American Israel Public Affairs Committee Research Articles

Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and Canadian Jews Lobby for Israel (review)

116 SHOFAR Shapiro delineates what he refers to as Begin's myths. These centrally involved the purpose of Israel to revive the magnificent history of the Jewish PGople through military struggle and with Begin as the chosen instrument, a myth said to be identical to those that had prevailed among Polish nationalist circles during the period of Pilsudski. Berut as a "leader party" is convincingly examined, although at times it tends to be somewhat too much a blow-by-blow account. An interesting theme which in some form has received attention by other commentators (including this reviewer) is seeing Berut as a party giving expression to the desires of various groups like the Oriental]ews for greater status in the Israeli social structure. Shapiro sees the party myths as helping fulfill an important bonding action for new groups. The author presents a revealing insight into the phenomenon observed by various political commentators that Herut-Likud offers a more impressive sense of belonging and partnership for new members; in a leader party lacking a mediating intermediate level of membership (leadership?) new members co-opted to party institutions gained a sense of belonging and partnership not available in other Israeli parties which were seen as machine ruled. Shapiro'S book then is a significant study which makes a good contribution to the literature of Israeli party polities in general, and for those seeking a fuller understanding of a major political movement and the controversial m:ln who was its dominating leader for so many years. SCott D. Johnston Department of Political Science Hamline University Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and Canadian Jews Lobby for Israel, by David Howard Goldberg. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990.197 pp. $45.00. For students of contemporary Canadian foreign policy, this reviewer included, David Goldberg's Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and CanadianJews Lobbylor Israel is a welcome and informative addition to a limited if growing literature on Canada's approaches to the Middle East. Goldberg's concern, however, is not to document the spectrum of those approaches. It is, rather, to focus on what he defines as the "pro-Israel political activities" of organized Jewish communities in Canada, and specifically the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC). Vol. 10, No. 4 Summer 1992 117 Until recently, very little was known about the influence on the Canadian foreign policy process of interest groups in general or ethnic groups in particular. While it was widely believed that the influence of these groups was somewhat greater than the reported levels of their activity, Goldberg's documented analysis of the behavior of the CIC both supports and qualifies this belief. This volume, then, makes a useful contribution to the little explored field of Canadian interest group behavior. As a study in the political activity of an ethnic lobby, it is also timely in view of the growing ethnic dimension to Canadian politics. Through interviews in major Canadian cities, and by culling the existing literature, Goldberg explores the history, mandate, and organizational structure of the CIC. He then turns to the lobbying activities of the Committee from the time of the 1973 Yom Kippur War through the highly controversial decision of the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to "postpone" Canada's hosting of the 1975 United Nations Conference on the Prevention of Crime, and the equally controversial decisions of the short-lived Conservative government ofjoe Clark in 1979 to recognize and then nm lO recognize jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel. He concludes with the late 1980s and the Palestinian intifada. Parallel analyses of the history and activity of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee are provided, perhaps not so much with a view toward providing new insights inlO the activities of AI PAC but for purposes of comparing the lobbying efforts of similar ethnic groups in republican and parliamentary political systellls. That Goldberg would find differences is instructive but not surprising. He rightly notes that the essential difference I;etween AI PAC and the CIC lies in their power to influence the Middle East policies of their respective states. But he wrongly concludes that the limited power of the CIC can be attributed principally to...

The Economic Impact of the Israeli Loan Guarantees

Throughout the recent debate over Israel's request for $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for the absorption of Soviet Jewish immigrants, proponents of the assistance have maintained that it would cost the American taxpayer nothing. Sensitive to the growing U.S. budget deficit (which could reach $400 billion next year) and the general unpopularity of foreign aid, Israel's American supporters have taken pains to emphasize that loan guarantees are not a handout. Typical is this statement by Douglas M. Bloomfield, a lobbyist and former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

Foreign policy and ethnic interest groups: American and Canadian Jews lobby for Israel

Theory and Background The American Israel Public Affairs Committee: History, Mandate, Organizational Structure The Canada-Israel Committee: History, Mandate, Organizational Structure AIPAC and U.S. Middle East Policy: October 1973-December 1988 The CIC and Canada's Middle East Policy: October 1973-December 1988 Findings and Conclusions Bibliography Index

Image and Issues and the AIPAC Conference, 21–23 May 1989

Certainly the most newsworthy event of the 30th Annual Policy Conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held in Washington, D.C., was U.S. secretary of state James Baker's much-publicized speech* * on 22 May calling on Israel to lay aside a vision of greater Israel . . . stop settlement activity. Allow schools to open. Foreswear annexation. Although the speech, stressing the land for peace formula and exhorting both Arabs and Israelis to make concessions, marked no new departures in U.S. policy, it appeared to startle some members by its directness. More important, its focus on substance and issues contrasted sharply with AIPAC's preoccupation with image-a theme that was pervasive throughout the three-day gathering of 2,000 members of the pro-Israel lobbying group. The question of image and the need to carry the truth about Israel to the political molders in the world we live in-to use the phrase of president Edward Levy in his opening remarks to the conference-took on particular importance at a time when the PLO was seen as having made important inroads in American opinion. As executive director Thomas Dine noted in his State of AIPAC address, Since the last time

Paul Findley: Congress and the Pro-Israel Lobby

Paul Findley served as a Republican Congressman from Illinois for twenty-two years before losing his seat by a narrow margin in 1982 to a candidate heavily backed by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Congressman Findley recently completed a book, They Dare to Speak Out (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill and Company), in which he documents how the pro-Israel lobby helps to shape important aspects of U. S. foreign policy, as well as how it influences congressional, senatorial, and presidential elections. JPS interviewed Congressman Findley on 6 September 1985.

The United States and Israel: Partners for Peace and Freedom: US Secretary of State George Shultz

Following is an address by Secretary Shultz before the Annual Policy Conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Crystal City, Virginia, 21 April 1985. We Americans are united by values and ideals that have guided us since the founding of this nation. We seek to preserve and promote freedom-freedom to vote, freedom to speak, write, think, and worship as one chooses. We believe in toleranceand religious tolerance, in particular. We believe in justice and equality under the law. We are committed to democratic governments as the best, if not the only way to protect the rights, well-being, and dignity of all men and women. We have also understood that to pursue these noble goals, we have to be strong enough to defend our country and our way of life against aggression. And we must have an equally strong commitment to international peace and security. A world of peace offers the best hope for the spread of freedom; and a world of freedom offers the best hope for lasting peace. In the latter half of this century, both the defense of freedom and the achievement of peace have come to depend on American strength. There can only be peace when potential aggressors know that they cannot hope to achieve their aims through war. In the modem world, that means that America, as the strongest democracy on earth, has a responsibility to stand with those who share our hopes and dreams. These principles inform every action we take in our foreign policy. Today, I would like to talk about how our ideals, our morality, and our responsibilities in the world apply to our relationship with Israel and to our hopes for peace in the Middle East. The United States supported the creation of the state of Israel almost four decades ago because of moral convictions deeply rooted in the American character. We knew of the centuries of persecution suffered by the Jews, and we had witnessed the horror of the Nazi Holocaust. No decent American could fail to see the justice and necessity of a Jewish state where Jews could live without fear.

The Zionist Organizational Structure

In 1963, under the chairmanship of Senator J.W. Fulbright, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate began a series of hearings into the activities of foreign agents in the United States in order to make any necessary amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. In two sessions, in May and August of that year, some interesting relationships were revealed among the major Jewish organizations which then dominated the Zionist in the United States. Specifically dealt with for the period prior to 1960 were the Jewish Agency for Israel, Inc.; the Jewish Agency for Israel, Jerusalem (Jerusalem Agency); the United Israel Appeal, Inc.; the United Jewish Appeal; the American Zionist Council; and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). A brief review of each of these organizations is essential for understanding the structure of the Zionist lobby in the aftermath of 1948 and the establishment of the State of Israel, and more particularly, for viewing the lobby as it operates today in the United States and plays a role in US foreign policy in the 1970's.