Mandatory Reading For Anyone Interested in the Middle East: The Israeli Lobby
To All,
As a long term ex-FAO on the Middle East and Africa, this subject was never far from my mind, especially after serving as a UN Observer in Lebanon and living in Israel. I am both pleased and amazed that Harvard, JFK School of Government, had the guts to publish this one. It pulls no punches and will undountedly draw much fire and abuse.
Quote:
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
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.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
You can read an abridged version on line at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
And you can downlaod the full document from http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Researc.../rwp/RWP06-011 or http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=891198
I would recommend this be added to the SWJ Library.
Best all,
Tom
Opening the Debate on Israel
7 May Baltimore Sun commentary - Opening the Debate on Israel by Norman Solomon.
Quote:
... Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.
The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").
But other voices have emerged, on the airwaves and in print, to bypass the facile attacks and address crucial issues. If this keeps up, the uproar over what Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt had to say could invigorate public discourse about Washington's policies toward a country that consistently has received a bigger U.S. aid package for a longer period than any other nation...
If the barriers to democratic discourse can be overcome, the paper's authors say, the results could be highly beneficial: "Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided U.S. support and could move the U.S. to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."...
In the United States, "the lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy," Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt assert. They point to grave effects on the body politic: "The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic deliberation."
While their paper overstates the extent to which pro-Israel pressures determine U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a very powerful lobby for Israel clearly has enormous leverage in Washington. And the professors make a convincing case that the U.S. government has been much too closely aligned with Israel - to the detriment of human rights, democracy and other principles that are supposed to constitute American values.
The failure to make a distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel routinely stifles public debate. When convenient, pro-Israel groups in the United States will concede that it's possible to oppose Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. Yet many of Israel's boosters reflexively pull out the heavy artillery of charging anti-Semitism when their position is challenged...
The failure to engage in debate
The current lack of debate on this issue is because the authors of this controversial paper will not debate their critics and for the most part will not even agree to interviews outside their bubble. Alan Dershowitz, who has published a reasoned rebuttal to the paper, has a standing offer to debate its authors, but so far there has been no response.
While some have attempted to distinguish between anti Zionism and anti Jewish arguments, for the Jews who reside in Israel, it is a distinction without a difference. Their enemys want genocide or at best a new disaporia. The Israelis are at war with a real estate worshipping death cult. Semantic arguments over whether those in the US who oppose the objectives of their enemy are facing opposition by antismites or people who believe it is not in the interest of the US to oppose the death cult's war may be an interesting academic argument for some, but it is a matter of life and death for Israelis.
J Street: Minnow in the shark tank?
As an outsider looking in on the complexities of US domestic politics I wondered if this was for real or if it would be put-down at birth.
As someone who thinks the Palestinians might have a point and the closeness of the US/Israel axis is a barrier to finding a longterm solution in the ME - and so to the more general US GWOT- this seemed like a ray of hope.
US Jewish lobby gains new voice
Quote:
The group is billing itself as a counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the most prominent Jewish lobbying organisation in the US.
J Street says Aipac does not reflect the liberal views of a large number of its existing donors, let alone the mainstream of Jewish-American opinion.
showing resolve at the UNSC
An interesting tidbit from the Jerusalem Post:
Jan 12, 2009 14:26 | Updated Jan 12, 2009 19:09
PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
Quote:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday referred to the US decision to abstain from Thursday's UN Security Council resolution vote calling for a Gaza cease-fire, saying US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was left quite embarrassed, not voting for a resolution that she herself had prepared and organized."
...
"Early Friday morning [Israel time], [we knew that] the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn't want her to vote for it. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead.
"I [called the White House and] said, 'Get President Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I'm not interested, I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote for it. She was left quite embarrassed."
Freeman withdraws from appointment as NIC chair
Impartiality Questioned, Intelligence Pick Pulls Out
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A04
Quote:
Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said he accepted Freeman's decision "with great regret." The withdrawal came hours after Blair had given a spirited defense on Capitol Hill of the outspoken former ambassador.
Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made about Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests.
Freeman's own frank comment on his withdrawal here.
Thanks thats what I kinda got from the article
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
His critics made two claims:
1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.
On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.
On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.
Just wondering if anyone here actually knew of anything specific
For some reason, I'm inclined to tolerant if not
downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line. :D
Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).
I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...
A good reason not to adopt I Law en masse ...
A certain segment of the I Law "community" considers I Law to be incorporated into domestic (national) law en masse.
Another segment (the traditional US approach) looks at incorporation of I Law as a selective process, on say a treaty by treaty basis - and, in the case of the US, subject to override by the Constitution and by subsequent legislation. As such, when the US adopts I Law, it is treated like any other domestic law.
Based on the Israeli cases on targeted killings (which I've referenced somewhere in SWC), Israel appears to have followed more of an en masse approach in adopting I Law - as part of its organic, constitutional framework.
What the Norwegian lawyers are arguing is the concept of "universal jurisdiction" to try war crimes by any nation - whether it is directly affected or not. What this boils down to is that any investigating judge in a Code Law jurisdiction - or a prosecutor in a Common Law jurisdiction - can generate quite a bit of publicity and political spin if a broad "universal jurisdiction" is accepted in that jurisdiction.
Are you sitting down, Danny?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danny
...The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.
True and more important due to numbers than the so-called Jewish lobby. Recall the Presidents that have been the greatest supporters of Israel; Truman, Johnson and Carter...
The latter spent a great deal of our money in order to defang Israel's most dangerous enemy. His latter day shenanigans to justify his Nobel not withstanding.
Quote:
Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.
Also true and far more important to them than the Israel / Palestine issue.
Quote:
Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.
Yep. A whole lot of people are focusing on the wrong targets. Plural...
Good comment, Herschel
Here's an interesting point on the issue
that I've wondered about for some time. Being a State is confining, being a group of 'stateless persons' can be rewarding -- fiscally and emotionally...
LINK
Norwegian Lynch Mob/Stirring the Pot
They know full well no verdict can be enforced and their actions only stretch a nasty political dichotomy further by fueling the fires of the blame game. The Palestinians will have much less compromising to do if Israeli leaders are found guilty of war crimes a Norwegian Court. Talk about a Hamas PR coup to bolster their claims of victory despite the rubble that surrounds them and the bloody in-fighting that still rages amongst themselves.