"Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As 
someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the 
last three years through their formidable influence on my own 
university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a 
resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies 
towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not."

------

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm
Blaming the lobby
As someone who has been facing the full brunt of the might of the 
pro-Israel lobby in the US, Joseph Massad* explains the deceit behind 
blaming the lobby for US policies towards the Palestinians and the 
Arab world
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the last 25 years, many Palestinians and other Arabs, in the 
United States and in the Arab world, have been so awed by the power 
of the US pro-Israel lobby that any study, book, or journalistic 
article that exposes the inner workings, the substantial influence, 
and the financial and political power of this lobby have been greeted 
with ecstatic sighs of relief that Americans finally can see the 
"truth" and the "error" of their ways.

The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and 
again by Washington's regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal 
and Arab intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and 
former politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who 
support Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro-Israel lobby, 
America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of 
Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the 
Palestinians' best ally and friend. What makes this argument 
persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims 
constantly brandished by Washington's Arab friends to Arab and 
American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the 
attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' 
government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for 
its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and 
Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on 
the side of their enemies.

Let me start with the premise of the argument, namely its effect of 
shifting the blame for US policies from the United States onto Israel 
and its US lobby. According to this logic, it is not the United 
States that should be held directly responsible for all its imperial 
policies in the Arab world and the Middle East at large since World 
War II, rather it is Israel and its lobby who have pushed it to 
launch policies that are detrimental to its own national interest and 
are only beneficial to Israel. Establishing and supporting Arab and 
other Middle East dictatorships, arming and training their 
militaries, setting up their secret police apparatuses and training 
them in effective torture methods and counter-insurgency to be used 
against their own citizens should be blamed, according to the logic 
of these studies, on Israel and its US lobby. Blocking all 
international and UN support for Palestinian rights, arming and 
financing Israel in its war against a civilian population, protecting 
Israel from the wrath of the international community should also be 
blamed not on the United States, the studies insist, but on Israel 
and its lobby. Additionally, and in line with this logic, controlling 
Arab economies and finances, dominating key investments in the Middle 
East, and imposing structural adjustment policies by the IMF and the 
World Bank which impoverish the Arab peoples should also be blamed on 
Israel, and not the United States. Finally, starving and then 
invading Iraq, threatening to invade Syria, raiding and then 
sanctioning Libya and Iran, besieging the Palestinians and their 
leaders must also be blamed on the Israeli lobby and not the US 
government. Indeed, over the years, many pro-US Arab dictators let it 
leak officially and unofficially that their US diplomat friends have 
told them time and again how much they and "America" support the Arab 
world and the Palestinians were it not for the influence of the 
pro-Israel lobby (sometimes identified by the American diplomats in 
more explicit "ethnic" terms).

While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full 
of awe-inspiring well-documented details about the formidable power 
commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 
(AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains 
unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United 
States government ever supported national liberation in the Third 
World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable 
enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including 
European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, 
except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war 
against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main 
terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against 
their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would 
the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the 
pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of 
fighting all regimes across the Third World who insist on controlling 
their national resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable 
minerals. This extends from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to the 
rest of Latin America all the way to present-day Venezuela. Africa 
has fared much worse in the last four decades, as have many countries 
in Asia. Why would the United States support nationalist regimes in 
the Arab world who would nationalise natural resources and stop their 
pillage by American capital absent the pro-Israel lobby also remains 
a mystery unexplained by these studies. Finally, the United States 
government has opposed and overthrown or tried to overthrow any 
regime that seeks real and tangible independence in the Third World 
and is especially galled by those regimes that pursue such policies 
through democratic elections. The overthrow of regimes from Arbenz to 
Goulart to Mossadegh and Allende and the ongoing attempts to 
overthrow Chavez are prominent examples, as is the overthrow of 
nationalist regimes like Sukarno's and Nkrumah's. The terror 
unleashed on populations who challenged the US-installed friendly 
regimes from El Salvador and Nicaragua to Zaire to Chile and 
Indonesia resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions by repressive police and militaries trained for these 
important tasks by the US. This is aside from direct US invasions of 
South East Asian and Central American countries that killed untold 
millions for decades. Why would the US and its repressive agencies 
stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive 
police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop 
setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals 
to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow 
government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest 
detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing 
orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by 
these studies let alone explained.

The arguments put forth by these studies would have been more 
convincing if the Israel lobby was forcing the United States 
government to pursue policies in the Middle East that are 
inconsistent with its global policies elsewhere. This, however, is 
far from what happens. While US policies in the Middle East may often 
be an exaggerated form of its repressive and anti-democratic policies 
elsewhere in the world, they are not inconsistent with them. One 
could easily make the case that the strength of the pro-Israel lobby 
is what accounts for this exaggeration, but even this contention is 
not entirely persuasive. One could argue (and I have argued 
elsewhere) that it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US 
strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength 
of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around. Indeed, many of 
the recent studies highlight the role of pro-Likud members of the 
Bush administration (or even of the Clinton administration) as 
evidence of the lobby's awesome power, when, it could be easily 
argued that it is these American politicians who had pushed Likud and 
Labour into more intransigence in the 1990s and are pushing them 
towards more conquest now that they are at the helm of the US 
government. This is not to say, however, that the leaders of the 
pro-Israel lobby do not regularly brag about their crucial influence 
on US policy in Congress and in the White House. That they have done 
regularly since the late 1970s. But the lobby is powerful in the 
United States because its major claims are about advancing US 
interests and its support for Israel is contextualised in its support 
for the overall US strategy in the Middle East. The pro-Israel lobby 
plays the same role that the China lobby played in the 1950s and the 
Cuba lobby still plays to this day. The fact that it is more powerful 
than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the 
importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power 
that the lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US 
"national interest." The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message 
and would not have any influence if Israel was a communist or 
anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere in 
the world.

Some would argue that even though Israel attempts to overlap its 
interests with those of the US, that its lobby is misleading American 
policy-makers and shifting their position from one of objective 
assessment of what is truly in America's best interest and that of 
Israel's. The argument runs as follows: US support for Israel causes 
groups who oppose Israel to hate the US and target it for attacks. It 
also costs the US friendly media coverage in the Arab world, affects 
its investment potential in Arab countries, and loses its important 
allies in the region, or at least weakens these allies. But none of 
this is true. The United States has been able to be Israel's biggest 
backer and financier, its staunchest defender and weapon-supplier 
while maintaining strategic alliances with most if not all Arab 
dictatorships, including the Palestinian Authority under both Yasser 
Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover, US companies and American 
investments have the largest presence across the Arab world, most 
prominently but not exclusively in the oil sector. Also, even without 
the pathetic and ineffective efforts at US propaganda in the guise of 
the television station Al-Hurra, or Radio Sawa and the now-defunct Hi 
magazine, not to mention US-paid journalists and newspapers in Iraq 
and elsewhere, a whole army of Arabic newspapers and state-television 
stations, not to mention myriad satellite television stations 
celebrate the US and its culture, broadcast American programmes, and 
attempt to sell the US point of view as effectively as possible 
encumbered only by the limitations that actual US policies in the 
region place on common sense. Even the offending Al-Jazeera has bent 
over backwards to accommodate the US point of view but is constantly 
undercut by actual US policies in the region. Al-Jazeera, under 
tremendous pressure and threats of bombing from the United States, 
has for example stopped referring to the US occupation forces in Iraq 
as "occupation forces" and now refers to them as "coalition forces". 
Moreover, since when has the US sought to win a popularity contest 
among the peoples of the world? Arabs no more hate or love the United 
States than do Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, or even and 
especially Europeans.

Finally we come to the financial argument, namely that the US gives 
an inordinate amount of money to Israel -- too exorbitant a cost that 
is out of proportion to what the US gets in return. In fact, the 
United States spends much more on its military bases in the Arab 
world, not to mention on those in Europe or Asia, than it does on 
Israel. Israel has indeed been very effective in rendering services 
to its US master for a good price, whether in channelling illegal 
arms to central American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, 
helping pariah regimes like Taiwan and apartheid South Africa in the 
same period, supporting pro-US, including Fascist, groups inside the 
Arab world to undermine nationalist Arab regimes, from Lebanon to 
Iraq to Sudan, coming to the aid of conservative pro-US Arab regimes 
when threatened as it did in Jordan in 1970, and attacking Arab 
nationalist regimes outright as it did in 1967 with Egypt and Syria 
and in 1981 with Iraq when it destroyed that country's nuclear 
reactor. While the US had been able to overthrow Sukarno and Nkrumah 
in bloody coups, Nasser remained entrenched until Israel effectively 
neutralised him in the 1967 War. It is thanks to this major service 
that the United States increased its support to Israel exponentially. 
Moreover, Israel neutralised the PLO in 1982, no small service to 
many Arab regimes and their US patron who could not fully control the 
organisation until then. None of the American military bases on which 
many more billions are spent can claim such a stellar record. Critics 
argue that when the US had to intervene in the Gulf, it could not 
rely on Israel to do the job because of the sensitivity of including 
it in such a coalition which would embarrass Arab allies, hence the 
need for direct US intervention and the uselessness of Israel as a 
strategic ally. While this may be true, the US also could not rely on 
any of its military bases to launch the invasions on their own and 
had to ship in its army. American bases in the Gulf did provide 
important and needed support but so did Israel.

AIPAC is indeed powerful insofar as it pushes for policies that 
accord with US interests and that are resonant with the reigning US 
imperial ideology. The power of the pro-Israel lobby, whether in 
Congress or on campuses among university administrators, or 
policy-makers is not based solely on their organisational skills or 
ideological uniformity. In no small measure, anti-Semitic attitudes 
in Congress (and among university administrators) play a role in 
believing the lobby's (and its enemies') exaggerated claims about its 
actual power, resulting in their toeing the line. But even if this 
were true, one could argue, it would not matter whether the lobby has 
real or imagined power. For as long as Congress and policy-makers 
(and university administrators) believe it does, it will remain 
effective and powerful. I of course concede this point.

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East 
absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the 
details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of 
such policies. Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the 
United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their 
power for the last three years through their formidable influence on 
my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a 
resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies 
towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not. The 
United States is opposed in the Arab world as elsewhere because it 
has pursued and continues to pursue policies that are inimical to the 
interests of most people in these countries and are only beneficial 
to its own interests and to the minority regimes in the region that 
serve those interests, including Israel. Absent these policies, and 
not the pro-Israel lobby which supports them, the United States 
should expect a change in its standing among Arabs. Short of that, 
the United States will have to continue its policies in the region 
that have wreaked, and continue to wreak, havoc on the majority of 
Arabs and not expect that the Arab people will like it in return.

* The writer is associate professor of modern Arab politics and 
intellectual history at Columbia University. His recent book The 
Persistence of the Palestinian Question was published by Routledge.


_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to