By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Conservative leader David "I'm-a-Zionist" Cameron didn't win the election but has managed to seize power by slipping between the sheets with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. This distasteful union should give them enough votes to survive in Parliament for the five years they have set themselves.

The glamour-boy duo, Cameron and Clegg, come from similar privileged backgrounds - top public schools and "Oxbridge". Cameron is a product of Eton, the infamous Bullingdon Club and Oxford, Clegg arrived via Westminster and Cambridge.

Cameron, of course, is the boss of the coalition. Clegg is merely Deputy Prime Minister, a post usually regarded as a non-job. "Birds of a feather: Cameron hires a new fag," quipped one blogger.

For those unfamiliar with the peculiar practices of the English public school (public here meaning expensively private for the upper-class), "fagging" is where junior boys do menial tasks and act as a general dogsbody for senior boys such as lazy prefects eager to practice their bullying techniques and hone their cruel streak in preparation for later life.

I suspect Clegg is too rebellious to make a useful fag. The spectacle we are more likely to be treated to is Cameron and his trusty lieutenant William Hague, fagging for the US and Israel. Within hours of taking office Britain's new Foreign Secretary Hague was summoned by Washington to receive instruction on polishing Obama's shoes and ironing Clinton's slip.

No doubt he'll soon be in Tel Aviv pressing Netanyahu's suits, dusting his mantlepiece and filling the coal scuttle.

Cameron's "new era" politics

In agreeing to support the most pro-Israel party in Britain Clegg said nothing about Middle East policy while Cameron promised a "new era" in British politics.

As everyone knows, Mr Cameron and most of his party voted for the Iraq war. They, in my view, are not fit to govern. They say they "were misled". Ordinary citizens, however, were not misled and found ample information freely available to contradict the lies the warmongers were telling them. The truth is that the Conservatives, like the Labour government at the time, failed to exercise due diligence and go the extra mile to make sure of the facts before taking this country into a war we could ill afford against people who posed no threat. Or, you might suppose, they obeyed orders from a foreign power.

Either way, a few did their duty to Britain, the majority didn't.

What is even more disgusting is the way Cameron's Conservatives constantly preach family values while happy, apparently, for innocent families elsewhere - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine - to be vaporised, blown to smithereens and terribly maimed in their countless thousands, or terrorized and starved into submission by sanctions and blockades.

Now, incredibly, they are considering inflicting the same collective punishment on Iranians for developing a domestic nuclear programme which they are perfectly entitled to.

Furthermore Cameron has failed to clean up his party, and I don't mean the scandalous expense-fiddling. Thanks in large part to the Channel 4 'Dispatches' programme on TV we know that the Conservative Party, like Labour, has its palm greased by the Israel lobby. Cameron is a self-declared Zionist pledged to defend the state of Israel come what may. It seems he's more concerned about the security and prosperity of Israel's murdering land-grabbers than the plight of their victims, the Christian communities in the Holy Land and their Muslim neighbours.

He's a very confused fag.

An organization called the Conservative Friends of Israel claims it "works to promote its twin aims of supporting Israel and promoting Conservatism. With close to 2000 activists as members - alongside 80% of Tory MPs - CFI is active at every level of the Party." Cameron endorses it enthusiastically: "I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party."

Back in 2006 The Jewish Chronicle reported on the backers bankrolling Cameron's bid for power. That report was sent to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as an example of how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and undermines the very principles the Committee had been established, as the nation's watchdog, to uphold. The Committee ignored it. Corruption runs deeper than you think here.

It is bad news all round that Hague is the new Foreign Secretary. He is, in his own words, "a longstanding friend of Israel and someone who joined Conservative Friends of Israel at the age of 15". He once said: "The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue."

Hague's appearance bears a startling resemblance to a neo-con skinhead, so he must fit into the Washington scene nicely. He said in an interview during the election campaign that the most urgent issue facing him, should he find himself in the Foreign Office, would be the Iranian nuclear programme. "We have consistently been the party arguing for tough sanctions and a strong European approach over the last few years, and are very frustrated that this hasn't emerged strongly enough." He wants Britain to give Iranians a good kicking by adopting the same sanctions regime against Iranian financial institutions as the United States and seeking European agreement on blocking investment in Iran's vast oil and gas fields.

So why isn't he just as eager to put the boot in against Israel on account of its massive nuclear weapons stockpile, which is a grave threat the region and even Europe, and the regime's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (which Iran has signed)?

He's a very confused skinhead.

Another thing. All states which are party to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to court.

"Grave breaches" means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war... the sort of atrocities that are committed wholesale by Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

But in order to protect the unsavoury foreign prefects they fag for, the Conservatives, like Labour, are planning to abandon our solemn obligations under international law. Their shadow Attorney General said, before the election, that the Conservatives "will change the law if this government [i.e. Labour] doesn't... There is support for this from David Cameron and William Hague downwards."

In short, Cameron and Hague hope to create a safe haven here in the UK for all psychopaths and bloodthirsty guttersnipes wanted for war crimes... especially Israel's top brass.

On the all-important foreign affairs front Nick Clegg therefore will have an almost impossible task trying to keep the Cameron/Hague wing of the coalition in check and focused on Britain's best interests.

Is there a silver lining?

I'm sorry to be the bringer of such gloomy news. However, there may yet be a glimmer of hope beneath this unremitting black cloud.

The Liberal Democrats' stated policy on Gaza is to...

• prosecute and compel the appearance of witnesses to investigate war crimes arising out of Israel's attack on Gaza, whether by Israel, Hamas or any other party;
• the existing EU Israel Association Agreement should be suspended since Israel has continued its illegal blockade of Gaza;
• the update for Israel's Association Agreement with the EU should also continue to be suspended;
• the EU should review whether Israel is in enduring breach of Article 2 of the Association Agreement; and
• there should be an arms embargo on Israel by Britain and the EU.

What's more, Nick Clegg wrote a punchy article "Lift the Gaza blockade" last December in The Guardian. In it he said:

"What has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis...

"The EU has huge economic influence over Israel, and it believes the blockade must be lifted. At the same time as exercising leverage over Hamas, it should make clear that the web of preferential agreements which now exists between the EU and Israel - from Israeli access to EU research and development funds to recently improved access for Israeli agricultural products - will be brought into question if there is no rapid progress...

"Gordon Brown and the international community must urgently declare that enough is enough. The blockade must end."

The question is, does Clegg have enough leverage to shame his new work colleagues, Cameron and Hague, into taking the action Brown neglected to?

Of course, that would infuriate the nasty prefects. But without the Liberal Democrats Cameron's Conservatives are doomed. So it will be interesting to see how far Clegg's lads can go in neutralising the Zionist Tendency that stains our politics.

I assume Clegg has taken note of Israel's threats to attack the Free Gaza flotilla, which soon sails to deliver humanitarian aid and break the evil blockade. Is it too much to ask that he insists Cameron orders the Royal Navy to provide an escort in order to guarantee the freedom of the seas and protect British and other nationals who are doing what he, Clegg, has been urging, what the world wants to see and what the contemptible international community should have done long ago?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A question every voter should ask candidates in the coming UK general election

There can be few sights more pathetic than ex-ministers and chums of Tony Blair offering to use their government contacts to help influence policy on behalf of business clients.

"I'm like a cab for hire," said Stephen Byers when secretly filmed by a Channel 4 TV 'Dispatches' programme. Byers could be "hailed" for £3,000 to £5,000 per day.

And so a new expression was born into the sleazy world of Westminster: "political cabbing".

The latest revelations come only a few months after another Channel 4 'Dispatches' report, by Peter Oborne, showed how large numbers of MPs were stooging (or "cabbing") for Israel.

Mr Oborne reported that a majority of Conservative MPs and half the shadow cabinet are signed-up Friends of Israel, and £millions flow into the bank accounts of MPs and parties although only a fraction of these "contributions" are visibly accounted for. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem, observed: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes, these contributions come with no strings attached."

Mr Oborne showed how Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel take dozens of MPs on free trips to Israel, where they are guests of the Israeli government.

Few, if any, declare this interest when speaking in Parliament.

He showed how one of the Conservative Party's big donors has vested interests in illegal settlement development in the West Bank and in Bicom, an Israeli public affairs outfit, and how the party's leadership is subjected to foreign pressure.

What harm does "cabbing" for Israel do?

Large numbers of MPs (and many parliamentary candidates) are exposed to the Israel lobby's influence, and its message is carried through into parliamentary work causing great damage to our parliamentary democracy, harm to Britain's reputation throughout the world and risk to our security because a just solution in the Holy Land is prevented by such partisanship.

The majority of Conservative MPs and MEPs are Friends of Israel. The lobby also claims a very large number of Labour MPs and ministers. Membership is said to be a necessary step to high office.

The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel website brazenly states that its first aim is to maximise support for the State of Israel within the party and Parliament, and develop and maintain a broad-based LDFI membership inside and outside of Parliament...

Conservatives Friends of Israel have a 'Fast Track' group for parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats. 



Senior Conservatives try to justify their support for the foreign military power by insisting that Israel is "a force for good in the world" and "in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together".

This partisanship undermines a number of the Principles on which our standards in public life are founded. One of these requires holders of public office not to place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Nowhere is this disregard for principle more dramatically demonstrated than in the appointment of Israel flag-wavers to the chairmanship of our most important security bodies – the Intelligence & Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee.

Prime minister Gordon Brown told Labour Friends of Israel that they were "one of the great influences on the whole of the Labour movement... I will continue to do what I can both to defend Israel and to protect the security of Israel's borders... I count myself not only a friend of Israel but someone who wants to support the future of Israel.... we will do everything that we can to work with Israel."

Conservative opposition leader David Cameron has said: "The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel."

Both leaders are patrons of the Jewish National Fund, an organisation with a sinister purpose.

Lobbying will be the "next political scandal", says Cameron blissfully unaware of the irony of his remark.

"Cabbing" to change the law and protect Israel's thugs

When Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel's main opposition party Kadima and foreign minister during the murderous blitzkrieg on Gaza civilians a year ago, recently cancelled a visit to Britain after an arrest warrant was issued against her by a British court, Israel complained that "we have to put an end to this absurdity, which is harming the excellent bilateral relations between Israel and Britain."

Gordon Brown responded by insisting that Livni was welcome and promising to change the law that allows British courts to issue warrants for war crimes suspects.

Foreign secretary David Miliband reinforced this by saying the British government was determined that arrest threats against visitors of Ms. Livni's stature would not happen again. "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop these ties," he said. "Israeli leaders - like leaders from other countries - must be able to visit and have a proper dialogue with the British government."

Livni is not even a serving minister. And far from apologizing for the slaughter of Gazans a year ago, this odious individual declared: "I would make the same decisions all over again." For decent people she is beyond the pale and unwelcome.

Nevertheless the attorney-general has told the world that the government intends to protect high-ranking Israeli officials from arrest in the UK. Speaking at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Baroness Scotland said Israeli leaders should not face arrest for war crimes under the law of universal jurisdiction. "The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed to avoid this situation arising again. Israel's leaders should always be able to travel freely to the UK."

Why? There can be no hiding place for those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, extra-judicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.

States that are party to the Geneva Conventions – there are 194 of them, including Israel itself - are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed "grave breaches" of the Conventions and "bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case."

The Geneva Conventions are treaties, solemnly entered into, that contain universal rules limiting the barbarity of war. "Grave breaches" means wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, the causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war. Israel is well practised in all of these.

Brown and Miliband, "cabbing" like fury, are happy to dismantle our obligations under international law in order to save their unsavoury friends and allow Israel's worst thugs to walk the streets of our capital.

"Cabbing" for Israel even extends to making light of the theft by Mossad agents of the passport ID of several British citizens in a mission to assassinate a Hamas operative in Dubai. It was not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Mr Miliband announced the expulsion of an unnamed individual on the Israeli embassy staff. This feeble slap on the wrist was not nearly enough to wipe the smirk off Ambassador Prosor's face.

George Galloway MP called for a more robust response - the closing of the embassy. "Every British citizen travelling in the Middle East has been endangered by the actions of Mossad operating from the Israeli embassy in London. Protecting British citizens abroad demands nothing less than closing that centre of espionage at home."

That's more like it.

Miliband's and Brown's friends are not my friends... or anyone else's as far as I can see. The idea that Israel and the gangsters who run it have any value to us as strategic partners, is a figment of their tiny imagination. George Washington's warning of years ago seems all the more appropriate today: "The nation which indulges towards another a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."

Who , if they had any integrity, would "cab" for a regime that thieves, murders, assassinates, carries out ethnic cleansing and shows utter contempt for international law, human rights, UN resolutions and the normal codes of human conduct?

Who would "cab" for a regime that, by using overwhelming military might, has systematically impoverished its neighbours and resorted to starvation tactics to make them submit?

Who, if they had a shred of honour, would "cab" for a regime whose leaders are wanted for war crimes?

Be warned, you parliamentary candidates, when you come a-knocking for my vote. The first question will be "Are you cabbing for Israel?"

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

If you think that the "War on Terror" has come about because Islamic extremists "hate your freedoms," you are wrong. It is because of the unbalanced and deeply flawed foreign policy chosen my US politicians in the Middle East, which generated much of the anti-American sentiment found in the Arab world. If you ask, Why? Here's a realistic answer to your question:

Cartoon by Bendib

Eric Chinski, the editor of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s provocative new bestseller, asks the authors whether their book is good for the Jews and good for America. This interview originally appeared on the Web site of the publishing house Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Why did your article "The Israel Lobby," which was published in the London Review of Books in 2006, provoke such heated discussion around the world? James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine: " 'The Israel Lobby' slammed into the opinion-making world with a Category 5 force." How would you describe the reaction?

The article received enormous attention because it challenged what had become a taboo issue in mainstream foreign policy circles, namely the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. Middle East policy. We did not question Israel's legitimacy and explicitly stated that the United States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is at risk, but we did argue that pro-Israel groups in the United States were encouraging policies that were ultimately not in America's national interest. Although the views we expressed are often discussed openly in other democracies -- including Israel itself -- they have rarely been set forth in detail by mainstream figures in the United States. The article was also of great interest to many readers because it has become increasingly obvious that U.S. Middle East policy has gone badly awry. Although a number of groups and individuals either mischaracterized our views or attacked us personally, many other readers agreed that such an examination of the lobby's role was long overdue.

Why did you feel the need to follow up the article with your book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"? What more is there to say?

Writing a book provided an opportunity to present a more nuanced and complete statement of our views, and also allowed us to address some of the responses to the original article. Although the article was long by magazine standards, space limitations forced us to omit several key issues and to deal with other topics more briefly than we would have liked. Events like the 2006 Lebanon war had not occurred when the article was published, and additional information about other episodes -- such as the U.S. decision to invade Iraq -- had since come to light. Thus, writing a book allowed us to refine our analysis and bring it up to date.

In particular, the book presents a more detailed definition of the lobby, an extended discussion of its development and rightward drift over time, an examination of the role of the so-called Christian Zionists, and an analysis of the controversial issue of "dual loyalty." We also offer a more detailed description of the various strategies that groups in the lobby use to advance their goals within the U.S. political system. The book also addresses the widespread belief -- as illustrated by Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- that oil companies are the real driving force behind America's Middle East policy, and explains why this view is incorrect.

Finally, our original article did not offer much in the way of positive prescriptions, but the book outlines a new approach to U.S. Middle East policy that would better serve U.S. interests and, in our view, be better for Israel as well. To that end, it also identifies how the influence of the lobby might become more constructive, for the good of both countries.

What is the extent of American financial, diplomatic, and military aid to Israel, and how does it compare with other states'?

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance, having received more than $154 billion in U.S. aid since its creation in 1948, and it currently receives roughly $3 billion in direct U.S. assistance every year, even though it is now a prosperous country. The United States also consistently gives Israel diplomatic support, and consistently comes to its aid in wartime, as it did during the 2006 war in Lebanon. Most important, U.S. support for Israel is largely unconditional: Israel receives generous American assistance even when it takes actions that the U.S. government believes are wrong, such as building settlements in the Occupied Territories. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once remarked, U.S. backing for Israel is "beyond compare in modern history."

Isn't America's special relationship with Israel based on strong strategic and moral arguments? Isn't it important for the United States to have an ally that shares our values in a region dominated by extremism and enemies of America?

Israel is not the strategic asset to the United States that many claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War, but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over. Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism around the world, helped fuel America's terrorism problem, and strained relations with other key allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The United States derives some tangible strategic benefits from its close security partnership with Israel, but it pays a high price for them. On balance, it is more of a liability than an asset.

Similarly, the moral case for unconditional U.S. support is not compelling. Israel is a democracy, but no other democracy gets the same level of support that Israel does -- and so unconditionally. There is a strong moral case for Israel's existence, which is why we support a Jewish state in Palestine and believe the U.S. should come to its aid if its survival is jeopardized. But many of Israel's policies -- especially the continued occupation of the West Bank and its refusal to allow the Palestinians a viable state of their own -- are at odds with key U.S. values. Viewed objectively, the early Zionists' behavior during the founding of the Jewish state and Israel's later behavior toward the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors undermine the myth of Israel as victim and the Arabs as aggressors.

The strategic and moral rationales for unconditional U.S. support have grown weaker since the end of the Cold War, yet U.S. support has continued to increase. This anomaly suggests that some other factor is at work.

Why do you focus on Israel and not on other U.S. allies?

We focus on Israel's policies in this book not because we have any animus toward Israel or because we regard its behavior as worse than other states'. Rather, we focus on it because the United States has long focused so much of its financial, diplomatic, and military attention on Israel. Israel is often said to deserve this support because it supposedly acts better than other states do, but we show that this is not the case. It has not acted worse than other states, but neither has it acted significantly better. Regrettably, uncritical U.S. support has led to policies that are harmful to the United States and Israel alike.

If the strategic and moral rationales don't account for the exceptional backing of Israel, what does?

The pro-Israel lobby. The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and groups that actively works to push American policy in ways that will benefit Israel. It is not a cabal or conspiracy, or a single, hierarchical organization with a central leadership and total unanimity of views. Rather, it is a set of groups and individuals who all favor steadfast U.S. support for Israel but sometimes disagree on certain policy issues. Prominent groups in the lobby include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and pro-Israel think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Leading individuals in the lobby include the heads of these various organizations, as well as neoconservatives who served in the Bush administration like Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser, some of whom are closely associated with hard-line pro-Israel think tanks and conservative politicians in Israel, or Christian Zionists like John Hagee of CUFI and ... Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

Religious and ethnic identity does not define who is part of the lobby, as it includes gentiles as well as Jewish-Americans. It is the political agenda of an individual or a group, not ethnicity or religion, that determines whether they are part of the lobby. Thus, the Israel lobby is not synonymous with American Jewry, and "Jewish lobby" is not an appropriate term for describing the various groups and individuals that work to foster U.S. support for Israel. These groups and individuals sometimes disagree on particular issues but they are united in their belief that the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel should not be substantively questioned. They are not all-powerful and they do not "control" U.S. foreign policy. Rather, they form a powerful special interest group, which over time has acquired considerable influence over U.S. policy in the Middle East.

What are the strategies the lobby uses to influence the policymaking process and public discourse about Israel and its relationship with the United States?

The Israel lobby uses the same basic strategies that other interest groups employ. It pushes its agenda in Congress by supporting friendly candidates and legislators with votes and campaign money and by helping to frame legislation; by getting sympathetic individuals appointed to key policy positions in the executive branch; by monitoring the media and pressuring news organizations to offer favorable coverage; and by writing articles, books, and op-eds designed to move public opinion in directions they favor. These various strategies are as American as apple pie, and there is nothing illegitimate about them. Yet it ought to be equally legitimate to examine and discuss how the Israel lobby works to push its agenda in government, and to debate whether its influence is beneficial, the same way that one might examine other interest groups like the gun lobby, the farm lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, the energy lobby, and other ethnic lobbies (e.g., Cuban-Americans, Indian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, etc.).

Do you think the Israel lobby's tactics sometimes go beyond acceptable interest-group politics?

Unfortunately, yes. Although most of the lobby's tactics are legitimate forms of political participation, some groups and individuals in the lobby also try to silence or marginalize opponents and critics by smearing them as anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. This sort of response was evident in the personal attacks directed at Jimmy Carter for writing a controversial book about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, and in the efforts of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League to prevent the historian Tony Judt from giving a lecture on the Israel lobby to a group in New York City. True anti-Semitism is loathsome and should be firmly opposed, but using this sort of accusation to silence or marginalize critics is antithetical to the principles of free speech and open debate on which democracy depends.

Why is it so difficult to talk about the role of the Israel lobby?

Primarily because of the many centuries of anti-Semitism in the Christian West, which culminated in the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. Given this long history of sometimes violent persecution, Jewish Americans (and many gentiles) are understandably sensitive to any argument that is critical of Israel or of the political influence of groups in which Jews are central participants. This sensitivity is compounded by the memory of bizarre conspiracy theories of the sort laid out in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a notorious anti-Semitic tract that was discredited long ago. Such paranoid views remain a staple of neo-Nazis and other fringe groups, however, which reinforces Jewish sensitivities even more. Given this history, some people are likely to suspect that anyone who criticizes Israel is in fact questioning its right to exist, or that anyone who examines the political influence of the Israel lobby is questioning the loyalty of pro-Israel individuals or accusing them of some sort of illegitimate activity. We explicitly reject these anti-Semitic notions, but given past experience, we understand why it is easier to talk about the influence of other special interest groups than it is to talk about the Israel lobby.

What is the lobby's impact on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?

In Part II of the book, we show how the lobby has encouraged the United States to take Israel's side in its long struggle with the Palestinians, and made it more difficult for the United States to help bring this conflict to a close. The lobby -- and especially the neoconservatives within it -- also played a key role in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, although other factors (such as the September 11 attacks) were also critical in making the decision for war. The lobby has successfully pressed the Bush administration to adopt a more confrontational stance toward Syria and Iran, and encouraged it to back Israel to the hilt during the 2006 war in Lebanon.

Why are these policies not in America's national interest?

Backing Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians has reinforced anti-Americanism around the world and almost certainly helped terrorists recruit new followers. U.S. and Israeli policy also led directly to Hamas' growing popularity and its victory in the Palestinian elections, which made a difficult situation worse and a long-term peace settlement even more elusive. The Iraq war is a strategic disaster that has damaged America's standing and strengthened Iran's regional position, and now provides other terrorists with an ideal training ground. The Lebanon war enhanced Hezbollah's position, weakened the pro-American Siniora government in Beirut, and further tarnished America's image throughout the region. A hard-line approach to Iran helped bring President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power but failed to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, and threatening Syria led Damascus to stop helping the United States against al Qaeda. None of these developments has been good for the United States.

What is the impact on Israel's long-term interests?

U.S. aid has indirectly subsidized Israel's attempt to colonize the Occupied Territories, a policy that many Israelis now see as a strategic and moral disaster. Yet the lobby has made it effectively impossible for Washington to convince the Israeli government to abandon this misguided policy. The lobby's influence has also made it harder for the United States to persuade Israel to seize opportunities -- such as a peace treaty with Syria, the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, or full and complete implementation of the Oslo agreements -- that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the number of enemies it still faces. The invasion of Iraq -- which Israel and the lobby both supported -- turned out to be a major boon for Iran, the country many Israelis fear most. And by pressing Congress and the Bush administration to back Israel's ill-conceived response to Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, the lobby unwittingly facilitated a policy that damaged Israel significantly.

Do you think the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign will provide a chance for the Israel lobby's influence to be discussed?

Regrettably, no. The candidates will undoubtedly disagree on a wide array of domestic and foreign-policy issues: health care, education, taxes, the environment, what to do in Iraq, how to deal with a rising China, etc. But the one issue on which there will be virtually no debate is the question of whether the United States should continue to give Israel unconditional backing. Even though almost everyone recognizes that U.S Middle East policy is a disaster, no serious candidate is going to suggest anything other than steadfast and largely unconditional support for Israel. Indeed, all the major candidates (Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Obama, Romney, etc.) have already expressed their strong and uncritical backing for Israel, even though the campaign is just getting underway. Not only is this situation bad for the United States, it is also not good for Israel. The United States would be a better ally if its leaders could make support for Israel more conditional and if they could give their Israeli counterparts more candid and critical advice without facing a backlash from the Israel lobby.

What in your view should the U.S.-Israel relationship look like? What should the lobby's role be?

The United States has three strategic interests in the Middle East: maintaining the flow of Persian Gulf oil to world markets, discouraging the spread of WMD, and reducing anti-American terrorism from this region. It is also committed to Israel's survival, but on moral rather than strategic grounds. Instead of garrisoning the region with its own troops or attempting to transform the entire region, the United States should act as an "offshore balancer." The United States does not need to control the Middle East itself; it merely needs to prevent any hostile power(s) from controlling the region. To do that, Washington should strive to maintain a balance of power in the region and intervene with its own forces only when local actors cannot uphold the balance themselves, as it did when it liberated Kuwait in 1991.

As part of this strategy, the United States would begin to treat Israel like a normal state, rather than as the 51st state. Israel is nearly 60 years old, increasingly prosperous, and now officially recognized by the vast majority of the world's nations. The United States should deal with it as it does with other democracies: backing Israel when its policies are consistent with U.S. interests, but opposing it when they are not. And the United States should use its considerable leverage to fashion a durable two-state solution, as it is the only outcome that is consistent with U.S. values and with the long-term interests of both America and Israel.

Achieving this shift will require overcoming the opposition from the most powerful groups in the lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents. This goal can be achieved if there is a more open debate about the lobby's role in shaping U.S. policy, more widespread awareness of Israel's history and behavior, and a candid discussion within America's pro-Israel community. Instead of trying to weaken or counter the lobby, one may hope that moderate pro-Israel organizations will become more influential, and that the leading organizations realize that the hard-line positions they have espoused in the past have been counterproductive. If these groups can bring their impressive influence to bear in more constructive ways, U.S. policy will be more in line with its national interests, and better for Israel too.