|
'The Israel Lobby' on the Haaretz Editorial Page
MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 22 March:
'The Israel Lobby' study published earlier this week compiled alot of
information from diverse sources and provided an important measure of
perspective as well. All in all a significant contribution to
trying to finally, even so late in the historical day, expose and check
the grossly excessive power of what is in effect what we have called it
for many years now - 'The Jewish-Israeli Lobby'.
Even so however much was
ommitted from the study including a focus on what is happening now in
Washignton championed by 'The Lobby" -- the lead-up to greatly expanded
war with Iran whose ramifications are likely to be even greater than
what has happened so far.
The Israelis themselves are
confused these days. Here from Israel's leading 'liberal'
newspaper is a quasi-thoughtful editorial which in the end supports the
Ariel Sharon strategy of 'unilaterally' settings Israel's borders (for
the time being anyway) and repackaging once again the military
occupation of the ever more imprisoned Palestinians.
One has to wonder how long the Harvard and University of Chicago
Professors are going to wait to truly speak up about these current and
impending issues and how much they will pull their punches in doing so.
For while 'The Lobby' remains super busy directing the future
the Professors took a very long time and pulled quite a few vital
punches in their serious and important scholarship about the past.
A warning from America
By Haaretz Editorial
22 March: Two well-known American professors have released an article that has
aroused great interest in the American and Israeli diplomatic
communities. In the article, called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy," Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write that the
Israel lobby in Congress is causing a dangerous pro-Israel tilt in
American policy and was a critical factor in the Bush administration's
decision to go to war in Iraq. The writers' conclusion is that
America's negative image in the Middle East stems from its overly
supportive attitude toward Israel.
Even
if the article involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments
that are unconnected to them, and even if the comments are rooted in
increasing opposition to the war in Iraq and an attempt to search for
hidden motives for what the writers see as an American foreign policy
failure, it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and
disturbing message.
The conclusion that Israel can draw from the
anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be
immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its
willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be
interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are
liable to prove burdensome. The fact that Israelis view the United
States' support for and tremendous assistance to Israel as natural
causes excess complacence, and it fails to take into account currents
in public opinion that run deep and are liable to completely change
American policy.
Instead of strengthening the Jewish and Israeli
lobby and causing it to influence American policymakers to support
Israel unreservedly, the Israeli government must understand that the
world will not wait forever for Israel to withdraw from the
territories, and that the opinions expressed in the article could take
root in American politics if Israel does not change the political
reality quickly. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza did improve
Israel's standing in the world, especially in Europe, but that is not
enough.
Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to attempt to
get widespread international support for the political program he will
present, which is based on a significant withdrawal in the West Bank
and the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers, is a wise and
necessary step. It is impossible to set a border with the Palestinians
in a unilateral manner if it is not accepted at least by the United
States and Europe. In Gaza, Israel withdrew to an accepted
international border, but in the West Bank, the intention is to
maintain sovereignty over settlement blocs located in occupied
territory.
A unilateral withdrawal that is not based on an
agreement with the Palestinians will be meaningless if it does not win
international support. Strengthening the ties between Israel and Europe
and getting the United States involved in the process is a top-priority
strategic necessity. The Jewish and Israeli lobby in America would do
well to begin explaining the next withdrawal now, after years in which
they primarily tried to win support for a continuation of the
occupation and the settlement enterprise. Perhaps then it will be
easier to explain Israeli policy and consolidate the true American and
Israeli interests. The professors' article does not deserve
condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign.
|