Exclusive!!! The secret weapon of the pro-Israeli lobby

The new study on "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" presents an interesting dilemma to the writer: Do you ignore it - having concluded it is biased, one-sided, foolish, repetitive, and most of all, has nothing new to offer - or do you write about it, knowing that the "Harvard," "Chicago," "professors," "Kennedy school" labels will make it acceptable anyway, even news-worthy, in the eyes of many.

In short: Does one need cooperate with the advancement of the cause of academic garbage?

I decided to write - and I may have made the wrong choice. But I can still urge others to ignore it, or use it as a tool for another, more interesting study: "The decline of academic values and the misuse of academic titles by contemporary American pseudo scholars."

Now, take a look at what it says: "The U.S. national interest should be the primary objective of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel."

Got it? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 have all surrendered American national interest to Israel. You want to know why? Here's the scholarly explanation: "One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel. Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'"

Whhhoooo - sounds scary. And how did the lobby succeed in achieving all that? It had a super-secret weapon: "The charge of anti-Semitism".

And thus the study goes on and on, basing itself mainly on newspaper clips and quotes and rehearsed facts and figures. Remember those Jewish neo-cons who dragged America into Iraq because of Israel? Now it is "academically proven" that they really did.

You want to know what this Iran issue is all about? "One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on U.S. policy toward Iran, because the United States has its own reasons to keep Iran from going nuclear. This is partly true, but Iran's nuclear ambitions do not pose an existential threat to the United States. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, or even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live with a nuclear Iran."

Yeah, well. It could possibly have lived with Nazi Germany too, had it not been for all those European allies dragging America into an "unnecessary" war.

The writers conveniently ignore the proliferation issue as though it didn't exist. The only mention of it is in regard to - take a deep breath - Israel: "Efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal." No terrorists, no 9/11, no threat of sneaking a bomb via the ports, no connection between Iran and terrorist organizations.

"Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War," the writers state, "the first Gulf War revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden." But wait a minute - didn't Israel agree to hold back its weapons and refrain from reacting to Iraqi attacks as not to interfere with American efforts to form an anti-Iraqi coalition? And didn't we learn years ago that the Kennedy administration, tilting toward the Arabs, started this wonderful friendship with Israel only after it concluded that the unstable Arab dictatorships couldn't be trusted to help America?

But let us not start arguing about every little detail in this paper. It will take a long time, and it will be a waste of time, as it is clear that the writers are not here to be convinced that they're wrong. "Readers may reject our conclusions," they say - and by all means, I do.

They also say that "the evidence on which they rest is not controversial" - an excellent example for the trick behind this paper. Get the facts right - but only the convenient facts - and use them in a manner that serves your cause. As someone once said: "Truth exists - only lies are invented."

And the most enraging thing here is the hypocrisy. You don't like the pro-Israel lobby? That's fine. Many others don't. You think it has too much power? A good case can be made to show that you're right. You think sometimes it crosses the fine line separating Israeli interests from American interests? Well, you need to present some strong evidence here - not just quote commentators and politicians talking about things they don't always know about - but it's a legitimate point to make.

But please, please, please don't pretend that your motivation is to help Israel, as your nose might be in danger of extending to the point of no return.

"By preventing U.S. leaders from pressuring Israel to make peace," the paper says, "the Lobby has also made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." So far so good - this is not something we didn't hear in the past (although, as Charles Krauthammer told me earlier this week, he is "amazed" to see people suggest in good conscience after Camp David that Israel is still the side to be blamed for the collapse of the peace process).

Anyway, this is not my point. The sentence that infuriated me is the one saying that "The Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel." Oh, so that's why you seem so concerned - because of Israel. But hey, wait a minute: If you only care about the interest of the United States, why is this relevant at all?