Is The “Israel Lobby” Losing Its Grip?

By Alan Hart

In an perceptive piece for The American Conservative
under the headline OBAMA’S ISRAEL TEST, Scott McConnell
asked, “Is the lobby losing its grip?” It seems so, but I think it’s
important to understand the choice that will exist for the Jews
of the world, and Jewish Americans especially, if American
politicians (many if not all) and the mainstream media do stop
being frightened of offending the lobby.

But first things first. The lobby in question is not what McConnell
and others including Mearsheimer and Walt state it to be. It’s not
“the Israel lobby”. It could only be called that if it represented the
views of all Israeli Jews. It does not do so any more than AIPAC
represents the views of all Jewish Americans. (According to recent
polls, AIPAC probably speaks for not more than one-third of all
Jewish Americans and possibly considerably less).

A more accurate (but not completely accurate) description of
the particular phenomenon is “Likud lobby”, terminology which
conveys the correct impression that the lobby is rightwing and
very hardline, even extreme, and opposed to peace on any
terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs
and Muslims everywhere could accept.

Way back in February 1980, I had a private conversation with
Shimon Peres. He was then the leader of Israel’s Labour Party,
the main opposition to Menachem Begin’s Likud dominated
ruling coalition, which was speeding up the colonisation
of the occupied West Bank. In the course of this conversation,
I used the term “Israel lobby”. In a voice laced with despair
and a hint of anger, Peres said: “It’s not an Israel lobby. It’s a
Likud lobby. And that’s my problem.” (At the time Peres and
almost the whole world including President Carter was hoping
that he would win Israel’s next election and deny Begin a
second term in office as prime minister. He didn’t).

In due course, after Ariel Sharon broke with Likud to
form the Kadima Party, the lobby became the Likud-Kadima
lobby, but it remained Likud in its core essence. The only major
difference between Likud and Kadima is that the latter
understands, as Prime Minister Olmert recently admitted,
that the Zionist state of Israel would be finished, destroyed by
the demographic time-bomb of occupation, if it did not withdraw
from some of the West Bank. (Sharon did not withdraw from
Gaza for peace but as a first step to defusing the
demographic time-bomb; and, if he could do it without provoking
a Jewish civil war, he was intending at some point to withdraw
from about half, more or less, of the West Bank. He was not at
all concerned that the 40 to 60 percent of it he was
intending to withdraw from would not and could not constitute
a viable Palestinian mini-state).

All things considered, including Israel’s on-going colonisation
of those parts of the occupied West Bank its leaders intend to
keep for ever, I think (and have long thought) that the best way
to serve the cause of understanding is to give the particular
phenomenon its proper name. It is not the Israel lobby, or
even the Likud or Likud-Kadima lobby. It is the Zionist lobby.

For those who are unaware of what Zionism actually is - I mean
political Zionism as opposed to spiritual Zionism - and why it is
the complete opposite of Judaism, I offer the following
brief explanation.

Judaism is the religion of Jews, not the Jews because not all Jews
are religious. And, like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its
core a set of moral values and ethical principles. All the religious
Jews of the world look to Jerusalem as the centre of their religion
and spiritual capital, and in that sense they could be said to be,
and many do regard themselves as being, spiritual Zionists.

Political Zionism is the nationalism of some Jews, actually a
tiny minority of the world’s Jews at the time of Zionism’s first
public and dishonest mission statement in 1897, which colonised
land, Palestine, to create a state for some Jews; an enterprise
which required the incoming, alien Zionist colonisers - most if not
all of whom had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews,
the first Israelites - to ethnically cleanse the land of most of
its indigenous Arab inhabitants, the majority population at the time
of the colonisation. A Zionist today is one, not necessarily a Jew,
who (to quote Balfour) supports the Zionist state of Israel “right or
wrong”, and who cannot or will not admit that a wrong was done to
the Palestinians by Zionism, a wrong that must be righted on terms
acceptable to the Palestinians for justice and peace.

The whole point of Zionism’s colonial enterprise was, as it still is,
to take for keeping the maximum amount of Arab land with the
minimum number of Arabs on it; an enterprise that was assisted
by the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, which gave Zionism
a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel throughout the mainly
Gentile Judeo-Christian world and suppress informed and honest
debate about who must do what and why for justice and peace.

In summary it can be said that Zionism makes a mockery of,
and has contempt for, the moral values and ethical principles of
Judaism. That being so, it’s all the more amazing that Zionist spin
doctors succeeded in making the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian
world believe that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same
thing. They are emphatically not. Zionism, as the title of my latest
book asserts and its substance demonstrates, is the real enemy
of the Jews, as well as being the biggest single threat to the peace
of the region and arguably the world.

Knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism is
the key to understanding. It’s the explanation of why it is
perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to
Zionism’s colonial enterprise) without being in any way,
shape or form anti-Semitic (anti-Jew). It’s also the explanation
of why it it is wrong to blame all Jews for the crimes of the
relative few. (As a matter of fact, almost all Arabs have always
known the difference between Judaism and Zionism; and that’s
why they call for the de-Zionization of Palestine, and not, repeat
not, the destruction of the Jews now living in it).

McConnell noted that President Kennedy buckled under Zionst
lobby pressure. He did indeed, and he was very angry about
having to do so and become what he himself described as a
“political whore”. As I document in Volume Two of my
book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, presidential
candidate Kennedy said the following to an old and trusted friend,
newspaper columnist Charles Bartlett, after he, Kennedy, had
been summoned to a fund raising meeting:

“As an American citizen I am outraged to have a Zionist
group come to me and say - ‘We know your campaign is
in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you let us have
control of your Middle East policy.” (In further remarks
to Bartlett, a furious JFK emphasised “they wanted control!”
My guess is that they didn’t put it that way, but that what
they said left no room for JFK to doubt that control was
what they wanted).

As I also document in my book, there is good evidence for believing
that, if he had been allowed to live, a second term President
Kennedy would have addressed the root cause of the conflict
in and over Palestine, even at the cost of, Eisenhower-like,
confronting the Zionist lobby. (I think - see McConnell’s
obeservations below - that it’s not unreasonable to speculate
that a second term President Obama, if he is allowed to live, could
be the White House occupant who calls and holds Zionism to
account).

McConnell wrote that several wars and many billions of dollars later
(after JFK), the politics of Israel-Palestine are not exactly the same
as 50 years ago but not that different either. “Israel is more powerful
and more dependent on American largesse. Americans are far more
deeply engaged in the Middle East and for the most part they are not
happy about it.”

And this about the man most likely to be America’s next President:
“On the surface, the tie between Barack Obama and Israel’s
establishment supporters is warm and comfortable…
Nonetheless, there’s a sense among the Jewish establishment
(I imagine McConnell probably means the Zionist establishment)
that all is not as it seems - and if the view has not yet crystallized that
Obama has a less Israelocentric perception of he Middle East
than any other major party nominee since Eisenhower, there is
foreboding that times are a changin’.” (My emphasis added).

And this is how McConnell sees change manifesting itself:

“For the first time in a presidential race, the Israel-Palestine
issue will consist of something other than two men
squabbling over who will more rapidly overrule the State
Department and absolutely positively move the U.S.
embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. (I note that although he
is sticking pretty much to Zionism’s script as all candidates
must when running for office - all offices not just the highest -
Obama has already indicated that he does not accept that
Likud and Israel are synonymous).

“A welcome corollary will be realization that there are
different ways for Americans to be “pro-Israel” and push
back against the view that being pro-Israel means
supporting the right of the Jewsh state to lord it over 5
million Palestinians in conditions increasingly seen as
resembling South Africa apartheid. The alternative view
won’t sweep the country, but it will migrate from its
present home on university campuses and liberal Protestant
churches into the wider body politic.”

And finally will come recognition, McConnell wrote, that
“the Israel lobby’s power to dominate the American debate
is beginning to weaken.”

The reason why I agree with McConnell can be simply stated.
In the last few years, and for the first time ever, Zionism’s version
of the history of the making and sustaining of conflict in and over
Palestine has started to be exposed for the propaganda nonsense it is.
And that is thanks in large part to the work and courage of Israel’s
“new” or “revisionist” historians. (The terms “new” and “revisionist”
in this context are euphemisms. The more accurate or proper adjective
to describe Israel’s truth-telling professors of history - Avi Shlaim and
Ilan Pappe are the giants in their field - is honest. Am I suggesting
that before them Israel’s historians were dishonest by default if not
design? Yes, I most certainly am). The task of telling the truth of
history is also being assisted by a bottom-up media revolution made
possible by the internet.

Zionism’s narrative, upon which the first and still existing draft of
Judeo-Christian history is constructed, is rooted in denial of ethnic
cleansing. (The most comprehensive and fully documented work on
this subject is Ilan Pappe’s latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine).

There are people who’ll say that what’s done is done. Israel, no
matter how it was created, exists. But that’s not the point. There is not
a snowball’s chance in hell of a real peace process unless and until the
Jews, and Israelis especially, are prepared to acknowledge the
wrong done to the Arabs of Palestine by Zionism.

Zionism’s denial of ethnic cleansing is
underpined by two great propaganda lies.

The first is that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of
annihilation - the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth of
history is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger
from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948/49. Not in 1967.
And not even in 1973. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover
which allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most, America and
Western Europe, with presenting its aggression as self-defence and
itself as the victim when, actually, it was and is the oppressor.

The second great lie of Zionism’s version of history was that
Israel had “no partners” for peace. On this account the truth
of history includes the fact, for example, that Arafat the
pragmatist opened the door to a genuine and viable two-state
solution as far back as 1979, more than a quarter of a
century ago. And long before that, another example,
Eygpt’s President Nasser, who never had any intention
of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine, authorised, and
himself took part in, secret, exploratory exchanges with
Israel in the hope of making an accomodation with it.
(Avi Shlaim’s magnificent book, THE IRON WALL,
Israel and the Arab World, which is informed in part by
Avi’s access to de-classified Israeli state papers, leaves
no room to doubt that it was Israel’s leaders, not Arab
leaders, who never missed an opportunity to close the
door to peace).

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt (the distinguished authors
of The Israel Lobby) have declared that the best way of
dealing with the lobby is “to encourage a more open debate…
in order to correct existing myths about the Middle East and to
force groups in the lobby to defend their positions in the face
of well informed opposition.” (My emphasis added).

The problem for Zionism (as I’m sure Mearsheimer and Walt know)
is that its positions are indefensible when they are challenged by those
who are armed with the documented facts and truth of history. And
that’s why the Zionist lobby is beginning to lose its grip.

My very dear friend Ilan Pappe told me that Zionism was more worried
by my book than any other because of its title, which, he agreed,
represents a great and profound truth in seven words. The more the citizens
of the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world become aware
that Judaism and Zionism are opposites, the less Zionism’s
propaganda maestros will be able to suppress informed and
honest debate with the charge, almost always false and malicious,
that criticism of Israel is a manifesation of anti-Semitism.

Ilan also offered me this observation:

“Zionism’s main defense is not money and military might but a
wall of propaganda lies. If one or two of the main bricks in
this wall can be dislodged, the whole thing might collapse faster
than any of us would dare to imagine.”

At the time of writing, as in the past, the mainstream media, almost
all publishing houses and virtually all politicians are still too
frightened of offending Zionism to come to grips with the truth of
history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict in
and over Palestine; but despite this complicity in Zionism’s
suppression of the truth of history, one or two of the main
bricks in Zionism’s wall of propaganda lies are in the process
of being dislodged.

So what are the implications if the Zionist lobby
really is beginning to lose its grip?

The short answer is that the next American president will be
more free than any of his predecessors to use the leverage he
has to require Israel to behave in accordance with international
law, and to be serious about peace in accordance with the
will of the organised international community as expressed in
the spirit as well as the letter of UN resolutions.
(If I was writing a speech for the next president, I’d having him
saying something like the following to Israel. Until now there
have been two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations -
one for all the nations of the world excluding only Israel, and one
exclusively for Israel. This double-standard is no longer
acceptable to the peoples and governments of the world).

If the next American president (or possibly his successor)
was prepared to require Israel to be serious about peace on
terms which the vast majority of Palestinians and almost all
other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept,
I think that what would actually happen would be
determined by how the Jews of the world, and Jewish
Amercans especially, responded.

Because the Zionist lobby is beginning to lose its grip, and
does not anyway represent the majority of Jewish Americans,
it’s my guess that most of them would say, perhaps not out loud:
“We are Americans first, and if our president deems it to be in
our national interest that leverage be used to require Israel to be
serious about peace, so be it.”

But that would be mere acquiescence and it would not necessarily
be enough. The hardest core Zionist leadership in Israel, political
and military, is quite capable of telling the whole world, including
the president of America, to go to hell. Why do I say that?

Many years ago, in private conversation, I asked General Moshe
Dayan, Israel’s one-eyed warlord, why Israel had nuclear weapons.
I said we both knew Israel didn’t need them vis-à-vis the Arabs.
Dayan replied as follows. “Ben-Gurion was not stupid. I’m not stupid.
We know how international politics work. We know that a day could
come when even our best friends will want us to do something that
we would not consider to be in Israel’s best interests.” Dayan
meant, and obviously did not want to be more explicit, that if ever
a day came when an American president said to Israel,
“You must do this,” Israel could say, “Mr.President, don’t push us
further than we are prepared to go because, if you do, we will
be prepared to use all the weapons at our disposal.”
(I am sometimes asked if I think that Bush and Blair would have
invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons.
My answer is always “No”)

My main point in summary is this. Even if the Zionist lobby
really is losing its grip, and even if, as a consequence, an Amercan
president feels himself free enough to use the leverage he has to
require Israel to be serious about peace on terms almost
all Palestinians, most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere
could accept, a just and peaceful resolution of the conflict may
still not be possible unless the Jews of the world, and Jewish
Americans especially, end their silence on the matter of Zionism’s
crimes and use all of the influence with the Jews of Israel.

Footnote: The day that Zionism: The Real Enemy of the
Jews can be published in America, and reviewed by the
mainstream media, is that day that I will say, without fear
of contradiction, that the power of the Zionist lobby has
been broken.

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments