ACADEMIC articles seldom cause stormy public debates. But when professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government had their article published in the London Review of Books earlier this year, they were engulfed in instant controversy.

Titled “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, the article was an instant sensation on the Internet. Many readers sent me copies, and the chat surrounding the thesis was extraordinary, even by the overwrought standards of Internet blogging. To be sure, we in the Muslim world have always maintained the powerful presence of the Zionist lobby, but our general perception has been largely ill-researched and frankly partisan.

It was therefore easy for western media and academia to dismiss this perspective as paranoid and unfounded in reality. Thus, as long as the debate centred around charges of Jewish manipulation of American policy in the Middle East, even liberal and fair-minded Americans rejected them as being anti-Semitic.

But now two respected American academics from two of the world’s finest universities have put their reputation on the line by arguing that neither strategic nor moral considerations qualify Israel for the open-ended financial, military and diplomatic support it receives from the United States.

This is clearly anathema to the host of intellectuals and politicians who see American backing of Israel as a central pillar of US policy. More than seeking strategic gains, they see a moral imperative in ensuring that the Zionist state survives and prospers.

We in the Muslim world view this one-sided policy in terms of ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’, and rail against the perceived injustice of Washington’s position. But politicians do not weigh their actions on the scales of good or bad, right or wrong. They judge on the basis of expediency, and in the current climate prevailing in America, it is political suicide to vote for Palestinian rights and against Israeli interests.

Over the years, candidates seen as pro-Israel have seen their campaign contributions swell, while those politicians who have dared suggest an independent American policy in the Middle East have been punished through organised campaigns. The result is that whenever pro-Israel legislation is proposed in Congress, it is sure to be approved by an overwhelming majority.

In 2002, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hillard of Alabama, both African-American members of the House of Representatives, were defeated when they stood for re-election. They were alleged to have been critical of Israel, and discovered that their opponents were receiving generous donations from AIPAC, the feared and admired Israeli lobbying organisation. This example was cited by Michael Massing in his article “The Storm over the Israel Lobby” published in the June 8 issue of the New York Review of Books.

As Massing explains in great detail, the key to the success of the Lobby (as it is known in Washington) is organisation. Its members include academics, politicians, businessmen and journalists. Their fund-raising capabilities are legendary, and they have thousands of volunteers spread across America. This formidable organisation monitors what newspapers print and what politicians say about Israel and Palestine. Basically, they try and ensure that only the Israeli narrative filters through into the public discourse on the Middle East (such as it is), and that Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, are seen in the worst possible light.

They are lucky in that their opponents make their task that much easier. When they portray Israel as an island of democracy in a sea of dictatorship, they are factually not wrong. They can get away with glossing over the realities of Israeli democracy for Arabs and African Jews. And in America where gender equality is now a fact of life, it is easy for the Lobby to highlight the plight of Muslim women as yet another example of the superiority of Israeli society. Above all, they constantly emphasise the perception that Israel is a victim of terrorism, while showing Palestinians as heartless people who send their children out to die as suicide bombers.

Over the years, these one-sided portraits have been ingrained into the consciousness of Middle America where they have been reinforced by evangelicals who view the Israeli cause as their own. To be sure, the terrorist acts committed by Muslim extremists from Bali to Boston have only confirmed these views. Having worked tirelessly to build these stereotypes, the last thing the Lobby wants is to have a serious debate on the reality of American policy towards Israel and Palestine. This is precisely why Mearsheimer and Walt have been so reviled by public figures in the United States. Their article has been called everything from “nutty” and “smelly” to “conspiratorial” and “oddly amateurish”.

Anticipating these attacks, the authors argue that the Lobby has created an atmosphere in the United States where anybody who questions the support for Israel is deemed to be anti-Semitic, a label that immediately stifles discussion. They have concluded their paper by calling for a more open debate about the Lobby’s influence and the consequence it has had for America’s image in the world. But while the paper has generated a debate, its tone is hardly academic. Among the wide range of invective flung at the authors, Massing quotes David Gergen writing in the US News and World Report:

“As a Christian, let me add that it is also wrong and unfair to call into question the loyalty of millions of American Jews who have faithfully supported Israel while also working tirelessly and generously to advance America’s cause, both at home and abroad. They are among our finest citizens and should be praised, not pilloried.”

Most Muslims tend to view American Jews as being completely united in their support for Israel. The truth is that many liberal Jews see Israeli excesses as unacceptable, and are openly critical of them. Indeed, many Israelis often see the Lobby as consisting of over-the-top fanatics who encourage right-wing leaders in Tel Aviv to adopt rigid policies that make peace that much more difficult to achieve.

Clearly, Mearsheimer and Walt deserve credit for opening a long overdue debate on the role of the Israel lobby in the United States. But as long as extremists go on reinforcing the image of Muslims as authoritarian and backward people, Americans will continue to support the present policy flowing from AIPAC.