There is No
“Israel Lobby”
By Kim Petersen
04/26/06 "ICH" -- --
Notable writer William Blum Blum hinted
acknowledgement of the power of an “Israeli lobby” in a 2004
article. [1] In his most recent
Anti-Empire Report,
Blum discusses again the entity that doesn’t exist: the
“Israel Lobby” or the permutations of that wording, “Israeli
Lobby” and “pro-Israel Lobby.” [2]
The paper
entitled “The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by
professors John Mearsheimer Stephen Walt has pushed the
topic of the “Israel lobby” and its influence over US
foreign policy into a more prominent spotlight. [3]
Prominent
scholar Noam Chomsky is a steadfast denier of the efficacy
of such a lobby -- so much so that he entitled his rejoinder
to Marsheimer and Walt: “The Israel Lobby?” [4]
Chomsky circumspectly stays away from defining “the lobby”
and refers to it as such throughout his article. In his
book, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The
Palestinians, Chomsky devotes a section of a chapter to
“Domestic Pressure Groups and their Interests,” but only by
way of quoting Seth Tillman does he use the wording:
“Israeli Lobby.” [5]
Chomsky discusses ‘Jewish
interests’ being ‘Israel’s interests’ but only through
quoting others. [6]
One is hard-pressed to find
instances of Chomsky, himself, using the wording “Israeli
lobby.” In a personal communication to Jeff Blankfort, a
staunch critic of the lobby, Chomsky does, however,
acknowledge such a lobby by name. [7]
Skirting the issue of whether
the state designated “Israel” is legitimate or not (is there
a legal or moral basis for one group of people to claim
another people's homeland based on spurious historical
rights? The present author maintains there is not), there is
still the matter of what “Israel” is. Conventionally, a
state is constituted as a geographic entity and its
population. Disregarding the fact that the state of “Israel”
has refused to define its borders, it must be noted that the
population of “Israel” is heterogeneous. Although it defines
itself as a Jewish state, approximately 20 percent of its
population is Arab and practices mainly Islam.
Given that most of Palestine
has been annexed to the state of “Israel” through violent
force and that the Palestinians who were not ethnically
cleansed had “Israeli” citizenship bestowed upon them, it
seems rather a leap of folly to refer to an “Israel Lobby.”
No one will argue that the “Israel Lobby” is representing
the interests of “Arab-Israelis.” As well as being
inaccurate, to refer to an “Israel Lobby” is disingenuous or
worse.
“Israel” has been declared a
Jewish state by its Zionist rulers. But Jews are not a
monolith and neither are “Israelis.”
Since the “Israel Lobby” does
not represent “Arab-Israeli” interests, and since it
represents Jewish interests worldwide, the label “Jewish
lobby” (there is no need to capitalize the “l”) would be
much more accurate. Also, “Zionist lobby” would seem to be
less accurate because the lobby’s goals are not limited to
Zionism but include policies dedicated to the interests of
certain Jewish “elites.” So long as it is not implied
that all Jews (since modern Jews never formed a coherent
ethnic or national group, but are peoples who have shared
somewhat the same religion, how can one address them as a
homogenous group? For instance, if a Ukrainian Jew renounces
Judaism and declares atheism, then why should he be treated
as Jew that he is no longer?) are included as lobby members,
then there is no reason not to label the “Jewish
lobby” for what it is. Most people would not, after all,
object to the label “Catholic lobby” or “Arab lobby,” so why
should the label “Jewish lobby” be controversial?
Regarding the labeling, Blum responds, “I used ‘Israel
Lobby’ because that’s what the authors of the report I
referred to used. And the purpose of the lobby is to help
Israel, not Jews per se.”
With all due respect to the
incisive anti-imperialist Blum, he is remarkably off base
when he says: “the purpose of the lobby is to help Israel.”
Since, as stated, approximately one-fifth of “Israelis” are
Arabs, and since the lobby has no intention of helping them
whatsoever, the purpose as stated by Blum is, intentionally
or not, fallacious. To be factually accurate, one should
state that the intention is to help the “Jews of Israel” and
not “Israel” per se. Blum,
however, does see merit in changing the designation of the
“Israel lobby.”
Why the reluctance to clearly
and accurately apply labels to crime-sanctioning entities?
In the case of “Israel,” Chomsky noted the “general and
often effective” Zionist use of ad hominem to silence
dissent. [8] Those people of conscience who dare to rebuke
the crimes committed by the Zionists must not cower at the
insidious Zionist tactic of smearing its critics as
“anti-Semites.”
Caving in on a more accurate
wording of a lobby that, among its positions, advocates
ethnic cleansing and killing of an indigenous people, and
practices racism against those indigenous remaining in their
homeland, is complicity through silence.
ENDNOTES
[1] William Blum, “The
Anti-Empire Report: What Would Royko Write?”
CounterPunch, 6 April 2004.
[2]
William Blum, “All
War, All the Time,” Anti-Empire Report,
22 April 2006.
[3] John J. Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt, “The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” KSG
Faculty Research Working Paper Number: RWP06-011, 13
March 2006
[4] Noam Chomsky, “The
Israel Lobby?” ZNet, 28 March 2006. James Petras
wrote a compelling refutation to Chomsky on this topic. See
“Noam Chomsky
and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses,”
uruknet.info, 3 April 2006.
[5] Noam Chomsky, Fateful
Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians
(Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1983, 1999), 13.
[6] Ibid., 15.
[7] Jeffrey Blankfort, “Damage
Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict,”
Dissident Voice, 25 May 2005.
[8] Chomsky, Fateful
Triangle, op. cit., 15.
Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of
Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional Mi'kmaq
homeland colonially designated Nova Scotia, Canada. He can
be reached at:
kim@dissidentvoice.org.