Countering the Israeli lobby requires a new strategy, argues Bassem Ahmed Hassan* The recent announcement by the leaders of the Lakota nation that they were terminating their treaties signed with the United States government, accusing it of blatant violations of the treaties, is of great significance. Speculating on the outcome of yet another round of struggle by the indigenous peoples of North America to restore their culture and land, or its effects on the studies of American politics and history, tempting as it may be, is not our purpose here. The following analysis rather uses this declaration as a starting point to shed more light on an issue that has been baffling moderate Arabs, namely their failure in mobilising the support of mainstream America, read white middle class liberals, for the just cause of their Palestinian brethren. A widely accepted explanation of this failure by both pundits and ordinary Arabs has been the influence exerted by the Zionist lobby on American decision-makers and corporate media. The popularity of this argument is clearly reflected in the warm reception any book or article on "the lobby" gets in the Arab world, the work of Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer being the latest example. The solution, the proponents of this view suggest, is the formation of an Arab lobby on the same lines of the Zionist one, one that uses tactics similar to those employed by AIPAC et al, which would eventually undo the influence of the latter. While no attempt is made here to thoroughly examine this thesis or to underestimate the impact of the Zionist lobby, a couple of points are warranted. First, it is somehow inaccurate to argue that there is no pro-Arab lobby in Washington. Quite the contrary, there is an efficient one, as any student of American-Arab Gulf relations can easily point to, but it is a pro-"Good Arabs" lobby not a pro-"Bad Arabs" lobby, to paraphrase the title of one of Mahmoud Mamdani's latest works. This lobby is not based on the power of the Arab-American and/or Muslim-American voters, the way that its Zionist counterpart is founded on that of the Jewish community, but rather on the convergence of the interests of the elites in the given countries. This should not be viewed necessarily as a shortcoming, however. After all, is this not the manner in which "modern" politics should function? Isn't politics based on the interests of rational actors rather than on the basis of primordial affiliations such as ethnicity and religion? Or maybe American politics are not as "modern" as they are thought to be, which might explain why American officials and "experts" have insisted since the end of the Cold War on identifying America's "Other" in terms of religion and ethnicity? Second and more important for our purpose here, when analysing the successes of the Zionist lobby in the United States one should carefully consider whether they have been due to the methods used by the groups forming this lobby or to the particular context in which these groups are functioning, a context that is conducive to their ideology and demands? In other words, would the same methods -- if we put aside for a moment a host of questions regarding their ethical character and ramifications for a democracy -- render the same results if used by a pro-Palestine movement? The answer proposed here is no. "But isn't this what happened here?" "Does this mean we should leave our homes too?" These two "innocent" questions, raised by a "well- intentioned" columnist or panel member, usually suffice to make most average American liberals hesitate if not totally refrain from supporting the cause of the Palestinians, especially the refugees' right of return. It is the commonalty between the American and Israeli experiences, not so much the methods employed, that paves the road for the Zionist lobby to accomplish its goals, a factor that the Zionists have been stressing and capitalising on. From the outset, the founders of the Zionist movement in the 19th century drew on lessons from the Gold Rush and the settlement of "the West" when planning their colonialist project. Today, Zionist propaganda in the US portrays Israeli society as a multi-ethnic one, with its own blacks, browns, Russians and migrant workers, just another "melting pot". In contrast, the Palestinians and their supporters have great difficulty in framing their cause and aspirations in a fashion that resembles something that the white-American middle class can relate to and sympathise with. In this respect, the pro-Palestine movement in the US is in a disadvantageous position when compared to that of the supporters of the anti- apartheid struggle in South Africa a few decades ago. The latter had the advantage of tapping into the rich legacy of the civil rights movement to frame their demands and mobilise the support of various sectors of American society; ultimately forcing a Cold War warrior of the ilk of Ronald Reagan to impose sanctions on an important US ally during the heyday of his crusade against the "evil empire". This predicament will most likely carry on, despite the courageous and relentless efforts of the pro-Palestine movement as long as two conditions persist. First, if white America continues blindly glorifying its past, in particular Manifest Destiny as a founding moment of its experience, and/or resigns itself to paying lip service to the dispossession of the indigenous peoples a la the film Dancing with Wolves -- an act that some might argue adds insult to injury -- rather than critically re-examining this episode of American history and its continued ramifications. This would serve as more of a test for how far mainstream America is willing to move away from its racist heritage than the election of a mixed race senator to the Oval Office, the significance of the latter, if it happens, notwithstanding. One can only hope that the Lakota declaration would facilitate the beginning of such a process outside academic circles and that it did not fall on deaf ears or get lost amidst all the sales ads during the holiday shopping season. Second, the so-called moderate Palestinians/ Arabs insist on holding to the now unrealistic vision, to say the least, of establishing a "viable" Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Such a Swiss cheese-like state, in case it ever comes into existence, would not even manage to function as a fig leaf to cover the horrific realities of the ongoing Nakba(s) the Palestinians have been suffering since 1948. To think that mainstream America would be convinced to pressure the Israelis to make "another painful concession" in the form of allowing a significant number of refugees, not to mention all of them, to return to their previous homes is more utopian and radical than anything the most "extremist" Arab could come up with. Only a change in the vision promoted by the Palestinians/Arabs can help the pro-Palestine movement in the United States overcome this predicament. Put differently, rather than alienating mainstream America, proposing one democratic state as a solution to the conflict and working for actualising it is more likely to bring mainstream America onboard. This would require an end to limiting "the Palestine Question" to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the oppression of their inhabitants and a start to casting some light on its other aspects, in particular the presence of the Arabs of 1948 and the systemic discrimination they suffer. It is quite dazzling that while appalled by Golda Meir's infamous denial of the existence of a Palestinian people, quite a few Palestinians and many in the pro-Palestine movement are complicit in the Israeli efforts to push almost a million Arabs under the rug under the pretext that including them in the equation would only complicate things, bury the prospects of peace and weaken the moderates in the Israeli and American political establishments. (Would someone please name a couple of genuine moderates in either camp?) I beg to differ. Looking the other way while hundreds of thousands of children, men and women are being discriminated against does not only constitute an injustice in its own right, but is also politically inexpedient. It amounts to shooting oneself in the foot since it denies the pro- Palestine movement in the United State the opportunity to associate the cause of the Palestinians to similar struggles that mainstream America can positively relate to. It also relieves Zionist spokespeople from the task of having to justify an indefensible policy of racial discrimination -- in some cases helping them literally to get away with murder -- and allows them to focus on tarnishing the image of the Palestinians and misrepresenting their struggle. Furthermore, highlighting the demographic realities of the Arabs of 1948 and their future prospects would seriously weaken the claim that the right of return threatens an alleged "Jewish" character of the state, for it would show that such a pure state does not exist even today except in the mind of a Golda Meir. Finally, calling for a one-state solution where all citizens enjoy the same rights and have the same duties would show that the Palestine Question is not about replacing one ethno-nationalist state with another or about throwing the Jews in the sea, in the same manner that the indigenous struggle in the US is not about sending whites back to Europe, but rather about the respect of the dignity of all humans. The United States' founding experience provides the Zionist lobby with an advantage over the pro-Palestine movement. However, a critical re-examination of this past, inspired among others by the Lakota leaders' declaration, might convince mainstream America that a more decent future lies in joining global and local struggles that aim to transcend ethno- nationalist states, not in supporting policies designed to maintain racial inequality. * The writer is a lecturer and programme coordinator in the Political Science Department of the British University in Egypt.
