The Israel Lobby— the real masters of America. Part 4
The one explains every single thing about the US support.
As we went through the justifications of the US support to Israel and saw that none of them hold water, there has to be something powerful that explains everything. And that thing is the Israel Lobby!
What is the Israel Lobby?
The term “the Israel Lobby” is a convenient shorthand to describe the informal coalition of individuals and organizations that aim to influence U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel. This term does not imply that “the Lobby” is a single, unified movement with centralized leadership, or that its members always agree on every issue. It is basically legal corruption and bribery.
The main part of the Lobby consists of American Jews who work hard to influence U.S. foreign policy to benefit Israel. They do more than vote for pro-Israel politicians — they also write letters, donate money, and support organizations that promote Israel. However, not all Jewish Americans are involved in the Lobby because many don’t see Israel as an important issue in their lives.
Jewish Americans have different views on specific Israeli policies. Many leading organizations within the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are led by hardliners who generally back Israel’s Likud Party and its opposition to the Oslo Peace Process. In contrast, most American Jews are more open to making compromises with the Palestinians, and some groups, like Jewish Voice for Peace, actively promote these concessions. Despite these differences, both moderates and hardliners agree on strong U.S. support for Israel.
American Jewish leaders frequently coordinate with Israeli officials to ensure their influence on U.S. policy aligns with Israel’s interests. This collaboration often involves consulting with Israel on major issues, as it is common for leaders to check Israeli views before taking a stance. There is also a strong expectation within the community not to criticize Israeli policies publicly, and American Jewish leaders rarely advocate for pressuring Israel. A notable example is Edgar Bronfman Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress, who was harshly criticized in 2003 when he urged President Bush to pressure Israel over its controversial security fence, with critics arguing that it was inappropriate for a Jewish leader to oppose Israeli government actions.
Jewish-Americans have established numerous organizations to impact U.S. foreign policy, with AIPAC being the most influential. In 1997, AIPAC was ranked second in power among Washington lobbies, just behind AARP (American Association for Retired People) and ahead of groups like the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) and the NRA (National Rifle Association). This ranking was confirmed in a 2005 National Journal study. No doubt its power of influence has significantly increased since then. The Lobby also comprises notable Christian evangelicals and neoconservatives who support Israel for religious and ideological reasons.
How do they “control” America?
The Lobby uses two main strategies to ensure U.S. support for Israel.
First, it exerts substantial influence in Washington, pressuring Congress and the Executive branch to back Israel. It aims to make supporting Israel appear politically advantageous.
Second, the Lobby works to shape public discourse positively about Israel by promoting favorable myths and suppressing critical viewpoints. Controlling the debate helps maintain U.S. support by preventing alternative policy discussions from gaining traction.
In this article, I will focus on the first strategy and the second strategy will be the topic of the next article.
Influencing the Congress and the Executive Branch
The Congress
The Lobby’s influence in the U.S. Congress is a central factor in its effectiveness. Unlike other contentious issues such as abortion, affirmative action, or health care, which spark vigorous debate, Israel is rarely subject to criticism or debate in Congress.
One reason for this lack of debate is the continuous presence of influential members who are strong supporters of Israel. For example, Christian Zionists like Dick (the name fitting his character) Armey openly prioritize supporting Israel, sometimes even over other national interests. Armey, for instance, stated in September 2002 that his “№1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel,” rather than focusing on protecting America. This stance highlights how certain members of Congress place Israel’s interests above other considerations. I am totally sure that there are a bunch of such people right now as well.
Additionally, Jewish senators and congressmen also play a role in ensuring that U.S. foreign policy supports Israel. Their involvement further contributes to the absence of critical discussion about Israel in Congress, helping to sustain a pro-Israel stance in U.S. policy without significant debate.
Pro-Israel congressional staffers contribute to the Lobby’s power by using their positions to influence decisions in favor of Israel. According to Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC head, many staffers, particularly those who are Jewish, consider their Jewish identity when addressing related issues and can significantly impact legislative decisions.
AIPAC is central to the Lobby’s Congressional influence. It exerts its power by rewarding legislators who support its agenda with financial backing and punishing those who oppose it by channeling funds to their opponents. AIPAC also engages in letter-writing campaigns and persuading newspaper editors to support pro-Israel candidates, thus amplifying its influence in U.S. politics.
AIPAC’s tactics are highly effective, as demonstrated by its role in the 1984 defeat of Senator Charles Percy from Illinois. Percy was targeted for his perceived insensitivity to pro-Israel concerns. AIPAC mobilized Jewish voters nationwide to ensure his loss, sending a strong message to American politicians about the consequences of opposing its agenda. AIPAC values this reputation as a powerful force that can deter challenges to its position.
Cori Bush, a progressive Democrat from Missouri, faced a similar situation in the 2024 primary elections. Known for her critical stance on U.S.-Israel policy and her support for Palestinian rights, Bush encountered significant opposition from pro-Israel political action committees and influential donors. These groups supported her opponent, contributing to a highly competitive and challenging primary race. The situation mirrored past instances where pro-Israel groups used their resources to influence election outcomes against candidates with critical views on Israel.
AIPAC’s influence in Congress is significant. Former AIPAC staffer Douglas Bloomfield noted that Congress members often turn to AIPAC for information, drafting, and legislative support before other sources. This reliance helps AIPAC shape U.S. policy on Israel, with open debate on the issue being rare. Former Senator Ernest Hollings highlighted that U.S. policy aligns closely with AIPAC’s stance, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon encouraged support for AIPAC to aid Israel saying: “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them — Help AIPAC.”
The Executive Branch
The Lobby influences the Executive branch through Jewish voters, who make up less than 3% of the population but provide up to 60% of Democratic presidential campaign donations. They are also concentrated in key states like California, Florida, and New York, making them crucial in close elections. As a result, candidates avoid alienating these voters. The Lobby also prevents critics of Israel from gaining key foreign policy roles, as seen when Jimmy Carter avoided appointing George Ball as secretary of state due to his critical views on Israel. This limits open criticism of Israel in U.S. policy.
In 2004, presidential candidate Howard Dean faced backlash for suggesting the U.S. should take a more “even-handed” approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Senator Joseph Lieberman criticized Dean, accusing him of betraying Israel, and top Democrats in the House wrote a letter condemning Dean’s comments. Anonymous sources also spread warnings to Jewish leaders that Dean might be harmful to Israel, despite his hawkish stance and close ties to AIPAC. Dean’s suggestion, which called for Washington to act as an impartial mediator, was rejected by the Lobby, which opposes even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Lobby’s influence extends into the Executive branch when pro-Israel individuals hold key positions. During the Clinton Administration, Middle East policy was shaped by officials with strong ties to Israel, including Martin Indyk (former AIPAC deputy director), Dennis Ross, and Aaron Miller. It is sure to say that the current amount of such individuals has significantly risen in the last 20 years.
As of July 2024, AIPAC has spent over $100 million on federal elections, including direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures. AIPAC’s PAC spent around $44.8 million supporting congressional candidates, while its super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP), invested approximately $55.4 million, largely on voter influence efforts such as ads and mailers. Current presidential candidates are fighting over who is a better servant of Israel, Trump or Harris? No matter who wins the election, AIPAC has both of them under the pocket.
References:
J.J. Goldberg, “Old Friend, Shattered Dreams,” Forward, December 24, 2004; Esther Kaplan, “The Jewish Divide on Israel,” Nation, July 12, 2004; Michael Massing, “Conservative Jewish Groups Have Clout,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002; Eric Yoffie, “Reform the Conference,” Forward, August 2, 2002.
Inigo Gilmore, “U.S. Jewish Leader Hit over Letter,” London Sunday Telegraph, August 12, 2003; Isi Liebler, “When Seymour Met Condi,” Jerusalem Post, November 24, 2005. Also see Sarah Bronson, “Orthodox Leader: U.S. Jews Have No Right to Criticize Israel, Ha’aretz, August 2, 2004.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Washington’s Power 25,” Fortune, December 8, 1997. AIPAC was ranked number 4 in a similar study conducted in 2001. See Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Russell Newell, “Fat and Happy in D.C.,” Fortune, May 28, 2001.
Jake Tapper, “Questions for Dick Armey: Retiring, Not Shy,” New York Times Magazine, September 1, 2002. Also, Tom DeLay has called himself “an Israeli at heart.” See James Bennet, “DeLay Says Palestinians Bear Burden for Achieving Peace,” New York Times, July 30, 2003.
Mitchell Bard, “Israeli Lobby Power,” Midstream, Vol. 33, №1 (January 1987), pp. 6‐8.
Edward Tivnan, The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 191. J.J. Goldberg, the editor of the Forward, said in 2002, “There is this image in Congress that you don’t cross these people or they take you down.” Quoted in John Diamond and Brianna B. Piec, “Pro‐Israel Groups Intensify Political Front in U.S.,” Chicago Tribune, April 16, 2002.
Camille Mansour, Beyond Alliance: Israel in U.S. Foreign Policy, trans. James A. Cohen (NY: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 242.
“Sen. Hollings Floor Statement Setting the Record Straight on His Mideast Newspaper Column,” May 20, 2004, a copy of which can be found on the former Senator’s website.
Published in an AIPAC advertisement in the Chicago Jewish Star, August 29 — September 11, 2003. Sharon is not alone in his appraisal of AIPAC’s power. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says that “I canʹt think of a policy organization in the country as well‐organized or respected [as AIPAC]” and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it “the most effective general interest group . . . across the entire planet.” Former President Bill Clinton described AIPAC as “stunningly effective” and “better than anyone else lobbying in this town.” Quotations downloaded from the AIPAC website on January 14, 2005 [www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html#say].
Thomas B. Edsall and Alan Cooperman, “GOP Uses Remarks to Court Jews,” Washington Post, March 13, 2003. Also see James D. Besser, “Jews’ Primary Role Expanding,” Jewish Week, January 23, 2004; Alexander Bolton, “Jewish Defections Irk Democrats,” The Hill, March 30, 2004; E.J. Kessler, “Ancient Woes Resurfacing as Dean Eyes Top Dem Post,” Forward, January 28, 2005. Hamilton Jordan wrote a memorandum to President Jimmy Carter in June 1977, in which he said: “Out of 125 members of the Democratic National Finance Council, over 70 are Jewish; In 1976, over 60% of the large donors to the Democratic Party were Jewish; Over 60% of the monies raised by Nixon in 1972 was from Jewish contributors; Over 75% of the monies raised in Humphrey’s 1968 campaign was from Jewish contributors; Over 90% of the monies raised by Scoop Jackson in the Democratic primaries was from Jewish contributors; In spite of the fact that you were a long shot and came from an area of the country where there is a smaller Jewish community, approximately 35% of our primary funds were from Jewish supporters. Wherever there is major political fundraising in this country, you will find American Jews playing a significant role.” Hamilton Jordan, Confidential File, Box 34, File “Foreign Policy/Domestic Politics Memo, HJ Memo, 6/77,” declassified June 12, 1990.
E.J. Kessler, “Lieberman and Dean Spar Over Israel,” Forward, September 9, 2003; Stephen Zunes, “Attacks on Dean Expose Democrats’ Shift to the Right,” Tikkun, November/December 2003.
Zunes, “Attacks on Dean”; James D. Besser, “Dean’s Jewish Problem,” Chicago Jewish Star, December 19, 2003 ‐‐ January 8, 2004.
