From Democracy to Aipacracy: America, Israel and the need for a Second Independence What Would George Washington say about today's AIPAC and U.S. Politics?

اسم الكاتب : Dr. Nayef Bin Nahar

المشاهدات : 3369

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned the young nation of "the insidious wiles of foreign influence," saying that "the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." Washington's prescient advice aimed to preserve the nascent republic's sovereignty and independence from the overreaching hands of foreign entities. Fast forward to today, and the echoes of Washington's caution can be seen clashing with the realities of modern American politics, particularly in the form of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Steven Rosen, a former AIPAC official, once illustrated the extent of this influence in a casual yet profound demonstration when he told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, "You see this napkin? In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 Senators on this napkin." This statement not only underscores the depth of AIPAC's reach but also brings into question the very nature of America's democratic processes. Where Washington feared entanglement, today's political landscape sees a foreign entity not only engaged but potentially dictating domestic policy decisions, suggesting a drift towards what can be termed as "AIPACROCY" – a governance system where a minority legally manipulates decision-making in favor of a foreign state.

This stark reality invites a must-have discussion about the need for what might be considered America's "Second Independence"—an emancipation not from colonial rulers but from the pervasive influence of external lobbyists that challenges the very core of democratic independence and integrity.

AIPAC's influence operates within the bounds of legality, yet it maneuvers in ways the law fails to recognize or restrain, raising crucial questions about sovereignty. Sovereignty implies a state's legal autonomy in making its internal and external decisions, an autonomy that is subtly yet significantly eroded by AIPAC's tactics. Although AIPAC's operations do not breach direct legal lines—receiving no direct support from Israel nor providing direct support to American candidates—it wields its legal leverage to secure a stronghold over American decision-makers, a reality unacknowledged by law and indicative of a loss of true sovereignty.

Reality, however, often transcends legal frameworks. The law may claim one narrative, but practical evidence suggests another. Many Arab and Middle Eastern constitutions, for instance, declare their governance as democratic, yet the democratic essence is conspicuously absent in practice. Similarly, the American Constitution proclaims that power resides with the people, yet in practice, the influence of AIPAC on matters concerning Israeli interests often overshadows the will of the American electorate.

AIPAC, therefore, represents not just an emergency response within American political life—a phenomenon that emerged in the 1950s and may not be perpetual—but a critical examination of the intellectual deviations that have characterized the political landscape for decades. While the foundational structure of the American system is fundamentally democratic, the prevailing influence of AIPAC suggests a transformation, perhaps temporary, into an "Aipacrocy." Until there is a significant shift in this dynamic, it may be more precise to describe the American political system under the term "Aipacrocy" rather than democracy.

AIPAC and Israel: History of Advocacy and Allegiance

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), initially named the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, was founded in 1954 by Isaiah Kenen. It underwent a significant rebranding in 1959, replacing "Zionism" with "Israel" in its name to better reflect its mission. AIPAC aims to fortify American-Israeli relations and is considered the most influential component of the broader Zionist lobby in the United States, which includes groups like the American Christian Coalition and Christians United for Israel.

Despite its establishment in the 1950s, AIPAC's significant influence on American politics began in the 1980s, during Ronald Reagan's presidency—a notable advocate of Christian Zionism and unconditional support for Israel himself. The organization's primary objective is to build a consensus among U.S. policymakers to support Israeli government-defined interests, often irrespective of the direction or implications of these policies, even in relation to U.S. interests and principles. This alignment has been critiqued for prioritizing Israeli interests over peace, as highlighted by Jimmy Carter, who said in 2007, "AIPAC is not dedicated to peace; they are dedicated to inducing maximum support in America for whatever the Israeli government wants."

AIPAC's methods include indirect candidate support via donations from its members, direct contributions through a newly established political action committee, and intensive training programs for policymakers, including trips to Israel. The group also ensures continuous U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, supports Israel's stance in international forums, and regularly briefs U.S. lawmakers on matters concerning Israeli interests. These activities and other tools position AIPAC as a uniquely influential foreign advocacy organization, significantly more impactful and, at times, more detrimental than other lobbying groups.

This is why AIPAC is not just another lobby; it represents a foreign nation's interests—specifically, those of Israel. This sets it apart from typical domestic advocacy groups that often adjust their stances based on internal policy shifts. For instance, when the Armenian lobby faced a dilemma as the Armenian government attempted to mend relations with Turkey, it openly criticized its own government, labeling President Serzh Sarksyan a traitor for compromising on the genocide recognition issue.

In contrast, AIPAC consistently aligns with the Israeli government's directives, irrespective of the broader or long-term consequences on U.S. interests. The genocidal war on Gaza is a case in point. U.S. diplomats, policymakers, senior officials, including President Joe Biden, have been advocating for a ceasefire and a hostage deal, but because of the personal interests of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC supported Israel's actions against the U.S. administration, viewing them through the lens of, not the American, not the Jewish, but the Netanyahu minority government's strategy rather than broader geopolitical implications or international responses that may lead to long-term far-reaching damaging consequences in the region and the U.S.

This alignment suggests that AIPAC's loyalty is not to Jewish people or Zionist ideology per se but to the residing Israeli Prime Minister's policies. This is demonstrated in the political arena as well, where AIPAC has actively campaigned against Jewish politicians like Representative Andy Levin, who opposed its agenda, underscoring its focus on policy alignment rather than ethnic or religious solidarity.

AIPAC's commitment to Israeli interests, even against U.S. national interests, has led to significant scandals, such as the involvement of former AIPAC staffers in espionage activities. These staffers were accused of passing classified U.S. defense information to Israeli officials, highlighting the lengths to which AIPAC will go to support Israel's strategic interests, often blurring the lines between advocacy and allegiance. This unique stance redefines the concept of a pressure group, placing AIPAC in a category of its own within the landscape of international lobbying.

The Foundations of AIPAC's Influence

AIPAC's influence extends beyond typical political lobbying and is deeply rooted in the unique relationship between the United States and Israel. Carter attributed Israel's dominance in American politics to two key factors: the genuine American Christian commitment to ensuring Israel's security and, secondly, the influential power of AIPAC. While true, this doesn't explain the power sources for AIPAC itself.

AIPAC's influence is not merely a reflection of political interaction but a manifestation of three primary factors.

1. Comprehensive Support Beyond Financial Contributions: AIPAC's power doesn't solely come from financial contributions. Instead, its influence is amplified by its ability to mobilize a broad network of members and Political Action Committees (PACs) that provide extensive electoral support. This includes direct engagement with candidates' campaigns, voter mobilization, and sophisticated media strategies.

AIPAC has been known to orchestrate robust campaigns against its adversaries, as seen in the smear campaign against Jamaal Bowman, which highlighted the extent of its capability to sway public opinion.

2. The Zionist Narrative: AIPAC has successfully embedded the Zionist narrative within American consciousness, using the powerful slogan "Never again." This narrative commits to the security of Israel as a sanctuary for Jews, underscoring a responsibility to prevent history's darkest moments from repeating.

The Zionist narrative posits that the West's failure to prevent the Holocaust obligates it to safeguard Jewish security, advocating that the best means of protection is ensuring Israel remains a secure homeland for Jews. Consequently, it becomes a duty to support Israel's security. More than the logical coherence of this narrative, its strength lies in its promotion and deep integration into the collective consciousness, a feat AIPAC has achieved by dominating major media outlets to control the narrative accessible to the American public.

With the rise of social media, however, the monopoly on this narrative is weakening, presenting a significant challenge to AIPAC's historical dominance.

3. The Evangelical Base: Perhaps the most profound of AIPAC's strengths stems from its investment in evangelical Christian support, where the theological narrative intertwines with political advocacy.

Many evangelicals believe in the prophetic significance of Israel, a belief deeply embedded in their support for Israel's geopolitical stability. This was evident when Representative Rick W. Allen emphasized the biblical implications of supporting Israel during discussions with Columbia University's now-former president, showcasing the depth of religious conviction in political arenas.

These pillars of AIPAC's strength collectively forge a formidable force in American politics, one that transcends traditional lobbying by integrating ideology, religion, and strategic political engagement that might contradict not only U.S. regional interests but also its democratic foundations.

AIPAC and the Vulnerability of U.S. Democracy

Democracy, while it can be robust and enduring, harbors inherent vulnerabilities that have been scrutinized by political philosophers since ancient Athens and not ending by the Founding Fathers of the United States. One critical weakness is the susceptibility to external influences, where foreign entities can shape government policy. This vulnerability manifests in the competitive nature of democratic elections, where the need for widespread electoral support opens the door to potential foreign interference.

George Washington warned against such vulnerabilities in his farewell address, saying, "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils." His counsel reflects a deep-seated concern that external forces could undermine the republic's autonomy and governance.

U.S. law explicitly prohibits foreign contributions to electoral campaigns, aiming to curb this risk. However, these laws only dampen, not eliminate, the possibility of foreign influence. American legislation, under the First Amendment, does not cap overall political spending, although it restricts direct donations to individual candidates and parties to specific amounts ($6,600 to candidates and $41,000 to parties per individual). Despite these limits, AIPAC's vast membership, estimated at three million, could hypothetically leverage ten thousand of its members to collectively raise substantial sums for a campaign, effectively circumventing direct donation limits using PACs and super PACs.

The law does not also restrict indirect campaign support, allowing unlimited spending on activities that promote a candidate's platform or disparage an opponent. This can include anything from issue advocacy to negative advertising, thus facilitating a wide array of indirect but influential campaign interventions.

This loophole in the U.S. democratic framework is not merely an oversight but a structural flaw that has been exploited since AIPAC's establishment in 1954, just six years after the creation of Israel and the Nakba. AIPAC's enduring influence is a testament to the depth of this democratic vulnerability, one that has historical precedents such as the U.S. legislative responses to potential Nazi influence before World War II. The ongoing potency of accusations of dual loyalty between America and Israel underscores the continuing relevance and danger of this democratic loophole. Could we see legislative changes akin to those of the pre-World War II era to counteract such influences today?

AIPAC: A Conspiracy Theory?