AIPAC rules Ok?

June 30, 2005 4:17 AM

The New Yorker has an article about AIPAC ( the American Israel Public Affairs Commision ) and the ongoing spy investigation into Larry Franklin and his passing of classified information to AIPAC who then passed it on to Israel. The article points to the question of whether AIPAC should be forced to register as the agent of a foreign power and whether there is undue influence over American policy by Israel's Likud party.
posted by sien (14 comments total)

*Pulls up a comfy chair, pours a brandy, and settles down to watch*
posted by Jimbob at 4:54 AM on June 30, 2005

Are you anti-Semitic, or something?
posted by gsb at 5:02 AM on June 30, 2005

*Pulls up a comfy chair, pours a coffee, and settles down to watch - wondering how much of this thread will discuss racism, and how much will discuss the New Yorker article*
posted by scheptech at 5:32 AM on June 30, 2005

Wow, great, carefully reported piece. Those of you who can't bother to read before gleefully anticipating a MeFi bloodbath should at least deign to glance at the final few paragraphs:

Even some of AIPAC's most vigorous critics do not see the Rosen affair as a traditional espionage case. James Bamford, who is the author of well-received books about the National Security Agency, and an often vocal critic of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby, sees the case as a cautionary tale about one lobbying group’s disproportionate influence: “What Pollard did was espionage. This is a much different and more unique animal—this is the selling of ideology, trying to sell a viewpoint.” [...] Bamford, who believes that Weissman and Rosen may indeed be guilty of soliciting information and passing it to a foreign government, sees the case as a kind of brushback pitch, a way of limiting AIPAC’s long—and, in Bamford’s view, dangerous—reach.

Other AIPAC critics see the lobby’s behavior as business as usual in Washington. “The No. 1 game in Washington is making people talking to you feel like you’re an insider, that you’ve got information no one else has,” Sam Gejdenson, a former Democratic congressman from Connecticut, says. When Gejdenson opposed a proposal to increase Israel’s foreign-aid allocation at the expense of more economically needy countries, aipac, he said, responded by “sitting on its hands” during his reëlection campaigns, despite the fact that he is Jewish. “It’s like any other lobbying group,” he said. “Its job isn’t to come up with the best ideas for mankind, or the U.S. It’s narrowly focussed.”

And this is kinda cute:

AIPAC officials insist that the case has not affected the organization’s effectiveness. But its operations have certainly been hindered by the controversy of the past year, and the F.B.I. sting may force lobbyists of all sorts to be more careful about trying to penetrate the executive branch—and about leaking to reporters. And AIPAC now seems acutely sensitive to the appearance of dual loyalty. The theme of this year’s AIPAC conference was “Israel, an American Value,” and, for the first time, “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, was not sung. The only anthem heard was “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
posted by mediareport at 5:42 AM on June 30, 2005

great, carefully reported piece

um, no. sorry, not really.

let's pretend that it wasn't written by Jeffrey "Saddam = Al Qaeda" Goldberg, Jim Woolsey's favorite journalist. let's pretend it was written by somebody else, OK, because one does not want to make Goldberg -- and his sources and his motives -- the topic of this thread.

the problem is, this story argues in the end the AIPAC's case in the espionage embarrassment: ie, Larry Franklin was a loon, and AIPAC simply listened him to his anti-Iran rants, and nothing bad happened, and nobody except Franklin did anything remotely wrong.

to buy this story's argument you have to believe that the Bush administration wasn't interested in hearing highly-placed Pentagon men argue the case against Iran. and that Israel would be in the dark about the Iranians' bad, bad ways. what Goldberg is doing in this piece, he lets Israel and AIPAC off the hook. in the meantime, yes, he gives a couple of anecdotes about AIPAC men bragging about their influence (the "70 Senators signing a napkin in 24 hours" quip is indeed quite chilling).

and, if I were Franklin, I'd be wary of Michael Leeden carrying pro-bono big shot lawyers.
posted by matteo at 6:55 AM on June 30, 2005

If one wants to be a bit cynical about it, it seems aipac's aim is to buy as many US politicians as possible. Nothing to see here. Really.
posted by acrobat at 7:12 AM on June 30, 2005

I just heard a correction on NPR--paraphrasing: "...was not accused of spying. He was accused of passing government information to third parties."

I understand the semantical difference, but what I find interesting is that someone felt the need to have that corrected on "Morning Edition."
posted by jaronson at 7:13 AM on June 30, 2005

to buy this story's argument you have to believe that the Bush administration wasn't interested in hearing highly-placed Pentagon men argue the case against Iran. and that Israel would be in the dark about the Iranians' bad, bad ways.

Huh. I really don't see that at all. Can you clarify what argument you see that depends on those two beliefs? I'm willing to consider that my annoyance at the typically shrill tone in much anti-AIPAC stuff may be affecting my pleasure at seeing a factual article with a fairly neutral tone. And, too, maybe my conviction that despite its rote denials Israel is heavily involved in spying activities in the U.S. is coloring my ability to see how Goldberg (whose name I didn't recognize) "lets Israel and AIPAC off the hook." Still, I'd like to hear more, matteo.
posted by mediareport at 7:25 AM on June 30, 2005

to buy this story's argument you have to believe that the Bush administration wasn't interested in hearing highly-placed Pentagon men argue the case against Iran.

Oh I believe they were but just not at that time. Franklin's constant (and probably justified) focus on Iran, if it had been taken seriously, would've seriously undercut the efforts of the US in Iraq. And well they couldn't have had that could they.

he lets Israel...off the hook.

C'mon... if you think any US ally is going to turn away confidential documents relating to their self declared worst enemy just because they came from the US then I've got a bridge to sell you.
posted by PenDevil at 8:02 AM on June 30, 2005

If one wants to be a bit cynical about it, it seems aipac's aim is to buy as many US politicians as possible. Nothing to see here. Really.

And in the end, is this any different than any other lobbying group? Sadly, no. As long as our government remains for sale to the highest bidder, we can't really complain about who that bidder is, can we?

On the other hand, when campaign donations come from (say) Indonesian or Chinese groups, suddenly there's a lot more controversy.
posted by Slothrup at 8:52 AM on June 30, 2005

Aren't there very close ties between AIPAC and PNAC? That fact alone would signal how deeply penetrated and who thoroughly "owned" Washington is right now by these extremist Likudniks.
posted by nofundy at 10:44 AM on June 30, 2005

nofundy: "Aren't there very close ties between AIPAC and PNAC? That fact alonewould signal how deeply penetrated and who thoroughly "owned"Washington is right now by these extremist Likudniks."

In as much as both the PNAC and AIPAC both support Israel, yes. Otherwise, not as much. AIPAC is pretty ambivalent over who the president of the White House is as long as they support Israel. They're even more ambivalent about who is the PM of Israel. Likud, Labour they don't care as long as there is an Israel in the end.
posted by PenDevil at 1:30 PM on June 30, 2005

Actually, PenDevil, that used to be the case, but in the past 5 years, AIPAC has become much more closely aligned with Likud. Key appointments of personnel, support staff, and behind the scenes political machinations have all lead many to believe that AIPAC is controlled by the rightward elements in Israeli/US political society. But, as you say, in the end they are not explicitly tied to any political party both in the US or in Israel.
posted by chaz at 1:48 PM on June 30, 2005

I just heard a correction on NPR--paraphrasing: "...was not accused of spying. He was accused of passing government information to third parties."

I heard it too! I thought they said "classified information" but I can't remember.

I have nothing against Jewish people, nothing against Israel, but AIPAC is way too influential over what is going on in our country.

They should absolutely be curtailed somehow. I don't know how, admittedly, but they are for Israeli interests first, and American interests second, and that's not good for the USA.
posted by rougy at 6:02 PM on June 30, 2005