- We started the year with high hopes thanks to the Democrats
having gained control of both Houses of Congress in the 2006 elections.
It was widely expected that the new Congress would follow the voters'
mandate to prevent George W. Bush's surge in Iraq and set a timeline for
troop withdrawal from that beleaguered country. In addition, it was widely
expected that legislation would be passed that would once and for all reject
and prevent official U.S. policy that utilized torture and would make sure
that the President did not even think about taking military action against
Iran without Congressional approval.
-
- So what happened? Did we get a timetable for withdrawing
the troops from Iraq? Hardly. The reason given is that there were not
enough votes in the Senate to cut off debate on the critical issues.
-
- Did Congress pass legislation that would prohibit President
Bush from using military force against Iran without first getting Congressional
approval? No. In this case such language had actually been inserted into
a military spending bill, but as reported by ABC news on March 13, 2007
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to
remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as
well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials
said Monday."
-
- Did Congress take steps to once again demand that torture
not be used by the U.S.? No. The issue was front and center during the
Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey as Attorney
General. Chairman Leahy and others tried to get Mukasey to merely admit
that yes, indeed, waterboarding is a form of torture and should be banned,
but he would not. The impasse was broken when Democrats Feinstein
and Schumer announced that they would vote for his confirmation in spite
of his refusal on this point.
-
- Ultimately, perhaps, the most serious offenses committed
by the current Bush administration can only be resolved by impeachment
of Bush or Cheney. But the same Judiciary committee which gave a pass
on Mukasey's nomination has been sitting on a resolution to impeach Cheney
for over a month, with no action yet taken.
-
- There are many other examples of failure on the part
of the Democrats in both Houses. They are called weak-kneed, overly sensitive
on the security issue, unable for a variety of reasons to take on the President
now that they control Congress. However, there is one factor, a key indicator,
that runs throughout these failures and that is the amounts of money that
key Democratic Congressmen and Senators receive from the Israel Lobby.
The Center for Responsive Politics, on their website <http://www.opensecrets.org/>www.opensecrets.org,
tallies the contributions that candidates receive from what they have identified
as pro-Israel PACs. Taking the Center's list of pro-Israel PACs and adding
up contributions given by those PACs to various Congressional candidates
from 1979 through 2006, a remarkable fact comes through-the current Democratic
leadership team in Congress has received twice as much pro- Israel PAC
money as the Republicans! According to my figures, individuals serving
on the current Democratic Senate leadership team have received $1,955,995
from pro-Israel PACs, whereas their Republican counterparts have received
$907,585 directly from the same PACs. In the House, $469,082 has been
received by the Democratic leadership team, with just $243,450 going to
the Republicans. Included in these numbers are $341,037 to Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, $279,206 to Majority Whip Richard Durbin, and $216,100
to Democratic Outreach Chair Jeff Bingaman. In the House Speaker Pelosi
has received $84,900, Steny Hoyer $140,626, and Rahm Emanuel a smaller
but significant $17,000.
-
- These figures for the Democratic leadership team do not
include the amounts from pro-Israel PACs received by Independent Senator
Joseph Lieberman. The same data sources indicate that Sen. Lieberman has
received $344,750 from these PACs since 1979. In 2005-2006 the same individuals
who gave money to the pro-Israel PACs also contributed directly to Sen.
Lieberman an additional $900,000, minimum, in helping him get reelected
as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. And it hardly needs
pointing out that Lieberman, by agreeing to caucus with the Senate Democrats,
has enormous leverage over issues of his choosing in that body. At the
top of his agenda, of course, is U.S. Middle East policy.
-
- Pro-Israel PAC contributions help explain other failures
of the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. For example, the nine
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved Mukasey's
nomination and have so far failed to act on the proposal to impeach Cheney,
received a total of $483,915 during just the period 1999 through 2006.
Similarly, the eleven Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, whose responsibilities include aid to Israel, have received
$610,579 from the pro-Israel PACs during the same period, 1999-2006, even
though Senators Webb and Kerry received none of these funds.
-
- Here's my advice. In any Congressional race in which
you are interested, seek answers to the following questions:
-
- 1. How much money has the incumbent received from
pro-Israel PACs? The answer to this question may in most cases be found
at <http://www.opensecrets.org/>www.opensecrets.org, at least for
recent elections.
-
- 2. Has the incumbent received a free trip to Israel from
the American Israel Education Foundation, a sister organization of AIPAC?
-
- 3. Does the incumbent have any staff members who
are supported by or were recommended by the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) or any of its affiliates?
-
- 4. Has the incumbent ever addressed the annual AIPAC
conference, where recipients of pro-Israel PAC funds are expected to show
obeisance?
-
- There are those who argue that AIPAC and its affiliates
are just another special interest group, so why pick on them? My answer
is that if you want to understand U.S. foreign policy, especially that
concerned with the Middle East, you must be aware of the influence of what
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M.Walt call the Israel Lobby. You must
also be aware of how that lobby works, and the quickest way to become knowledgeable
about it is to read Mearsheimer's and Walt's The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy, if you have not already done so. In addition, I highly
recommend the latest edition of Paul Findley's book, They Dare To Speak
Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. Findley, a Republican
Congressman from Illinois for 22 years who was successfully targeted by
AIPAC in 1982, gives a vivid, first-hand account of how the Israel Lobby
goes after any Congressman who attempts to take an even-handed approach
to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Findley was beaten by Democrat Richard
Durbin, who is now a Senator. But as the Findley case exemplifies, the
Israel Lobby's first allegiance is certainly not to the Democratic Party.
If that were the case, Connecticut would now be represented in the Senate
by Democrat Ned Lamont, rather than Independent Joseph Lieberman. This
has made a huge difference.
-
- The absolutely most efficient way to gain insight into
why the hopes and promises of the 2006 elections have not materialized
is merely to follow the money going from the pro-Israel PACs to Democrats
in Congress. In addition, one must realize that the reason the Israel Lobby
has been so effective is because Congressmen who go along with them will
receive their money and praise, but no criticism from other quarters.
Mearsheimer and Walt reported one instance, for example, where Senator
John Culver (D-IA) was faced with the decision of whether to sign a letter
being circulated by AIPAC. They quote Culver as saying, "It's easier
to sign one letter than to answer 5000."
-
- This is what must change. A Senator or Representative
should receive 5000 angry letters if he or she does AIPAC's bidding. To
achieve this requires information and awareness about the process and the
stakes. The information is there. The best way to get it out may be for
determined candidates in Democratic primaries to make sure that the voters
back home know to what extent the incumbents depend upon the Israel Lobby's
money and other support and how they vote on relevant issues as a result.
-
-
- Authors Website:
- www.polinetworks.com
-
- Authors Bio: Laurence A.Toenjes <mailto:ltoenjes@aol.com>ltoenjes@aol.com
is retired from the University of Houston ?s Department of Sociology where
he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group. Toenjes
received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University.
(<mailto:ltoenjes@aol.com>ltoenjes@aol.com)
-
|
