Opinion - News Analysis   

Strategic interests and political lobbies

Hamid Ansari

According to a study, the thrust of U.S. policy in West Asia is due especially to the activities of the "Israel lobby."

INSTITUTIONAL DISCLAIMER on individual expression of views is normal; to go beyond it is not. For this to happen at Harvard University invokes curiosity, more so when the individual happens to be one of its own professors of some eminence co-authoring a study with another academic of repute from Chicago University.

What was the provocation? The devil seems to reside in the subject. The alleged sin of the two professors emanates from their co-authorship of a study made public this month entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Published in the Faculty Research Working Paper Series of the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard, it runs into 83 pages with 211 footnotes. Its cover page carries the logo of the University as well as of the School.

According to Israeli press reports, Harvard has decided to remove its logo and "has appended a more strongly worded disclaimer to the study stating that it reflects the views of its authors only." The same reports quote another professor of the School as saying that the study "fails to meet minimal academic standards."

The reaction stems from an assertion in the study that the thrust of U.S. policy in West Asia is due almost entirely to its domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the "Israel lobby" that has managed to divert policy from American national interest "while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical."

The study defines the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. The individuals involved are not exclusively Jewish; in fact, surveys show that 36 per cent of American Jews are either "not very" or "not at all" attached to Israel; many of them also oppose the extremist policies of the Likud. At the same time, many Christian evangelists as well as right-wing politicians are supportive of the lobby.

The principal organisations involved are the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations. "A key pillar of the lobby's effectiveness is its influence in the Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism." Here, and in the executive branch, the focus of work is to control the debate on Israel and channel it in the desired direction. The AIPAC, rated among the two most powerful lobby groups in Washington, is credited with a capacity "to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and punish those who challenge it." Much of this is done through campaign contributions, supplemented by newspaper editorials and letter-writing drives. Many well-known think tanks, dependent on endowments, toe the line in their "academic" pursuits.

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent of 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." The annual function of the AIPAC is attended by all politicians of consequence and the occasion is used for important policy pronouncements even when, as on the eve of the 2005 dinner dedicated to the theme of "Israel: An American Value," two AIPAC officials were charged by the FBI with carrying out espionage on behalf of Israel. Nor has the notorious Pollard case been forgotten.

The lobby pays particular attention to academics and universities through its "Campus Watch" programme and uses the instrument of anti-semitism against those who are critical of Israel or of U.S. policy towards Israel.

Iraq debacle

The conclusions of the study are specific. Given the Iraq debacle, "there are ample grounds for U.S. leaders to distance themselves from the lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy."

In terms of current policy, on the other hand, America "has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories." Furthermore, the lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead to attacks on these countries "with potentially disastrous effects." Its campaign "to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy" and has even been bad for Israel since it has encouraged an extremist-expansionist agenda to forego opportunities for peace and save Israeli lives.

"What is needed, therefore, is a candid discussion of the Lobby's influence and a more open debate about U.S. interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one of those interests, but not its continued occupation of the West Bank or its broader regional agenda. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided U.S. support and could move the United States to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."

Away from the controversy about academic freedom, an Israeli comment has defined the bottom line in the debate: "Defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israel community what living as an occupier has done to Israel — muddied both its moral compass and its rational self-interest compass."

Abba Eban had put it differently in 1994: Israel cannot live peacefully outside the international order that mocks the pretensions of unilateral power.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Renunciation and after
Making water a basic right
A protocol of engagement needed
Strategic interests and political lobbies
Will agreements follow the buses?
Corrections and Clarifications
Imperial overreach speeding U.S.' decline
Reprehensible
Widen the debate
Muddled indeed
Ban crying

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu