In Drive to Aid Israel, Lobby May Be Shifting Out of Neutral
An interesting article about AIPAC's partisan leanings based on a recent article in Roll Call. [I'll have to wait till I get that job on the Hill to get a subscription...till then I'll have to rely on follow-ups like this one from the "WaPo."] Personally, I haven't been following politics long enough to have an opinion but I'd say that one line in the article is 100% incorrect: "Apparently no tough words yet for President Bush, who last week defended Israel's attack inside Syria."
Perhaps the Washington Post forgot about AIPAC's press release from June 11, 2003 that got widespread media attention as being the first criticism of President Bush since he took office? Here's the press release in full:
"Abu Mazen has stated repeatedly that he is not willing to use force against the terrorist organizations that are attacking the people of Israel and seeking to destroy the peace process. As long as this is the case, the Government of Israel will and must take the responsibility to fight the terrorist organizations. It should be the policy of the United States to support the people of Israel in their struggle against terror until the Palestinian Authority is able and willing to assume this responsibility, as required by the Oslo accords, President Bush's June 24 speech, and the Roadmap."
The fact that AIPAC was suggesting what American policy should be was the most criticism AIPAC will ever dish out. But after a retraction from the White House, they issued another release the following day which read:
"The most important element in the global struggle against terror is the leadership of President Bush, and the statement of the White House today is another example of the clarity the administration is bringing to this subject. As White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, 'The issues is not Israel, the issue is not the Palestinian Authority, the issue is terrorists who are killing in an attempt to stop the [peace] process. … It's not as if a phone call will get Hamas to stop being terrorists."
Either way, I'd say that AIPAC either wants to continue to influence foreign policy [which, although not ideal, is better than CAIR etc filling that position] and the way to do it is by courting the party in power, or they really are moving to the Republican base just like the Jewish voters seem to be. According to the RJC, the 2002 elections witnessed Jews voting for the G.O.P. 35% of the time, and while this number is not mindblowing, it is a departure from our parents' generation and certainly a trend the Dems must be aware of.