U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this
truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous
strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration's attempt to
transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a
resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist
bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many,
all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign
policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day
War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship
with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the
related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and
Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United
States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests
of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is
based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we
show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the
remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States
provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to
U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the "Israel Lobby." Other
special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions
they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from
what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
essentially identical.

In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this feat,
and how its activities have shaped America's actions in this critical region.
Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its potential impact on
others, both Americans and nonAmericans need to understand and address the
Lobby's influence on U.S. policy.

Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are
not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the
work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding
light on these issues. We also rely on evidence provided by respected Israeli and
international human rights organizations. Similarly, our claims about the
Lobby's impact rely on testimony from the Lobby's own members, as well as
testimony from politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our
conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.

THE GREAT BENEFACTOR

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of
support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the
largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976
and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel
amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion
in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly onefifth of America's
foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a
direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking
when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita
income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.
Israel also gets other special deals from Washington. Other aid recipients get
their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation
at the beginning of each fiscal year and thus earns extra interest. Most recipients
of American military assistance are required to spend all of it in the United
States, but Israel can use roughly twentyfive percent of its aid allotment to
subsidize its own defense industry. Israel is the only recipient that does not have
to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually
impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States
opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank.

Moreover, the United States has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop
weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need,
while giving Israel access to topdrawer U.S. weaponry like Blackhawk
helicopters and F16 jets. Finally, the United States gives Israel access to
intelligence that it denies its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye towards
Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council
resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total
of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It also blocks Arab
states' efforts to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy
Agency's agenda.
The United States also comes to Israel's rescue in wartime and takes its side
when negotiating peace. The Nixon Administration resupplied Israel during the
October War and protected Israel from the threat of Soviet intervention.
Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war as well
as the lengthy "stepbystep" process that followed, just as it played a key role in
the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. There were
occasional frictions between U.S. and Israeli officials in both cases, but the United
States coordinated its positions closely with Israel and consistently backed the
Israeli approach to the negotiations. Indeed, one American participant at Camp
David (2000) later said, "far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel's lawyer."



As discussed below, Washington has given Israel wide latitude in dealing with
the occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip), even when its actions
were at odds with stated U.S. policy. Moreover, the Bush Administration's
ambitious strategy to transform the Middle East--beginning with the invasion of
Iraq--is at least partly intended to improve Israel's strategic situation. Apart
from wartime alliances, it is hard to think of another instance where one country
has provided another with a similar level of material and diplomatic support for
such an extended period. America's support for Israel is, in short, unique.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital
strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained U.S.
backing. But neither rationale is convincing.

A STRATEGIC LIABILITY

According to the AmericanIsrael Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) website,
"the United States and Israel have formed a unique partnership to meet the
growing strategic threats in the Middle East . . . . This cooperative effort provides
significant benefits for both the United States and Israel."
This claim is an article of faith among Israel's supporters and is routinely invoked
by Israeli politicians and proIsrael Americans.

Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War. By serving as
America's proxy after the Six Day War (1967), Israel helped contain Soviet
expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like
Egypt and Syria. Israel occasionally helped protect other U.S. allies (like Jordan's
King Hussein) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more backing
its losing clients. Israel also gave the United States useful intelligence about
Soviet capabilities.

Israel's strategic value during this period should not be overstated, however.
Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America's relations with the
Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in
emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo
that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Moreover, Israel's
military could not protect U.S. interests in the region. For example, the United
States could not rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised
concerns about the security of Persian Gulf oil supplies, and had to create its own
"Rapid Deployment Force" instead.

Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990
91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States
could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the antiIraq
coalition, and it had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to keep Tel
Aviv from doing anything that might fracture the alliance against Saddam.
History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the United States to
attack Saddam, President Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab
opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and especially after 9/11, U.S. support for Israel has been
justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups
originating in the Arab or Muslim world, and by a set of "rogue states" that back
these groups and seek WMD. This rationale implies that Washington should
give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press Israel to
make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead. It also
implies that the United States should go after countries like the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Bashar alAssad's Syria. Israel is thus seen
as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America's enemies.

This new rationale seems persuasive, but Israel is in fact a liability in the war on
terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

To begin with, "terrorism" is a tactic employed by a wide array of political
groups; it is not a single unified adversary. The terrorist organizations that
threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the United States,
except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover,
Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or "the
West"; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the
West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared
terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States
has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel,
not the other way around. U.S. 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, for example, that many al Qaeda
leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and
the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden
explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East,
including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight
this issue.

Equally important, unconditional U.S. support for Israel makes it easier for
extremists like bin Laden to rally popular support and to attract recruits. Public
opinion polls confirm that Arab populations are deeply hostile to American
support for Israel, and the U.S. State Department's Advisory Group on Public
Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim world found that "citizens in these
countries are genuinely distressed at the plight of the Palestinians and at the role
they perceive the United States to be playing."
As for socalled rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital
U.S. interests, apart from the U.S. commitment to Israel itself. Although the
United States does have a number of disagreements with these regimes,
Washington would not be nearly as worried about Iran, Ba'thist Iraq, or Syria
were it not so closely tied to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear
weapons--which is obviously not desirable--it would not be a strategic disaster
for the United States. Neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed by a
nucleararmed rogue, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat
without receiving overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a "nuclear handoff"
to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the
transfer would be undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished
afterwards.

Furthermore, the U.S. relationship with Israel actually makes it harder to deal
with these states. Israel's nuclear arsenal is one reason why some of its
neighbors want nuclear weapons, and threatening these states with regime
change merely increases that desire. Yet Israel is not much of an asset when the
United States contemplates using force against these regimes, because it cannot
participate in the fight.

In short, treating Israel as America's most important ally in the campaign against
terrorism and assorted Middle East dictatorships both exaggerates Israel's ability
to help on these issues and ignores the ways that Israel's policies make U.S.
efforts more difficult.

Unquestioned support for Israel also weakens the U.S. position outside the
Middle East. Foreign elites consistently view the United States as too supportive
of Israel, and think its tolerance of Israeli repression in the occupied territories is
morally obtuse and a handicap in the war on terrorism. In April 2004, for
example, 52 former British diplomats sent Prime Minister Tony Blair a letter
saying that the IsraelPalestine conflict had "poisoned relations between the West
and the Arab and Islamic worlds," and warning that the policies of Bush and
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were "onesided and illegal."
A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not act like a loyal
ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore U.S. requests and renege on promises
made to top U.S. leaders (including past pledges to halt settlement construction
and to refrain from "targeted assassinations" of Palestinian leaders). Moreover,
Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential U.S. rivals like
China, in what the U.S. State Department InspectorGeneral called "a systematic
and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers." According to the U.S. General
Accounting Office, Israel also "conducts the most aggressive espionage
operations against the U.S. of any ally." In addition to the case of Jonathan
Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s
(which Israel reportedly passed onto the Soviet Union to gain more exit visas for
Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key
Pentagon official (Larry Franklin) had passed classified information to an Israeli
diplomat, allegedly aided by two AIPAC officials. Israel is hardly the only
country that spies on the United States, but its willingness to spy on its principal
patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.


A DWINDLING MORAL CASE

Apart from its alleged strategic value, Israel's backers also argue that it deserves
unqualified U.S. support because 1) it is weak and surrounded by enemies, 2) it
is a democracy, which is a morally preferable form of government; 3) the Jewish
people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment,
and 4) Israel's conduct has been morally superior to its adversaries' behavior.

On close inspection, however, each of these arguments is unpersuasive. There is
a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence, but that is not in jeopardy.
Viewed objectively, Israel's past and present conduct offers no moral basis for
privileging it over the Palestinians.

Backing the Underdog?

Israel is often portrayed as weak and besieged, a Jewish David surrounded by a
hostile Arab Goliath. This image has been carefully nurtured by Israeli leaders
and sympathetic writers, but the opposite image is closer to the truth. Contrary
to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, betterequipped, and betterled forces
during the 194749 War of Independence and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) won
quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan, and
Syria in 1967--before largescale U.S. aid began flowing to Israel. These victories
offer eloquent evidence of Israeli patriotism, organizational ability, and military
prowess, but they also reveal that Israel was far from helpless even in its earliest
years.

Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional
forces are far superior to its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with
nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel and Saudi
Arabia has offered to do so as well. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been
decimated by three disastrous wars, and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The
Palestinians barely have effective police, let alone a military that could threaten
Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University's prestigious
Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, "the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel,
which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military
capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors." If backing the
underdog were a compelling rationale, the United States would be supporting
Israel's opponents.


Aiding a Fellow Democracy?

American backing is often justified by the claim that Israel is a fellowdemocracy
surrounded by hostile dictatorships. This rationale sounds convincing, but it
cannot account for the current level of U.S. support. After all, there are many
democracies around the world, but none receives the lavish support that Israel
does. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in the past and
supported dictators when this was thought to advance U.S. interests, and it has
good relations with a number of dictatorships today. Thus, being democratic
neither justifies nor explains America's support for Israel.

The "shared democracy" rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli
democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a
liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed
to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state
and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this
conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel's 1.3 million Arabs are
treated as secondclass citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission
found that Israel behaves in a "neglectful and discriminatory" manner towards
them.

Similarly, Israel does not permit Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to
become citizens themselves, and does not give these spouses the right to live in
Israel. The Israeli human rights organization B'tselem called this restriction "a
racist law that determines who can live here according to racist criteria." Such
laws may be understandable given Israel's founding principles, but they are not
consistent with America's image of democracy.

Israel's democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the
Palestinians a viable state of their own. Israel controls the lives of about 3.8
million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, while colonizing lands on which
the Palestinians have long dwelt. Israel is formally democratic, but the millions
of Palestinians that it controls are denied full political rights and the "shared
democracy" rationale is correspondingly weakened.

Compensation for Past Crimes

A third moral justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West,
especially the tragic episode of the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for
centuries and can only be safe in a Jewish homeland, many believe that Israel
deserves special treatment from the United States.

There is no question that Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of anti
Semitism, and that Israel's creation was an appropriate response to a long record
of crimes. This history, as noted, provides a strong moral case for supporting
Israel's existence. But the creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a
largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

The history of these events is wellunderstood. When political Zionism began in
earnest in the late 19th century, there were only about 15,000 Jews in Palestine.
In 1893, for example, the Arabs comprised roughly 95 percent of the population,
and though under Ottoman control, they had been in continuous possession of
this territory for 1300 years. Even when Israel was founded, Jews were only
about 35 percent of Palestine's population and owned 7 percent of the land.
The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi
national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist
leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a
tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David BenGurion put it in the
late 1930s, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment
of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."


To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the
territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to
accomplish their objective. BenGurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941
that "it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population]
without compulsion, and brutal compulsion." Or as Israeli historian Benny
Morris puts it, "the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has
accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century."


This opportunity came in 194748, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000
Palestinians into exile. Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled
because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli
historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders
urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the
hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee. After the war, Israel barred the
return of the Palestinian exiles.


The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian
people was well understood by Israel's leaders. As BenGurion told Nahum
Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, "If I were an Arab leader I
would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their
country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that
to them? There has been antiSemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was
that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their
country. Why should they accept that?"
Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians'
national ambitions. Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that "there
was no such thing as a Palestinian," and even Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who
signed the 1993 Oslo Accords, nonetheless opposed creating a fullfledged
Palestinian state. Pressure from extremist violence and the growing Palestinian
population has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from some of the
occupied territories and to explore territorial compromise, but no Israeli
government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own.
Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David in
July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered
set of "Bantustans" under de facto Israeli control.

Europe's crimes against the Jews provide a clear moral justification for Israel's
right to exist. But Israel's survival is not in doubt--even if some Islamic
extremists make outrageous and unrealistic references to "wiping it off the
map"--and the tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the United
States to help Israel no matter what it does today.

"Virtuous Israelis" versus "Evil Arabs"

The final moral argument portrays Israel as a country that has sought peace at
every turn and showed great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by
contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. This narrative--which is
endlessly repeated by Israeli leaders and American apologists such as Alan
Dershowitz--is yet another myth. In terms of actual behavior, Israel's conduct
is not morally distinguishable from the actions of its opponents.

Israeli scholarship shows that the early Zionists were far from benevolent
towards the Palestinian Arabs. The Arab inhabitants did resist the Zionists'
encroachments, which is hardly surprising given that the Zionists were trying to
create their own state on Arab lands. The Zionists responded vigorously, and

neither side owns the moral high ground during this period. This same
scholarship also reveals that the creation of Israel in 194748 involved explicit
acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews.

Furthermore, Israel's subsequent conduct towards its Arab adversaries and its
Palestinian subjects has often been brutal, belying any claim to morally superior
conduct. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed
between 2,700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them
unarmed. The IDF conducted numerous crossborder raids against its
neighbors in the early 1950s, and though these actions were portrayed as
defensive responses, they were actually part of a broader effort to expand Israel's
borders. Israel's expansionist ambitions also led it to join Britain and France in
attacking Egypt in 1956, and Israel withdrew from the lands it had conquered
only in the face of intense U.S. pressure.

The IDF also murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisonersofwar in both the 1956
and 1967 wars. In 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians
from the newlyconquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan
Heights. It was also complicit in the massacre of 700 innocent Palestinians at
the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps following its invasion of Lebanon in 1982,
and an Israeli investigatory commission found thenDefence Minister Sharon
"personally responsible" for these atrocities.

Israeli personnel have tortured numerous Palestinian prisoners, systematically
humiliated and inconvenienced Palestinian civilians, and used force
indiscriminately against them on numerous occasions. During the First Intifida
(19871991), for example, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and
encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protestors. The Swedish
"Save the Children" organization estimated that "23,600 to 29,900 children
required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the
intifida," with nearly onethird sustaining broken bones. Nearly onethird of the
beaten children were aged ten and under."


Israel's response to the Second Intifida (2000-2005) has been even more violent,
leading Ha'aretz to declare that "the IDF ... is turning into a killing machine
whose efficiency is aweinspiring, yet shocking." The IDF fired one million
bullets in the first days of the uprising, which is far from a measured response.
Since then, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians for every Israeli lost, the majority of
whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children
killed is even higher (5.7 to 1). Israeli forces have also killed several foreign
peace activists, including a 23 yearold American woman crushed by an Israeli
bulldozer in March 2003.


These facts about Israel's conduct have been amply documented by numerous
human rights organizations--including prominent Israeli groups--and are not
disputed by fairminded observers. And that is why four former officials of Shin
Bet (the Israeli domestic security organization) condemned Israel's conduct
during the Second Intifada in November 2003. One of them declared "we are
behaving disgracefully," and another termed Israel's conduct "patently
immoral."

But isn't Israel entitled to do whatever it takes to protect its citizens? Doesn't the
unique evil of terrorism justify continued U.S. support, even if Israel often
responds harshly?

In fact, this argument is not a compelling moral justification either. Palestinians
have used terrorism against their Israeli occupiers, and their willingness to attack
innocent civilians is wrong. This behavior is not surprising, however, because
the Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As
former Prime Minister Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he
"would have joined a terrorist organization."

Finally, we should not forget that the Zionists used terrorism when they were in
a similarly weak position and trying to obtain their own state. Between 1944 and
1947, several Zionist organizations used terrorist bombings to drive the British
from Palestine, and took the lives of many innocent civilians along the way.

Israeli terrorists also murdered U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948,
because they opposed his proposal to internationalize Jerusalem. Nor were the
perpetrators of these acts isolated extremists: the leaders of the murder plot were
eventually granted amnesty by the Israeli government and one of them was
elected to the Knesset. Another terrorist leader, who approved the murder but
was not tried, was future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Indeed, Shamir openly
argued that "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism
as a means of combat." Rather, terrorism had "a great part to play ... in our war
against the occupier [Britain]." If the Palestinians' use of terrorism is morally
reprehensible today, so was Israel's reliance upon it in the past, and thus one
cannot justify U.S. support for Israel on the grounds that its past conduct was
morally superior.


Israel may not have acted worse than many other countries, but it clearly has not
acted any better. And if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for
America's support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

THE ISRAEL LOBBY

The explanation lies in the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. Were it not for
the Lobby's ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship
between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today.

What Is The Lobby?

We use "the Lobby as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of
individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in
a proIsrael direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that the
Lobby is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals
within it do not disagree on certain issues

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant
effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's
interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro
Israel to include letterwriting, financial contributions, and supporting proIsrael
organizations. But not all JewishAmericans are part of the Lobby, because
Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example,
roughly 36 percent of JewishAmericans said they were either "not very" or "not
at all" emotionally attached to Israel.


JewishAmericans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key
organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of
Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally
supported the expansionist policies of Israel's Likud Party, including its hostility
to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more
favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few
groups--such as Jewish Voice for Peace--strongly advocate such steps. Despite
these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support
for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so
that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist
with a major Jewish organization wrote, "it is routine for us to say: `This is our
policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.' We as a
community do it all the time." There is also a strong norm against criticizing
Israeli policy, and JewishAmerican leaders rarely support putting pressure on
Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress,
was accused of "perfidy" when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid2003
urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial "security
fence." Critics declared that, "It would be obscene at any time for the president
of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist
policies being promoted by the government of Israel."

Similarly, when Israel Policy Forum president Seymour Reich advised Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice to pressure Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in
the Gaza Strip in November 2005, critics denounced his action as "irresponsible
behavior," and declared that, "There is absolutely no room in the Jewish
mainstream for actively canvassing against the securityrelated policies . . . of
Israel." Recoiling from these attacks, Reich proclaimed that "the word pressure
is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel."

JewishAmericans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence
American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and wellknown.
In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the
most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the
American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight
lobbies like the AFLCIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal
study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second
place (tied with AARP) in the Washington's "muscle rankings."
The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry
Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay,
former majority leaders in the House of Representatives. They believe Israel's
rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think
pressuring Israel is contrary to God's will. In addition, the Lobby's
membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall
Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William
Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and columnist George
Will.

Sources of Power

The United States has a divided government that offers many ways to influence
the policy process. As a result, interest groups can shape policy in many
different ways--by lobbying elected representatives and members of the
executive branch, making campaign contributions, voting in elections, molding
public opinion, etc.
Furthermore, special interest groups enjoy disproportionate power when they
are committed to a particular issue and the bulk of the population is indifferent.
Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue in
question, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the
population will not penalize them.

The Israel Lobby's power flows from its unmatched ability to play this game of
interest group politics. In its basic operations, it is no different from interest
groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.
What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness. But there is
nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to
sway U.S. policy towards Israel. The Lobby's activities are not the sort of
conspiracy depicted in antiSemitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the Lobby are doing
what other special interest groups do, just much better. Moreover, proArab
interest groups are weak to nonexistent, which makes the Lobby's task even
easier.

Strategies for Success

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies to promote U.S. support for Israel. First,
it wields significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the
Executive branch to support Israel down the line. Whatever an individual
lawmaker or policymaker's own views, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel
the "smart" political choice.

Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it
in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by
publicizing Israel's side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent
critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena.
Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a
candid discussion of U.S.Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a
different policy.

Influencing Congress

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in the U.S. Congress,
where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This is in itself a remarkable
situation, because Congress almost never shies away from contentious issues.
Whether the issue is abortion, affirmative action, health care, or welfare, there is
certain to be a lively debate on Capitol Hill. Where Israel is concerned, however,
potential critics fall silent and there is hardly any debate at all.

One reason for the Lobby's success with Congress is that some key members are
Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002 that "My No. 1
priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel." One would think that the number
1 priority for any congressman would be to "protect America," but that is not
what Armey said. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to
make U.S. foreign policy support Israel's interests.

ProIsrael congressional staffers are another source of the Lobby's power. As
Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, "There are a lot of guys
at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] ... who happen to be Jewish, who
are willing ... to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness .... These are
all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those
senators .... You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level."

It is AIPAC itself, however, that forms the core of the Lobby's influence in
Congress. AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and
congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who
challenge it. Money is critical to U.S. elections (as the recent scandal over
lobbyist Jack Abramoff's various shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes
sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad proIsrael
political action committees. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand,
can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political
opponents. AIPAC also organizes letterwriting campaigns and encourages
newspaper editors to endorse proIsrael candidates.

There is no doubt about the potency of these tactics. To take but one example, in
1984 AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to
one prominent Lobby figure, had "displayed insensitivity and even hostility to

our concerns." Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what
happened: "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy.
And the American politicians those who hold public positions now, and those
who aspire got the message." AIPAC prizes its reputation as a formidable
adversary, of course, because it discourages anyone from questioning its agenda.

AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further, however. According to
Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, "It is common for members
of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information,
before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service,
committee staff or administration experts." More importantly, he notes that
AIPAC is "often called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on
tactics, perform research, collect cosponsors and marshal votes."

The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government,
has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy
towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important
consequences for the entire world. Thus, one of the three main branches of the
U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As former Senator
Ernest Hollings (DSC) noted as he was leaving office, "You can't have an Israeli
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." Small wonder that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. "When
people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them--Help AIPAC."

Influencing the Executive

The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power
derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections.
Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make
large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post
once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates "depend on Jewish
supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money." Furthermore,
Jewish voters have high turnout rates and are concentrated in key states like
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. Because they matter in
close elections, Presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonize
Jewish voters.

Key organizations in the Lobby also directly target the administration in power.
For example, proIsrael forces make sure that critics of the Jewish state do not get
important foreignpolicy appointments. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George

Ball his first secretary of state, but he knew that Ball was perceived as critical of
Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. This litmus test
forces any aspiring policymaker to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is
why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the
U.S. foreign policy establishment.

These constraints still operate today. When 2004 presidential candidate Howard
Dean called for the United States to take a more "evenhanded role" in the Arab
Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the
river and said his statement was "irresponsible." Virtually all of the top
Democrats in the House signed a hardhitting letter to Dean criticizing his
comments, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported that "anonymous attackers ... are
clogging the email inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning
without much evidence that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel."
This worry was absurd, however, because Dean is in fact quite hawkish on
Israel. His campaign cochair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said
his own views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than the
more moderate Americans for Peace Now. Dean had merely suggested that to
"bring the sides together," Washington should act as an honest broker. This is
hardly a radical idea, but it is anathema to the Lobby, which does not tolerate the
idea of evenhandedness when it comes to the ArabIsraeli conflict.

The Lobby's goals are also served when proIsrael individuals occupy important
positions in the executive branch. During the Clinton Administration, for
example, Middle East policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to
Israel or to prominent proIsrael organizations--including Martin Indyk, the
former deputy director of research at AIPAC and cofounder of the proIsrael
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined
WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in
Israel and often visits there.

These men were among President Clinton's closest advisors at the Camp David
summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and
favored creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what
would be acceptable to Israel. In particular, the American delegation took its
cues from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, coordinated negotiating positions
in advance, and did not offer its own independent proposals for settling the
conflict. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were

"negotiating with two Israeli teams one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an
American flag."

The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush Administration, whose ranks
include fervently proIsrael individuals like Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas
Feith, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and David
Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials consistently pushed for policies
favored by Israel and backed by organizations in the Lobby.

Manipulating the Media

In addition to influencing government policy directly, the Lobby strives to shape
public perceptions about Israel and the Middle East. It does not want an open
debate on issues involving Israel, because an open debate might cause Americans
to question the level of support that they currently provide. Accordingly, pro
Israel organizations work hard to influence the media, think tanks, and
academia, because these institutions are critical in shaping popular opinion.

The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in
good part because most American commentators are proIsrael. The debate
among Middle East pundits, journalist Eric Alterman writes, is "dominated by
people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel." He lists 61 "columnists and
commentators who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and
without qualification." Conversely, Alterman found just five pundits who
consistently criticize Israeli behavior or endorse proArab positions.
Newspapers occasionally publish guest opeds challenging Israeli policy, but the
balance of opinion clearly favors the other side.

This proIsrael bias is reflected in the editorials of major newspapers. Robert
Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal, once remarked that, "Shamir,
Sharon, Bibi ­ whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me." Not
surprisingly, the Journal, along with other prominent newspapers like The Chicago
SunTimes and The Washington Times regularly run editorials that are strongly
proIsrael. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic, and the Weekly
Standard also zealously defend Israel at every turn.

Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times. The Times
occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the
Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not evenhanded. In his
memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged

the impact his own proIsrael attitude had on his editorial choices. In his words:
"I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert." He goes on:
"Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote
most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers
recognized, I wrote them from a proIsrael perspective."

The media's reporting of news events involving Israel is somewhat more even
handed than editorial commentary is, in part because reporters strive to be
objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the occupied territories
without acknowledging Israel's actual behavior. To discourage unfavorable
reporting on Israel, the Lobby organizes letter writing campaigns,
demonstrations, and boycotts against news outlets whose content it considers
antiIsrael. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets 6,000 email
messages in a single day complaining that a story is antiIsrael. Similarly, the
proIsrael Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America
(CAMERA) organized demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in
33 cities in May 2003, and it also tried to convince contributors to withhold
support from NPR until its Middle East coverage became more sympathetic to
Israel. Boston's NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in
contributions as a result of these efforts. Pressure on NPR has also come from
Israel's friends in Congress, who have asked NPR for an internal audit as well as
more oversight of its Middle East coverage.

These factors help explain why the American media contains few criticisms of
Israeli policy, rarely questions Washington's relationship with Israel, and only
occasionally discusses the Lobby's profound influence on U.S. policy.

Think Tanks That Think One Way

ProIsrael forces predominate in U.S. think tanks, which play an important role
in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own
think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped found WINEP. Although
WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a
"balanced and realistic" perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case.
In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to
advancing Israel's agenda.

The Lobby's influence in the think tank world extends well beyond WINEP.
Over the past 25 years, proIsrael forces have established a commanding
presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the

Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks are
decidedly proIsrael, and include few, if any, critics of U.S. support for the Jewish
state.


A good indicator of the Lobby's influence in the think tank world is the evolution
of the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on Middle East
issues was William B. Quandt, a distinguished academic and former NSC official
with a welldeserved reputation for evenhandedness regarding the ArabIsraeli
conflict. Today, however, Brookings's work on these issues is conducted
through its Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim
Saban, a wealthy IsraeliAmerican businessman and ardent Zionist. The
director of the Saban Center is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. Thus, what was
once a nonpartisan policy institute on Middle East matters is now part of the
chorus of largely proIsrael think tanks.

Policing Academia

The Lobby has had the most difficulty stifling debate about Israel on college
campuses, because academic freedom is a core value and because tenured
professors are hard to threaten or silence. Even so, there was only mild criticism
of Israel in the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway. Criticism rose
after that process collapsed and Ariel Sharon came to power in early 2001, and it
became especially intense when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring
2002 and employed massive force against the Second Intifada.

The Lobby moved aggressively to "take back the campuses." New groups
sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to
U.S. colleges.
Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and
Hillel jumped into the fray, and a new group--the Israel on Campus Coalition--
was formed to coordinate the many groups that now sought to make Israel's case
on campus. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending for programs to
monitor university activities and to train young advocates for Israel, in order to
"vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the national
proIsrael effort."
The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002,
for example, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately proIsrael
neoconservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on

suspect academics and encouraged students to report comments or behavior that
might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and
intimidate scholars prompted a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later
removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report alleged anti
Israel behavior at U.S. colleges.

Groups in the Lobby also direct their fire at particular professors and the
universities that hire them. Columbia University, which had the late Palestinian
scholar Edward Said on its faculty, has been a frequent target of proIsrael forces.
Jonathan Cole, the former Columbia provost, reported that, "One can be sure
that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the preeminent
literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters, and journalistic
accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either sanction or fire him."
When Columbia recruited historian Rashid Khalidi from the University of
Chicago, Cole says that "the complaints started flowing in from people who
disagreed with the content of his political views." Princeton faced the same
problem a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from
Columbia.
A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred in late 2004, when
the "David Project" produced a propaganda film alleging that faculty in
Columbia University's Middle East studies program were antiSemitic and were
intimidating Jewish students who defended Israel. Columbia was raked over
the coals in proIsrael circles, but a faculty committee assigned to investigate the
charges found no evidence of antiSemitism and the only incident worth noting
was the possibility that one professor had "responded heatedly" to a student's
question. The committee also discovered that the accused professors had been
the target of an overt intimidation campaign.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of
Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to
establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel. Schools
judged to have an antiIsrael bias would be denied Federal funding. This effort
to get the U.S. government to police campuses have not yet succeeded, but the
attempt illustrates the importance proIsrael groups place on controlling debate
on these issues.

Finally, a number of Jewish philanthropists have established Israel studies
programs (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programs that already
exist) so as to increase the number of Israelfriendly scholars on campus. NYU
announced the establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies on May 1,
2003, and similar programs have been established at other schools like Berkeley,
Brandeis, and Emory. Academic administrators emphasize the pedagogical
value of these programs, but the truth is that they are intended in good part to
promote Israel's image on campus. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub
Foundation, makes clear that his foundation funded the NYU center to help
counter the "Arabic [sic] point of view" that he thinks is prevalent in NYU's
Middle East programs.
In sum, the Lobby has gone to considerable lengths to insulate Israel from
criticism on college campuses. It has not been as successful in academia as it has
been on Capitol Hill, but it has worked hard to stifle criticism of Israel by
professors and students and there is much less of it on campuses today.


The Great Silencer

No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining
one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of antiSemitism. Anyone who
criticizes Israeli actions or says that proIsrael groups have significant influence
over U.S. Middle East policy--an influence that AIPAC celebrates--stands a
good chance of getting labeled an antiSemite. In fact, anyone who says that
there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with antiSemitism, even
though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's "Jewish Lobby." In effect,
the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to
it. This tactic is very effective, because antiSemitism is loathsome and no
responsible person wants to be accused of it.

Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticize Israeli policy in
recent years, which some attribute to a resurgence of antiSemitism in Europe.
We are "getting to a point," the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union said in
early 2004, "where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s." Measuring antiSemitism
is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points in the opposite
direction. For example, in the spring of 2004, when accusations of European anti
Semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of European public opinion
conducted by the AntiDefamation League and the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press showed that it was actually declining.

Consider France, which proIsrael forces often portray as the most antiSemitic
state in Europe. A poll of French citizens in 2002 found that: 89 percent could
envisage living with a Jew; 97 percent believe making antiSemitic graffiti is a

serious crime; 87 percent think attacks on French synagogues are scandalous;
and 85 percent of practicing French Catholics reject the charge that Jews have too
much influence in business and finance. It is unsurprising that the head of the
French Jewish community declared in the summer of 2003 that "France is not
more antiSemitic than America." According to a recent article in Haaretz, the
French police report that antiSemitic incidents in France declined by almost 50
per cent in 2005; and this despite the fact that France has the largest Muslim
population of any country in Europe.

Finally, when a French Jew was brutally murdered last month by a Muslim gang,
tens of thousands of French demonstrators poured into the streets to condemn
antiSemitism. Moreover, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister
Dominique de Villepin both attended the victim's memorial service in a public
show of solidarity with French Jewry. It is also worth noting that in 2002 more
Jews immigrated to Germany than Israel, making it "the fastest growing Jewish
community in the world," according to an article in the Jewish newspaper
Forward. If Europe were really heading back to the 1930s, it is hard to imagine
that Jews would be moving there in large numbers.

We recognize, however, that Europe is not free of the scourge of antiSemitism.
No one would deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous antiSemites
in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their numbers are small and their
extreme views are rejected by the vast majority of Europeans. Nor would one
deny that there is antiSemitism among European Muslims, some of it provoked
by Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians and some of it straightforwardly
racist.

This problem is worrisome, but it is hardly out of control. Muslims
constitute less than five percent of Europe's total population, and European
governments are working hard to combat the problem. Why? Because most
Europeans reject such hateful views. In short, when it comes to antiSemitism,
Europe today bears hardly any resemblance to Europe in the 1930s.

This is why proIsrael forces, when pressed to go beyond assertion, claim that
there is a `new antiSemitism', which they equate with criticism of Israel. In
other words criticize Israeli policy and you are by definition an antiSemite.
When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from
Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that Caterpillar manufactures the bulldozers used
to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that it would have
the most adverse repercussions on ... JewishChristian relations in Britain, while
Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: "There is a clear
problem of antiZionist verging on antiSemitic attitudes emerging in the grass
roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church." However, the Church was
neither guilty of antiZionism nor antiSemitism; it was merely protesting Israeli
policy.
Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its
right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly
ever question its right to exist. Instead, they question its behavior towards the
Palestinians, which is a legitimate criticism: Israelis question it themselves. Nor is
Israel being judged unfairly. Rather, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits
criticism because it is contrary to widelyaccepted human rights norms and
international law, as well as the principle of national selfdetermination. And it is
hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

In sum, other ethnic lobbies can only dream of having the political muscle that
proIsrael organizations possess. The question, therefore, is what effect does the
Lobby have on U.S. foreign policy?

THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

If the Lobby's impact were confined to U.S. economic aid to Israel, its influence
might not be that worrisome. Foreign aid is valuable, but not as useful as having
the world's only superpower bring its vast capabilities to bear on Israel's behalf.
Accordingly, the Lobby has also sought to shape the core elements of U.S.
Middle East policy. In particular, it has worked successfully to convince
American leaders to back Israel's continued repression of the Palestinians and to
take aim at Israel's primary regional adversaries: Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Demonizing the Palestinians

It is now largely forgotten, but in the fall of 2001, and especially in the spring of
2002, the Bush Administration tried to reduce antiAmerican sentiment in the
Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al Qaeda, by halting
Israel's expansionist policies in the occupied territories and advocating the
creation of a Palestinian state.

Bush had enormous potential leverage at his disposal. He could have threatened
to reduce U.S. economic and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American
people would almost certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported
that over 60 percent of Americans were willing to withhold aid to Israel if it
resisted U.S. pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 percent
among "politically active" Americans. Indeed, 73 percent said that United
States should not favor either side.

Yet the Bush Administration failed to change Israel's policies, and Washington
ended up backing Israel's hardline approach instead. Over time, the
Administration also adopted Israel's justifications for this approach, so that U.S.
and Israeli rhetoric became similar. By February 2003, a Washington Post
headline summarized the situation: "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on
Mideast Policy." The main reason for this switch is the Lobby.

The story begins in late September 2001 when President Bush began pressuring
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to show restraint in the occupied territories. He
also pressed Sharon to allow Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres to meet with
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, even though Bush was highly critical of Arafat's
leadership. Bush also said publicly that he supported a Palestinian state.


Alarmed by these developments, Sharon accused Bush of trying "to appease the
Arabs at our expense," warning that Israel "will not be Czechoslovakia."

Bush was reportedly furious at Sharon's likening him to Neville Chamberlain,
and White House press secretary Ari Fleischer called Sharon's remarks
"unacceptable." The Israeli prime minister offered a pro forma apology, but he
quickly joined forces with the Lobby to convince the Bush administration and the
American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat from
terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives repeatedly emphasized
that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden, and
insisted that the United States and Israel should isolate the Palestinians' elected
leader and have nothing to do with him.
The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On November 16, 89 senators sent
Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also demanding
that the United States not restrain Israel from retaliating against the Palestinians
and insisting that the administration state publicly that it stood steadfastly
behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter "stemmed from a
meeting two weeks ago between leaders of the American Jewish community and
key senators," adding that AIPAC was "particularly active in providing advice
on the letter."

By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved
considerably. This was due in part to the Lobby's efforts to bend U.S. policy in
Israel's direction, but also to America's initial victory in Afghanistan, which

reduced the perceived need for Arab support in dealing with al Qaeda. Sharon
visited the White House in early December and had a friendly meeting with
Bush.
But trouble erupted again in April 2002, after the IDF launched Operation
Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all of the major Palestinian
areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel's action would damage
America's image in the Arab and Islamic world and undermine the war on
terrorism, so he demanded on April 4 that Sharon "halt the incursions and begin
withdrawal." He underscored this message two days later, saying this meant
"withdrawal without delay." On April 7, Bush's national security advisor,
Condoleezza Rice, told reporters that, "`without delay' means without delay. It
means now." That same day Secretary of State Colin Powell set out for the
Middle East to pressure all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. A key target was Powell, who began
feeling intense heat from proIsrael officials in Vice President Cheney's office and
the Pentagon, as well as from neoconservative pundits like Robert Kagan and
William Kristol, who accused him of having "virtually obliterated the distinction
between terrorists and those fighting terrorists."A second target was Bush
himself, who was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, the
latter a key component of his political base. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were
especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and Senate
Minority Leader Trent Lott visited the White House and personally warned Bush
to back off.

The first sign that Bush was caving came on April 11--only one week after he
told Sharon to withdraw his forces--when Ari Fleischer said the President
believes Sharon is "a man of peace." Bush repeated this statement publicly
upon Powell's return from his abortive mission, and he told reporters that
Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate
withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but the President of the United
States was no longer willing to make an issue of it.

Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On May 2, it overrode
the Administration's objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support
for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House version passed 35221). Both
resolutions emphasized that the United States "stands in solidarity with Israel"
and that the two countries are, to quote the House resolution, "now engaged in a
common struggle against terrorism." The House version also condemned "the
ongoing support of terror by Yasir Arafat," who was portrayed as a central
element of the terrorism problem. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional
delegation on a factfinding mission in Israel publicly proclaimed that Sharon
should resist U.S. pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On May 9, a House
appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million
to fight terrorism. Secretary of State Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby
backed it, just as it had helped author the two congressional resolutions.
Powell lost.


In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the President of the United States and
triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist for the Israel newspaper Ma'ariv, reported
that Sharon's aides "could not hide their satisfaction in view of Powell's failure.
Sharon saw the white in President Bush's eyes, they bragged, and the President
blinked first." But it was the proIsrael forces in the United States, not Sharon
or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush.

The situation has changed little since then. The Bush Administration refused to
deal further with Arafat, who eventually died in November 2004. It has
subsequently embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has
done little to help him gain a viable state. Sharon continued to develop his plans
for unilateral "disengagement" from the Palestinians, based on withdrawal from
Gaza coupled with continued expansion on the West Bank, which entails
building the socalled "security fence," seizing Palestinianowned land, and
expanding settlement blocs and road networks. By refusing to negotiate with
Abbas (who favors a negotiated settlement) and making it impossible for him to
deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinian people, Sharon's strategy contributed
directly to Hamas' recent electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however,
Israel has another excuse not to negotiate. The administration has supported
Sharon's actions (and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert), and Bush has even
endorsed unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the
stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.

U.S. officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but have done
little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Former national security advisor
Brent Scowcroft even declared in October 2004 that Sharon has President Bush
"wrapped around his little finger.

If Bush tries to distance the United States
from Israel, or even criticizes Israeli actions in the occupied territories, he is
certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its supporters in Congress.
Democratic Party presidential candidates understand these facts of life too,

which is why John Kerry went to great lengths to display his unalloyed support
for Israel in 2004 and why Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing today.

Maintaining U.S. support for Israel's policies against the Palestinians is a core
goal of the Lobby, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to
help Israel remain the dominant regional power. Not surprisingly, the Israeli
government and proIsrael groups in the United States worked together to shape
the Bush Administration's policy towards Iraq, Syria, and Iran, as well as its
grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.

Israel and the Iraq War

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S.
decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element. Some
Americans believe that this was a "war for oil," but there is hardly any direct
evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a
desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a member of the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (20012003), executive director
of the 9/11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, the "real threat" from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The
"unstated threat" was the "threat against Israel," Zelikow told a University of
Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that "the American
government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a
popular sell."

On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the
campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Washington Post reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a
military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein." By this point, according to
Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached
"unprecedented dimensions," and Israeli intelligence officials had given
Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programs. As
one retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner
to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non
conventional capabilities."


Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when President Bush decided to seek U.N.
Security Council authorization for war in September, and even more worried
when Saddam agreed to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, because these
developments seemed to reduce the likelihood of war. Foreign Minister Shimon


Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam
Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but
dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."

At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op
ed warning that "the greatest risk now lies in inaction." His predecessor,
Benjamin

Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled
"The Case for Toppling Saddam." Netanyahu declared, "Today nothing less
than dismantling his regime will do," adding that "I believe I speak for the
overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a preemptive strike against
Saddam's regime." Or as Ha'aretz reported in February 2003: "The [Israeli]
military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."


But as Netanyahu suggests, the desire for war was not confined to Israel's
leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam conquered in 1990, Israel was the
only country in the world where both the politicians and the public
enthusiastically favored war. As journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time,
"Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war
unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced." In fact, Israelis were
so gungho for war that their allies in America told them to damp down their
hawkish rhetoric, lest it look like the war was for Israel.


The Lobby and the Iraq War

Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small
band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel's Likud Party. In
addition, key leaders of the Lobby's major organizations lent their voices to the
campaign for war. According to the Forward, "As President Bush attempted to
sell the . . . war in Iraq, America's most important Jewish organizations rallied as
one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the
need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction."The editorial goes on to say that "concern for Israel's safety
rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups."

Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq,
the broader American Jewish community was not.In fact, Samuel Freedman
reported just after the war started that "a compilation of nationwide opinion
polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq
war than the population at large, 52% to 62%."Thus, it would be wrong to


blame the war in Iraq on "Jewish influence." Rather, the war was due in large
part to the Lobby's influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.
The neoconservatives were already determined to topple Saddam before Bush
became President. They caused a stir in early 1998 by publishing two open
letters to President Clinton calling for Saddam's removal from power. The
signatories, many of whom had close ties to proIsrael groups like JINSA or
WINEP, and whose ranks included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith,
William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz, had little trouble convincing the Clinton Administration to adopt the
general goal of ousting Saddam. But the neoconservatives were unable to sell a
war to achieve that objective.

Nor were they able to generate much enthusiasm
for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush Administration. As
important as the neoconservatives were for making the Iraq war happen, they
needed help to achieve their aim.

That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that fateful day led Bush
and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war
to topple Saddam. Neoconservatives in the Lobby--most notably Scooter Libby,
Paul Wolfowitz, and Princeton historian Bernard Lewis--played especially
critical roles in persuading the President and VicePresident to favor war.

For the neoconservatives, 9/11 was a golden opportunity to make the case for
war with Iraq. At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on September 15,
Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was
no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the United States and
bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan.Bush rejected this advice and
chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a
serious possibility and the President tasked U.S. military planners on November
21, 2001 with developing concrete plans for an invasion.
Meanwhile, other neoconservatives were at work within the corridors of power.
We do not have the full story yet, but scholars like Lewis and Fouad Ajami of
John Hopkins University reportedly played key roles in convincing Vice
President Cheney to favor the war. Cheney's views were also heavily
influenced by the neoconservatives on his staff, especially Eric Edelman, John
Hannah, and chief of staff Libby, one of the most powerful individuals in the
Administration. The Vice President's influence helped convince President
Bush by early 2002. With Bush and Cheney on board, the die for war was cast.


Outside the administration, neoconservative pundits lost no time making the
case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on terrorism. Their
efforts were partly aimed at keeping pressure on Bush and partly intended to
overcome opposition to the war inside and outside of the government. On
September 20, a group of prominent neoconservatives and their allies published
another open letter, telling the President that "even if evidence does not link Iraq
directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism
and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq." The letter also reminded Bush that, "Israel has been and
remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism." In the
October 1 issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol called
for regime change in Iraq immediately after the Taliban was defeated. That same
day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after we were
done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq. "The
war on terrorism," he argued, "will conclude in Baghdad," when we finish off
"the most dangerous terrorist regime in the world."


These salvoes were the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to
win support for invading Iraq. A key part of this campaign was the
manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look like an
imminent threat. For example, Libby visited the CIA several times to pressure
analysts to find evidence that would make the case for war, and he helped
prepare a detailed briefing on the Iraq threat in early 2003 that was pushed on
Colin Powell, then preparing his infamous briefing to the U.N. Security Council
on the Iraqi threat. According to Bob Woodward, Powell "was appalled at
what he considered overreaching and hyperbole. Libby was drawing only the
worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads." Although Powell
discarded Libby's most outrageous claims, his U.N. presentation was still riddled
with errors, as Powell now acknowledges.

The campaign to manipulate intelligence also involved two organizations that
were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Undersecretary of Defense
Douglas Feith. The Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was tasked to
find links between al Qaeda and Iraq that the intelligence community
supposedly missed. Its two key members were Wurmser, a hard core
neoconservative, and Michael Maloof, a LebaneseAmerican who had close ties
with Perle. The Office of Special Plans was tasked with finding evidence that
could be used to sell war with Iraq. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a
neoconservative with longstanding ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included
recruits from proIsrael think tanks.
Like virtually all the neoconservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel. He
also has longstanding ties to the Likud Party. He wrote articles in the 1990s
supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the occupied
territories. More importantly, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the
famous "Clean Break" report in June 1996 for the incoming Israeli Prime
Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Among other things, it recommended that
Netanyahu "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." It also called for Israel to
take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not implement their
advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon advocating that the Bush
Administration pursue those same goals. This situation prompted Ha'aretz
columnist Akiva Eldar to warn that Feith and Perle "are walking a fine line
between their loyalty to American governments ... and Israeli interests."

Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as
"the most hawkishly proIsrael voice in the Administration," and selected him in
2002 as the first among fifty notables who "have consciously pursued Jewish
activism." At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M.
Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership
between Israel and the United States, and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as
"devoutly proIsrael," named him "Man of the Year" in 2003.

Finally, a brief word is in order about the neoconservatives' prewar support of
Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the Iraqi National
Congress (INC). They embraced Chalabi because he had worked to establish
close ties with JewishAmerican groups and had pledged to foster good relations
with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what proIsrael
proponents of regime change wanted to hear, so they backed Chalabi in return.
Journalist Matthew Berger laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish
Journal: "The INC saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in
Washington and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For
their part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better
relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing
Saddam Hussein's regime."
Given the neoconservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and
their influence in the Bush Administration, it is not surprising that many
Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests. For
example, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged in
March 2005 that the belief that Israel and the neoconservatives conspired to get
the United States into a war in Iraq was "pervasive" in the U.S. intelligence
community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most that did
including Senator Ernest Hollings (DSC) and Representative James Moran (D
VA) were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley put the point
well in late 2002, when he wrote that "the lack of public discussion about the role
of Israel ... is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one
mentions it."

The reason for this reluctance, he observed, was fear of being
labeled an antiSemite. Even so, there is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby
were key factors in shaping the decision for war. Without the Lobby's efforts,
the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March
2003.

Dreams of Regional Transformation

The Iraq war was not supposed to be a costly quagmire. Rather, it was intended
as the first step in a larger plan to reorder the Middle East. This ambitious
strategy was a dramatic departure from previous U.S. policy, and the Lobby and
Israel were critical driving forces behind this shift. This point was made clearly
after the Iraq war began in a frontpage story in the Wall Street Journal. The
headline says it all: "President's Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region:
A ProU.S., Democratic Area is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo Conservative
Roots."

ProIsrael forces have long been interested in getting the U.S. military more
directly involved in the Middle East, so it could help protect Israel. But they
had limited success on this front during the Cold War, because America acted as
an "offshore balancer" in the region. Most U.S. forces designated for the Middle
East, like the Rapid Deployment Force, were kept "over the horizon" and out of
harm's way. Washington maintained a favorable balance of power by playing
local powers off against each other, which is why the Reagan Administration
supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during the IranIraq war (1980-88).

This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton Administration
adopted a strategy of "dual containment." It called for stationing substantial
U.S. forces in the region to contain both Iran and Iraq, instead of using one to
check the other. The father of dual containment was none other than Martin
Indyk, who first articulated the strategy in May 1993 at the proIsrael think tank
WINEP and then implemented it as Director for Near East and South Asian
Affairs at the National Security Council.
There was considerable dissatisfaction with dual containment by the mid1990s,
because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two countries who also
hated each other, and it forced Washington to bear the burden of containing both
of them. Not surprisingly, the Lobby worked actively in Congress to save dual
containment. Pressed by AIPAC and other proIsrael forces, Clinton
toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo
on Iran. But AIPAC et al wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya
Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing
more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze'ev
Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha'aretz, noted at the time, "Israel is but a
tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot
influence those within the Beltway."
By the late 1990s, however, the neoconservatives were arguing that dual
containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was now essential.
By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued, the
United States would trigger a farreaching process of change throughout the
Middle East. This line of thinking, of course, was evident in the "Clean Break"
study the neoconservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when invading Iraq
had become a frontburner issue, regional transformation had become an article
of faith in neoconservative circles.

Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan
Sharansky, the Israeli politician whose writings have impressed President
Bush. But Sharansky was hardly a lone voice in Israel. In fact, Israelis across
the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle
East to Israel's advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha'aretz (February 17, 2003),
"Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as
National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful
future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall
of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel's other enemies ... Along with
these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction."

In short, Israeli leaders, neoconservatives, and the Bush Administration all saw
war with Iraq as the first step in an ambitious campaign to remake the Middle
East. And in the first flush of victory, they turned their sights on Israel's other
regional opponents.

Gunning for Syria

Israeli leaders did not push the Bush Administration to put its crosshairs on
Syria before March 2003, because they were too busy pushing for war against
Iraq. But once Baghdad fell in midApril, Sharon and his lieutenants began
urging Washington to target Damascus. On April 16, for example, Sharon and
Shaul Mofaz, his defense minister, gave high profile interviews in different
Israeli newspapers. Sharon, in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to
put "very heavy" pressure on Syria. Mofaz told Ma'ariv that, "We have a long
list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is
appropriate that it should be done through the Americans." Sharon's national
security advisor, Ephraim Halevy, told a WINEP audience that it was now
important for the United States to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post
reported that Israel was "fueling the campaign" against Syria by feeding the
United States intelligence reports about the actions of Syrian President Bashar
Assad. Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments after Baghdad fell.

Wolfowitz declared that "there has got to be regime change in Syria," and
Richard Perle told a journalist that "We could deliver a short message, a two
worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: `You're next'."

In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria "should not
miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and
defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate." On April 15, Yossi Klein
Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled "Next, Turn the Screws on
Syria," while the next day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily
News entitled "TerrorFriendly Syria Needs a Change, Too." Not to be outdone,
Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad
was a serious threat to America.
Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel (DNY) had reintroduced the
Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act on April 12. It
threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up
its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon
to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly
endorsed by the Lobby--especially AIPAC--and "framed," according to the
Jewish Telegraph Agency, "by some of Israel's best friends in Congress." It had
been on the back burner for some time, largely because the Bush Administration
had little enthusiasm for it, but the antiSyrian act passed overwhelmingly (3984
in the House; 894 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on December 12,
2003.

Yet the Bush Administration was still divided about the wisdom of targeting
Syria at this time. Although the neoconservatives were eager to pick a fight with
Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed. And even after
Bush signed the new law, he emphasized that he would go slowly in
implementing it.

Bush's ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had been
providing the United States with important intelligence about al Qaeda since
9/11 and had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the
Gulf. Syria had also given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar,
the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime
would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war
on terrorism.

Second, Syria was not on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (e.g., it
had even voted for U.N. Resolution 1441), and it was no threat to the United
States. Playing hardball with Syria would make the United States look like a
bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Finally, putting
Syria on the American hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to
cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to pressure Syria, it made good sense
to finish the job in Iraq first.

Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to
pressure from Israel officials and proIsrael groups like AIPAC. If there were
no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy
toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.

Putting Iran in the Crosshairs

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen
as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire
nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle
East with nuclear weapons as an existential threat. As Israeli Defense Minister
Binyamin BenEliezer remarked one month before the Iraq war: "Iraq is a
problem .... But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more
dangerous than Iraq."

Sharon began publicly pushing the United States to confront Iran in November
2002, in a high profile interview in The Times (London).Describing Iran as the
"center of world terror," and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared
that the Bush Administration should put the strong arm on Iran "the day after" it
conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha'aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador
in Washington was now calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of
Saddam, he noted, was "not enough." In his words, America "has to follow
through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria,
coming from Iran."

The neoconservatives also lost no time in making the case for regime change in
Tehran. On May 6, the AEI cosponsored an allday conference on Iran with
the proIsrael Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson
Institute. The speakers were all strongly proIsrael, and many called for the
United States to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, there
were a bevy of articles by prominent neoconservatives making the case for going
after Iran. For example, William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on May 12
that, "The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle
East .... But the next great battle not, we hope, a military one will be for
Iran."


The Bush Administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by working
overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear program. But Washington has had little
success, and Iran seems determined to get a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the
Lobby has intensified its pressure on the U.S. government, using all of the
strategies in its playbook.Opeds and articles now warn of imminent dangers
from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a "terrorist" regime, and
hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is also
pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would
expand existing sanctions on Iran. Israeli officials also warn they may take
preemptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, hints partly
intended to keep Washington focused on this issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on U.S.
policy toward Iran, because the United States has its own reasons to keep Iran
from going nuclear. This is partly true, but Iran's nuclear ambitions do not pose
an existential threat to the United States. If Washington could live with a nuclear
Soviet Union, a nuclear China, or even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live
with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep constant pressure on
U.S. politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the United States would hardly be
allies if the Lobby did not exist, but U.S. policy would be more temperate and
preventive war would not be a serious option.

Summary

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the United States
to deal with any and all threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape U.S.
policy succeed, then Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a
free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting,
dying, rebuilding, and paying.

But even if the United States fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in
conflict with an increasingly radicalized Arab and Islamic world, Israel still ends
up protected by the world's only superpower.This is not a perfect outcome
from the Lobby's perspective, but it is obviously preferable to Washington
distancing itself from Israel, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace
with the Palestinians.

CONCLUSION

Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq
debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic
world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing U.S. government
secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat's death and the election of the
more moderate Abu Mazen would cause Washington to press vigorously and
evenhandedly for a peace agreement. In short, 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 the Middle
East.

But that is not going to happen anytime soon. AIPAC and its allies (including
Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know
it has become more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding
by expanding their activities and staffs.

Moreover, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions
and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain
sympathetic to Israel nomatter what it does.
This situation is deeply worrisome, because the Lobbys influence causes trouble
on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face--including
Americas European allies. By preventing U.S. leaders from pressuring Israel to
make peace, the Lobby has also made it impossible to end the IsraeliPalestinian
conflict. This situation gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the
pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and contributes to Islamic
radicalism around the world.

Furthermore, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could
lead the United States to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous
effects. We do not need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby's hostility
toward these countries makes it especially difficult for Washington to enlist them
against al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. 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. This
situation undercuts Washington's efforts to promote democracy abroad and
makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights.
U.S. efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its
willingness to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which encourages Iran and others
to seek similar capabilities.

Moreover, the Lobby's campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for
democracy. Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts--or by
suggesting that critics are antiSemites--violates the principle of open debate
upon which democracy depends. The inability of the U.S. Congress to conduct a
genuine debate on these vital issues paralyzes 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 by those who believe in free speech and open discussion
of important public issues.

Finally, the Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade
Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from
seizing opportunities including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full
implementation of the Oslo Accords that would have saved Israeli lives and
shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their
legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long
campaign to kill or marginalize a generation of Palestinian leaders has
empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of
Palestinian leaders who would be both willing to accept a fair settlement and
able to make it work. This course raises the awful specter of Israel one day
occupying the pariah status once reserved for apartheid states like South Africa.
Ironically, Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less
powerful and U.S. policy were more evenhanded.

But there is a ray of hope. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the
adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states
can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored
forever. 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
wellbeing 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 onesided 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 longterm interests as
well.