Where does AIPAC's clout come from?

$

Unwavering, unquestioning support of Israel will lead to the downfall of the American empire.

AIPAC will finance a primary opponent against any Democrat who says an encouraging word about the Palestinians and their issues e.g. Mckinney , Moran et al

Where does AIPAC's clout come from? Easy, the anti-Semitism card. In the 1960's, a journalist once asked the Israeli ambassador what his greatest achievement was, and he replied that he convinced Americans that "anti-Zionism was anti-Semitism". Basically, if a politician does not believe we should outsource our foreign policy to Tel Aviv, than that politician obviously hates the Jews.

In short, the Israeli lobby gets leaders to commit treason and give a higher loyalty to Israel than they give to the United States, and it gets them to commit treason by playing the Holocaust cards and anti-Semite cards. Various Jewish authors have criticized the Israeli Lobby over exploiting Jewish suffering for political gain, but their voices have gone unheard.

As a result, both Parties are wrapped around the Israeli lobby's finger.

Most American Jews have reasonable, though not necessarily extremely well-informed, attitudes about Israel. But they are not organized, they don't vote on the basis of their view, and they don't have an effective voice.

There is a highly committed, extremely well-organized minority that is definitely able to raise money and to swing its weight politically.
These people tend to be heavily involved in Jewish community affairs, unlike the uninvolved or apathetic majority, and they are able to marginalize others (in effect the majority) as not really being commmitted to the community.

Think about gun control. Why does the NRA dominate the political arena even thought its policy positions are usually in the minority?
Or for that matter, think about any number of situations in the world where the most extreme elements of a community are able to speak for that community.

I'm glad strings brought up the NRA. I have said before that someday someone will figure out a way to pit AIPAC against the NRA.

AIPAC's clout comes from money. The US sends over three billions of dollars to Israel every year, and a small portion, but a signifanct amount, is returned to Congress as campaign contributions. The US taxpayer funds Zionist lobbyists.

The Jewish population in the US is, with the execption of a couple of geographical areas, too insignificant to sway elections. It is the boomerang money that persuades our politicians to hate Arabs. I suspect some of that money also finds its way to other social activists, like the Zionist Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, who use their popular clout to advance policies in favor of Israel's most nationalist supporters. Some may recall that fat faced fuck from San Antonio, John Hagee, was in DC buttonholing Congresscum while Israel was boming Lebanon back to the Middle Ages. Hagee's only motivation is money and power. (Or is it power and money?)

Many national security 'experts' are Likkudniks. They frame much of defense policy as a need to protect the US from phantom Islamic threats, which is their way of endorsing a Greater Israel policy.

But Mcain Rudy and Romney all love Arabs.I don't have any proof but there track record will show they love Arabs.

I, too, thought of the NRA. And the "right to life" movement.

Fanaticism, that's the answer, combined with $, as also noted previously.

Be fanatic about your cause. Give lots of money to lots of lawmakers. Allow them not to waiver one iota from your agenda. It's effective, no matter if your cause is Israel or assault weapons.

M.J. is certainly right about the vast majority of American Jews having little use for AIPAC's policies -- 80% of them, after all, voted Democratic this last time, and a recent poll (Gallup, I believe) showed them to be the American ethnic group MOST opposed to the Iraq War except for "black Protestants". I suspect Brojo is right in saying that AIPAC's clout comes from the recycling, as lobby funds, of a lot of the aid money the US sends to Israel -- although Israelis as a whole are also a lot queasier about the Iraq War than AIPAC is. (AIPAC's funds probably flow through the Likud party.)

At any rate, it boggles the mind that the Dems -- apparently due to AIPAC pressure -- folded on a provision stripping Bush of ability to start a war with Iran WITHOUT Congressional approval. I'm afraid Matt Yglesias is right: the Dems still are refusing to think seriously about defense policy themselves, hoping that the whole issue will suddenly and magically vanish in the near future and leave them free to start talking about only domestic issues again. Ain't gonna happen.

Last try:

AIPAC? My friends and I cringe at the mention of AIPAC. We do however, bookmark the NJDC Website. (National Jewish Democratic Council)

Where does AIPAC's clout come from

Intelligent and politically savvy shrillness and a willingness to invoke the holocaust when needed. It's not hard to keep others quiet by describing them as weak self-loathing jews who think that suicide bombers just need a hug.

Here's some commentary by Juan Cole describing and linking to some of the relevant current polling.

In short, American Jews are as a group more opposed to the Iraq war than virtually any other ethnic/racial/religious group. Hard to see how that would make them agree much with the hyper-aggression of AIPAC.

My own account of this is that AIPAC attracts all the Identity Politics loonies. In virtually any group, be it African-Americans, women, Hispanics, Southern Whites, Identity politics manages to pull in troubled and insecure people and give them a mission and purpose in life that they otherwise seemed to lack, by redefining the entire human population into THEM vs. US.

They are the batty Jehovah's Witnesses of contemporary democracy -- absent the urge to convert. But there is the same insane devotion to the cause, the willingness to put their earthly possessions in service of the cause, and the demonization of all opponents -- most especially those who might otherwise be allies.

Who can be surprised that an army of such fanatics would surpass in clout the far more ample, but mostly unmotivated and decentralized, dissenters?

At any rate, it boggles the mind that the Dems -- apparently due to AIPAC pressure -- folded on a provision stripping Bush of ability to start a war with Iran WITHOUT Congressional approval. I'm afraid Matt Yglesias is right: the Dems still are refusing to think seriously about defense policy themselves, hoping that the whole issue will suddenly and magically vanish in the near future and leave them free to start talking about only domestic issues again. Ain't gonna happen.

Emphatically agree. They probably don't care, but after this rollover I won't be giving any money to any Democratic candidate in '08. I don't believe the party is interested in anything more than playing up GOP scandals. Pretty rich feeding ground there, true -- but there are far too many systemic crises brewing to dink around at the margins, which is all the Dems seem capable of doing.

Recommended: Real Insiders, A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting; by Jeffrey Goldberg; New Yorker; July 4, 2005.

frankly0: redefining the entire human population into THEM vs. US.

It's US vs. THEM. Of course, if anyone would get it backwards, it's one of your kind (uh, whatever kind that is).

Hmmm, where does AIPAC get its clout? You may want to call former Sen. Chuck Percy and ask for his response. They took Percy down in the 1980s when Paul Simon ran against him. Look, I love Simon and believe he was a great senator. But they went after Percy because he was willing to pursue an alternative to the Israeli occupation of Palestinians. The two-state solution was not widely embraced at that time....

It's US vs. THEM.

Well, joking aside, I think it's more accurate to think of it as THEM vs US.

The true preoccupation of the paranoid is The Other, not one's self.

brian: In the 1960's, a journalist once asked the Israeli ambassador what his greatest achievement was, and he replied that he convinced Americans that "anti-Zionism was anti-Semitism".

Cute quote (needs cite), but not entirely relevant.

You can be pro-Zionism and still oppose the positions of AIPAC and the current Israeli gov't. Lots of Israelis fall into that category.

Ask cynthia mckinney she might know

It's not necessarily Arab-Bashing that gets one accepted by AIPAC.

Clearly, they have no problem with Bush's close friends, the royal dynasties of the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

It's those UPPITY Arabs, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Syrians, the Iranians, that they (AIPAC) hate.

Pat: I would appreciate it if someone could explain [the "aid recycling"] charge in more detail because it certainly conflicts with my (limited) understanding of our nation's campaign finance laws.

I second Pat's request, but for a different reason. My understanding is that most of the "aid" that is sent to Israel is not development assistance but rather military "aid," i.e., funds that are used for military expenditures.

I suppose a case could be made that much of those funds end up being spent on US-made armaments, but I'd like to see some hard data.

AIPAC's clout comes from money. The US sends over three billions of dollars to Israel every year, and a small portion, but a signifanct amount, is returned to Congress as campaign contributions. The US taxpayer funds Zionist lobbyists.. . .
Posted by: Brojo on March 14, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt that.

There are significant strings attached to that aid money - most of it gets spent on American Manufactured weapons. Israeli aid is really a subsidy to the US defense industry. (though I've read that this is no longer as true as it once was - Israel has a pretty vibrant and vital military industrial complex themselves, and they're really at the cutting edge in a lot of areas now).

There are rules about what this money gets spent on, and even how those weapons are used. (for example - the Cluster Bombs; there is a rule that they're not to be used in civilian areas - they did break that rule in the recent Lebanon conflict, and they're catching hell for it. I doubt it will lead to an end to the aid, but one can hope.)

If the money then goes from the defense contractors, back to Congress - well, that's another story.

If you ask Jews what they want for Israel/Palestine they are mostly quite reasonable.

But they will simultaneously embrace Israel's excuses for not enacting more modest plans.

AIPAC and the Israeli gov't know how to manipulate American Jews. So the fact that American Jews say one thing in polls isn't terribly relevant in politics. It's what Israel and AIPAC get Jews to believe for purposes of elections.

Maybe someone should do a research project on the difference between what AIPAC motivated Jewish political donors say they want as individuals and what AIPAC calls on candidates to support.

BTW, AIPAC has succeeded largely b/c it can stay under the radar. The more press AIPAC gets the harder it is for the organization to con Jewish voters.

I could never understand why we, the americans, wanted to be treated like slaves by the Israelis. Maybe someone here is smarter than I can explain the whys. All elected officials from Prez on down cowtow to the Israelis like we are their backon call girls. They fucked us on the azz so many times but we continute to cowtow to their demands.

First and only post:

The US intelligence community is heavily populated with Jewish Americans. It used to be a higher percentage, but we still make up a higher percentage of operatives than we represent in the population as a whole.

When AIPAC tried to blame Pollard's treachery on Inman, because Inman had the audacity to hold the thugs in the Mossad accountable and cut them out of the intel loop, he forced Pollard to be a traitor. You understand, right? Yeah, me neither.

When AIPAC took that tack, they sealed their fate as right-wing reactionaries, pure and simple, and lost the support of the Jewish intelligencia.

They are nothing more than a small, loud group of well-funded agenda-whores. Expose them for the thugs they are. This can only be done by talking about them, a lot.

The Storm over the Israel Lobby
By Michael Massing

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062

This is the best article I have see on the AIPAC.

I dont think ANY of AIPAC's money comes from the Israeli government or Likud (or any other) party. believe it or not there are people in the Jewish community, worldwide, who have money. So they would not need to circumvent the law and have a foreign government funding contributions to US campaigns (why would they need to).

Why might bashing the Palestinians get such a round of applause at AIPAC?

I don't think it's for the same reasons that bashing Republicans get applause from Democrats, namely that they represent the opposition.

The Palestinians simply are NOT a genuine threat to Israel in their own right; a small number of suicide bombers is never going to represent an existential threat to Israel. They aren't an opposition in the sense that the Republicans might be to Democrats: they lack the basic power to oppose.

Bashing Palestinians is important to AIPAC supporters because it means that Israel is right to behave the way it does toward Palestinians. Bashing Palestinians means that, despite the chorus of criticism across the world, Israel is a fully moral, upright nation, of which one should be only proud.

Bashing Palestinians is, in short, a matter of pride and self-righteousness. Few emotions are more likely to stir up applause - especially when one is defending against the almost universal condemnation from all civilized quarters.

Frankly0, I dont think I disagree with the substance of what you said in your post, except:
The Palestinians simply are NOT a genuine threat to Israel in their own right; a small number of suicide bombers is never going to represent an existential threat to Israel.

Just because they aren't an Existential threat to Israel doesnt mean that they arent a genuine threat. The twin towers didnt represent an EXISTENTIAL threat to the US. It certainly was a threat that needed to be addressed appropriately.

a lot of american jews get very defensive when it comes to israel. if you ask them about the two-state solution, they will say they support it, and yet they will also send donations to AIPAC because it "defends israel against anti-semites" without looking deeper into what actually AIPAC advocates.

I favor the paranoid, conspiracy theory view: the Mossad backs AIPAC with the express purpose of keeping U.S. foreign policy in line with Israel's goals.

And guess what...these guys are good.

yep,

You have a point.

But what I suspect is true is that at AIPAC the real applause is more directed toward bashing Palestinians than it is toward bashing what are, by any objective standard, the greater real threats, namely, surrounding Arab states.

I see the bashing of Palestinians as mainly a desperately desired moral statement -- because Israel's treatment of them is regarded as barbaric across the civilized world.

I'm glad strings brought up the NRA. I have said before that someday someone will figure out a way to pit AIPAC against the NRA.

If AIPAC throws its weight behind Giuliani in '08, you may get it.

Is this what you're asking for Kevin?

http://galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=26677

Or did you want some links to AIPAC's warmongering?

From WRMEA:

But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?

PNAC. AIPAC. Any similarities?

AIPAC derives the strength of US support from the US' original commitment to the creation of Israel, its travails over the early and middle years, and its supposed strategic importance through the cold war as a counter-balance to Soviet influence. So it is pretty inured. 1948 through 1992 or so. That makes it only the last 15 years that those justifications have been declining in weight and why we are beginning to see tension in that relationship.

There are few comparisons. Maybe the natural Irish-US conjugation. But doesn't it seem strange to have a looby so strongly supplementing the normal foreign relations avenues. Apparently the trade delegation, embassy, foreign minister/secretary of state, and PM/POTUS contact is not enough.

How a lobby whose direct aim is for the benefit of another country gets away with interfering in domestic politics without being slapped down, I have no idea.

Wasn't it some Chinese money a few years ago that kicked up quite a fuss. What if Russia, or, God forgive, the French ever did this with a support group here. And why not the British. At least they actually act with us and our interests.

This relationship needs an honest debate.

notthere;
Interesting points WRT the IRA and Irish-Americans. I witnessed this stuff first-hand, as Chicago is my home town. In the 1980's and 1990's, go to any Irish pub in Chicago, and you'll meet people with IRA ties, or at least contacts with their donor network (often funneled through Catholic charities - just as some Hezbollah terror is funded alongside charities). It was in the form of open-talk at the bar, graffiti in the bathroom, etc.

One wonders if similar immigrant communities in the US among other ethnicities also reflect back to conflicts in their home countries. (ie. a Civil War in Mexico would probably be a very big problem for the US right now - from what I understand, we came real close to one a few months ago).

There's also the impact of the Cuban-American population on Florida politics.

How you can raise this issue without referencing the Walt/Mearsheimer paper is beyond me.

Ya know, the paper that caused such an uproar last year, but went practically unmentioned on the big liberal blogs? Yeah, that one.

. .. Then there's THIS article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_bananas_7

About how the Chiquita banana company does business with known terror organizations like FARC etc. Ah - multinational corporations, and their rightwing terror groups. . .

I always figured AIPAC's clout had more to do with our defense industry than Zionism or the attitudes of American Jews. Between all that "foreign aid" that amounts to kickbacks/subsidies to our own defense industry, and the raison d'etre for more and more potential conflict, and thus, increased defense spending provided by having a perpetually-imperiled close ally, it's definitely in their interest to strongly support the most hawkish elements of the Israeli gov't and pro-Israel American lobby. Especially so Post-Cold-War and Pre-9/11, when most of the situations we are dealing with now were developing. Having the bludgeon of anti-Semitism to wave around at anyone who tries to publicly question these various entanglements, interests, and allegiances is just the icing on the cake. Follow the money, as they say, and most of the money involved here is likely going to(and coming from) US defense contractors in one way or another.

Extradite Rumsfeld (now) --

Actually, thank you, I think the Cuban comparison comes closest as they influence domestic politicians to the detriment of the US' actual interests. Tho' the Irish probably did marginally, they didn't succeed as any hardcore Sinn Fein would have disapproved of Clinton's peace initiatives.

I hung out at the Powerline chat site for a while (until I felt I needed a shower after every session) and I was astounded at the depth of anti-Muslim feeling on the American right. I expected anti-Arab feelings and some wariness of Islam, but those folks, by and large, think that ALL Muslims are violent and want to kill Americans. It was shocking, no exaggeration.

Good question, though most of the comments are either unsatisfying or excatly the kind of fulminating you asked not to get. Kudos, though, to whoever provided the link to the polling data on Juan Cole's website. It's pretty self-evident that AIPAC owes at least some of its clout to campaign donations, but it's be really helpful if somebody could provide a link to some campaign finance data that could fill that one out, too. After all, a lot of groups can provide money - why does AIPAC seem to get so much more influence from theirs?

I'm no expert, but let me hazard a couple of guesses about non-financial reasons for their influence:
- They're a prominent group taken from among a core Democratic constituency that will happily and enthusiastically support a Republican based on just one issue (an issue, by the way, that isn't vote-determining for almost anyone else, and therefore a pretty low-cost way for Repubs to pick off part of the Dems' base). In short, they're up for grabs - making whatever help they can give a candidate (whether money, GOTV, etc.) more important on the margin.
- They are in close cahoots with the Likud Party in Israel itself. There may be a lot of American Jews who don't know, or even dislike, AIPAC, but who have friends & relatives in Israel that are susceptible to political messages from Likud. That means AIPAC's endorsement in the US brings with it a whole other channel - one that might tend to appear more independent and trustworthy - for getting the word back to American Jews that a vote for their guy will make Israel safer.
- The positions that AIPAC cares about happen to coincide (for completely different reasons) with positions that are also held strongly by important parts of the GOP base (e.g. some Christian evangelicals). So in that sense AIPAC's endorsement can be a freebie to any Repub who gets it, that brings with it a tissue of 'diversity' and 'broad-based support.'

All three of these factors would make AIPAC a ripe target for Repubs, but one that Dems could potentially deny them if they compete for it. Which drags everyone's positions on Israeli security & the Israel-Palestine question much farther to the right than they truly belong, probably among both Dems & Repubs.

American Jews are not monolithic in their views on any issue; there's even the old joke about two Jews, three opinions.

Kevin's posting includes a blockquote from M.J. Rosenberg that included this paragraph: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews support the two-state solution, venerate the memory of Rabin rather than the likes of Netanyahu, and will support a candidate who promises not a Bush-like hands-off policy but leadership to end the deadly conflict."

That's true, as long as the definition of "overwhelming majority" isn't set unreachably high. My problem here is that Kevin doesn't explicitly say so, but he implies that AIPAC doesn't share these views. But, at least based on what can be found at AIPAC's website, AIPAC also supports a two-state solution. See, for example, Israel Taking Peace Steps Despite Ongoing Attacks (PDF, Jan. 4, 2007). To be sure, this piece, like anything from AIPAC, mentions obstacles placed by Palestinians, and not obstacles placed by Israel, toward establishing piece. That's not the point. The point is that this piece, like many others from AIPAC, mentions Israel's support for a two-state solution and implicitly agrees with it.

So, at least in this regard, AIPAC is in the mainstream of Israeli, U.S., and American Jewish views in supporting a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Many intelligent people among the American Left believe that through some nefarious means, AIPAC has bamboozled Congress into being biased against the Palestinians. I won't deny the power of AIPAC lobby, but I believe that most senators and representatives have formed their views on Israel and the Palestinians based on the news and other coverage they've seen, based on the arguments they're exposed to, and based on their convictions. I think AIPAC's media/information/propaganda arm is probably more effective than its campaign contribution arm. In other words, I disagree with the view that AIPAC has terrified legislators away from being more pro-Palestinian based on threats of campaign contributions to their opponents. Rather, I think AIPAC has been effective at persuasion to an already-sympathetic audience.

Of course, an effective "cabal" is never a party of one.

The Larry Franklin spy probe reveals an escalating fight over control of Iran policy by Laura Rozen and Jason Vest; Amercian Prospect; November 2, 2004.

While many regarded AIPAC’s power as lessened during the Clinton administration, since 2001 AIPAC has been powerful enough that even the Bush administration couldn’t get the committee and its congressional allies to tone down language in a 2002 resolution in support of Israeli military actions against the Palestinians. AIPAC’s 2002 annual conference included 50 senators, 90 representatives, and more than a dozen senior administration officials; this year’s conclave boasted President Bush himself, plus House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and an array of State and Defense department officials.

[Moreover,] since the Pollard case, U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement sources have revealed to the Prospect that at least six sealed indictments have been issued against individuals for espionage on Israel’s behalf. It’s a testament to the unique relationship between the United States and Israel that those cases were never prosecuted; according to the same sources, both governments ultimately addressed them through diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than air the dirty laundry. A number of career Justice Department and intelligence officials who have worked on Israeli counterespionage told the Prospect of long-standing frustration among investigators and prosecutors who feel that cases that could have been made successfully against Israeli spies were never brought to trial, or that the investigations were shut down prematurely. This history had led to informed speculation that the FBI -- fearing the Franklin probe was heading toward the same silent end -- leaked the story to CBS to keep it in the public eye and give it a fighting chance.

But the pro-Israel lobby and some neoconservatives, fighting for their political lives, have turned the leak on its head. They claim that the AIPAC and Franklin investigations have nothing to do with the substance of the Iran-related leaks. Rather, they say, investigators are going after Jews. In the current probes of Franklin and AIPAC, Michael Rubin [now of AEI] has led the strident charge.

My own take on this is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/27/13822/2376

American Jewish Committee does a legit professional poll on American Jewish opinion, 2000 to 2006 is available for free here:

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.846741/k.8A33/Publications__Surveys/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp

American Jewish presidential voting, 1916-2004 is here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

great article on AIPAC:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062

Rozen/Vest positing from their Prospect piece:

"[W]as [Franklin] trying to enlist the powerful Washington lobbying organization in advocating for a Iran-destabilization policy? In other words, is the Franklin case really about espionage, or is it a glimpse into the ugly sausage-making process by which Middle East policy gets decided in Washington and, in particular, in the Bush administration?"

... and answer:

"But while AIPAC is a powerhouse, it is not clear that it would have been the perfect vehicle for the kind of Iran-destabilization lobbying that some in Washington have been pushing."

Imperfect perhaps. Surely "unclear" by choice. But always, always trying; often & unfortunately with success.

Spoofed the following at TPMCafe which no one apparently caught [click the bold link for the original article]. Relatedly, no one also thought it unusual that a "State Department would work with other Jewish organisations this year to support divestment efforts [from Iran.]"

Meanwhile, the State Department warned domestic pension funds that they would face a campaign to sell billions of dollars invested in companies with ties to Iran. The nationwide divestment campaign was one of the main messages delivered at the annual convention in Washington of the U.S. Deparment of State.

Howard Kohr, de facto Secretary of State, singled out for special mention CalPERS – California’s state pension fund – which he said had more than $1bn (£517m, €758m) invested in foreign companies developing Iran’s energy sector.

“If the largest state pension funds in this country were to divest from companies with ties to Iran, it would have a crippling effect on Iran’s economy,” the Secretary said. The State Department indicated it would work with other Jewish organisations this year to support divestment efforts in 10 targeted regions.

AIPAC is the red herring in the israeli military's/israeli government's three card monte game of controlling amerikan policies in the middle east.

no other country has ever run so many intell ops in the usa than israel. a lot of their ops are honey-trap ops. my guess is that israeli intell has better dossiers on amerikan pols than the fbi. more film, etc.

as some know, israeli intell-maffiyah gangsters operate/have operated some of the largest illegal drug product-running business in the world. they are considered the owners of the global ecstasy traffic. these gangsters are very much like the yakuza,they are not politically agnostic. as the yakuza consider themselves the inheritors of the samurai traditions, these israeli gangsters consider themselves the descendents of the hebrew heroes of the old testament.

they also operate as did the italian-jewish-irish syndicate. they buy everyone for sale. most pols are for sale. that is why most of them selected that line of work: they wanted to immerse themselves in the rivers of illicit cash.

let us never forget who the major zionists are? do the names bronfman, rothschild mean anything to you? imagine foreign bank accounts. regularly filled by immeasurably wealthy zionists - available as long as the pol hues to the zionist agenda. any deviation, whoosh...the account is closed.

and then there are these strange individuals who have infiltrated the us government at high and influential levels. some of them carrying an israeli passport as well as their us passport. some names...dov zakheim, yossef bodansky, michael chertoff. to name but a few.

and we should not forget mossad's ultimate bagman, rabbi jack. how did he control so many? lobbying[aka bribery/extortion].

anything else you want to know?

additionally, if you want to keep up with the machinations of the zionist lobby, i consider these blogs indispensable....

jews san frontieres and xymphora

both can be found at blogspot.com

It would appear to come from an effective combination of ideological coherence, deep pockets, displined and effective organisation & focus on a pressure point that the general US electorate (being largely provincial rubes) does not care extremely deeply about.

Not terribly difficult to discern, even from afar.

In comparison, the "Arab" / Muslim lobby is (i) foreign, (ii) not coherent on ideological or organisational grounds, (iii) w/o effective local roots, as the domestic population to support (Muslims, for example) are new.

Where does AIPAC's clout come from: My gut feel is it is related to blackmail. Actually this may be quite cynical, but I believe that that AIPAC as mentioned earlier by albertchampion, has researched and collected the goods on most of our politicians and this is what is held above their heads. Though I also think that the leaders of both parties only recruit and elect people with backgrounds that are vunerable to blackmail. Look at how the DNC party refused to support many worthy, squiky clean candidates like the FBI agent in Minnesota who blew the whistle on the the FBI Ignoring terrorist warnings prior to 9-11. She would have been a great representative... but a nightmare for the DNC leadership. There were 20 or 30 other candidates like this that the DNC just witheld funds on and let them dangle.

It is much easier to keep legislators in line this way. If an individual does not have the background, and cannot be controlled by traditional methods there is always the mysterious plane crash ala Paul Welstone. I am sure Paul's death, sent a very clear message to our legislators on how to behave. AIPAC is not behind all this but they probably have the best research and likly have the resources for entrapment.

Kevin,
I don't think polling data will show you much. What is amazing about AIPAC is their ability to demand conformity without actually having that strong support for the positions AIPAC cruifies over.
By that I mean that support of Isreal is overwhelming in America, but there is much less support for suppressing any and all discusssion of alternatives in the Middle East and for treating the right-wing of Israeli politics as though it had papal infallibility. AIPAC is able to suppress mainstream discussion even of things that are openly discussed in the Israeli press itself.
No lobby, no matter how strong could do that without a fairly strong wind at its back. In other words, larger forces are in its favor.
1) Most importantly, the policies and the militarist worldview that AIPAC promotes are very congenial to militarism in general in the US. If AIPAC's policies meant a decrease in US military spending and meant a shift from Manichean militarism to pragmatic humanism, AIPAC would be much less powerful, no matter how much money it had.
2) There is a huge emotional tie in America to Israel, only partly due to ethnic ties. The holocaust has a crucial place in our national mythos. Identifying with the holocaust inheritor Israel allows us to both identify with the blameless (but weak) victim and with the powerful swaggering winner Israel of today. (By the way, I think that the Arabs do not understand this emotional tie.)
3) Even dovish Democratic politicians need someplace to prove their tough-guy side. Israel is perfect for that. Especially since many more liberal Democratic politicians have many Jewish constituents. (and also have many non-Jewish constituents who gain extra sympathy with Isreal through their Jewish friends and colleagues)
4) The other side is awful. Arab governments suppress democracy and do a wretched job of providing for their people materially or spiritually. They are nasty losers. And with the sky-high levels of frustration these dysfunctional societies generate, much of the dissent against is an expression not of the creative best of Arab civilization but is crude lashing out in frustration. Movements that are virulently opposed to the values of anti-militarists in the West make it easy to demonize all questioning of Israeli policy. Pre-demonized for your convenience: 9/11, the attacks in London and Madrid, assassinations in the Netherlands.
Imagine if the Arabs reacted to Israel the way China reacts to Taiwan. Do you think AIPAC would have the same power if a huge percentage of our material good came from Arab countries?
In other words, 90% of AIPAC's work is taken care of by others and all AIPAC has to do is use standard GOP operating principles for the last 10%.

Where does AIPAC get it's strength? From the NY Review:

A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.

"One congressional staff member told me of the case of a Democratic candidate from a mountain state who, eager to tap into pro-Israel money, got in touch with AIPAC, which assigned him to a Manhattan software executive eager to move up in AIPAC's organization. The executive held a fund-raising reception in his apartment on the Upper West Side, and the candidate left with $15,000. In his state's small market for press and televised ads, that sum proved an important factor in a race he narrowly won. The congressman thus became one of hundreds of members who could be relied upon to vote AIPAC's way.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062

as i said, aipac ain't the controlling influence.

and the nyrb ain't a zionist outpost. au contraire.

Can't help you on polls of Jewish attitudes...but doubt they would be much help anyway, as most are done for and by the more right wing Jewish organizations and always show all the Jews in lockstep with their support and views of Israel.

However...this is one of the best studies done on how much Israel has gotten out of the US...and does show that all this money doesn't go to Israel becuase they are particulary helpful to the US interest and by interest I mean our country as a whole...the politican's interest is a whole other matter...it's dated,done in 1991 but you can add on another 30%, what with all our "loans" that get magically turned to non repayable "grants" to bring it up to date....

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
By David R. Francis |
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost .......

it's several pages, keep reading the rest if your blood pressure can stand it...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

P.S.

Israel did get their other 10 billion loan and Stauffer was right on Israel trying to restructure their loans...last year, in 2006 they did restructure them ...you will never see a penny in repaid loans from Israel. It's a revolving account, aid to Israel was written long ago to ensure that annual aid to them always included the cost of their "repayments" to the US.

I should put out my disclaimer. I do not support Israel (it's current and past goverments at least) or AIPAC and I don't care if they are Jewish, Buddhist or Baptist. One old reason for that,among current others, is I had a good friend killed in Beirut and I can guarentee you there are some US Marines who would like to settle some scores with the Israelis.

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21542.html
Marine Corps Community for USMC Veterans > History > Beirut >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel Charged With Systematic Harassment of
U.S. Marines

By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
Washington Report, March 1995

It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in "life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country."

Barrow's letter added: "It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles must be harassed, endangered by an ally...It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes."1

Israel's motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel's most Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2

Barrow's extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel's invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut. The Marines, President Reagan announced, "in no case... would stay longer than 30 days."3 This turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of 1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4

During their-year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th, a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan and wounding three other Marines.6

Corporal Reagan's death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: "For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut."7

"Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and
executed for Israeli
political purposes."

Israel's siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon's forces launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, were killed.9

On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where Sharon's troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.

It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year. Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines' determination strong. Israeli troops were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10

No Stranger to the Marines

However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg, tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The suspicion grew that Sharon's troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.

In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson, who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg's tank with pistol drawn and demanded Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11

Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson's breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson's side. He received hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.

But the incidents did not stop. These now included "helicopter harassment," by which U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S. Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for "near-miss" shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.14

Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had "personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15

Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16

The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency's top Middle East expert.17 Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Veteran correspondent John Cooley con-
sidered the attack "the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini's offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest."19

Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi'i Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20

From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon's Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon's Shi'i Muslims.

Accelerating the Conflict

Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the Marines were left in the crossfire.23 On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24

In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines' exposed location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12, three more Marines were wounded.26

Cont...........

Since this is one of the few responses that doesn't reference a nefarious International Zionist Conspiracy, its worth responding to:


- They're a prominent group taken from among a core Democratic constituency that will happily and enthusiastically support a Republican based on just one issue (an issue, by the way, that isn't vote-determining for almost anyone else, and therefore a pretty low-cost way for Repubs to pick off part of the Dems' base). In short, they're up for grabs - making whatever help they can give a candidate (whether money, GOTV, etc.) more important on the margin.


This hits the nail right on the head. Single-issue Israel voters are a minority of American Jews, but they are the true swing vote in the community. The rest of the Jewish vote is pretty much locked up for the Dems.


They are in close cahoots with the Likud Party in Israel itself. There may be a lot of American Jews who don't know, or even dislike, AIPAC, but who have friends & relatives in Israel that are susceptible to political messages from Likud. That means AIPAC's endorsement in the US brings with it a whole other channel - one that might tend to appear more independent and trustworthy - for getting the word back to American Jews that a vote for their guy will make Israel safer.


Likud currently has 12 seats (out of 120) in the Israeli Knesset. Bibi is not calling any shots either in Israel or America. Most American Jews who are even moderately informed on Israel tend to have views that would be relatively centrist - backing Oslo, supporting military responses to the post-Oslo intifada, supporting the withdrawal from Gaza.


The only time AIPAC was seriously out of step with the views of the pro-Israel community was during the Oslo years, when certain hawkish members sought to undermine the Israeli government's diplomatic efforts. M.J. Rosenberg is still fighting these battles as if Olso never collapsed, and the 2nd intifada and Hamas' election never happened.

"There is a highly committed, extremely well-organized minority that is definitely able to raise money and to swing its weight politically.
These people tend to be heavily involved in Jewish community affairs, unlike the uninvolved or apathetic majority, and they are able to marginalize others (in effect the majority) as not really being commmitted to the community."--strings, at 2:44 pm 3/14
The above, plus the commentary of Joel Rubinstein, answers much of the question. I would add one other observation. Most people, apart from the financially self-interested, are not generous donors to politics. Perhaps because we see such a close connection between politics and our own survival, Jews are the exception. I can think of no other ethnic or civic group in American society that remains so permanently and passionately interested. Given the importance of politics in our lives, it's not that Jews give so much, but that everyone else gives so little!

upyernoz wrote:

a lot of american jews get very defensive when it comes to israel. if you ask them about the two-state solution, they will say they support it, and yet they will also send donations to AIPAC because it "defends israel against anti-semites"

Bullsh!t. How do you know who supports AIPAC and how many people do, and how do you match that up with what people say? Do you track the donations by the pseudonymous people you encounter on the Internet, or are you just making that up because this kind of Jewish duplicity makes for a good story in an anti-AIPAC thread?