Misplaced Pages

AIPAC: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:03, 25 March 2006 view sourceMoshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,202 edits you have provided no edit summary, or justification for your edits, once again reverting← Previous edit Revision as of 23:21, 25 March 2006 view source 64.75.132.148 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:

This article is obviously biased with a pro-Israel slant. Just another example of the shitty quality of[REDACTED] and how[REDACTED] can not be trusted.

] ] addresses AIPAC members in Washington on May 18, 2004. To his right is AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr and to his left is AIPAC president Bernice Manocherian.]] ] ] addresses AIPAC members in Washington on May 18, 2004. To his right is AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr and to his left is AIPAC president Bernice Manocherian.]]


Revision as of 23:21, 25 March 2006

This article is obviously biased with a pro-Israel slant. Just another example of the shitty quality of[REDACTED] and how[REDACTED] can not be trusted.

File:GWBush speech to AIPAC May 2004.jpg
U.S. President George W. Bush addresses AIPAC members in Washington on May 18, 2004. To his right is AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr and to his left is AIPAC president Bernice Manocherian.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government on behalf of a strong U.S. - Israel relationship. It describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". AIPAC is a mass-membership organization including both Jews and non-Jews. It is considered one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States.

History

Founded in 1953 by I.L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Siegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors (unfounded as it turned out) that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed ." . Today, AIPAC has 65,000 members across 50 states.

Activities and stated goals

AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation that are in the best interests of Israel and the United States. It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. AIPAC has been effective in gaining support for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations.

The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."

AIPAC's views of its strengths and achievements

AIPAC claims its strengths lie in its national membership base and great research capacity to understand both Israel's interest and the interests of other countries affecting US-Israel relationship around the world. Some of the achievements it claims include:

  • Isolating Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad by advocating that the Administration place the terrorist groups on a more restrictive terrorist list, allowing the United States to sanction foreign financial institutions if they fail to block the organizations’ assets.
  • Disrupting Hamas financing by urging the Administration to freeze the assets of the U.S.-based Holy Land Foundation, which has been accused of funneling money to the terrorist organization.
  • Defending Israel from terrorist bomb attacks by securing $28 million for Israel to purchase American technology, including robots and scanners, designed to detect and neutralize bombs.

Successes

AIPAC was early to recognize the dangers that extremist groups and rhetoric in the Middle East pose to American citizens and interests. AIPAC has played a key role in educating members of Congress about the issues that face today's Middle East. AIPAC was an early supporter of Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. The Act resulted in increased FBI resources being committed to fight terrorism as well as expanded Federal jurisdiction in prosecuting criminal activities related to terrorism.

AIPAC also supported the funding of a number of Israeli military projects that have resulted in many new additions to the arsenal of America's Armed Services. The Arrow anti-missile system is now the most advanced working anti-ballistic missile system in the world.

Martin Indyk research director at the AIPAC, founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think-tank in 1985.

Controversies

AIPAC has been connected to several controversial events.

In 1982, AIPAC was able to convince the US Congress and President Reagan to veto a French-supported UN resolution condemning the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to allow for the safe evacuation of Palestinians. This caused some critics in the media to argue that the "Reagan administration could not commit itself to concrete action to stop the killing in Lebanon". The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence, saying he had "cut a deal" with the Bush administration to give more aid to Israel. He had arranged for "almost a billion dollars in other goodies," he added and was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over appointing a pro-Israeli Secretary of State. "We have a dozen people in his headquarters," Steiner bragged, "and they are all going to get big jobs."

In 1995 prominent Congressman Newt Gingrich generated some criticism when it was disclosed that his wife accepted a position, while her husband was still in office, as the vice president for business development for the Israeli Export Company. She had visited Israel in 1993 under the auspices of AIPAC. Mrs. Gingrich was "hired at an undisclosed salary to help recruit business for a free-trade zone in Israel."

Franklin, Rosen, Weissman

  • In August 2004, it was revealed that the FBI had been conducting an investigation of Larry Franklin, a United States Department of Defense employee, on suspicion of espionage.
  • In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Franklin had been arrested and charged with providing classified information about potential attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. The one-count criminal complaint did not identify AIPAC by name, but described a luncheon meeting in which, allegedly, Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.
  • In August 2005, former AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.
  • On January 20, 2006, Judge T. S. Ellis III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000.

For full details, see AIPAC espionage scandal.

Supporters

AIPAC has a wide base of supporters both in and outside of congress. Support among congressional members includes a majority of members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. One supporter, state Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia (a delegate to the 2004 AIPAC national convention in Washington, D.C.) said: "AIPAC plays valuable roles in expanding the pro-Israel communities in the United States, and in putting them in touch with those who influence the direction of American foreign policy. AIPAC is a diverse, broad-based organization which seeks to synthesize the views of its backers with objective information to pursue the advocacy of policies that benefit both the United States and Israel. No organization can better articulate the American interests in a strong U.S.-Israel military alliance than AIPAC can."

President George W. Bush, addressing AIPAC members in Washington on May 18, 2004, stated: "AIPAC is doing important work. In Washington and beyond, AIPAC is calling attention to the great security challenges of our time. You've always understood and warned against the evil ambition of terrorism and their networks. In a dangerous new century, your work is more vital than ever."

Critics

AIPAC also has critics, such as left-wing journalist Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch. Critics say that AIPAC uses propaganda and other tactics to silence and discredit critics of its views on Israel. They also say that AIPAC wields undue influence over Congress and pushes for policies that, contrary to their claims, more often than not solely benefit Israel and are not in the best interests of the United States. (See also Dual loyalty)

These critics believe that a combination of propaganda and large financial donations to congressional campaigns from AIPAC members (AIPAC does not contribute directly to political campaigns) are the underlying reasons for the strong support of its views in Congress. Critics such as Cockburn have also examined AIPAC's role in helping to defeat Congressional candidates that AIPAC deems unfriendly to Israel, such as former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, of Georgia (after her first term as a representative) and former Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama. They claim that donors from outside the region, led by AIPAC, meddled in a local congressional race and used accusations of anti-Semitism against McKinney to help defeat her,

Hedrick Smith claimed in his book Power Game that AIPAC had become a superlobby: " gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia, and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate".

John Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, published a working paper in March, 2006 claiming that U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by AIPAC. According to their paper, "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". Mearsheimer and Walt also argue that AIPAC is a source of serious concern for the United States' national security.

Though praised by David Duke, the paper was criticized by Harvard University faculty and others; Marvin Kalb insisted it failed to meet basic quality standards for academic research, while Congressman Eliot L. Engel described the authors as "dishonest so-called intellectuals" - he insisted they were "entitled to their stupidity", and had a right to publish it, but also supported "the right of the rest of us to expose them for being the anti-Semites they are." The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, published a detailed study of the paper, alleging it was "riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject". Harvard's Kennedy School of Government distanced itself from the paper, removing its logo, more strongly wording its disclaimer and making it more prominent, and insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors. In response to recent criticisms, Mearsheimer states, "e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby."

References

  1. Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  2. Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Kennedy School of Government Working Paper Number:RWP06-011, March 13, 2006.
  3. Clyne, Meghan. Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel, New York Sun, March 21, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  4. Clyne, Meghan. Harvard's Paper on Israel Called 'Trash' By Solon, New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  5. Safian, Alex. Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, March 20, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  6. Clyne, Meghan. A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper, New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  7. Rosner, Shmuel. Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper', Haaretz, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  8. Safian, Alex. Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.

See also

External links

Critical or questioning

Categories:
AIPAC: Difference between revisions Add topic