The American Israel Public Affairs Lobby...
Posted by deleted 11 years, 2 months ago to Politics
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?
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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_contex...
"Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a magazine published 10 times a year in Washington, DC which promotes a virulently anti-Israel position."
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_contex...
"In recent years [Kate] Seelye* has written for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [WRMEA], in one article accusing Israel of engaging in state-sponsored terrorism. The Washington Report is an extremist magazine which has referred to Jewish supporters of Israel as a “cancer” and as “Israel-firsters,” and has carried ads for Roger Garaudy’s notorious book, The Founding Myths of Israeli Policy, which denies the Holocaust. That NPR would hire a contributor to such a magazine, that it would welcome such extreme partisans, is testament to the network’s own highly partisan agenda."
*Leftist pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel journalist for National Public Radio.
Typical.
When an anti-Semite can't answer (or won't answer) his critics, he always runs to some authority figure to try to shut them up.
Mearsheimer and Walt have been discredited as being just plain deceptive. Why not admit it?
If you can find some time in between posting puff-pieces on bitcoin, maybe you can revive some James Forrestal conspiracy theories about Zionist agents influencing US policy and surveilling him when he was being committed for insanity.
Looking forward to being vastly entertained.
Evidence? Or are we supposed to accept your arbitrary accusation as being sufficient correspondence to reality?
Had you done your homework, you would have learned that most of that foreign aid was in the form of *loans*, which Israel repaid.
You're also not mentioning that the Arab countries not only have received direct aid from the US, but also from the former Soviet Union, Asian countries, and many European nations.
A small omission of fact on your part.
In the case of Mearsheimer and Walt, specifically, their "overall logic" rested precisely on deceptive, out-of-context quotes, as well as no interviews with anyone at AIPAC. Not exactly objective scholarship.
Your statement is the same as that made by that other great example of sharp reasoning, Dan Rather, after the scandal regarding Bush43 and his service at the Texas Air National Guard. When it came out that Rather had been scammed, he announced (paraphrasing), "Sure, the information we received was fraudulent. But it COULD have been true! I mean, those fraudulent typed statements were the kind of thing that GW Bush COULD have made, since he's that type of person. This little detail of fraudulent evidence that we mistakenly took to be real doesn't destroy our overall logic or the case we've made against Bush."
Right.
>You question the Israel narrative…
What the heck is "the Israel narrative"?
You're a wing-nut. Is this really the best that Brown University could do?
And lastly: what happened to that "TAKE NOTE" bit regarding the "only time" you will reply to a charge of anti-Semitism? Looks as if that's out the window.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...
from Wikipedia.
This list shows that India receives more monetary aid than Israe. Afghanistan gets almost 2.5 times more.
If your point is that foreign aid should stop, I agree. If it is aid to Israel only should stop, then I disagree.
just cracked the new book-looking forward to your essay
There is no power over US foreign policy peculiar to AIPAC. That you concentrate on a privately funded lobby for Israeli interests over government-funded lobbies for Saudi Arabian ones (to take just one other example) rather proves to everyone that Jewish interests irritate you, while Arabic/Islamic ones do not.
Additionally, Donway is a sometime contributor to The Daily Journalist, which also boasts a wing-nut contributor like Tony Greenstein ("a founding member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods").
http://thedailyjournalist.com/wc-n-4/
>Anyone should be embarrassed to resort to that argument,
I'm not. Nice try at a digression, though.
>indicating, as it does, the lack of anything else to say.
The articles to which I linked have lots to say, especially about the deceptive scholarship of Mearsheimer and Walt, both of whom you mentioned approvingly on your Facebook post. Since they have been exposed as frauds (shoddy, at best), it means either that you didn't do your homework, or that you are also a fraud (or shoddy, at best). I'll accept either answer.
>There is no charge that AIPAC is a secret organization exercising secret power;
Straw-man. I never claimed that you, Mearsheimer, or Walt, wrote that AIPAC was secret. Guess what? Most old-fashioned, garden-variety anti-Semitism never claimed that "Jewish control" of international banking or the media was secret, either. Even the old, fraudulent "Protocols of Zion" merely claimed that its author had overheard a secret meeting of a Sanhedren plot at world takeover by Jews through finance and journalism. (Except, of course, that the Sanhedren had been defunct for almost 2 thousand years by the time the "Protocols" appeared. A small detail.)
>there is the charge that it represents the government of a foreign power, albeit a valued ally,
It's privately funded — not government subsidized by Israel — so it represents the interests of those private individuals contributing their money. It so happens most of the contributors are Jews concerned with political issues affecting other Jews and affecting the state of Israel. That doesn't mean it "represents a foreign power." You're simply a nutcase if you don't see the difference between the two.
Saudi Arabia has a lobby that *is* directly subsidized by the Saudi government, and directly influences congressmen, senators, and (quite likely) POTUS. I don't see any criticisms of them. Private lobbies, such as the NRA (firearms), the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (liquor), AARP (retirees), etc. represent private interests of concern to its members. Um, so what, Walter.
Additionally, the reason AIPAC cannot be redesigned as an agent of a foreign government (FARA) is that it is privately funded from individual donations. It isn't funded by the Israeli government.
If your point is that we should do away with the lobby system entirely, that's one thing (except, alas, the First Amendment of the US Constitution says that it is the right of the people to "petition Congress". If you want to abolish lobbying, you'll have to amend, or abolish, that clause in the First Amendment). To concentrate only on a privately funded lobby representing Israeli interests as being especially nefarious, or destructive of US interests, is quite another.
>and should be re-categorized as lobbyist for a foreign government.
Except (as posted above) it is not funded by a foreign government. It's funded by private individuals. Sorry. No special exceptions here for Jews or for the state of Israel.
>If readers take the trouble to look at some of the points I listed . . .
You mean, you get the fun of "listing points" and asserting accusations, and everyone else has to "take the trouble" of looking them up on the Web? Here's a better idea: provide evidence for what you assert. Mearsheimer and Walt won't do, because they've already been debunked as being deceptive, mainly by taking little slivers of statements made by various Israeli officials out of context, in order to make it appear as if they were saying the opposite of what they actually said had they been honest and quoted the entire statements. It's an old trick. Apparently, you fell for it.
>TAKE NOTE: This is the only time I will reply to a comment that levels charges of anti-semitism.
Bye! And good riddance.