The American Israel Public Affairs Lobby...

Posted by deleted 11 years, 2 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 5.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    WRMEA? Oh, that's a good one, Walter. You might as well link to some David Irving articles at the Institute for Historical Review.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 2 months ago
    Israel like immigration is a complicated issue that requires unraveling all the knots. First of all we should not be giving foreign aid. AIPAC is just one more looter in Washington. Second, Israel is the most freedom loving country in the region. Negotiation with the Arab countries is nonsense, they have no interest in keeping their agreements. They will only stop when Israel and the US cease to exist and when they have pushed the world back to the 10th century. Third AIPAC has shown itself an amoral organization whose only goal is to steal wealth from hard working Americans and has no other goal and shows no morals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    >I suggest that Galt's Gulch might consider some rules of discourse.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To my knowledge only two countries have every repaid any debt owed this country --Finland (the WWII debt it incurred and Israel, the debt incurred in the founding and defending of the state in 1948.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    >Third AIPAC has shown itself an amoral organization whose only goal is to steal wealth from hard working Americans and has no other goal and shows no morals.

    Evidence? Or are we supposed to accept your arbitrary accusation as being sufficient correspondence to reality?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True. Also most of the aid the US gave to Israel after it declared statehood was in the form of loans, which Israel repaid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    >I cited the statistic that Israel have received more foreign aid in cash and kind, in total, since WWII than had any other country.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    >Moreover, CAMERA strong implies that by questioning some quotations and references they have destroyed the overall logic and case of the author.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 2 months ago
    Unless my addition is wrong, the United states gives more aid to the states in the middle east than to Israel. Israel is not the largest recipient of aid either. I talking strictly dollars here. The full list is at:
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago
    Perhaps just a technicality, but Israel as a nation was not recognized as such until 1949, so it was a few years after WWII ended.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 2 months ago
    As usual, the easiest and most common counterargument has been offered, here: that to criticize the power of AIPAC over foreign policy is anti-semitism. Anyone should be embarrassed to resort to that argument, indicating, as it does, the lack of anything else to say. There is no charge that AIPAC is a secret organization exercising secret power; there is the charge that it represents the government of a foreign power, albeit a valued ally, and should be re-categorized as lobbyist for a foreign government. If readers take the trouble to look at some of the points I listed, though, and do a little research (more trouble than saying "anti-semetic") they will see that former staff members of AIPAC created quite a stir by exposing the reiterated statement of AIPAC executives that their effectiveness depends on secrecy: this is a theme is AIPAC strategy. In the long history of the Zionist movement in America, with such greats as Louis Brandeis and Steven Wise, it is interesting that at a very specific point their view changed from making the logical/moral case (then) for a State of Israel to simply building the power to support any politician who agreed and punish any who did not. As such, this is democracy (especially in the mixed economy-welfare state, where government has the power to grant virtually unlimited favors), but when an organization is taking its direction from a foreign government, then fairness suggests it should be categorized as such. If that were done, I would have nothing whatsoever against AIPAC and its aims. Others will have to decide how they feel about charges of AIPAC staff engaging in espionage..But AIPAC did dsimiss those charged and they never were convicted... The early Jewish American supporters of Zionism were concerned about "dual loyalty" to America and (a proposed) Israel; that concern seems, today, to have vanished. TAKE NOTE: This is the only time I will reply to a comment that levels charges of anti-semitism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 2 months ago
    On the more limited issue of foreign aid, I cited the statistic that Israel have received more foreign aid in cash and kind, in total, since WWII than had any other country. I believe this was as of 2010...not sure, here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 2 months ago
    The commenter who charges anti-semitism fires off many links to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). I have followed CAMERA for quite awhile. Any author who raises questions about the standard "Israel narrative" will encounter CAMERA arguing about his quotations and citations. If the quotations are accurate, then CAMERA will argue they are out of context. If they are in context, CAMERA will argue that the primary source was not cited. If not that, then CAMERA will argue that someone who reported someone else's quote meant another person... Often arguing such issues in supposed scholarly manner, CAMERA at the same time fires a steady invective against the authors, questioning their honesty, their ethics. Moreover, CAMERA strong implies that by questioning some quotations and references they have destroyed the overall logic and case of the author. And then, CAMERA may try to get the author condemned by his or her university ethics committee--or prevented for publishing again in a particular publication. You get it, or will if you follow CAMERA. You question the Israel narrative, for any reason, with any argument, and CAMERA will try to destroy you. CAMERA is the working definition of "non-Objective."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    wdonway, meet economic freedom-
    just cracked the new book-looking forward to your essay
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    >As usual, the easiest and most common counterargument has been offered, here: that to criticize the power of AIPAC over foreign policy is anti-semitism.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo