Over the last 90 days, since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the pro-Israel lobby and establishment appeared quite regularly in the news for treating the government like a marionette. First, Charles Freeman withdrew his nomination for chairman on the National Intelligence Council due to concerns that he sympathized with Arabs and did not espouse a unilaterally pro-Israel posture. Second, Knesset Member Ya’acov Katz from the religious National Union party called on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to remember his Jewish and Israeli roots in confronting challenges, including forging an Israel-Palestine peace. Lastly, it emerged that Rep. Jane Harman, formerly the ranking-Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, allegedly considered intervening in espionage cases involving two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee officials. All of these cases represent the intent of Israel-supporting interest groups attempting to intervene in internal U.S. matters without understanding that public officials’ sole loyalty rests with the United States.
The American electoral, legislative, and administrative systems offer wide-ranging transparency into almost every decision and initiative. With few exceptions, citizens, advocates, and lobbyists can interject their opinions and preferences into the discourse between the White House and Congress in order to pursue a certain agenda. Even the Freedom of Information Act exists in order to facilitate and expand transparency by permitting private citizens, academics, and journalists alike to access internal government documents. The open character of the government remains crucial to American democracy, even though it permits unelected, single-issue advocates increased influence over the system.
The pro-Israel establishment is not overwhelmingly exceptional in terms of access and influence over policy makers compared to other interest groups. Many organizations, such as the National Rifle Association and pro-labor institutions, interject their own interests into the political discourse on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Some politicians remain dependent on funds from these groups and their support in order to ensure the success of reelection campaigns. The three aforementioned instances of pro-Israel establishment influence-peddling marks the advocacy of one particular interest community, although the tactics remain ubiquitous among all lobbying groups, regardless of political orientation and agenda.
However, the withdrawal of Freeman, the letter aimed at swaying the White House Chief of Staff, and the alleged intention of an elected official to circumvent the judicial process all reinforce a frightening trend in the lobbyist community- dismissing American interests in order to place one particular agenda in the foreground, in this case Israel.
The potential appointment of Freeman would allow an incredibly accomplished public servant to oversee only one aspect of the massive intelligence network employed by the United States. Many individuals at the head of the other intelligence and analysis agencies as well as officials within the National Intelligence Council advocate an unfettered alliance with Israel. One appointment would not affect the close ties and shared values between the nations, even though recent elections in both countries could slightly strain the relationship in the short-term.
The letter sent to Emmanuel intends to appeal to the heritage of the White House Chief of Staff, asking him to preempt the pure national interest of the United States for favorable treatment towards one nationality. Emmanuel maintains one loyalty, and that is to the United States. Any attempts to manipulate and subvert this allegiance by any group invalidate those efforts by clearly showing anti-American intentions.
Undermining the judicial process in espionage related cases assaults the foundation of any sovereign country. The intelligence community and policy makers share state secrets at their own behest, not through agents in collaboration with foreign entities. By undercutting judicial proceedings for individuals working against the interests of the United States, the legal process remains marred through the influence of special interests that consider U.S. institutions as subservient to their own, narrow concerns.
The intelligence community should constitute individuals with varying opinions; White House officials should serve the President and the American people, regardless of faith; traitors, saboteurs, and spies should feel the full brunt of the American judicial and penal systems. Policy makers reliant on interest groups should prioritize their constituents, American interests, and the judicial process above those initiatives advocated by any lobby, pro-Israel or not.
Luckily, enough members of the Obama Administration and Congress remain distanced from the interests of one sole lobby. Policymakers in both branches of government, including Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Emmanuel, and many members of the Congressional intelligence panels, prioritize U.S. interests regardless of lobbyist influence. Even though some pro-Israel advocates insist on pursuing their own limited agenda, thereby potentially harming the United States and its institutions in the process, enough public servants steadfastly reject this influence, understanding its detrimental effect. The pro-Israel establishment can derail some appointments, mail letters inciting ethnocentric allegiances, and advocate the sabotage of fair trials, but the bulk of policymakers remain devoted to their one true loyalty, placing U.S. interests at the forefront of any policy decisions.
