US Congressmen in Gush Etzion
US Congressmen in Gush EtzionGush Etzion Regional Council

AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel lobby in Washington. J Street clearly has a lot of the press right now, but other Jewish and Zionist organizations are involved on more specific agenda items. The Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center and the Orthodox Union are two religious examples; NORPAC is just one regional example of political lobbying for pro-Israel causes (in the Northeastern United States).

The Zionist Organization of America is just one in a long list of those groups, often flanking AIPAC to the right.

“AIPAC — a registered lobby actually — is the elephant in the Beltway room because of its enormous size,” says Jeffrey Daube, Director of the ZOA’s Israel office. “But more importantly because of its perceived leverage.”

The ZOA employs two co-directors to work on Capitol Hill, “working full time and on all burners” according to Daube, who says that he sometimes will supplement their work when he is in Washington or even when American Congressional delegations make visits to Israel. This is dwarfed by the enormous clout of AIPAC.

What is probably an important distinction, and what makes the activities of other lobbies like ZOA more complementary than contradictory, is that the ZOA focuses on “to concentrate on secondary and tertiary issues that AIPAC would not usually consider an advocacy priority.”

The so-called “big-ticket” issues are “F-35s to Israel, $225 million in additional Iron Dome funding, $3 billion in Israel aid, Iran sanctions, UN Security Council vetoes, and the like,” lists Daube. These are issues that enable AIPAC to lobby “on both sides of the political aisle.” AIPAC might involve itself in some more "behind-the-scenes" initiatives as well. Daube cites rumors that AIPAC lobbied Democratic Congressmen and Senators hard to reduce the number of representatives boycotting the Prime Minister’s speech at the beginning of March.

“The ZOA has the latitude to lobby issues not directly addressed by the GOI, or, more rarely, in opposition to it. One example of the latter would be the Gush Katif expulsion.”

The ZOA is more concerned with issues outside of the big-ticket issues says Daube, though he and his colleagues will certainly also push those issues. “For example, PA violations and incitement; UNRWA complicity; cutting off funding, especially when US taxpayer funds help the PA pay killers of innocent Israelis, many of whom are American; discriminatory US treatment of Jews living legally and peacefully in Judea-Samaria and eastern Jerusalem; Jerusalem Birthplace Act litigation; and numerous other matters.”

One major initiative the Zionist Organization of America has pushed since last year is Legal Grounds, an effort to reassert Israel’s legal claims to Judea and Samaria. Daube asserted in a recent interview that recent Israeli administrations had avoided making their case abroad.

“The case they had been making up until about 20 years ago was that we had not only a claim and we not only had title in disputed areas like Judea and Samaria – the West Bank, but we had superior claim and we had superior title…”

“That position became progressively weaker and weaker,” said Daube in the broadcast. “We felt… that Israel should speak out more resonantly about its legal rights in those areas.”

Daube says that AIPAC is more focused on the consensus issues for good reason – AIPAC has a goal to avoid partisanship. It mainly takes the lead of the Israeli government, regardless of whom the Prime Minister is or who makes up the coalition. Their main focus is “to keep Israel from becoming an aggravator or victim of partisan differences.”

“Were the government of Israel (GOI) to take any of these on more vigorously, no doubt AIPAC would do the same.”

The ZOA has the advantage of working for one part of the political spectrum and allowing other groups to manage a general consensus. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent comments about the pitfalls and perhaps non-inevitability of a Palestinian state have brought renewed priority to some its more unique agenda items.

The more conservative agenda points of the ZOA put it more in line with the hardening Republican stance against Obama Administration policies. Director Morton Klein and Daniel Mandel penned an op-ed in the Washington Post supporting the proposition that the next president might nix whatever deal Barack Obama makes with the Iranians as regards their nuclear program.

Daube describes the strength of his organization as being able to push positions that are more controversial in mainstream politics, like tackling "the existential security threats of a Palestinian terror state head on.”

“Unlike AIPAC, ZOA is not shy about pointing out Obama's detrimental Middle East policies. It would take a lot more to get AIPAC to speak out against a US Administration.”