Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 106

Thread: Mandatory Reading For Anyone Interested in the Middle East: The Israeli Lobby

  1. #1
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Thumbs up 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.

    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

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I feel compelled to list a few links here in case people actually want to know more about the "Harvard Paper." In sum, the paper claims that there exists a dark "Pro-Israel Conspiracy" which has hijacked American policy against our own interests. It is remarkably consistent with other anti-Semitic texts, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in positing the existance of a super-powerful Jewish conspiracy which takes advantages of Gentiles (such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc etc) to further their own interests.

    Here are some links you may want to check out in case you want to know more.
    My favorite is

    "David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean" at http://www.nysun.com/article/29380 (subscription required)


    http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/...owitzreply.pdf

    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/23227.html

    http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5342

    http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_04_12.htm

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19708

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Although I disagree with some of the paper's conclusions (especially regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom), I don't believe it goes so far.

    What the paper describes is not some conspiracy - conspiracies are conducted in secret, after all. The Israel Lobby instead describes "business as usual" on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Organized people with money and media access in Washington do quite well and Washington does well by them. You could title it "The Steel Lobby" or "The Tobacco Lobby" and get similar results.

  4. #4
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    What the paper describes is not some conspiracy - conspiracies are conducted in secret, after all. The Israel Lobby instead describes "business as usual" on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Organized people with money and media access in Washington do quite well and Washington does well by them. You could title it "The Steel Lobby" or "The Tobacco Lobby" and get similar results.
    Agreed on the OIF points as well as your synthesis.

    Tom

  5. #5
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default For those interested

    I'm not terribly impressed with Walt/Mearsheimer myself but there is a very interesting and vigorously debated thread going on right now over at H-Diplo that fuses this topic with a discussion of Truman's motivations for recognizing Israel.

    H-Diplo

  6. #6
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Opening the Debate on Israel

    7 May Baltimore Sun commentary - Opening the Debate on Israel by Norman Solomon.

    ... 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...

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default 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.

  8. #8
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Actually Merv, the authors answer Mr. Dershowitz and others in the current issue of the London Book Review, which carried Dershowitz's critique of the article after they had published a synopsis. See: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html

    Death cult arguments aside, the issues are complex and no one wears a white hat in pursuing their own agendas. Both sides however like to build support through simplistic arguments that portray themselves as blameless. The result is a hardening of positions that has only gotten worse over the past several decades.

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-08-2006 at 01:38 PM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    M&W's "response" is extremely thin and doesn't respond to the substantive arguments against their pseudo-scholarly article. Attempts to create a "sophisticated position" which takes an "evenhanded approach" between a side that is attempting to destroy the other and another side which is attempting to survive is morally and strategically impotent.

    I'm also not sure that one should "put aside death-cult arguments" -- for more and more, the Jihadist threat that took down thousands of Americans in NYC and DC is clearly part and parcel of the Islamist thrust against Israel and for that matter non-Muslims in Russia, India, Nigeria, etc. I'm also not sure selling out a small ally -- such as Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Israel today -- is the strategically correct choice when facing a global threat. America has always stood in the defense of besieged democracies, and you don't need to resort to "Jewish conspiracy" theories to explain that.

    There will also always be "one grievance" that some in the West believe stands in the way of a detente between us and the Islamofascists. However, this is an illusion IMHO. As Victor Hanson puts it

    "We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance."
    FYI, Norm Solomon -- who was quoted above in defense of the M&W paper -- is an old-line Marxist who is head of the Institute for Public Accuracy. This fine group took the Sep 11 attacks as a sign to blame America.

    While the ruins of the World Trade Center and Pentagon still smoldered, IPA rushed to advocate appeasement and agitate against a meaningful U.S. response to the barbaric attacks. On September 12, 2001, IPA issued a press release touting the availability of some "experts" for interviews and summarizing their positions. Far from decrying the terrorists, one "expert" declared that American condemnation of the attackers "holds up a mirror to U.S. policy of causing massive civilian suffering in Iraq … we hope that along with the grief, we can … form deeper compassion and understanding."
    Gary
    Last edited by echoparkdirt; 05-08-2006 at 10:05 PM.

  10. #10
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Why Israel ?

    Because Israel's enemies have little to offer the United States of strategic value that they are not already selling us out of their own self-interest.

    Israel is an expensive client state for the U.S. and it strives to put forward its own state interests before ours ( client, not a puppet) but Israel has certain capabilities and reliabilities thatother states in the region lack. Most of the other governments in the Mideast outside of Turkey and a few, tiny, ultrawealthy oil sheikdoms are suffering from varying degrees of dysfunctionality. Many are tyrannical, most are corrupt and a few are governed by monsters. The Palestinians, without minimizing their hardships, could not have chosen their representatives more poorly in terms of making a good impression on the rest of the world.

    In a contest for the sympathies of America, the Arab side will lose continuously because their complaints about Israeli behavior pale in comparison to the bad image they themselves project by word and deed. Aspiring theocrats, terrorists and East Bloc trained gangsters are incredibly ineffective vehicles for human rights complaints.

    Now, a peaceful, pro-democracy, liberal Palestinian movement - that might have a real impact on American perceptions but what is the likelihood of that ?

  11. #11
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Zen,

    Interests remain the key. And they are not the same as capabilities. The Israeli military machine is very capable on its own playing field, including its various opponents when they stay in the conventional role. As for current unconventional roles only time will tell; Lebanon and most recently Gaza was not a banner experience for the IDF.

    That Israel possesses those capabilities does not mean they are useful to US strategy or interests; much effort, time, and money was spent in Gulf War I keeping those capabilities in check.

    As for other interests in the region, the reason we have CENTCOM (or even earlier USSTRICOM/MEAFSA) is to maintain access to those who sell to us.

    Tom

  12. #12
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Interests

    Well, let's say for argument's sake that U.S. " flips" policy on Israel in order to pursue its national interests. For a change of such a magnitude - I assume you would agree that it would be significant - what concrete benefits can the Arab governments then deliver in return beyond what we are already receiving now ?

    There's not really anything that I factually disagree with I disagree with in your response. Our aid to Israel is a leash on the extremity of Israeli behavior so when ( for example) the IDF was shelling Beirut, Ronald Reagan could pick up the phone and tell Menachim Begin to knock it off and the hard-boiled Israeli P.M. felt compelled to listen. Much like our aid to Egypt is a bribe to stay at peace with Israel and keep the largest Arab state in friendly hands.

    That the US could secure grudging Israeli cooperation during Gulf War I. was possible primarily because of the longstanding relationship the two countries have maintained. It is not accidental that Israel was not involved ( except peripherally) in the last three major wars in the Mideast, that was U.S. policy to damp down the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    As a matter of capabilities, what may be unused today may be wanted tomorrow. And given a choice, whose military would you want as a client, Israel or Syria's ? Or Israel and any 5 Arab states ?

  13. #13
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Well, let's say for argument's sake that U.S. " flips" policy on Israel in order to pursue its national interests. For a change of such a magnitude - I assume you would agree that it would be significant - what concrete benefits can the Arab governments then deliver in return beyond what we are already receiving now ?
    I am not advocating a flip in policy. I do believe that an more centrist approach (or balanced approach) would bring greater benefits for both US and ultimately Israeli strategic goals. I would say that neither Walt nor Mearsheimer advocate a flip either. Our efforts as an "honest broker" in the process over the past several decades has been overcome by our declarations as Israel's ally. The greatest single result of that schism was the steady expansion of the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Those settlements cost us--the US--greatly in the region and now they are costing Israel in dismantling them, at least in Gaza.

    Reagan was not the "leash" that pulled the IDF out of Beirut, though we did push for that. Sharon's leadership ultimately pulled him back after he made the unilateral decision to go in.

    As I said earlier, the Israeli military is designed for its own playing field; that design goes deeper than just the units and the equipment. Issues of sustainablity, deployability, and the economy itself play a large role on Israeli strategic and operational design. The single time that the IDF got involved in combined operations with Western military forces was during the 1956 War; the Israeli "threat" against the Suez Canal gave the British and the French the coordinated pretext to seize the canal zone. It was the US under President Eisenhower who stood against that slight of hand operation.

    Meanwhile, we did build the 1990 coalition with Egyptian, Syrian, and other Arab forces because incorporating those forces served ours and their interests.

    best
    Tom

  14. #14
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Reagan & Begin

    Hi Tom,

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom
    Reagan was not the "leash" that pulled the IDF out of Beirut, though we did push for that.á Sharon's leadership ultimately pulled him back after he made the unilateral decision to go in.á
    Excerpt from the diplomatic cable sent to P.M. Begin August 12, following the phone call from Pres. Reagan:

    "...Israeli air strikes and other military moves have stopped progress in negotiations. I find this incomprehensible and unacceptable.
    ...I cannot stress enough to you how seriously I regard this situation. Ambassador habib must be enabled to fulfil these last steps in his mision. The cease-fire must be kept. Our entire future relations are at stake if this continues.
    ...Israeli military actions of the past several hours have made further alteration of that package impossible. If so, or for any other reason, the package must stand as it is, we will look to Israel to accept it fully without further discussion, so that the agony of Beirut may be ended"

    [ emphasis mine]

    Schultz, George P. Turmoil and Triumph, Page 70.

    The former SecState goes on to write:

    " Begin called President Reagan back within several minutes. ' I have just talked with the minister of defense and the chief of staff. Now there is no firing at all' he told the president."

    Very tough language to use with an ally, essentially an ultimatum, yes ?
    That there were factors internal to Israeli decision-making at play then in Lebanon, I do not doubt but the pressure here put on Begin was extraordinairy - if you proceed then you jeopardize American support for the state of Israel. Hence my use of the term " leash".

    Alternatively, we could say U.S. support is a " safety-net". Regardless, it changes Israel's defense posture from the extreme dynamic that prevailed at the time of the Six Day War.

    I agree with you on Israel's settlement policy BTW - a generally counterproductive effort on Israel's part with the exception, perhaps, of solidifying their hold on Jerusalem, nothing of strategic value has been added.

  15. #15
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Yep tough language and certainly Sec State Schultz is a great source...

    But I would still not say leash as in cause in effect; the actions preliminary to those phone calls were equally causal and most were internal to the Israeli decisionmaking apparatus. Sharon was known for using the phrase "creating facts on the ground" in his military and later political career. The decision to expand the "incursion" into Lebanon was his; Begin ended up holding the proverbial bag and ultimately hung it back around Sharon's neck when the Sabra and Shatilla camp massacres came to light.

    But I would agree that Schultz and Reagan did the right thing; they did use pressure and they made it stick, at least temporarily. I remember watching the episode go ahead from the sidelines in Turkey, thinking the initial multinational mission to extract the PLO and take them to Tunis was a good move. But then the decision to go back in as nominal peace enforcers made me very uneasy.

    The dynamic in the region that has changed the most is external to the region: the end of the Cold War. The USSR as a source of arms, advisors, and potential backer is gone. The Camp David Accords were instrumental in removing the Egyptian-Israeli dispute as a source for Cold War brinkmanship as in the October 1973 War. Afterwards, Syria was left alone with the USSR as its supplier; 1982 pretty much showed the Syrians were not up to taking the IDF on in a conventional fight. With the collapse of the USSR in the late 80's we soon saw Syrian forces deployed as Coalition forces against Iraq.

    But now in the current conflict and changed global arena, I believe that certain realities must affect how we do business. Camp David is now nearly 30 years old; during those decades, its requirements have sapped the majority available foreign aid monies (the last figure I saw was around 90%). Neither Israel nor Egypt fit the economic profile for that level of assistance. I am not saying "turn off the spigot"; dramatic moves in foreign policy carry large risks. But with the press of needs elsewhere (outside Iraq and Afghanistan), reallocation of some of those monies is overdue.

    Anyway enjoyed the discussion and that's the point.

    Best
    Tom

  16. #16
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Sine Die

    Me too ! A stimulating conversation, thanks Tom!

  17. #17
    Council Member Stu-6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    243

    Default

    I don’t know a lot about lobbies but I have always questioned the wisdom of US policy towards Israeli. The friendship seems to be very expensive and completely one way. Of course these days I am somewhat leery of all foreign aid, on account of us being $8 trillion in the hole.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default 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

    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.

  19. #19
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I saw it too. Only time will tell but at least it offers some hope for discussion.

    Tom

  20. #20
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    The Macleans.ca Interview: John Mearsheimer, The controversial author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on U.S. inaction in the Middle East, by Philippe Gohier. Macleans, Apr 25, 2008.

    Q: What does George Bush’s departure mean for the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship?

    A: All you have to do is look at the three presidential candidates and you see very clearly that they're falling all over themselves to maintain their strong allegiance to Israel and their commitment to keeping the special relationship intact. There's no reason to think that any of those three individuals will behave any differently than George Bush has behaved.

    No presidential candidate and no president is going to cross the [pro-Israel lobby in Washington], because it is, in effect, like grabbing the third rail. Most people forget this, but in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush began to put significant pressure on Israel to withdraw from areas of the West Bank so we could get on the road to creating a viable Palestinian state. But the lobby went to work and Bush quickly backtracked. For the rest of his presidency, he's recognized that it does not make good political sense to cross the lobby.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •