Analyse the role of the Israel lobby in the conflict between Israel Essay

consider the role of the Israel lobby in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians - Essay ExampleThe truth as examined from a political, social and historical perspective strongly favors the former view that the Lobby has pressured, through various bring and organisations, a position that favors Israel over the Palestinians and has thus thwarted for years the peace effort in the region. As Massing bluntly asserts At its core is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is ranked second later the National Rifle Association (along with the AARP) in the National Journals 2005 listing of Washingtons most powerful lobbies. AIPAC, they write, serves as a de facto agent for a foreign government. The , they say, is also associated with Christian evangelicals much(prenominal) as Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson neoconservatives both Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Bernard Lewis, and William Kristol) and gentile (John Bolton, William Bennett, and George Will) think tanks (the Washington Institute for lift East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute) and critics of the press such as the Committee for Accuracy in nitty-gritty East Reporting in America. (Massing, 2011 par. 1) The Myth of Influence It is serious to realize that much of what has been currently create favors the notion that the Lobby, mapicularly in the United States, has controlled its foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In light of this, it is important to present views that dismiss this notion before looking at the wealth of other information and opinions that do not. It is also important to remember that much of the self-denial comes from the Jewish community and government officials, just as some of the strongest in opposition comes from non-Jewish and Jewish alike, including a highly regarded social and political philosopher, Noam Chomsky. The reality of this whitethorn in itself reveal that opinions regarding the argument depend largely on the position of the interlocutor and whom or what he or she is striving to defend. It is interesting to note that former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, George P. Schultzs defense of Israel is surprisingly emotional, surreptitiously alluding to the Holocaust, tying criticism to an anti-Semitic catalog of lies Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the beingness has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come when coherent criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the badlands, a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame. (Schultz, 2007 par. 1-2) Schultzs apology is also surprisingly incoherent in that he uses the unworkable analogy that if the U.S., as the largest consumer of oil, was on anyones side, it would on that of the Arabs, who down all of the oil. (Schultz, 2007). This argument for anyone who understands the business side of oil and the history of the conflict knows that no Arab country has ever so truly stepped up to defend the Palestinian cause or threatened an oil embargo on either the US or Britain for not properly defending the Palestinians. Historically, this has always been the case and has eliminated concerns on the part of