Munich
Dear AIPAC representative,
I would like to know if AIPAC will be issuing a statement about Steven
Spielberg’s new movie, Munich, which deals with Israel’s fight against terrorism.
Thank you in advance for your response.
[Name redacted]

For those of us who know the real AIPAC, we know that the group is dominated by liberals who want Israel to give every last inch for “peace” (piece of paper). AIPAC was behind the disastrous Oslo Accords, Wye Accords, Gaza pull-out, and, behind the scenes, a total pull-out from the West Bank (including suburban Jerusalem, and ultimately “East” Jerusalem. AIPAC supported a Palestinian state early on and actively joined lobbying forces with the lobbyist hired by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in meetings with Members of Congress. On college campuses, especially of late, left-wing AIPAC student groups at the University of Michigan, Duke, and Princeton, have repeatedly opposed other students who’ve opposed Islamic terrorism.
AIPAC really stands for the Appeasement forced on Israel (by liberal American naifs) Public Affairs Committee. Those of us who know AIPAC know that it is actually no surprise at all that this organization won’t come out against Spielberg’s fiction equivocating terrorists and their victims and arguing against responding to terrorists. In fact, AIPAC’s view is a lot closer to Spielberg’s than it’s membership realizes.
But any group of real Americans–whether Americans supporting Israel, or just plain Americans–who are truly against terrorism, wouldn’t take even a New York second in pontificating over whether or not to make a statement against this film.
It would have come out against it immediately. Well, at least, “Munich” has done one good service associated with truth–albeit too late. It has shown blind supporters of AIPAC, the organization’s true colors.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses

You don’t sound like you know AIPAC at all. I am very active and will be at policy conference again in March (will you be there?) and the reason they don’t respond to this is because they don’t take stands on things in the media — that’s not what they’re about. They have to meet with senators and congresspeople and the administration. They don’t want to sully their reps by responding to something that in the big picture doesn’t matter (unlike good ol’ Abe Foxman, who came out SUPPORTING the movie).
The reason they supported Oslo, etc, is because AIPAC supports whatever the Israeli government is doing. They supported them with regard to the Gaza Withdrawl but not the Gaza Withdrawl (like ADL) in and of itself. That way, if the Israeli government decided not to do it, they wouldn’t have looked as stupid as the ADL cause they were only supporting the govt’s decision.
Also, if you really knew AIPAC you would know it’s neither democrat or republican because if you act that way, then when the other group is in office, you and your support for Israel hits the back burner for at least 4 years. Israel is for eveyone. The Dems and Ruplicans don’t agree on anything — except Israel. And if you go to policy conference, you will just as many Republicans as you do Democrats — what greater proof is there that they do not have any agenda other than supporting the US/Israel relationship?

Esther on December 31, 2005 at 7:06 pm

Munich is a flop on its first week, and deservedly so

Box Office Mojo (via Debbie Schlussel) reported that Steven Spielberg’s Munich monstrosity opened at about the 10th rank, bottom of the list, earning under six million bucks. Thank goodness for that.

Tel-Chai Nation on January 1, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Blah, blah, blah! Glad to see you can regurgitate the AIPAC propaganda talking points, Esther. I know AIPAC far better than you. I watched it change from a great organization dedicated to promoting the welfare of Israel in America, under the able leadership of Morrie Amitay, to what it has become now, which is a left-leaning, pro-appeasement, bloated bureacracy. AIPAC shoves things, like Oslo, Wye, Palestinian State down the Israeli government’s throat. Not the other way around. Time for you to take off your rose-colored glasses, Esther. But then you’d have to give up the Policy Conference social scene, and apparently you’re just not ready to do so. The Israeli government officially denounced “Munich,” so why isn’t AIPAC doing so, too? We know the answer, and it ain’t the pap you’ve regurgitated, babe (in the woods).
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on January 1, 2006 at 1:17 pm

Sadly I was looking forward to an interesting conversation about this but apparently I was wrong. You’re nothing more than a right wing bomb thrower and quite rude. And by the way, I’m a centrist (though mostly toward the right when it comes to Israel), not a leftist.

Esther on January 2, 2006 at 2:58 am

In general, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into running debates with my readers. But you AIPAC activists doth protest too much. If you could not take the heat, why did you claim I “do not know AIPAC at all,” when clearly I know the group all too well? You claim you wanted an “interesting conversation” but seem to only want to treat yourself to a one-sided argument using AIPAC talking points, without a response to them. And then you resort to name-calling, which will get you nowhere.
If you are bothered by the tone of the response, sorry. But it represents the exasperation resulting from someone who can’t answer the things posited in the initial post, yet discounts them with no evidence to the contrary (b/c there isn’t any). That’s bluntness, not rudeness. (Though I suppose my sense of exasperation is particularly heightened because I am very ill at this time.)
What is a “centrist” on Israel? Do you support the Palestinian State that AIPAC shoved down Israel’s throat? How about cradle to grave U.S.-funded UNRWA education and training of Islamic terrorists to hate Americans, Christians, and Jews? AIPAC supports this. Is that “centrist”? How about a refusal by AIPAC to stop supporting foreign aid for America’s (and Israel’s) enemies? Why does AIPAC insist on only left-wing speakers on campus, as run by far-leftist hack Jonathon Kessler? Huh? Why did AIPAC groups at Michigan, Duke, Princeton (and I’m told, also Yale) team with Arab Muslim supporters of terrorism to harass and persecute other pro-Israel students on campus? Do you find that “interesting” or “centrist”? I do not.
If that is rude and bomb-throwing right-wing to point out, then, like I said, keep your rose-colored glasses on. It is you, not I, who seems not to know AIPAC at all. I don’t need to go to a rah-rah convention cheering that on (AIPAC Policy Conference). Sorry.
If, as you say, AIPAC does whatever Israel wants (not the case at all–and more like vice versa), then tell me why it won’t follow suit with the official Israeli position of denouncing “Munich”? In fact, AIPAC is dominated by liberals. Sure, they pay lip service to Republicans and conservatives, but the reality is that they help few of them. When I was at Michigan and active in AIPAC (well before you), the group refused to support conservative Republican pro-Israel Congressman Bill Schuette, who was in a tough race against a man strongly opposed to Israel. Instead, they chose to help two liberal Dems who had easy races. When I made a fuss about it, AIPAC from Washington on down raised its ire. That’s what AIPAC is about.
Oh, and what about the letter Liberal Dem. Senator Carl Levin sent (and got 11 other liberal Senators to sign) to then-Israeli PM Yitzchak Shamir denouncing Israel and its settlements at a time that President George H.W. Bush and James Baker were pressuring Israel beyond belief? That was admittedly drafted by then-AIPAC chief, Tom Dine. If you are proud of that, fine. I’m not. It’s neither “rude” nor “right-wing bomb throwing”. But it is the truth. Facts are stubborn things, whether you claim to be a centrist or otherwise.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on January 2, 2006 at 2:50 pm

Hey Esther : Shounds like you got in over your head.Debbie’s “quite rude”,oh my goodness.You going to sit at the tea party all offended now.”Well I never”

danny on January 3, 2006 at 10:25 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field