IT is widely known that almost all foreign countries encourage their friends and well-wishers in the United States, to lobby on their behalf so as to take advantage of the multiple centres of power in that country. But, by all accounts, the most powerful and effective lobby in the United States is the pro-Israeli lobby.

In fact, the whole issue of Israel has come to be shrouded in mystery. Therefore, any effort to enquire into the activities of pro-Israeli lobbies in the US is considered taboo, especially because of the passions generated on account of the pain and suffering inflicted on the Jews during the Holocaust. This has resulted in an absence of credible research on the subject, notwithstanding the tradition of objectivity in most academic circles in the US.

It is, therefore, a matter of some surprise and considerable interest that two research scholars — John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at the Harvard University, collaborated to produce last month, an extremely well researched and highly convincing study, entitled The Israeli Lobby and the US Foreign Policy. It goes to their credit and is evidence of their moral strength as well, that they should have dealt with this sensitive issue frankly and yet credibly. It should therefore be of interest to scholars worldwide, more so to those who appreciate the intricacies of the power game in Washington.

The authors recall that the centrepiece of the US Middle East policy since 1967, has been its relationship with Israel. The general perception in the United States being that the bond between the two countries is based on “shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives”, when in reality it is neither.

In fact, as the authors explain, the overall thrust of US policy in the region is due primarily to the extremely intelligent and highly organized manipulation of American institutions by the “Israeli lobby”. This has resulted in the US providing massive economic assistance, military arms and unquestioned political support to Israel, that is not only unprecedented, but whose scale is not even known to the average American. Till 2003, American assistance to Israel is calculated at well over 140 billion dollars. Moreover, the terms of US aid to Israel are such that it can do virtually whatever it wishes, including the use of money for building Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The most powerful and best known pro-Israeli lobby in the US is, of course, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which claims that the US and Israel “have formed a unique partnership to meet the growing strategic threats in the Middle East” and that this provides significant benefits for both countries, though an impartial examination of the record reveals that Israel is “a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.”

American politicians and scholars cite the following factors in support of Israel: it deserves US support because it is weak and surrounded by powerful enemies; it is a democracy in the midst of authoritarian regimes; the Jewish people deserve special treatment for having suffered from past crimes, and Israel’s conduct is superior to that of its adversaries. All these reasons, while convincing on the surface, are mere assumptions, which have come to be accepted as facts, on account of the powerful propaganda that accompanies them. The authors prove conclusively the flimsy nature of these claims.

What makes organizations such as AIPAC so powerful that few politicians, scholars or journalists are willing to challenge it? Not only does AIPAC include very rich, highly educated and extremely influential American Jews, but also enjoys the unstinted support of virtually all the prominent Christian evangelists, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and more importantly, some of the best known names in Congress, such as former majority leaders Dick Armey and Tom DeLay. Even more significantly, these highly influential public figures claim that Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda, on account of their belief that pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will.

Given the critical role played by the American legislature, AIPAC spends a lot of time and money in cultivating Congress. It not only extends political support, but arranges for campaign funds, favourable media coverage and even organises voter turnout for those members who toe the Israeli line. However, when, though rarely, a legislator demonstrates the moral courage to advocate even-handedness, AIPAC can unleash the full array of its weapons to destroy his career. Dozens of Congressmen have suffered this fate, though Charles Percy, a highly respected senator, is the most famous victim of such a campaign. Not only was he publicly targeted by the lobby for daring to mildly criticize Israel, but his defeat was welcomed officially by AIPAC president Thomas Dine as a “message” for other American politicians. Nothing could have had a more chilling effect on any aspiring politician.

When it comes to the executive branch, AIPAC has succeeded in ensuring a foothold in both political parties, by arranging for massive donations to the presidential candidates, as well as galvanising voters, specially in important states, where the Jewish vote though small, can be critical. At the same time, AIPAC is also prepared to punish any candidate who gives the slightest hint of favouring an evenhanded US role in the Middle East, as happened when AIPAC organized a negative campaign against the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Howard Dean, even though he was quite hawkish on Israel.

More worrying is the fact that AIPAC succeeds in getting many of its officials, with pronounced pro-Israeli views, appointed to senior positions in the US administration. There are many such cases, the best known being that of Martin Indyk, a former deputy director of AIPAC, who became President Clinton’s point man on the Middle East. No wonder, at the Camp David talks, the Palestinians complained that it was like “negotiating with two Israeli teams — one displaying an Israeli flag and one an American flag.” Of course, it has become far worse in the Bush administration, with many more pro-Israeli individuals appointed to important and senior positions.

Most Congressmen are either in the debt of or in awe of the pro-Israeli lobby. Thus, AIPAC can get three-fourths of the US legislators to sign on the dotted line, on any letter addressed to the US president. This has led AIPAC to claim on its websites, that many of the initiatives taken by Congress are at its behest. In fact, however important or senior he may be, no one is immune from AIPAC’s criticism and hostility, as evidenced by the manner in which Secretary of State Colin Powell was targeted by the Israeli lobby.

The media, for obvious reasons, remains of special interest to the pro-Israeli lobby, with some of the best-known columnists and commentators supporting Israel “reflexively and without qualification”. Even national newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and even the New York Times, are always espousing pro-Israeli positions. Times’s executive editor, Max Frankel, once acknowledged that he always wrote editorials from “a pro-Israel perspective”.

When it comes to the most important US policy initiatives, specially those relating to the Middle East and the Gulf, the administration takes its cue from AIPAC. For example, it is now acknowledged in the US that the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud party. As far back as 1998, this group had published two open letters to President Clinton, calling for Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. As luck would have it, many of them came to occupy extremely sensitive positions in the Bush administration.

To them, 9/11 came as a godsend opportunity to promote their views. Only 10 days after this tragedy, they wrote to Bush, declaring that even if there was no evidence to link Iraq directly to the 9/11 events, the administration should make a determined effort to remove Saddam from power. No sooner had Baghdad fallen, that the same people began calling for a regime change in Syria and Iran. In fact, even before the Iraq war, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was claiming that the invasion of Iraq was not enough, and that there was the need for regime change in Syria and Iran as well.

Given the above it is not surprising that these two research scholars reached the disturbing conclusion that this lobby’s efforts have resulted in Israel being given a “free hand to deal with the Palestinians”. This has brought about a situation where the US finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world. In this manner, the lobby, while promoting Israel’s influence in the US, has created major strategic problems for the United States.

Not only has the Palestinian issue introduced Islamic radicalism around the world; it has also become a breeding ground for “terrorism”. And, by being, “the guardian angel” of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, the US has become “complicit in the atrocities perpetrated against Palestinians”. Such a policy weakens America’s moral standing and reduces the effectiveness of its support for democracy and respect for human rights. But much worse could be in store if the lobby succeeds in persuading the administration to opt for a regime change in Iran and Syria.

It is, nevertheless, a sad reality that given the continuing influence of the neo-conservatives in Washington, the prospects of peace are extremely dim. In fact, the neo-conservatives even welcome such an outcome. Lest we forget, Robert Kagan and William Kristol wrote in the aftermath of 9/11 (Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002), that “Afghanistan will prove but on opening battle. This war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries of varying intensity. It could well require use of American military power, in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilization that everyone has hoped to avoid.”

There is no doubt that notwithstanding the tremendous advances made by Israel in science, technology and agriculture, its security continues to be ensured by foreign powers, primarily the US. To this day, it lacks a solid foundation, for it is devoid of legitimacy. But sadly, the Jewish state is unable to grasp this reality and continues to depend on forces outside the region for its survival.

Secure in America’s support, Israel refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians, on the basis of equality. Its elite may be of European origin, but the country is now part of the Middle East. It cannot continue to function as an extension of the West in the heart of Islam. The correlation of forces is shifting between the two sides, not militarily, but politically. Israel must cease to be a European enclave and begin the process of assimilating itself within the region where it is located.

The writer is a former ambassador.

INDIAN Prime Minister Manmohan Singh offered a treaty of peace, security and friendship to Pakistan at a public meeting in Amritsar on March 24. However, while referring to the Kashmir dispute, he said that it was a mistake to link it with the normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India.

No one should be surprised at Dr Manmohan Singh’s stance as it was consistent with the policy that has been followed by successive governments in India on this issue.

The Indian prime minister’s suggestion delinking the Kashmir dispute with the normalisation process between Pakistan and India gives the impression that he wants the Kashmir dispute to drag on indefinitely so that India may continue to keep the disputed territory under its illegal occupation. It may, however, be mentioned that since 1947 the Kashmir issue has remained at the heart of rivalry between Pakistan and India and they have fought two wars over it.

It is also at the root of the festering threat to peace and stability in the region with negative consequences. It would, therefore, be imprudent if the two countries diverted their attention away from the Kashmir dispute which, needless to say, is the key to good relations between them. No useful purpose would be served if the two countries remained engaged in a futile and endless round of peace talks without addressing this core issue.

It may be recalled that in August 1982, India had proposed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with Pakistan. No progress was, however, made as Pakistan rejected India’s proposal that all disputes between the two countries should be solved at a bilateral level, without recourse to international forums, including the United Nations. It may, however, be important to note that on one hand India was opposed to the involvement of the international community in the Kashmir dispute and on the other, it also subverted bilateralism for resolving it. As a result, this dispute has remained unresolved and more than five decades after it erupted, Pakistan and India are no closer to its resolution.

It may be pertinent to mention that Pakistan’s stand, all along, has been that a just and peaceful settlement of all the major outstanding problems between Pakistan and India would remove the causes of conflict and friction between the two countries. Dr Manmohan Singh’s ill- advised advocacy of delinking the Kashmir problem with the normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India, however, indicates that he has not appreciated the force of this agreement.

Dr Manmohan Singh’s proposed treaty of friendship with Pakistan, as indicated by him, is aimed at ending the animosities and misgivings of the past to enable the two countries to move together in their common pursuit of eradicating poverty, ignorance and disease. It does not apparently envisage evolving a mechanism to address the outstanding and future problems between Pakistan and India in a judicious manner. Needless to say, without a firm provision in it to remove the irritants that obstruct the establishment and growth of cordial relations between the two countries, the proposed treaty would be of no consequence and may not, therefore, carry conviction, especially in Pakistan.

Historically, Pakistan and India have not been able to maintain the best conditions for coexistence. It is, therefore, all the more important that the proposed treaty of friendship also evolves a mechanism to maintain peace between the two countries particularly during periods of adversial ties. This can, however, be possible only if both commit themselves to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the other and also pledge not to resort to the use of force, under any circumstances, nor adopt coercive means to bring pressure to bear against the other.

Being nuclear weapons states, they should also reaffirm their commitment that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons and target strategic missiles at each other. All their differences must be resolved through peaceful means by adhering to the provisions of the UN charter and the principles and norms of universally recognized international laws.

It is not yet clear as to what really prompted Dr Manmohan Singh to offer a treaty of friendship to Pakistan at this particular juncture, and what political and strategic objectives he intends to achieve by doing so. Evidently, it cannot be a gesture of goodwill towards Pakistan as some of the political observers in and outside the country may wish us to believe. The only plausible explanation is that by proposing a treaty of friendship to Pakistan, in the wake of the Indo-US nuclear deal which has evoked a negative global reaction, the Indian prime minister, in order to limit the amount of damage that has already been caused by it, wants to convey a message to the international community that India is a peace-loving and responsible country that does not hesitate to seek friendship even with its adversaries.

It may also be pertinent to mention that the Indo-US nuclear deal, which has been criticized in the United States itself, is to be presented soon by the Bush administration to the US Congress for approval. India probably believes that the offer of a treaty of friendship to Pakistan may deflect the mounting criticism against the Indo-US agreement that may be helpful to its lobbyists in Washington to defend it effectively.

Pakistan and India have suffered the negative consequences of a strained relationship that needs to be improved along the lines of common interests and sovereign equality. The political differences and disputes between the two countries have prevented the emergence of a viable relationship between them. The prospects of a lasting friendship between Pakistan and India, remain bleak after Dr Manmohan Singh’s ill-advised advocacy of delinking the Kashmir dispute with the normalisation of relations between the two countries.

Dr Manmohan Singh’s assertion that Kashmir is an integral part of India is also highly contentious and cannot be accepted by Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. The Indian prime minister needs to understand that the Kashmir dispute has to be resolved in a manner that is acceptable to all the concerned parties, particularly the Kashmiris, who must decide their own destiny and hence their wishes about Kashmir’s future political dispensation are sacrosanct. For obvious reasons, India’s sentiments of national pride and ego cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a judicious and speedy settlement of the Kashmir dispute.