Abstract
This study argues that U.S. public policy is influenced by both formal and informal actors, and because the United States is a liberal state, informal actors such as lobbying groups wield considerable influence and authority over American decision-makers and policymakers.
The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most significant lobbying groups in the U.S., exerting strong influence over American public policy makers. AIPAC is also a prominent organization concerned with global Zionism, aiming to align U.S. policy with Israeli interests amidst the surge of American students at major universities calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza, and the subsequent violations of the freedom of speech that the West often boasts about.
Keywords: Partisan dualism; Electoral College; Lobby; AIPAC; Freedom of opinion and expression.
Introduction
It is critically important to study how AIPAC influences political and presidential life in the United States. While it has an indirect influence in the Arab world through American administrations and institutions, this influence operates under a Zionist agenda. U.S. Financing plays a significant role in American elections, with candidates spending enormous amounts to win, subjecting them to the pressures of financial and media networks controlled by Jewish organizations and arms interests.
In 2020 alone, $20 billion was spent on election campaigns. In contrast, Arab influence in American politics is very weak due to a lack of control over financial and media resources owned by Jews. Therefore, the Jewish community exploits this weakness to enhance its influence to the fullest extent, employing various lobbying tools, the most prominent being AIPAC, which holds significant sway over the White House, Congress (both the House and Senate), and other governmental institutions. This underscores the importance of AIPAC in these elections and its ability to dominate decision-making positions.
We should quote the Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta, who stated: “When the missionaries came, they had the Bible, and we had the land. They taught us how to shut our eyes to pray reverently, and when we opened our eyes, we had the Bible, and they had the land.”
Every person has the right to enjoy the freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and everyone has the right to participate in the administration of their country’s public affairs, either directly or through freely chosen representatives; and everyone, equally with others, has the right to access public office in their country. The will of the people is the source of political power, and this will should be manifested through free elections held by general voting, on equal terms among voters, and secret voting, or by an equivalent method ensuring the freedom of voting (Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The implications of electoral consideration as a personal right yield the following results:
- The legislator cannot limit the right to vote or restrict it to a particular group, as this right is inherent to the individual as a citizen; thus, a system of universal voting must be adopted instead of a restricted vote.
- Since voting is a right, its exercise cannot be compelled; voting is optional and not mandatory.
It has often been believed that indirect elections are the best alternative to direct democracy after repeated failures to implement it in many cases. Indirect elections are considered better not only because they provide a means for the unrestricted population to exercise this right without the mediation of political parties, but also because they are one of the most successful means to enhance the political awareness of individual voters and to anchor it due to their direct interest and responsibility during elections.
Lobbying groups are one of the political forces in the American political system; they are social organizations that also engage in political activities. Members of lobbying groups come together in one or more organizations sharing common interests, and these groups work to influence government decisions for their benefit. These organizations do not only pursue their objectives by lobbying governments and public actors, but they also leverage their influence alongside informal powers to shape public policy.
The role of lobbying groups varies in the formation and influence of public policy across different groups and political systems. Some organizations focus on political aspects, while others prioritize economic, cultural, and humanitarian ones.
Moreover, some lobbying groups are permanent while others are temporary, surfacing in specific instances and vanishing when their demands are met by the government. A primary distinguishing feature of lobbying groups compared to political parties is that they do not seek power as political parties do.
In the United States, as in other countries and political systems, there are lobbying groups that influence public policy and play an important role in legislative and presidential elections. These groups are referred to as “lobbies,” and they possess the ability to influence lawmakers and legislators to serve their interests and specific agendas.
In this context, Arab countries generally, and unsurprisingly, attempt to fulfill their treaty obligations, but Israel (the occupier of Palestinian land) is frequently the violator of both formal and informal agreements, not the Arabs. While the United States is an institutional state aiming to secure and serve its interests and is a major power able to influence other countries, lobbying groups can influence numerous decisions to serve their interests and direct American policy toward specific goals.
To what extent can lobbying groups (AIPAC) influence American elections? What is the role of money in presidential elections? And how does the electoral system affect the journey to the White House?
The study aims to clarify the role of AIPAC in the elections and its influence on the U.S. Congress.
This study adopts a descriptive and analytical approach to describe and analyze the lobbying mechanisms employed in shaping public policy in the United States and to interpret the decisions made by the United States in accordance with the interests of lobbying groups.
The main hypothesis of the study is that there is a strong relationship between lobbying groups and the trajectory of American presidential elections, in pursuit of Israeli interests.
First: The Evolution of Political Life and the Party System
A new concept of democracy emerged in Europe, namely representative democracy, which inherently assumes the delegation of representatives from the people to govern on their behalf, as the populace cannot exercise governance directly. Thus, elections became a means for the populace to select trusted representatives.
In socialist countries, elections are not considered an indispensable foundation; the Marxist theory views individual freedoms, including the right to vote, as essentially empty formality, since practical freedom is nonexistent due to capitalism, wherein the fate of an individual’s life depends on the will and pressure of the owners.
After the 1800 elections, the Federalists became merely a faction in New England, as their conservative policies did not attract the nation, and their leaders made scant effort to reach understandings to gain popularity. Being English-oriented to the core, they opposed Congress’s declaration of war against Britain in 1812, and by 1820, the Democratic-Republican Party had no significant competitors.
Participation rates are one of the essential indicators in democratic systems. Higher turnout reflects the will of a broader segment of society and increases confidence in election outcomes. Conversely, participation rates also indicate the level of trust citizens have in democratic institutions and their awareness of their influence and effectiveness.
1. Historical Dimension of American Political Parties
As Abraham Lincoln stated in his inaugural address in 1861, “The legitimate government derives its power from the consent of the governed.” At that time, most European nations were hereditary monarchies.
According to John Adams in his book “Thoughts on Government,” published in 1776, “When annual elections end, slavery begins.” Elections are a method of power transfer based on citizens selecting their representatives on a local, national, or occupational level, or a means for citizens to participate in governance within representative democracy.
A. Analysis of the American Electoral System
The history of single-member districts in the United States is revealing. Single-member districts were discussed during the American Constitutional Convention in 1787. James Madison, in a Federalist Paper No. 56 outlining justifications for ratifying the new Constitution, mentioned that single-member districts would “divide the largest state into ten or twelve districts, and there would be no unique local interests… unknown to the district’s representative.” Essentially, local representatives should understand and defend local interests.
The American party system developed single-member electoral districts to better represent party interests. However, some states continued to use traditional party systems without implementing redistricting laws as decreed every decade. In 1967, a law banning multi-member districts was enacted to protect voting rights; however, doubts remain about using single-member districts to enhance the influence of Black voters.
Changes in demographics and immigration raise questions about the effectiveness of this practice in ensuring fair representation. Additionally, there continues to be an emphasis on geographic representation and protecting their interests in the U.S. Congress.
The Development of Voting Rights
The adopted electoral system directly affects turnout rates. According to a comparative study of electoral systems conducted on legislative elections in 163 countries in the 1990s, the average participation rate was 75% in countries that adopted proportional representation systems—10% higher than in countries using majority systems.
At the founding of the republic in America, voting was limited to property-owning white men; today, voting rights are guaranteed for all. The expansion of the electorate occurred in four stages:
In the first stage: The property ownership requirement was abolished and replaced with the notion that voters must be tax payers, which remained until it was eliminated by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964.
In the second stage: The process of expanding voting rights to include blacks took over a century. In 1870, the 15th Amendment stated that no person should be deprived of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Yet, legislative bodies in slave states imposed impossible conditions to exercise this right, like passing literacy tests and interpretations of the Constitution, while polling places were opened in remote areas accessible only during limited hours, with illegal measures like intimidation and assault employed. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act addressed political inequality by stating that if fewer than 50% of any racial minority were registered to vote, it signified discrimination. Federal registrars replaced local officials to ensure equal treatment for racial minorities. Despite removing the most significant legal barrier to voting for African Americans, their participation rates remain lower than the national average.
In the third stage: Voting rights were expanded to women, with the fight for this right stretching from the Seneca Falls Convention, which issued the Declaration of Sentiments concerning women’s rights in 1848, to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which granted women the right to vote.
In the fourth stage: In his State of the Union address, President Eisenhower called on Congress to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. However, this change did not occur until 1971 during the Vietnam War via the 26th Amendment, and it had little impact due to low youth participation compared to older voters.
B. The Invention of the Electoral College
The founders created the Electoral College to solve political problems they faced. Drafting the Constitution was a complex process, and a key compromise in the formulation of the 1787 Constitution was the “Connecticut Compromise,” which called for a House of Representatives distributed by population and a Senate where each state was represented by two senators. This resolved conflicts between larger and smaller states regarding populations. It was decided that members of the House would be elected through popular vote, and states were allowed to determine how to select their senators; at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, senators were elected by state legislatures.
Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than direct national popular voting and is susceptible to manipulation by unfaithful electors. This creates a contradiction with what democracy seeks to achieve: one citizen means “one vote”. This contradiction manifested in the elections of 2000 (when George W. Bush won) and 2016 (when Donald Trump won). In those elections, the popular vote losers recorded the highest popular voting percentages among the winners and achieved the highest votes from Electoral College members.
Individual citizens in less populous states have disproportionately greater voting power than those in more densely populated areas. Moreover, candidates can win by concentrating their resources on a handful of swing states.
The function of the Electoral College in selecting the president can be likened to that of the College of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church when selecting a pope. The original idea was for well-informed individuals from each state to choose the president solely based on merit, regardless of their home state or political party.
(1) Presidential Election Deliberations: The Virginia Plan was the basis for discussion at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which required Congress to elect the president. Most representatives of the American states agreed to this method of election. The representatives opposed the congressional nomination, as it contradicted the principle of separation of powers.
James Wilson then proposed an electoral system for choosing the president. Later in the convention, a committee was appointed to detail various mechanics, including the method of electing the president and final recommendations for electors, who are a group of individuals from states having an equal number of representatives in Congress (which was the formula established in discussions leading to the Three-Fifths Compromise), but to be selected by each state “in a manner that may be directed by the legislature.”
Kovner Morris, a committee member, explained the reasons for the change. Among other reasons, there were concerns about “conspiracy” if the president were to be chosen by a small group of individuals who meet regularly, and concerns about the president’s independence if chosen by Congress.
The Electoral College was established to protect the electoral process from corruption and fraud, unlike presidential elections where direct popular voting is used.
It is noteworthy that the political community in the United States developed and was founded on the genocide of indigenous people (Native Americans), where cruelty was a defining feature of the survival struggle. In the illustrations of “Champlain” and the “Du Pré” report from 1599, a group of priests arriving from Southern Europe is depicted, alongside some inquisitors, wearing embroidered robes and luxurious jackets, with their heads adorned with flamboyant hats, standing next to a pyre where Native Americans who did not accept conversion were being roasted—punishment through burning “for the Lord”.
This starkly illustrates the difference between indigenous peoples (Native Americans), blacks (brought from Africa as slaves), and Europeans who owned the land and its inhabitants. This significant disparity undoubtedly impacts any electoral process if it were to be direct.
Directly electing the head of state by the populace as president, who is also the head of government, places him on equal footing in importance, status, and influence with Parliament, granting him representative significance for the people. It gives him the authority to voice their interests and exert their will, allowing him to make critical decisions that position his will above all other interests in the state, and serves as a pivot from which both domestic and foreign policies emanate, with substantial powers encompassing all military and civilian sectors.
A motivating factor in adopting the Electoral College was the issue of blacks in southern states, unlike the situation in freer northern states, where the exercise of the right to vote was uninhibited by various pressures.
On September 6, 1787, the convention approved the proposal of the Electoral College with minor amendments. Representatives from small population states (like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland) generally supported the Electoral College while considering certain aspects for the states. In the compromise stipulating a set of five finalist candidates, smaller states envisioned that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting a single vote, would determine most elections.
James Madison summarized his views on presidential elections and the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a blend of representation based on state and representation based on population. Congress would consist of two chambers: the Senate representing states, and the House representing population proportions. Simultaneously, the president would be elected through a mix of two methods.
(2) Direct Elections from the People and the Issue of Electoral Vote Discrepancies: President Jimmy Carter sent a reform letter to Congress on March 22, 1977, which also expressed his desire to eliminate the Electoral College fundamentally. The letter partially read: “My fourth recommendation is that Congress adopt a constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular elections for president. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, would ensure that candidates chosen by voters actually become president.
Under the Electoral College, according to the “Carter Letter,” it is always possible for the winner of the popular vote not to be elected. This has happened in three elections: 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the outcome could have been altered by a tiny shift in votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote margin of 1 and 7 million. I don’t recommend a constitutional amendment lightly. I believe the amendment process should be limited to matters of utmost governmental importance. But how we elect our president is one such issue. I wouldn’t propose a specific amendment for direct voting. I prefer to let Congress proceed with its work without the disruption of a new proposal.”
2. The Role of Parties in American Political Life
Political parties in the United States have a distinctive character, contrasting with political parties in Europe, whether in terms of organizational structure, ideological beliefs, or in terms of origin and formation. The framers of the United States Constitution in 1787 were not convinced that political parties would have an important role in the American political system; they sought, through various constitutional arrangements like separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an Electoral College, to shield the new republic from parties and factions.
A. The Transition of Power through the Two-Party System
Jiden Rose argues that foreign policy has origins in domestic politics; ideological, economic, national traits, party practices, and socio-economic structures determine how states operate toward the world beyond their borders. Thus, foreign policy is better understood as the product of internal dynamics within states.
The Republicans and Democrats, the two main historical parties, are the largest political parties in the United States. After every election, they occupy the majority seats in both the House and Senate and hold the largest number of governorships. Yet they exhibit notable differences in their approaches, policies, and histories, based essentially on ideological, political, social, and economic paths, dependent on the majority’s stance.
Even as moderate and alternative parties have gained prominence in recent times, Democrats and Republicans remain the historical major parties retaining the majority of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives.
With the distinctive U.S. electoral system, questions frequently arise about the effectiveness of the Electoral College, particularly after the presidential election of 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore. There are concerns regarding a system that has allowed the Democrats and Republicans to dominate politics for around 150 years, despite the fact that political parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution.
In the 2006 Congress, comprising 535 members, only two representatives were from outside the two major parties. Additionally, in that same year, all fifty state governors ran for election under the banner of one of the two parties, and more than 7350 out of 7400 legislative offices were held by either major party candidates.
The fundamental logic of the Republican Party centers on the idea of American hegemony, often positing the notion of American empire. They believe that U.S. power should be utilized to encourage the spread of democracy and to maintain American dominance. They assert that the American democratic system alone is sufficient to represent the guarantee that many other nations view such dominance as benign and that unilateral American leadership is welcomed as long as it is exercised decisively.
B. The Impact of the Two-Party System
The beginnings of the party system in the United States can be traced back to the colonial conflict leading up to independence in 1776, between those advocating British interests, known as the conservatives, and those supporting self-rule, known as the liberals. After independence, the conflict emerged between federalists and their opponents advocating for self-government.
During the first presidency of George Washington, the conflict took on a partisan aspect as Alexander Hamilton and George Washington led the federalist direction (government centralization) to protect property owners, while Thomas Jefferson championed the opposing self-governing direction, emphasizing individual rights. Washington and Hamilton’s party advocating for federalism transformed into the Liberal Party by 1830 and changed its name to the Republican Party in 1854.
Political parties had not appeared in the U.S. when the Constitution was framed and ratified in the late 18th century; political parties emerged after the government began operating in response to policies followed by first U.S. President George Washington. Some argue that the lack of mention of political parties represents a flaw in the American Constitution, while others interpreted it as a reflection of the founders’ desire to avoid divisive influences like political parties, which were perceived as linked more to bickering, deceit, and personal agendas than to unity and responsibility as the founders sought to bolster the new union.
The dominance of two parties in American political life is a natural result of the plurality electoral system, which aligns with the two-party system due to two fundamental factors:
- Such electoral systems require obtaining a majority of votes to win, a threshold that small or new parties typically cannot meet, making it difficult for them to penetrate the entrenched party system.
- Related to rational thinking, supporters of small parties recognize that their votes would be wasted if they vote for their parties. Therefore, to make their votes impactful, they vote for one of the major parties that have realistic chances of winning. This voting behavior is termed tactical voting, where voters opt for their second or third preference.
These two factors have fostered the evolution of the two-party system in America, where since 1860, the two major parties, the Democratic and Republican Parties, have dominated American electoral politics. No candidate outside these two parties has ever won the presidency, and no other party has garnered a majority in Congress.
From independence until World War I, the goal of American rulers was to build a strong nation, distancing themselves from the problems of the old continent and avoiding entanglement in its affairs. President George Washington stated that the best rule for dealing with foreign nations was isolationism. The phrase “America for Americans” was raised by President James Monroe, which became the foundation of American foreign policy until World War I.
Defining the American party system as dualistic has revealed several distinct characteristics:
- It is a system that relies on the monopoly of governance by two major parties, the Republican and Democratic parties, and the existence of other parties does not threaten the future of the two major parties or affect their viability over four-year terms.
- There is decentralization among political parties in the United States; American parties lack an organization that allows any individual or party leadership to impose their views on party members. The president may propose legislation opposed by members of their party in Congress. Furthermore, party leaders in Congress lack the authority to restrict their members’ opinions. Additionally, political parties in the United States have developed a form of pluralism at all levels comparable to the number of states. In other words, each branch of the Democratic Party within states functions as an independent party; for instance, the Democratic Party in Mississippi differs from the one in New York, leading some to perceive the existence of approximately 50 Democratic and 50 Republican parties due to the absence of federal authority over parties—the national committee overseeing each party lacks authority over state parties.
- Voter distrust of political parties is deeply ingrained in American civic culture. The adoption of open primary elections to select candidates for Congress and state offices early in the 20th century, combined with the widespread prevalence of presidential primary elections that have become determinant factors in nomination processes, symbolizes public feelings of distrust toward parties. Americans are uncomfortable with party leaders exerting substantial power over their government.
- Political commitment is weak among many Americans; allegiance to local representatives is often not based on party lines but rather on personal foundations. Additionally, a significant portion of voters classify themselves as independents, with American elections increasingly centering around candidates rather than parties. Consequently, the distribution of control between the two parties over both the executive and legislative branches of government has become common in national and state governments.
- There is a lack of clear ideology; American parties do not rest on any ideological or social foundation, encompassing distinctly divergent elements and beliefs. Their main focus is on winning early elections, which carry more significance than actual voting; although the United States is an industrial nation, it lacks any socialist or labor party. Since parties reflect a particular social reality, both major parties seek to achieve their objectives independently from social class or class conflict, meaning there are (no class parties in America). They also adopt centrist positions and exhibit high levels of political flexibility without expecting strict discipline in voting (as in Britain) from their parliamentary representatives; every parliamentarian has the right to vote without consulting their party, which has allowed both Republicans and Democrats to accommodate a wide diversity within their ranks, thus enhancing their capacity to absorb third parties and protest movements as they arise.
- Making governmental decisions is not determined by the internal party policy, as parties cannot be counted as ruling parties; the president often appears unrelated to party matters when appointing his aides to government positions.
The original American Constitution of 1787 did not specify the number of times a president could be elected. However, George Washington’s refusal to be elected a second time set a precedent that should not be violated. Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, violated this rule by winning election three times, leading to the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, prohibiting any president from being elected more than twice. The U.S. president holds three major legal functions: legislative, executive, and judicial.
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the workings of the Electoral College have evolved significantly, with the most crucial change occurring due to the emergence of parties as campaign organizations. As a result of this, early candidates ran for election as paired lists, one as the presidential candidate and the other as the vice presidential candidate. However, the Electoral College system did not allow for such pairings and resulted in no candidate receiving a majority in 1800. To address this issue, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1804 stipulated that members of the Electoral College vote for the president and vice president separately.
Alexander Hamilton outlined in Federalist Paper No. 68 what he perceived as the primary advantages of the Electoral College. Electors are directly chosen by the people, solely for this purpose and this attendance, helping to avoid legislative bodies managed by parties or permanent bodies that could be influenced by foreign interests before every election. He clarified that elections would take place among all states, so corruption in any state could not stain “the great popular entity” in their selection. The selection must be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is essential to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors convened in state capitals could access information not available to the general populace. He also argued that since there would be no federal vice president who could be elected, no electors would owe allegiance to any presidential candidate.
A significant issue is that decisions must be made smoothly to avoid upheavals that may arise due to the extensive scope and numerous venues operating simultaneously. This allows decision-makers to operate without fear of threats or intimidation; if this process fails through the Electoral College, the president is chosen among the top five candidates by the U.S. House of Representatives. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the quality and efficiency of individuals assuming high offices in the state, as they will occupy positions at the head of the combined United States.
American elections occur in four temporal stages: primary elections and national conventions where candidates for the presidential race are determined, followed by the election campaign leading up to Election Day, when members of the Electoral College (a total of 538 votes, with 270 votes needed to win) elect the president and vice president.
The second significant change involved states adopting the “winner takes all” method in allocating Electoral College delegates selected in that state. The Constitution leaves to each state the method of choosing its delegates. By 1836, reflecting democratic reforms, all states were holding popular elections for delegates in a statewide vote rather than by district.
Given the power of political parties, this system naturally led to elections conducted under the “winner takes all” principle for practical motives. This system yielded elections characterized by the “winner takes all” principle for practical incentives. This most debated feature (“winner takes all”) is used in 48 of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia.
Citizens of the District of Columbia were granted the right to vote for president under the Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1961, which provided that the District of Columbia would have as many electors as the state with the smallest population which has any; that is, three. This allocation of electors means that citizens in less populated states receive slightly more representation in the Electoral College, even though their absolute number of electors is low.
AIPAC’s influence in the 2022 elections was conspicuous, particularly in its efforts to defeat progressive Democrats. Among the top 20 donors in the elections, it made huge financial contributions. AIPAC boasts on its website that it supported 365 Democratic and Republican candidates favorable to Israel in 2022 with over 17millionindirectsupport.Accordingtoitssite,9817millionindirectsupport.Accordingtoitssite,984 million against him. Levin was one of the Democrats targeted by the committee due to their criticisms of Israel.
Progressive Democrats represent AIPAC’s primary adversaries within the Democratic party, which is why it often supports other candidates from the same party or from the Republican Party with substantial financial contributions, to maintain its influence within Congress without jeopardizing its interests.
Second: AIPAC and the Making of American Politicians
Following the invader entity’s assault on Palestinian Gaza, the aftermath resulted in the largest genocide against Palestinians in modern history, amidst unlimited support from the West and the United States. Particularly, the common perception in the Arab homeland is that Israel leads the United States, stemming from AIPAC’s influence within the U.S. and the Zionist lobbies in both Britain and France as well as Germany. If we look at history, particularly the Balfour Declaration, we find that the Zionist project and the establishment of a promised state on Palestinian lands preceded the Balfour Declaration. However, the Balfour Declaration laid the groundwork for practical steps toward establishing this entity, which then became the advanced land of liberal Western civilization, facing the Islamic world especially, and the East in general.
Émile Durkheim states that the primary function of religion is to enhance social cohesion and solidarity. However, since the first Zionist conference to date, religious and sectarian wars have been fueled, Arab Jews from Arab nations have been swayed through inducement and intimidation, and various ways have been employed to exert influence in international politics, particularly U.S. policy, which is the focus of this study. In truth, according to sociologist Max Weber, the connection between religion and purposive daily behavior with economic content is what causes religious piety to prevent “a peasant in Southern Europe from spitting on a saint statue who has not answered his requests.”
Perhaps Brooks Adams was closer than any American of his time to predict the future in a sort of intellectual revelation, although even he only grasped a portion of that future. He observed the growing weakness of England—“an anomaly of worsening economic conditions,” as he described it, and increasing reliance on the United States strategically. He sensed the importance of distinguishing between naval and continental power and felt vaguely the danger of a political collusion among Russia, Germany, and China.
Despite the American Civil War and the war with Spain, the United States attempted to counteract the expansionist policies of empires and countries from the old continent, particularly in China through what came to be known as the Open Door Policy. This exemplifies AIPAC’s later influence in U.S. foreign policy, as well as internally in the phenomenon of electing presidents. The Open Door policy in China was an American idea, intended to oppose the approach of other nations in dividing the country into spheres of influence among themselves. The Open Door proclamation was one of the spectacular events in U.S. diplomatic history, representing a charitable motive supported by vigor and smart negotiations. No statesman or nation, who would accept Hay’s policy, could have embraced it. It was akin to asking every honest man to stand—as one would see the dishonest racing ahead of others to stand. Hay’s insights into the hidden reasons were remarkably sharp, and his understanding of human nature was one of his greatest qualities.
George Madelsky defines foreign policy as: A system of activities developed by societies to alter the behaviors of other countries and adjust their actions to fit the international environment. Within this framework, we identify two fundamental types of activities: inputs and outputs.
There is a phenomenon during the European colonial era and subsequently in the American era of influence and hegemony; that is, many “people of authority” in colonized or occupied Arab countries cooperating with the occupying powers, stalling the struggles of liberation movements and prolonging foreign dominance. More than that, numerous segments of the ruling classes, before and after their countries obtained independence, cooperated extensively and positively with foreign entities—states, corporations, and individuals—to the extent that some historians were compelled to label them as agents of foreign powers rather than partners.
While the concept of a Jewish state stems from the Zionist principle of distancing itself from the non-Jewish world, ironically, the June 1967 war facilitated the integration of American Jews into their country. Jews this time stood in frontline support of Israel over America and even over Western civilization against Soviet totalitarianism and similar reactionary forces. However, before the June War, Israel had been a burden on American Jews due to dual loyalty; afterward, it became a blessing in their eyes and synonymous with absolute loyalty because Israeli Jews fought and died to protect American national interests.
More definitions of foreign policy provided by Richard Snyder and Edgar Ferniss describe it as: A methodology or a set of rules or both selected to deal with a specific problem or event that has occurred, is currently occurring, or is expected to occur in the future.
The term “lobby” dates back to England in the 18th century when men began to linger in the lobbies of London theaters to meet the powerful politicians attending performances.
1. Existence and Influence of AIPAC in American Life
The Zionist lobby is an English term meaning the hallway or foyer in a hotel, typically located opposite the reception. This term has been applied to the grand lobby in the British House of Commons and the grand lobby in the U.S. Senate, where members of the council can meet individuals and exchange views on shared interests, strike deals, and engage in consultations.
Some consider AIPAC as “only one of countless groups and associations… and companies that, defending the shared interests of their members, strive in every possible manner, direct or indirect, to influence government and legislative actions, and to sway public opinion. To be considered a lobbying group, any organization must aim for a common interest and utilize pressure on political power as a means of achieving that interest.
In a speech, Senator Bernie Sanders strongly criticized AIPAC’s influence in American politics, stating that anyone discussing Palestinian rights or criticizing Israeli atrocities becomes a target for the organization. He highlighted that AIPAC spent millions in Michigan to support candidates aligning with its policies, particularly in relation to Israel. Sanders viewed this as a undermining of democracy.
A. The Emergence and Evolution of Lobbies in American Politics
Like other special interest groups, the Zionist lobby cannot be precisely defined, and there will always be individuals and organizations on the borderline whose exact positions are difficult to classify, thus making the American Zionist lobby not a centralized hierarchical organization with defined membership—there are no membership cards or rituals. It essentially comprises organizations whose stated aim is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material assistance to the Zionist entity.
The most influential lobbies in the United States include the American-Israeli lobby, the American Greek lobby, and the Armenian American lobby, in addition to the American corporate lobby.
To illustrate the scale of American corporate power and influence, we refer to economist Kenneth Galbraith, who aimed to clarify for the uninitiated the power of these corporations by stating:
- The sales of five American companies—General Motors, Walmart, ExxonMobil, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler—exceed the GDP of 182 countries worldwide.
- Exxon’s income exceeds that of all the countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) combined. General Motors is larger than Denmark, and Bechtel Corporation is larger than Spain.
The Zionist lobby (AIPAC) is a diverse coalition of individuals and groups striving to influence U.S. foreign policy to support specific Zionist policies, particularly the establishment of a state on Palestinian lands. The lobby consists of secular and religious American Jews. The most prominent pro-Zionist lobbying group is the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but there are other groups working to influence U.S. public policy in various ways, such as in the education sector, responding to criticisms directed at Israel, and formulating policies conducive to its project.
It is known that the Israeli lobby has succeeded in encouraging American legislators to support Israeli policies. In 2006, 60% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party came from Jewish financing. According to estimates from the Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidates rely on Jewish sources for about 60% of the funds raised from private sources.
Members of the American oil lobby fund many election campaigns for candidates from both parties at various levels.
B. The Path of Lobby Influence
There is significant debate regarding AIPAC’s role in the presidential elections of 2024 between the Democratic candidate (current President Biden) and former President Trump, who lost to Biden in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2024 elections, there is an impact in Michigan and challenges posed by the presence of a significant Arab and Muslim voting bloc. As the November 2024 elections approach, AIPAC is expected to play a crucial role in making substantial donations to pro-Israel candidates to push U.S. policies regarding Israel, thus targeting progressive Democrats who criticize ongoing support for Israel.
The early days of AIPAC’s emergence cannot be separated from the biography of its founder, who established this committee after joining the American Zionist Council in 1951. In 1959, this lobby changed its name and formed an executive committee that today includes heads of thirty-eight Jewish organizations claiming a full membership of four and a half million individuals.
Cambridge University historian Herbert Butterfield once stated: “Behind major human conflicts lies a considerable human crisis at the heart of the narrative… evidence being that contemporaries either fail to recognize the crisis (that led to the conflict) or avoid acknowledging its seriousness, until we only recognize the matter after it is folded and comes to us through study and analysis. This happens only through the advance of historical science on a specific subject, making people aware of the existence of a real knot beyond individual solving capabilities.”
AIPAC has transformed from a small organization operating in the 1950s from a modest office in Washington, D.C., to an organization boasting over 100,000 current members.
The New York Times describes AIPAC as one of the most important organizations influencing U.S.-Israeli relations, having shifted its focus from pressuring the legislative branch, Congress, to affecting decisions made by the U.S. administration, especially during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Over the past years, AIPAC has highlighted its achievements that include passing over 10 pieces of legislation in Congress to condemn Iran and impose sanctions on it over the past fifteen years.
Its achievements also cover passing legislation in Congress requiring the U.S. administration to review any arms deals concluded with Arab governments to ensure continued Israeli military superiority in the Middle East.
The lobby maintains daily contact with members of the administration, senators, and representatives, particularly those who have served on the foreign relations, armed services, and budget committees. In this sense, Jewish figures and groups secured (350) meetings with officials at various levels within the White House’s Departments of State and Defense from March 1981 to April 1983, averaging two meetings every two days.
American officials have come to rely on AIPAC for information related to the Middle East; Senator Frank Church once remarked: “I find it reassuring to know that whenever I need information regarding the Middle East, I can count on AIPAC to provide professional and reliable assistance.”
AIPAC has undertaken publishing a series of studies extolling Israel’s position in American strategy and the services it can provide for Washington, while emphasizing the instability of Arab regimes allied with America and the futility of strategic cooperation with them. The lobby complements its efforts to enhance Israel’s image by organizing visits for congressional members and their aides to the Jewish state.
Additionally, the lobbying efforts are not always based on pressure or expressing dissent; they may also involve election rewards for positions deemed favorable by the pressure group.
Examples of Costs for American Presidential Elections: The 2020 elections cost candidates 15billion,whilecongressionalelectionscostover15billion,whilecongressionalelectionscostover10 billion due to the extraordinary nature of these elections, with a sitting president (Trump) and a presidential candidate (Joe Biden). In the upcoming 2024 elections, the contest is between a former president (Trump) and the current president (Biden), intensifying the competition, especially as Trump seeks to return to office and reclaim his credibility along with his supporters who stormed the Capitol. The unseen player in this electoral process is AIPAC.
AIPAC plays a vital and significant role in elections because the financial resources possessed by Zionists are the foundation of any American presidential election. CNN, the most important television channel in the United States and globally, is owned by Jews, as is Fox News. The richest family in the world is the Jewish Rothschild family, working for the benefit of the Israeli enemy.
According to an investigation by The Intercept, ‘AIPAC donated approximately $95,000 to Representative Mike Johnson from Louisiana in November 2023. This pro-Israel lobbying group was Johnson’s largest donor in 2023, pouring money into his campaign after he led the passage of a $14 billion aid package to Israel.’
AIPAC’s political committee contributed a total of $104,000 to Johnson last year, with the majority of payments made after the outbreak of the Gaza war and after Johnson was elected Speaker of the House in late October. This is nearly four times the approximately $25,000 the group contributed to his previous congressional campaign, where it was also his largest donor, as previously reported in The Intercept.
2. The Impact of Lobbies in American Domestic Affairs
In the midst of the genocide in Palestinian Gaza, Israel symbolizes for many American Jewish thinkers the essence of Jewish truth and justice, and the American way of life, values which they can now affirm their unique attachment to due to blood ties. Joining the Zionist club has become a wise career move for leaders of the Jewish community, enabling them to act as mediators between the United States and its strategic ally. The alleged existential threat facing Israel serves as a pretext for politically ambitious Jews to advocate for the strengthening of American military power, which they stipulate Israel’s survival depends upon.
Some American Zionists, such as Martin Peretz and Mortimer Zuckerman, leverage their positions in media to present their views on Israel and the Middle East even though some owners, publishers, editors, and article writers in mainstream media do not have strong feelings toward the Zionist entity and may feel comfortable criticizing its policies, as well as the relationship between the United States and it. There are influential individuals who may be strong supporters of the Zionist entity, yet welcome a more open discourse regarding this country.
A. AIPAC’s Influence within Parties
AIPAC responds during election campaigns by increasing its contributions to Democratic Party candidates who will compete against party candidates critical of Israel. Prior to the 2022 congressional elections, AIPAC formed new organizations to direct funds into political campaigns, as American law allows. One of these is called “AIPAC PAC” and the other “United Democracy Project,” a super PAC legally able to donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates.
The “United Democracy Project” emerged as the largest source of campaign funding in the Democratic Party primary elections of 2022. Pro-Israel campaign finance organizations intimidate certain Democratic Party candidates. An example is Senator John Fetterman, who bargained over his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with another pro-Israel political committee working alongside AIPAC while running for the Senate in 2022.
His amendment to his stance pleased the PAC, and they refrained from aiding his opponent in the Democratic primary elections in May 2022. Fetterman later defeated the Republican party candidate in the November 2022 elections and is now one of the biggest supporters of Israel in the Senate.
A coalition of progressive groups is urging President Biden and other Democratic Party officials not to accept endorsements or contributions from pro-Israel groups or their affiliated lobbies.
The “Reject AIPAC” coalition includes the Congressional Democrats for Justice and the Democratic Socialists of America, targeting AIPAC and its affiliated organizations. AIPAC has already spent millions of dollars in the American electoral cycle of 2024.
The “Reject AIPAC” campaign is accompanied by a growing organized movement within the Democratic Party protesting Biden’s support for Israel in its aggression against Gaza.
An example of AIPAC’s impact can be seen in the legislation passed by the Republican-majority U.S. House of Representatives. The British newspaper Middle East Monitor reported that the approval by the U.S. House of Representatives on a recent resolution equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is a step toward further limiting freedom of expression. The report mentioned that the resolution acknowledges historical facts regarding the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews while omitting any reference to Palestinians and their historical claims to the region, declaring that the Jewish people “has its homeland in the Land of Israel,” meaning Palestine. The newspaper reported that Representative Jamal Bowman from New York voted in favor of the resolution despite questioning whether anyone would write a resolution on the rights of Palestinians to exist.
B. Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Martin Luther King said, “History will record that the greatest tragedy of this time was not the voices of the bad people, but the silence of the good people.” While the Western world supports democracy, especially America, in Third World countries that oppose its policies and influence, the debate over rights and freedoms has intensified, posing a threat to the liberal system in the West, especially regarding the freedom of opinion and expression amid protests and demonstrations supporting the cessation of the Israeli war on Gaza and halting the genocide of Palestinians occurring on American and Western college campuses.
We should mention President Theodore Roosevelt’s statement opening the 21st century regarding four centuries of genocide: “If we had left Native Americans their hunting grounds, we would have placed our continent at the disposal of filthy, savage barbarians, thus we had no choice but to exterminate them,” noteworthy is the fact that Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906.
The real danger of this freedom has significantly emerged in an advanced world far from us, in these fragile democracies that will strike anything to achieve their projects and interests, even if these rights and freedoms are enshrined in international human rights law and constitutional texts.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 asserts the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes seeking, receiving, and imparting information and ideas through any media regardless of borders. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that:
- Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, either orally or in writing or in print or in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice.
- The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. As a consequence, they may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary. (a – to respect the rights or reputations of others; b – to protect national security or public order; c – or public health or morals).
Many regional instruments enshrining the right to freedom of opinion and expression exist. Merely comparing Israeli occupation to the apartheid that once prevailed in South Africa would lead to significant disapproval. Mentioning apartheid in the title of Jimmy Carter’s book, “Peace, Not Apartheid,” raised a combative reaction.
This right is recognized by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ratified on December 15, 1791, which ensures that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” At the time, the primary goal of the amendment emphasized by Thomas Jefferson (the third president of the U.S.) was to create a “wall between church and state.” Over time, freedom of the press and expression has become a fundamental component of democratic systems, reflecting the level of openness in a political system, allowing for performance oversight and accountability.
We cannot fail to clarify that concerning limiting the freedom of opinion and expression, the U.S. Congress does not hesitate to engage in any topic considered anti-global Zionism, aiming to enact laws that threaten this freedom, whether in universities or on social media.
(1) The Student Revolt in American Universities to Stop the Genocide in Gaza: In 2006, a media uproar ensued when two American professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, published a study claiming that AIPAC was pushing U.S. foreign policy increasingly toward adopting pro-Israel stances which do not serve U.S. national interests.
On April 18, 2024, students opposing the Israeli war on Gaza began a sit-in at Columbia University in New York, demanding the university to cease academic cooperation with Israeli universities and divest from companies supporting the occupation of Palestinian territories.
Anger escalated with police intervening and arresting dozens of students, as protests spread to numerous universities across the country, including leading institutions like Harvard, George Washington, New York, Yale, the University of North Carolina, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Consequently, the unprecedented student activism supporting Palestine in the U.S. expanded to universities in other countries like France, Britain, Germany, Canada, and Australia, all witnessing rallying demonstrations echoing those in American universities, calling for an end to the war on Gaza and a boycott of companies supplying arms to Israel.
(2) Social Media as a Pillar of Modern Democracy: A federal judge’s temporary order in a lawsuit filed by attorneys from Louisiana and Missouri against the Biden administration ignited a new discussion about freedom of expression. The plaintiffs argue that the White House is attempting to suppress conservative voices by colluding with executives from social media platforms.
The plaintiffs, viewing this as a violation of freedom of expression enshrined in the American Constitution, achieved an initial victory with the judge’s injunction against the administration. Following the final decision and appeals, it’s likely the case will reach the Supreme Court. This scenario signals that discussions surrounding social media and freedom of expression will intensify in the foreseeable future.
The case is predicated on the argument that the Biden administration systematically muted conservative voices by coaching them on social media platforms, thereby infringing on free expression. The judge appointed by Trump indicated he would rule against the Biden administration with an injunction directing White House officials to sever ties with social media platforms, albeit with exceptions. However, the fact that the decision sets a general framework and that the boundaries of the exceptions are unclear indicates that the matter will escalate to the Supreme Court.
Companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple are no longer solely seeking technology and development skills from their new employees, nor is it just about attracting the best programmers and brightest engineers; these giant firms have expanded to compete in attracting government relations managers or legislative experts with close ties to various committees in both congressional houses.
These companies, among others, have established vast offices in Washington, employing dozens and hundreds with prior government experience to fulfill the demands of lobbying targeting members of Congress and officials in relevant ministries and government agencies.
Almost two years have elapsed since Edward Snowden’s revelations indicated that the U.S. government’s surveillance of global online communications has spiraled out of control. A new transparent system must be mandated to genuinely ensure protection, so people can once again feel secure in their right to live free from government intrusion into their private lives.
The “U.S. Freedom Law” fails to address global surveillance issues, including the need to protect the privacy of non-U.S. citizens from mass monitoring and surveillance. Amnesty International urges governments to impose a ban on all forms of indiscriminate mass surveillance of communications.
Conversely, the U.S. aims to block the TikTok app for numerous reasons, including claims from American officials that it violates the privacy of Americans and threatens U.S. national security.
In response to the U.S. government’s decision to impose a nationwide ban on the TikTok platform if ByteDance (the parent company) does not sell its operations in the U.S. within 270 days, Lauren Armstead, Deputy Director of Technology Programs at Amnesty International, remarked:
“The U.S. government’s decision to impose a complete ban on the TikTok platform fails to address the risks and harms that human rights face from the surveillance-based business models of other tech companies, including Meta and Google. Moreover, the TikTok ban disproportionately restricts individuals’ rights to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information.
Despite the TikTok ban, American lawmakers have given Meta and Google’s green light to continue harvesting our data and misusing our privacy rights. Rather than imposing arbitrary bans, U.S. authorities should tackle the underlying issues associated with surveillance-based business models by implementing regulations governing all tech platforms to genuinely protect our human rights in the digital age.
The risks of mass data collection and the algorithms of social media are widely recognized, evidenced by the amplification of hate on Meta platforms and the adverse impact of harmful content on the mental health of youth. The best way to ensure safety on these platforms is for states to effectively regulate the sector of giant tech companies. Hence, Amnesty International calls for a prohibition on targeted ads and specifically urges TikTok to cease excessive personalization of its “For You” page automatically.
However, freedom of expression has come under severe threat recently. On one hand, the number of autocratic rulers worldwide is increasing, accompanied by prosecutions against independent media and social activists. On the other hand, the scale and growing influence of major tech companies pose new challenges to existing democratic systems. The combination of these two challenges—autocratic leaders and modern media platforms—was fully exemplified by former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Nevertheless, the decision by Twitter and Facebook to close Trump’s accounts has also left crucial questions unanswered; for example, “Should private companies be responsible for regulating unacceptable speech? What is the boundary between hate speech and freedom of expression? Do media companies contribute to the erosion of traditional independent journalism?”
Conclusion
Public policy expresses the general direction of a particular international entity in both domestic and foreign areas. Public policy is subjected to a number of internal and external influences, based on which national public policies are formulated.
Like the rest of the world, in the United States, the processes of policy formulation and decision-making are influenced by numerous formal and informal factors. Formal influences include the separation of powers in U.S. states (the legislative branch represented by Congress, the executive branch represented by the president, and the judicial branch represented by courts), as well as informal actors (political parties, lobbying groups, public opinion, media, etc.) that work together to shape public policy.
This means that what determines the fate of American elections is money first, media second, and the common factor between the two is the Zionist lobby that possesses wealth and controls major media outlets.
Lobbying groups are among the most significant informal actors shaping and forming public policy in the United States by influencing and pressuring policymakers to achieve their interests.
They are also regarded as one of the most critical informal actors due to their ability to influence formal and informal entities, as they can subtly shape and direct public opinion and media according to their interests. Lobbying groups can also influence political parties that aim to assume power, as they can impact political parties striving to obtain power, in contrast to lobbying groups which are influenced by political parties, enabling them to sway parties pursuing power.
The claim of a long-standing democracy that the American people exercise their rights is a hollow and meaningless assertion, as the influence of money and the media on the trajectory of elections indirectly affects the American voter. When it comes to presidential programs, for instance, Trump discusses his goals if he wins the presidency—e.g., abolishing abortion, combating LGBTQ laws, and addressing the economy… however, what binds him with President Joe Biden is absolute support for Israel.
The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most prominent lobbying groups in the United States, playing a central role in directing American public policy in accordance with Israeli interests. Since its inception, it has been the most powerful lobby in the U.S. and the most influential one, facilitating the accomplishment of its goals through relationships it establishes with Congressional members and the executive branch, which in the U.S. presidential system means the president, while controlling media and influencing key writers and global journalists. The research yielded several conclusions:
- AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America and exerts significant influence on elections, Congress, and the presidency.
- AIPAC advocates for pro-Israel policies within the executive and legislative authorities.
- This group’s role is evidenced by the absolute U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza War.
- Control of money and media over elections reflects the importance of funding in increasing a candidate’s chances of winning.
References
[1] «Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29,» Avalon Project, Retried 4 September 2011.[2] «Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6,» Avalon, Project, Retrieved 13 April 2011.3] James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: The Norton Library, 1966), p. 294.
[4] John J. Patrik, Richard M. Pious and Donald A. Ritchie, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 208.[5] «Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29,» Avalon Project, Retried 4 September 2011.[6] Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter, «Election Reform Message to the Congress,» Online by Gerhard Peters anf Jhon T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.[7] Gideon Rose, «Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,» World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1 (October 1998), p. 95.[8] Hamilton, «The Federalist Papers: No. 68,» The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp (viewed 10 November 2016).[9] Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religions Life (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1965), pp. 236 – 245 and 462 – 472.[10 Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (London: Methen and Co., 1966), pp. 1 – 2.[11 George Modelski, A Theory of Foreign Policy (New York: Praeger, 1962), pp. 6 – 7.[12 Philip S. Khoury, Urban Notables and Arab Nationalism: The Politics of Damascus, 1860 – 1920 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 23.[13 Edgar Furniss and R. Snyder, As Introduction to American Foreign Policy (New York: Rinehart, 1995), p. 6.[14 Gunnar Gunnarsson, Norstedts uppslagsbok lllustrerad Encyklopedi (Stokholm: P. A. Norstedt and Soners, 1942), p. 966.[15 John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (London: Review of Books, 2007), p. 163.[16 Lee O’Brien, American Jewish: Organisation and Israel (Washington DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1986), p. 156.[17 Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge, MACambridge University Press, 2006), p. 148; Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars (Seattle, WA: Madison Books, 1997), p. 165, and Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Palatine, IL: Anchor Books, 2009), pp. 134 – 135.
Subscribe to our email newsletter to get the latest posts delivered right to your email.
Comments