[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Training materials were detailed primers in advocacy, political networkingand suppression of competing advocates efforts.8 The program s leader,Jonathan Kessler, saw the program as the final component of a politicalrevolution which took place in stages after the Holocaust, the 6-day war, theYom Kippur War, and the AWACS battle of 1981 (Melman and Raviv1994: 312).He sought to set the terms of debate for the long term.Thefocus was not on the current aid bill or peace plan; it was on convincingfuture leaders that Israel was America s cultural and moral sibling and stra-tegic partner against the great threats to the West and that Arabs werenone of those things.Support for Israel would then be their default positionon any policy issue in the Middle East.By 1987, AIPAC s staff had grown from 25 to 85 persons (Smith 1988:217).Its budget grew from $1.8 million to $15 million by 1988.However,the congressional lobbying staff, which had been four in 1980, grew only tofive (Bloomfield interview).The rest of the new money paid for the researchdepartment, the costs of building and educating a large national member-ship, and fundraising.The relationship between AIPAC and its financial supporters changed.Many wealthy supporters of Israel also supported Reagan s economic pro-grams, and were happy to help AIPAC build strong relationships with theadministration.Being successful people, however, they wanted, and wereaccorded, titles and the promise of access to senior officials, even briefings atthe White House.Doug Bloomfield says that the small contributionsAIPAC got by on earlier came without strings, allowing a small, profes-sional organization to concentrate on the congressional lobbying it did best.Large contributions, however, come with ropes, and Bloomfield spentincreasing amounts of time briefing the new owners, and scrambling toexplain or correct statements they made (Bloomfield interview).Morris Amitay, Dine s predecessor, said executive lobbying was utterlystupid an oxymoron! Constituents could ask for a vote and offer a con-gressman political and financial support in return.[T]hese congressmen or senators & don t know that much about [theissues], and basically have to vote yes or no or to sign a letter&.Butin the White House or at State, they can t be bamboozled or co-opted.And they re negotiating things that involve Israel s security.(Melman and Raviv 1994: 322)Amitay s caustic comments capture the gulf between old AIPAC, anautonomous professional staff of former congressional aides, and new Strength and division of the lobby 99AIPAC, neoconservative academics overseen by a board of conservativewealthy Jewish leaders fascinated with policy-making.AIPAC s executive lobbying aggravated liberal friends in Congress andthe Jewish community by identifying AIPAC with conservative administra-tions in the United States and Israel.However, Democratic members ofCongress and candidates for the presidency continued to outbid one anotherin their support of Israel.It is difficult to perceive what was given up interms of effectiveness, at least during the Reagan administration.Political coordinationBecause it dedicates a substantial amount of its resources to lobbying,AIPAC is prohibited by law from contributing to, or directing contribu-tions to, political candidates.Its coordinating role in rewarding and punish-ing candidates has always been denied, even as the results of that effort weretrumpeted.After the AWACS vote, AIPAC s blessing or curse grew inimportance.Many candidates solicited AIPAC s help in ways that rangedfrom position papers to advice on staff hiring decisions.Several memberswho had voted against AIPAC were targeted for defeat.In the 1980 election cycle, there had been ten pro-Israel PACs.In the1982 cycle there were 40, and contributions rose from $414,400 to$2,027,200.In the 1984 cycle, there were 81 PACs contributing nearly$3.8 million.In the 1986 cycle, the numbers grew to 94 PACs and at least$4.6 million (Curtiss 1990: 37, 56, 75).9 The absolute numbers are not thatimpressive; pro-Israel PAC giving in the 1984 cycle was only about 4percent of total PAC giving (WSJ 26 Feb.1985: 1).However, it was$1,000,000 more than that of the single largest PAC, the 110,000 memberRealtors PAC (ibid.)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]