Israel Lobby Congressional Junkets – as Usual

October 20, 2006

By Terry Walz, CNI Staff

PoliticalMoneyLine, a watchdog group that follows money in politics, reported on its website that while congressional travel spending has significantly dropped this election year from levels attained in 2003, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continues to spend freely on congressional junkets it runs to Israel. The junkets are underwritten by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), which is the 501(c)(3) wing of AIPAC.

In the period between July 2005 and July 2006, it spent $583,131 in travel expenses, sponsoring 62 trips to Israel for lawmakers, their relatives, and congressional staff. This was about one-third the entire amount spent on congressional travel that was reported for the whole year. In January, a CNI alert discussed the threat to these AIPAC trips as part of the new legislation curbing the funding provided by lobbies. The legislation, when it passed, turned toothless by the time it reached its final form.

According to Kimberly Geiger who reported on these developments for SFgate.com, the average cost is about $8,000 per person – hardly lavish for a trip that includes first-class airfare, hotel, and food expenses for a one-week trip, but probably more than most ordinary citizens can afford. The CNI Foundation, for example, is able to take delegations to the Middle East at the cost of $200 a day, albeit travel is not first-class nor are the accommodations four-star.

A spokesman for the AIEF, was reported in the SFgate.com saying that the trips were "considered among the most substantive, educational and valuable trips available for members of Congress," and were not intended to be used as a lobbying outing.

"While in Israel, members have the opportunity to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials, journalists, academics, political leaders…hear from speakers representing diverse views across the political spectrum and get a personal, firsthand view of issues." Increasingly those issues include homeland security and defense, and dissident views are few and far between.

However, the annual boatload of Republican and Democratic congressional visitors wasn't launched as usual this year, possibly because the Israel war on Hezbollah, which broke out in July and lasted more than a month, made it too dangerous for the congressmen to feel happy visiting the country. Many of them were busy in Washington endorsing the Congressional resolutions supporting Israel's war effort, which passed in July by huge margins. Nonetheless, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), one of Israel's greatest devotees, flew over for a weekend August 20-23 on the tab of the Tel Aviv University American Council at the cost of $5,920. Purpose: "meeting with government officials during Israel/Lebanon crisis."

So did another devotee, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who made a week's visit in August funded by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York ($6,744) for the purpose of gaining "firsthand experience of Israel in the context of the Middle East conflict." He traveled with Anthony Weiner (D-NY), another key Israel supporter in Congress, also funded by the Jewish Community Relations Council ($6,480), whose purpose was "fact finding mission re: Israel defending itself against Hezbollah."

Other private foundations allied with the Israel lobby fund travel to Israel. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) went in January during which he spent $9,290 underwritten by the World Jewish Congress (American section). He works tirelessly on the Hill on Israel's behalf. During 2006 alone, he supported on February 15 the resolution (S.Con.Res.79) calling for no direct United States assistance to any Palestinian government that does not recognize Israel; on April 5 joined the resolution (H.Con.Res.370) demanding that Saudi Arabia "live up to its WTO commitments" and end any boycott of Israel; on April 26, supported the Iran Freedom Support Act (H.R.282), which provides funding for Iran's anti-government "pro-democracy" supporters; and on May 22, supported the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 4861) that drastically curtails aid to the Palestinians, movement of Palestinians officials in this country, and any official contact between the U.S. and the Hamas-led government. In July he co-sponsored the resolution (H.R.921) supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon.

Rarely do the congressional visitors meet any Palestinians or even see the Wall, even though a visit to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is sometimes said to be scheduled. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), who went in August 2005 (costing $8,864), said she agreed to go because her delegation was supposed to meet with President Abbas and other Palestinian officials, but that part of the trip was canceled after she arrived. "The experience only furthered my belief that this (Bush) administration's Middle Eastern policy has been a failure, and that achieving peace will require the U.S. to engage at the highest diplomatic levels as an honest broker," she told Geiger.

High placed visits to Iraq, Egypt, or anywhere in the Middle East are never considered complete without a scheduled stop in Israel. Thus a visit to Iraq by the influential Senate Armed Forces Committee in October, including Sen. John Warner(R-VA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Jess Sessions (R-AL) and Mark Prior (D-AR) also stopped in Israel to meet with the Israeli prime minister, the foreign and defense ministers. Who can doubt the links between Israel and the American prosecution of the war on Iraq?

Politicians who have been reprimanded for straying from the Israel lobby line are now required to atone for their sins by visiting Israel. After he complained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the undue loss of life in Lebanon, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) paid an immediate visit to Israel to make amends. He told the Washington Jewish Week that the trip “reinforced my ongoing commitment to ensuring Israel survives and thrives in a very dangerous neighborhood.” The AIEF sponsored the trip, and an AIPAC staffer accompanied Van Hollen, should he fail to get the message.

This being an election year, politicians wishing to launch careers or having ambitions for high political office pay a de rigeur visit go to Israel. Former Virginia governor Mark R. Warner, went in April – before he dropped out – because, as his spokesman explained, he hadn't visited the country in 10 years. He scheduled meetings with Ehud Olmert, as well as with King Abdullah II of Jordan – but not with any Palestinian –and took time to visit the Lebanese border, Golan Heights and to the Wailing Wall, the arrangements being made by AIPAC, which nonetheless didn't fund the trip. Thomas Kean Jr., who is running for senator in New Jersey, also made his obeisance to Israel in April.

New CNI Poll Shows Americans Wary of Israel Lobby

Date: October 18, 2006

A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.

The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure.

The poll suggests that the espionage charges against two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the publicity given to a new study of the power of the Israel lobby by two mainstream academic professors has had an affect on people's awareness of the lobby.

The academic study, done by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University, was published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, and was the subject of a recent debate at Peter Cooper Union that included Professor Mearsheimer, Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia University), and Prof. Tony Judt (New York University) and three influential pro-Zionists, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben-Ami.

The poll's details show that 46% of Democrats tended to believe that the lobby was influential in the decision to go to war in Iraq while 45% of Republicans tended to believe it was not.

Along religious lines, while Protestants tended to be evenly divided on the role of the Israel Lobby in the Iraq invasion, 49% of Catholics tended to see the lobby's hand in the invasion, while 77% of Jewish Americans overwhelming disagreed with the premise. Among ethnic groups, Hispanics (53%) believed that the lobby's role was influential.

Among age groups, 50% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed that the Israel lobby had a hand in forming the current pro-war policy. As one might expect, those who call themselves progressive (49%) or liberal (52%) also agreed in the role of the lobby, while "moderates" (42%) and "very conservative" (44%) people disagreed with the idea, as did a significant percentage of college graduates (44%).

Eugene Bird, president of CNI Foundation, commented about the poll, "It demonstrates the need for widening the circulation of information about the role of the Neocons and the pro-Israel lobby in the corridors of power during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Some 1,035 people participated in the poll, which was conducted in every part of the country. For a full presentation of the data, see www.cnionline.org/learn/polls/czandlobby/.