The article itself is full of lies by omissions. For instance right at the start it declares the following events are taking place independently of each other:
1. Obama encouraging Congress to attack Syria.
2. Putin coming up with a deal to prevent that.
3. John Kerry working on the plan.
4. AIPAC lobbying Congress to authorize strikes on Syria.
As I have commented on before, this is AIPAC doing exactly what the President asked them to do. They are helping him with his goals. They didn't spontaneously decide that attacking Syria was a good movie, otherwise they would have been taking this stance for many months in the past. Nor did they say anything until President Obama came out and used his presidential clout to move toward action when it appeared that chemical weapons were being used. Wilkie acknowledges this, though it takes her almost half of the article to finally get there:
"So why wasn't AIPAC whistling the same tune as the administration?...According to numerous Senate staff members who spoke to [HuffPost reporter Howard] Fineman, the overall impression was that AIPAC was lobbying on the Syria vote more out of a sense of duty to the administration than out of pure self-interest."Like I said, not exactly indicative of "Israel first" behavior, especially considering how as Wilkie herself admits Israel doesn't even want a US attack on Syria. If anything AIPAC is acting in an "Obama-first" manner which would earn the Huffington Post's love if it were any other lobby group.
Ultimately the article peters out, after hearing from the all important J Street naturally, because the big news story is that AIPAC is doing what it does, which is hardly big news. Not that it matters anyway because the Huffington Post readers saw "AIPAC" and immediately their animal rage took over as they launched into ZOG conspiracy theories, generalized attacks on Israel, and demands that anyone who supports AIPAC be denied their right of free speech:
As always, Huffington Post approved.