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

[Tom Odom]

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

[echoparkdirt]

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

[Jones_RE]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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

[zenpundit]

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

[SWJED]

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...

[JJackson]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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

Tom

[bourbon]

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.

[George L. Singleton]

Egypt and Jordan have seen the light and are working with both Israel and the US.

Syria is having every week of late meeting with Israeli officials on the sidelines.

Lebanon's Christian minority government has long tried to get along with Israel, but the last few years of insanity, driven in my view by the radicals, not by Israel, has made moderation and common sense almost impossible in Lebanon.

Then their is gloomy Gus, Iran.

All of the them vs. us in the Middle East remains focused around religion and who gets what, especially the right(s) to Jerusalem.

[Ken White]

downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line.

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...

[Rex Brynen]

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

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."

[Tom Odom]

Pretty much classic, Rex. Arrogance and ignorance are always great partners.

Tom

[bourbon]

Lobby? What Lobby?, by Michael Scheuer. Antiwar.com, February 10, 2009.

My speech seemed well received, but in January I received a call from Jamestown's president telling me I had been terminated as a senior fellow by the Foundation's board of directors. Why, I asked? He responded by citing my comments about Obama doing the "Tel Aviv two-step" and my description of Emanuel's record, both of which he said might be in a speech by Rep. Ron Paul. My remarks about Emanuel apparently sparked particular anger among the Foundation's directors, as Jamestown's president referred to them at least three times in a short telephone conversation. In any event, the president said several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding if I remained a senior fellow, so I was getting the boot. Then he added that my every-other-week essays for Jamestown's Terrorism Focus had attracted readers and praise for the Foundation, so the directors said I could keep writing for the journal. I declined this honor, which seemingly was a bribe made in the hope that I would not speak publicly about being terminated as a senior fellow for saying the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.

It is disappointing to see this at The Jamestown Foundation, which I see as one of the better think tanks.

[Rex Brynen]

Impartiality Questioned, Intelligence Pick Pulls Out
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A04

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.

[Entropy]

It's too bad, I think Freeman would have been a good pick.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?

I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?

Honestly?

[bourbon]

I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?
I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.

It is consequential when its flagship organization is at the best in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; and at the worst connected to ongoing espionage and influence operations by a foreign government against the US.

What good has our unconditional support for Israel done for us? What have we gained from it in the past 20 years? Are said gains worth the cost in American lives and treasure? Moreover, what good does it do for Israel’s national security?

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?
Honestly?

This is a shameless and infantile comment.