Israel and the "jewish lobby"

This was by far the most difficult set of issues mainly because I wouldn’t give the same answers at home – because the context is different. When an American complains about Israel she is nervous about another nation influencing our foreign policy. When an Indonesian asks the question she means that we are paying Israel to stay in the Middle East instead of leaving and giving the land back to the Palestineans (to Germany or Austria per the suggestion of the Iranian President – a popular figure in Indonesia). I may be wrong, but I don’t think most Americans would want to stand by to see Israel destroyed.

Indonesians were not particularly open about what they would want to happen so when asked the “Israeli Lobby” or “Jewish Lobby” and its influence on the campaign I answered as follows.

There are a lot of lobbies in America that argue their point of view to the president, congress, and bureaucracy. Money is important and often wins the day. This isn’t fair and the power of some lobby groups, in my opinion, is one of the biggest failings of democracy. However, groups and interests organizing to put their point of view across is a vital feature of democracy and how one balances the power of money and the ability to argue is a major issue.

Jewish Americans and Israel have a potent and well organized lobby. However, they are probably more effective at public relations work and at lobbying congress on specific issues than affecting a race for the U.S. President. Jewish Americans themselves, although big supporters of Israel, will almost certainly vote heavily democratic, no matter who the democrats nominate.

It is easy to confuse cause and effect. American presidents have supported Israel since Truman not because there is a Jewish lobby but because they think it is the right (for whatever reason) thing to do.

Imagine this, if we stopped giving money to Israel, Palestine, and Egypt tomorrow there would still be a crisis in the Middle East – people aren’t fighting over trade barriers or tariffs – they are fighting over the very existence of their nation. I think the US could exert pressure on Indonesia to change a policy on, say, the price of sugar, but it could hardly persuade Indonesia to surrender territory to Malaysia. Israel and Palestine have to work it out themselves.

None of our candidates for president has a particularly unique policy toward Israel. In fact, they are very similar. I think a new president, any new president, will have the chance to start the peace process over but the issue is survival, the territory is tiny, and extremists on both sides, although small in number, exert influence through violence.

In a situation like this, the U.S. has less power than much of the world thinks. There is a feeling in Indonesia, and I’m sure in much the rest of the world, the US can do anything. This creates the odd situation of them wanting us to both stop breaking things and to do all of the fixing. At the heart of this is what I think is an over exaggeration of our power and an underestimate of the extent to which we simply respond to events. Power may show itself in the ability to act but certainly not in the ability to predict the outcomes of those actions.

One man asked a laundry list question
1) Attitude toward Islamic world
2) F 16 fighters to Indonesia
3) Bird Flu Vaccine
4) 1965 Coup and the CIA

I didn’t have much to add to 2, 3, and 4 but the underlying belief is “if Indonsian policy isn’t going well, or the world situation is wrong, or my history didn’t turn out the way I thought it should, it must be the fault of the US”.

This attitude is convenient for corporations and the government. Instead of being good corporate citizens or an efficient government they can use the “American Card” and divert attention away from their own issues. In many ways, America and Israel function for governments in Islamic nations (and, I believe, some corporations) like the issue of “moral values” does for Republicans. It keeps people on their side without having to actually do anything.

I got to thinking that the Bush administration has been very good for Iran. He got rid of Saddam Hussin and the Taliban – both thorns in Iran’s two sides – and he has provided the perfect foil for “blame politics”.

I do happen to believe that the US is screwing up a lot and that moral values is a legitimate political issue (I’m personally against them but I respect their right to be in the political arena and their importance to people) but they are clearly deployed to keep people under control. What would happen to the Iranian president if the US and Israeli suddenly became an Iranian ally? He would have to deliver on social and economic issues.

What the Indonesians ought to be looking closer at isn’t Israel, which has no impact on their future, but multi-national corporations intersecting with political corruption (including US corporations) stripping them of their natural resources.