Policy Watch: Where is the Arab lobby?

WASHINGTON, July 1 (UPI) -- Months after its publication in March 2006, the paper by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt entitled, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," that was posted on the website of Harvard's Kennedy School (as well as a shorter version published in the London Review of Books) continues to generate controversy and debate. The authors -- both highly prominent academics -- argued that the Israel Lobby in the United States has succeeded in bending American foreign policy so that it supports Israeli interests even at the expense of American ones.

How has the Israel Lobby managed to do this? The authors mainly attribute this to the ability of pro-Israeli forces "to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy."

This is the main thrust of their argument. In just one sentence, however, the authors suggest that there is another reason why the Israel Lobby is so strong: "Moreover, pro-Arab interest groups are weak to non-existent, which makes the (Israel) Lobby's task even easier."

This statement is certainly true. But why? There are many wealthy Arab governments and individuals that could fund a lobby. Indeed, there is already something of one. Still, why aren't the Arabs more successful at getting their message across to the American public and influencing American foreign policy?

Many Arabs, as well as those who sympathize with them, believe that the Israel Lobby somehow controls the media and thereby suppresses pro-Arab views. The truth, though, is that there are many publications that either support pro-Arab views or give expression to them. Indeed, these publications have been saying the same things about the Israel Lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt did for many years. There are some pro-Israeli elements who even believe that the American media has become increasingly pro-Arab. So there must be other reasons why "pro-Arab interest groups are weak to non-existent."

One of these, I believe, is that the Arabs have not tried very hard to present their viewpoint to the American public; often, they do not think they have to. Many Arabs I have spoken to in the Middle East and the West believe that Americans actually know full well that the Arab cause is "just," but America supports Israel anyway in order to keep the Arabs suppressed. There is no point, then, for Arabs to even try to persuade Americans of anything.

This attitude, of course, leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy: If the Arabs do not try to present their viewpoint to the American public while the Israelis do, it is not surprising that American public opinion supports Israel.

Of course, not all Arabs or their supporters think this way. There is in fact a pro-Arab lobby in the United States that seeks to present the Arab point of view; argues that America and the Arab countries have many interests in common; and promotes dialogue between Arabs and Americans. These groups have even met with some degree of success.

The problem that they face, though, is that virtually all Arab governments and opposition movements are authoritarian. Many of both, of course, are also highly anti-American. It is difficult to persuade Americans to be pro-Arab when they see so many Arabs as being anti-American. And whatever Israel's faults, it is at least a democracy for its Jewish citizens, while virtually no Arab government is a democracy even for its Arab ones.

The Arabs would gain far more sympathy from the American public if governments and opposition movements in the Arab world denounced dictatorship and advocated democracy. But if the Arabs will not even do this to benefit themselves, they are hardly likely to do so in order to improve their image in America.

It is not just the Israel Lobby's actions, then, that have brought about a pro-Israeli American foreign policy. The actions of the Arabs -- or the lack of them -- have also contributed to this.

--

(Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University.)