Difference between revisions of "American Israel Public Affairs Committee"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(Influence)
(Influence)
Line 48: Line 48:
  
 
In the end the most significant criticism of AIPAC has come from other Jewish organizations which claim that it does not represent views of the majority of US Jewry. On every issue, AIPAC is significantly to the right of the generally progressive US Jewish population in its views. This has led to the emergence of new challengers for the leadership of American Jewish politics, which are far more attuned to views of the population. Most notable amongst them is the [[Israel Policy Forum]] (IPF). However, it will be some time before they are able to match the strong fundraising, and organizing capabilities of AIPAC.
 
In the end the most significant criticism of AIPAC has come from other Jewish organizations which claim that it does not represent views of the majority of US Jewry. On every issue, AIPAC is significantly to the right of the generally progressive US Jewish population in its views. This has led to the emergence of new challengers for the leadership of American Jewish politics, which are far more attuned to views of the population. Most notable amongst them is the [[Israel Policy Forum]] (IPF). However, it will be some time before they are able to match the strong fundraising, and organizing capabilities of AIPAC.
 
<b>History</b><p></p><p>The <a href="http://www.aipac.org/">American Israel Public Affairs Committee</a>
 
(AIPAC) is considered one of the three most powerful lobbies in
 
Washington. Founded in 1951 as American Zionist Committee for Public
 
Affairs by I.L. (Sy) Kenen, the lobby sought to circumvent the State
 
Department to appeal directly to Congress to provide aid to Israel.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a>
 
The lobby changed its name to American Israel Public Affairs Committee
 
by the end of the decade. AIPAC is a membership organization and
 
currently boasts 65,000 members across all 50 of the American states.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a>
 
According to the organization’s website, “through more than 2,000
 
meetings with members of Congress� it’s activists “help pass more than
 
100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year�.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[3]</a></p><p>With
 
the fatal blow to Arab nationalism in 1967,“[AIPAC]’s power was
 
simultaneously enabled and enhanced by Israel's emergence as a regional
 
surrogate for US military power in the Middle East�.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[4]</a>
 
Wielding enough influence over the congress to pressure Gerald Ford
 
into backing down from threats of suspension of aid to Israel, AIPAC
 
really came into its own during the Reagan years. While in 1981, the
 
lobby had an annual budget of a little more than $1 million and a mere
 
8,000 members, by 1993, the budget had risen to $15 million,
 
administered by a staff of 158, while the membership had swollen to
 
50,000.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> During the same period, establishment of the <a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/">Washington Institute for Near East Policy</a>
 
(WINEP) greatly expanded the lobby's influence over policy in
 
Washington. While maintaining a façade of moderation, WINEP serves more
 
as a platform for extremist voices such as Daniel Pipes and Martin
 
Kramer. By the mid-’80s, AIPAC had been a prime factor in the defeat or
 
crippling of initiatives and legislators deemed not friendly enough
 
towards Israel, and the passage of billions in grants.</p><p>Initially
 
AIPAC had been supportive of all Israeli governments, but lately, it
 
has exhibited a more pronounced slant towards the right-wing <span class="SpellE">Likud</span>.
 
While the Clinton years saw a temporary eclipse of the lobby due to the
 
administration’s penchant for unobtrusive diplomatic solutions, 2001
 
marked the arrival of a resurgent AIPAC which sought to integrate
 
Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories into the wider “War on
 
Terror�. </p><p>Through WINEP, the lobby has been supplying right-wing
 
intellectuals to Republican administrations, who employ their positions
 
to support Likud policies from within the <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> government.<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[6]</a>
 
Given its strong ties to the Neo-Conservatives ascendant in the Bush
 
administration, AIPAC has been instrumental in steering the US
 
government towards following a precipitous policy in the Middle-East.
 
AIPAC was quite enthusiastic about the US war in Iraq, and more
 
recently has been urging actions against other perceived threats to the
 
state of Israel – namely, Iran and Syria. <a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7">[7]</a></p><p>AIPAC
 
courted more controversy recently when four of its senior members were
 
served subpoenas in an espionage investigation being conducted by the
 
FBI. The investigation involved a Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin
 
passing classified policy documents on Iran to a pair of AIPAC
 
lobbyists – who allegedly passed them to the Israeli government.<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[8]</a> The FBI interviewed Steve Rosen, the group's director of foreign policy issues and Keith <span class="SpellE">Weissman</span>, a senior Middle East analyst for AIPAC<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9">[9]</a>.
 
The FBI also copied the computer hard drives of Steve Rosen.
 
Predictably enough, Congress members rallied behind AIPAC, despite the
 
seriousness of the charge.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10">[10]</a></p><p> <b>Organization</b></p><p>The
 
AIPAC policy is generally determined by a board of directors who are
 
selected more on the basis of how much they can contribute than on how
 
well they can represent. The board features many corporate lawyers,
 
Wall Street investors, business executives, and heirs to family
 
fortunes. Even within the board, power is concentrated in the hands of
 
a wealthy elite of past AIPAC presidents. </p> <p><b>Associations</b></p><p>American
 
Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) is a supporting organization for
 
AIPAC, which sponsors trips for many members of Congress. Visits by
 
prominent names, such as Sen. John McCain have been sponsored by AIPAC
 
through AIEF, culling favors for which the rewards were not long in
 
coming, since the Senator duly endorsed the separation wall, which has
 
been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11">[11]</a>.
 
Howard Dean, the new Chair of the Democratic Party is also an erstwhile
 
beneficiary, and has returned the favor by moving from calls for an
 
even-handed approach to the conflict, to an unequivocal support of
 
Israeli assassination of Palestinian leaders.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12">[12]</a></p><p>The <a href="http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/">Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations</a>
 
(CPMAJO) is a coordinating body composed of leaders of 55 different
 
organizations and is responsible for formulating and articulating the
 
"Jewish position" on most foreign policy matters. All the members of
 
CPMAJO sit on <span class="SpellE">AIPAC's</span> executive committee<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13">[13]</a>,
 
but the actual lobbying is always done by AIPAC and its constituent
 
PACs. While the focus of CPMAJO is on the executive branch of the U.S.
 
government, AIPAC concentrates on the Congress.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/">Washington Institute for Near East Policy</a>
 
(WINEP) was established in 1985 by AIPAC as a pro-Israeli alternative
 
to the Brookings Institution, which – according to Juan Cole, the
 
Middle-East expert and Professor of History at the University of
 
Michigan – it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel.
 
WINEP enjoys enormous influence in Washington with State Department and
 
military personnel regularly detailed there for an education in the
 
Middle-East. This naturally leads to the development of a much skewed
 
understanding of the region and its conflicts, since WINEP is a heavily
 
ideological think-tank, with a distinct agenda; the type of “group
 
polarization� that is most evident in the current <st1:country-region>US</st1:country-region>
 
administration. Position papers developed by WINEP are routinely
 
distributed not only in government circles, but also to private sectors
 
working for the government.</p><p> <b>Influence</b></p><p>According to
 
Ha’aretz, AIPAC has been “more consistently potent and reliable� than
 
any “of all the weapons in Israel's policy arsenal�.<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14">[14]</a> The list of achievements cited on its website affirms that this claim is anything but frivolous.<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15">[15]</a></p><p>While
 
AIPAC as an organization does not contribute to electoral campaigns, it
 
has carefully cultivated an immense support base through the
 
contributions of its members and various Political Action Committees
 
towards the campaigns of pro-Israel candidates.<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16">[16]</a> </p><p>Between
 
1997 and 2001, the 46 members of AIPAC's board together gave well in
 
excess of $3 million, or more than $70,000 apiece. At least seven gave
 
more than $100,000, and one -- David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate
 
developer -- gave more than $1 million… and that's just the board. Many
 
of AIPAC's 60,000 members contribute funds as well, in sums ranging
 
from a hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much of
 
this money is distributed through a network of pro-Israel PACs. Often,
 
when an individual candidate is favored, these PACs will organize
 
multiple fundraisers in different parts of the country. <a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17">[17</a></p><p>AIPAC
 
has also been very successful in mobilizing the Jewish community as a
 
voting block. As far back as the Truman era, this block wielded enough
 
power to influence foreign policy; however, AIPAC has further
 
consolidated their position through strategic alliances – most notably
 
with the Christian Zionists. </p><p>The other prong of AIPAC’s
 
strategy has been the political intimidation of critical voices.
 
AIPAC’s victims include two former chairmen of the Senate Foreign
 
Relations Committee, Arkansas Democrat J. William Fulbright and
 
Illinois Republican Charles Percy, and Sen. Roger Jepsen. They have
 
also helped defeat Paul Findley and Paul N. McCloskey<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18">[18]</a>, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19">[19]</a>. </p><p>The
 
charge of anti-Semitism is another means for AIPAC to silence critics
 
of Israel. &nbsp;Even the recent FBI investigation into the charges of
 
espionage – according to Michael Rubin – was merely an “increasing
 
anti-Semitic witch hunt.�<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20">[20]</a>
 
AIPAC also has projects to intimidate and silence academic across
 
campuses throughout the US. In 1979 it formed the Political Leadership
 
Development Program, which "educates and trains young leaders in
 
pro-Israel political advocacy" hundreds of college students were
 
enlisted to collect information on pro-Palestinian professors and
 
student organizations<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21">[21]</a>. More recently, this project has been revived by Daniel Pipe’s Middle East Forum through its own Neo-McCarthyite <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/">Campus Watch</a>.</p><p>Today AIPAC wields enough influence that according to William <span class="SpellE">Quandt</span>,
 
a member of the National Security Council in the Nixon and Carter
 
administrations, "Seventy to 80 percent of all members of Congress will
 
go along with whatever they think AIPAC wants." During the 80s, AIPAC
 
was instrumental in securing an annual aid package of $3 Billion for
 
Israel. <a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22">[22]</a></p><p>In the end
 
the most significant criticism of AIPAC has come from other Jewish
 
organizations which claim that it does not represent views of the
 
majority of US Jewry. On every issue, AIPAC is significantly to the
 
right of the generally progressive US Jewish population in its views.
 
This has led to the emergence of new challengers for the leadership of
 
American Jewish politics, which are far more attuned to views of the
 
population. Most notable amongst them is the Israel Policy Forum (IPF).
 
However, it will be some time before they are able to match the strong
 
fundraising, and organizing capabilities of AIPAC.</p>
 
<br>
 
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
 
<p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a><a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html#The%20Formal%20Israeli%20Lobby">“Israeli and Arab Lobbiesâ€?</a>, Mitchell Bard, <i>Jewish Virtual Library<br></i><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a><a href="http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html">“Who We Areâ€?</a>, <i>AIPAC<br></i><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[3]</a> Ibid.<br><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[4]</a> <a href="http://www.merip.org/mero/mero040603.html">"Pro-Israel Hawks and the Second Gulf War"</a>, Joel Beinin, <i>Middle East Report Online</i><br><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[5]</a><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;name=ViewPrint&amp;articleId=8764">“Cloak and Swagger"</a>, Laura Rozen and Jason Vest, <i>The American Prospect</i><br><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH08Ak01.html">“How neo-cons influence the Pentagonâ€?</a>, Jim Lobe, <i>Asia Times<br></i> <a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a><a href="http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html#agenda">“Our Current Agendaâ€?,</a> <i>AIPAC</i>; <a href="http://www.aipac.org/result.cfm?id=1752"> “Freedom's Enemiesâ€?</a>, <i>AIPAC<br></i><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/31/2d_probe_at_the_pentagon_examines_actions_on_iraq/">“2d probe at the Pentagon examines actions on Iraqâ€?</a>, Bryan Bender, <i>The Boston Globe<br></i><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9">[9]</a> <a href="http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes274.htm">“FBI Questions Israeli Lobbyists in Spying Probeâ€?</a>, August 31, 2004, <i>Los Angeles</i>  <i>Times<br></i><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10">[10]</a> <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?Pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&amp;cid=1093921795845">“FBI seizes computer from AIPAC officesâ€?,</a> Janine Zacharia, <i>Jerusalem Post<br></i><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11">[11]</a> <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200308/FOR20030818c.html">“More US Lawmakers Visiting Israel This Summer Than Ever Beforeâ€?</a>, Julie Stahl, <i>CNS News<br></i><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12">[12]</a> <a href="http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/nfo/article.cfm?id=3209">"Howard Dean congratulated on his election as Democratic Party Chairâ€?</a>, <i>World Jewish Congress<br></i><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13">[13]</a><a href="http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/5/massing-m.html">“Deal Breakersâ€?</a>, Michael Massing, <i>The American Prospect</i><br><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14">[14]</a><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=474807&amp;displayTypeCd=1&amp;sideCd=1&amp;contrassID=2"> “10 ways the Pentagon spy case may damage Israelâ€?,</a> Bradley Burston, <i>Ha’aretz</i><br><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15">[15]</a><a href="http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html#achieved">“What We’ve Recently Achievedâ€?</a>, AIPAC<br><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16">[16]</a><a href="http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306036.html">“Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2002 Congressional Candidatesâ€?</a>, <i>Washington Report on Middle East Affairs</i><br><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17">[17]</a><a href="http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/5/massing-m.html">“Deal Breakersâ€?</a><br><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18">[18]</a> <a href="http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801065.htm">“National Capital Insiders Vote AIPACâ€?</a>, Nathan Jones, <i>Washington Report on Middle East Affairs</i> <br><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19">[19]</a> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0821.html">“The Attacks on Cynthia McKinneyâ€?,</a> Alexander Cockburn, <i>Counterpunch<br></i><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20">[20]</a> “<a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;name=ViewPrint&amp;articleId=8764">Cloak and Swagger</a>"<br><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21">[21]</a><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&amp;s=mcneil">“The War on Academic Freedomâ€?</a>, Kristine McNeil, <i>The Nation</i> <br><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22">[22]</a><a href="http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/5/massing-m.html">“Deal Breakersâ€?</a></p>
 
 
<i>by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
 
Last updated: March 03, 2005</i>
 
  
 
== Contact details ==
 
== Contact details ==

Revision as of 10:10, 14 November 2005

Part of the Spin profiles Middle East Watch.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a national membership based group which describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel lobby"

History

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is considered one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. Founded in 1951 as American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs by I.L. (Sy) Kenen, the lobby sought to circumvent the State Department to appeal directly to Congress to provide aid to Israel.[1] The lobby changed its name to American Israel Public Affairs Committee by the end of the decade. AIPAC is a membership organization and currently boasts 65,000 members across all 50 of the American states.[2] According to the organization’s website, “through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress� it’s activists “help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year�.[3]

With the fatal blow to Arab nationalism in 1967,“[AIPAC]’s power was simultaneously enabled and enhanced by Israel's emergence as a regional surrogate for US military power in the Middle East�.[4] Wielding enough influence over the congress to pressure Gerald Ford into backing down from threats of suspension of aid to Israel, AIPAC really came into its own during the Reagan years. While in 1981, the lobby had an annual budget of a little more than $1 million and a mere 8,000 members, by 1993, the budget had risen to $15 million, administered by a staff of 158, while the membership had swollen to 50,000.[5] During the same period, establishment of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) greatly expanded the lobby's influence over policy in Washington. While maintaining a façade of moderation, WINEP serves more as a platform for extremist voices such as Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer. By the mid-’80s, AIPAC had been a prime factor in the defeat or crippling of initiatives and legislators deemed not friendly enough towards Israel, and the passage of billions in grants.

Initially AIPAC had been supportive of all Israeli governments, but lately, it has exhibited a more pronounced slant towards the right-wing Likud. While the Clinton years saw a temporary eclipse of the lobby due to the administration’s penchant for unobtrusive diplomatic solutions, 2001 marked the arrival of a resurgent AIPAC which sought to integrate Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories into the wider “War on Terror�.

Through WINEP, the lobby has been supplying right-wing intellectuals to Republican administrations, who employ their positions to support Likud policies from within the U.S. government.[6] Given its strong ties to the Neo-Conservatives ascendant in the Bush administration, AIPAC has been instrumental in steering the US government towards following a precipitous policy in the Middle-East. AIPAC was quite enthusiastic about the US war in Iraq, and more recently has been urging actions against other perceived threats to the state of Israel – namely, Iran and Syria. [7]

AIPAC courted more controversy recently when four of its senior members were served subpoenas in an espionage investigation being conducted by the FBI. The investigation involved a Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin passing classified policy documents on Iran to a pair of AIPAC lobbyists – who allegedly passed them to the Israeli government.[8] The FBI interviewed Steve Rosen, the group's director of foreign policy issues and Keith Weissman, a senior Middle East analyst for AIPAC[9]. The FBI also copied the computer hard drives of Steve Rosen. Predictably enough, Congress members rallied behind AIPAC, despite the seriousness of the charge.[10]

Organization

The AIPAC policy is generally determined by a board of directors who are selected more on the basis of how much they can contribute than on how well they can represent. The board features many corporate lawyers, Wall Street investors, business executives, and heirs to family fortunes. Even within the board, power is concentrated in the hands of a wealthy elite of past AIPAC presidents.

Associations

American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) is a supporting organization for AIPAC, which sponsors trips for many members of Congress. Visits by prominent names, such as Sen. John McCain have been sponsored by AIPAC through AIEF, culling favors for which the rewards were not long in coming, since the Senator duly endorsed the separation wall, which has been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice[11]. Howard Dean, the new Chair of the Democratic Party is also an erstwhile beneficiary, and has returned the favor by moving from calls for an even-handed approach to the conflict, to an unequivocal support of Israeli assassination of Palestinian leaders.[12]

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) is a coordinating body composed of leaders of 55 different organizations and is responsible for formulating and articulating the "Jewish position" on most foreign policy matters. All the members of CPMAJO sit on AIPAC's executive committee[13], but the actual lobbying is always done by AIPAC and its constituent PACs. While the focus of CPMAJO is on the executive branch of the U.S. government, AIPAC concentrates on the Congress.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was established in 1985 by AIPAC as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which – according to Juan Cole, the Middle-East expert and Professor of History at the University of Michigan – it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP enjoys enormous influence in Washington with State Department and military personnel regularly detailed there for an education in the Middle-East. This naturally leads to the development of a much skewed understanding of the region and its conflicts, since WINEP is a heavily ideological think-tank, with a distinct agenda; the type of “group polarization� that is most evident in the current US administration. Position papers developed by WINEP are routinely distributed not only in government circles, but also to private sectors working for the government.

Publications

"In the mid-1970s Si Kenen, editor of the AIPAC-affiliated, Washington-based Near East Report, initiated a media-monitoring column titled The Monitor. Its purpose was to clarify "controversial issues and to expose negative propaganda... One of NER's prime targets was the team of Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, whose column was syndicated in about 250 American cities. When the columns contained errors about Israel, Kenen would send out telegrams to local activists who would then write critical letters to the papers that carried the columns. The climax of this campaign came after Evans falsely claimed that Israel had made a secret request of $4 billion per year for U.S. arms. Evans, who initially refused to retract, had to do so after several weeks. Under the ongoing pressure from letter writers, Evans and Novak stopped writing on the Middle East for several years." [1]

Influence

According to Ha’aretz, AIPAC has been “more consistently potent and reliable� than any “of all the weapons in Israel's policy arsenal�.[14] The list of achievements cited on its website affirms that this claim is anything but frivolous.[15]

While AIPAC as an organization does not contribute to electoral campaigns, it has carefully cultivated an immense support base through the contributions of its members and various Political Action Committees towards the campaigns of pro-Israel candidates.[16]

Between 1997 and 2001, the 46 members of AIPAC's board together gave well in excess of $3 million, or more than $70,000 apiece. At least seven gave more than $100,000, and one -- David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer -- gave more than $1 million… and that's just the board. Many of AIPAC's 60,000 members contribute funds as well, in sums ranging from a hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much of this money is distributed through a network of pro-Israel PACs. Often, when an individual candidate is favored, these PACs will organize multiple fundraisers in different parts of the country. [17

AIPAC has also been very successful in mobilizing the Jewish community as a voting block. As far back as the Truman era, this block wielded enough power to influence foreign policy; however, AIPAC has further consolidated their position through strategic alliances – most notably with the Christian Zionists.

The other prong of AIPAC’s strategy has been the political intimidation of critical voices. AIPAC’s victims include two former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Arkansas Democrat J. William Fulbright and Illinois Republican Charles Percy, and Sen. Roger Jepsen. They have also helped defeat Paul Findley and Paul N. McCloskey[18], Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney[19].

The charge of anti-Semitism is another means for AIPAC to silence critics of Israel. Even the recent FBI investigation into the charges of espionage – according to Michael Rubin – was merely an “increasing anti-Semitic witch hunt.�[20] AIPAC also has projects to intimidate and silence academic across campuses throughout the US. In 1979 it formed the Political Leadership Development Program, which "educates and trains young leaders in pro-Israel political advocacy" hundreds of college students were enlisted to collect information on pro-Palestinian professors and student organizations[21]. More recently, this project has been revived by Daniel Pipe’s Middle East Forum through its own Neo-McCarthyite Campus Watch.

Today AIPAC wields enough influence that according to William Quandt, a member of the National Security Council in the Nixon and Carter administrations, "Seventy to 80 percent of all members of Congress will go along with whatever they think AIPAC wants." During the 80s, AIPAC was instrumental in securing an annual aid package of $3 Billion for Israel. [22]

In the end the most significant criticism of AIPAC has come from other Jewish organizations which claim that it does not represent views of the majority of US Jewry. On every issue, AIPAC is significantly to the right of the generally progressive US Jewish population in its views. This has led to the emergence of new challengers for the leadership of American Jewish politics, which are far more attuned to views of the population. Most notable amongst them is the Israel Policy Forum (IPF). However, it will be some time before they are able to match the strong fundraising, and organizing capabilities of AIPAC.

Contact details

440 First St NW, Suite 600
Washington D.C 20001
Phone: 202 639 5200
Fax: 202 638 0680
Web: http://www.aipac.org/

SpinWatch Resources

sourcewatch Resources

Articles, books