The as yet unproven myth/theory of the all-powerful AIPAC

[stevenleser]

I often see people propose the idea of how powerful AIPAC is. AIPAC touts itself as "The most important organization affecting America's Relationship with Israel" a description first articulated by the New York Times. But does anyone have documented proof of their influence? By documented proof, I mean can anyone point to an issue and say with certainty that the following representatives or senators were prepared to vote one way, but AIPAC convinced them to vote differently? Can they with proof point to any legislation or policy that was introduced specifically on behalf of AIPAC? There is rumor and innuendo, nothing more.

I simply do not see AIPAC's influence on the Middle East political scene. Certainly they have nothing comperable to AARP's influence over retiree issues. Certainly, nothing like the power of the NRA on Gun issues. Let's see, how many other organizations would I rate as more powerful than AIPAC, at least in their respective realms if not overall:

NOW
NAACP
NARAL
Fraternal Order of Police
National Association of Realtors
Pharmaceutical PACs
American Bar Association
The Defense Industry's PACs
The Petroleum Industry's PACs

This is just off of my head, mind you.

Thoughts?

[Jim Sagle]

1. Fuckin' A.

[TomInTib]

2. So Israel gets 30% of US Foreign Aid because of Baby Jesus?

edited to change 20% to 30%

[rockymountaindem]

3. No, Israel gets so much foreign aid because

Jimmy Carter agreed to pay in perpetuity for Israel's loss of oil wells in the Sinai peninsula in order to broker the 1979 Camp David Accord.

[stevenleser]

4. If it is AIPAC, what I am saying is, prove it. How can you be sure

that it is simply not the Prime Minister of Israel convincing American administrations that it is the correct course of action. Why is it AIPAC? You might be right. But where is the proof?

[TomInTib]

7. I wish I could PM you

stevenleser, when you reach enough posts (I am not sure how many that is, maybe 50 or 75), remind me of this and I will relate something that I cannot post here.

It has to do with my family, KBR, and some construction projects in Israel.

Thanks

[stevenleser]

8. My email address is...

[e-mail]

Feel free and that goes to anyone. My post was not a red herring or troll, I really want to get to the bottom of this.

[stevenleser]

5. Tom ,more to your point...

...do you have any quotes from anyone in congress saying, "Well, I wanted to give only x, but AIPAC convinced me to give x + whatever..." ?????

[NobleCynic]

9. Do you ever hear a congressman say that...

about any lobbying group? Not to disagree with you or agree with you, but that is a standard of proof impossible to overcome in proving just about any lobbying group's influence over congress. No smart Congressman will say that about any group.

[stevenleser]

10. My first instinct is to say "Yes", but I am not sure I can prove it

... but more to your point which I think is a good one, how about I'll take as close to proof as I can get.

All you folks who think AIPAC is this terrible monster (not necessarily the poster to whom I am responding), tell me how low to lower the bar in terms of what should be acceptable as proof.

[NobleCynic]

15. The closest you could come to measuring their influence

I think, would be to measure their lobbying budget. A cynical response to be sure, but it would be a start. Yet this is a difficult task for a group like the AIPAC because they do many things outside of lobbying, and to separate out the portion that goes just toward lobbying expenses may be a complicated task.

Moreover, the numbers may be skewed by other factors. Noble causes don't need, and can't afford, the best paid lobbyists. However the virtue of their cause can make up for a lesser budget, whereas less noble or even evil causes, like the tobacco or oil lobby, must spend far more for an equal effect. The implication here is that outside forces do much to aid the lobbyist for a noble cause. That is probably AIPAC's case. Especially if you consider the preservation of Israel to be a noble cause, whether for moral, ethnic, religious, or strategic reasons. There are many factors that influence the amount of aid the US gives to Israel. AIPAC is hardly the only cause for the aid. However it does serve as the day to day face of Israel's interests in Congress. Without it, there would be less aid to Israel. For about the 10 seconds it would take Israel and the pro-Israeli American Jewish population to put together a new AIPAC. The cause would suffer for a while as the new lobbying group gets its bearings, but in the end it is the cause behind the lobbying group that determines its power, whether the cause possesses ideological strength or merely financial strength or a balance of both, that is what determines the strength of the lobbying group.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in the end, AIPAC is immaterial. Not because of its perceived power or lack there of. If it disappeared tomorrow it would be missed. For about a day. Then there would be a new AIPAC. Our political system requires that just about any cause has a lobbying front. Israeli aid is no different in this respect than any other cause. And the strength of the cause is what determines the strength of its lobbying group in Congress, not the other way around. Hence I agree with you that it is juvenile to blame/credit AIPAC solely for our foreign aid to Israel. Yet I am hesitant to believe that AIPAC wields little to no influence on capitol hill.

[Sinti]

6. Nah - they get it because they have long been considered our primary

ally in the Middle East, and we need them. They are much more useful to us than they appear on the surface even now. I personally believe that could change at the drop of a hat. It wouldn't be the first time we turned our backs on an old friend when it was no longer expedient for us to support them.

[adriennui]

14. in fact, the US wants israel to be its surrogate

if we decide to bomb iran. isn't that convenient? we can blame pn those pesky zionists. rather than being all-powerful, israel is a convenient pawn of the US. however, it has something up its sleeves that the state or defense dept aren't aware of. israel will never go quietly into the night.

[Kagemusha]

11. With all due respect... "documented proof"?

The lobbying process - not just by AIPAC, but by the other organizations you mention - is averse to creating documented proof of much of anything, precisely because lobbying is seen by the public as a dirty business, "like sausages - enjoy them, but don't watch them getting made". Therefore, one of the objectives of successful lobbying is to reduce the "fingerprints" on any successful lobbying activity in order to mute criticism about the lobby's influence. This is hardly limited to foreign lobby organizations. It is better for Congressmen and Senators to know you are big and respect you for being big than to have to publicly rub their faces in it.

When major pieces of legislation are passed, that a lobbying group exercised influence successfully may be "known" on the Hill, and may even be recorded in newspapers by journalists, but even here, the evidence is not documented in any real sense of the term: it is ancedotal and reliant on hearsay. Therefore, documenting a theory of AIPAC influence - or any other organization - must rely on hearsay, preferably hearsay that represents such a broad sampling by so many people that it is likely to represent the truth. Even here, it is based on reporting, NOT documentary evidence.

Frankly, the bottom line is, this is an argument about definitions. AIPAC is, in spite of the "I", an organization of American Jews, not a registered lobbying group for the country recognized by much of the world as Israel. Some view it as a lobbying group placing Israeli interests above American interests. Others view Israeli interests and American interests as one and the same. However, to be very narrow and precise, it is an organization devoted to the idea that Israel's interests are the interests of American Jews, so what's good for Israel is good for Jews who happen to be American citizens, and have every right to lobby the government of the country they are citizens of. The question being asked (re: the "myth/theory") is whether, minus AIPAC, the policy of the government would be different. This is, in some sense, a stupid question: of course it would! Government policy would be different if any of the other, "American" lobby groups you mention ceased to exist.

The real question being asked - legitimate or not - is whether AIPAC is distorting policy away from what is good for America as a whole in favor of what is good for Israel as a whole. This in effect raises the question of loyalty: if a given thing is better for Israel than for America, is that still in the better interests of American Jews? Again, legitimate or not, that is the real question. Without attempting to answer that question, I feel compelled to point out that either way, AIPAC is an organization of American Jews, citizens of America, lobbying for the interests of American Jews as the members of this organization believe those interests to be. It is possible for other Americans to disagree with them about what is best for America without EITHER side being treated as un-American.

Though a) that is generally the result, and b) I reiterate my original point: documented proof is a standard no thesis on lobbying can reach. There can be documented evidence, certainly, but that is evidence to be placed on a scale to weigh it towards one side or another; it is not *proof*. It is more opinion than fact. It cannot be otherwise.

[stevenleser]

12. Good comments, but...

... see my #10 response.

[peacetalksforall]

13. I believe you are comparing apples with wrenches. AIPAC is more

than a commodity or membership lobbying firm.

AIPAC is one and the same with PNAC and the barons and a select group of politicians paid by the citizens. They are tightly knit to movers and shakers and work side-by-side with Israel, for Israel, and for Israel-U.S. and nearly always the U.K. There is no comparison to any group that you have listed.

Do not ask me for proof. That is a little bizaree depending on what you mean.

However -
If you search the archives of DU you will find convincing and interesting news items and articles that can create plenty of links and dots that you can ponder. You start with a question to yourself about motives and objectives and you come to some suppositions. Then you find out who is who and who is connected with other who's and what they do... and so on. Then you listen to what they say. Then you listen to what they are being investigated for, if anything. You even look at who they work for and have worked for if it's easily available. Then you study the curious relationship the ultra-reverends (which is a 180 from where it was a decade or so ago), Then you start by noticing who is who on tapings and live seminars that appear on C-Span and then you look up some of these people to assess their jobs and works and boards they may sit on. You find out whether they are a 'paid' expert of any foundation with the same purpose - where 'expert' translates to C-Span and CPN* appearances. All the while, you absorb what they say, when, following which event, preceding which event, performing as apologetic for (xxxx). Best of all, you try to diagram it. And don't forget to read words coming from JINSA and read what others say about them.

You will need a thick notebook or some interesting software.

*CPN = Corporate Propaganda Networks (CNN, NBCs, FOX, CBS, ABC). Also known as Corporate Propaganda and Entertaining News Networks.

[peacetalksforall]

18. Here is kind of a proof - notice how far and how long it's taken for

Palestinians to get where they are which is not yet there if it ever will be there.

If the ultra-reverends were not on the side of the efforts of AIPAC, they would be saying that the Palestinians didn't and don't deserve what they are getting.

[tatertop]

16. Let us begin by placing all AIPAC members in federal prison

..... and them leaving them there.

[NobleCynic]

17. Whoa there!

Putting people in prison for a political belief is crossing a dangerous line. Even if it is only said in jest, take care with your words. Moreover you are talking about an organization with roughly a hundred thousand members.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Some people never saw "Good Night and Good Luck"

Not only did I see the movie - but I lived through the McCarthy and HUAC era.

Not only did I live through the McCarthy and HUAC era, but my uncle was "blacklisted" from the movie industry during that McCarthy and HUAC era.

Never did I think a Progressive on a Progressive site would advocate returning to the McCarthy and HUAC era.

The further left you go - the closer to the right you get.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Lobbyists and PACs are part of the gosh darned "First Amendment"

Read this little bit of sedition--->
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances



Inconvenient when it comes to campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.

Here's what Cornell law School's "Legal Information Institute" says-
Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying.— Inasmuch as legislators may be greatly dependent upon representations made to them and information supplied to them by interested parties, legislators may desire to know what the real interests of those parties are, what groups or persons they represent, and other such information. But everyone is constitutionally entitled to write his congressman or his state legislator, to encourage others to write or otherwise contact legislators, and to make speeches and publish articles designed to influence legislators. Conflict is inherent. In the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act,171 Congress by broadly phrased and ambiguous language seemed to require detailed reporting and registration by all persons who solicited, received, or expended funds for purposes of lobbying, that is to influence congressional action directly or indirectly. In United States v. Harriss,172 the Court, stating that it was construing the Act to avoid constitutional doubts,173 interpreted covered lobbying as meaning only direct attempts to influence legislation through direct communication with members of Congress.174 So construed, the Act was constitutional; Congress had “merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose,” and this was simply a measure of “self–protection.”175

Other statutes and governmental programs affect lobbying and lobbying activities. It is not impermissible for the Federal Government to deny a business expense tax deduction for money spent to defeat legislation which would adversely affect one’s business.176 But the antitrust laws may not be applied to a concert of business enterprises that have joined to lobby the legislative branch to pass and the executive branch to enforce laws which would have a detrimental effect upon competitors, even if the lobbying was conducted unethically.177 On the other hand, allegations that competitors combined to harass and deter others from having free and unlimited access to agencies and courts by resisting before those bodies all petitions of competitors for purposes of injury to competition are sufficient to implicate antitrust principles.178
____________________________________________

Footnotes
171 Ch. 753, 60 812, 839 (1946), 2 U.S.C. §§ 261 – 70.

172 347 U.S. 612 (1954) .

173 Id. at 623.

174 Id. at 617–624.

175 Id. at 625. Justices Douglas, Black, and Jackson dissented. Id. at 628, 633. They thought the Court’s interpretation too narrow and would have struck the statute down as being too broad and too vague, but would not have denied Congress the power to enact narrow legislation to get at the substantial evils of the situation. See also United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953) .

176 Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498 (1959) .

177 Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) . See also UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669–71 (1965) .

178 California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) . Justices Stewart and Brennan thought that joining to induce administrative and judicial action was as protected as the concert in Noerr but concurred in the result because the complaint could be read as alleging that defendants sought to forestall access to agencies and courts by plaintiffs. Id. at 516.


This seditious First Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights - Part of Our History and Heritage

AIPAC has as much right to lobby as the American Petroleum Institute or the National Rifle Association or the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association ---- or any Progressive or Liberal Group.


OIL "O-I-L" Dictates Our ME Policy


It is all about OIL and only OIL.

Look at the and their and what did you pay for gasoline today?

And as "Peak Oil" bites - it is going to get worse.

I have been in the (non-petroleum) energy industry - and I follow the energy industry. Read anything you want - Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy" or Craig Ungar's "House of Bush-House of Saud" or Matthew Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" or William Engdahl's "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"


IF AIPAC HAS SO MUCH INFLUENCE WITH JEWISH VOTERS AND REPRESENTS SUCH A WIDE SWATH OF JEWISH VOTERS --- HOW COME 77% OF THE JEWISH VOTES WENT FOR KERRY?


77% of the Jewish Vote went for Kerry notwithstanding Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith, Larry Franklin, Pipes, etc. 77% of the Jewish Vote went for Kerry

Check out E.J. Dionne, Jr.


<<<SNIP>>>
The power of economics reflected the strength of the backlash against the privatization and deregulation policies pushed by Binyamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud Party who was finance minister earlier in the decade. A Likud loss was inevitable after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon split off from the party to form Kadima once Likud rejected his West Bank pullout plan. Olmert took over Kadima's leadership after Sharon was incapacitated by a stroke.

But Likud's collapse to 12 seats and a fourth-place tie with Shas, Greenberg (Stanley Greenberg, an American pollster who worked for the Labor Party) said, was a sign that reaction against Netanyahu's free-market economic policies "was so strong that Netanyahu couldn't get an audience" on security issues. At one point in the campaign, the former finance minister apologized for the social pain his approach -- widely hailed by free-market economists outside Israel -- had inflicted.

Writing yesterday in Haaretz, journalist Ruth Sinai pointed to rising poverty rates to argue that the election was "above all a victory for the civic, social welfare agenda" and "a clear expression of public disgust for the economic policy championed by the Likud." Greenberg noted that for the first time, "poverty was a word that gained currency in the mainstream political debate."

Paradoxically, domestic social concerns rose to the top of voters' minds precisely because the security situation is frozen. Most Israelis do not see how negotiations are possible with Hamas. The death of grand dreams -- either of a "Greater Israel" that included the West Bank or of a permanent negotiated peace with the Palestinians -- allowed many Israelis to look homeward and seek greater social justice within their own society.
<<<SNIP>>>





and Amos Oz writing in the San Francisco Chronicle


<<<SNIP>>>
In Tuesday's vote, the vast majority of the Israelis -- for the first time since the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 -- indicated their readiness to give up 90 percent of the occupied Palestinian territories, including some sections of the city of Jerusalem. Their readiness -- not their happiness.

What the vast majority of the Israelis held -- for years -- to be unthinkable, even suicidal for Israel -- they have sadly endorsed today.

The reasons for this change of heart are several harsh slaps of reality: a violent Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories, a sense of international isolation and the realization that the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs might be changing in favor of the Palestinians if Israel stays in the occupied territories.

There may be an even deeper reason for this change: the Israelis have gradually changed the order of their priorities. They have moved from territorial appetites to materialistic appetites, from militancy to pragmatism, from selfish nationalism to interdependence.

<<<SNIP>>>


Notwithstanding what some self-proclaimed erudite intellectual analysts say
1. 77% of the Jewish Vote went for Kerry notwithstanding Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith, Larry Franklin, Pipes, etc. 77% of the Jewish Vote went for Kerry - One of the furthest left voting blocs in the US.

2. The Israeli electorate is actually to the left of the the US Jewish community.

3. And both groups are to the left of the self-proclaimed erudite intellectual analysts. (even Mearsheimer and Walt)

[Jim Sagle]

21. Time to rejoin AIPAC. Thanks for reminding me why I joined in the

first place.

[Lithos]

22. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator