US storm over book on Israel lobby (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Henri Astier
BBC News

The power of America's "Jewish lobby" is said to be legendary.

Commentators the world over refer to it, as though it were a well-established fact that US Jews wield far more influence than their numbers (2% of the population) would suggest.

But this presumed influence is also a delicate issue in the US, and is rarely analysed.

How does the lobby work? Is its power truly legendary, or just a legend?

Two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, have set out to answer those questions, and triggered a firestorm of controversy as a result.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104030.stm

[papau]

1. Portions of Taranto review of paper below

<snip> "Walt and Mearsheimer argue that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," and therefore the only possible explanation is "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." The premise is plainly false; the "Israel Lobby" in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the opening paragraphs of the paper explaining why.

We'll pass over their strategic arguments. We find them wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits.

Their rejection of the moral arguments, however, is highly problematic. They write:

backers . . . argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive.

Let's take these points one by one:

* Israel is weak and surrounded by enemies. To the contrary, they say, Israel is by far the strongest regional power. Further, "Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so." This gives the Saudis far too much credit. True, as we noted in 2002, then Crown Prince Abdullah (now king) told the New York Times' Thomas Friedman that he was amenable to establishing full diplomatic relations, conditioned on Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories (occupied by Egypt and Jordan before 1967 and Israel since). But Riyadh quickly made clear that it was unwilling even to talk to Jerusalem until after such a withdrawal. As we wrote then, "The Saudi position, in other words, amounts to: Give us land now, and maybe we'll give you peace later." It is true that Israel is the regional superpower, and that Cairo and Amman have signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but it seems undeniable--and Walt and Mearsheimer do not deny it--that none of this would be true absent U.S. support for Israel. Thus their reasoning is circular: Israel doesn't deserve U.S. support because it has received U.S. support.

* Israel is a democracy. This they concede, but they also claim that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values." In particular, they claim that Arab citizens of Israel "are treated as second-class citizens" and note that "a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them." Yet even acknowledging that Israeli democracy is flawed, its political system is still vastly superior to those of its adversaries. Israeli Arabs enjoy more political and civil liberties than citizens of just about any Arab country; and the only Arab lands that come anywhere close to being democracies are Lebanon, Iraq and the disputed Palestinian territories--the last two only because of American intervention. That the Israeli government criticizes its own treatment of Arabs is a testament to its democracy; can anyone imagine, say, the Saudi regime offering similar criticisms of its treatment of Shiites, non-Muslims or women? American democracy, too, is not without its flaws. During World War II, for instance, black Americans were still disfranchised, and innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. It does not follow that America was no better than Nazi Germany.

* Jews deserve a homeland because of their past oppression. Walt and Mearsheimer go so far as to allow that Israel's creation "was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews." But, they say, "it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians." They lay the plight of the Palestinians entirely at Israel's door, failing to acknowledge the Arab states' vast culpability. The Arabs rejected the 1947 U.N. partition of Palestine, which would have created a Palestinian Arab state including territories beyond the present-day West Bank and Gaza strip. The Arabs immediately declared war on the nascent Jewish state--a war in which Israel gained more territory--and they waged war again in 1967 and 1973. All Arab states except Jordan refuse to allow Palestinians to become citizens, preferring to let them linger as stateless refugees. Nor do the authors acknowledge that since the creation of Israel many Jews who settled there were fleeing persecution in Arab lands and (since 1979) Iran. Whereas Israel has 1.3 million Arab citizens, no Arab country except Morocco has more than a handful of Jewish ones.

* Israel is morally superior to its adversaries. Here they cite various alleged abuses by Israel during its war of independence and claim that "Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority." Even if we concede all the criticisms of Israel, they do not belie "any claim to moral superiority," only to moral perfection. Evaluating which side is morally superior would require a comparative analysis; the only thing Walt and Mearsheimer say about Arab misconduct is that "the Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions." No such excuses are offered for Israel's purported misdeeds.

Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Which brings us back to David Duke. His endorsement no doubt is anathema to Walt and Mearsheimer, but it is telling that he finds their ideas congenial.

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby." But here is another difference between Europe and America: In many European countries, David Duke would not be allowed to speak because of postwar prohibitions on Nazi propaganda. Passing these laws surely was an act of prudence, and it may be that they are still necessary for the protection of European democracy."<snip>

[Jim__]

5. Some comments on Taranto's review.

Even though this thread is about the book, the previous post is about the paper. So, I am responding to the post with respect to the paper.

... It is true that Israel is the regional superpower, and that Cairo and Amman have signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but it seems undeniable--and Walt and Mearsheimer do not deny it--that none of this would be true absent U.S. support for Israel. Thus their reasoning is circular: Israel doesn't deserve U.S. support because it has received U.S. support.

The reasoning is hardly circular, and no one reading the paper can claim that it is. In the first place, as anyone who has read the paper knows, the paper does not argue that Israel doesn't deserve US support. It argues that Israel does not deserve unqualified US support, a far different argument.

In the second place, the argument, as plainly stated here, is that the Israel is the regional superpower. Arguing from this fact is not making any argument about how this situation came about. It is just that the regional superpower does not need the unqualified support of the US in order to withstand any regional threats.

---

Israel is a democracy. This they concede, but they also claim that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values." In particular, they claim that Arab citizens of Israel "are treated as second-class citizens" and note that "a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them." ... American democracy, too, is not without its flaws. During World War II, for instance, black Americans were still disfranchised, and innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. It does not follow that America was no better than Nazi Germany.

This is a strawman argument. Walt and Mearsheimer's paper does not claim the Israel is no better than Nazi Germany. Once again, the argument they make is that nothing about Israel requires the unqualified support of the US: ...Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. ...

---

...They lay the plight of the Palestinians entirely at Israel's door, failing to acknowledge the Arab states' vast culpability. ...

Direct from the paper: Yet on the ground, Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. They explicitly state that the records of the parties are indistinguishable. Clearly, they are acknowledging the culpability of the Arab states.

---

Israel is morally superior to its adversaries. Here they cite various alleged abuses by Israel during its war of independence and claim that "Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority." ...

Here are some of the alleged abuses:

In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1).

Well, how's this for a side-by-side comparison: The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1).

---

Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Well, let's quote the full paragraph where Walt and Mearheimer say that Palestinian terror is understandable:

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would have joined a terrorist organisation’.

So, should we question whether Ehud Barak's intent is anti-semitic?

---

Which brings us back to David Duke. His endorsement no doubt is anathema to Walt and Mearsheimer, but it is telling that he finds their ideas congenial.

What is more telling is that someone raises this as an "argument" against Walt and Mearsheimer.

---

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby." But here is another difference between Europe and America: In many European countries, David Duke would not be allowed to speak because of postwar prohibitions on Nazi propaganda. Passing these laws surely was an act of prudence, and it may be that they are still necessary for the protection of European democracy."

Indeed, their paper was commissioned by the Atlantic Monthly. That the Atlantic Monthly refused to print the paper they had commissioned, a paper written by 2 respected American scholars speaks volumes about the "mighty Israel Lobby". But then, of course, so does the critics acclaim for the lack of free speech in Europe.

[papau]

6. Protest too much" comes to mind - the spin the EU left is giving the paper is exactly as

described - despite, as you correctly note, the fact that the paper is more "balanced".

Many see "free speech in Europe" by the left re Israel as just Arab spin on every topic - often offensive spinning of lies in pursuit of the greater good of no more Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital.


Blaming the "mighty Israel Lobby" for a publisher seeing how the public would react to a paper that implies equivalence between terrorist and Israel (that is the balance that you noted) is blaming a paper for holding standards about truth, tone, and nuance - which indeed does say a lot about the EU left and Israel.

[Jim__]

7. Protest has nothing to do with it.

I am merely pointing out the obvious illogic in the review - as presented. Claiming circularity where no such claim is the least bit tenable, clearly demonstrates the incorrectness of the criticism. To say nothing of the directly contradicted claim in the criticism that the paper argues that the US should not support Israel. The criticism is mostly pure nonsense.

As to implying equivalence, the claim is specific to seeking peace. And,they do more than make the claim. They back the claim with a clear case; citing, for instance, David Ben-Gurion :

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

Surely if Israeli leaders can recognize the moral equivalence of both sides in seeking peace, it is not too shocking for the Amercian public.

[papau]

8. David Ben-Gurion a half century ago has control of the 2 state thinking now? Get real.

Besides it is not even a direct quote - it is the memory of Nahum Goldmann who is his book The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) on p. 99 stated your "quote" about a person who had died 5 years earlier - and Goldmann did not give a source or time for that "quote".


By claiming equivalence the paper does indeed set the stage for those that argue that the US should not support Israel. The criticism is not pure nonsense - of course that is just my opinion.

[Jim__]

9. David Ben-Gurion said if he were an Arab leader he would never make terms with Israel.

Walt and Mearshimer are merely stating that such a statement is understandable. David Ben-Gurion, and Ehud Barack have both said that if they were Arabs they would be justified in fighting Israel.

Should we also censor the words of past Israeli leaders whose statements disagree with current Israeli policy? Or, is it OK to repeat what Israeli leaders said, but necessary to censor American scholars who express similar sentiments?

[papau]

10. The "words" quoted come from a book - not from anything Ben-Gurion is recorded as saying other

than by the author of a book saying he recalls.

In any case, the situation was the explanation of why the Arab countries attacked in 1948 - it was not a West Bank as a state comment. It is used today as a "I see both sides of the conflict" quote whenever anyone wants to excuse Arab terrorists.

Indeed Please read Res 242 - the UN saw no Palestinian problem at that time - they wanted a return of Jordan land to Jordan, etc. Indeed the Arab States could only get Res 242 passed by agreeing that Israel would be allowed to adjust the "green line" in any final border settlement - all their proposed language that would have clearly forced Israel back to the Green Line as a border was rejected. Of course once the resolution was passed they claimed that their agreeing to the Brit/US wording was not what it seemed - and that Res 242 did indeed mean going back to the former Green Line with no changes.

There are many myths put out by our friends in the Arab world - and the equivalence of Terrorist bombs and rockets with Israeli Police/Army occasional brutality in keeping order is one of them.

Hamas now demands the end of the Jewish state of Israel, rejects the two state solution - these folks are just the PR wing of Hamas - again of course, in my opinion.

[Jim__]

11. The words quoted are "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel"

The keyword being "never". You can try to restrict it to 1948, but that's not what he said. And, he is quoted by Nahum Goldmann a zionist and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress. So, was Nahum Goldmann seriously misrepresenting what Ben-Gurion said?

So, should we claim the either David Ben-Gurion or Nahum Goldmann were expressing anti-semitic thoughts? Or, thoughts that have an anti-semitic effect? If not, why should we attribute such thoughts or effects to Walt and Mearsheimer?

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. There very obviously is an Israel lobby in the US.

Calling that idea "anti-Semetic" is like playing the race card.

[peacetalksforall]

4. We're not just talking lobby - we're talking employees and citizens whose main job seems

to be to advance the Israel war interests as evidenced in the blatant proof of a passion to bomb Iran. Leiberman leads in the Senate with much support from both houses. While Ledeen does his thing on the fringe - in setting up the case for war. A couple of DOD people are in jail for their participation. On and on it goes. The word 'analyze' makes me smile. We're talking blatant, obvious no holds barred alliance. It's easy to read between the lines by reading - the lines.

My conclusion - some entities made a promise to Israel to bomb Iran. That's all that matters right now.

Peace may be a long way off - those who favor perpetual war seem to be in power in both houses, the military, intelligence, State, employee level. John Bolton could be the next Sec of State - with all of Blackwater under him.

[seemslikeadream]

3. rarely analysed