Below was written in 1989. AIPAC is only more powerful today as it grows it's army (members) of elite and those drones (the Pam Gellers) who labor for them. AIPAC boasts most if not of all the billionaires on earth. Everyone who is anyone belongs to AIPAC. All the powerful people. Rothschild owns everything and everybody. They own the banks, they own the governments, they own Hollywood, they dictate what our children are taught in school. CEOs all belong to them. Power absolute. It seems to me that the world is being formed into 2 groups; the good and the bad. Just like that. These people go this way to life and these people go that way to death... everyone makes their own choice. There's nothing new about that but today it's black and white, everyone stands unmasked. Truth stands clear from error (Qur'an 2:256).
"As a United States Senator, I have sworn to uphold the government of the United States, but I never dreamed that I would be required to swear allegiance to any other government."SUCH ALLEGIANCE is an even more prominent requirement of American political life today than it was in 1977 when then Senator James Abourezk spoke those words. The requirement is absolute. Advancement beyond municipal office is impossible without it, and in many cases even municipal office is barred to those who do not swear it.
The heads of those who challenged, questioned or even temporarily withdrew from that requirement are pillared at the gates of political office: twice Presidential candidate Adlai E. Stevenson and gubernatorial candidate Adlai E. Stevenson III, Illinois Senator Charles H. Percy, San Mateo Congressman Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, twice Undersecretary of State George W. Ball, Arkansas Senator J. William Fullbright, Texas Governor John Connally, Illinois Congressman Paul Findley, Kentucky Senator Walter Huddleston and, of course, Abourezk himself.
These powerful politicians were denied or removed from office by the most powerful political organization in America: AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Affairs Committee. AIPAC's guilliotine is so effective that no additional heads need roll to make its point. In two decades AIPAC has managed to shift the principal scourge of American politicians from the charge of "soft on communism" to "soft on anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism, in this context, means merely questioning Israel.
KING OF THE HILL
Whether based on fact or fancy, the perception is what counts: AIPAC means power--raw, intimidating power. Its promotional literature regularly cites a tribute published in the New York Times: "The most powerful, best run and effective foreign policy interest group in Washington." (Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out, pp. 26).
It's not that AIPAC is too powerful. The problem is that it's out of control. It is a self-stimulating machine with no corrective device. If you don't agree, you get savaged. That's the problem with activists [like AIPAC]; they want 100 percent cooperation, or else, they claim, there will be another Holocaust. But they can't get 100 percent. (confidential interview with a Congressperson, 1986, Edward Tivnan, The Lobby, pp. 255). An aide to Wisconsin Congressman Clement J. Zablocki said "Nobody in the leadership will say no to the Israeli lobby. Nobody." (Findley, pp. 68, 1977).
AIPAC GETS WHAT IT WANTS
AIPAC consistently gets more than it wants, and what it wants most is more money for Israel. How much money?
"For 1985-1986, the Reagan Administration budgeted $4.5 billion for Israel in military and economic assistance—about $1,500 for every man, woman and child in Israel; $6,000 for a family of four. (That amount of money becomes all the more striking when one considers that in 1985, Israel's finance minister, Yitzhak Moda'i, took home $580 a month; a postman or grocery check-out clerk in Israel makes about $200 a month; a top photographer working for a foreign news service earns the princely sum of $600 a month.)" Tivnan, pp. 217-218.Because money for Israel originates in Senate and House foreign affairs committees, AIPAC has long ago insured that each and every member of these committees is unconditionally loyal to Israel. Beyond this, AIPAC insures that every other member of Congress consistently votes and speaks out for Israel; that AIPAC's candidate is selected for every "interesting"assignment. In 1983, Secretary of State George Schultz appointed the head of AIPAC himself, Thomas A. Dine, to a blue ribbon planel of prominent citizens to recommend changes in the foreign aid program. Dine was the only lobbyist on this panel composed of 27 Senators and Representatives, a fact that made James Abourezk remark "It would make as much sense to let the president of Lockheed Corporation serve on a Defense Department board which decides what planes our air force will buy" (Findley, pp. 31).
How does a lobby become so powerful? It concentrates substantial resources on one issue with little or no opposition. Unlike aid to Central American fascists, there is little or no domestic opposition to aid for "the only democracy in the Middle East." 1988 lobby registration figures show a total of 112 pro-Israel PACs and 10 "counter lobby PACs" (what AIPAC labels "pro-Arab"). By September, 1988, (non-presidential) donations show $2,647,798 from the former and $22,920 from the latter (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 11/88, p. 46). Final figures were not available at press time.
Several ranking Congressmen—most of whom wouldn't comment on the record for this story—say they believe the political effect of Jewish PAC money is greater than that of other major lobbies because it is skillfully focused on one foreign policy issue. Wall Street Journal, August 1983.The nature of the constituency is exceptionally well positioned in American politics. A veteran Ohio Congressman observes:
When Solarz and others press for more money for Israel, nobody wants to say "No." You don't need many examples of intimidation for politicians to realize what the potential is. The Jewish lobby is terrific. Anything it wants, it gets. Jews are educated, often have a lot of money, and vote on the basis of a single issue-Israel. They are unique in that respect. For example, anti-abortion supporters are numerous but not that well educated, and don't have that much money. The Jewish lobbyists have it all, and they are political activists on top of it. (Findley, pp. 70).AIPAC further operates by labelling anyone "anti-Semitic" on the basis of any questioning of Israel and disseminates an "enemies list" of dozens of individuals and organizations identified as inimical to Israeli interests. This is in addition to the enemies list of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. Both lists include journalists and media which have not otherwise been properly intimidated.
FROM AIPAC TO PAC
What is a PAC and how does it work? Quoting from Findley:
AIPAC differs from most lobbies, in that it avoids endorsing candidates publicly and does not raise or spend money directly in partisan campaigns. Campaign involvement is left officially to pro-Israel political action committees (PACs). Over 3,000 PACs are registered under federal law, and almost all are directly affiliated with special-interest lobbies. There are 75 PACs which focus on support for Israel, though none lists an affiliation with AIPAC or any other Jewish organization. . . . Pro-Israel PACs contributed more than $1.8 million dollars to 268 different election campaigns during the 1981-1982 Federal Election Commission reporting cycle, putting them in the highest political spending range. By mid-August 1984, the list had increased to 75 PACs and they had accumulated $4.25 million for the 1984 federal elections.One hundred PACs, each giving $5,000, may wind up giving a total of $500,000 to one candidate in one election.
None of them carried a name or other information which disclosed its pro-Israeli interest, nor did any list an affiliation with AIPAC or other pro-Israeli or Jewish organization. Each chose to obscure its pro-Israel character by using a bland title, like the "Committee for 18," "Arizona Politically Interested Citizens," "Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs," or the "Government Action Committee." Yet all are totally committed to one thing: Israel.
Whatever their names, pro-Israel PACs enlarge the opportunities for individual supporters of Israel to back candidates. An individual may contribute up to $5,000 to a political action committee but only $1,000 to a candidate in each election. PACs, in turn, may contribute $5,000 to a candidate in election . . .(Findley, p. 42)
For the past decade, the majority of Democratic Party funding as well as an increading minority of Republican party funding has come from PACs. Perhaps the shortest list in Washington is that of politicians who have not received pro-Israel PAC money. Not surprisingly, a recent questionnaire of priorities sent to rank-and-file Democrats by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell lists nothing about the Middle East, let alone Israel. Mitchell himself owes his election to AIPAC.
AIPAC and pro-Israel PACs do not speak for all American Jews, and many Jews dissent fromt he policies of these organizations. Unfortunately, intimidation is so pervasive that this dissent must necessarily remain private.
What does all of this mean to Americans who couldn't care less about the Middle East? It means that substantial evidence was disclosed for the first time during the recent Oliver North trial that should have been brought out by the Iran-Contra hearings, not coincidentally chaired by Senator Daniel Inouye and Representative Lee Hamilton, Chair of the House Middle East Subcommittee. Neither of these AIPAC darlings could investigate too closely without uncovering the overwhelming participation of Israel in the Iran-Contra affair. Inouye got his start as a bond salesman for the State of Israel, and both men are among the leading recipients of pro-Israel PAC contributions (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 9/88).
It means that decisions about every region on the planet (not only the most volatile) will be made on the basis of AIPAC influence.
It means that we will continue to fund the repression and murder of Palestinians.
It means that our media will, by-and-large, debase truth and objectivity for the benefit of Israeli blessings.