In the last three or four decades human beings have experienced a rapid change and improvement in almost all realms of life under the leading power of globalization. While the World marched into a new era of integration and development, agendas of different political actors started to become more and more similar.

In other words, global progresses regarding media, technology, economic activities and political conduct have increased amount of information and opportunities available for individuals. Given trend also created an international political environment in which diplomatic relations among various states and many foreign policy decisions are discussed and handled not only by state actors but also by politically behaving units in the international relations. I used the expression “politically behaving units” because the globalization era boosted up the set of political actors by increasing the power and the significance of the non-state actors in the international relations. As I mentioned above, some issues such as environment and human rights (which placed on the agendas of almost all political actors by globalization at the same time period) became spheres of discussion and dialogue between states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and so forth.

As a consequence of what I mentioned in previous paragraph, it turned out to be needless to mention that the given trend has started to change the face of domestic and international politics around the world. In addition, the seriousness of the natural problems, rising threats of terrorism and growing scale of other illegal activities motivated or led the states to engage in or participate in intergovernmental and sometimes supranational levels of governance concerning the areas where none of the state actors can be effective on its own.

Besides the expansion of the set of political actors by the insertion of powerful and influential non-state actors and the creation of new levels of governance, the researchers or students of the political science and international relations are also faced with considerably effective civil societies including influential lobbies, pressure and interest groups in the domestic level. In other words, while the nation-states are continuing to be the main political actors, the arena of politics has stuffed with many active and powerful non-state actors as challengers or supporters of the nation-states’ political conduct in both domestic and international political environments. Within this important context, it is necessary to state that the main sphere of research of this report is narrowed down to the characteristics and the basic attitudes of the Israeli Diaspora in the United States under the umbrella of the Israel lobby.

Lobbying activities in the United States’ political system can be considered as a highly significant subject because lobbies or pressure groups are trying to influence the policies of the World’s chief political actor. From the beginning, it is important to mention that there are both positive and negative perceptions of different international relations and political science scholars regarding the Israeli lobby in the US. Before getting into the discussion of the position and the influences of the Israel lobby in the United States, it is necessary to provide definitions of some concepts like “lobby” or “Diaspora”. Yossi Shain defines the concept of Diaspora as “people with common national origin who reside outside a claimed or an independent home territory. They regard themselves or are regarded by others as members or potential members of their country of origin, a status held regardless of their geographical location and citizen status outside their home country.[1]” On the other hand, the concept of “lobby” is known as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to guide or to steer United States’ (or some other important countries’) decision-making processes in a favored or interested direction.[2]  Generally, Ethnic Diasporas are the most important elements in the composition of politically motivated lobbies. In a country like United States, powerful liberal democratic premises give chance to ethnic groups to identify with and to lobby for their country of origin. Main examples can be listed as Jewish descent, Greeks and Armenians.

However, the discussion is not related with the presence of effectively lobbying Diasporas in the United States’ political system. The main question mark here is to understand if they are putting pressure on the US administration for only their interests, or if they are lobbying the US officials at the expense of other nations. In my suggestion, the Israel Lobby is influencing the United States’ domestic and foreign policies at the expense of other countries in the Middle East and even at the expense of some interests of United States. Of course, the Israel lobby and other similar political pressure groups benefit from the wave of globalization that increased the importance of international institutions and other non-militaristic political means of action in international system. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt tried to make this clear by giving the example of diplomatic support from the United States to the state of Israel as a result of Israel lobby’s unbalanced power in the political system of the U.S. Their example was a criticism of the United States’ vetoes for thirty-two Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1982, and also United States’ prevention of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the agenda of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[3]

Activities of Israel lobby within the political system of the United States have interpreted differently by researchers or scholars who are studying the reflections of the Jewish lobby’s political movements to the international relations. On one hand, some international relations scholars perceived the lobbies as the symbols of the openness of the United States’ political system and its devotion to liberal democratic principles.[4] On the other hand, some other scholars, or intellectuals (like Robert Friedman) suggest that the state of Israel and Israel lobby in the United States have confused the US foreign policy and it is a kind of double standard to always support Israel.

Here, it is not so easy to take one of these sides. However, globalization trend has created a tendency that today the political structures of many countries include different interest groups and they are using their financial, economic and political power to influence the policies of the country they reside. The report’s suggestion is that the balance should be preserved between the interests of the state and the interests of the lobbies within the state. Specially, if the given state is a hegemon of the international system, the balance between the national interest and the lobbies’ interest becomes crucially important. It seems that the United States of America is not in the search of a balance between the interests of Israeli lobby and the interests of its own, especially regarding her foreign policy about the Middle East. For instance, Odeh Abu Rudeneh used the words of an US official to explain his point that the U.S. policies regarding Middle East are far from a balance between the United States’ own political perceptions and the perceptions of the Jewish lobby (obviously, the lack of balance is in the favor of Jewish side). The words of the US official were “We have learned to expect a pattern. First there is a request from Jewish leaders in the United States for an appointment with the President or the Secretary of State. Then we start getting bales of mail. This is accompanied by a spate of speeches in Congress. Then few journalists will burst forth in full throat”.[5] Existence of the Israel lobby in the United States is a truth and also it is an important matter within the framework of any analysis or examination of the United States’ political system whether we like the Israel lobby or not. However, by looking at the Rudeneh’s example we can easily understand that the question turns to ask how the Israel lobby became such a powerful and important political unit in the United States’ political environment that the lobby is even criticized by confusing the US foreign policy or spoiling the balance within the United States’ policies.

Obviously, answer to the (how?) question above should have a considerable relationship to the globalization. For instance, the rising power of the communications and media around the world and Israel lobby’s huge influence over some media corporations in United States is an attractive campaign source for many politicians from both Republican and Democrat sides, which automatically increases the appeal of Israel lobby and pro-Israel tendencies in US domestic politics. As the United States of America is the most advanced country in terms of globalization, the amount of power that Israel lobby holds becomes quite reasonable with its high level of weight over the mainstream media in the United States. Michael Lind also stresses this fact; “After campaign contributions and high-level appointments, media influence is the third major asset of the Israel lobby…anything more than the mildest criticism of Israel is taboo in the mainstream media.”[6]

Moreover, it is not only the media that increases the power of Israel lobby and its attractiveness in the eyes of politicians. There are many power sources such as campaign donations, its access to the congress, politically oriented committees, and even the American politicians and authors. There are many political action committees and institutions within the structure of the Israel Lobby, and the most important of the given committees of institutions is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is not only AIPAC that forms the Israel lobby in the United States. There are many committees or organizations such as Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA); Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which was highly influential during Clinton administration; Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which generally puts pressure on CNN, other important channels and radio stations to discourage reporting unfavorable to Israel.[7]

The political action committees or institutions mentioned above, as the components of the Israel lobby in the USA, are too much influential because the tendency of globalization allows them to affect both domestic and international policies of the state in which they exist. We can use the Presidential elections in USA as our example. As we can easily notice, in the globalization era, the elections in all countries around the world and mainly in the United States are becoming similar to the huge carnivals including high amount of expenses and great role of communications including television channels, radio stations, newspapers, journals etc. In other words, none of the political parties and the candidates can be effective only with their own efforts and resources. Under this situation (mainly brought by the globalization), we can easily understand one dimension of the Israel lobby’s power that is composed of its financial contributions to both Republicans’ and Democrats’ budgets. This role of the AIPAC, which is a part of the lobby, is also mentioned in Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s article; “Money is critical to US elections, and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents.”[8]

Majority of politicians exploited this situation as well to gain important political posts. It can be better understood from the Harry Truman’s justification of his pro-Israel stance; “How many American voters are Arabs?”[9] Actually, this question of Harry Truman is an explanation of the foreign policy mistakes of the United States regarding the Middle East, and this question also offers a hint in order to understand how anti-American attitudes are boosting in the Middle East. 

Moreover, it is not only the Presidency of the United States that acquires a great level of influence from mainly the AIPAC and other organizations under the umbrella of Israel lobby. Congress of the United States is another destination point of the Israel lobby’s requests. The lobby is a kind of propaganda and donation machine, which is a quite cautious watcher of the Congress and always ready to use its cards against any attempt to create or form a fair decision or course of action regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, Paul Findley (Illionis), with his twenty-two years of experience in the Congress, mentioned that Pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) contributed nearly $3.5 million to Israel’s supporters in 1984 Senate and House campaigns and they achieved to terminate any real or fair debate over Israel’s position in the United Sates’ both domestic and foreign policy.[10] Also, it is important to mention that Finley’s criticisms (above) of pro-Israel tendencies in the US politics and his appeal for a more impartial or unbiased American foreign policy in the Middle East has disturbed or even maddened the Israel lobby (including many PACs), which spent an enormous amount of cash in 1981-82 congressional campaign to defeat Paul Findley,[11] and the lobby achieved to make him lose.

It is possible to mention that the discussion of the United States’ unconditional support for Israel, and also the discussion of the Israel’s unfair or disproportional undertakings in the Middle East became almost a taboo in the US as a result of the Israel lobby’s and AIPAC’s unmatched power in political, economic and media scenes. Restrictions over the political debate about Israel created two camps regarding the matters of position of Israel lobby in the United States decision-making processes and the nature of the US-Israel relationship.

On one hand, there is a principle called as “Israel first”[12] and this principle or idea is employed by Israel lobby in the US and many American or Jewish people who think the US interests can be secured by maintaining the extended support for Israel. This view holds that the Arab world is too divided and unstable to be a part of any long-lasting settlement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, the “Israel first” view originates some of its premises from the Cold War era. For instance, it suggests United States to maintain her unconditional support to Israel in order to have an ally in the Middle East that is superior to the Soviet-sponsored forces in the region. In addition, this pro-Israel view over US foreign policy talks about the Israel’s role in preventing radical, Islamic threats after 9/11.

In contrast to the “Israel first” approach, there is the idea or principle of being evenhanded or fair regarding the American policy decisions on the Middle East. There are not many Jewish-American people supporting the evenhanded policies toward Israel and the Middle East, but considerable portion of Americans want their country to be fair in order to maximize her own interests. Proponents of evenhanded American foreign policy do not agree with the proponents of the “Israel first” approach.

This rivalry or different perceptions between two groups can be understood in almost everywhere including academia, business, civil societies and many other fields. For instance, I would like to use the example of academic rivalry between proponents of two views. On one hand, there are international relations or political science scholars like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky with their support to an evenhanded U.S. foreign policy regarding the Israel and the Middle East. These authors or scholars publish articles or books criticizing the unconditional support of the United States to the Israel, and they are the main targets of the Israel Lobby. On the other hand, there are international relations or political science scholars like Martin Kramer who is a close figure to the Israel lobby and an extreme supporter of the “Israel first” approach on the US foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East. Also, Martin Kramer gained the support of Daniel Pipes (another desperate proponent of “Israel first” approach) and established a web site called “Campus Watch” that included doubtful academics (according to them) and encouraged students to report each anti-Israel remark or behavior of professors.[13]

The analysis above considering the Israel lobby in the USA is mainly the product of an idea which holds that the globalization process has allowed non-state actors to influence the conduct of international politics throughout the political structures of the state in which they exist. Also, the globalization process increased the power of the non-state actors by creating different ways or methods for them to affect the foreign policy settings of the states, which is considered by this report as an indirect participation in international politics. Here, the Israel lobby represents an example of how civil societies can become powerful actors in politics in both domestic and international levels by using the opportunities suggested by the globalization era. In my opinion, the power of the Israel lobby as a whole and its achievements in global politics (such as USA’s unconditional military and economic help to Israel) can be easily compared to those of a medium-sized state in international system. This situation obviously reflects the leading position of the United States regarding the globalization process in the World, because probably she is the only country that includes “a combination NGOs” (Israel lobby) operating in its civil society with a power level almost equal to some state actors of international relations. 

[2] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. “The Israel Lobby”. London Review of Books. Vol. 28, No. 23,
 (March 2006). p.5

[3] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. “The Israel Lobby”. London Review of Books. Vol. 28, No. 23,
(March 2006). p.2

 [4] Yossi Shain. “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy”. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 109, No. 5,
(Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 811.

[5] Odeh Abu Rudeneh. “The Jewish Factor in US Politics”. Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol. 1, No. 4,
(Summer, 1972), pp. 92.

[6] Lind, Michael. “Distorting U.S. Foreign Policy: The Israel Lobby and American Power” Third World
Traveler. (Washington Report – On Middle East Affairs), May 2002, pp.4-5.

[7] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. “The Israel Lobby”. London Review of Books. Vol. 28, No. 23,
(March 2006). p.7-10.

[8] Ibid. p.7

[9] Odeh Abu Rudeneh. “The Jewish Factor in US Politics”. Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol. 1, No. 4, (1972), pp. 96.

[10] Brownfeld, Allan. “Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning”. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3,
(Spring, 1987), p.61.

[11] Ibid. p. 61.

[12]Avi Shlaim. “The Impact of U.S. Policy in the Middle East”. Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol. 17, No. 2,
(Winter, 1988), pp. 23-24.

[13] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. “The Israel Lobby”. London Review of Books. Vol. 28, No. 23,
(March 2006).

                                                            BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abouzerk, James. “America’s Double Standard”. Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol. 11,
No. 4, (Summer-Autumn, 1982), pp. 239-241.

Brownfeld, Allan. “Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning”. Journal of Palestine Studies,
Vol. 16, No. 3, (Spring, 1987)

Freidman, Robert. “Selling Israel to America”. Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol. 16,
No. 4, (Summer, 1987), pp. 169-179.

Lind, Michael. “Distorting U.S. Foreign Policy: The Israel Lobby and American Power”
Third World Traveler(Washington Report – On Middle East Affairs), May 2002.

Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. “The Israel Lobby”. London Review of Books.
Vol. 28, No. 6, (March 2006).

Rudeneh, Odeh Abu. “The Jewish Factor in US Politics”. Journal of Palestine Studies.
Vol. 1, No. 4, (Summer, 1972), pp. 92-107.

Shain, Yossi. “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy” Political Science Quarterly.
Vol. 109, No. 5, (Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 811-841.

Shlaim, Avi. “The Impact of US Policy in the Middle East”, Journal of Palestine Studies,
Vol. 17, No, 2, (Winter, 1988)

Verbeeten, David. “How Important is the Israel Lobby?” Middle East Quarterly. Vol. 13,
No. 4 (Fall, 2006).

Mehmet Talaykurt

Yakındoğu Üniversitesi

Doktora Öğrencisi

Bu e-posta adresi spam korumalıdır. Lütfen JavaScriptleri etkinleştirin.