http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062Printed out, this article runs 16 pages long, so it is impossible to even get the gist of it in 4 paragraphs. It has an overview of the controversy John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt paper, that I think Massing mostly thinks is useful but has some valid criticisms.
In my mind this is better than the M & W paper, in that it explains in some detail how the Israeli lobby works. To say that the Israel lobby is strong and effective is not to say that it is omnipotent. It is also not alone in guiding US policy in the region (although it certainly is true that the oil lobby is concerned with larger regional ME issues, i have yet to hear how it may influence policy as it specifically relates to Israel). There are even the beginnings of a coalition specifically to counter right-wing AIPAC initiatives --
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is a growing coalition of those who support international law as a way to resolve the conflict in the Middle East, and already Congress is beginning to hear from another side when the countless resolutions are offered in Congress are offered on behalf of the right-wing of Israel. This is not to say that AIPAC is about to be defeated, but as Rep. Betty McCollum's action has shown, it is proving not to be invincible. There is a crack in the dam, and there will be a flood. Right now we are just enjoying the first few drops of hope.
Here are some excerpts from Massing's paper that deal with how the lobby works.
AIPAC's defenders like to argue that its success is explained by its ability to exploit the organizing opportunities available in democratic America. To some extent, this is true. AIPAC has a formidable network of supporters throughout the US. Its 100,000 members—up 60 percent from five years ago —are guided by AIPAC's nine regional offices, its ten satellite offices, and its one-hundred-person-plus Washington staff, a highly professional group that includes lobbyists, researchers, analysts, organizers, and publicists, backed by an enormous $47 million annual budget. AIPAC's staff is famous on Capitol Hill for its skill in gathering up-to-the-minute information about Middle Eastern affairs and working it up into neatly digestible and carefully slanted policy packages, on which many congressional staffers have come to rely.
Such an account, however, overlooks a key element in AIPAC's success: money. AIPAC itself is not a political action committee. Rather, by assessing voting records and public statements, it provides information to such committees, which donate money to candidates; AIPAC helps them to decide who Israel's friends are according to AIPAC's criteria. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more. Over the last five years, for instance, Robert Asher, together with his various relatives (a common device used to maximize contributions), has donated $148,000, mostly in sums of $1,000 or $2,000 to individual candidates.
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. (The staffer told me the name of the congressman but asked that I withhold it in order to spare him embarrassment.)
For those who still doubt the current (and i would insist, temporary) influence of AIPAC and related institutions, let's look for a moment at the upcoming vote on the so-called "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006". This bill is (mildly) opposed by the Bush administration, and even has been criticized by the Israeli government as being too extreme, and not allowing enough flexibility. Introduced after the recent Palestinian legislative election which resulted in a Hamas victory, goes far beyond reiterating the current US ban on direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority; it also calls for many troubling provisions that would punish and isolate the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. This unconstructive approach would only perpetuate the status quo of violence, military occupation, and human rights violations rather than promoting dialogue and a just, peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The provisions include restricting US humanitarian aid; designating Palestinian territory as a “terrorist sanctuary” thus triggering restrictions on US exports; prohibiting official Palestinian diplomacy or representation in the United States in a way counter-productive to promoting dialogue and a just peace; reducing US dues to the United Nations because some of its bodies were created by the UN to advocate for Palestinian human rights; and denying Palestinians the ability to receive assistance through international financial institutions.
The United States says that it is committed to promoting democracy. If that is indeed the case, it is inappropriate for Members of Congress to advance legislation that would punish and isolate people through draconian economic and diplomatic measures when the result of an election is not to the liking of the United States.
How will Congress vote on such a draconian measure? This measure is, after all, opposed by such a wide-spectrum of organizations, large and small like:
Jewish Voice for PeaceAmerican Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Friends Service Committee
Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement, Washington, DC
Tikkun- Berkeley
Peoria Area Peace Network, Peoria, IL
Progressive Democrats of AmericaGiven the breadth of opposition, the extremism of the measure, one would expect it would at least have wide opposition within congress, if not go down to outright defeat. No. It is the number one priority of AIPAC, and they already has 295 cosponsors lined up. Those of us who have actively opposed this bill have been glad that even 140 members have not cosponsored it (though many of these members are expected to eventually vote for it).
Still, there is hope. Times are a changin'. More people are taking action and working for real solutions, and not willing to let AIPAC and its related organizations call the shots. It is our only hope for peace. The
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is a sign of that.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
