The AIPAC

Any detailed understanding of the methods used by pressure groups and the significance of money within American politics requires an examination of one of the most influential and wealthiest of them all; the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Widely acknowledged to be one of the most respected and well-organized groups on K Street, it has rightly been described by the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg as “a leviathan among lobbies.” It is a sentiment supported by politicians from both sides of the political fence; with Bill Clinton depicting the group as “stunningly effective” and Newt Gingrich proclaiming the AIPAC to be “the most effective interest group … across the entire planet.”

As with any insider pressure group, there are various means available for the AIPAC to exert influence upon decision-makers. Given our previous discussion, it seems only logical to begin with money. The AIPAC can utilize money in order to sponsor a test case, launch and fight a proposition campaign, fund an amicus curiae brief in the courts and exert influence upon an electoral campaign. Of these, the last point is the most significant in terms of assessing the considerable impact of the AIPAC upon the political process.

The AIPAC influences an electoral campaign on the principle of reward or punishment. In other words, a candidate considered sympathetic to Israeli interests will gain both funding and access to a network of potential donors. However, if a politician is considered hostile to the state of Israel the AIPAC can divert resources to their opponent. Take the case of the arch-conservative Senator Jesse Helms. As a long-time critic of foreign aid, the AIPAC considered him unsympathetic to the self-proclaimed Jewish state because of the disproportionate amount of foreign aid received by Israel. During a particularly expensive campaign the AIPAC gave considerable funds to his opponent, and although Helms eventually won; it was a surprisingly close contest in a solidly red state. Soon afterwards, Jesse Helms was photographed wearing a yarmulke and kissing the Wailing Wall. It is worth noting that he remained a vocal supporter of Israel until his retirement from the Senate. On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton reversed her previous support for the creation of a Palestinian state once she ran for office in the state of New York.

                The AIPAC are the quintessential insider group with a major presence within the corridors of power. The AIPAC even helps staff working in Capitol Hill to draw up proposed legislation and draft open letters designed to exert congressional pressure upon members of the executive. The AIPAC also contacts members of Congress (and those running for Congress) asking them to clarify their position on a wide range of relevant questions relating to the politics of the Middle East. In order to gain their endorsement, candidates are often ‘guided’ towards an uncritical pro-Israeli standpoint. According to one informed source, well over half of all House members will do whatever the AIPAC want. The figure is broadly similar in the upper chamber.

                The AIPAC also helps to maintain a largely positive image of Israel within the American media. Any perceived bias against Israeli interests may result in wild accusations of anti-Semitism, or the more caustic charge of being a ‘Jew-hater.’ More often than not, the AIPAC has the ability to misrepresent what has actually been said by portraying any advocate of a Palestinian homeland as a threat to the continued survival of the Israeli state. In politics, a half-truth can often be more devastating than a lie. The latter might seem incredulous, but a half-truth holds within it a believable potency that an outright lie does not.

                The evidence of the AIPAC’s influence within the political process can be identified most readily in the context of American foreign policy. To begin with, the level of foreign aid given to the Jewish state is wholly disproportionate to economic need. Secondly, the level of military resources sold and shared with the Israelis is far greater than any other country in the region. Moreover, diplomatic support within the UN and other organizations is largely favorable. For instance, the US has done little about Israel being in violation of international law since the 1960s. Whenever the President has  dared to criticize Israel, they have always faced pressure from the AIPAC to moderate their tone or risk losing vital support during an election campaign. On balance, one reason for this impulse within the higher echelons of American foreign policy is undeniably the activities of the AIPAC.