Latest | Recent Articles | Multimedia Page | TV | Search | Blog

Email this article | Print this article | Link to this Article


5 May 2006
Free


www.MiddleEast.Org
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know

Want All Exclusive MER Articles and Commentary?
Make Sure You Are Using the NEW MER - click here


'The Israel Lobby' Authors 'Reply'

MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 5 May 2006: They unleashed a most unusual political, as well as academic and intellectual, firestory with their 'The Israel Lobby' article published in March in The London Review of Books. And we now know that the article was actually commissioned by and then rejected for publication in New York by The Atlantic -- formerly The Atlantic Monthly before the cut-back in publishing schedule. Rather hypocritically for a magazine supposed to stand for serious journalism, open debate and freedom of the press The Atlantic has nevertheless clamped a 'No Comment Top Secret' stamp on this whole episode and somehow convinced the Professors to do so as well. But the issue and the debate, so vital actually to Americans, does non-the-less continue in The London Review of Books where this follow-up letter appears in the current just published issue:

The Israel Lobby

From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

LRB, 11 May 2006: We wrote ‘The Israel Lobby’ in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received, and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people – including Jews and Israelis – believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most salient points of dispute.

One of the most prominent charges against us is that we see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy. Jeffrey Herf and Andrei Markovits, for example, begin by noting that ‘accusations of powerful Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-semitism’ (Letters, 6 April). It is a tradition we deplore and that we explicitly rejected in our article. Instead, we described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behaviour. Thus, we can easily believe that Daniel Pipes has never ‘taken orders’ from the lobby, because the Leninist caricature of the lobby depicted in his letter is one that we clearly dismissed. Readers will also note that Pipes does not deny that his organisation, Campus Watch, was created in order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East.

Several writers chide us for making mono-causal arguments, accusing us of saying that Israel alone is responsible for anti-Americanism in the Arab and Islamic world (as one letter puts it, anti-Americanism ‘would exist if Israel was not there’) or suggesting that the lobby bears sole responsibility for the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. But that is not what we said. We emphasised that US support for Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories is a powerful source of anti-Americanism, the conclusion reached in several scholarly studies and US government commissions (including the 9/11 Commission). But we also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low. Similarly, we clearly stated that Osama bin Laden had other grievances against the United States besides the Palestinian issue, but as the 9/11 Commission documents, this matter was a major concern for him. We also explicitly stated that the lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war.

At least two of the letters complain that we ‘catalogue Israel’s moral flaws’, while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states. We focused on Israeli behaviour, not because we have any animus towards Israel, but because the United States gives it such high levels of material and diplomatic support. Our aim was to determine whether Israel merits this special treatment either because it is a unique strategic asset or because it behaves better than other countries do. We argued that neither argument is convincing: Israel’s strategic value has declined since the end of the Cold War and Israel does not behave significantly better than most other states.

Herf and Markovits interpret us to be saying that Israel’s ‘continued survival’ should be of little concern to the United States. We made no such argument. In fact, we emphasised that there is a powerful moral case for Israel’s existence, and we firmly believe that the United States should take action to ensure its survival if it were in danger. Our criticism was directed at Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, not Israel’s existence.

Another recurring theme in the letters is that the lobby ultimately matters little because Israel’s ‘values command genuine support among the American public’. Thus, Herf and Markovits maintain that there is substantial support for Israel in military and diplomatic circles within the United States. We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with America’s Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is substantially due to the lobby’s success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel’s less savoury actions. Diplomats and military officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however, because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle East would look different.

On a related point, Michael Szanto contrasts the US-Israeli relationship with the American military commitments to Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, to show that the United States has given substantial support to other states besides Israel (6 April). He does not mention, however, that these other relationships did not depend on strong domestic lobbies. The reason is simple: these countries did not need a lobby because close ties with each of them were in America’s strategic interest. By contrast, as Israel has become a strategic burden for the US, its American backers have had to work even harder to preserve the ‘special relationship’.

Other critics contend that we overstate the lobby’s power because we overlook countervailing forces, such as ‘paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups . . . and the diplomatic establishment’. Such countervailing forces do exist, but they are no match – either alone or in combination – for the lobby. There are Arab-American political groups, for example, but they are weak, divided, and wield far less influence than AIPAC and other organisations that present a strong, consistent message from the lobby.

Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq.

Regrettably, some of our critics have tried to smear us by linking us with overt racists, thereby suggesting that we are racists or anti-semites ourselves. Michael Taylor, for example, notes that our article has been ‘hailed’ by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke (6 April). Alan Dershowitz implies that some of our material was taken from neo-Nazi websites and other hate literature (20 April). We have no control over who likes or dislikes our article, but we regret that Duke used it to promote his racist agenda, which we utterly reject. Furthermore, nothing in our piece is drawn from racist sources of any kind, and Dershowitz offers no evidence to support this false claim. We provided a fully documented version of the paper so that readers could see for themselves that we used reputable sources.

Finally, a few critics claim that some of our facts, references or quotations are mistaken. For example, Dershowitz challenges our claim that Israel was ‘explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship’. Israel was founded as a Jewish state (a fact Dershowitz does not challenge), and our reference to citizenship was obviously to Israel’s Jewish citizens, whose identity is ordinarily based on ancestry. We stated that Israel has a sizeable number of non-Jewish citizens (primarily Arabs), and our main point was that many of them are relegated to a second-class status in a predominantly Jewish society.

We also referred to Golda Meir’s famous statement that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian,’ and Jeremy Schreiber reads us as saying that Meir was denying the existence of those people rather than simply denying Palestinian nationhood (20 April). There is no disagreement here; we agree with Schreiber’s interpretation and we quoted Meir in a discussion of Israel’s prolonged effort ‘to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions’.

Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state at Camp David in July 2000. As support, he cites a statement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the memoirs of former US negotiator Dennis Ross. There are a number of competing accounts of what happened at Camp David, however, and many of them agree with our claim. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that ‘the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem . . . to the Jordan River.’ This wedge, which would bisect the West Bank, was essential to Israel’s plan to retain control of the Jordan River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to Dershowitz’s claim, there was no ‘second map’ or map of a ‘final proposal at Camp David’. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in a note beside the map published in Ross’s memoirs that ‘no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David.’ Given all this, it is not surprising that Barak’s foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key participant at Camp David, later admitted: ‘If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well.’

Dershowitz also claims that we quote David Ben-Gurion ‘out of context’ and thus misrepresented his views on the need to use force to build a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Dershowitz is wrong. As a number of Israeli historians have shown, Ben-Gurion made numerous statements about the need to use force (or the threat of overwhelming force) to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine. In October 1937, for example, he wrote to his son Amos that the future Jewish state would have an ‘outstanding army . . . so I am certain that we won’t be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbours, or by some other way’ (emphasis added). Furthermore, common sense says that there was no other way to achieve that goal, because the Palestinians were hardly likely to give up their homeland voluntarily. Ben-Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for ‘brutal compulsion’. We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that ‘it is impossible to imagine general evacuation’ of the Arab population of Palestine ‘without compulsion, and brutal compulsion’. Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement – ‘we should in no way make it part of our programme’ – shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not ‘discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme’.

We close with a final comment about the controversy surrounding our article. Although we are not surprised by the hostility directed at us, we are still disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the substance of the piece. The fact remains that the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East, and it will not be able to develop effective policies if it is impossible to have a civilised discussion about the role of Israel in American foreign policy.

John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
University of Chicago & Harvard University




FORUM - CHAT - YOUR COMMENTS - NEW MER


MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: (202) 362-5266 Fax: (815) 366-0800
Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org
Copyright © 2006 MiddleEast.Org Mid-East Realities, All Rights Rreserved

Free

The most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news and
analysis on the Middle East always comes from MER. It is indispensable!"
Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain




May 2006


Magazine






TARGET IRAN!
(May 31, 2006)
BUT using the newest high-tech precision bombing to destroy Iran's growing capabilities and subverting/infiltrating the country to either take it over or neutralize it one way or another...now that's another matter. And that in fact is what Bush/Cheney and the Neocon/Evangelicals have the Pentagon and CIA working overtime to undertake. And that is why the Israeli Ambassador at the United Nations actually proclaimed in public yesterday that World War III has already started.

The Neoconization of America
(May 30, 2006)
This column from the pages of the LATimes over the weekend at least begins to examine what has happened to the collective USA and both of the major parties in what let's charitably call 'world outlook'. And those with an all-important Washington memory can recall that the 'Prince of Darkness' himsself, Richard Perle, got his start on Capitol Hill as foreign policy assistant to one of the most prominent Democrats of yesteryear, 'Scoop' Jackson.

Apocalypse Now - 2006
(May 29, 2006)
How appropriate on the American Memorial Day to loudly and eloquently be warned that all so many have fought and died for is now terribly endangered -- put at risk in fact as never before by the very officials with the flags in their lapels ad nauseum proclaiming their patriotism while more than ever endangering their countries future and indeed the entire world.

Pushing and Preparing the Palestinians for Civil War
(May 28, 2006)
The goal now is Plan B -- to foment a Palestinian civil war attempting to mask the imposition of worse-than-Apartheid realities on the now seriously fragmented and far more destitute Palestinians. In the process the Hamas Palestinians have been pushed into alignment with Iran and Syria along with the Arab nationalist and Islamic forces that continue to hold out against U.S.-Israeli hegemony -- the 'new world order' promoted by the Zionist Neocon minions who still hold Washington in their grip, albeit less firmly than before the Iraqi debacle.

'The Israel Problem' - Dangerously Out Of Control More Than Ever
(May 27, 2006)
Largely because of powerful 'Israel Lobby' efforts by Kissinger and subsequent Administrations have all failed and 'The Israel Problem' has not only horribly metasticized but is more negatively consequential and more dangerously out of control than ever.

ISRAELIS Further Expand, Wall In, Divide and Rule
(May 23, 2006)
This is the map experts now believe the Israelis are trying to create. By doing so they not only expand considerably beyond the 1967 boundaries but they keep and fortify the bulk of settlements built since '67 and at the same time they institutionalize a novel kind of Middle East militarily-controlled apartheid upon the Palestinians -- a situation unknown anywhere else in the Middle East or indeed in the world.

Propaganda War - US and Israel still far in lead
(May 20, 2006)
The PROPAGANDA WAR is a major aspect of what may yet prove to be only the opening phases of the 'Clash of Civilizations' -- one the Israelis are more responsible for than any other party other than the Americans.

Palestinian Civil War Looms Closer Than Ever
(May 18, 2006)
Mahmoud Abbas is traveling here and there around the world essentially lining up money, guns, and clandestine support his largely corrupt and discredited 'Fateh' faction of the Palestinian movement. This as the Israelis, always of course with considerable American help and involvement, are pushing hard for the Palestinian civil war they have wanted, but failed until now, to be able to ignite.

TARGET IRAN - READY AND WAITING
(May 17, 2006)
U.S. and Israeli military 'exercises' have been underway, both announced and no doubt unannounced. Clandestine U.S. and Israel special forces, along with CIA and Mossad operatives, are on both sides of Iran in Afghanistan and Iraq, and probably operating clandestinely in Iran as well. Top Jewish American Neocons long associated with Israel have publicly proclaimed Iran could be successful bombed 'in just one night'. Last week Israel's senior 'statesman', Shimon Peres, proclaimed that 'Iran too can be wiped off the map'. And yesterday this from The Herald in Scotland:

WORLD JIHAD 'TSUNAMI' HYPED BY ISRAELIS
(May 16, 2006)
"An impending world jihad 'tsunami'... may soon descend on the entire Middle East."

US Readies for Iran
(May 13, 2006)
"Let us face the truth, Just like Iraq, all the talk about Iranian nuclear activities is a smoke screen for something else. The most likely answer is a combination of the United States strategic interest in oil, containment of China and Israeli interest. But in 2006 governments are understandably shy about mentioning neo-colonialism and greed as the reasons for invading other countries."

Jewish-Israeli Lobby Nervous in Washington
(May 12, 2006)
The Jewish-Israel Lobby is showing increased signs of nervousness and insecurity in Washington, as this article from THE FORWARD demonstrates. This in the aftermath of the spy scandal in which two of the most senior AIPAC personnel are no trial and 'The Israel Lobby' paper published by Professors John Mearshimer at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt at Harvard in The London Review of Books.

Israeli-Jewish Lobby Increasingly Nervous in Washington
(May 12, 2006)
The Jewish-Israel Lobby is showing increased signs of nervousness and insecurity in Washington, as this article from THE FORWARD demonstrates. This in the aftermath of the spy scandal in which two of the most senior AIPAC personnel are no trial and 'The Israel Lobby' paper published by Professors John Mearshimer at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt at Harvard in The London Review of Books.

Israelis With U.S. Help Slaughter Hundreds of Iraqi Scientists and Professors
(May 10, 2006)
Numerous reports for many months have stated that with collaboration from American occupation forces, Israel’s espionage apparatus, Mossad, slaughtered at least 530 Iraqi scientists and academic professors.

Assassination Plot of Palestinian President Say Israelis
(May 7, 2006)
Whether true or not, the Israelis have long wanted to provoke a Palestinian civil war, and now they are closer to their goal than ever, especially with the White House and Congress on board in the USA more than ever, and the confused and insecure CIA in chaos. This report should be taken with extra skepticism in view of how quickly the Israelis rushed it into the headlines.

'The Israel Lobby' - Part II
(May 5, 2006)
They unleashed a most unusual political, as well as academic and intellectual, firestory with their 'The Israel Lobby' article published in March in The London Review of Books. And we now know that the article was actually commissioned by and then rejected for publication in New York by The Atlantic -- formerly The Atlantic Monthly before the cut-back in publishing schedule. Rather hypocritically for a magazine supposed to stand for serious journalism, open debate and freedom of the press The Atlantic has nevertheless clamped a 'No Comment Top Secret' stamp on this whole episode and somehow convinced the Professors to do so as well. But the issue and the debate, so vital actually to Americans, does non-the-less continue in The London Review of Books where this follow-up letter appears in the current just published issue:

Israel's Disaster - Past and Present
(May 4, 2006)
Finally top American academics from leading American universities have joined the contemporary political scene. If their insights and concerns are brushed aside -- as the politicians and the special interest groups keep attempting -- the perils we all now face partly because of their long past absence from the real-time policy debate will only increase. Credit the Iraq war for stirring things up so....credit a backlash against the hardline Zionist Neocons and the far-out Christian Evangelicals...credit a new sense of involvement and 'activisim' from segments of the intellectual community. But whether this is truly a new day is yet to be seen.

"Saudi Arabia could topple tonight..."
(May 1, 2006)
"Saudi Arabia could topple tonight and we wouldn't be surprised."




© 2004 Mid-East Realities, All rights reserved