by MJ Rosenberg
Not surprisingly, my recent piece on an ugly 1988 experience with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israeli government, and late New York Times newspaper columnist William Safire elicited some controversy. I knew it would.
There aren't that many first-person accounts of encounters with the lobby (for obvious reasons) so my recollections of how it went down on Capitol Hill fill a vacuum. Hopefully, there will be more such accounts as those of us who dealt with the lobby in the 1980s move into a position (career-wise or financially) where we feel free to talk and write about it without any fear of retribution.
If I were 35, there is no way that I would challenge an institution which has a long history of preventing its critics from advancing professionally. I am not that brave - although the terrain is finally changing for the better thanks to the internet.
One problem in making analogies between the lobby today and in the 1970s and 1980s is that it was infinitely less aggressive and right-wing then than it is now.
In my description of an event that took place in 1988, I refer to AIPAC's then-executive drector, Thomas Dine. Dine, who today is close to the more liberal Jewish lobby group J Street, came to the AIPAC lobby from Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential campaign. He had worked previously for several Democratic senators and, in his twenties, in the LBJ White House. By contrast, AIPAC's current executive director, Howard Kohr, is a conservative Republican who was hired largely because of his personal and political closeness to Newt Gingrich. In the Israeli context, Dine was Labor and Kohr is Likud.
A muted beginning
Back then, the Palestinians had not yet recognised Israel, so AIPAC's argument that Israel had no negotiating partner was not totally unfounded. Today, 17 years after Israel and the PLO exchanged mutual recognition, the "no partner" claim is nothing but a device to avoid negotiations.
Not only that, but in several rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the two sides have come extremely close to an agreement, the essence of which was described by President Obama in two recent Middle East speeches. That is the exchange of the lands captured by Israel in 1967 for peace and normalisation with the Palestinians - with modifications and land swaps to reflect current realities. This is the so-called "two-state solution", which wasn't even discussed in the 1980s.
In other words, the entire Israeli-Palestinian landscape in 1988 was dramatically different then both in the region and here in Washington. And the AIPAC we know today had not even been born. For instance, back then, AIPAC never defended or even mentioned Israeli settlements, considering them an embarassment - AIPAC lobbyists were told that, when asked, they should say that AIPAC had no position on settlements. Today it vehemently opposes any efforts to freeze their expansion.
In the 1980s, AIPAC's basic foreign policy position was that peace would come when the Palestinians recognised Israel. It stated that it would be at that point that negotiations based on United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 would ensue. And, as envisioned in those resolutions, land would be exchanged for peace.
That is why the hysterical reaction to Senator Levin's letter mildly chastising Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir for saying that 242 and 338 did not apply to the West Bank was so shocking.
In retrospect, it was a harbinger of the more militant AIPAC that was then struggling to be born. (A very right-wing board fired Dine in the early 1990s, having decided it wanted a Republican executive director. Dine was then appointed by President Clinton to run America's massive aid and restructuring programs for the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe.)
Nonetheless, it was the more moderate AIPAC that went off on Senator Levin for having the temerity to call on Shamir to remain committed to UN Resolution 242. It was the more moderate AIPAC that organised threatening calls to Levin (and other senators who signed his letter) by outraged donors. It was the more moderate AIPAC that enlisted Israel's UN ambassador, Binyamin Netanyahu, to call New York Times columnist William Safire and urge him to threaten me (Safire's call was no simple call by a reporter investigating a story; it was a call by a powerful media figure threatening a Jewish congressional staffer for not toeing the line).
AIPAC's discerning power
In a column in The New Republic magazine, Jonathan Chait, an excellent domestic policy columnist, calls my account of what happened a "pulp novelisation" of a story that really only demonstrates that AIPAC does not exert undue influence (or, at least, no more than the AARP and other lobbies). After all, Levin is still in the Senate. President Reagan supported Levin's effort. And even AIPAC's executive director, Tom Dine, secretly supported Levin's effort. Of course, he was soon fired for being a dovish Democrat. And I have certainly not been silenced (although I only began telling the unvarnished truth about AIPAC when I was safely immune from the lobby).
So Chait has a point.
Except: One, The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and every other power lobby one can name, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Chamber of Commerce advocate for US interests as they sees them. The AARP represents tens of millions of US citizens over the age of 50 and the NRA represents millions of American gun enthusiasts.
AIPAC, on the other hand, gets its direction from a foreign government. If the Israeli government decides it will give up, say, downtown Hebron, AIPAC will say the same almost immediately. It is as independent of the Israeli government as the US Communist Party was independent of Moscow. The only time this was not true was in the early 1990s when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin tried, and failed, to reduce AIPAC's influence.
Except: Two, members of Congress criticise these other "powerful lobbies" all the time. And doing so does not make page one of the New York Times, while Levin's mild call on Shamir to support Israel's own official position did. Criticising Israeli policies is, thanks to AIPAC, the "new third rail" of US politics, replacing Social Security and Medicare - both of these programs are now attacked daily. AIPAC is the only lobby that Democrats and Republicans fear challenging.
Except: Three, in 1988, the Israeli occupation was still only (only!) 21 years old. Today, the occupied territories have been occupied for 44 years. In 1988, there were 63,600 West Bank settlers (not including East Jerusalem). Today there are 296,700 settlers in the West Bank and another 192,000 in East Jerusalem. In 1988, the issue dividing the two sides was Israel's right to secure borders; today, the issue is Israel's right to continue settling the West Bank and evicting Palestinians from Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers.
And: Four, AIPAC's effort to quash Senate dissent succeeded. I remember one of AIPAC's top lobbyists telling me to thank Levin for the letter. "You'll see, MJ, after what Levin went through, no senator will ever pull that kind of thing again. You did us a favour," she said.
And, guess what? No senator has, not in 23 years.
There is no other lobby in Washington, not one, that has that kind of power. That was obvious when Prime Minister Netanyahu, a consistent opponent of US policies, received a congressional reception worthy of the Second Coming. What I experienced in 1988 was nothing. Woe to the senator or Senate aide who even imagines such a thing today.
MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.
You can follow MJ on twitter @MJayRosenberg
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
- Pope Francis calls on Armenia and Turkey to reconcile
- Germany's Merkel urges caution in UK's exit from EU
- First vessel passes through expanded Panama Canal
- Italy, Netherlands ask to share Security Council seat
- Brexit: Juncker, Farage spar in heated Brussels debate
- Scottish leader threatens to veto Brexit