Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2002, pages 24-25, 34

Special Report

Two Views

Is AIPAC Invincible?

AIPAC Power: This Dog Don’t Hunt

By Issam M. Nashashibi

“Pro-Israel Bankroll Claims Another Victim,” screamed the headline of the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) article that also read in part, “and now the message is clear: Unless you want the kiss of political death, stay clear of any Arabs and Muslims.”

Here we go again, I thought, another Arab-baiting article on the heels of the three the AJC published in its vehement campaign against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Interestingly, however, the guest column, written by an Arab American, did not once mention the word AIPAC—perhaps because the AJC editor recognized the fact that the author provided not a shred of evidence to back up his conclusions regarding AIPAC’s omnipotence.

Ironically, much compelling evidence points to many other reasons for the Georgia Democrat’s electoral loss. Indeed, Representative McKinney herself clearly articulated the cause for her loss: that the Republicans wanted to get rid of her more than Democrats wanted to keep her. Therein lie the real causes of her electoral loss: changed district demographics to include more Republican-leaning voters, the Republican “crossover” vote, and low turnout by her strong supporters.

Following the 2000 census, McKinney’s congressional district was redrawn to include more suburban whites and fewer African-American poor, her strongest base of support. Recognizing that, and conscious of the Muslim- and Arab-baiting attacks her Republican opponent used against her during the 2000 campaign, McKinney started fund-raising early to amass a formidable war chest for the 2002 congressional campaign. She was not unprepared for a competitive electoral race.

Having failed to defeat McKinney every other way, the Republicans adopted an approach that would enable them to vote for the Democrat of their choice: they backed an African-American woman running against McKinney in the Democratic primaries. Moreover, they passed on the opportunity to select their own party candidates by crossing over to vote against Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic primary.

Although the McKinney campaign was aware of the Republican crossover threat, the failure of McKinney’s strong supporters to show up in large numbers to vote for her was a last-minute surprise.

These same reasons were behind the failure of Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-AL) to gain his district’s Democratic Party nomination—except they were even more amplified, because Hilliard had not accumulated a significant campaign war chest. In addition, Hilliard’s small but dedicated campaign staff failed to muster more than 50 percent of the primary vote, thus forcing a run-off election in which more Republicans, having nothing to lose, crossed over to vote against Hilliard, whose base did not turn out to vote for him a second time so soon after the primary.

There is no evidence the electorate wants to know or cares about AIPAC’s so-called omnipotence.

Despite these very straightforward reasons for the two electoral losses, however, the press continues to mythologize AIPAC’s power and invincibility—a theme echoed in some of the Arab press in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot by promoting an opponent’s myth.

Interestingly, in yet another example of AIPAC’s self-proclaimed myth of invincibility, the Israel lobby’s leadership, realizng that John Sununu, Jr. (R-NH) was on his way to winning New Hampshire’s Republican senatorial primary, openly declared Sununu its next target. That news, however—not to mention Sununu’s victory despite AIPAC’s challenge—did not resonate with either the national or the Arab press.

Despite the mounting evidence that the myth of AIPAC’s power is indeed a myth, many in this country—including Arab Americans—continue to help promote AIPAC’s omnipotence by giving it credit it has not earned. Their objective, they argue, is to “educate” the average voter about AIPAC’s influence in order to motivate the electorate to combat it. Not only has such an argument failed to achieve its objective in the last 30 years, however, but there is no evidence the electorate wants to know or cares about AIPAC’s so-called omnipotence. On the contrary, there is compelling evidence to support the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s truism that all politics is local—something AIPAC certainly is not.

Nevertheless, AIPAC makes a point of lobbying every elected official—from mayors to senators—on pro-Israel issues. Unfortunately, there is virtually no group opposing AIPAC’s views and countering its efforts. This lack of meaningful opposition in and of itself makes AIPAC appear powerful.

Some argue that concern about AIPAC’s omnipotence is justified because AIPAC is a frequent topic of this magazine. These people fail to note, however, that the Washington Report’s objective is not to mythologize AIPAC’s power, but to force the Federal Election Commission to classify AIPAC as a political action committee (PAC), thereby requiring it to reveal its contributors and funding sources, and to disclose the manipulation of the campaign finance system by the network of pro-Israel PACs.

By insisting on crediting AIPAC with victories it does not deserve, then, Arab Americans and their friends further AIPAC’s goal by promoting its myth of omnipotence. Even more unfortunately, they look like a bunch of whiners, at best, or cry-babies at worst, because they lost despite being fully aware of the rules of the game of American electoral politics: that the only two routes to office are money and votes.

In an article in the March 1999 Washington Report, I argued that, while AIPAC’s “top-down” strategy has worked for Zionism, it might not be as effective for an Arab-American lobby, because the resulting competition would prompt AIPAC to increase its spending—thus demanding even more of Arab Americans’ scarce financial resources.

Regarded from a purely economic perspective, AIPAC’s lobbying results in more than $200 in aid to Israel for every $1 dollar AIPAC spends. That’s a lucrative business proposition no one would easily give up—but, to the contrary, would defend vigorously even if the annual expenses were multiplied many times over.

Another disadvantage of the “top-down” strategy is that it ignores the most basic objective—institutionalizing our relationship with the mainstream U.S. electorate—in favor of investing in individuals who may remain in Washington only a few years.

Arab Americans, therefore, should concentrate on a “bottom-up” strategy that approaches the U.S. political leadership through the other half of the electoral equation—votes. This requires grassroots organizing and mobilization, as well as the forging of alliances with similarly minded organizations, such as religious, ethnic, peace and progressive groups.

As a recent resident of the South and a believer in this strategy, I volunteered in both the Hilliard and McKinney campaigns—and became even more convinced of the imperative to provide long-term grassroots support where it is needed.

The most exciting aspect of this strategy are the opportunities it provides to inform fellow volunteers not about AIPAC’s access to Congress, but of the real human rights issues concerning Arab Americans, such as Washington’s bias toward Israel and Israeli apartheid. It is in this way that such issues become truly local—by creating an informed and active electorate that will instinctively work with Arab Americans on holding any representative’s feet to the fire on such issues. With a growing mainstream electorate which shares Arab American concerns about Israeli apartheid and U.S. bias toward Israel, we can build a real, and more permanent, force to counter AIPAC’s access in Congress.

While such a strategy does not eliminate the need for financial support for a candidate, it is a complementary, long-term approach with a lasting effect.

Issam M. Nashashibi, a U.S.-based director of Deir Yassin Remembered, is a recent resident of Dawsonville, GA.

Liberating America From Israel

By Paul Findley

September 11 would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land it seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president—even President George W. Bush this very day—could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:

• Israel’s present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank—biblical Judea and Samaria—so Israel would become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and inflluential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.

• In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.

Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.

How did the American people get into this fix?

September 11 had its principal origin 35 years ago, when Israel’s U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.

Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel’s U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967, when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.

Any determined president could win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid to Israel.

For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out—Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul “Pete” McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard and myself—were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.

As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lopsided in Israel’s favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.

However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel’s conquest and generally excoriate America’s complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as “my dear friend” and “a man of peace” after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.

The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to the BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel’s destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.

The lobby’s intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby’s tactics and Israel’s brutality.

Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment—but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible. Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.

Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel’s religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today’s most important foreign-policy challenge.

No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.

Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon’s compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.

If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he made the restriction because of “military necessity.”

If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel’s misdeeds.

Paul Findley, a former representative from Illinois (1961-83), is the author of three books related to the Middle East, the latest being Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam. He resides in Jacksonville, Illinois.