by darkbeforedawn » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:29 pm
<br> <br> <br>Study: U.S. Mideast policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby<br>By Shmuel Rosner<br><br>WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.<br><br>Observers in Washington said yesterday that the study was liable to stir up a tempest and spur renewed debate about the function of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby. The Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list.<br>Advertisement<br><br>"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695227.html">www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695227.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy<br>By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt<br>Working Paper Number:RWP06-011<br>Submitted: 03/13/2006<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/r...">ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Res...r.nsf/r...</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” This paper describes the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/r...">ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Res...r.nsf/r...</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>AIPAC the Un-PAC<br><br>FEC v. Akins<br>524 U.S. 11 (199<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>Docket Number: 96-1590<br>Abstract<br><br>Argued:<br><br><br>January 14, 1998<br><br>Decided:<br><br><br>June 1, 1998<br><br>Subjects:<br><br><br>Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Direct Injury<br>Facts of the Case<br><br>The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) imposes recordkeeping and disclosure requirements upon political committees which receive more than $1,000 in "contributions" or which make more than $1,000 in "expenditures" in a year "for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." Certain assistance does not count toward the expenditure cap if it takes the form of a "communication" by a "membership organization or corporation" "to its members" as long as the organization is not "organized primarily for the purpose of influencing nomination... or election." A complaint filed by a group of voters asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to order the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to make public the information that FECA demands of political committees. Ultimately, the FEC found that AIPAC was not a political committee because its major purpose was not the nomination or election of candidates. The en banc Court of Appeals concluded that the FEC's major purpose test improperly interpreted FECA's definition of a political committee.<br>Question Presented<br><br>Do voters have the proper legal standing to challenge the Federal Election Commission's decisions regarding political committees?<br>Conclusion<br><br>Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that voters seeking information, to which they believe FECA entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC's decision not to bring an enforcement action. Because FECA seeks to address the voters' injury, the failure to obtain relevant information, Justice Breyer concluded that the voters had prudential standing. Furthermore, because the voters' inability to obtain information constitutes an "injury in fact," continued Justice Breyer, the voters had standing under Article III. The Court did not address the FEC's major purpose test, allowing the FEC to address the issue under newly proposed rules. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined. <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1048/">www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1048/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
