A Christian Speaks Out Against AIPAC

Subject: What is AIPAC?
From: NewsLetters christianity@hotmail.com
Date: 6/28/02 7:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <qt5qhucf1emjqa1cf49feuokrt3eaeutia@4ax.com>
 

[alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic]

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. ( AIPAC )

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's a remarkable oversight.
AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in
Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds
of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It also maintains a
network of wealthy and influential citizens around the country, whom
it can regularly mobilize to support its main goal, which is making
sure there is "no daylight" between the policies of Israel and of the
United States.

So, when Congress votes so decisively in support of Israel, it's no
accident. Yet, surveying US newspaper coverage of the Middle East in
recent months, I found next to nothing about AIPAC and its influence.
The one account of any substance appeared in the Washington Post, in
late April. Reporting on AIPAC's annual conference, correspondent Mike
Allen noted that the attendees included half the Senate, ninety
members of the House and thirteen senior Administration officials,
including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who drew a standing
ovation when he declared in Hebrew, "The people of Israel live."
Showing its "clout," Allen wrote, AIPAC held "a lively roll call of
the hundreds of dignitaries, with individual cheers for each." Even
this article, however, failed to probe beneath the surface and examine
the lobbying and fundraising techniques AIPAC uses to lock up support
in Congress.

AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel organization to escape scrutiny. The
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
though little known to the general public, has tremendous influence in
Washington, especially with the executive branch. Based in New York,
the conference is supposed to give voice to the fifty-two Jewish
organizations that sit on its board, but in reality it tends to
reflect the views of its executive vice chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein.
Hoenlein has long had close ties to Israel's Likud Party. In the 1990s
he helped raise money for settlers' groups on the West Bank, and today
he regularly refers to that region as "Judea and Samaria," a
biblically inspired catch phrase used by conservatives to justify the
presence of Jewish settlers there. A skilled and articulate operative,
Hoenlein uses his access to the State Department, Pentagon and
National Security Council to push for a strong Israel. He's so
effective at it that the Jewish newspaper the Forward, in its annual
list of the fifty most important American Jews, has ranked Hoenlein
first.

Hoenlein showed his organizing skills in April, when he helped convene
the large pro-Israel rally on Capitol Hill. While the event itself was
widely covered, Hoenlein, and the conference, remained invisible. An
informal survey of recent coverage turned up not a single in-depth
piece about Hoenlein and how he has used the Presidents Conference to
keep the Bush Administration from putting too much pressure on the
Sharon government.

Why the blackout? For one thing, reporting on these groups is not
easy. AIPAC's power makes potential sources reluctant to discuss the
organization on the record, and employees who leave it usually sign
pledges of silence. AIPAC officials themselves rarely give interviews,
and the organization even resists divulging its board of directors.
Journalists, meanwhile, are often loath to write about the influence
of organized Jewry. Throughout the Arab world, the "Jewish lobby" is
seen as the root of all evil in the Middle East, and many reporters
and editors--especially Jewish ones--worry about feeding such
stereotypes.

In the end, though, the main obstacle to covering these groups is
fear. Jewish organizations are quick to detect bias in the coverage of
the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's especially
true of late. As the Forward observed in late April, "rooting out
perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American
Jews the most direct and emotional outlet for connecting with the
conflict 6,000 miles away." Recently, an estimated 1,000 subscribers
to the Los Angeles Times suspended home delivery for a day to protest
what they considered the paper's pro-Palestinian coverage. The Chicago
Tribune, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer and
the Miami Herald have all been hit by similar protests, and NPR has
received thousands of e-mails complaining about its reports from the
Middle East.

Do such protests have an effect? Consider the recent experience of the
New York Times. On May 6 the paper ran two photographs of a pro-Israel
parade in Manhattan. Both showed the parade in the background and
anti-Israel protesters prominently in the foreground. The paper, which
for weeks has been threatened with a boycott by Jewish readers, was
deluged with protests. On May 7 the Times ran an abject apology. That
caused much consternation in the newsroom, with some reporters and
editors feeling that the paper had buckled before an influential
constituency. "It's very intimidating," said a correspondent at
another large daily who is familiar with the incident. Newspapers, he
added, are "afraid" of organizations like AIPAC and the Presidents
Conference. "The pressure from these groups is relentless. Editors
would just as soon not touch them."

Needless to say, US support for Israel is the product of many
factors--Israel's status as the sole democracy in the Middle East, its
value as a US strategic ally and widespread horror over Palestinian
suicide bombers. But the power of the pro-Israel lobby is an important
element as well. Indeed, it's impossible to understand the Bush
Administration's tender treatment of the Sharon government without
taking into account the influence of groups like AIPAC. Isn't it time
they were exposed to the daylight?