The Israel Lobby (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt )

[laststeamtrain]

From the London Review of Books: Link below. There's a link to a PDF of the whole paper here:http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (Kennedy School of Government working Papers series)

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

<snip>

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

<snip>

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

<snip>

The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby.

<snip>

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[still_one]

1. Not only the Israelli lobby, but the Arab Lobby

and any lobby group in this country

The problem I have with this article is the implication that the 6 day war or any subsequent war was not justified

The six day war was a plot by the surrounding Arab countries to destroy Israel. What did they expect Israel to do

The Yom Kipper war in 1971, was the same thing, except the U.S. put pressure on Israel NOT to act immediately, and that delay caused many Israellis to die in that war

Yes, there are major issues with the Israelli lobby, but also with the Arab lobby, and the number of U.S. assets that our owned by foreign interests alone.

But critisism is not exclusive for Israel, unless of course you do not believe Israel has a right to exist, because that is what the 6 day war, and the Yom Kipper war were all about

[acmavm]

2. But you don't see American foreign policy built around the wants

and desires and interests of the Palestinians or Arabs now, do you?

The American/Israeli foreign policy has always been entirely one-sided. The only country that benefits is Israel.

It is now time for the leaders in this country to understand that they have to deal with the Palestinian people with honesty and integrity and face the fact that we cannot simply enable Israel in everything be it that 'wall' that fences all the water and arable land on the Israeli side of it to attacking Iran just because the Israelis feel threatened.

I am sure that the usual group will come out screaming 'anti-semite' like they usually do whenever anyone says anything against the current American/Israeli lovefest. But I am not an anti-semite. I am and anti-zionist. I do not believe that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a right to exist.

And I certainly do not believe that officials in the government of the United States should promote the interests of Israel over the interests of this country. And that is just exactly what Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Feith, and the rest of the neos have done.

[laststeamtrain]

3. An interesting exercise is to go through this paper and replace the phrase

...'Israeli lobby' with the phrase 'Arab lobby' and see if any truth emerges.
Nope. Can't see any so far.
What was it that Orwell said? "All animals have a right to exist, but some animals have more of a right to exist than others." Something like that...

[bloom]

4. "It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States...

"It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.....

Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of....

...A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60 per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States should not favour either side.

Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The main reason for this switch was the Lobby...."

[bloom]

5. More snips

Why the Congressional Democrats have been going along with the Iraq War.... It's all the stuff that is common knowledge around here - except that AIPAC and Israel are usually left out of the conversation.


"...A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.

...As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.

...A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’

...It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians...

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability."