AMERICAN UNIVERSITY RADIO WAMU 88.5 FM
THE DIANE REHM SHOW
ISRAEL’S INFLUENCE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2006
GUESTS
JOHN MEARSHEIMER
Professor of Political Science at the
University of
Chicago
STEPHEN WALT
Professor, International Affairs, John
F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University
DENNIS ROSS
Former Middle East Special Coordinator
and Counselor
Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the
Washington
Institute for Near East Policy
JAMES THURBER
Director and Professor at the Center for
Congressional and Presidential Studies
at American
University
STEVEN SPIEGEL
Professor, Political Science
UCLA Assistant Director of the Burkle
Center for
International Relations
DISCLAIMER
Transcripts of WAMU programs are available for personal use. To
purchase a transcript, please order online at www.wamu.org or call
1-800-871-7072. Transcripts are created by a contractor for WAMU,
and WAMU has not verified their accuracy. Transcripts are
provided “As Is” without warranties of any kind, either express or
implied. WAMU does not warrant that the transcript is
error-free. For all WAMU programs, the broadcast audio should be
considered the authoritative version.
Transcripts are owned by WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio and are
protected by laws in both the United States and international
law. You may not sell or modify transcripts or reproduce,
display, distribute, or otherwise use the transcript, in whole or in
part, in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the
express written permission of WAMU. All requests for uses beyond
personal and noncommercial use should be referred to (202) 885-1200.
Transcripts are prepared by Soft Scribe LLC, which takes sole
responsibility for accuracy of transcription. No license is
granted to the user of this material by Soft Scribe LLC. All
license rights reside with WAMU 88.5 American Public Radio. Media
representatives should contact WAMU at (202) 885-1200 for questions
related to the transcript. You agree to indemnify, defend, and
hold harmless Soft Scribe LLC., its officers, directors, and employees
from and against any liability, loss or damage (including attorney’s
fees) caused by or arising from your use of the transcript.
Online streaming of the program you are about to hear is made possible
by WAMU members. If you are not a member of WAMU, we hope you’ll
consider joining today. Your support will help keep our signal on
the air and on the Internet. You can purchase compact discs and
cassette copies of this program and many other programs you hear on
WAMU. Go to www.wamu.org and click on programs.
ISRAEL’S INFLUENCE
10:00 a.m.
MS. REHM: Thanks for
joining us. I am Diane Rehm. Many lobby groups are powerful
in Washington, but according to two political scientists, the lobby for
Israel is especially so. John Mearsheimer is Professor of
Political Science at the University of Chicago. Good morning to
you, Professor Mearsheimer; it’s good to have you here.
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Thank you,
Diane.
MS. REHM: And Stephen Walt
is Professor of International Affairs at the John Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University. Good morning to you, Professor
Walt.
MR. WALT: Nice to be here.
MS. REHM: Both argue in
this month’s Foreign Policy magazine that the Israel lobby wields undue
influence in Washington. They are both here in the studio to talk
about that lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Later on in the hour
we’ll hear other views, including yours. Do join us, (800)
433-8850; send us your e-mail to drshow@wamu.org.
First, let’s get our terms
straight. You do not use the phrase “Israeli lobby,” you use
“Israel lobby.” Professor Walt, what is included in that Israel
lobby?
MR. WALT: We think of the
Israel lobby as a loose coalition of groups and organizations that
devote some considerable effort to shaping U.S. foreign policy so that
it supports Israel very strongly. This includes well known groups
like AIPAC. Also, groups like the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
But it’s important to understand
that the lobby is not synonymous with Jewish Americans because many
Jewish Americans don’t support, say, AIPAC’s positions and it also is
broader than Jewish Americans. Christians Zionists, a number of
other fundamentalist groups have been strong supporters of Israel and
have weighed in politically.
But the other point I would
emphasize is this is not a centralized organization, it’s not a
conspiracy, it’s not a cabal. It’s a set of interest groups that
have similar beliefs and operate as most interest groups do to try and
shape American policy in the directions that they favor.
MS. REHM: Professor
Mearsheimer, in a piece that you originally wrote for the London Review
of Books, you say that for the past several decades, especially since
the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy
has been its relationship with Israel. First, what’s the evidence
that Israel has been at the center of our Middle Eastern policy?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Well,
first of all if you look at the amount of foreign aid that we give to
Israel it’s quite clear that it receives more foreign aid than any
other country. And this is despite the fact that it is a modern
industrialized society that has a per capita GNP that’s roughly equal
to that of South Korea or Spain. Secondly, if you look at policy
in the region, especially our policy with regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has all sorts of consequences for
broader American foreign policy, you see that we privilege the Israelis
over the Palestinians at almost every turn.
And now in more recent years we
have begun to see evidence that the Israel lobby has been pushing us to
deal with problems like Iraq and Iran and having a significant
influence on U.S. policy. So I think there is little doubt that
American policy is shaped in good part by Israel lobby.
MS. REHM: Well, you say in
good part; Professor Walt, haven’t other lobby groups, haven’t other
foreign governments helped to shape U.S. foreign policy?
MR. WALT: Oh,
certainly. I mean, in a sense many governments try to shape what
the United States does. And other lobby groups, both those based
on ethnicity and those based on other interests try to do much the same
thing. We argue in our piece that the Israel lobby has been
unusually effective at doing so and it’s had more impact than, say,
some of these other ones.
But it’s important to understand
that it’s not all-powerful in the sense that it doesn’t dictate what
American policy is on a whole series of issues. It’s also
important to realize that there are countervailing lobbies of different
kinds or countervailing forces within American politics. On this
set of issues, though, they happen to be much less well organized and
much less effective and much weaker. So our argument in the
article is simply that the Israel lobby has turned out to be especially
influential and this has significant consequences for American foreign
policy.
MS. REHM: Professor
Mearsheimer?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Lots of
people like to argue that oil interests, specifically the oil companies
and the oil-producing states in the region have more influence or as
much influence as the Israel lobby. But when you look carefully,
for example, at the decision to invade Iraq, if you look at American
policy vis-à-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you see very
little evidence that oil interests, be they oil companies or
oil-producing states, have very much influence on our policy in the
region.
MS. REHM: Let’s talk
specifically about how the U.S. supports Israel and how does that
support in aid compare to what we offer to other countries.
Professor Walt?
MR. WALT: Well, the United
States gives approximately $3 billion every year in direct foreign
assistance. That’s equivalent to about $500 each year per Israeli
citizen from the United States. And that’s done in an unusual
way. Unlike most other countries that receive American foreign
aid, Israel doesn’t have to account for how it actually spends much of
that money. So it’s harder for us to keep track of how they are
doing.
Second and equally important,
American support tends to be unconditional. We have only rarely
attached any strings to it or attempted to make aid conditional.
And they are -- you know, when we have done that it’s been only very
briefly, only temporarily. We also provide Israel with enormous
amounts of diplomatic support. We veto UN Security Council
resolutions. We have in fact vetoed more resolutions there than
on any other issue. We have prevented the International Atomic
Energy Agency from investigating Israel’s nuclear program.
And on a whole series of other
issues, whether it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or others, we
tend to line up pretty closely behind Israel as well.
MS. REHM: And what would
you say, Professor Mearsheimer, is the rationale behind that level of
support?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Well, many
people like to argue that we do it for good strategic reasons. In
other words, Israel is a country that is a close ally of the United
States because it’s in our strategic interests to align ourselves with
Israel. Other people argue that there is a powerful moral
imperative for supporting Israeli policy and for supporting the
U.S.-Israeli relationship. Our argument is that when you look
carefully at the matter there is no good evidence that there is a
powerful strategic rationale for our support and there is no evidence
that there is a good moral rationale for that support.
In fact, what you see is that
it’s American domestic politics, specifically the Israel lobby, that is
the driving force behind U.S. support for Israel.
MS. REHM: Why is the Israel
lobby so powerful, Professor Walt?
MR. WALT: First of all,
it’s very well organized. They take this seriously; they do their
jobs very, very well. Second, they are representing in part a
group within the United States, the Jewish-American population that’s
been very successful and has a quite admirable tradition of
philanthropy. So they give a lot of money to a variety of causes
and to -- including political causes.
And one of the things that groups
like AIPAC have been extremely effective at doing is targeting support
for political candidates to either reward or penalize people, depending
upon their political positions. They are also extremely effective
at operating on Capitol Hill, providing Congressmen and Senators with
talking points and other things that can make their jobs easier.
This again is sort of standard, as-American-as apple-pie
interest-groups politics. But they are particularly good at it.
And finally, they’ve worked very
hard to shape public perceptions by trying to silence or marginalize
people who are critical of Israel, by trying to make sure that
favorable accounts are reported in the media as well. And again,
this is a rather familiar tactic that lots of interest group
operate. They have happened to be particularly effective at doing
so.
MR. MEARSHEIMER: This of
course explains why our piece has caused so much controversy. Up
to now, nobody has been willing to say in the mainstream media that the
Israel lobby is shaping American policy in ways that is not in the U.S.
national interest. The fact that we said it of course has caused
a real firestorm because heretofore it’s been a taboo subject.
MS. REHM: And up to now,
neither one of you has spoken on the media about this until this
morning. I know you have written but you have not spoken.
Why not?
MR. WALT: We felt at the
very beginning that the more we went out and made media appearances,
the more the debate started to be about us, that there would be an
inevitable tendency to focus on John and Steve rather than on the
substance of what we wrote. And we felt that it was important
that people actually read what we wrote, not read the various ways it’s
been characterized or whatever. And in particular, we didn’t want
to get in a position where the story became about us. We wanted
the story to be about the issue that needed to be debated. And we
think that enough time has passed now, most people have had a chance to
read it, and it’s the time for us to now start talking a little bit
more openly about it.
MS. REHM: In what ways,
Professor Mearsheimer, do you believe our support of Israel has
complicated our relations with the Arab world?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Well, I
think there is all sorts of survey data and a great deal of anecdotal
data that shows that America’s policy, which privileges the Israelis
over the Palestinians at virtually every turn, has caused us great
damage in the Middle East, or in the Arab and Islamic world. And
it’s made it much more difficult for us to deal with the terrorism
problem.
MS. REHM: Do you think the
situation has changed since 9/11?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: No, I
think that the problem has gotten worse since 9/11. I think that
given the fact that the second Intifada broke out in the fall of 2000,
shortly before 9/11, you have a situation where people care more and
more about this issue and therefore our bias is getting us into
increasingly more trouble.
MS. REHM: We are talking
about the Israel lobby. We are about to hear some alternative
views. Stay with us.
(Intermission)
MS. REHM: John Mearsheimer
is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
Stephen Walt is Professor of International Affairs at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. We are
talking about an article originally published in the London Review of
Books titled “The Israel Lobby.” After that article was published
an angry debate followed. Foreign Policy magazine for this month
is carrying rejoinders from people like Dennis Ross and Steven Spiegel
of UCLA, from whom we will hear in just a moment.
I wanted to come back to the
question about 9/11, Professor Walt, and how you feel that affected the
Israel lobby and what’s happened since.
MR. WALT: I have a couple
of points to make about it. I -- you know, anti-Americanism,
including anti-American terrorism is not solely a function of the
American support for Israel and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians;
our relations with a number of Arab states also play into that.
But there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that this is an important
issue.
We know for example from the 9/11
Commission that this was an issue that Bin Laden had been talking about
for quite some time. And he even tried to time the attacks to
respond to events that were taking place in the United States.
There is some evidence he wanted one of the planes to go at Congress
because he -- as he saw Congress as the place in which Israel’s
influence was especially profound. So this is something that
clearly has motivated them but it is not the only thing as well.
9/11 was also a problematic
period, it seems to me, for the Israel lobby precisely because they
were, I think, concerned that we would start to adopt a more evenhanded
position as a way of trying to marginalize terrorists in the Middle
East, trying to improve America’s image in that part of the
world. And so they have been working overtime since then to
convey the impression that the United States and Israel are both
partners against terror, that they face exactly the same enemies, that
we have to be strong allies against terror.
Our view is this gets the
causality backwards, right, it’s not that we have a terrorism
problem. Not entirely but in good part because the United States
has given such overwhelming and unconditional support to Israel for
many years and because Israel has sustained an occupation of the
Palestinians for many years as well.
MS. REHM: What do you think
foreign policy in the U.S. would be like if the Israel lobby were less
powerful, Professor Mearsheimer?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Well, I
think if the Israel lobby were less powerful, we would have a very
different Middle East policy, specifically with regard to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I think the United States would
have been much more evenhanded over time. We would have put
significant pressure on Israel to stop building settlements; we would
have put significant pressure on Israel to reach an agreement with the
Palestinians and to give them a viable state.
I think it’s much less likely --
in fact I think it’s very unlikely that the United States would have
invaded Iraq in March 2003 absent the Israel lobby. And I think
with regard to Iran today the United States would have a much more
flexible policy in dealing with that country were it not for pressure
from the Israel lobby to pursue a hard-line policy vis-à-vis
Iran.
MS. REHM: One last comment
because --
MR. WALT: I want to just
add, one thing that wouldn’t change is I think the United States would
still support Israel’s right to exist, which John and I both support
and we would still be willing to come to Israel’s aid if Israel’s
survival were ever in danger. That wouldn’t change because that’s
something that I think most Americans have a strong commitment
to. What is a problem is certain aspects of Israeli policy and
the unconditional support for those policies that the United States has
tended to give.
MS. REHM: Stephen Walt of
the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and John
Mearsheimer, he is Professor of Political Science at the University of
Chicago. Their original article titled “The Israel Lobby” was
published in the London Review of Books on March 23rd of this year.
And now, joining us by phone is
Dennis Ross. He is former Counselor and Middle East Special
Coordinator. He is Distinguished Fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy.
Good morning to you, Dennis,
thanks for joining us.
MR. ROSS: Nice to be with
you, Diane.
MS. REHM: Thank you.
Dennis, you were one of the contributors to weigh in on this issue this
month in Foreign Policy magazine. The truth is you say that the
Israel lobby is not nearly as influential as Professors Walt and
Mearsheimer allege. Tell us why you believe that.
MR. ROSS: Well, I certainly
believe that groups like AIPAC have influence and certainly you see it
on the Congress. But I think so much of what Mearsheimer --
Professors Mearsheimer and Walt say is based more on assertion than
fact. For example, if this lobby is so powerful, how come they
have lost on every major Arab arms sales, which they oppose, going to
back to AWACS for the Saudis, dealing with F-16s for the Saudis and for
other Gulf states?
The -- John Mearsheimer was
saying to you that our policy changed after ’67. Well, these were
arms sales that were in the late 1970s and the truth is every
significant arms sale since that time to the Arabs, which the “Israel
lobby” opposed, they lost on it. They have made the issue of
moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem a centerpiece of their
policy. They have never succeeded in being able to do that
either.
In the case of how we approach
the question of trying to produce peace between the Israelis and
Palestinians, you know, I was the lead negotiator and the fact is what
we put on the table was unprecedented. And it would have divided
Jerusalem, something the Israeli lobby was completely and fervently
against, but we did that anyway because we thought it was the right
thing to do because we understood there is no such thing as producing a
peace if you don’t meet the needs of both sides, not just one side.
So I think there is a tendency on
their part to wildly exaggerate the influence and to ignore a lot of
basic facts that suggest that while they may have influence, and I
don’t dispute that, to think that it has fundamentally shaped our
policy and guided it, especially -- I say this from the standpoint of a
practitioner, I just think that’s untrue. And to argue that if --
without the Israeli lobby we wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, I would
say without President Bush in the White House we wouldn’t have gone to
war in Iraq.
Al Gore, who was -- has spent
much of his career much closer to people in the Israeli lobby, had he
been President, do you really think that we would have gone to war in
Iraq? I rather doubt it.
MS. REHM: Tell me if you
can just -- and perhaps quantify it, how much influence do you think
the Israel lobby has and how that influence is reflected in our Middle
East policy, if at all?
MR. ROSS: It’s hard to
quantify it. I would say if you are looking for areas where
groups like AIPAC have an impact and influence it has much more to do
with the Congress than it does with the administrations. You
know, the executive branch, which is responsible for actually carrying
out the policy, is certainly I think governed by what it thinks is the
right thing to be doing. Congress -- I’m not saying they are not
governed by what they think is the right thing to do be doing, but they
are affected by many more lobbying groups. And obviously, AIPAC
isn’t the only one that would have influence on the Congress.
I can tell you, on a day-to-day
basis, administrations are governed by what are the pressures that they
see and what are the objectives that they are working on. There
isn’t a single time that we pursued a policy towards a peace process,
where obviously I played a major role for a very long time up until
this administration, there isn’t a single time that we did something
because the “lobby” wanted us to do it and there isn’t a single time we
shied away from doing something because they were against it.
So it isn’t to say that they
don’t affect the climate certainly in which issues can get debated,
they don’t affect the Congress, which I think -- frequently I would
have to fly back from the Middle East and deal with issues that
sometimes got raised in the Congress. But that isn’t what
fundamentally shapes what it is we do. And I think if you go
administration by administration you would see that. Look at --
this administration drew back from pursuing the peace process not
because of the Israeli lobby but because basically they started with an
approach that was anything but Clinton. And because Clinton put
such an emphasis on it, this was not going to be one of their
priorities.
They focused much more on dealing
with rogue regimes, not on pursuing diplomacy that related to the peace
process.
MS. REHM: One --
MR. ROSS: That wasn’t the
function of the Israeli lobby.
MS. REHM: One of the issues
that both Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have raised is, of course,
the amount of aid, financial aid that does go to Israel. How do
you respond to that?
MR. ROSS: Well, here again,
I think there is no doubt that that’s the case but when did the aid
become dramatic? The aid became dramatic really at the time -- in
the aftermath of the Camp David peace agreements from the Carter
administration. Prior to that time, you know, the U.S. support
didn’t become significant until after the ’73 war. And it became
pronounced after Camp David.
And by the way, if you are using
the measures that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt used, why don’t they
talk about Egypt? Egypt got $2 billion a year from that time,
again, as a function of the agreement. You know, one can
certainly say where AIPAC has an influence is in the assistance area
and as it relates to Israel. No question about that. But I
would also tell you that AIPAC is viewed as probably the major driving
force for getting a foreign assistance budget overall. Many other
groups that are not Israeli-connected will look to the -- will look in
fact to AIPAC to help them on foreign assistance questions. And
because AIPAC wants there to be a significant foreign assistance budget
they have actually been quite supportive.
So there is a real interesting
paradox there that, yes, it’s true that Israel gets a lot and there is
no doubt that AIPAC has a role in that but they are also a main driver
in ensuring that there is a larger foreign assistance budget, period.
MS. REHM: Dennis Ross, he
is former Middle East Special Coordinator and Counselor. He is
Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy. Thank you so much for joining us.
MR. ROSS: It’s a pleasure.
MS. REHM: And now we are
joined by phone from Los Angeles, Professor Steven Spiegel; he is
Professor of Political Science at UCLA. Good morning to you, sir,
thanks for joining us.
MR. SPIEGEL: Good morning,
Diane.
MS. REHM: The question
becomes whether the Israel lobby has extraordinary influence over U.S.
foreign policy and if so, whether this is detrimental to the U.S.
and/or Israel. What’s your view?
MR. SPIEGEL: Well, my views
are very similar to Ambassador Ross’, who I think presented you with a
very wise and sober analysis. The point -- we haven’t talked much
here about the product. I think that the Israel lobby looks as
good as it does because it’s selling a very fine product, namely,
Israel. And if I were selling ice cream cones to kids, I would be
considered a very good salesman not so much because I might have
particular prowess in that area but because kids like ice cream cones.
Americans like Israel. And
Americans, I think, have a great affinity to countries that share our
values, our democratic values, who are loyal allies, and who we feel
assist in the stability of particular areas, whether it’s Britain or
Japan or South Korea, among many countries in the world,
Australia. They are countries that we work with and Americans are
loyal. And there is also the religious factor both for Jews and
Christians. So there are a large number of factors that go into
our relationship with Israel.
And there are many analysts who
over the years have suggested that it’s because the lobby has sold
it. I don’t buy that. I think the lobby is building on a
precondition, a precondition of support for Israel, because we feel
that Israel is in our national interest and because we have a certain
moral affinity with Israel. And I would argue that over the years
it’s generally helped our national interest and not hurt.
MS. REHM: At 27 before the
hour, you’re listening to The Diane Rehm Show. Professor Spiegel,
you’ve also said that most Americans, as you referred earlier, don’t
have much of a debate with Israel that we are now more aligned with
Israel than in past years. How so?
MR. SPIEGEL: Well, first of
all if you look at the record of the American-Israeli relationship
there were great tensions before 1967, especially in the 1950s under
President Eisenhower, but even afterward. Americans were --
American presidents and officials were very reluctant to associate with
Israel. After 1967, when the relationship improved, there were
still many arguments, some behind the scenes, some quite public,
especially on the issue of settlements, but also over particular
diplomatic issues.
It’s really in the last two
administrations that the relationship has developed as closely as it
has, in part because, as we just heard Ambassador Ross, Israel had
moved strongly on attempting to reach a peace agreement with the
Palestinians. The Palestinians themselves had moved, we saw an
opportunity, and we ourselves acted, and I think acted quite properly,
in this administration.
I think that 9/11 -- unlike
Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, I think 9/11 has strengthened the
American-Israeli relationship and I do agree with them that it’s not
exactly the way the administration thought it would go
originally. But because of American interests, because of what
they saw would be stabilizing the area, because they what -- what they
thought was proper, because of suicide bombings that Israel and the
United States confronted the two countries were brought together.
Moreover, the occupation since
’67 had been a source of conflict between the two countries.
Israel itself has turned against occupation. It strengthens the
relationship and it delimits the number of diplomatic differences
between the two countries, which are highly reduced at the present time.
Finally, the United States and
Israel have gotten used to each other over the years. And I think
our support for Israel has provided a basis of stability as has our
aid, which permits us to move on the peace process when our Presidents
and our Secretaries of State feel it’s appropriate, not when the
Israelis do. And when there are openings from both sides, we can
move in. So that I think that this relationship has actually
worked quite well and we shouldn’t be confused by the vociferous
support around the country. We do it for our own national
interest.
MS. REHM: You have also
said that both Republicans and Democrats have consistently believed in
that special relationship with Israel, because “values matter in
foreign policy.” Explain that.
MR. SPIEGEL: Sure. I
think the United States is not like Europe. We cannot make
decisions only on the basis of a French-style, what is in our best
interests as particular diplomats or civil servants may see at any one
particular moment. To Americans foreign policy is much more
complex and I think it’s the greatness of our policy that we -- that
values and that affinities make a difference, and therefore, Americans
are seen as loyal allies. We don’t turn and run on particular
countries.
Both Republicans and Democrats
over the years, and to greater and greater numbers, have made this
conclusion that the relationship with Israel is in our interests and
promotes our policies in the Middle East. And consequently, there
is a high degree of bipartisanship. Look at the last elections in
2004, one of the few issues on which both Kerry and Bush agreed
completely was the Israel question.
MS. REHM: All right.
We’ll take a short break. When we come back we’ll hear our
listeners’ comments, questions; all four of our guests will be with
us. I look forward to hearing from you.
(Intermission)
MS. REHM: And we are back
with our topic this morning, the Israel lobby, just how powerful is it,
how much influence does it wield over U.S. foreign policy. Let’s
take a caller; first in Cincinnati, Ohio. Good morning, Karen,
you are on the air.
KAREN: Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
MS. REHM: Surely.
KAREN: I just wanted to ask
a question of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. I know that in our
society often when people have the guts to bring up a subject that is
“taboo” as they said, those people suffer, you know, retribution,
consequences et cetera. And I wanted to ask them what has been
the result of, you know, their coming out with this report.
MS. REHM: Professor Walt?
MR. WALT: Well, again, this
is one of those things. We try not to have much attention focused
on us because the issue is really what’s important here, not our
personal fates. But the fact of the matter is I don’t think we
have suffered any serious retribution. We have gotten a lot of
criticism from people who disagree with us. We have also gotten a
tremendous amount of support. I would say my mail on this is
running probably four to one in favor of what we said or are saying.
I don’t know about, you know,
subsequent retribution or not. One reason that John and I did
decide to write it though was we felt that as tenured faculty members,
we were in a position to say some things that needed to be said, to get
a conversation started in ways that perhaps other people whose
positions were more vulnerable could not. That’s one of the
reasons we did it.
MS. REHM: What do you think
the outcome of having written this article could be? What would
you like to see happen, Professor Mearsheimer?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Well, to
put it very simply, Diane, what I would like to see is an open debate
on this issue. I would like to see the mainstream media begin to
address some of the substantive points that we have made. I would
like to see the mainstream media stay away from dealing with these
charges that we are anti-Semites or that our piece is the second coming
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and instead ask questions about
the influence of AIPAC on Congress. Ask all sorts of questions
about the aid that we give Israel and whether it’s justified. Ask
questions about whether supporting Israeli policy towards the
Palestinians is indeed consistent with American values.
MS. REHM: Let’s go to
Morrilton, Arkansas. Good morning, Reagan, you are on the air.
REAGAN: Hello.
MS. REHM: Hi.
REAGAN: Well, you actually
just addressed part of my question, which was I wanted to ask you about
Alan Dershowitz’s response to your paper in which he accused Professors
Walt and Mearsheimer of producing a second coming of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. And I found the difficulty in this whole
debate is -- I mean, I read your piece in the London Review of Books
and I find it very well-reasoned, rational but the debate very quickly
gets into the sorts of ad hominem attacks and crazy speculation.
And I was wondering how you think we could work to promote a better, a
more sound and reasonable discussion of this issue with --
MS. REHM: I think that’s
such a fine question.
MR. WALT: The -- obviously,
the sort of smear tactics that have been applied to us by some of our
critics are disturbing. They are disturbing a little bit at the
personal level but mostly because they are essentially a way of trying
to silence dissent and to silence criticism. There isn’t the
slightest shred of foundation behind of any of those charges, but it’s
a way that people who can’t make good, substantive arguments can try
and dismiss and marginalize people with which they disagree.
We don’t accuse people we
disagree with of ulterior motives of that sort and we think it’s in the
American national interest to have an open, dispassionate, serious
debate about this without getting into a lot of name-calling. The
more that Americans insist upon those standards in public discourse,
the better off we are all going to be.
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Yeah, I
agree with that completely and I think that if we have any hope of
getting this issue out into the open and having a serious discussion
about it and influencing American policy in positive ways, what we have
to do is focus on the substance and avoid the name-calling.
MS. REHM: And that’s why
I’m so glad that Dennis Ross is still on the line with us. Dennis
Ross, is it possible to have a reasoned argument about this whole
issue, the power of the Israel lobby, to speak about that without
necessarily undermining U.S. support for Israel?
MR. ROSS: I certainly think
that every issue that we pursue in foreign policy should be subject to
discussion and debate. There is really no issue that shouldn’t be
open to that. So I don’t have a -- any kind of problem with that
and I don’t have a problem in engaging in what is a reasoned discussion
with both Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, both of whom I happened to
know. I don’t have a problem with that.
I think the issue always is going
to be what is the substance that we are discussing, how fact-based is
it, and can we shape such a discussion in such a way that in fact it is
not only done in a reasoned way but also, as you said, Diane, is done
in a way that is also consistent with what our larger foreign policy
objectives might be. Can we not have a debate on the question of
Iraq? Of course we can have a debate on the question of Iraq and
we should have a debate on the question of Iraq. Should we not
have a debate on the question of Iran? Yes, the same there as
well.
There isn’t any issue in American
foreign policy that shouldn’t be open to a kind of serious debate and
discussion, but as I said, it should always be fact-based.
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Dennis,
this is John Mearsheimer. I applaud your views, but I would say
that it has been almost impossible, since as long as I can remember, to
talk openly or at least to criticize Israeli policy or to criticize the
U.S.-Israeli relationship in the mainstream media. And that’s the
reason, by the way, that our piece was published by the London Review
of Books and not published in the United States. There was just
no way we could do it here in the United States because the mainstream
media wouldn’t touch it.
MR. WALT: I’ll just add one
other point. Perhaps the most common reaction I have gotten from
friends and associates including some who don’t necessarily agree with
everything we wrote is, you know, “Well, gee, Steve, you’re never going
to work in Washington.” Now, working in Washington was not
necessarily my life’s ambition. I’m not complaining at all about
my situation in life, but I find it interesting that that’s so
frequently the reaction. I think that this has simply made us
complete pariahs. Quite remarkable.
MS. REHM: And joining us
now is James Thurber. He is Director and Professor at the Center
for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American
University. Good morning to you, sir, thanks for joining us.
MR. THURBER: Good morning.
MS. REHM: I know you have
studies what makes some lobbies especially powerful. Tell us in
general what you think it takes.
MR. THURBER: Well, I think
the power of lobbying depends upon the resources that the lobbying
group has and their ability to transform those resources towards a very
clear strategy and objectives linked to tactics. And -- but you
also need to take into account the resistance to what they want.
And so therefore as you have the NRA that has only 4.5 million members
with a very narrow, clear objective linked to tactics, they are quite
powerful -- and they are voted actually the number one or two most
powerful association in Washington. And the AARP on the other
hand has 38 million members, lots of money, no tax but they again have
a way of stimulating the grassroots and top-roots in their
organization.
And I see AIPAC as a very
powerful lobby in Washington also because they have a narrow focus,
they know -- they have a knowledge of the process and the policy.
They link their tactics, their lobbying tactics appropriately to what
they want, which means direct lobbying by experts. It means
getting involved -- getting an involvement by the “top-roots” or people
throughout the United States that are involved with AIPAC. And
then finally getting involved in political campaigns, volunteering,
making campaign contributions, and also giving advice to candidates
about the issues related to Israel.
MS. REHM: You know, we have
been focusing exclusively on the Israel lobby. But what about the
Saudi Arabian lobby? Are there other nations equally as powerful
in terms of their influence on U.S. foreign policy, James Thurber?
MR. THURBER: I think the
analogy here is the Cuban-American lobby and their pressure upon the
administration to continue an embargo of Cuba. It’s very similar,
they are very well organized and they know how the process works and
they get involved in campaigns. Another analogy would be
Taiwanese, and for years, they have had a very successful lobby here
and they have hired good firms here. They don’t have an
association that is as powerful as AIPAC but they have other ways of
lobbying.
And then the Saudis have sort of
an inside way of lobbying in foreign policy. Frequently, lobbying
for foreign policy is very different than lobbying for domestic policy,
as we can see. And they have got an insider’s game. They
don’t have a -- they don’t have something like AIPAC, that’s as
powerful as AIPAC. They do it one on one with the administration
frequently.
MS. REHM: James Thurber, he
is Professor at the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies
at American University. Thank you so much for joining us.
MR. THURBER: Thank you.
MS. REHM: And now let’s
take a caller in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Good morning, Glenn, you’re
on the air.
GLENN: Hi, thanks for
taking my call.
MS. REHM: Sure.
GLENN: Before I mentioned
what I called about I wanted to respond to something Dennis Ross
said. He, I guess, you could say had the audacity to foreign aid
to Egypt to Israel. In fact, Israel gets much more than Egypt
while Egypt has a poverty-stricken population that’s about eight or
nine times larger than the State of Israel. But the reason I
called is I used to do editorial cartoons on the Middle East and I did
some cartoons years ago when Israel invaded Lebanon in ’82 that were
published in a University of Michigan paper.
And I started receiving hate
calls and obscene phone calls about those cartoons to the point where I
had to get an unlisted phone number. Then I started doing
cartoons for the Ann Arbor News and I did a cartoon in 1985 where --
when Israel attacked Tunisia. And the cartoon received so many
complaints from the local community that it was pulled from the paper
in the middle of the press run and replaced with a different cartoon
and I was never hired by that paper again.
And at that point I called Bill
Day, who was the Detroit Free Press cartoonist to see if he had had any
similar experiences. And he told me that he had done cartoons on
a variety of subjects but the only time he ever got a death threat was
when he criticized the State of Israel.
MS. REHM: Professor Walt,
do you want to comment about that? And then I’ll go to Dennis
Ross on the Egypt question.
MR. WALT: Well, I think
that -- I’ve heard other similar stories from other people. I
think it suggests a range of passion that people feel about this issue
and I think there is lots of evidence of -- within the media of other
organizations getting pressured in different ways. It’s one of
those issues that there is a real third rail and anybody who gets into
it is going to face pretty harsh criticism, which is unfortunate,
because it makes it more difficult to have the kind of reasoned
discussion that we are trying to have here.
MS. REHM: Dennis Ross, our
caller complained about the comparison of aid to Egypt with that of
Israel because of the great rate of poverty in Egypt.
MR. ROSS: Yeah, but it’s
also an interesting reminder. You’re talking about a subject that
is emotionally charged. So your caller says that I had the
audacity -- I’m quoting him, to draw the comparison. I raised the
issue in the context of who gets foreign assistance. And the
focus had been earlier in the discussion the disproportionate amount of
aid that Israel gets and I was noting, well, there are other countries
that get a disproportionate amount of aid compared to everybody else.
I’m not saying Egypt is not
worthy because they get -- they were getting $2 billion a year in the
aftermath of the Camp David peace agreement. Yes, do they have
high poverty rates? You bet. Are there other countries that
have that? Absolutely. Were they getting it because it was
only driven by the issue of poverty? They were getting it because
there were strategic considerations. They were entirely a
function of peace agreement with Israel.
MS. REHM: At 7 --
MR. ROSS: If they didn’t
have the peace agreement with Israel they wouldn’t have gotten that
kind of aid.
MS. REHM: At 7 minutes
before the hour, you’re listening to The Diane Rehm Show.
Professor Mearsheimer?
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Two very
quick points in response to Dennis. First of all, Israel is an
advanced industrial society; Egypt is not. And foreign aid should
not be going to countries like Israel; it’s designed for countries like
Egypt. Second, and he has hinted at this, the money that we pay
to Egypt and we pay to Jordan, which by the way is the number three
recipient of foreign aid, is basically bribe money. We gave Egypt
that money because it cut a deal with the Israelis and agreed basically
to have a cold peace with Israel. The same thing is true with
Jordan. If you look at when Jordan got its money jacked up and
when Egypt got its money jacked up it happened after both of those
countries cut a deal with Israel. So it’s effectively bribe money.
MS. REHM: Let’s go finally
to Dallas --
MR. ROSS: That’s hardly
true in the case of Jordan. When Jordan got its increase, the big
increase in money, it actually was related to Iraq. We did a debt
relief for Jordan at the time of the Washington Declaration of
1994. The big increase in assistance for Jordan has come in the
context of Iraq.
MS. REHM: Let’s go to Brett
in Dallas, Texas. Good morning.
BRETT: Good morning.
Thank you for having me on your show.
MS. REHM: Sure.
BRETT: I have just really a
comment, just that, you know, I think the reason why Israel enjoys the
support it does from the U.S. is because in a sense the U.S. is trying
to wave a symbolic carrot to say that, you know, here is the only
democratic regime in the entire region. It happens to be
surrounded by dictatorial and autocratic regimes. It’s the only
regime that allows public protest and criticism of its own policies and
government, allows critics to run for public office and serve as
politicians, and allows a free and open press, again with criticism of
its own government and policies.
And you know, the authors suggest
the comparison between Israeli versus support to Palestinian -- to the
Palestinian authorities, well, it’s well documented that Arafat had
doled out foreign support money to himself and his cronies. And
now the Palestinians have an elected -- have elected avowed terrorist
group to run its country.
MS. REHM: All right, sir, I
do want to leave enough time for Professors Walt, Mearsheimer, and
perhaps Dennis Ross to respond. Professor Walt?
MR. WALT: Well, both
Professor Spiegel at UCLA and the latest caller have alluded to sort of
Israel’s democratic character and there are many features of Israeli
society that are in fact quite admirable. The fact that they have
a much more open debate about policy in the region than we do here in
the United States is something that in some ways I envy.
But I think they overstate the
case. It is also true that the Israeli government has for many
years now been accused by its own -- that is to say by Israeli human
rights organizations and by international human rights organizations of
widespread abuses. The Arab population within Israel is sort of
in a second-class status, and of course, they deny democratic freedoms
to their Palestinians subjects. These are all things that
Americans should be more aware of and they undermine the moral case for
unconditional American support.
MS. REHM: Stephen Walt,
John Mearsheimer, their article, “The Israel Lobby” was published in
the London Review of Books on March 23rd of this year. And then
Dennis Ross published a response in Foreign Policy magazine this month
and you can read all of their comments if you go to those
publications. Thank you all so much for joining me.
MR. WALT: Thank you.
MR. ROSS: Thank you.
MR. MEARSHEIMER: Thank you,
Diane.
MS. REHM: And thanks for
listening. I am Diane Rehm.
SPEAKER: The Diane Rehm
Show is produced by Sandra Pinkard, Anne Adams, Nancy Robertson,
Jonathan Smith, and Tanya Weinberg. The engineer is Toby
Schreiner. Dorie Anisman answers the phones.
Visit drshow.org for audio
archives, cassette and CD sales, transcripts from Soft Scribe, and
Podcasts of the Friday News Roundup. Call (202) 885-1200 for more
information. Our e-mail address is drshow@wamu.org.
This program comes to you from
American University in Washington. This is NPR, National Public
Radio.