The Israel Lobby – Mearsheimer and Walt Weigh In
I’ve yet to read Mearsheimer and Walt’s book, The Israel Lobby, but I have been following the controversy surrounding its publication. Cries of anti-Semitism have, I’m afraid, been the major way that critics have attempted to discredit the work. Jeffrey Goldberg, in a 7000-word-plus article for The New Republic, provides a typical example. He argues that the book “represents the most sustained attack, the most mainstream attack, against the political enfranchisement of American Jews since the era of Father Coughlin.” Goldberg then goes on to note that the authors are “alleging the existence of an open Jewish plot to control American foreign policy.”
Similar examples abound. Jeff Robbins, in the WSJ, alleges that the book is full of “Anti-Jewish bias.” Alan Dershowitz has suggested that it’s “a bigoted attack.” Tim Rutten, in the LA Times, argues that the work was “inspired by the Nuremburg Laws.” I could go on, but you get the point.
I’m not going to spend time analyzing these clearly-baseless assertions. The shrill call of anti-Semitism has become a familiar, convenient refrain for responding to anyone who might criticize Israel or its Washington lobby. But even amongst less reactionary commentators, such as CFR President Leslie Gelb, responses to the book have been way off-base. Criticizing this notion of a powerful Israeli lobby, Gelb notes the following:
…the record clearly shows that when Israel crosses certain important lines, as when it expanded Jewish settlements into Palestinian areas like the West Bank and Gaza, Washington usually expresses its displeasure in public and, even more so, in private. Mearsheimer and Walt just don’t mention that.
Indeed, they don’t, but for obvious reasons; expressing displeasure for settlement policies doesn’t matter much at all. What matters is whether the United States decides to turn those words into actions and use its substantial leverage to force Israel to make policy changes. And the fact is, although it’s clearly in our best interests to do so, American presidents have been painfully lacking in their willingness to put any real pressure on Israel. All of which, I’d suggest, hints at the formidable influence of the Israel lobby.
Last night, I watched an interesting hour-long interview with both of the authors (I’ll post it below) in which Walt gave a very compelling explanation of the lobby’s influence in Washington. He started off by noting that during the Cold War, the US maintained connections to Israel for strategic and moral reasons. Strategically speaking, Israel was considered a bulwark and a useful ally against Soviet expansion. Walt also suggested that the US felt compelled to support the Jewish homeland on moral grounds, as a response to the horrors of WWII and preceding decades of anti-Semitism.
Over time, however, both of these justifications for supporting Israel have gradually eroded. Rather than being a strategic asset, Israel has turned into something of a liability. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Israel has become much less of an important partner; in fact, its continued rivalry with its Arab neighbors has made close association with it increasingly problematic. The moral justification has also diminished. With Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, aiding Israel can no longer be easily justified on moral grounds.
Interestingly, despite the diminishing moral and strategic arguments for giving so much support to Israel, foreign aid has actually increased in the past few decades. In Walt’s own words: “Although the moral case for giving Israel unconditional support has gone down, and the strategic case for giving Israel unconditional support has gone down…American support for Israel continues to go up.” Pretty good evidence, I’d say, that AIPAC has gotten better and better at pulling the strings in Washington.
For those interested in the full interview, here it is:
26 Responses to “The Israel Lobby – Mearsheimer and Walt Weigh In”
I don’t WANT to read the pack of lies that M&W have produced. Their anti-Semitism is simply not debatable and they discredit both themselves and their universities.
It seems you can’t say anything about Israel with out it being labeled as anti-semitism. Israel, is COUNTRY. Jews are a PEOPLE. Is there some unspoken rule you can’t criticize the Israeli government ? Does that make Israel a Religious state? A Theocracy? Is there and can there be separation? Most of the Israelis I’ve met weren’t that religious ( intense to the point of rudeness sometimes imho )- it seems more the case with those “resettling” from outside Israel. Not saying they can’t do what they want with their religion ( so long as it harms none) but they defend all their actions with a Mugen David
Everything is debateable Holly. If one takes the time to actually inform themselves. If you want to discount their book without having read it that’s fine.
But to level charges of anti-semitism without offering any evidence to support your charges is unfair and reflects poorly on you, not the two authors.
Shame on you Jeb for taking an honest view on Israel. All the vitriol on M&W, what about the USS Liberty story from a couple of days ago.Even Haaretz did a piece on the USS Liberty.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909552.html
To believe that the relationship between the two countries is always without problems is naive. While we are allies, their is an occasional bump like Shultz and Bush 41, spying and other niceties amongst friends.
I’d add that the detractors of the book are quick to infer antisemitism in the piece, but refuse to provide examples to support their claims.
Aaron Friedberg’s comments on the book are guilty of this. If you’ve got a “slam dunk” case to make that the two are anti-Israel them make the case. Don’t toss out straw men arguments as Friedberg did by attributing to the authors points they never made.
Israel is politically incorrect, so it’s an attractive target.
This is a stretch, to say the least. The Green Line is not sacrosanct. People are dishonest if they say the Green Line “is” or “must be” (always) the boundary of Israel.
http://www.TrueWorldHistory.info
The Israel Lobby seems like an extrtemely poor name for Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. The title implies that the lobby in question works on behalf of the whole of Israel rather a minority of people in Israel.
The framing of this entire debate is incredibly silly. The people of Israel are as heterogeneous as the people of other countries. They have a multiparty system. They don’t necessarily agree with lobbies that lobby the American government (supposedly) on their behalf.
One should be able to criticize lobbies such as AIPAC without being labeled as “anti-Semitic.” But people criticizing these lobbies would be better off not using misleading labels such as “The Israel Lobby.”
I don’t think the green line’s sacrosanct’ness was implied by that statement. But you can hardly argue that the Palestinians are not under military occupation. They don’t have rights the of Israeli citizens, they don’t have their own country, and they under the boot of the IDF. Seems like occupation to me.
Maybe so, but would you extend that same level of political correctness to the pharmaceutical lobbby, or the gun lobby, or the oil lobby? Certainly not all people who own guns, make medicine and sell oil give money the same lobbying firms.
Using the term “Israeli Lobby” just lets us have a discussion without being overly verbose.
Critics of Israeli occupation of the Territories (in fact, some of which have been annexed, though in turn some may be partitioned by the Olmert government), almost universally act on the presumption that the Green Line is the one and only definitive boundary of Israel, which is not true.
In the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), that’s still true.
Hahaha… how is it not true in Gaza?
Israel evacuated (departed) Gaza.
Having to go back in now and then to stop attacks against it now constitutes the same kind of situation as in Lebanon.
So the blockade and constant military incursions aren’t enough to consider it an occupation? How about the word siege? And I think we can agree that Gaza being under siege isn’t any better than it being under occupation.
“Siege,” “cordon,” or “blockade” all would be suitable, although it is not aggressive, but defensive in this case.
That’s what they always say…
Here’s a question I’ve never heard explained.
Both Jews and Arabs are descendants of Abraham.
If Israel is the land granted to the descendants of Abrraham, why do descendants of only one of his son (Isaac) qualify for the inheritance, while the descendants of the other son (Ishmael) don’t?
This seems important to me, as so many of the arguments seem to depend on the religious beliefs of both Jews and Arabs?
Exactly
You see, this is the problem here. Who is going to pressure the palestinians to make changes? Who’s going to force them to end terrorism, incitement, accept Israel as a sovereign Jewish state? It is not Israel that needs to be forced to make changes, it is the entire arab muslim world which needs to change, which refuses to recognize Israel and live in peace with it, they are the problem. But this is something the left adamantly refuses to see.
Once again I emphasize, it is the arab-muslim countries which are problematic, our close association with our so-called arab “allies” is problematic. We should support Israel for the same reason we are allied with Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan and other free, democratic countries. The fact that one would believe Israel should alone, among all of the countries of the free world cease being an American ally makes that individual suspect. The belief that America should end its alliance with Israel because our support of Israel angers the Arabs is cowardly and immoral, ignorant and simplistic. There is a plethora of reasons Islamic terrorists target the west, which they have often stated. If you think that throwing Israel to the wolves will make us safer from terrorism, you haven’t learned from anything from history. Selling out Czechoslavakia to hitler did not make Britain and France safer, it led to WW2. You are, like most of the left, completely and utterly daft and clueless.
I don’t want to get into the history of the region, however those are not and have never been “palestinian” territories. There was never a sovereign entity known as palestine, it had been a British territory and part of the Ottoman empire before that. The territories in question which Israel is always falsely accused of “occupying” belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively prior to the six day war. And they came to acquire those territories through starting the war of 1948 to destroy israel at birth. They also used those territories to perpetrate aggression against Israel for 19 years and finally initiated another war of annihilation in 1967 which they lost. The point is that the territories never belonged to the palestinians. The politically incorrect truth is that Israel does not occupy this territory.
Oh and I forgot to discuss the formidable saudi lobby who’s influence on our government as the result of its financial clout makes the Israel lobby pale in comparison. When can we expect W+M to write that book? It’s ironic that those who bemoan the Israel lobby are themselves part of the vast saudi and arab lobby.
In fact, the Israelis are treated often as the Czechs were, pressured to continue their nearly one-way record of concessions, and derided as a pesky little country (or worse) for being troublesome if it is reluctant to make more concessions. The USA and the West have always valued oil more than Israel and have frequently sold out Israel — just like the Munich conference with those troublesome Czechs, only tamer and in slower motion. (an example today: the Road Map) Forcing the peaceful victim to concede to and appease its evil enemies continues today — accompanied by a perversion of nationalism and self-determination (normally otherwise loathed by the Left, who would prefer multi-national and global governance instead).
Here’s a related joke: “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.” This is Article 2 of the Palestinian National Charter (the charter of the PLO), itself referring to and reliant on an act of British colonialism!
That’s what they always say…
The Arabs continue to commit unprovoked criminal acts against Israel and its citizens. They should stop bombing and shooting people, and firing rockets deeper into Israel. (And don’ t you dare reverse cause and effect, and blame here.) The cordon is truly defensive. Oh, and the Arabs in Gaza have no business being hypocritical parasites, demanding Israel continue providing them with essential services as well as jobs.
Another thrillingly informed opinion. Yey!
I have read W&M’s book and while I discern hyperbole in it, I do not sense they are anti-semetic in any real meaning of the word.
I am a Jew and many of my relatives died at the hands of the Nazis. My own grandfather escaped occupied France in late 1943 and made it to Israel in the spring of 1944. He joined the Irgun and to his dying day was torn by his activities for the Irgun. He was responsible for killing dozens of arabs as a sniper and bomb planter from June, 1944 to February,1947.
In one instance, he planted a fertilzer bomb in a donkey cart of oranges and brought it to the market in Haifa. The resulting explosion killed 14 arabs, mostly women doing their grocery shopping. In early 1947, the Irgun, Stern Gang and Haganah
were all involved in ethnic cleansing of the arabs. In short, the war of 1948 was much more than just a Jewish war of independence. The arabs considered the UN mandate to be nothing more than a continuation of the arab -Jewish war of the 25 years preceeding it. There were scores to settle on both sides. The 1967 and 1973 Wars were just a continuation of the battles from the early 1920′s. My Grandfather left Israel for America months before independence because he could no longer stand for what he had become – a killer.
As many of you know, I have been visiting Israel annually since 1966 when my sister made aliyah. I have 3 dozen relatives living in the West Bank settlements and I understand what goes on there and the motivations.
Please do NOT whitewash Israeli actions any more than you would Palestinian actions. It’s much closer to a 50-50 proposition than the outside observers at this web site would believe. The major settlements are built on the best land right over the top of the major aquifers. Don’t kid youself, the settlements are NOT for military reasons, they are for religious (Eretz Israel) reasons as well as to surround Jerusalem to prevent arab access. There were also economic reasons for the settlements in terms of water and cheap labor without the security risks.
I have seen the occupation up close and personal – it is ugly and inhumane. Most of it is not done for security reasons but to intimidate, humiliate and break the spirit of the Palestinians. I have seen Israel set up roadblocks on a road every 100 meters so that when the Palestinians get thru one they were confronted with another.
I have seen the IDF piss on a Palestinian man’s shoes at a road block and when the man turned to swing at the soldier, he stepped back and emptied his weapon into the unarmed man, almost cutting him in two. I have two nephews in the IDF and they can tell you even worse stories.
I am a strong supporter of Israel – I want to be buried there. I want Israel to be a Jewish homeland and safe haven for Jews. I strongly back the same deal for the Palestinians that Israel gave Egypt – all the land back for all the peace. Go back to approximately the 67 borders with a Jerusalem adjustment. Israel should stop being greedy. With Israel’s military and air superiority there is no existential military threat. A continuation of the occupation will erode the moral fiber of not only Israel but Jews everywhere.
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
I just read about two college teachers who say we shouldnt do as Israel sed. All you got to do is read your Bible. God said thet the Nation of Israel is his chosen people and thats that. That means that Israel has the right to exist anywhere it wants even if people get in the way like Palestinians. If they don’t go then it is ok to move them out, bulldoze their houses, take their farms and never let them in again. Starving them, and shooting them a litle is ok to if they start getting onery. God says that the Israelis can have atomic bombs and nobody else around that and if they try they get bombed, just like the Israelis did to Iraq. If they look like it again the good old USA will beat them and take over just like it did. Now God says that the nation of Israel can use any thing it can to exist so if there is some stealing of secrets by good men who want to give them to AIPAC to give to the Nation of Israel thats ok too and anybody who don’t like it just don’t like God like they shood. Now sometimes it gets tough like when the Israelis napomed the American ship Liberty and machine gunned those sailors who were trying to put out the fire and lower the life boats but God works in mysterious ways and our president Johnson said just leave them alone and sent the Navy planes back that were going to fight the Nation of Israel and they did and were told not to talk about it. You just can’t fight God or Gods people. Our president and most of our congressmen know that since they vote to give Israel more money, planes and bombs every year. Now Israel just bombed the Palestianians again and moved into Lebonan again. The Nation of Israel will need more Americans to fight to pretty soon. Its God will and so what’s the matter with that. I almost forgot to say what reverand Sol remined me of. When the great battle comes Jews have one last chance to accept Jeasus and if not they go to the worst hell of all, worse than liberals Ababs and communists.
jdledell; I’ve saved the very cogent response you kindly gave to my questions on similar matters some months ago. It continues to give perspective to issues very difficult to parse with finality.
I appreciate others’ comments here as well. It’s not
always easy to stay on topic when the issues have
‘what is truly fair? ‘what is verifiable truth?’ aspects to them.
I wish I knew more firsthand about the Syria lobby mentioned here, and also regarding the book in question, I find that as it is polemical in some respects, I wonder what alternate viewpoint book would be good to read with it. If you have any suggestions, I’d like to hear them.
Thanks,
Dr.e