|
Institutional
Affiliations
Center
for Security Policy: Member, National Security Advisory
Council (1)
American
Israeli Public Affairs Committee: Former executive director (2)
Coalition for Democracy in Iran: Co-founder (2)
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Former vice chairman (3)
Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM): BOD member
Washington Public Affairs Council: Founder and treasurer (7)
Government
Service
U.S. Senate: Assistant in Office of Legislative Counsel (current) (4)
Former Foreign Service Officer and legislative assistant in the House of Representatives (1)
Education
Columbia University: A.B. (4)
Harvard University: LL.B. (4)
|
Highlights
& Quotes
Morris Amitay, a longtime legislative assistant in Congress and lobbyist for the influential American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is an adviser to Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and the vice chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a U.S.-based pro-Likud advocacy outfit that specializes in connecting U.S. military brass to their counterparts in the Israeli armed forces. JINSA associates include Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Michael Leeden, David Steinmann, James Woolsey, Stephen Bryen, and Richard Perle, among other leading U.S. neoconservatives and retired U.S. military officials.
According to a profile prepared by the American Enterprise Institute, Amitay "has helped in the contribution of more than two million dollars to congressional candidates on a bipartisan basis over the past two decades." (8) In an article in The Jewish Week following the 2002 defeat of Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) and Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama), Amitay, the founder of the hardline pro-Israel Washington PAC, noted that both incumbents were particularly vulnerable because of their criticism of Israeli policies. The article led with the line: "The score is now Jewish activists 2, anti-Israel members of Congress 0." (7)
Amitay
is also a member of the large wing of neoconservative commentators
who advocate broader U.S. intervention in the Middle East, particularly
in Iran. In 2003, Amitay and fellow neocon Michael
Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, an advocacy
group pushing for regime change in Iran. According to the Coalition's
web site, "The Islamic Republic as a whole must be held accountable
for its actions. Engaging reformists tied only to the regime is
counterproductive since it stifles the growth of more democratic
forces inside Iran. Perpetuating the behavior of the current regime
fundamentally undermines U.S. moral values and national security
interests." (5)
During
a May 2003 conference at the American Enterprise Institute on the
future of Iran, Amitay sharply criticized the U.S. State Department's
efforts to engage the Islamic Republic, saying that Newt
Gingrich's much publicized lambasting of State and Colin Powell
had not gone far enough. Clearly eager to see the United States
take direct action against Iran, Amitay, who was introduced by Michael
Ledeen as the "godfather" of the American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee, grudgingly acknowledged that such action would
be difficult before the 2004 presidential elections: "As far
as the administration is concerned, I think we have to concede that
from now until November of 2004, the presidential reelection will
be a very, very high priority, and that having taken on Iraq, I
don't think that this administration or any administration would
want to undertake the use of force for regime change anywhere else
in the world. So I think what we will see is what we saw for most
of Clinton's eight years, a policy of kicking the can down the road,
a hoping for the best, making tactical decisions, no really decisive,
bold decisions."
Regarding
the State Department, Amitay said:
"The
role of the State Department, then, with the White House I think
paying less attention to Iran than it deserves, will be crucial.
Now, I was preempted by Newt Gingrich, from this very position, but I think that Newt was not tough enough in his criticism of State, and I think I can do so because of some of my own experiences.
"I think at this point it's not enough to say that the Secretary
of State is just a captive of the State Department. After a couple
of years, the bonds have been loosened, and I think that he's basically
acting a great deal on his own, and I think there's a certain mind-set
in dealing with adversaries of our country that having an instinct
for the capillaries is not enough. We did not finish the job in
'91. Thankfully, we did so now, and I don't think the State Department
distinguished itself in the run up to the war in Iraq with regard
to relations with Turkey, handling the United Nations, relationship
with France, et cetera. . .
"In a state mind-set, no tyrannical regime can't be made a
friend by showing our own good will, politeness, process and accommodation,
as Gingrich put it. . .
"Now, you have the Congress. The Congress is more action oriented.
The culture of Capitol Hill is to pass bills and resolutions, appropriate
funds, and they have to face the voters. They are accountable. But
Congress, because of this, they're held in contempt by people in
the State Department. The worst assignment a Foreign Service Officer
can get is to accompany a congressional delegation when they come
visiting.
"The Congress is held in contempt by the State Department.
They are know-nothings. They're a bunch of yahoos...simplisma. They don't have the sophistication.
Some members of Congress are flattered by the State Department as
being one of us, and as we go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
with Senator Brownback's initiatives, we're going to have some problems
with some of the leading members." (6)
|
