The absolute power of the "pro-Israel" lobby, as manifested most prominently by the US-based organisation known as AIPAC, is often cited as a truism of Western foreign policy.
However, the recent defeat of the Israel-supported push to go to war in Syria, and the US administration's continued backing of a deal with Iran on its nuclear capabilities (which Israel opposes), suggests that the pro-Israel lobby isn't as Goliath-like as perceived.
Michael Koplow, programme director of the Israel Institute, claimed in a recent blog post that "the loud insistence of 'Israel lobby truthers' that AIPAC controls US policy in the Middle East has, more than anything else, enhanced the power of pro-Israel groups by convincing a growing number of people that the mistaken perception is actually true. This in turn leads to government officials believing the hype, and thus you get the ADL and AJC (two AIPAC member organisations) invited to a private briefing at the White House…The bottom line is that Congress… is going to do what public opinion tells it to do."
While Koplow is a bit too glib in his dismissal of AIPAC money and electoral threats, his core premise is correct: When the public finally wakes up and mobilises, the lobby's vaunted power dissipates. And the pro-Israel lobby is slowly losing the battle for public legitimacy.
The lesson of Syria
On its website, during the debate over whether to bomb Syria as punishment for its suspected use of chemical weapons, AIPAC stated: "The civilised world cannot tolerate the use of these barbaric weapons…[T]his is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah." The organisation went on to insist that the bombing of Syria is a "critical decision" that if not enacted would "greatly endanger our country's security and interests and those of our regional allies".
However, most Americans were staunchly opposed to military intervention in Syria, with a CNN poll showing that even though eight in 10 believed Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority did not support a retaliatory military strike.
Max Fisher, foreign affairs blogger for The Washington Post - not known for its progressive reporting when it comes to Israel, concluded: "It was a rare public test of AIPAC's ability to shape US foreign policy and it flunked."
Unfolding debate on Iran
Some observers argue that the pro-Israel lobby's loss in the Syria debate is limited to that issue, and will have no bearing on the outcome of the P5+1 (United States, Russia, China, France, UK and Germany) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear status.
I believe that if we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, there will be an increasing campaign of de-legitimisation of Israel that's been taking place on an international basis,
-US Secretary of State John Kerry |
Israel has made its position chillingly clear. According to The Times of Israel, a member of the national parliament telephoned French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to warn him that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would attack Iran's nuclear facilities if the P5+1 nations do not stiffen their terms on a deal with Iran. "I know [Netanyahu]," the French MP, Meyer Habib, reportedly told Fabius. "If you don't toughen your positions, Netanyahu will attack Iran... You have to toughen your positions in order to prevent war."
If that isn't blackmail, what is? But will it work?
Public-opinion polls show that more than 75 percent of Americans favour direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, and although most (58 percent) won't take military action off the table to prevent Iran from deploying a nuclear weapon, 80 percent believe the current threat can be contained without force. Clearly, public opinion - in the US at least - is on the side of dialogue. |
Recent surveys point to a public increasingly moving towards diplomacy rather than war [Reuters]
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us