by Hasan Abu Nimah

Just how much influence does the Israel lobby have? Sparked by a study published by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, a new debate on this question is raging.

The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis is that the overwhelming political power of a loose network of organisations that they group together as the "Israel Lobby" has exerted such a disproportionate influence that it has consistently steered the US away from pursuing its national interest. The authors offer evidence of how much control this lobby exercises on US policy makers by ruthlessly stifling free discussion about US-Israel relations and, among other tactics, by labelling anyone who dares question the relationship as an anti-Semitic bigot.

Walt and Mearsheimer conclude that the US has placed Israel's interests above its own, with the result that the US plunged into a disastrous misadventure in Iraq, made itself the object of Arab and Muslim anger and the target of terrorism. The financial, political and diplomatic cost of supporting Israel, they argue, cannot be justified on any practical, moral or strategic grounds.

The predictable response to the study is that the authors, among the two most distinguished international relations theorists in the US, have themselves now been labelled as anti-Semites in numerous articles in the mainstream press.

It is a common view in this region that despite decades of American bias and duplicity, US policy would one day be corrected; if it does not become openly supportive of our rights, at least it will not be so blindly supportive of Israel's violations of them. Indeed, I have long argued that the United States does not face a choice between Israel and the Arabs. There is no reason the US cannot support Israel as much as it desires, provided this does not extend to supporting Israel's open aggression against its neighbours, its blatant disregard for international law, and its cruel military rule over millions of Palestinians.

The Walt-Mearsheimer report is significant not because of its content - much of which was already known - but more because of who wrote it and the moment they chose to do it. Its appearance has opened the door to much needed debate. Many Americans get upset that people in this part of the world supposedly believe conspiracy theories and see an Israeli hand behind every US action. But in the absence of free discussion about what role Israel truly plays in US politics, why the US always defends whatever Israel does, and why US leaders seem to be so afraid to criticise Israel, it can be no surprise that people believe the very worst.

What is worrying is that the heavy-handed lobby pressure tactics that have long cowed the US Congress are now apparently being felt in Europe. Until 1967, Israel relied heavily on European support and weapons. But since the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, European attitudes began to evolve. In its 1980 Venice Declaration, the European Community (as the EU was then called) recognised for the first time the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, with all that entails. This was a major policy shift.

Although never straying too far from the US lead, the EU did try to influence Washington to be a little bit more even handed. Because of this, Israel and its lobby painted the EU as openly hostile to Israel and sought to marginalise it from any political role in solving the conflict, as it had done with the UN. The EU, desperate for a role, accepted the only one the US and Israel would permit: financier to the occupation. European money during the Oslo years made a double contribution; by propping up the Palestinian Authority in the context of no pressure on Israel, it helped legitimise the occupation, and by meeting minimal Palestinian needs, it subsidised the occupation, effectively relieving Israel of the burden of paying the costs of repressing the Palestinians. Ironically, the European billions which should have helped Palestinians build their institutions, ended up feeding corruption and financing more Israeli colonisation and consolidation in the occupied territories.

In reality, the ability of the EU to make a coherent policy has been weakened by the ascent of a number of Eastern European states whose foreign policy is particularly close to that of the United States and which are under its influence. This meant that the EU was paralysed by the debate about whether to support the US invasion of Iraq; the UK, Spain and Italy supported it, while France and Germany led the opposition. A similar process has happened with respect to Israel, and the result will be even more damaging to Europe.

Is it insignificant that within the US, it is the major pro-Israel groups that are pushing for the hardest line against Iran, despite European efforts to find a non-military approach? And is it merely a coincidence that the collapse in independent EU policy coincides with strident campaigns by US-based pro-Israel groups to paint European countries as a new hotbed of anti-Semitism and Muslim terrorism? Many in this region see a direct connection between the power of the Israel lobby and Europe's caving in to the Israeli worldview.

The EU is now following Israel and America in punishing the Palestinians for exercising their democratic right and electing Hamas. The EU has every right to urge Hamas to pursue the course of peace and non-violence, but a more balanced approach would require similar calls to Israel to end its occupation and halt the use of violence as well.

Since it was elected to office in January, actually since the election of Mahmoud Abbas as PA president, Hamas neither practised nor called for use of violence. It has been strictly observing the unilaterally declared Palestinian truce while Israeli attacks, incursions and artillery shelling of as much as three hundred rounds daily on Gaza, left 20 dead and enormous property damage and fear. Rather than step in to stop Israel's aggression in an occupied territory, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan did his best to appease Israel's supporters, announcing his own boycott of the Palestinians, with no mandate or authority to do so.

In this region, many will wonder what sort of principled position this is, and ask whether it is not a position merely taken out of fear and political self-preservation.

The scale and scope of the blind support is such that many people believe that something insidious is at work. The debate about the extent of the role of the Israeli lobby will go on. But what needs no debate is that for whatever reason, US policy is too pro-Israeli and as long as this does not change, conflict in the region will only worsen.

_________________________

This article was published in the Wednesday, April 19, 2006 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.