Let us call a spade, a spade, and the Israel Lobby a threat to democratic government
in Washington, London and Brussels
AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pretentious sounding name that implies a quasi-government department. In fact, it is an unelected, privately financed, lobbying group that promotes and sponsors pro-Israel policies to successive United States governments. These policies include huge, regular shipments of arms, loans, grants, gifts and financial concessions funded by the American tax payer but without his specific consent.
AIPAC was founded in 1951 as a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council. It has been described as ‘one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated that it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a “stranglehold” on the United States Congress with its power and influence.’ It is assumed that the Israel lobby in London and Brussels, as well as elsewhere around the globe, is affiliated to the US Israel lobby.
The Lobby receives support from both the Republican and Democratic parties and in that sense is non-partisan. However, it is reported that AIPAC vets every candidate for election or re-election to both the House of Representatives and the Senate and that any candidate unwilling to openly support the AIPAC agenda, is most unlikely to gain or retain his/her seat. It is not easy to prove or disprove this allegation but the substantial sums that the Israel Lobby awards to secure the election of its favoured candidates, is a matter of public record.
The threat to democracy rests primarily in the alleged power of this unelected pressure group to influence or control American foreign policy – and given that the US has a voice in virtually every country in the free world as well as in many other states – that threat appears to be substantial.
Given that the Israel lobby exists solely for the furtherance of the political and military agenda of a foreign state and has enormous influence upon Congress and, therefore, the Presidency, it would appear safe to assume that the above allegation has validity.
It is certainly true to say that any government that acts in the interests not of its electorate but in the interest of a foreign state is anti-democratic, i.e. it fails to represent the majority of the electorate.
One might contend that it would aid transparency if AIPAC to be automatically allocated maybe twenty statutory seats in the House and a proportional number in the Senate, by any incoming administration.
Then, the Israel Lobby, (i.e. Israel), would have the power to determine the quantity and type of aircraft and weaponry, if any, that could be either sold or gifted by the US government to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, the GCC including Saudi Arabia and, of course, to its own client state.
Furthermore, the Likud party under Binyamin Netanyahu could then proceed with its official charter to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem into a new state to be known as Greater Israel in which all Muslims and Arabs would be permanently excluded.
Israel could also be given a seat on the UN Security Council in order to represent its 7 million citizens whilst the 1.2 billion in India, plus the entire populations in Africa and South America would still have no voice.
If you think that the above scenario is patently ridiculous – it most certainly is. However, it now appears to be not that far from reality.