In 1992 New York businessman Haim Katz called AIPAC President David Steiner pretending to be a potential donor. Katz secretly taped the call. Steiner described how AIPAC helped direct campaign contributions to friendly politicians. He also said he met personally to "cut a deal" with Secretary of State James Baker for $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel. Plus "a billion dollars in other goodies that people dont even know about."

More to the point Steiner told Katz "we have a dozen people in [Clinton's] campaign, in the headquarters... and theyre all going to get big jobs." Steiner was forced to resign after Katz went public. He later said his statements were not true. But the authors say there is little reason to doubt the thrust of his remarks.

AIPAC also vetted presidential advisers. In 1987 former AIPAC head Tom Dine told an interviewer "This is an actual example... One of the [1988] presidential candidates called us and said I will be publicly declaring soon, and I am interested in hiring so and so for a top campaign position. Tell me what you think about him." Dine said his answer was thumbs up in that case.

Jimmy Carter wanted George Ball as his first secretary of state. But he knew Ball was perceived as critical of Israel and that the lobby would oppose the appointment.

Richard Marius was a Harvard lecturer hired in 1995 as Vice President Al Gore chief speechwriter. He said he was fired before he began work. This happened after New Republic publisher Martin Peretz falsely claimed Marius was an anti-Semite based on a book review Marius published in 1992.

In 2001 Bruce Riedel left his position handling Middle East issues on National Security Council. The New Republic reported that Pentagon held up appointment of Riedel designated successor Alina Romanowski. Pentagon officials suspected her of being "insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state."

So the lobby does not only lobby. It decides who gets key jobs in the US government. And it blocks people it sees as critical of Israel.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

In the 2004 presidential campaign Howard Dean made a mistake. He recommended that the United States take a more "even-handed role" in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One of Dean rivals for the nomination was Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman accused Dean of selling Israel down the river. He labeled Dean statement "irresponsible."

Even more remarkably virtually all of the top Democrats in the House of Representatives signed a hard-hitting letter to Dean criticizing his comments. The Chicago Jewish Star reported that "anonymous attackers... are clogging the e-mail inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning—without much evidence—that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel."

This worry was absurd. Dean is in fact an unabashed supporter of Israel. His campaign cochair was former AIPAC president Steven Grossman. Dean said his own views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. Dean wife is Jewish and his children were raised Jewish as well.

Dean was not questioning US support for Israel. He had merely suggested that to "bring the sides together" Washington should act as an honest broker. This is not a radical idea. But key groups in the lobby do not welcome the idea of evenhandedness when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Dean failure to win the Democratic nomination has many causes. But the incident underscored the potential cost of being anything less than ardently pro-Israel during a presidential campaign. So the lobby punishes even a mild call for America to act as honest broker. This shows US presidents and candidates cannot take an independent position on Israel.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Presidential candidates go to considerable lengths to cultivate pro-Israel support. They know that the seal of approval from AIPAC and other lobby organizations will facilitate fund-raising and encourage higher turnout on their behalf.

Gaining and retaining that support means backing Israel down the line. That is why presidential candidates John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and John McCain all made emphatic pro-Israel speeches to the 2007 Herzliya conference. Herzliya is an annual meeting on Israeli national security. It is organized by the hawkish Institute for Policy and Strategy.

So US presidential candidates traveled to Israel to speak at an Israeli security conference. They did this to prove their loyalty to Israel. They wanted to avoid the fate that befell Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential campaign. Dean made the mistake of recommending that the United States take a more "even-handed role" in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This happens even though Israel strategic value has declined. It also happens even though some Israeli actions, like the continued effort to colonize the Occupied Territories, are at odds with stated US policy.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Groups in the Israel lobby exert significant leverage over the executive branch. Influence over the executive branch derives in part from the impact pro-Israel voters and donors have on presidential elections.

Pro-Israel donors are a small part of the population. But they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. Hamilton Jordan was presidential adviser and former White House Chief of Staff. He wrote in a confidential memo to President Jimmy Carter: "Wherever there is major political fundraising in this country, you will find American Jews playing a significant role."

The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates "depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources." Other estimates are lower. But pro-Israel contributions form a substantial share, between 20 and 50 percent, of the contributions made to the Democratic party and its presidential candidates.

Israel is not the only issue that inspires these contributions. But candidates who are perceived as hostile, or even indifferent, to Israel run the risk of seeing some of these funds go to their opponents.

Pro-Israel voters also have high turnout rates. They are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. This increases their weight in determining who becomes president. In close races this vote can tip the balance in key states.

Jeffrey Helmreich of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote that "American Jewish voters maintain the potential to be the decisive factor in national election results... American Jews wield power through their high concentration in key states and their tendency to behave as a swing vote."

Because this vote matters in close elections, presidential candidates go to considerable lengths to cultivate support. Candidates are especially eager to appeal to AIPAC and other organizations in the lobby. They know that the seal of approval from these prominent organizations will facilitate fund-raising and encourage higher turnout on their behalf.

Gaining and retaining that support means backing Israel down the line. This happens even though Israel strategic value has declined. It also happens even though some Israeli actions, like the continued effort to colonize the Occupied Territories, are at odds with stated US policy.

So the lobby uses American campaign money and American election mechanics to make US presidents back Israel. This happens against America own stated policy.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

AIPAC traditional tactics to influence Congress also enable the lobby to put pressure on the executive branch. This happens when the executive takes actions considered not in Israel interest.

When that happens the president or cabinet official is likely to get a hard-hitting letter from one or both houses of Congress. The letter is signed by most of its members.

President Gerald Ford got such a letter in 1975 when he threatened a reassessment of US-Israeli relations. President Bush got a similar letter in April 2002 when he briefly sought to pressure Israel to end a large-scale military incursion in the Occupied Territories. The lopsided percentage of signatories for each of these letters is eloquent testimony to AIPAC ability to twist arms.

Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) commented after signing the letter to Ford in 1975: "It is easier to sign one letter than to answer 5000." Senator John Culver (D-IA) later admitted: "The pressure was just too great. I caved."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice felt the same pressure. She sought to restart the peace process by visiting the Middle East in March 2007. Just before her departure Rice received an AIPAC-sponsored letter signed by seventy-nine senators. The letter urged her to avoid contact with the new Palestinian unity government until it recognized Israel, renounced terror, and agreed to abide by Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger once told AIPAC Tom Dine: "Dine, I deal with you because you could hurt me."

AIPAC bills itself as America Pro-Israel Lobby. It has an almost unchallenged hold on Congress. One of the three main branches of the American government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. Open debate about US policy toward Israel does not occur there even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.

Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) noted as he was leaving office in 2004: "You cant have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." Another senator speaking on condition of anonymity told a Washington Post reporter in 1991: "My colleagues think AIPAC is a very, very powerful organization that is ruthless, and very, very alert. Eighty percent of the senators here roll their eyes on some of the votes. They know that what they are doing isnt what they really believe is right, but why fight on a situation where they are liable to get beat up on?"

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience: "When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them—Help AIPAC." His successor Ehud Olmert agrees remarking: "Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world."

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

AIPAC influence on Capitol Hill goes beyond campaign money. Lobbying groups exercise influence by providing a legislative subsidy to sympathetic lawmakers. They supply overworked staffs with direct assistance in analyzing issues, framing legislation, and offering talking points and speeches.

Every member of Congress receives AIPAC biweekly newsletter Near East Report. AIPAC personnel are also available to help staffers when issues affecting Israel arise.

Douglas Bloomfield was a former AIPAC staff member. He said "It is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts." More important he notes that AIPAC is "often called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes."

To seal the deal an AIPAC sister organization funds free congressional trips to Israel. The group is called American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). These junkets burnish a legislator pro-Israel credentials and facilitate fund-raising. They also expose him or her to policy preferences and basic worldview of Israel leaders.

About 10 percent of all congressional trips overseas are to Israel. Israel is but one of nearly two hundred countries in the world. Center for Public Integrity reports that AIEF spent nearly $1 million on these visits from January 2000 to mid-2005. AIPAC and other Jewish groups lobbied hard and successfully to make sure new ethics rules did not interfere with these visits. The rules were enacted after Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay scandals.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2007, a book written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

AIPAC and pro-Israel PACs focus on more than getting Israel-friendly candidates elected. They have also had notable success turning politicians who have been critical of Israel into steadfast supporters.

Former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) was an outspoken critic of the US foreign aid program for much of his career. This meant he also opposed giving substantial aid to Israel. In 1984 Helms was in a hard-fought and expensive race for reelection against James Hunt, the popular governor of North Carolina. AIPAC saw an opportunity to put a formidable enemy out of business. It channeled large amounts of campaign money to Hunt, who came within a hair of winning.

Helms got the message. He traveled to Israel the following year. He had his picture taken with a yarmulke on his head kissing the Western Wall. The same trip also produced a picture of the senator with Ariel Sharon for his office wall. More important Helms became a vocal supporter of Israel and remained one until his retirement in 2002.

One sees a similar evolution on the part of Senator Hillary Clinton. Her support for Palestinian statehood in 1998 and public embrace of Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser Arafat, in 1999 provoked strong criticism from groups in the lobby. Clinton became an ardent defender of Israel once she began running for office herself. She now gets strong backing including financial support from pro-Israel organizations and individuals.

After Clinton appeared at a pro-Israel rally in July 2006 she expressed strong support for Israel highly destructive war against Lebanon. Helen Freedman was executive director of the hard-line Americans for a Safe Israel. She declared "I thought her remarks were very good, especially in light of her history, and we cant forget her kiss to Suha." Pro-Israel PACs contributed more than $30,000 to Clinton 2006 reelection campaign. The Forward reported in January 2007 that Clinton was "expected to snare the lions share of the Jewish community substantial political donations in the race for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination."

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

AIPAC helps candidates who support its agenda and works against those who do not. Over three decades it helped defeat a number of politicians it considered unfriendly to Israel.

Paul Findley (R-IL) had served eleven terms in Congress. In 1982 wealthy Chicago businessman and former AIPAC President Robert Asher helped recruit and vet an Illinois attorney, Richard Durbin, to run against Findley. Durbin had never held elected office. Asher later said "I probed [Durbin] views... I wanted to make sure we were supporting someone who was not only against Paul Findley but also a friend of Israel. He beat Findley with a lot of help from Jews, in-state and out-of-state. Now, how did the Jewish money find him? I traveled around the country talking about how we had the opportunity to defeat someone unfriendly to Israel. And the gates opened." Asher sent a letter to donors calling the election the "best chance" to remove a "dangerous enemy of Israel" from Congress. Durbin received $104,325 from 31 different pro-Israel PACs. Other Illinois congressional candidates got about $3,700 on average from the same groups. Durbin narrowly beat Findley.

In 2002 Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, a member of the Gang of Four that guides AIPAC policy making, used similar tactics to oust Congressman Earl Hilliard (D-AL). Hilliard opponent got financial help from AIPAC supporters across the country.

Charles Percy (R-IL) had a generally pro-Israel voting record. But he declined to sign AIPAC-sponsored "Letter of 76" protesting President Ford threatened reassessment of US Middle East policy in 1975. He also called PLO leader Yasser Arafat more "moderate" than some other Palestinian terrorists. Percy opponents in both primary and general election in 1984 got large sums from pro-Israel PACs. A businessman from California, Michael Goland, who was also a major contributor to AIPAC, spent $1.1 million on anti-Percy advertising in Illinois. Goland was later convicted of making illegal campaign contributions in 1986 California Senate race. Tom Dine of AIPAC boasted after Percy narrow defeat: "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians—those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire—got the message."

Roger Jepson (R-IA) was targeted after he agreed to support the 1981 sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia. This came after a personal plea from President Ronald Reagan. Jepson opponent in 1984 Senate race, Democrat Tom Harkin, received more than $100,000 in pro-Israel PAC money. Jepson lost his seat. Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) later said Jepson fate "has sort of struck terror into the hearts of senators about switching" on Middle East votes.

Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) ran for governor of Illinois in 1982. He first ran afoul of pro-Israel groups in 1980 when he introduced an amendment to reduce foreign aid to Israel if it did not stop building settlements. The amendment was easily defeated, gaining only seven votes. One reluctant opponent, Senator Quentin Burdick (D-ND), told him "Sorry, Adlai, but I am up for reelection." When Stevenson ran for governor two years later campaign contributions dried up and went to his opponent. According to Stevenson he and his wife "were reviled as anti-Semitic. Some in the press turned hostile. Jewish Democratic Committeemen wilted under pressure." Stevenson was narrowly defeated. He later said "the lobby made the difference in that election many times over."

Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) was defeated in 2002 with AIPAC help. She returned to office in 2004 but was again defeated in 2006. Hank Johnson, her victorious opponent in 2006 Democratic primary, received at least $34,000 from seven pro-Israel PACs.

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

AIPAC President Howard Friedman told the organization members in August 2006: "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a position paper on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship—so it is clear where they stand on the subject."

Tom Hayden was antiwar figure who ran for a seat in California Assembly in early 1980s. He explains how he won support from local power broker Michael Berman on condition that he would always be a "good friend to Israel." Hayden won the election. He notes that he "had to be certified kosher, not once but over and over again. The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations... An important vetting role was held as well by... [AIPAC], a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a friend of Israel."

Harry Lonsdale was Democratic candidate who ran unsuccessfully against Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) in 1990. He described his own visit to AIPAC headquarters during that campaign. "The word that I was pro-Israel got around," he writes. "I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, D.C., fairly early in the campaign, for discussions. It was an experience I will never forget. It wasnt enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave, from Florida to Alaska."

John V. Evans was former Idaho governor. He tells similar story about his 1986 campaign against incumbent Idaho Senator Steven Symms. He visited AIPAC headquarters. According to Evans they "emphasized constantly that they were not a PAC (political action committee)... But they noted that there were Jewish organizations all over the country that had their own PACs and that if we could contact them, they would be able to help us." According to Wall Street Journal AIPAC "steered Mr. Evans to a series of supposedly independent organizations—many of them run by people with ties to AIPAC—that gave him $204,950 for his losing race."

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

AIPAC success is due in large part to its ability to reward legislators who support its agenda and punish those who do not. This is based mainly on its capacity to influence campaign contributions. Money is critical to US elections. AIPAC makes sure that its friends get financial support so long as they dont stray from AIPAC line.

Many of the same individuals who bankroll AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right. Journalist Michael Massing used data from Federal Election Commission. He found that between 1997 and 2001 the 46 members of AIPAC board of directors gave well in excess of $3 million in campaign contributions. Many of them remain generous donors to pro-Israel PACs and candidates today. Washington Post reported in 2004 that since 2000 AIPAC board members have contributed an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political committees.

AIPAC helps connect political candidates to other donors and sources of funds. Despite its name AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not officially endorse candidates or give money directly to their campaigns. Instead AIPAC screens potential candidates and arranges meetings with potential donors and fund-raisers. It provides information to growing number of pro-Israel PACs.

Historian David Biale said the American Jewish Israel lobby has developed since Six Day War into one of most sophisticated and effective lobbying organizations in US Congress. It has done so in part by developing a national network of Jewish Political Action Committees. These PACs contribute funds to congressional candidates based on criterion of support for Israel.

AIPAC President Howard Friedman told members in August 2006: "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a position paper on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship—so it is clear where they stand on the subject."

Center for Responsive Politics is a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign contributions. It identified roughly three dozen pro-Israel PACs active in recent elections. In 2006 midterms these groups gave more than $3 million to candidates from both parties. Between 1990 and 2004 reports the Economist pro-Israel groups contributed nearly $57 million to candidates and parties. Arab-American and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000.

Steven Weiss of Center for Responsive Politics said: "If you are a candidate and you get the pro-Israel label from AIPAC, the money will start coming in from contributors all over the country."

Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

https://x.com/infolibnews/status/2115113262253584401

SOURCE : https://x.com/infolibnews/status/2115130914024116644 ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt throws a fit over people calling Gaza a genocide. 'I can't stand it!' 'When you hear that term used…write a letter to the editor!' 'When you see it on a post on Instagram or whatnot, flag the post and report it!'