Professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Two top U.S. scholars recently published a research paper that strongly criticizes the role and power of the U.S.’s pro-Israel lobby, warning that its “decisive” role in igniting the Iraq War is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran, according to the United Press International.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading political scientists in the United States.

The scholars say that the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. is so strong, that they doubt that their article would be published in any U.S.-based publication. They warned in the article that the Israeli lobby in the U.S. has helped exaggerate to the American media and public the importance of making the protection of Israel a key part of the U.S. foreign policy.

The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer describe as a “de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.

“Silencing skeptics”
The research, which has been strongly criticized by Israel supporters, argues that the pro-Israel lobby distorted the U.S. policy, and acts against its interests. It also says that the Lobby works hardly to prevent the questioning of its role, to suppress its critics and eliminate serious debate about the U.S. support of Israel.

"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer wrote in the 81-page paper published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.

"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they added.

The authors also cited incidents when pro-Israel groups attacked American Jews who advocated a different approach to the U.S. policy in the Middle East. “When Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a letter to President Bush expressing his opposition to the "security wall," and asking that the U.S. put pressure on Israel to stop construction, he was accused of "perfidy" by leading figures in the Lobby,” they wrote.

“Strategic burden”

The article also questions the relation between the U.S. and Israel, and explores the historical role of the Lobby. "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," it says. "The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"

"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," Walt and Mearsheimer wrote.

The professors also argue that far from being a strategic asset to the U.S., Israel is “becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also believe that Israel is now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.”

"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they said. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."

The authors also question the argument that Israel deserves U.S. support as the only democracy in the Middle East, arguing that “some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values…

They wrote that “Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."

Iraq War

The research paper strongly focuses on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the Iraq War.

It says that "the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud…Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."

"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer said.

The bulk of the research paper analyzes the way the lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. It says that "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."

"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
From : www.aljazeera.com.