top of page
Search

AIPAC: An Unruly Arm

by Ram ben Ze’ev


AIPAC: An Unruly Arm
AIPAC: An Unruly Arm

For decades, Israel’s enemies have sought to delegitimise its supporters in America. One of their favourite weapons is the claim that AIPAC—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—is a foreign agent of the State of Israel. They insist it should be forced to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), not because they expect transparency to reveal anything new, but because they want to weaponise the financial details against both AIPAC and Israel. It is the oldest trick in the book: if you cannot defeat the Jewish state on the battlefield, attack it in the court of public opinion.



But here’s the irony. The very accusation undermines itself. For AIPAC is not, in fact, a proxy of the Israeli government. Its funding comes from American Jews and non-Jews, its lobbying reflects American political realities, and its priorities are set in Washington, not Jerusalem. To be sure, AIPAC is pro-Israel. That is its identity. But equating it with the Israeli government is not just legally false—it is historically inaccurate.


Below I set out a timeline that demonstrates a truth too often lost in the noise: AIPAC is not a proxy for the Israeli government. It is a pro-Israel lobby, yes, but its priorities and strategies have at times diverged sharply from Jerusalem’s. Understanding these differences is essential if we are to see AIPAC for what it is—and what it is not.


1970s–1980s: Arms Sales to Arab States

When Washington pushed through advanced arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, Israeli governments sometimes quietly accepted the deals in exchange for U.S. assurances. AIPAC, by contrast, went on the attack. It lobbied Congress to block or restrict these sales, often taking a harder line than the government in Jerusalem. In effect, AIPAC risked complicating Israel’s own diplomacy with Washington in order to flex its congressional muscle.



1990s: The Oslo Process

The Rabin and Peres governments took the bold step of engaging with the PLO through the Oslo Accords. AIPAC, however, kept its distance. While Israel was negotiating land for peace, AIPAC chose not to lobby strongly for Oslo-related funding. Instead, it stuck to its safer ground: security aid. The divergence was clear—Jerusalem leaned into diplomacy, while AIPAC avoided championing it on Capitol Hill.


2000s: Settlements and Silence

Israeli governments under Ariel Sharon and later Benjamin Netanyahu pressed forward with settlement policies that drew criticism from Washington. Yet AIPAC avoided making settlements a lobbying priority. It understood that pushing the issue would fracture its bipartisan standing. For Israel, settlements were domestic politics; for AIPAC, they were a liability best left untouched.


2015: The Iran Deal

Prime Minister Netanyahu famously stormed into Washington to denounce the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran. He even addressed Congress in open defiance of the sitting U.S. president. AIPAC also opposed the deal, but not in Netanyahu’s confrontational style. It lobbied forcefully, yes, but it tried to preserve ties with Democrats who resented Netanyahu’s spectacle. Jerusalem chose open confrontation; AIPAC chose quiet pragmatism.


2020s: Partisan Polarisation

In recent years Netanyahu has aligned himself closely with Republicans, often to the detriment of relations with Democrats. AIPAC, however, insists on bipartisanship as a survival strategy. It has spent heavily to support Democrats as well as Republicans, even when Netanyahu’s allies would have preferred to write the Democrats off. Once again, the lobby charted its own course.



These episodes show that AIPAC is not a faithful reflection of Israel’s elected government. Sometimes it has been harsher, sometimes softer, sometimes entirely silent on issues central to Israeli politics. Its mission is U.S. politics, not Israeli governance.


And so, when critics call AIPAC “an arm of the Israeli government,” they miss the point. It is not Jerusalem’s arm. It is its own. And worse, it is an arm that often thrashes about on its own terms, heedless of the body it claims to serve. If indeed it is an arm, then I am afraid it is an unruly one—and like any limb that threatens the health of the body, it should be amputated to save the rest.



>>>> BUY ME A COFFEE <<<<


###


bottom of page