Challenging the US-Israeli lobby.

After writing my earlier piece on the Palestinian: Israeli conflict, I  investigated the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) more fully by reading John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's 2007 book - The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. 

The lobby's strengths:

AIPAC has both the strength and wealth to act as an effective lobby.  It has about sixty million dollars a year to spend on organising supporters, strengthening their networks, building coalitions, monitoring whatever gets written about Israel, vetting potential Congress aides, even senators, etc.  So they can well afford to have their fingers in many pies as a result. 

On the surface, AIPAC is just an efficient lobbying machine, professionally run, supported by enthusiastic believers, using imaginative and innovative ideas, and superb planning to change US-Israeli policies.  It monitors what gets written about Israeli policies, keeps a tab on anyone criticising Israel, and mobilises supporters to make a noise when necessary. Indeed, Bill Clinton described AIPAC as "stunningly effective", and "better than anyone else lobbying in this town". It does what every other legitimate lobbying organisation does;  only it does it better.  Of course, all these activities are entirely legal and carried out by other, similar lobbies across the country. The book's writers point out that AIPAC is not a Zionist conspiracy, as some people like to believe.

But just as important, it is a machine well oiled enough to influence decision makers.  It ensures that Israel, unlike any other country in the world, always get supported by Congress.  This is an amazing achievement. AIPAC's links would be difficult to break.  I'm not sure how strong this support is in Congress now that Obama is in Washington.

But AIPAC has a less attractive side too. Its leadership is more hard line than its supporters, and much more rigorous in its support of Israel than the average American would be, judged by opinion polls carried out regularly. It is clear on what it wants to achieve, and will use whatever tactics are necessary to sabotage any US policies critical of Israel. While AIPAC has huge sway on Capitol Hill, as a legitmate lobby;  it is also dangerous. At times, it uses cunning to get its way. AIPAC can punch below the belt. It has besmirched numerous reputations of academics and even got some sacked from their jobs. It can suppress critical writings on Israel, to the point where editors think twice about what they publish.  Also, it frequently uses the complaint of anti-Semitism to silence legitimate debate.  And it can humiliate US presidents. 

Humiliation:

In 2001/2002, the Bush administration tried to change anti-American feelings in the Arab and Islamic world by both stopping the building of new settlements on the West Bank, and pursuing the creation of a Palestinian state. In October 2001, for the first time, he publicly supported a two-state solution to the conflict ( something that Bill Clinton did only during the last month of his term in office). Israeli leaders were alarmed by this, with Sharon accusing Bush of 'appeasement'.  And the pressure group silenced Bush whenever he spoke in favour of the two-state solution.

Over the next few months, the US Jewish lobby and Israeli officials argued there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Landen. They tried to link the US and Israel with the same common threat of terorism.   Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the New York Times in December 2001, "You in America are in a war against terror.  We in Isael are in a war against terror.  It's the same", (quoted in the book). And when Bush clarified his ideas for a two-state solution, AIPAC complained that his advisers were "undermining America's war against terrorism.  They are encouraging the president to reward rather than punish those that habour and support terrorism"; a message they repeated frequently.

Then in 2002, when Sharon had launched Operation Defensive Shield, and allowed the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to resume control of major Palestinian areas on the West Bank, Bush demanded that Sharon "halt the incursions and begin withdrawal' and sent Colin Powell to Israel to stop the fighting.  Powell's trip was a disaster.  Netanyahu was in Washington at the time, where he said Powell's trip 'won't amount to anything'.  Thanks to the efforts of AIPAC and other pro-Jewish lobby groups, the administration changed its mind.  Powell's deputy in Washington called Powell to say:  "I'm holding back the f..king gates here.  The're eating cheese on you".  In April, the pressure groups organised a meeting between Congress and Netanyahu and Congress passed two resolutions  stating it "stands in solidarity with Israel", and "is "now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism". 

Later, supported by the lobby, the House passed a package giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism, in spite of Powell's attempt to stop it.  And Bush, humiliated,  had to sign it. A journalist in Israel (reported in the book) says that "Sharon saw the white in President Bush's eyes, and the President blinked first". Spain's El Pais commented:  "If a country's weight is measured by its degree of influence on events, the superpower is not the USA but Israel".

Similarly, the lobbyists gave no backing for the proposed road map and Sharon got away with sabotaging it, in spite of all the praise Bush showered on him for accepting it. Again, an Israeli journalist was able to comment that Sharon's goal was always to undermine the road map and exclude the other three parties to it, the EU, the UN, and Russia.These examples give a little of the flavour of what AIPAC can achieve if it is determined to do so.  We should never underestimate its strength. Over the years AIPAC has done enormous damage both to America's reputation for justice, and by sabotaging any chance for a favourable settlement.

Aid as a sanction:

What strikes me is the power the US could exert over Israel, if it wanted to moderate its behaviour.  Israel is the biggest recipient of aid from the US.  It gets about three billion dollars (plus extras) a year, not as loans as with aid to most other countries, but as direct grants. That's the equivalent of $500 per person in Israel, (Egypt, the second largest, receives only $20 a head). In total the aid to Israel is probably about $4.5 billions. Yet it rarely uses this financial muscle to challenge any of Israel's more oppressive moves against the Palestinians or to press for Bush's proposal of the two-state solution. From time to time, Bush and Rice have both made noises about cutting aid (Condoleezza Rice even talked about cutting aid equal to the cost of building the wall that Israel erected between Israeli and Palestinian settlements). This aid has the potential of being a powerful tool to challenge Israeli foot dragging over a final Palestinian settlement.


Americans can do it:
Anyone who was horrified by the recent pictures of the devastation the Israelis made of Gaza or felt disgust at the disproportionate response of Israel could march in protest at the time.  Many did, across the world.  Marching is important.  But they have little lasting effect. To be effective, people who oppose Israel's treatment of the Palestinians need to do far more. Day in, day out.  They need to monitor reports to challenge any biased. Above all, they need to present a more critical view of Israel:  a view that AIPAC so effectively silences. 

Ordinary people:

 It is easy to think we cannot influence this debate by ourselves.  But ordinary US citizens, by taking specific actions, can prepare a groundswell of opinion favourable to change for Obama to build on.  They can change prevailing sentiments daily in the media and make themselves heard.  AIPAC does not speak for most  Americans.   Seventyfive percent of the US want Capitol Hill to adopt an evenhanded response to both Israel and Palestine:  they agree with the goal of a two-state solution and want it created as quickly as possible.  But, the fly in the ointment remains that minority so opposed to any settlement. 

Mearsheimer and Walt point out: "groups like AIPAC (and others) can put disproportionate pressure on elected officials and their policy preferences are more likely to win out, even if they are bad for the US as a whole and unintentionally harmful for Israel as well". 

Change will be creasted only as Americans wake up to the damage enacted by lobbying groups, not just to Israeli policies on Palestine but also to America's standing in the world in general.  People need to prepare this gneral outlook if Obama is to change US policy.  And the US needs to accept more publicly that a just settlement for the Palestinians is in the interest of every American. When Obama says:  "We the people can bring this about", he means it. Ordinary people need to be involved in pursuing this settlement if Obama is to stand any chance of changing the region once and for all.Yes, it's difficult:  enormously difficult.  But any negotiator will tell life can always be difficult for resolving conflicts.