What's 'American' About the American Israel Public Affairs Committee?
by Michael Flynn
The FBI's decision in early May to arrest Lawrence Franklin, the
Pentagon analyst accused of disclosing classified information about
U.S. forces in Iraq, has put in the spotlight the work of an
influential pro-Israel lobbying outfit, the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as well as its many supporters in and
outside government, including Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and
Douglas Feith.
According to an FBI affidavit, Franklin related information about
possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq to two AIPAC employees during
an FBI-monitored lunch in June 2003. Franklin was allegedly upset that
his hardline stance on Iran was being overlooked, and he hoped AIPAC
would be able to attract attention to his views.
According to the New York Times (May 5, 2005), supporters of the
"influential circle in the Pentagon," whose members were leading
advocates for war in Iraq and have long-standing ties to AIPAC, blame
the FBI's investigation on "the continuing struggle inside the
administration over intelligence," arguing that individuals who
supported the Iraq war have been unjustly targeted.
Although the two AIPAC employees had not been charged (as of early May
2005) and the lobbying group was informed that it was not under
investigation, the Franklin case has brought some unwanted attention to
AIPAC, as well as to the larger issue of U.S.-Israeli relations. Many
observers have long suspected that key supporters for the Iraq war
inside the administration - including Wolfowitz and Feith - were at
least in part motivated by their views on Israeli security. These views
were also in line with the stance of AIPAC and several other pro-Israel
outfits.
Of all the U.S. lobbies, few wield more influence than the pro-Israel
interest groups. According to some estimates, there are about 500
national and local organizations that collectively make up the
pro-Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most weight
- "the most effective general interest group over the entire planet,"
Newt Gingrich once said of AIPAC. Extremely active in securing weapons
deals for Israel, in lobbying for sanctions against the country's
Middle East rivals, and in promoting the political agenda of whatever
government happens to be in power in Israel, AIPAC has long played a
highly public role in American policymaking in the Middle East.
AIPAC has also been active in pushing U.S. intervention in the region.
In fact, its efforts to persuade U.S. lawmakers to go after Iraq date
back to the first Gulf War. In an interview shortly after the 1991 Gulf
War began, Thomas Dine, then the president of AIPAC, told the Wall
Street Journal that his organization had been busy behind the scenes
building support for the war. "Yes, we were active," said Dine. "These
are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have
no voice."
According to press reports, in 1990 alone pro-Israel groups gave nearly
$8 million in campaign contributions. Among those on the Democratic
side of the aisle who received PAC cash and later supported the
decision to go to war was Sen. Harry Reid, an influential Democrat who
had received $150,000 from pro-Israel PACs during his Senate election
bid (a dozen years later, in 2002, Reid would again support the use of
force against Iraq). Other Democrats who voted for the 1991 Iraq war
resolution and received lobby cash included Sen. Richard Bryan and Sen.
Howell Heflin. According to the Wall Street Journal, the entire Alabama
delegation in both the House and Senate voted for the resolution.
Although at first glance "this can be ascribed to the conservative,
pro-military character of the state," opined the Journal, it is clear
that "pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats [in the state] in
recent years."
A key AIPAC supporter at the time who actively worked to get
congressman onboard the war resolution was Rep. Stephen Solarz. Solarz,
who later became a supporter of various Project for the New American
Century initiatives (he signed the notorious Sept. 20, 2001, PNAC
letter calling for war against Iraq "even if evidence does not link
Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack"), personally lobbied Sen. Al Gore,
who voted for the resolution, as well as several other fence-sitters
among the Democrats, who Solarz accused of being "tragically
shortsighted" in their view of the Israeli-American relationship.
Solarz also pushed AIPAC to play a more public role in supporting the
use of force, as well as several other pro-Israel lobbies, including
the Reform Jewish Movement.
Once war was under way, AIPAC immediately set about to capitalize on
the growing U.S. public support for Israel in the wake of Saddam
Hussein's Scud missile attacks on the country. According to the
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), by the end of January
1991, AIPAC had rushed off a letter to its supporters outlining a
postwar campaign. Reported WRMEA: "Counting on the American public's
newfound understanding of Israel's vulnerability, AIPAC will press for
a new package of security aid for Israel far larger than any previous
package. Second, the lobby will encourage the United States to
strengthen its friendship with Israel and avoid 'pandering toward Arab
states hostile to the West and Israel.' Third, it will request millions
of dollars more in housing loan guarantees to settle Soviet Jews. And
finally, it will work to ensure that any diplomatic efforts to resolve
the Arab-Israeli conflict will be based on 'close cooperation and trust
between the United States and Israel.'"
Within a few short months, however, newspapers were reporting that
AIPAC and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby had suffered a "damaging
reversal" and that Israel was "no longer an automatic ally." It seems
that the administration of George H. W. Bush was more interested in
maintaining relations with other Arab states and pushing for a
comprehensive Middle East peace deal than it was in keeping the lobby
happy.
Despite these setbacks, AIPAC was again in the thick of things during
the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to press reports,
AIPAC membership jumped nearly 50 percent, to some 70,000, in the wake
of the 9/11 attacks, in part through ties the group had made with the
Christian Right, which reflected a key strategy promoted by many
neoconservatives and foreign policy hardliners during the 1990s. In
late 2002, as talk about war heated up in Washington, AIPAC held a
"national summit" in Atlanta to discuss the possible war and to
strategize with supporters. Among the speakers at the conference were
Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Ridge, and Ralph Reed, the former head of the
Christian Coalition.
Commenting on the burgeoning relations between the Christian Right and
the pro-Israel lobby, Reed said: "I don't think there's any question
that since September 11 and the attack on the United States there's
been a renewed dialogue and a new relationship between the Jewish
community and the Christian community because of their shared
friendship to Israel and their mutual opposition to terrorism."
Not long after President Bush declared an end to the war in Iraq in May
2003, AIPAC focused its attention on a new target - Syria. AIPAC
helped lobby for passage of new U.S. sanctions against Syria, long a
key goal of neoconservatives and Likud supporters both in the United
States and Israel. Reported the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Nov. 14,
2003),
"In his speech this month about the need for the Middle Eastern
countries to move toward democracy, U.S. President George W. Bush won
some praise but his words were also met with apprehension among Arab
countries in the region. ... The basis for such worries ... was that
Bush's speech was preceded by suggestions from the so-called
neoconservatives. They were the spearhead of the drive that led to the
invasion of Iraq. For example, one of them, Richard Perle, chairman of
the Defense Policy Board, talked [while in Israel] about the Syrian
government's failure to stop infiltration of guerrillas into Iraq. He
coupled that with the observation that Syria's military strength was
feeble. This occurred at the same time that the Israeli lobby in
Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was
using its muscle on the U.S. Congress to pass the Syria Accountability
Act. This would impose U.S. sanctions on Syria unless Syria ended its
occupation of parts of Lebanon, cut its ties to Palestinian groups the
United States regards as terrorists, and stopped its alleged
developments of chemical and biological weapons."
AIPAC has also lobbied heavily for U.S. funding of various Israeli
weapons programs, including its Arrow missile defense system. Its Web
site explains: "Since 1990 the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the U.S.
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization have cooperated to develop
missile defense technology to counter the threat of long-range
missiles, which are being developed by countries such as North Korea
and Iran. This military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has
resulted in the deployment of the Arrow missile defense system, and the
continuing development of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)."
After the Senate voted in 2002 to include money for the Arrow system
and other Israeli military priorities in a defense spending bill, AIPAC
proudly reported, "In a vote of 95-3, the Senate last week passed the
fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill, which provides
substantial funding for U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation. The Arrow
Missile Defense Program received $80 million above the administration's
request for a total of $146 million. Additional funding includes the
following: $23.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser
(MTHEL); $64.9 million for the Litening II Targeting Pod; $35 million
for Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles; $22 million for the Hunter Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle; and $20 million for the Improved Tactical Air-Launched
Decoy (ITALD). Learn more about these defense programs by visiting our
interactive strategic showroom."
Several high-profile Bush administration folks have had financial
interests in many of the weapons systems pushed by AIPAC, including Jay
Garner, the former "mayor of Baghdad," whose SYColeman produced parts
for the Arrow missile system. Garner also has strong ties to the
neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
.
|
