Influence of Israeli Lobby on the Peace Process - Essay Example

? The Israel ’s Influence on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: Fact or Myth? By and Number Location Due INTR0DUCTION The Israel , generally seen as individuals or groups of varying political influence, have long been seen as having undue influence around the world in the conduct of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians—particularly in the United States, Britain and several other Western Nations. Accusations are that through the Lobby negotiations are steered in favor of Israel at the expense of realities overlooked in the name of the Jewish right to statehood. Other arguments deny this charge, insisting that the Lobby’s influence is greatly overstated and to some degree anti-Semitic and or left wing rhetoric. The truth as examined from a political, social and historical perspective strongly favors the former view: that the Lobby has pressured, through various channels and organisations, a position that favors Israel over the Palestinians and has thus thwarted for years the peace effort in the region. As Massing bluntly asserts: At its core is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is ranked second after the National Rifle Association (along with the AARP) in the National Journal‘s 2005 listing of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. AIPAC, they write, serves as “a de facto agent for a foreign government.” The , they say, is also associated with Christian evangelicals such as Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson; neoconservatives both Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Bernard Lewis, and William Kristol) and gentile (John Bolton, William Bennett, and George Will); think tanks (the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute); and critics of the press such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. (Massing, 2011: par. 1) The “Myth” of Influence It is important to realize that much of what has been currently published favors the notion that the Lobby, particularly in the United States, has controlled its foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In light of this, it is important to present views that dismiss this notion before looking at the wealth of other information and opinions that do not. It is also important to remember that much of the defense comes from the Jewish community and government officials, just as some of the strongest in opposition comes from non-Jewish and Jewish alike, including a highly regarded social and political philosopher, Noam Chomsky. The reality of this may in itself reveal that opinions regarding the argument depend largely on the position of the interlocutor and whom or what he or she is striving to defend. It is interesting to note that former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, George P. Schultz’s defense of Israel is surprisingly emotional, surreptitiously alluding to the Holocaust, tying criticism to an anti-Semitic “catalog of lies”: Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame. (Schultz, 2007: par. 1-2) Schultz’s apology is also surprisingly incoherent in that he uses the unworkable analogy that if the U.S., as the largest consumer of oil, was on anyone’s side, it would on that of the Arabs, who have all of the oil. (Schultz, 2007). This argument for anyone who understands the business side of oil and the history of the conflict knows that no Arab country has ever truly stepped up to defend the Palestinian cause or threatened an oil embargo on either the US or Britain for not properly defending the Palestinians. Historically, this has always been the case and has eliminated concerns on the part of the US that Arab nations would put any serious pressure on the powers that be to concede to Palestinian demands. One of the most recent and thorough critiques of the Lobby’s influence on US Foreign Policy and the Palestinian issue was authored by Mearsheimer and Walt. Naturally it has come under particular attack by defenders of Israeli policy. Noted academic Eliot Cohen claims the report is ‘filled with sloppy scholarship and outright bigotry…an attack on the loyalty of American Jews…’ (Amos, 2006: par. 7-8). Oddly, it is the same emotional retort filed by Schultz without evidence but with a good deal of smoke-screen reference to anti-Semitism. A more formidable defense is offered by Schultz in his contention that the US does not favor Israel against the Palestinians, pointing out incidents over time where the US, despite any pressure from Jewish groups, has not gone along with either Israel’s wishes or those of the Lobby groups. As example, Schultz points out diverse responses from various Jewish groups to his opening up of dialogue with Yasser Arafat, as well as the US rejection of Jewish anger over then President Reagan’s visit to the Bitberg war cemetery in Germany. (Schultz, 2007: par. 8-9). Apparently we are to extrapolate from this that Israel has no effect on the conduct of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. ‘The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence but because the American people, and their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just’ (Schultz, 2007: par. 9). If one says something often enough, it must be true? How Schultz determines that lack of support for Israel over the Palestinians is unclear and certainly does not address behind-the-scenes political maneuvering regarding Israel’s intransigence that has more recently come to light. The following questions suggest that forces including the Lobby play a major role: Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies [including Britain] in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or [as Schultz more or less asserts] compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006: 3) Regarding the charge that the Lobby is the prime mover of US and British policy regarding Palestine, it is fair to mention that historically other factors have influenced policy. ‘After the promulgation of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969, Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia became US surrogates in combating what Washington regarded as pro-Soviet forces in the Middle East, including the PLO’ (Beinin, 1998: 25). Mearsheimer, Walt and the Firestorm In recent years no publication or study has raised the ire of the Israel Lobby more than the work of Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. The book, extrapolated from an essay, essentially contends that a coalition of Jewish groups have been successful in swaying US policy and in the process, ‘created an atmosphere ripe for terrorism, [that] fosters the spread of nuclear weapons…and puts at added risk America’s critical energy supplies from the Persian Gulf’ (Gelb, 2007: par. 2, 4). It should be noted that aside from charges and countercharges of anti-Semitism, and inaccurate figures regarding the amount of support the US gives to Israel in proportion to other countries (according to Mearsheimer and Walt, 140 billion since World War II), even Gelb, as critic of the work, admits that the 3 billion in aid to Israel each year is ‘untouchable and undiscussable’ (Gelb, 2007: par 10). Why? Through this extraordinary funding, the authors’ point is well taken that the US in doing so has allowed Israel’s military buildup, including nuclear weapons, that creates a ludicrously uneven playing field vis a vis Palestinian defenses and thus diminishes its power force in negotiations. How intrinsic the Lobby is to all of this is at the heart of the argument: …the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel ’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical. (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006: par. 2) Specifically regarding peace negotiations, serious questions arise as to whether, as is often put forth by various officials, US support for Israel is helping or hurting the US cause and that of its allies in the fight against terrorism. When it comes to the Palestinian question, it seems logical that the US failure to pressure Israel into more productive peace negotiations has at least something to do with terrorist threats in the West. ‘There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians’ (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006: par. 11). Criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt’s failure to mention US public criticism aimed at Israel for pursuing settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip can be countered with the notion that ‘talk is cheap’, as they say. Public posturing while financially supporting the resources to make such actions possible does little to dispel suspicions of complicity between the Lobby and Washington. Britain’s Role No study of the broad impact of the Israel Lobby is more evident that in its ripple effect throughout the core governments of US allies, namely Great Britain. ‘…the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) established itself as the fourth node in America's military industrial-congressional complex by conditioning elected and appointed officials to fashion Middle East policies [including that of the Palestinian question] that are inimical to U.S. strategic interest’ (Montanye, 2008: 119). Extrapolating, any ‘strategic interest’ in essence involves US allies and by association Great Britain. An examination of Britain’s own pro-Israel stance provides an interesting sub-context to the investigation of the Lobby’s wide and widening influence. David Cesarani, in his November 17, 2009 Guardian piece critiques Peter Osborne’s program investigating the influence of the Lobby. The article provides an interesting starting point for the discussion. While admitting the Lobby exists and indeed has influence, Cesarani like Gelb accepts the influence as a normal part of politics in any democratic society. Rejecting the notion that the Lobby has undue influence on media reports on Israel’s often violent reactions to Palestinian protests against settlements, Cesarani points out that the media has covered the incidents extensively and no attempt to make Israel ‘look good’ was made. Conversely, while admitting the influence of rich Jewish individuals, he dismisses suggestions of anti-Semitism as ‘fantasy and phobia’ (Cesarani, 2009: par. 17) and British complicity in bending to such influence as frivolous assumption. From the early days of the partition Zionist groups had been placing pressure on both the British and the Americans—pressure that more often than not led to favorable results for the Israeli’s. Britain’s hope for partition in the early days that would have given the Palestinians there own state was all but killed by American unwillingness to confront the Jewish Lobby. Quoting President Harry Truman, ‘the Zionist was not going to make life easy for a Democratic President’ (Kedourie and Haim, 1982: 186). When the US failed to back the idea, then Prime Minister Clemente Attlee all but told his contingent the Americans could not be counted on, a failure that would forever affect events in Palestine and fate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the face of it accusations persist that Britain’s Israel Lobby does indeed exert or attempts to exert inappropriate influence, in one instance, over the media. Littlewood (2011) cites ‘Zionist squealing’ over an ad in National Geographic Magazine offering tours to Palestine they say distorts boundaries and dismisses Israel as a nation. For me the term ‘squealing’ does indicate an anti-Semitic intent. ‘Britain’s Israel [Zionist Federation of the UK]…has been mounting a campaign to get the UK's advertising watchdog [Advertising Standards Authority-ASA) to force the removal of the advertisement. (par. 1-6) Thus aspect of the article paints a clear picture of possible attempts to unduly influence the media. Influence Examined The influence on British foreign policy is well examined considering certain statements about Canadian policy in the past, the residuals of which are prevalent even today. Examining influence regarding Palestine should be set against Canada’s original position meant to ‘remain loyal to British Policy [partition]’ (Goldberg, 1990: 30). Charges of Canadian latent anti-Semitism as thwarting organised efforts in the foreign policy-making process are mainly conjecture, as are statements such as the following: ‘In this complex intermingling of issues and considerations, Zionists were unable to influence Canadian Policy on Palestine in a fashion generally attributed to them by their detractors’ (Goldberg, 1990: 30). It is in fact alleged that later decisions by the Canadian government to allow representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to attend conferences on the Israel-Palestine issue was inappropriate and perhaps amounted to influence peddling on the part of the PLO. Over time attempts to deal with various Israel issues organized and strengthened in Canada, Britain and the US, but similar efforts to deal with the Palestinian issue were largely overrated, sporadic and subject to ‘The international political environment [which] impacted both positively and negatively upon AIPAC's attempt to influence the US response to the Palestinian disturbances’ (Goldberg, 1990: 95). While that may have been somewhat true earlier on, over time even the New York Times, often accused for its pro-Israel leanings, referred to the AIPAC’s ‘growing prowess is[as]a matter of Washington legend’ (Traub, 2009: par. 3). Still other views focus on the Lobby’s basic blind insensitivity to realisticl solutions to the Palestinian question, specifically the ‘enabling behavior of American Jews and other members of the Israel Lobby’ (Hewitt, 2008: 59+). As most politicians and political watchers agree, to resolve the problems in Palestine requires Israel’s freeze on settlements and the acceptance of a two-state solution—proposals that have been forwarded over the years and promptly stifled in the US Congress. Thus, Mearsheimer and Walt’s suggestion that ‘Jewish neoconservatives had persuaded President Bush to go to war in Iraq in order to protect Israel’ (Traub, 2009: par. 4) does not appear all that far fetched. Given what has been written since regarding US influence on Prime Minister Tony Blair in the conduct of that war, the suggestion of overlapping influence is certainly reasonable. No matter what criticisms have been leveled against Mearsheimer and Walt’s article or book by Jewish groups and others, including Schultz, the fact remains, according to Traube (2009) ‘the authors made one claim that struck many knowledgeable people as very close to the mark: The Israel Lobby had succeeded in ruling almost any criticism of Israel out of bounds, especially in Congress’ (Traube, 2009: par.4). Mearsheimer and Walt wrote the following: The bottom line is that Aipac, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006: 12) Noam Chomsky’s even-handed comments on Mearsheimer and Walt as what is now considered the modern definitive commentary on the Lobby is certainly worth noting. As a student of socio-political activities worldwide, he points out [suggesting the Lobby’s influence] that the article was refused by a prominent US journal and was published in England, much to the annoyance of supporters. ‘…the fact that it [the article] appeared in England, the M-W article aroused the anticipated hysterical reaction from the usual supporters of state violence here…in ways that would instantly expose the authors to ridicule if they were not lining up (as usual) with power’ (Chomsky, 2006: par. 2). On the other hand, Chomsky is also careful to address degree of influence as relative to other influences affecting US decisions. ‘…there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the generally], such as the oil companies…’ (Chomsky, 2006: 11). Some commentary, however, states the reality without even realizing: ‘Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby‘ (Finklestein, 2006: par. 2). As far as the British position, its willingness to turn over Palestine in the 1940s, knowing the chaos that would follow, a British diplomat is quoted as saying, ‘however much Arab resentment it provoked, British support for Zionism was prudent policy, for it established in the midst of an uncertain Arab world a well-to-do educated, modern community, ultimately bound to be dependent on the British Empire’ (Finklestein, 2006: 4). This statement casts a large shadow upon not only the degree of influence but on British reasons for what may appear as its acquiescence to Lobby demands. This may be similarly true of the US, who perhaps sees Israel’s ultimate survival over the Palestinians, as has often been alleged, as a stabilizing factor in the oil rich Middle East. Conclusion Political rationales aside, it is obvious that over time the Israel Lobby has had a good degree of influence over the political decisions of several countries, including Britain and mainly the US. It is also clear that accusations of anti-Semitism have been used as a moral club over governments to secure the Lobby’s goals, ‘particularly…in cases where it can be shown that the behavior targeted is at least in part, and sometimes in great part, imaginary and constructed’ (Cohen, 2009: 23). This point is important to emphasise, since it relates directly to any investigation or criticism of Jewish groups in that ‘it invokes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…and all those who express an opposition to Israeli policies… as anti-semites or, at the least, highly suspect tolerators of anti-semitism’ (Cohen, 2009: 23+). That many of the defenses of influence peddling fall into this latter category, a dangerous and deflective pattern. That the influence at times may be overstated must also be considered. It is clear that organisations over time have exerted influence, whether with threats of withholding votes from the Jewish community, or through the use of moral clubs. That the Israeli cause has influence over neo-conservative political and religious factions has been well documented. The depth, however, to which these groups affect political outcome is somewhat questionable. It is clear that progress in regard to the Palestinians has been greatly affected by Lobby influence for whatever reason. Failure on the part of the US and Britain as its ally to forcefully pursue an end to settlements and agreed boundaries for a Palestinians state seem continually on hold and, as some maintain, at the advise and consent of an Israeli government set against such resolution. References Amos, D. (2011). ‘Paper on Israel Sparks Heated Debate’ NPR Fresh Air from WHYY, 26 March. Available at: http://www Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14154089 (Accessed 20, March 2011). Beinin, J. (1998). ‘Palestine and Israel: Perils of a Neoliberal, Repressive “Pax Americana”’. Social Justice Vol 25 (4): 20+. Available at: www.questia.com. (Accessed 17, March, 2011). Cesarani, D. (2009). ‘Shallow Polemic on Pro-Israel’. Guardian.co.uk website, Tuesday 17 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/17/pro-israel--peter-oborne (Accessed 18 March, 2011). Chomsky, N. (2006). ‘The Israel Lobby’? ZNet, 28 March. Available at: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm (Accessed 20 March, 2011) Cohen, J. (2009) ‘The Accusation of Anti-Semitism as Moral Blackmail: Conservative Jews in France and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict’. Human Architecture. Vol 7 (2): 23+. Available at: www.questia.com. Accessed 18 March, 2011. Finklestein, N.G. (2006). ‘It’s Not Either Or: The Israel’. Counterpunch, (eds. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, 1 May. Available at: http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein05012006.html (Accessed 20 March, 2011). Gelb, L.H. (2007) ‘Dual Loyalties’. New York Times.com, 23 September. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/09/23/books/1154689745996.html?8tpw=&emc=tpw&pagewanted=print (Accessed 18 March, 2011). Goldberg, D.H. (1990). Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and Canadian Jews for Israel. New York: Greenwood Press. Available at: www.questia.com Hewitt, W.F. (2008). ‘The Israel Lobby’ . The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol 36 (1): 59+. Available at: www.questia.com (Accessed 18 March, 2011). Kedourie, E and Haim S.G. (1982) Zionism and Arabism in Palestine and Israel. London: F. Cass. Littlewood, S.(2011). ‘Hypocrisy of Britain's Israel : Israel Begrudges Palestine its Fragile Tourism’. Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, 16 January 16. Available at: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/January/16%20o/Hypocrisy%20of%20Britain's%20Israel%20,%20Israel%20Begrudges%20Palestine%20its%20Fragile%20Tourism%20By%20Stuart%20Littlewood.htm (Accessed 18 March, 2011). Massing, M. (2011) ‘The Storm over the Israel’. The New York Review of Books. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/jun/08/the-storm-over-the-israel-/ (Accessed 20 March, 2011). Mearsheimer J., Walt S.M. (2006).‘The Israel Lobby’. London Review of Books Vol. 28 (6) 23 March: 3-12 Available at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby (Accessed 16, March, 2011). Montanye, J.A. (2008). ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’. The Independent Review, Vol 13 (1): 119+. Available at: www.questia.com. (Accessed 18 March, 2011). Schultz, G.P. (2007). ‘The “Israel” Myth’. Posted September 9. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2007/09/09/the-israel--myth (Accessed 19 March, 2011). Traub, J. (2009).’The New Israel’. New York Times Magazine, 9 September. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13JStreet-t.html (Accessed 20 March, 2011). Walt, S.M. (2011). ‘Did the Israel Lobby Change Anything’? 25 March. Foreign Policy Website. Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/25/did_the_israel__change_anything?page=0,1 (Accessed 18, March 2011) Read More