Interest groups can slight U.S. priorities

Gonzalez is a third-year political science student.

By Nathan Gonzalez

Americans have become accustomed to the wide-reaching effects of
powerful interest groups. While these groups can be seen as an
important component of democratic political participation, a
serious yet often neglected problem arises with a group like the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), because this
very powerful lobbying group is solely concerned with the
well-being of a country other than ours.

AIPAC was formed in the 1950s to work toward the stability of
Israel, but the group has most prominently supported members of the
right-wing Likud party, which makes for a rather narrow scope.

As we know, the aims of Israeli nationalism have quite seldom,
if at all, coincided with our own broader, more fluid foreign
policy aims. Yet as it is evident with the large contributions to
both democrats and republicans on the part of AIPAC, American hands
have often been tied when attempting to form a coherent foreign
policy in the Middle East.

In the Arab world, it is common knowledge that most Arab regimes
work without a mandate from their people, and therefore are likely
to be concerned with terrorist groups in their homeland, as these
jeopardize their ability to rule. Leaders of these
“moderate” Arab regimes would gain much in helping the
United States root out anti-American terrorists. However, so long
as the United States continues to avoid strong criticisms of Israel
for what many Arabs see as the indiscriminate killing of
Palestinians, it will be increasingly difficult to persuade
U.S.-friendly regimes to take the gamble of helping us.

Though phrases such as “enough is enough,” uttered
by President Bush in reference to recent Israeli actions, do much
to calm the concerns of those in the region, given the political
and human damage incurred on both sides, more needs to be done to
stop this war.

Much to the detriment of American foreign policy makers, AIPAC
insists that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank can be
compared to the American presence in Afghanistan. This is a
preposterous statement considering al-Qaeda began a de-facto war on
the United States when unprovoked. Lacking any kind of liberation
struggle, al-Qaeda was fueled by hatred and megalomania. To speak
of Palestinian terrorism, however, is to speak of desperate acts
that are used mostly as a means to maintain a Palestinian identity
in the face of what may be the beginning of the virtual eradication
of a people.

Many who favor the occupation as a means of making Israel safer
fail to understand that the bulldozing of houses, water pipes and
other physical infrastructure, aside from the heavy death toll of
non-combatant Palestinians, will neither dissuade, nor completely
prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks once the army begins to pull
out. Yet in the end, the only threat that could put Israel’s
existence in jeopardy would be transnational conflict, a
proposition that foes like Syria are desperately trying to avoid,
and which the United States would work to prevent.

It would be wise for U.S. foreign policy makers to reevaluate
our alliances. While they should be respected, our political
support must be conditional. If AIPAC, which does have the right to
participate in this democracy, asks us to consider the toil of
Israeli teenagers who fear going to the discotheque on a Friday
night, we must also pay equal attention to the Palestinians, and
how their welfare will affect our ability to protect U.S. interests
in the region. Israeli hard-liners must also realize that our
well-being will do much more to secure Israel’s future, more
than any form of military occupation could ever do.