On the surface, it is business as usual for one of Washington’s most influential special interest groups, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Next week, handfuls of members of Congress, key Bush administration officials, and prominent foreign policy experts will eagerly address some 4,000 zealous American supporters of Israel at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington. Vice President Richard Cheney will headline the event. He will be joined by former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, Sen. Evan Bayh, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — all of whom are 2008 presidential aspirants.
AIPAC’s legislative agenda also conveys an image of strength, as Congress is actively promoting legislation, in light of the recent Palestinian elections, to cut all American funding for the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 (H.R. 4681) is quickly working its way through the House of Representatives. If passed, it will also limit the ability of the United States to support United Nations-run Palestinian programs and prohibit the issuance of US visas to PA officials or PA-affiliated persons.
But outwardly appearances belie the serious problems facing AIPAC, which could jeopardize the powerful lobby’s ability to shape the terms and tone of debate on Middle East policy in Washington. This is not to say AIPAC’s influence will necessarily wane, or that support for Israel will diminish. But the upcoming trial of two former AIPAC officials charged with providing Israeli agent Naor Gilon classified documents, coupled with a possible AIPAC-White House clash over Hamas, could change the organization’s posture from proactive to defensive.
When news of an espionage investigation involving AIPAC, Israel, and an official working for prominent neoconservatives in the Pentagon broke in August 2004, it generated brief, titillating reports in the American media. However, within weeks the story quickly faded from the headlines. The target of the investigation, Lawrence Franklin, became a footnote, and AIPAC did not take immediate action to distance itself from its two implicated employees. Many of AIPAC’s allies leaped to their defense, suggesting the investigation was conducted at the bequest of bitter intelligence officials seeking to discredit Israeli-supporting neoconservatives whom they blamed for leading America into the Iraqi quagmire. For months, it seemed perhaps the investigation critics were right. But the process slowly proceeded, and AIPAC’s Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were both arrested. Though AIPAC fired the pair, they continued to pay the legal bills accrued by Rosen and Weissman.
However, all these actions did not generate substantial media attention, nor discourage American politicians from working with AIPAC. Even with Rosen and Weissman under indictment, AIPAC was able to attract Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, and others to their 2005 convention. Its access to decision makers unimpaired, it continued to successfully promote its agenda in Congress.
Franklin, who worked under neoconservative luminaries William Luti, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, is now allegedly working with prosecutors on the case against Rosen and Weissman. The charges are serious and, if proven, will result in substantial jail time for both men. The inquiry may have begun as early as 1999. And clearly, since prosecutors convinced Franklin to cooperate, the target was AIPAC, not the former Pentagon official.
Concerned about its image, AIPAC’s decision to cut ties with Rosen and Weissman was politically calculated. While the “rogue employees” strategy paid short-term benefits, it could backfire. Rumor has it that both Rosen and Weissman are bitter over how they have been treated by the organization for whom they loyally toiled for years. The Rosen-Weissman legal team’s testimony could, at minimum, seriously embarrass AIPAC.
On the policy side, AIPAC appears headed toward confrontation with the Bush administration. While Bush-AIPAC ties have been extremely close, the White House is opposed to any move by Congress — supported and encouraged by AIPAC — that would tie its hands on Palestine. Clearly, the Bush administration is attempting to pressure the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority to change its tactics, in large part by threatening to remove the financial assistance carrot. But it also seems willing to see how Hamas conducts itself now that it is responsible for governing before implementing a draconian policy that would punish the PA and Palestinian public alike.
The Bush administration’s position is being supported by many peace advocates and moderate American-Israeli organizations that are mobilizing their members to oppose H.R. 4681. Americans for Peace Now, for example, has issued an action alert against the measure, and noted, “HR 4681 risks sending the message that even if Hamas meets President Bush’s requirements, or even if moderates manage to oust Hamas from power, relations with the US will not improve.” Some prominent members of Congress, including House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, are concerned about limiting Bush’s maneuverability.
Critics of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby should not gloat at AIPAC’s current predicament. Even if the Rosen-Weissman trial dents its image and exposes secrets, it is uncertain how much damage will be done to AIPAC’s political stature in the long-term. Moreover, one should certainly not expect any change in Israeli-American bilateral relations.
— David Dumke is principal of MidAmr Group ([email protected])
