The American Israel Public Affairs Lobby...

Posted by deleted 10 years, 3 months ago to Politics
117 comments | Share | Flag

Did you know that…

That one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

That it does not make contributions to election campaigns, but maintains on its Web site details of how every member of Congress voted on “AIPAC” issues and publishes a brochure on candidates who complied—or did not--that is scrutinized, according to the “Washington Post,” by thousands of potential campaign donors?

Since 1990, pro-Israeli interests have contributed $57 million to federal political candidates?

AIPAC lobbying for foreign aid from America to Israel procures about $3 billion a year, so that Israel in total has gotten more foreign aid since World War II than any other recipient (about $108 billion)?

That in 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign because he was taped boasting that he “met with [then Bush Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about...”?

That in the same taped conversation, Steiner said he was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration its choice of a Secretary of State and a head of the National Security Agency, and that AIPAC had placed "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs..."?

That in 2005, an AIPAC policy director, Steven Rosen, and an AIPAC senior Iran analyst, Keither Weissman, were fired by AIPAC because the FBI was investigating whether or not they passed classified U.S. information to the government of Israel?

That they were indicted, AIPAC agreed to pay the legal fees for Weissman's defense through appeal, if necessary, but charges were subsequently dropped?

That the same year the Justice Department arrested Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working in the Pentagon , and charged him with providing classified national defense information to Israel, at which point he described a luncheon meeting where he passed government secrets to AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman, and was sentenced to 13 years in prison—but all charges against the two former AIPAC employees were dropped in 2009?

Approximately two-thirds of members of Congress attended AIPAC's 2011 policy conference and so did President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker of the House Boehner—and that attendance at the council by federal officials is second only to the State of the Union address?

That in a working paper, and then a book, University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government Professor Stephen Walt wrote that: “AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel [political action committees]. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. ...

And continued: “The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.”

That when an essay based on the paper appeared, with all scholarly references, in the “London Review of Books,” the two scholars—one of whom holds a chair at the Kennedy School at Harvard and is academic dean, there—were labeled by prominent scholars and writers as “Crackpot” (Martin Peretz), “could have been written by the less intelligent members of Hamas” (Alan Dershowitz), “as scholarly as…McCarthy…and just as nutty” (Max Boot), “puts The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to shame (Josef Joffe), “dishonest so-called intellectuals…entitled to their stupidity” (NY Rep. Eliot Engel)…

That when the U.S. and European allies, plus the U.N. Atomic Energy Agency, reached an agreement with Iran to curtail its work on enrichment of uranium (-feared by Israel and many others to be preparatory to creating a nuclear weapon)-- and to open its scientific and technological facilities to international inspection—in exchange for lifting stringent economic embargoes on Iran—AIPAC immediately lobbied in Congress for legislation (Menendez-Kirk bill) that would continue and strengthen the sanctions against Iran—and kill the proposed agreement?

That AIPAC had prepared a massive campaign by members to lobby Senate and House members for the bill but suffered one of its very rare defeats when President Obama said in his State of the Union that the bill was not in “our national interests” and its Democratic supporters abandoned it?

That former and current members of the House and Senate have argued that AIPAC must be designated a lobby for a foreign government, so it can continue all its education and advocacy, but cannot directly or indirectly intervene in U.S. political campaigns?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This author was not a reporter but wrote an Op-ed. He clearly was biased(that's fine) but usually in writing an Op-Ed you state your expertise in the area you're writing about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not familiar with any reporter or other declaring their political affiliations when writing an article. I think reporters, government employees, and their spouses should declare what their business interests are and report every time they change for two years following office. I don't see an issue with groups with foreign connections speaking to members of the government. The group in question has their legislative agenda on their web page, It doesn't say anything about promoting a U.S. presence in the Middle East. I have never heard of Israel referred to as a socialist country. I will look into that, Do we need any allies in the middle east?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately the Supreme Court calls money speech so it falls under the First Amendment. Yes,it creates an incentive to manipulate foreign and domestic policy. Did this group lobby under the legal definition? Better evidence is needed, otherwise, it is just conversation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, we agree. This group lobbies for that aid to be as high as possible-just like other countries and organizations lobby for US aid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "AIPAC empowers pro-Israel activists across all ages, religions and races to be politically engaged and build relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship." that is from their own website. It is privately funded, which is better than the alternative, Often, op-eds are run that are very pro-Israel, which is fine, however, the authors are never identified as presiding on the Board of the lobby. Why not? There was an op-ed on NYT on Friday by a board member of the lobby-his bio was simply what his main business credentials. My point is the secretive nature of how the lobby is working. They have a public face, but work behind the scenes not identifying their plan. I don't mean to just pick on them-it's a widely accepted lobbying practice that gets great results. BUt what's wrong in pointing out when it happens? This group actively promotes keeping a strong US presence in the Middle East for advantage Israel. we can look objectively at whether that is in our best interest and are we subtly manipulated into accepting premises of a very complicated nature without further examination. After all, Israel is SOCIALIST. Why is it we accept in the US socialist tactics of ends justify the means, is non existent in a socialist country?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I got my stat from the post here. If this post was a question about whether or not we should give aid to Israel, that is not how it reads. This post is about a specific group "AIPAC" and it's activities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe I am missing something here. Are ambassadors foreign companies or anyone that talks to or anyone that publishes anything about the United States government considered a lobbying group? Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress. It is a highly controversial phenomenon, often seen in a negative light by journalists and the American public, and frequently misunderstood.[20] While lobbying is subject to extensive and often complex rules which, if not followed, can lead to penalties including jail, the activity of lobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as free speech and protected by the US Constitution. I don't see any evidence here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think this post brings up issues about whether we should have foreign aid period. Where is this found in the constitution? Is it effective? Does it create an incentive to manipulate US foreign and domestic policy?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    where are you getting your stats, R? Military aid alone to Israel is 3.1 B every year until 2017. This does not include the value of firearms and military equipment we pass on. No one is giving a pass on any foreign aid going to enemies, let alone allies. We can all agree that lots of money going to Iran and Egypt, to name two countries in the middle east doesn't make that much sense, The discussion is much more provocative when we delve into an ally's interest internationally and how we support/not support their policies. I am interested in knowing more regarding this. after all, who benefits by us taking on Syria. Is it in OUR best interests to do so? It's delicate diplomacy, but why is this lobby so secretive?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am sorry, but I am confused. The way I see it, the only conversation on this topic was stymied fairly quickly by accusations of antisemitism. We never really got to the discussion of how much aid goes to Israel-whether or not most of it is loans which are paid back-that was not what I found when I went googling- and what are the benefits of US foreign aid more broadly. Frankly, I am not knowledgeable on the subject and was looking for the discussion to center on the central theme. My only dog in this fight is against the attacks on Donway's character, which I find outside of outrageous.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 3 months ago
    We have a fun dispute before us with much marking up and down.
    On my political right there is WD, an (otherwise) Objectivist writer, who is distinguished on this site with a string of anti-Israel threads. Do those arguments and sources check out? No they do not. The arguments are interesting only if you start out biased, the sources are the usual ranters, one I found earlier was an Iranian government news agency.
    On my religious right there is EF who has over-reached on this site with long boring posts opposing evolution. Some of the stuff was correct, much misinterpretation, some, dressed in authoritative words I know to be concocted. His (or her) arguments and sources given in this thread stand up. Unfortunately (over)enthusiasm for taking a side there diminishes credibility here.
    It has been suggested that one person we know, the other we do not. This is not relevant nor is it correct, 'Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them'. Evaluate only on what you see here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He hasn't destroyed the post. We can still talk about the issues that were brought up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you wrote "over" more times than WD has posted lol....I see three posts out of 25 on the first page. Each post deals with either the secretive lobbying group in Washington or not supporting new wars in the middleeast. Even if one agrees that Israel's stability is of supreme importance in the middle east, and we wish to remain strong allies(which I support), how is it not Objective to question our continued warring in that region? Why pretend that going to war with Syria is mostly to protect Israel's interests and not our own? Who's mission? It is not anti-Israel to ask those questions. It is not anti-Israel to question support for further wars in that region. Hello! We live over HERE! Certainly we have been high handed with Israel in strongly tying one arm behind their back-which is crucially wrong. Israel can and should protect their interests. Our President has been abominably rude to Israel's President-that is not good. But why is not ok to post about the secretive lobbying efforts of this group? and when they show up in the news-rarely, they're actions are so secretive-why not analyze and update gulchers? We should be able to look at these issues critically and with reasoned debate-not character assassinating, avoiding the real topic at hand. Preventing further wars in that region is a reasonable subject for discussion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How so do I not have a dog in someone elses fight? That seems pretty self explanatory. I don't. The only issue (if you can call it that) is repeating the same thing over and over, which is somewhat counterproductive to any argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do to - you should leave.

    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again EconomicFreedom has destroyed another post. His comments are not insightful, they are not designed to further intelligent conversation, they are not polite, and they are not really on point and he has no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Please leave.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo