You are certainly entitled to disagree with AIPAC’s policy of keeping most (but not all) sessions off the record, though judging by your editorial, AIPAC’s reaction to your objection is to be commended: They listened, responded to you and decided to maintain a policy that includes off-the-record sessions.
My informal survey of AIPAC Policy Conference attendees indicates that the overwhelming majority prefers to have the sessions remain off the record. Similarly, most presenters value the opportunity to speak in general and break-out sessions without concern for how their remarks would be understood if taken out of context. Indeed, if paying attendees were asked to vote on the matter there is no doubt that they would support AIPAC’s position.
Why can’t you accept AIPAC’s decision? You bemoan the hyper-partisanship that characterizes Washington politics and then you boycott the AIPAC meeting because you didn’t get your way. My way or the highway is not the policy of a mature news organization.
The Jewish Week needs to make a choice: either you are a serious news organization reporting items of interest to the broader Jewish community or you are a narrow-minded partisan advocacy journal. My subscription depends on your decision.
Editor’s Note: To be clear regarding AIPAC policy regarding sessions at the annual conference, there is a difference between “off the record,” meaning the specific contents are not to be reported, and “closed to the press.” The Jewish Week has long attended the AIPAC conference and abided by the “off the record” rules. It is the dramatic increase in “closed to the press” sessions in the last several years that provoked our response.