Andrew writes, under the headline "AIPAC Won't Fight Hagel":
Goldblog made the calculation, staying politically neutral (which is itself a political decision for him to retain access with both the Obama administration and the American Jewish Establishment):I'm not so sure AIPAC will be throwing itself into this fight.
I actually don't know what Andrew is talking about. What calculation did I make? I simply stated yesterday morning that it didn't seem likely that AIPAC would be making a cause of defeating the Hagel nomination. (Later reporting, by Eli Lake and others, confirmed this.)
What political decision did I make? I had already written in favor of Chuck Hagel's nomination for secretary of defense -- I even wrote that his straight talk could be good for Israel to hear. "Maybe, at this point, what we need are American officials who will speak with disconcerting bluntness to Israel about the choices it is making," is what I wrote, to the displeasure of some in Andrew's "American Jewish Establishment." How is this neutral?
And I have also defended Hagel publicly, both in Atlantic posts and in a Bloomberg View column, against the charge that he's anti-Semitic. You can read my defense here. So what is Andrew talking about?