Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
a lobby once dubbed an "800-pound
gorilla" for its ability to frighten senators and representatives into
supporting its efforts on behalf of Israel, recently seems to have lost a bit
fall, it strongly backed legislation that, if passed, could have derailed ongoing negotiations to restrain
Iran's nuclear program. That bill
obligated President Barack Obama to seek a deal requiring Iran to dismantle all its nuclear facilities, while also
forcing him to certify that Iran was neither supporting terrorism nor
testing ballistic missiles -- and it would
have imposed new sanctions if those conditions were not met. (An interim deal
reached last November limited Iran's
enrichment activities but did not require the closure of any facilities.) The
Obama administration opposed the legislation, but spurred by AIPAC's efforts, the bill garnered 59
co-sponsors in the Senate -- one shy of ensuring that it could overcome a
And then the bill stalled. In
his State of the Union address, President Obama was blunt: "Let me be clear: If this Congress sends
me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto
it." The following week,
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not bring the bill
to the floor. Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
and one of the bill's original
sponsors, gave a speech on the Senate floor, acknowledging the need to give
diplomacy a chance. And AIPAC
itself, while maintaining that it still supported the bill's thrust, backed
off, saying the time was not right for Congress to take up the legislation. It
was a humiliating public retreat for one of Washington's most powerful lobbies.
The defeat has been portrayed
largely as a failure of tactics -- a question of "who
played the Washington game better?"
In the Huffington Post, Trita Parsi, an Iran expert who supports the
nuclear talks, attributed AIPAC's
defeat to the "careful groundwork" and "intense
mobilization" practiced by a
"pro-diplomacy coalition" of nonprofits. In the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, a proponent
of the bill, charged that AIPAC had been
"almost entirely ineffective on the issue it supposedly cares most about. It
failed to persuade Reid to move the bill."
Undoubtedly, Beltway maneuvering
played some role in consigning the sanctions bill to purgatory, but its defeat
also revealed two growing weaknesses in AIPAC
that run deeper than shortcomings in its ground game.
The first concerns AIPAC's political base. For its first 30
years, AIPAC's directors were
well-known liberal Jewish Democrats; its natural base was among Jewish
Democrats; and in Congress, it relied on Democrats for support. Today, AIPAC's director is a Republican; Jewish
Democrats are increasingly skeptical of Israel's
conservative government; and in the Senate debate on Iran sanctions, AIPAC had to rely on Republicans who may
have backed the bill as much out of opposition to the Obama administration as
out of support for AIPAC and
The second weakness, which is
related to the first, has to do with AIPAC's
fundamental orientation as a lobby for Israel -- and, almost invariably, for
official Israeli policy. In the past, AIPAC
could convincingly maintain to Jews, Democrats, and official Washington that
America's interests and Israel's interests, as articulated by their
governments, were similar if not identical. That fundamental confluence of
interests was called into question during the debate over the sanctions bill -- by
senators who had been among AIPAC's
most dependable allies and by commentators in the media.
These frailties have nothing
to do with tactics and everything to do with the fact that the very conditions
that had made the organization such a success no longer obtain -- a trend that
began well before the sanctions debate.
UNTIL THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE AMERICAN Zionist movement existed largely to raise funds for Jews in Europe and
Palestine, which was controlled by the United Kingdom. (An American Zionist,
the joke went, was someone who gave someone else $5 to send a European Jew to
Palestine.) American Jews couldn't
influence what happened in Palestine through the U.S. government because
Washington deferred to the British. But that changed after the war, when
London, crippled with debt, sought American help in facing down an armed Jewish
rebellion in the territory.
American Jews now had an
opportunity to affect events in Palestine, but they feared that pressuring political candidates and lobbying
Congress and the White House for a Jewish state might arouse long-standing
American suspicions about foreign influence and "dual
loyalty." Asking voters to vote
for Jewish interests was considered taboo. Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the
Zionist movement's leaders, declared flatly in 1937 during the New York mayoral
election, "Jews will not vote as Jews."
But in 1943, Rabbi Abba
Hillel Silver and Emanuel Neumann joined Wise in leading the American Zionist
Emergency Council (AZEC), a
coalition of groups favoring a Jewish state. Silver and Neumann wanted to turn
the organization into a traditional lobby that would support or oppose
candidates based entirely on their stand on a Jewish state, even if that meant
defeating a liberal Democrat whom Jews would ordinarily favor. Jews, who were
generally liberal on social and economic issues, had begun voting Democratic en
masse in 1928, and in the 1940 and 1944 elections, they had voted
overwhelmingly (90 percent or above) for Franklin Roosevelt. But Zionists,
Silver wrote, needed to "pin our hopes" on the "pressure of five million Jews in a critical election year."
When Neumann explained this
approach to Hadassah, the main Zionist women's
organization, one of its officials said that the strategy "puts us in the same class as the
communists, whom we all despise,"
a reference to American communists who advised voters to pick candidates based
solely on what mattered to the Soviet Union. But Silver and Neumann prevailed;
the organization ran ads and billboards threatening Democratic as well as
Republican candidates. The strategy incurred President Harry Truman's wrath, and also influenced his
support for a Jewish state, but it failed to drive a wedge between AZEC and Jewish voters because almost
all the Democrats up for election backed the creation of a Jewish state.
The American Zionist movement
shrunk after Israel won its independence in May 1948. It also suffered a brief
identity crisis. Neumann, who had led the charge for Israel's recognition, now worried about
allegations of dual loyalty. He proposed that American Jews delegate lobbying
for the new state to "its
ministers and ambassadors." "[I]t should be obvious," he declared, "that
the Jews of the United States … should not be responsible for the acts and
policies of a state which … will necessarily be regarded and referred to as a 'foreign power.'" But his fellow Zionists didn't share his reservations. They wanted a hand in the new
state's future. The American
Zionist Emergency Council dropped the "Emergency" from its name -- a nod to having
accomplished its primary objective -- and AZC
turned from lobbying for Israel's
creation to lobbying on its behalf.
Israel was glad to have the
help. It wanted someone to lobby Capitol Hill for U.S. aid, but at a time when
the Red Scare had raised the specter of foreign interference, both the Israelis
and American Zionists were wary of using a lobbyist who would have to register
with the Justice Department as a foreign agent (and therefore report all
expenditures and label all communications as coming from a foreign power). So
when, at the recommendation of Abba Eban, Israel's
ambassador to the United Nations, AZC
hired Isaiah Kenen, Eban's former
public relations officer, to lobby, it didn't
have him register, even though his salary was paid partly by the Israeli
That did not sit well with
many in Washington. In 1962, Sen. William Fulbright launched an investigation,
and the Justice Department ordered AZC
and Kenen to register as foreign agents. In response, Kenen split off from AZC and reincorporated in January 1963
as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC
claimed to receive no funds from the Israeli government -- and there is no
evidence to the contrary. But though it was free of direct control from Israel,
it continued the practice, begun with AZEC,
of lobbying for what it believed to be in Israel's
interests. As a rule, though not always, this coincided with Israeli government
A few Senate and House members
continued to question whether AIPAC
was an agent of a foreign government, but the charge didn't stick. There were several reasons
why. First, the United States saw Israel as an important ally in the Cold War.
In 1970, Israel helped the United States by threatening to intervene in Jordan
to quash a Palestinian revolt against King Hussein. After the Iranian
revolution in 1979, Israel became America's
major military ally in the Middle East against the Soviet Union. In 1981,
Ronald Reagan's administration signed a "strategic cooperation agreement" with Israel. Thus, when AIPAC and other lobbying groups promoted
policies that favored Israel, they could convincingly argue that those policies
also benefited the United States.
Second, Israel occupied a
special place in America's moral
imagination. It was a refuge from Europe's
violent anti-Semitism, which had culminated in the Holocaust, and it was
surrounded by hostile Arab nations and terrorist groups committed to its
destruction. Israel's success in
the 1967 Six-Day War boosted its reputation as a David amid Goliaths, while its
near defeat in the 1973 war and the repeated terrorist assaults against it,
highlighted by the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics, showed its continuing
vulnerability. In the late 1970s,
popular support for Israel was further enhanced by renewed interest in the
Holocaust, as evidenced in President Jimmy Carter's support for a memorial museum in Washington and the
release of a spate of books, movies, and television shows, including the hit
1978 miniseries Holocaust.
Third, contra the fears of some
early Zionists, AIPAC didn't have to recommend that Jews vote for
conservative Republicans whom they might otherwise have opposed. AIPAC tilted Democratic and liberal,
like its constituents. Kenen had been a labor leader, and he was succeeded by
two prominent Democrats, Morris Amitay and Thomas Dine, who had been an aide to
Sen. Edward Kennedy. AIPAC was
focused on lobbying Congress, which was responsible for the foreign aid and
military budgets, and its prime allies were Democrats, who controlled the House
of Representatives from 1963 to 1994 and the Senate for all but six of those
years. AIPAC did back some
Republicans, but they were usually the few remaining GOP liberals, like Jacob Javits and Clifford Case, whom Jews
would have supported anyway.
Under Kenen, AIPAC had been a one-man operation, but
under Amitay and Dine, it took off. It went from having 8,000 to 55,000
members, which gave it a base of wealthy Jewish donors who could be called upon to
back or oppose candidates, and it created an impressive communications,
research, and lobbying operation. The best indication of AIPAC's power was its success in winning money and arms for
Israel. From 1974 until the Iraq war, Israel was the largest recipient of U.S.
foreign aid. (The 1978 Camp David Accords, often cited as the reason for
Washington's substantial aid to Israel, actually produced only a one-year bump
in the amount provided.) If House or Senate members defied AIPAC by criticizing aid budgets or
supporting weapons programs for Israel's
adversaries, AIPAC summoned its
supporters to fund opposing candidates.
Even its defeats managed to
showcase the organization's
growing power. In 1981, it fought Reagan's
proposed sale of AWACS
reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia, an important ally of the United States. AIPAC got 36 of 46 Senate Democrats to
oppose the sale, but its lobbying effort could not sway enough Republicans.
Saudi Arabia got its planes, but AIPAC
exacted retribution. In 1984, it helped Democrat Paul Simon oust Republican
Sen. Charles Percy, the chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee, whose support had helped bring the sale to the
Senate floor. Dine boasted, "All
the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy.… And American
politicians … got the message."
DURING THE 1980S, EVEN WHILE DINE WAS director
and courting Democrats in Congress, AIPAC
began slowly moving to the political right. That shift was partly the result of
an effort to align the organization better with the Reagan administration, but
it also reflected the growing strength in Israel of the conservative Likud
party. The pro-business Likud is closer politically to the GOP; and Republicans more easily
understood its hawkish push for a "Greater
Israel" that included the West
Bank. Since ousting the Labor Party in 1977, it has dominated Israeli politics
for all but 10 of the last 37 years.
In 1982, AIPAC's board of directors, which
consisted of major financial contributors to the organization and its favored
candidates, for the first time chose a Republican, Robert Asher, as president. In
1993, the board fired Dine and soon elevated Howard Kohr, a Republican
operative, to become its executive director. Over these years, the only time AIPAC deviated from Israeli government
policy -- when it was lukewarm over the 1993 Oslo Accords that Labor Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin had signed -- showed its increasing hawkishness.
In moving rightward, AIPAC reached the apotheosis of its
power and influence during President George W. Bush's first term. In reaction to the 9/11 attacks, Bush and the
Republican Party identified Israel as a prime ally in the war on terrorism.
Republicans and conservative evangelical Protestants (alarmed by the perceived
Islamist threat) flocked to Israel's
banner. While retaining its Democratic support, AIPAC
increasingly looked rightward for support.
AIPAC is not a political action committee (PAC). It exercises its influence
primarily through its directors'
contributions and through advising its members about which candidates to
support -- either through direct contributions or through giving to local
pro-Israel PACs. There is no
public record of where all the money goes, but one indication of who gets AIPAC's support is contributions made by
these local PACs. From 2007 to
2012, three of the five U.S. senators and, during 2011-2012, three of the five
representatives who received the most funding from these pro-Israel PACs were Republicans. They included
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House leaders Eric Cantor and John
Boehner, and Sen. Mark Kirk, an original co-sponsor of the Iran sanctions bill.
Sometime during Bush's second term, however, as AIPAC was continuing its movement
rightward, it began almost imperceptibly, and then very visibly, to lose
influence. One key factor was a change in the global security environment,
which became less conducive to a simple identification of America's interests with Israel's. By 2007, Pentagon officials, bogged
down with fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, were already expressing skepticism
about the idea of a global war on terrorism. There were still terrorist and
radical Islamist movements in the Middle East, but they had become primarily a
threat to stability in particular countries. Israel's continuing conflict with the Palestinians, once
considered part of the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, was
increasingly seen as a catalyst for
it, as well as a source of broader regional instability and anti-Americanism.
When he was heading operations
in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus said out loud what many U.S. foreign policy
officials had come to believe. He warned that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to
a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question
limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples … and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile,
al Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support."
Simultaneously, American Jews
became more supportive of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. During the
Reagan era, Jewish Democrats had been willing to overlook their discomfort with
Israeli expansion into the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights because
they were concerned about Israel's
ability to defend itself against its enemies. But during Rabin's pursuit of the Oslo Accords, they had
glimpsed the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the long-standing
conflict. During the first years of Bush's
war on terrorism and of the Palestinians'
Second Intifada, they had again become preoccupied with Israel's security, but as the fear of al Qaeda
eased and as the Palestinians elected a moderate president, they looked to
Israel to resume negotiations with the Palestinians. And when Obama made the
peace process one of his top first-term priorities, only to encounter
resistance from newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- and
from AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation
League, and other members of the pro-Israel lobby -- Jewish Democrats quickly
became disillusioned with Israel's
government and its supporters in Washington.
The founding of J Street, an
organization set up by Jewish Democrats to advocate a two-state solution, was
one result of that disillusionment. And unlike earlier Jewish groups that have
tried but failed to successfully challenge AIPAC,
J Street has taken hold and grown. Since 2008, its budget has gone from $1.5
million to about $7 million. It has a staff of 50, an online network of
180,000, with 46 local groups, and a powerful student organization with some 55
chapters. And, unlike AIPAC, its
views of Netanyahu and negotiations reflect those of most Jewish
Democrats. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, only 32 percent of Jewish Democrats thought the
Israeli government was "making a
sincere effort to bring about a peace settlement," and 56 percent believed West Bank settlements "hurt"
The rift between Democrats and AIPAC deepened when the Obama
administration began talks with Iran intended to prevent it from building
nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief. Last fall, the United States
and its negotiating partners reached an interim deal with Tehran that slows its
uranium enrichment and allows more stringent monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities while the parties
hammer out a long-term accord. But Netanyahu rejected the interim agreement
because it permits Iran to retain civilian nuclear facilities that produce
fissile material, which could conceivably be further enriched for weapons use.
And AIPAC began promoting
legislation that echoed Netanyahu's demand that sanctions not be removed unless
Iran dismantled all its nuclear-related facilities. In the
same language that AIPAC used in a
policy brief, the bill introduced by Menendez and Kirk said that America should
"stand with Israel" if it decided to attack Iran.
The clash over the bill
further alienated Jewish Democrats and dramatized AIPAC's growing dependence on Republicans. In the Senate, 43
of 45 Republicans backed the Iran sanctions bill, but only 16 of 55 members of
the Democratic caucus supported it. That's
almost the mirror image of Senate support for the 1981 AWACS bill. Powerful Jewish senators Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein,
who chair the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, respectively, came
out against the bill, as did the Democrats'
2016 presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton. "While I recognize and share Israel's concern [about Iran],"
"we cannot let Israel determine
when and where the United States goes to war."
That was a rebuke not only of Netanyahu, but also of AIPAC. J Street opposed the bill, and Rabbi Jack Moline, the
new head of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), directly accused AIPAC
of "essentially threatening people that if they don't vote a particular way,
that somehow that makes them anti-Israel or means the abandonment of the Jewish
community." The NJDC has rarely,
if ever, taken public issue with AIPAC
in this manner.
Not long ago, AIPAC was considered nearly untouchable,
and the suggestion that U.S. security interests might conflict with Israeli
interests was a subject that could provoke heated, even vitriolic responses. In
2007, scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer argued in The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that AIPAC and other
pro-Israel lobbyists successfully pressured politicians to back an "uncritical and uncompromising
relationship with Israel." Their
views, first published in a 2006 article, were denounced as "anti-Semitic" in the Washington
Post, the New Republic,
and other mainstream publications. When former AIPAC
staffer M.J. Rosenberg described members of the pro-Israel lobby as "Israel firsters" in a 2011 column that he wrote for Media Matters, a liberal
nonprofit, he too was denounced as anti-Semitic -- and Media Matters stopped
running his column.
But as AIPAC has
explicitly sided with Netanyahu over Obama, prominent liberal-leaning
commentators and policy experts have begun to criticize the organization more
freely. As columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the
New York Times last fall:
[N]ever have I seen more lawmakers -- Democrats and
Republicans -- more willing to take Israel's
side against their own president's.
I'm certain this comes less from
any careful consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many
American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to
garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.
On The Daily Show,
Jon Stewart ridiculed the Democrats who back further Iran sanctions as "senators from the great state of
Israel." He quipped, "Wait a minute.… That's a whole other country entirely. Why
do we have to listen to them?" MSNBC host Chris Hayes, after showing a
clip of Netanyahu declaring the interim agreement with Iran a "historic mistake," asked: "Why
the heck are 16 Senate Democrats co-sponsoring this piece of legislation?… The
only plausible answer is that these Democrats either genuinely want military escalation with
Iran or they are afraid of the extremely powerful and influential American
Israel Political Action [sic] Committee."
And writing in Haaretz, commentator Peter Beinart contrasted American Jewry's support for Obama's initiative -- by almost 2-to-1, in an American Jewish Committee poll -- with the opposition from the leaders of AIPAC and similar groups. These leaders, he wrote, "are more responsive than other American
Jews to the concerns of Benjamin Netanyahu, who clearly hates Obama's nuclear diplomacy."
Not only is AIPAC coming in for more criticism than
in the past, but it's coming in
for more criticism from the very wing of American politics that, once upon a
time, formed its natural base of support. AIPAC
knows that and is desperate to do something about it. On Feb. 5, as support for
the sanctions bill was eroding still further among Democrats -- three of the 16
co-sponsoring Democrats had already announced they no longer would urge a vote
on it -- AIPAC posted a help-wanted
ad on JewishJobs.com for a "national progressives outreach
constituency director" who would "promote pro-Israel advocacy among
progressive political leaders and activists."
However, it may take more
than a skillful coordinator who can "develop
and maintain relationships" to
bolster AIPAC's standing among
progressives. To do that, AIPAC
would have to be willing to adopt positions that clash sharply with those of
government -- whether on the peace process or negotiations with Iran. It would
also have to be willing to forgo supporting Republican politicians like Cantor
and McConnell, who, while favoring aid to Israel, are anathema to liberal voters.
By backing these conservatives, AIPAC has confirmed the qualms that Wise and officials from Hadassah expressed some
70 years ago. It's doubtful,
however, that AIPAC is ready to
break with its current strategy.
The coming year will be
telling. Although midway through his first term Obama had backed off his
initial push for peace with the Palestinians, he and his new secretary of
state, John Kerry, have picked it up once again. AIPAC may soon be forced to decide whether to back a
proposal for peace that Netanyahu resists. Similarly, the Iran negotiations may
also result in a long-term agreement that could promise broad sanctions relief.
That step could require congressional approval, at which point AIPAC could exploit Republican
opposition to Obama in an effort to block the deal's implementation. AIPAC
might well succeed -- and the Israeli government would likely be pleased. But
severing AIPAC's remaining ties to
liberals and Democrats could ultimately prove fatal, even to an 800-pound
John B. Judis is a senior editor at the New Republic and the author of Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, from which parts of this article were adapted.
Illustration by Topos Graphics