|
The lobbying process - not just by AIPAC, but by the other organizations you mention - is averse to creating documented proof of much of anything, precisely because lobbying is seen by the public as a dirty business, "like sausages - enjoy them, but don't watch them getting made". Therefore, one of the objectives of successful lobbying is to reduce the "fingerprints" on any successful lobbying activity in order to mute criticism about the lobby's influence. This is hardly limited to foreign lobby organizations. It is better for Congressmen and Senators to know you are big and respect you for being big than to have to publicly rub their faces in it.
When major pieces of legislation are passed, that a lobbying group exercised influence successfully may be "known" on the Hill, and may even be recorded in newspapers by journalists, but even here, the evidence is not documented in any real sense of the term: it is ancedotal and reliant on hearsay. Therefore, documenting a theory of AIPAC influence - or any other organization - must rely on hearsay, preferably hearsay that represents such a broad sampling by so many people that it is likely to represent the truth. Even here, it is based on reporting, NOT documentary evidence.
Frankly, the bottom line is, this is an argument about definitions. AIPAC is, in spite of the "I", an organization of American Jews, not a registered lobbying group for the country recognized by much of the world as Israel. Some view it as a lobbying group placing Israeli interests above American interests. Others view Israeli interests and American interests as one and the same. However, to be very narrow and precise, it is an organization devoted to the idea that Israel's interests are the interests of American Jews, so what's good for Israel is good for Jews who happen to be American citizens, and have every right to lobby the government of the country they are citizens of. The question being asked (re: the "myth/theory") is whether, minus AIPAC, the policy of the government would be different. This is, in some sense, a stupid question: of course it would! Government policy would be different if any of the other, "American" lobby groups you mention ceased to exist.
The real question being asked - legitimate or not - is whether AIPAC is distorting policy away from what is good for America as a whole in favor of what is good for Israel as a whole. This in effect raises the question of loyalty: if a given thing is better for Israel than for America, is that still in the better interests of American Jews? Again, legitimate or not, that is the real question. Without attempting to answer that question, I feel compelled to point out that either way, AIPAC is an organization of American Jews, citizens of America, lobbying for the interests of American Jews as the members of this organization believe those interests to be. It is possible for other Americans to disagree with them about what is best for America without EITHER side being treated as un-American.
Though a) that is generally the result, and b) I reiterate my original point: documented proof is a standard no thesis on lobbying can reach. There can be documented evidence, certainly, but that is evidence to be placed on a scale to weigh it towards one side or another; it is not *proof*. It is more opinion than fact. It cannot be otherwise.
|