Analyse the role of the Israel lobby in the conflict between Israel Essay

Analyse the role of the Israel lobby in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians - Essay Example The truth as examined from a political, social and historical perspective strongly favors the former view: that the Lobby has pressured, through various channels and organisations, a position that favors Israel over the Palestinians and has thus thwarted for years the peace effort in the region. As Massing bluntly asserts: At its core is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is ranked second after the National Rifle Association (along with the AARP) in the National Journal‘s 2005 listing of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. AIPAC, they write, serves as â€Å"a de facto agent for a foreign government.† The , they say, is also associated with Christian evangelicals such as Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson; neoconservatives both Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Bernard Lewis, and William Kristol) and gentile (John Bolton, William Bennett, and George Will); think tanks (the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise In stitute, the Hudson Institute); and critics of the press such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. (Massing, 2011: par. 1) The â€Å"Myth† of Influence It is important to realize that much of what has been currently published favors the notion that the Lobby, particularly in the United States, has controlled its foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In light of this, it is important to present views that dismiss this notion before looking at the wealth of other information and opinions that do not. It is also important to remember that much of the defense comes from the Jewish community and government officials, just as some of the strongest in opposition comes from non-Jewish and Jewish alike, including a highly regarded social and political philosopher, Noam Chomsky. The reality of this may in itself reveal that opinions regarding the argument depend largely on the position of the interlocutor and whom or what he or she is strivin g to defend. It is interesting to note that former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, George P. Schultz’s defense of Israel is surprisingly emotional, surreptitiously alluding to the Holocaust, tying criticism to an anti-Semitic â€Å"catalog of lies†: Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame. (Schultz, 2007: par. 1-2) Schultz’s apology is also surprisingly incoherent in that he uses the unworkable analogy that if the U.S., as the largest consumer of oil, was on anyone’s side, it would on that of the Arabs, who have all of the oil. (Schultz, 2007). Th is argument for anyone who understands the business side of oil and the history of the conflict knows that no Arab country has ever truly stepped up to defend the Palestinian cause or threatened an oil embargo on either the US or Britain for not properly defending the Palestinians. Historically, this has always been the case and has eliminated concerns on the part of