Jewish lobby report doesn't help achieve Middle East peace

By RONALD J. YOUNG
Sunday, April 23, 2006

A recent study argues that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has significant influence on U.S. Middle East policy and uses tactics of intimidation against politicians who defy it ("U.S. aid to Israel put in sharp focus," April 9). That's hardly debatable -- ask any member of Congress.

The study, however, is misleading and harmful when it implies that AIPAC causes or controls U.S. Middle East policy. The problems with U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict basically reflect the same biases that led to the debacle in Vietnam and the current disastrous turmoil in Iraq. These problematic biases include:

overestimating the effectiveness of military power to achieve political objectives whether in relation to Israel and its neighbors, Vietnam or Iraq;

underestimating popular movements for justice and peace -- in the Middle East, U.S. policy underestimates and frustrates both Palestinians and Israelis who seek a just peace;

viewing local conflicts through a "good vs. evil" framework -- for decades it was the Cold War and now it's the "War on Terrorism" that leads to dangerously distorted policies; and

going it alone -- if we had worked more closely with our allies and the United Nations, we almost certainly would have avoided the tragedy in Iraq and, very likely, would have achieved peace in Jerusalem.

The Israel lobby did not create these biases in U.S. policy, though AIPAC has been effective at taking advantage of them to achieve what it judges, often mistakenly, to be good for Israel.

The study is further flawed by not acknowledging diverse Israeli and American Jewish opinion and occasions when U.S. administrations and even Israeli prime ministers have successfully resisted AIPAC's pressures. These include President Bush (senior) in 1990- 91 preparing for the Madrid Peace Conference, President Clinton in 1998 getting Israel to accept the Wye Agreement with the Palestinians, and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin in 1995 opposing AIPAC's campaign to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Currently, in response to Hamas' election victory, while AIPAC is pushing for legislation to cut off aid to the Palestinian people and severely restrict U.S. contact with even non-Hamas Palestinian leaders, major American Jewish groups and the Israeli government itself are taking a more cautious approach, trying to avoid chaos for Palestinians and to keep the two-state solution alive.

The public policy advocacy positions of several American Jewish groups, including the mainstream Israel Policy Form, have converged with those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Churches for Middle East Peace and the American Task Force on Palestine. All are urging a careful U.S. response to Hamas' victory and active U.S. leadership to help Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Abbas restart negotiations toward a two-state solution. More cooperation among groups and people with strong bonds to opposite sides in the conflict is essential for convincing the Bush administration to make Israeli-Palestinian peace an urgent priority and for helping members of Congress resist shortsighted, one-sided measures that undermine chances for peace. The simplistic and flawed study of AIPAC, which pits supporters of Israel against supporters of the Palestinians, is more harmful than helpful to hopes for achieving peace.

Ronald J. Young of Stanwood is co-coordinator of the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East, a coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders of 25 national organizations.