Pro-Israeli zealots are at the heart of America's poor understanding of, if not belligerent meddling in, the Arab world, writes Gamil Mattar* America's political leadership understood Europe very well at the time it decided to take on the burden of reconstruction after World War II. It knew the keys to that continent, not only because European blood ran deeply in its veins, because the predominant religion stemmed largely from a common culture, and because its political and economic creeds essentially emanated from the same source, but also because the US at the time had just emerged from a war against a common enemy and found itself, along with its continental allies, facing a new, more formidable and more ambitious one. Europe, for its part, was not alien to the mentality and outlook of the American ruling elite. They took the plunge with considerable confidence, not a small amount of arrogance, though a few misgivings. After all, they had inherited from America's founding fathers that image of a reckless, headstrong and intolerant continent whose rulers and people were constantly at each other's throats. America's self-imposed isolation after the Versailles peace conference in the wake of World War I testified to how deeply the mistrust of Europe ran in the American leadership and public, and how strongly they wanted to keep Europe's religious intolerance, national chauvinism and colonialist greed at arm's length. Some have held that were it not for America's isolationism following World War I, Europe would not have reverted to its habitual ways within a few years after Versailles. There must be more than a grain of truth to this, for it certainly helps explain that strong Western European trend that favoured renewed and even more active US involvement in the continent's affairs. Undoubtedly, the most prominent exponent of this trend was Winston Churchill, who did all in his power during that interwar period to draw Washington's attention to the world across the Atlantic. He used his renowned eloquence, he created lobbies, he tapped into the capacities of the media, and he used his network of personal acquaintances, and he eventually succeeded. The US returned, militarily, politically and ideologically, and it stayed. Why bring up the subject of US-European relations back then when our key concern now is the present state of US-Arab relations? Well, there are always some grounds for comparison. For example, today both European and Arab public opinion abhor American foreign policy, just as in the 1930s and 1940s they both admired it. Then America was the rising world power that stood against colonialism, colonialist expansionism and colonialist belligerence, or so it presented itself, and so European and Arab intellectuals alike portrayed it. It was the nation that stood for equality and justice, and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It is important to bring up the subject, because we want to know what makes American decision-makers tick. What made them want to resuscitate Europe and put a halt to seething hatreds among the European ruling classes and peoples? What are the ingredients that shaped the American ruling elite's image of Europe? The need to know these things is growing stronger by the day because with every new day the American leadership is leaving us more and more perplexed. We wake up thinking that we understand the American leadership only to find ourselves at a complete loss. We keep asking ourselves why they are treating us so cruelly and with such disdain and, sometimes, indifference. Perhaps it is because we are not as simple as they make us out to be, or because we are not as static as they think we are. Or perhaps it is because we are somehow suspended in time, because we are still clinging to the past and have yet to solidify our links to the future and are therefore constantly swinging back and forth unpredictably between past and present. We have as much to boast of, and not to boast of, as other peoples do. What I do know is that whatever good can be said about our rulers or peoples is rarely good by the time it makes its way to the US, and is even more rarely met by positive results and good intentions. I know, too, that the keys that US policy-makers have to understand us were fabricated not by us but by minds with purposes of their own, and that these keys are, in fact, designed to open doors that let in dust storms that blind people's vision, close off avenues of progress, and stir clouds of doubt and suspicion. America looks at the Arabs -- Muslims and Christians alike -- through Israel's eyes. I know that in the US some might regard this statement as anti-Semitic when voiced by one who criticises the extent to which Israel and the pro- Israeli lobby in the US dominate foreign policy decision-making in Washington. Yet Israeli politicians and commentators use this very observation as proof of the "national service" that American Jews are performing for Israel, and of the enormous influence they have. It is they who are the first to boast, when touring presidential palaces in various capitals, that they hold the keys that will open locked doors in Washington. In all events, American policy towards the Middle East angers the Arab peoples because a large percentage, if not the majority, of its architects are Israelis. It is no longer a secret that the key figures in foreign policy research centres at the time that plans to invade Iraq were being drawn up were Israelis, and that most of these stepped down from their posts after these plans went horribly askew. Are we supposed to rest easy with an American administration whose president begins his day by reading a brief on the Middle East prepared by an Israeli residing in the White House, who despises the Arabs and who is bent on fragmenting the Arab world, fuelling anti-Arab hatred in the US, and thwarting any attempts on the part of American ruling elites to broker a Middle East peace that will not threaten vested interests elsewhere and at home? What hope can we possibly hold out for a State Department that Israeli lobbies over the past couple of decades have succeeded in purging of experts on Arab affairs and Arab culture so as to replace them with Zionists who harbour only utter contempt for the Arabs? This situation has nothing to do with balances of power and the pursuit of American interests abroad. State Department personnel responsible for Latin American affairs are not natural enemies of Latin Americans. Those in charge of Chinese affairs are not rabid Sino-phobes. And the same applies to officials that tend to US policy towards Africa, India and everywhere else, except for the Middle East. Little wonder, therefore, that virtually every Middle East policy that emerges from that department seems expressly designed to foster hatred between the Arab- Islamic world and the US. Few in the US have dared to raise their voice against the excessive Israeli and pro-Israeli influence on American foreign policy for fear of falling foul of a law that punishes hatred of Israel and Zionism but does not punish hatred of the Arabs. No one -- not even Jews who are angered by pro-Israeli bullying and who oppose Israeli policies and excesses -- are spared the intimidation and wrath of pro-Israeli lobbies. The powerful Zionist elite, moreover, has found a sometimes willing and sometimes unwitting bedfellow in the form of some Arab- American academics. At first we thought that those Arab-American scholars whose articles we read in some of America's major newspapers or whom we have seen testifying before Congress were opponents of the regimes in their countries of origin and were now exercising the right of freedom of speech abroad. This we could at least understand and sympathise with, in view of the restrictions on such freedoms and disregard for human rights in their homelands. However, it is another thing entirely when Arab Americans seem to be serving Israeli over Arab and American interests. Many news items and articles have revealed that some Arab Americans were in one way or another responsible not only for the destruction of the Iraqi nation and society but also for landing the US in its most calamitous and inextricable foreign policy disaster to date. Some of these sincerely believe they are doing a favour to their ethnic origins when they volunteer -- or are paid to volunteer -- their academic and literary credentials in the service of policies that harm Arab-American relations. Others actually believe they are forging the keys that the US can use to open new doors in the region, even though they have long since lost touch with their countries of origin and base their advice on information and impressions that lag way behind developments that affected the culture, beliefs, outlook and aspirations of those countries. But there is a third group responsible for the deterioration in Arab-American relations: the oil industry. In addition to the very powerful and influential businessmen, intellectuals and media figures that revolve in its orbit, this group also has at its service numerous politicians, not least of whom are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice-President Dick Cheney and former president George Bush Sr. At first glance one would think that the influence of this group would work in a different, if not totally opposite, direction from that of the Zionist lobby and of self-hating Arabs. In fact, however, the oil lobby is responsible for laying the foundations of what we might term an "oil culture", one highly instrumental in generating a broader Arab political culture keen to accommodate the interests of the oil lobby. This symbiotic relationship furnished the traditional order a powerful form of protection. Now, the oil key has lost its efficacy in smoothing over rough patches in Arab-American relations. New avenues must be explored to improve mutual understanding and reverse the deterioration in these relations. * The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
