The article "The Israel Lobby" and the subsequent book with the same title, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, created a political storm. Here is one example of a critical response by Alan Dershowitz. This is a link to the wikipedia page on the controversy which lists other useful links. This is the link to AIPAC. After reading both articles and reviewing the AIPAC website, see the videos of their last annual convention if you can and then comment in 4-5 poaragraphs about this issue.
38 comments:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and the commentary on Wikipedia that supports it makes for an interesting read. My first thought after reading the two pieces was that I did not find "The Israel Lobby" anti-semitic in any means, and felt that several important points were raised, as well as several with which I disagreed.
Several statements in the "Israel Lobby" resounded with my own viewpoints. First, on page 2 the authors note that the U.S. requires no explanation of how money given to Israel is used by the Israeli Government. It seems that if the U.S. is really interested in working towards peace in the Middle East, our government should be more concerned about how American funds are being spent; on actions that contribute to peace and Israeli security without trampling on the rights of Palestinians. We should not be writing a check to Israel that assists in escalating the situation.
Personally, though this would not be a politically popular move, I think the money the U.S. provides should go towards building some infrastructure for the Palestinians. These are the types actions will create peace. If the U.S. really wants peace in the Middle East we should put our money where our mouths are and start making sure our funds are actually going towards actions that will build peace, and in peace, security in the state of Israel.
A topic in the article that I agreed with to a certain extent, was the authors' assertion that "support for Israel is not the only source of anti-Americanism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult." Images of Israeli soldiers behaving inappropriately are played on Al-Jazeera, no doubt the most horrendous ones that can be found, and are without a doubt incredibly effective in provoking the anger of disenfranchised, discouraged Arabs; Palestinians or otherwise. Because of the well-known and well-publicized relationship of Israel and the United States, the channeling of frustration among Palestinians and those who sympathize with them towards the United States does not come as a huge surprise.
Whether these feelings are rational for all Arabs, even those who are not facing Israeli occupation, is subject to question, but either way; its clear that anger is directed towards Israel, and in that, its directed towards the financial and moral backer, the U.S.
I say "to a certain extent" in the beginning of my last paragraph because certainly there are other sources of anger that contribute to anti-American terror such as actions taken in the recent poorly executed war on Terror, and a radical ideology that encourages and often celebrates violent actions in response to anger. There are many items that contribute to the unfortunate anti-American sentiment in the Arab world today, but healthy discussion must be allowed on what is causing it, and if it is anything the U.S. is doing, how can policies be changed to increase our popularity and in that; increase American safety. Such discussion is shunned however, and if anyone remembers the early presidential debates, Ron Paul's assertion that U.S. actions in Iraq may have indirectly contributed to increasing the numbers of people joining terrorist groups; prompted other candidates to question his sanity.
All in all, I am glad that there is a healthy discussion on the Israel Lobby in Mearsheimer and Walt's book and though I do not agree with all points made, a number of important issues are brought up. As someone who wants a secure Israel, I feel peace is absolutely necessary in the Middle East. Since the U.S. is a major player in the Middle East conflict, the U.S. needs to make sure its actions promote peace and in my opinion, there are ways to do this that do not threaten our own security. Only if there is open discussion on these methods of reaching peace without cries of anti-Semite can a U.S. policy that promotes peace be attained.
Hamas Negotiating Position
by
Khalid Mishal
As was made clear in 1987 by Hamas spiritual leader and co-founder Sheikh Yassin, Hamas
could sign a limited time ceasefire (10-20 years) with the Zionists on the condition that Israel withdraws
from the West Bank, Gaza to the borders as defined in 1967. Further, East Jerusalem is to be our capital.
Additionally, our Palestinian people have to have the freedom to decide our own futures. And, Israel
must dismantle Zionist settlements in our Occupied territories. Finally, Palestinians must have the “right
of return” to our beloved homeland. As long as Israel ignores these non-negotiable rights, Hamas will
continue to oppose all previous agreements and reject any new negotiations that do not address our
conditions.
“ Be mindful of God, your people and your homeland. An unmarried person is not free to
behave as he wishes. The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf, and no president has the authority to
give it up. It belongs to future generations.” Allah Akbar
Since John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt do not define sources of their work and mention the counterargument, Dershowitz’s response is worth reading. I am grateful for his shrewd scrutiny to avoid overgeneralization and overemphasize, though it is undeniably true that some of Jews in the U.S. use their social status and money to affect U.S. foreign policy and Israel deprives Palestinians of basic human rights.
Neutrality of the opinion is always controversial, especially when dealing with political issues. One of the self-evident solutions for this problem is to listen to the opinions of both sides, though I think that is not enough. It is always required to stand on the side of people suffering regardless of any physical and ideological matters. At this point, Dershowitz never says about Palestinians and only focused on the credibility of "the working paper", showing his narrow-minded perspective and therefore the fundamental meaninglessness and limitation of his argument, even if his claim is absolutely correct.
He introduced the example of Saudi lobbyists to avoid overemphasize and over generalization of Jewish lobbyists in U.S. Yes, there may be many lobbyists other than Jews, but it does not mean that the Israel lobbyists have little power or should be acknowledged. In addition, he says how old and obsolete their argument is, but at least I do not always expect how fresh the information is but always expect something beneficial for us.
Both of their arguments are interesting for me, and this kind of arguments should be continued. But what we have to keep in mind is the reason of the argument: not to dispute issues in academic arena but to solve the conflict, otherwise any argument is not creative and becomes meaningless.
The piece on the Israeli Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and its influence over U.S. Foreign Policy is an extremely interesting one. It is the opinion of that authors that the Israeli Lobby, in particular the American Israel Public Affairs Committee better known as AIPAC, is the driving force for a great deal of the decisions and policies that the United States makes in the Middle East. Through the course of their paper, they raise some valid points.
The idea that the United States donates money to Israel, especially towards their military, that we can not regulate where it goes, allowing it to be used towards ends that go against what the United States agree with and probably hurts the actual peace process is asinine to say the least. Also their belief that not enough criticism of Israel is coming from mainstream America does have some truth to it, there is no way that peace can be achieved by just allowing Israel to do as she pleases. A lot of the points though that are risen are sort of off the mark and dangerous. The argument that the United States got involved in Iraq because it was what Israel wanted us to do, makes us out as a sort of brainless bodyguard.
Another argument with the Mearsheimer and Walt piece that Alan Dershowitz from Harvard Law School raises is this idea that our support of Israel is the reason for the United States having such a big terrorist problem, that, however, is not the case at all. It is our policies, most notably the lack of withdrawal from the Muslim Holy Land following the first gulf war that enraged Osama Bin Laden and others into creating al-Qaeda. Also, if it is our support of Israel that creates this sense of terrorism, why are other supporters not feeling the same level; in particular France, whom the Israeli’s got their nuclear ability from. Another perhaps larger argument that Dershowitz raises is the possibility that Mearsheimer and Walt misquoted several sources in their paper, in some cases completely reversing what the actual quote was. That is an extremely dangerous prospect because that can entirely taint an otherwise good project.
While I may agree in principle with some of what Mearsheimer and Walt say, I can not say that I concur with their paper. The ideas that they raise are, I believe, are dripping with sensationalism. When Mearsheimer and Walt say that “The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress…” is a perfect example. It is my opinion that what these authors are doing is no different than those of the “Loose Change” video that was circulating around in the years following the 9/11 terror attacks accusing the U.S. government of creating the terror attacks. And while I honestly believe that the writers were not trying to be anti-Semitic, it is a dangerous thing to raise the possibility that there are some Americans who are Jewish first and American only after that.
Walt and Mearsheimer sharply criticize American Middle East policy and claim that the main reason for that disastrous policy has been the U.S. uncritical support of Israel and Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories. They further claim that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was motivated not as a response to the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as the administration claims, nor by the desire to gain control of the oil resources in the Middle East, as its critics have maintained, but by the hope that the invasion would make Israel more secure. They accuse the Israel lobby, specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), of exerting inappropriate influence in the halls of government so that the U.S. virtually ignores its own interests in many cases in order to promote Israeli interests.
In his response, Alan Dershowitz insists that the paper represents a “conspiratorial view of history” in which Jews are able to manipulate governments to the Jews’ advantage. He sees bias in Mearsheimer and Walt’s contention that “the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime,” particularly as they fail to mention the partition plans that were rejected by Arabs and the high casualty rates suffered by the Israeli population during the 1948 war as well as the Yom Kippur war of 1973, which he sees as at least equivalent “moral crimes.”
Both papers make some good points, but each one fails to fully take into consideration the influence of other powerful lobbies and special interest groups in the U.S. whose views mesh with those of Israel, for better or worse.
One of these lobbies is the arms industry, which benefits from military aid to Israel. As Mitchell Plitnik points out in his article, “Demystifying American Middle East Policy,” Israel spends 75% of the aid it receives from the U.S., a total of about $2.5-3 billion annually, with American arms dealers. This is almost double what any other country gets in military assistance and amounts to a taxpayer- financed windfall for the U.S. arms industry. It is certainly in the industry’s interest to help fund the Israeli arms industry not only for this reason but also because of the many partnerships between Israeli and American arms and hi- tech manufacturers.
An interest group exerting considerable influence, particularly in this administration, is the Christian Zionists. Led by Pastor James Hagee, who is a friend of Senator Joseph Lieberman and someone who has endorsed John McCain’s candidacy, the Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of the state of Israel and the ingathering of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the second coming of Jesus, which they anticipate as a time when all the Jewish people will convert to Christianity (like that’s ever going to happen!).
AIPAC has existed for more than fifty years and has grown significantly in membership and influence. For most of those years, though, it went relatively unsupported by the majority of American Jews who were generally distrustful efforts to lobby Congress on behalf of Israel or the Jewish community in the United States. Consequently, there is no counter-balance to AIPAC that is now actively lobbying Congress. Those who hold different opinions on Middle East policy have not done a good job either in presenting those ideas or in pushing them. It must come as a shock to AIPAC to suddenly find so many who disagree with its positions! Still, it would be helpful if those who support a more even- handed approach were better organized at the grassroots level and were better able to raise funds, put together trips and meetings, and bring their point of view to greater prominence. But there are some hopeful signs.
A recent “Truthout” article reports that a resolution opening the door for a naval blockade on Iran was officially shelved after several of its cosponsors withdrew their support. In a statement on the legislation, AIPAC had said that, "Iran poses a growing threat to the United States and our allies as it continues rapidly advancing toward a nuclear weapons capability." Just as the bill was poised to sail through the House, another lobbying effort staged a counterattack. A widespread coalition of peace groups, religious organizations, Iranian Americans and Jewish Americans coordinated phone-ins, email campaigns and visits to Congressional offices. They stressed that, though the language of the bill may imply that it simply strengthens sanctions, it actually could only be
implemented by military means. Prominent military experts and military personnel concurred with the grassroots movement, and made their voices heard. Voices opposed to AIPAC were heard. There is reason to be hopeful.
Both articles are written from two different views about American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The article “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is about negative aspect AIPAC, while Alan Dershowitz talks about its inconsistencies.
“The Israel Lobby” does seem bias, but there are proven facts in this article. It is one of the strongest lobbyist groups and tries to push for their objectives as much as they can. There are more done for the Israelis than for the Palestinians. The United States is the primary supplier of arms to Israel, which might be the reason why Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East. There is limited media coverage against some of Israel’s policies that usually shows up only in newspapers such as The New York Times. In the presidential debates so far, it is obvious that support for Israel must be mentioned. I can understand why Mearsheimer and Walt were able to make the speculations they did in their article. They are not anti-Israel, but they want to point out some problems they have observed with AIPAC.
Alan Dershowitz’s article counters the thesis made in “The Israel Lobby.” Dershowitz wants to show the inconsistencies in the article. He shows how many quotes are taken out of context. He also points out that AIPAC does not always get there way. There are military strategies proposed by Israel that many in Congress did not approve. He also talks about the influence the Arab lobbyist have. George Bush Sr. is close friends with the Saudi royal family. He does not take a pro-Israeli side, but does not want AIPAC to take so much heat.
I came across the videos of both presidential candidates speeches at the 2008 AIPAC convention. They obviously both took the pro-Israel view. Obama even says he relate to the Zionist philosophy of identity. I found it quite amazing how he compared his life with the Jews finding their identity with Israel. McCain talked about he will always have be by Israel’s side and praise Joe Lieberman. Both candidates talked about Iran and its treat to U.S. and Israel security. Both never mentioned anything about the Palestinians. The Palestinian issue and a two-nation solution are still not brought up. They both sounded the same at the convention, be as pro-Israel as they can. Even though “The Israel Lobby” might be a lop-sided article, the presidential candidates make it seem true.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” and Dershowitz’s response are both compelling reads. Both articles contain both strong and weak arguments. Also, both exaggerate claims and evidence supporting their own views.
Mearsheimer and Waltz essentially argue that the “Lobby” – comprised mostly of American Jews – manipulates the government, the media, and academia to garner U.S. support for Israel, often at the expense of the U.S. itself. Taking that as the thesis of the paper, the author’s argument is convincing and probably mostly correct. In fact, saying that the lobby is purposefully manipulating the political system to achieve its goal is merely stating a definition. AIPAC’s website will tell you that its goal is to “help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong.” So, when Mearsheimer and Waltz provide several examples of the lobby attempting to sway policymaking in Israel’s favor, this should come as no surprise to people who are familiar with AIPAC and the role of lobbies in general.
Where Mearsheimer and Waltz go wrong is that they sensationalize their arguments. Instead of simply describing the objective goals and actions of the lobby and illustrating how those goals are incongruent with the interests of the United States, the authors bend facts, logic, and quotations to fabricate evidence of the Lobby’s ill intentions.
For example, to characterize the lobby’s agenda as putting Israel first and America second is an assumption that should not be made. Can one say that AARP’s agenda is old people first and America second? No. All that can be concluded is that AARP acts with the interests of seniors in mind. Similarly, the Lobby acts with Israel’s interests in mind. That does not logically amount to the claim that the Lobby prioritizes Israel over America. In fact, members of the Lobby probably believe (although incorrect) that the interests of the two nations are congruent and therefore they are simultaneously improving America and Israel.
Further, taking quotations out of context and only providing one side of several issues taint the scholarly worth of “The Israel Lobby.” In fact, upon being critiqued, the paper ends up looking more like propoganda than something coming from highly respected academics.
This is not to say that Dershowitz won the day. His critique is just as over the top and flawed as the paper he is critiquing. In the end, Dershowitz’s paper amounts to mostly blind criticism, with some very strong points woven in. The primary problem I have with Dershowitz’s paper is that he seems to think that because an argument appears on a radical anti-Israel website, that argument must not be worthy of consideration. Dershowitz seems to forget that as the one who is critiquing, the burden is on him to prove that an argument is false. The source of an argument alone is not a reason for its lack of credibility.
Also, Dershowitz seems unable to admit even basic fact. Again, getting back to the role of the Lobby, Dershowitz says that the authors have a “paranoid worldview” for believing that “Jews manipulate and control the media and government.” Dershowitz should visit AIPAC’s website. The organization’s goal is to manipulate and control the government and media in an attempt to benefit Israel. To point that out is not being paranoid; it is being realistic. All lobbies, by definition, try to manipulate government.
Where Dershowitz’s paper has real merit is when he points out specific issues and quotations that are misrepresented by Mearsheimer and Waltz. Also, Dershowitz correctly argues that Mearsheimer and Waltz’s positions are not always logical. For example, the mere existence of the Lobby does not mean that support for Israel is not in America’s best interest, as Mearsheimer and Waltz suggest. Thus, Dershowitz’s paper, although flawed does makes it very clear that Mearsheimer and Waltz’s work is largely propaganda
In the end neither paper is really beneficial to the peace process or U.S. policy. Every time the authors take a sentence or two to throw cheap shots at the opposition, they are losing an opportunity to talk about the issues that really matter. For progress to be made, both sides need to stick to what is relevant. Specifically, there needs to be less discussion over the intentions of the Lobby, and more discussion over what is in the best interest of the United States and Israel. Is the hatred from the Arab world toward the U.S. really a product of America’s support for Israel? That point needs to be clarified. If support for Israel really has engendered the United State’s “war on terror,” then it is a valid point that the Lobby is hurting U.S. interests. If that can be concluded, then the debate needs to be over what can be done to minimize the Lobby’s control over policymaking. Also, are the policies advocated by Israel’s government and the Israeli lobby in the United States furthering the peace process? There seems to be good reason to believe that they are not. Also, are Israel’s policies even benefiting Israel? If the answer is no, changes need to be made. Tackling these issues may result in tangible progress.
I found the articles on the Israeli Lobby and the conflicting arguments very interesting. The question raised is why the United States has this policy of total support for Israel, and the answer given by Mearsheimer and Walt is because the Lobby has so much power in American politics that in can skew foreign policy. Their article deeply criticizes the role that the Lobby (AIPAC) plays while the Alan Dershowitz paper is a harsh response to this.
Mearsheimer and Walt claim that there is no real justification for the support of Israel aside from the Lobby, using their powerful military and lack of a need for support as an example. I found some of the points they raised very valid, and I feel that the fact that Jewish people supply 60 percent of the Democratic party's overall donations is an important one. It shows their influence as a majority and although not all of them may be members of the Lobby, they are still clearly influential on policy.
I find it upsetting that the Lobby has no plans for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that with their supposed power they aren't doing anything to push for reconciliation. Instead, their stronghold over American foreign policy pushes for preventive wars against threats in the area, such as Iraq, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. Even though this article is harshly worded and biased, it gets the attention necessary to question the Lobby's influence. The situation needs to be addressed because the authors may be right about this seemingly corrupt practice, at least in part.
In contrast, Alan Dershowitz's response is completely biased in the other direction. He claims that the whole article is opinion based and false. I don't agree, although I think that he makes some valid arguments, such as the way the media (especially the New York Times) has been biased against Israel and the Lobby has not always won on everything that they've pushed for. He claims that the paper is anti-Semitic, which I also disagree with, because criticizing the perceived favoritism of policy towards Israel is not the same as criticizing the people of Israel and their culture and beliefs.
A dialogue needs to be set up to question the power of the Lobby and I feel that these three scholars have brought some very important issues to the forefront.
Throughout the attempts at a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians one of the groups involved has ignited controversy on both sides. The American groups who argue strongly for the support of Israel are known collectively as the Israel Lobby. In their book The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, they cast a very negative view on these groups, especially AIPAC. They describe how the U.S. has sent Israel hundreds of billions of dollars in military and economic aid ($500 per Israeli) and they believe there is no real need for that aid. This claim is false. U.S. aid and military equipment saved the nation during the Yom Kippur War. They do raise a few decent arguments highlighting the strength of the Israel Lobby’s influence. Unconditional support for Israel has become a prerequisite for any major national elected official. Mearsheimer and Walt also point out how the I.D.F. has been using American aid to expel Palestinians from their territories. They bring up cases of child beatings by Israeli soldiers. However, their assertion that it was the Israel Lobby that convinced the Bush Administration to invade Iraq is pure nonsense, it stemmed from American interests.
In response to The Israel Lobby, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz wrote Debunking the Newest-and Oldest-Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mersheimer-Walt “Working Paper”. He tries to indentify errors that Mersheimer and Walt made on the Lobby. One of them they claim is that the “…American media contains few criticisms of Israeli policies.” Dershowitz happily comments that the New York Times was boycotted by some Lobby members for offering some criticism of Israeli actions. He is also correct in saying that Israel was not a liability during the Gulf War because it stayed out of the conflict despite being under missile attack. Unfortunately Dershowitz does a bad job acknowledging the human rights violations by the Israelis in the occupied territories, almost suggesting the Palestinians deserved it, claiming the supported the Nazis in WWII.
Looking at the AIPAC webpage, one immediately sees extreme bias. For the daily briefing, Abbas is shown speaking at a memorial service for Yassir Arafat. They claim that Abbas says the Palestinians will “…continue Martyr’s path”. AIPAC accused Abbas of extolling the leaders of Hamas leaders and said that Israel would have great difficulty negotiating with him if he continues doing this. That assertion is greatly stretching the truth because Abbas is a moderate leader who is committed to non-violent negotiation with the Israelis. They do also mention the dangers of a Nuclear Iran. During the 2008 policy conference, it is evident that winning the support of AIPAC is essential to claiming victory in an election. Obama was praising Israel right and left and offered no criticism of the humiliating treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Overall, each of the two papers is filled with valid points and half truths about the Israeli lobby. Mersheimer and Walt are correct in that how the lobby makes a candidate’s support of Israel a necessity but make an exaggeration in saying that the Israel Lobby pressured America into invading Iraq. Dershowitz’s support of the Israel Lobby is evident when he talks about how U.S. aid saved the country during the 1973 war. Unfortunately he brushes off the details about atrocities in the occupied territories. It is easy to see that AIPAC wields massive power in presidential elections. All in all, I believe the Israel Lobby was much more necessary in the past and has accomplished its goal in cementing the U.S. Israel alliance but it now needs to step back because it is doing more harm than good right now for the peace process.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s article on Israeli Lobby and their power in U.S. Foreign Policy could be considered very controversial. The author believes that America’s political agenda has is controlled by a select few lobbyist (AIPAC).
The main issue that is preventing the Untied States from establishing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the repetitive military aide the Untied States as been providing Israel. The United States has been donating billions of dollars towards the IDF’s military. These funds have allowed the IDF to purchase tanks, multi million dollar F-18 super hornet fighter jets, and of course nuclear arms. These are the very arms that the IDF has been using to shell Palestinian towns. This roots to the idea that the United States has absolutely zero say in Israel’s military which seems dangerous and unfair especially since the United states is funding their military. In a sense, the United State’s military aide to the IDF is simply hurting their own agenda of establishing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems that in order for this to change the American people must be fully informed about Israel’s military agenda which conflicts with America’s goals. After all if it was not for the American people and their tax money which is supply Israel with their arms, then Israeli would be sitting ducks for neighboring Arab nations. Therefore, it would only be fair for the IDF to allow the Untied States to dictate the peace process since the Israel will not allow the United states to control their military.
Alan Dershowitz points out that in Mearsheimer the of the primary reasons why the United States has been under going one of the largest terrorist issues in the world is because their strong support for Israel. This is true to certain extent, but you have to take into consideration that the United States has lost its popularity in the Arab and Muslim world by deploying American ground troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. This most likely is one of the major reasons why America has such a large terrorist issue.
In addition, throughout the paper it is mentioned that Mearsheimer misquoted multiple sources within their article which forced their paper to lose all credibility. In conclusion I feel that Mearsheimer and Walt made some valid points throughout their paper such as the idea of lobbyist’s control on the American economy forces congress to comply to their political needs, but due to the fact the authors misquoted many of their sources it makes me question the credibility of their work.
The article and subsequent book written by Mersheimer and Walt has been greeted with a high degree of controversy. In these works, Mersheimer and Walt explore the incredible influence that the pro-Israeli movement has on the United States. Personally, after reading the article, I could not believe how much groups such as AIPAC have on the direction of our country. Mersheimer and Walt’s eye raising statement, "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress,” summarizes the wrongful influence which AIPAC has on our government. It made me think; shouldn’t our nation’s problems be dealt with before we offer unnecessary aid to affluent countries such as Israel?
While reading the article I came across a rather strong point which said that since WW2, the United States has provided Israel with over $140 billion which comes up to being roughly $3 billion annually. I find that we perhaps may be a bit too nice to Israel seeing as the US is giving Israel, a wealthy industrial state, money which the US has to borrow from a nation which we schism with quite often in China. Mershiemer and Walt point out the absurdity in US funding of Israel by saying,
“This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain... Israel is the only recipient of U.S. aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent." According to the authors, this makes it "virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes"
The authors claim that "Israel is the only recipient of U.S. aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent." While our deficit exponentially increases, why are we the sole “providers” for a country which can provide for them selves? I would understand if we were to pump some of our funds to disastrous regions in Africa where people are starving to death, but AIPAC’s control of our government has forced us to completely submit to the will and continued affluence of Israel. The Israeli lobby, on this point, certainly has commanded too much of their say in regards to the allocation of US funds.
The control in which AIPAC and other Israeli lobbyist groups have on the educational system in the United States is rather amazing. Mershiemer and Walt said, "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach." This is absolutely true when taking a look at Dr. Muqtedar Khan’s conflict with pro-Israeli groups. Having taught courses and written many articles in which Khan, with a clear minded approach, criticized Israeli policy and shed light on the wrongs committed by Israel, was the near victim of an Israel group. They tried to have Khan removed as a professor of Political science at the University of Delaware; however, their attempt failed. AIPAC’s strong advocacy of censorship, in regards to negativity regarding Israel, has been evident in the American educational system.
Ultimately, I believe that AIPAC’s control of our country has gone a bit out of hand. It has gotten to a point where the critiquing of Israeli policy merits anti-Semitism. Frankly, I do not believe that Mersheimer and Walt’s work is anti Semitic.
Though The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt makes some interesting points, their argument seems strained to prove their points and counter-arguments can be easily formed for many of their main ideas. Critics of this article call the authors anti-Semitic but I do not think that they had any intention of an anti-Semitic message. They were simply trying to prove that the American Israel Lobby, AIPAC, has too much influence in Washington. No where in their article do they try and make the claim that Israel should not exist or slander the Jewish people in any way; they just feel that American influence in Israeli politics is too great.
Mearsheimer and Walt argue in their article that Israel is a “strategic burden”. They assert the claim that America’s support for Israel has hurt the American cause in foreign policy. I think that this is a bit of a stretch. Yes, the Middle East countries hate Israel, but those same countries hate America independently of their relationship with Israel, not because of it. They make the argument that Israel’s help in the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have triggered Arab opposition, which is why Israel stayed on the sidelines. I am curious to ask them if they think that a unilateral invasion of Iraq by America did not trigger Arab opposition…
For the same reasons, I think the claim that, “the United States has a terrorist problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel,” is ridiculous. Terrorist see the U.S as oppressors and corrupters of their world, and not just because they are allies of Israel.
I agree with them on the fact that there shouldn’t be one all powerful Lobby in Washington. No group should always get their way in policy formation; doing so would hinder the policy making process, which should ideally be formulated with the input of all representative bodies of the parties involved. However, the fact that AIPAC is so strong and has so much influence means that it is doing its stated purpose as a lobbying organization.
I think it is interesting that they bring up the problem of being labeled “anti-Semitic” for disagreeing with pro-Israel policy. I see where they are coming from, and I am sure there are politicians and others out there who are afraid to say their true feelings for fear of being labeled as such. But to claim that one of AIPAC’s most powerful weapons is the charge of anti-Semitism is taking it too far. I don’t think that AIPAC ever saw the label of “anti-Semitic” as a weapon to ward off criticism.
I agree with a lot of what Alan Dershowitz has to say in his counter-argument. My main concurrence with him is about the fact that because Mearsheimer and Walt are recognized academics their article will be used to give academic backing to “bigots to promote their anti-Semitic agendas.” Even though they are not anti-Semitics themselves, those who are looking for reasons to hate the Jewish people and their cause will be quick to pick up this piece from two distinguished authors as proof that Jews have too much influence in Washington and are forming an un-American agenda.
After reading others thoughts on the Wikipedia page, together with my own thoughts and those of Alan Dershowitz, I believe that Mearsheimer and Walt bring up the fair point of a lobby having too strong an influence over policy in Washington, but could have gone about suggesting this fact in a different way. It may have been beneficial to them to talk more about the relative weaknesses of other lobbies in comparison, or the reasons why the Palestinian Lobby is not as powerful as the Israel Lobby.
If anyone ever wished to decode basic communication problems between Israel and the Palestinians, reading both "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and the predictable knee-jerk retort by Harvard law professor and long-time apologist for Israel, Alan Dershowitz, would display how selective perception is the mother of political myopia in this dialogue.
Prior to writing my response I was deeply touched by the films/ documentaries we watched in class. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, so my reaction to the two articles was significantly influenced by what I saw and heard in a variety of civilian, military and political testimonials, chronicling the Arab-Israel conflict.
While Dershowitz arrogantly tried to nitpick the professors and question their motives, even stooping to guilt-by-association references to the racist former KKK leader David Duke, my eyes burned with humiliating visions of Palestinians being beaten, killed and maltreated by demonstrably racist Israeli soldiers and checkpoint guards/police.
My eyes and ears continue to recapture revealing scenes of Ariel Sharon provoking East Jerusalem muslims in precalculated
incursions into muslim holy sites.
Then I tried to swallow Dershowitz's pro-forma attacks on the scholarship, facts, logic and motives of two professors attempting to stimulate conversation about this conflict.
Deershowitz is not digestible! His thinly veiled personal attacks are recycled tactics that he has notoriously displayed as a political commentator over the years.
He lists examples of his objective criticism of Israel, which are laughable, as they are minimalist in tone and efficacy, while his supporting comments are beyond credulity when one has seen and read objective material as have done in class.
Mearsheimer and Walt touch on many valid criticisms of the Israel Lobby (Americans and Israeli puppeteers)and their conclusions are in many cases affirmed by our texts.
Other postings go into specific listing of statements from both articles;however, I elected to add the terribly persuasive arguments made by our films and texts. My totality of information generates a response that places me irrevocably on the side of Mearsheimer and Walt. As long as American foreign policy toward the Middle East is made or heavily influenced by Tel Aviv instead of Washington, the heartache, conflict and killing will continue.
Dershowitz is a Jewish Zionist from America who denies he is biased, but attacks the motives of two professors who dare raise questions about the Israel Lobby...how very predictable and how very tragic for Middle East peace prospects for this elaborately constructed denial of complicity by Dershowitz is at the root of the professors arguments.
The Lobby exists. It functions to obfuscate the truth. It is succeeding and that is why the first article was published.
The Israel lobby is made up of many Jewish-Americans who feel a deep connection to the Zionist movement. The people who make up the lobby have strengthened U.S. interests in Israel. The United States already has such a strong interest in Israel where I think the extra support for a more pro-Israeli foreign policy is not necessary. The United States already supports Israel in many ways.
The Israelis would not be in a position of great power in the Arab-Israeli conflict if it were not for the strong support of the United States. I feel that Mearshiner and Walt express this view. The United States not only gives Israel about three billion dollars for weapons but it also blocks Arab states to put Israel’s up and coming weapons systems on the IAEA agenda. This alliance can make Israel a force not to be reckoned with. This alliance is only strengthened by anti-terrorist sentiments that only grew stronger after the events of 9/11.
It is interesting, and somewhat contradictory that the United States and Israel’s alliance is so strong. This is because the United States is considered a “melting pot” of different ethnicities and nationalities where everyone is accepted, meanwhile, Israel is know as a Jewish nation. Yet Israel receives much support from the U.S. and would not be in the same position of power in peace negotiation without U.S. backing.
AIPAC and other Jewish Americans work to ensure the safety and legitimacy of Israel. Of course all this support for Israel is beneficial. But it is also not fair to other democracies throughout the world who do not receive this level of support. Moreover, there is universal knowledge of this support which increase the safety of Israel, since it is a state in close proximity to Arab states who have negative feelings towards Israel.
The article written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and the response offered by Alan Dershowitz, offer valid opinions regarding the AIPAC-U.S. relationship. While I welcome the criticism of America's policy's with regards to Israel, the article titled, "The Israel Lobby" appears to be off track with it's suggestive nature.
I agree with Mearsheimer and Walt on the fact that Israel might not be as much of a strategic asset as we have been lead to believe. Now more then ever, the United States has a serious crisis in their relationship with Arabs all over the world. The unconditional financial and emotional support given from the U.S. to Israel is a major setback in the effort to reform American-Arab relations. It is worth noting that the rogue states in the Middle East are a very serious threat to Israel and should be taken seriously. Although they are not a direct threat to the U.S. Israeli lobbyists make it appear as though the threat is right at the doorstep of the United States.
Another issue brought up in the article was The United States unrelenting support for Israel and coinciding "war on terror." I agree that there is no doubt that the Arab world feels threatened by the West and its support for Israel. It is a major cause of anti-American propaganda, which in turn makes it extremely difficult to successfully carry out a war on terror. When Muslims turn on the TV or any other media outlet, they are witnesses to death and destruction in the Middle East at the hands of Americans. Simultaneously, they watch how the U.S. funds Israel's continual occupation of Palestine. Both of them combined depicts a foreign policy that appears very anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. With over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, it is not in the best interest for the U.S. to further alienate Muslims living under oppression.
The article is at times dangerously close to being anti-semitic in it's depiction of Jewish greed and control over the U.S. government. There is nothing wrong with using Paul Wolfowitz as an example of an American official who is pro-Israel. However, the fact that Wolfowitz is openly Jewish allows for a cynical interpretation. One that I'm sure the authors intended to provoke.
The authors go on to say that it is wrong to blacklist and accuse others of being anti-semitic. It is not the questioning of American foreign policy that is anti-semitic. It is the accusation that there is some all powerful time and money consuming scheme to further the interests of Jews and Israeli's at the expense of Arabs and Muslims. It seems as though the United States has backed itself into a corner when it comes to Arab relations, however to imply that it was Jewish lobbyists who forced the U.S. into the situation shows a serious lack of accountability.
Whether we like it or not, lobbying is part of the political process. Groups such as AIPAC simply do their jobs extremely well. The same way tobacco companies are going to lobby in favor of tobacco laws, Jewish lobbying groups are going to lobby in favor of Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt make a distinction between the goals of Washington and the goals of the lobbyists. If the lobbyist persuade congress to act in certain situations, then that is part of the political process, in which Washington deserves just as much of the blame as AIPAC. There is always going to be the need to place blame and accountability in one particular area that is not your own.
Israel as a nation has been a strong ally to the United States. They have proved that they share many of the same ideals that we value here including legitimate democracy and the denouncement of terrorism style warfare. They deserve to live in a secure state and be recognized by the states around them as having the right to exist peacefully there.
However, under this administration, certain demands and challenges are going to be made towards Israel. We respect and value Israeli Lobbyist groups here in the United States such as AIPAC, but we more so understand that there are two sides to this story. Israel is going to be required to end the construction of settlements beyond their borders and to cease construction of a dividing wall.
We understand that this may not be what AIPAC wants to hear, but we do not base our decisions on one Lobbyist group. We are confident that Jews in the United States have their own individual opinions separate from the narrow views of Pro-Israeli lobbyist. The Obama administration believes he will maintain Jewish support because they should recognize that he is working for the greater peace and not simply the demands of a few.
These two assigned articles shed light on the Arab-Israeli conflict in a new way. They showed the wide range of opinions and representations of the conflict, and, I think, illustrated the need for a more open discussion of the situation. People can use facts to manipulate a situation, and both articles contain exaggeration and misrepresentation on their way to making their cases. However, I think that dialogue is key in a democracy. The most troubling assertion against the Israeli Lobby is that its very existence is tamping down any kind of healthy debate and conversation about Israel as our ally. I agree with Mearsheimer and Walt’s stance on that issue, and I think that is what makes the Israel Lobby so dangerous. No questions are being asked and so voters are not critically assessing what interests our unwavering alliance with Israel is serving.
The United States has a longstanding alliance with Israel, but that alliance deserves to be criticized if our support decreases the overall security of our nation and of Americans abroad. That kind of unchecked support, both financially and rhetorically, is simply irresponsible. U.S. policies regarding Israel contribute to the creation of realities for people that are tangible and that make terrorist’s recruitment process a little bit easier. Our hypocrisy in professing the desire to spread democracy as far as we can and then supporting a government that denies human rights and civil liberties to millions of Palestinians only contributes to the contempt that provides terrorist organizations with base of support, or at least a large group of people who understand their frustration.
In regards to the Israeli Lobby in the United States, the powerful people who are pushing forward the Lobby’s agenda are not dealing with the day to day effects of their actions. They have been able to push forward an Israeli agenda without consequence, without seeing what those policies mean for thousands of Palestinians. American lives and American security should be paramount. But our leaders have been clouded and are pushing forward an agenda that is not our own.
I generally found myself on the side of Mearsheimer and Walt, but I was glad to have read the opposition response. Both include good points, though when I combine these articles with our other class material, I find Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument more convincing because I have been able to see what Israeli policy means for the Palestinians. And though I don’t think that the Israeli Lobby is solely responsible for the U.S. agenda in Israel, I think that it is important to consider all possibilities about what may be contributing to our leaders unwavering support of any country.
This controversy regarding the influential power of the Israeli Lobby in the United States brings many issues that have seemed to stay dormant in recent history to the table for discussion. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper describing the role of the Israeli Lobby on American foreign policy seems to narrow the focus solely on the Lobby's efforts to control American policy makers. There seems to be little effort to describe the procedures of the interest group as being similar to all of the other interest groups that exact their influence on American policy makers. Mearsheimer and Walt deem the Israel Lobby as a "de facto agent for a foreign government", which works to label to the interest group of having non-American focused interests. These claims forego the usual academic approach when discussing an issue. Mearsheimer and Walt only present one side of the argument and it tends to encompass personal critiques on the methods of the Israeli Lobby instead of describing the actual process in which the Lobby attains policy agendas, which would look extremely similar to other interest groups procedures such as the AARP.
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard professor, read the working paper published by Mearsheimer and Walt and was seemingly outraged. As a member of the academic world he was disappointed in the caliber of research that was employed to gather the supporting evidence in the paper. Dershowitz claims that there were no new forms of information gathering, rather Mearsheimer and Walt recycled existing information to fit their point. Dershowitz insists on dissecting the Mearsheimer and Walt paper in order to show how certain quotes and bits of information were either used incorrectly or out of context.
Although I respect Mearsheimer and Walt's choice to provide academic literature towards the manipulation of the Israeli Lobby on American foreign policy issues, I feel that Dershowitz better captures the larger picture of how the U.S. Congress works symbiotically with interest groups. The inner workings of Congress and the interest groups is needed to better understand how and why policy decisions are influenced by citizens of America. However Dershowitz continues on to deny the goals and possible manipulations the Israeli Lobby may very well employ. It seems to me that an educated academic personality, especially one well versed in American policy making should be able to recognize the influential power large interest groups have over the policy makers.
Dershowitz along with any other educated mind needs to truly think about what matters to American policy makers (Congressman, Senators, Executive office members). In our country an elected official needs to represent their constituents fully. However in order to represent their constituents they need to be continually elected by those very same constituents. This calls for continual campaigning throughout the existing term in order to hold the office for another term. In order to get elected in this country a politician is in great need of a constant flow of money to be used in the campaign. Therefore if the Israeli Lobby is comprised by extremely affluent individuals who use the ability to make choice donations to either the policy maker who sides with their interests or that policy makers opponent, then the extreme influence of the Israeli Lobby becomes easily salient. To make statements, as Dershowitz has, to counter the motives expressed by Mearsheimer and Walt of the Israeli Lobby is to say that I see the world in black and white rather than its true colors.
Mearsheimer and Walt's paper describing the influence of the Israeli Lobby needs a counter argument such as the one presented by Dershowitz. Discussing issues helps everyone stay truthful and held accountable to subjective statements rather than presenting factual arguments. Opinions and realizations are necessary but need to be held as opinions rather than facts that work to persuade an audience to side with you rather than with reality.
The articles ‘The Israel Lobby’ and ‘Debunking the Newest –and Oldest- Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper”’ both address a controversial and important issue in regards to Middle East peace discussions: the existence and role of a so-called ‘Israel Lobby’ that’s sole purpose is to ensure the protection, support, and positive image of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer accuse this Lobby of being supported by American Jews, Israeli-supportive ‘neo-cons’, and extremely influential Jewish lobbying groups. They support their conclusion with several arguments intending to show America’s sometimes perplexing steadfast support of Israel- support that sometimes appears to be contradictory to America’s own benefit.
In their article, ‘The Israel Lobby’, Mearsheimer and Walt make several statements that, if taken as true, would be startling to most Americans. These allegations accuse the Israel Lobby of having large amounts of control over the American Congress and Executive Branch, public opinion, and even international courses of action. They raise very valid points that I have asked myself: why is there no serious debate over Israel’s position and treatment towards the Palestinians in either the Congress or public sphere? Why are the human rights violations seen against occupied Palestinians not shown in the American media?
The influence and power of lobbies in America is well documented and known. Politicians have had their political careers made or broken for one statement in opposition to or in favor of a cause. Among the most important passages in ‘The Israel Lobby’ are the ones that dictate the influence of the Lobby on the American government. Intriguing is the passage that includes a series of events involving President George W. Bush. After Bush urged Israeli PM Sharon to show restraint in occupied territories, Bush and the Congress was inundated by the ‘lobby’ and within months had completely switched his position. One major flaw of Dershowitz’s response is that he doesn’t address several of Mearsheimer-Walt’s allegations of AIPAC influence in elections and politics -partly because it is nearly impossible to disprove- AIPAC’s public statements and letter-smearing campaigns against political candidates perceived as ‘anti-Israeli’ are well documented.
Dershowitz discredits his own paper by attacking the validity of ‘The Israeli Lobby’ in a personal matter. He equates Mersheimer and Walt’s piece to the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and infers that it is anti-Semitic. He alleges that many right-wing hate groups spew similar allegations and accusations. While this is partially true, it does not discredit the large majority of the paper. Dershowitz fails to address many of the more important issues raised in the piece: the regulation of thought (Daniel Pipes and his CampusWatch initiative?), the issue of ‘terrorism’ in Palestine as a political weapon, and direct quotations from US senators alleging the Israel Lobby as being a controlling and manipulative force in Washington politics.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s, article entitled “The Israel Lobby” was intriguing and as it turns out quite controversial as I continued with the reading of Alan Dershowitz’s critical response as well as many other critiques of the article on Wikipedia. I did not stop there; I also watched a debate that the London Book Review held with John Mearsheimer explaining his article. Why is it that just because people may question or discuss Israeli policy that anti Semitism is brought up. I would like to bring up a few points in the Mearsheimer and Walt’s article as well as Dershowitz’s. Who comprises of the Israeli Lobby? What do they have to do with education and Foreign Policy? Is Israel, a dominating force in manipulating American government to keep Arab Nations in check? According to Dershowitz, some of the content in this article is poor scholarly research and quotes are taken out of context and misinterpreted. This is the issue according to Alan Dershowitz who shred “The Israel Lobby” saying it was comparable to hate speech such as those on the far left and of old Nazi propaganda rhetoric. These are very heavy statements clearly labeling the authors or at the very least the article as anti Semitic. The controversy was steeped with many negative reviews and some praise for writing on a taboo subject that even if quotes were taken out of context and research was not on the top scholarly level, it made people talk and it made people think.
It disturbed me to read about the impact that the Israeli Lobby has on American University’s and what they were trying to get passed through Congress, “to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say”.(Mearsheimer) Ok, so we now must watch what we say or we may be labeled an anti Semite? The Lobby apparently bullying people into succumbing to agree with and be pro Israel. According to Dershowitz’s strong response and many others there may be some truth to that fact in regards to bullying. In response to college campuses, being watched simply is not true according to Dershowitz and that Mearsheimer received many of their quotes from hard leftists pointing out the slant toward this issue. However, according to Joseph Massad professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Colombia University writes, “ Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answered with a resounding yes”.
Before going into other matters, who is the Israeli Lobby? According to Mearsheimer and Walt, they are comprised of AIPAC, and other organizations working in Israel’s best interest not all made up of Jews but others as well such as Christian evangelists. “A loose group of people makes up ‘The Lobby’”. Others that analyze this article ask for more specifics, who is this so-called loose organization why not just say AIPAC? The article gives the impression that this loose group of people runs foreign policy in favor of Israel and implies this favoritism even before American interest. According to Mearshiemer and Walt “Since 1982 US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all other Security Council members. As far as foreign policy as President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq the Forward reported Americas most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense”. The article also stated “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on Jewish influence, rather it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo conservatives within it”. Dershowitz response to this is the “Lobby have little in common with each other except for democracy over tyranny when stating that the article is wrong on stating the “Lobby conspires to manipulate U.S governments”.
Clearly, the response written by Dershowitz and others think based on Mearsheimer and Walt’s scholarly work alone, that this paper is filled with, “thinly veiled charges of Jewish control of American Thought” and compares these charges to “Pat Buchanan’s invocation of the US government and refers to congress as “Israeli occupied territory.” Why does Dershowitz become so upset and strike down their words shrewdly with comparisons such as these? This brings me back to an earlier point, is the Lobby bullying people to not think on issues involving Israel in a negative light?
I would like to discuss the critics, there are so many people opposing that article and credibility that I was feeling swayed by these opinions with the popular consensus of “poor scholarship”. I was asking questions like, why did these prominent professors not do thorough research? Why were quotes taken out of context and why were facts omitted from the paper? I mean what could I, a lowly student possibly say to counterbalance scholars and think-tanks. However, all the while reading Mearsheimers and Walt’s article I was taking it for truth because I had yet to read the responses and I was really affected by it, the lobby runs American foreign policy and interests and the war in Iraq was not because of oil but was Israel’s doing to keep Arab Nations in check. This was new to me as I delved into the article. According to Dershowitz its all been said before for those that are far left, but then again there seems to be some bashing of these two guys and utter dismissal, that must mean they are conspiracy theorists, leftists and anti Semites. However, wait are they if I was not confused before I sure was after all of the readings. There are so many opinions on what to believe. Okay, so quotes were misrepresented and facts were omitted, well it got me thinking and I am one that can become intrigued with conspiracy theories: is Israel pulling the strings of American Foreign Policy? No, I cannot believe that, can I after all the famous scholars rebuke it. Therefore, what to do and how to think came to my mind. Okay so this is what I think; as I stated earlier this paper got people talking, many people talking, scholars, professors and groups. The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt are doing a follow up book rebuttal is something to be seen.
There was a debate the London Book Review did with John Mearsheimer and others to discuss certain controversial points on the article. These are some of the excerpts from that debate.
Anne Marie Slaughter of the London Book Review at a debate to discuss the article poses the first question to Mearsheimer.
“Do you think your article was anti Semitic”? He states, “This is not the case that he writes about a loosely based group of individuals working on behalf of the Israeli interests”.
When Anne Marie Slaughter asks the other side the same question, Martin Indyk states, “If Mearsheimer would have mentioned the lobby as APAIC then that would be the case and he would not think the article is anti Semitic but the fact that he mentions a loosely based group running things he feels the paper is anti Semitic.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, answers, “Forget about anti Semitism but when one has a single cause explanation to Jews in particular I would call that deficient scholarship.One would lend yourself to deficient scholarship not anti Semitism but you lend yourself to such accusations lay the entire blame and distortion of American foreign policy. This does not seem to be about Israel lobby but that it is a cover for the Jews with element of a scapegoat. The American politician is depicted here as innocent.
Mearshiemer quotes from Dershowitz book 1991 chutzpah “My generation of Jews became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying fundraising effort in the history of democracy a truly great job as far as we allowed ourselves and were allowed to go”.
Mearsheimer continues to state that in by no means were his intentions to imply that he did not agree with an Israeli lobby or what there purpose was, he was just bringing light to the situation.
I found article John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt quite interesting on several grounds, this article brought out all of factual vital points to consider and take into an account about the Israeli Lobby threat, today Israel sixty anniversary of existence it has received more US tax money than any other nation the world. It has used US military aid to continue and expand its illegal confiscation of land in the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, Lebanon and other parts in Palestine justifying it as an important element for the security of Israel. Even when they are politically dangerous, US officials would always insert an affirmation of the Israeli right to self-defense.
Furthermore, I thought it was fascinating talking about the Israeli lobby this sincerity because 10 to 20 years before we were not allowed to talk about Israel lobby nor criticizing the decision-making on where and why foreign aid was being positioned. Even today talking about Israel lobby is a no no, it is so controversial and explosive, it is difficult to ask and get answers, but we still do. The larger issue however concerns where does the real US interest lies? Despite a virtual US and Israeli official mantra on this, Israeli and US interests are not identical.
In his article he argues view of history in which the Israel Lobby has made a dramatic influence a “stranglehold” on American foreign policy, public opinion and the American media. In his response to Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel lobby has manipulated the American foreign policy and locally by controlling and influencing the media, not like any other lobby has done. Such as AIPAC is an Israeli lobby who has managed to influence American foreign policy to redirect, while simultaneously convince Americans policymaker and those other country of interest, as far from what the general interest would want, all for the sake of Israel. Other things he mentions through his article, is terrorism attacks on the U.S, is directly tied to Israel alliance and going to war with Iraq and Iran, was for the interest of Israel; and that is because we as Americans are to loyal to Israel trying to guarantee their presence and their security on behalf of our risk. American Jews who support Israel financially or vitally are first putting their interest and putting America their home country second at risk for their interest. There are American people, American Jews who are scattered everywhere and are set up in university, jobs, government etc… to watch and listen and make sure that they protect the Israel lobby interest from those who are against it, in that sense it is well stabled and organized, and it is able to attack any controversy before it even become a controversy in public. So it is not so easy as Mearsheimer and Walt suggested that the U.S can just turns its back from Israel and jut stop funding due to the fact that there is such a Strong Israeli Lobby than any other lobbies in the U.S. and would make sure that who ever done such a foolish thing needed to be taken care of. As much as the U.S has done to Israel, the Israeli government has not been cooperating nor being loyal to the U.S and neglecting the pledges, for example stopping settlements, attacking Palestinians, building wall, check point, invading Lebanon land, etc…
However, Reading Professor Alan Dershowitz article, the first thing he mentioned which I thought it was a imperative information about John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper that contained three types of vital errors, which really weakened their spectacular article, quotations are taking out of context, important facts are misstated and misplaced; It back more of a propaganda rather than an academic article. Nonetheless, we can not take that for grant because we have read so many so manyyyyy articles and reviews and heard from other politicians, writers and on Tv about the Israeli lobby and their manipulation over the American government. And Alan Dershowtiz work can not be taken literally word for word and say that Walt and Mearsheimer work is not sufficient. By the way Alan Dershowtiz is one of the Israeli Lobby defenders who goes on attacking not just Walt and Mearsheimer but others as well and who he makes sure that they are punished for what they said by attacking them on the Newspapers and Tv shows to Deter others who might think of doing that in the future!!!
Israel is using the same excuse to keep getting funded Military, and finically from the U.S to guarantee their security and their existence. So how much does it cost to defend and protect Israel? According to the article, first that’s kind of absurd to have that much of an amount money funded to a small country against an unarmed population that is under a powerful control of an occupying army. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, approximately one-fifth of the foreign aid budget. Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income, around $500 for each Israeli more than the Arab per capita and equal to South Korea and Spain. The United States was also obligated to give Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel. These foreign-aid costs are well known to academics. But I wonder if were every American are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known would make a difference if we had the choice to actually say no to the funding if it was publicized. U.S. aid to Israel was closely connected to the Cold War because Israel was a strategic asset to the U.S; this raises the question, whether Israel retains strategic value today. Aid to Israel stresses the points that today the Cold War and the Soviet expansion do not exists anymore for more than a decade and that Israel no longer has value to the U.S. against the Soviet expansion.
The increasing levels of U.S. aid to Israel reflect on the consensus among American policymakers of Israel growing strategic value as an ideological partner in international relations. Many Americans would probably say democracy is one of the strategic interests. However, democracy does not really exits in Israel because citizenship based on the principle of blood kinship. There is about 1.3 Arabs in Israel by its refusal to grant the Palestinians their political rights or a state of their own.
In conclusion I would like to say that Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been able to sustain for many years a significant amount of influence over both government and public opinion. By contrast, many groups, commercial, professional and ethnic, have tried to promote their interests by playing the lobbying game. Some have succeeded in obtaining significant benefits, while many have failed to sustain their political influence because of the lack of funds, proper organization and or sufficient support. Such as the Arab-American community has not managed until recently to utilize lobbying channels to make itself heard as a voice in the policy-making process. Israel right to exist is not negotiable, however, justifying that Israel right to exists because Israel have suffered from past crimes under Adolf Hitler regime in WWII, surrounded by enemies in the Middle East, minority, standing for an ideal democracy in the Middle East countries cannot account for the current level of aid etc….. Does not mean they should have a special treatment over the Palestinians, who were their first thrown out of their homeland their ancestries and say this is Israel land. Palestinians people have been suffering now for the past 60 years, does that count, or should there be more or equivalent suffering as the Jews had for the Palestinians right to exits come to play?????????? to make sure that Jews would not suffer again and to guarantee their safety and guarantee their security was by creating a state of their own not recognizing by doing that it created worse in my opinion what the Jews went through.
"The Israel Lobby" made for a frustrating read for me. I do not consider myself ignorant to the real issues facing the Middle East and Israel alike, however after reading this article, I see the tables have turned in my eyes.
I understand wholeheartidly the concept of "never again," never never never again under any circumstances, but HOW the Jews and Israeli's and even Americans alike, are preventing that, is just straight up wrong. I understand that AIPAC is simply doing all it can to ensure that U.S. support for Israel remains strong, however the manner in which they do it, seems to me, ruthless.
From the first paragraph to the last, Israel seems to have America and our interests wrapped around their finger. The fact that members of Congress are also members of AIPAC clearly shows for a biased and extreme opinion. The fact that all momentum for campaigns of Pro-Israeli or Pro-Jew anything comes from Congress, AIPAC, and dozens of other lobbyists groups promoting Israeli superiority is ridiculous. The fact that the success of interests groups on behalf of Jewish and Israeli security majority come from financial backing and manipulation is cheating. America's role should be the level hand, the even handed bargain dealer in peace talks and negotiations in the Middle East, instead, the American Jews seem to have completely mentally, verbally, and financially warped and manipulated the entire Congress, certain branches of the U.S. gov't and even Israeli groups in the region itself is just down right wrong. It goes against that of which diplomacy and democracy aligns itself, an ideal the U.S. strongly advocates and is even pretty experienced.
Israel has fused their interests with those of the U.S., while financially and verbally convincing the President of the United States, and Congress to agree, go along with, and passionately fight for on behalf of Israel. I feel like because the U.S. has been such a strong supporter of Israel and their security, that anymore; it's just been about taking advantage of the U.S. and even betraying them. The U.S. seems to act like a babysitter for Israel, but also acts like a slave. Israel says, U.S. does.
The Israelis and Jewish Americans have done a fantastic job at skewing the REAL reason behind why we even went to Iraq and why/where terrorism is stemming from. The Israeli's are using the U.S. as a shield to pursue their own interests and further their status as a reigning power in the Middle East, and it's just not right.
I am probably going to get beat up after class once the Jewish students read my part of this but I am seriously disgusted at how manipulative and shallow the Israel Lobby truly is. The American Jews act like they are all about diplomacy, peace talks, and democracy, yet anyone who dare mumble anything negative about Israel or their approach to acheiving what they want, is labeled flat out as "anti-semitic," that's not peaceful, that's not negotiations, that's being a radical downright cut throat ignorant jerk.
The fact that members of Congress are in fact more Pro-Israel than they are Pro-American also makes me mad. What are they doing in U.S. Congress, they should go to Israel! AIPAC threatens the U.S. if it acts out of their interests, WHAT THE HELL!!!!!!!!!!!! This is our country, the executive branch rules, congress rules, NOT AIPAC, some Jewish Interest group.
Honestly, it's no wonder the Palestinians are as mad as they are. No wonder the entire Middle East except Israel of course, sees the U.S. as biased and careless about Israels neighbours. Israeli interests have been covered up by U.S. interests, which in turn makes the U.S. look ridiculously one sided and inevitably pisses off the other Arab nations, for example Iraq or Syria. For example, why we even went to Iraq? Was it really because of U.S. interests, or did it all stem from the "Lobby" and Jewish Americans manipulating and convincing the President, Congress, the public, that if Sadaam is out, peace can exist, that if Syria is man handled, that peace can exist? No, it's just so Israel can get ahead and get the power they feel is theirs.
The "Lobby" purposely brainwashing college campuses to lean more pro-Israeli, is like a plague! I just seriously don't get it.
I sincerely don't get it why the Lobby and actors involved i.e. Congress, are so arrogant and controlling. They are the dictators. They dictate American and Israeli interests, at the expense of ONLY the American pocketbook, lives, reputation, and status, Jewish Americans and Israeli's alike simply reep the benefits of Americas hard work.
As I understand there are two sides of every story, the point still remains that AIPAC is pretty much dictating policy in the U.S. arena, in a black and white manner, in a pretty much radical manner. I understand wholeheartidly the stance that Israel and Jewish Americans take in really fulfilling their right to exist in the Middle East, however, to use the U.S. to achieve those goals is not fair to the U.S., who has been nothing but a loyal supporter. The Lobby acts as though this land is rightfully theirs and that the Palestinians have no right to be upset, yet a Jew himself said if he were Arab, he would be furious, because it isn't the Arabs/Palestinians fault what happened to the Jews, it's the Nazis/Hitler/Auschwitz, not the Arabs. So, call me a heartless person for not per say "sympathizing" with the people who support Jewish ownership of Israel/Jerusalem but they are punishing the Arabs (Palestinians/Syrians/Iraqi's,etc) for acts of murder that they did not even commit in the first place.
I agree that the Jews are entitled to their own land, because they have no where else to go, but to act as an ethnocentric right wing extremist in achieving those goals is not peaceful, a trait they (the high ups representing the American and Israeli Jews) so often claim to possess.
Although probably hard to understand, I am open to the Jewish side, as I've always been. I just don't think that AIPAC/the LOBBY, and other interest groups represent the Jewish ideal very accurately. I am mainly stressing my frustration with the "big men" in control on behalf of Jewish interests, not your everyday American or Israeli Jew. It is the strategy and logisitics behind pursuing Israeli interests that I find truly bothersome as an American. It's cool that we are such a staunch supporter of Israel and their security, but when those exact recipients of our aid turn their back on us the second we say something they don't like, or even manipulate us and undermine our self interests, only to their benefit, that is where I find I have a problem. I need to do more research.
“The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt was a very interesting article regarding the relationship between Israel and the United States. For decades, Washington has given Israel reliable diplomatic, as well as financial support. The article talks about one reason being Israel’s role in the Cold War and other disputes. However, Israel could not always be relied upon to protect certain American assets, such as its oil supplies during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Perhaps nowadays the alliance is strong because of the threat of terror that is growing in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the authors explain that terror against the United States has increased because of its alliance with Israel. They also question how loyal an ally Israel is to America. Mearsheimer and Walt explain that Israel often ignores requests by the United States not to advance settlements and abstain from targeting Palestinian leaders for assassinations. The article goes on to talk about the Iraq war, which claims Israel wanted the United States to attack Iraq in 2003 because they wanted to be more secure. The authors seem to be saying that Israel has a fairly strong grip on America’s foreign policy in the region.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece explains how these Lobbies, which are supported by American-Jew’s, have a “stranglehold” over the American government. They make claims that the lobbies put pressure the United States into making decisions to benefit Israel. It talks about how about one fifth of America’s foreign aid budget is given to Israel. Furthermore, unlike other countries, Israel receives it in full and at the beginning of the fiscal year. Also, other countries must spend all of their military aid in the United States, while Israel is able to spend twenty-five percent on their on defense industries. Mearsheimer and Walt draw a picture that the Israeli Lobby influences the American foreign policy to be most beneficial to them.
Alan Dershowitz, a professor from Harvard Law School, essentially takes aim at Mearsheimer and Walt in his response article entitled “Debunking the Newest-and Oldest-Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt ‘Working Paper.’” He explains how they used literature, quotes and other resources inappropriately for their research. He says that they use them either out of context or inaccurately to mold their own explanation. Dershowitz really goes after their research methods and even attacks the fact that they are professors at “great universities” and they are held accountable for their research. He attempts to contradict many of the points made in “The Israel Lobby” article. He opposes many points brought up about how the Lobby persuades the American Foreign Policy. Both articles make some good points, while both include statements that are stretched from the truth to try to make their own points.
The Israeli Lobby is like any other lobby in America. They do what needs to be done to influence the government in order to best achieve their goals. They are just trying to get what they want and that means putting pressure on Congress. The fact of the matter is that these lobbies exist and they always will because that’s just one of the ways policies in America are brought to the agenda and created.
-Robert Castellanos
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have proposed an interesting thesis on the manipulation of United States policy by the Israel Lobby. The paper questions status quo US policies and brings up many valid points in doing so, however some of the broad statements seem circumspect and the tone seems somewhat conspiratorial.
The most compelling portion of the Mearsheimer and Walt article was the questioning of the justifications of US support for Israel. The justifications included strategic importance, common enemies, fellow democracy, and Israel as peacemakers. I am in agreement that all these justifications do not warrant such US support, whether it be public, financial, or strategic support. Israel is in many ways a liability to the United States internationally.
Meirsheimer and Walt then attribute the US's support Israel to the influence of the Israel Lobby in government, media, and general public discourse. Though the Israel Lobby has great influence on US policy, as do other lobbies, I cannot believe that the sole reason of the US support for Israel is the manipulation of the Israel Lobby. In my opinion, Meirsheimer and Walt overstate the influence of the Israel lobby and the arguments unfold somewhat like a conspiracy theory, especially with many of the sources being anonymous.
While not discounting the influence of the Israel lobby, I also believe prevailing social norms unrelated to the conflict that have clouded our judgment on Israel and Palestine. One social norm is the preference of conventional forces over the unconventional. Whatever the actions of the IDF, the force is a conventional force and thus understood easier than unconventional attacks of Palestinians. The terrorist attack is puzzling and though it warrants outrage, people label the attack as irrational and criminal, without considering the motivation of such an attack. An unconventional attack is only necessary when the conventional are not at your disposal. I believe we, Americans, are precluded to support a conventional force over an unconventional force, as another source of our support of Israel in Palestine.
In the accompanying critique of "The Israel Lobby," Alan Dershowitz implies the authors to be antisemitic and merely deflects the core of the argument with semantics and blanket statements. For example, Dershowitz response to the inequality among Arab and Jews in Israel is to blame the Arabs in Israel and deflect to the rights of Jews in other Arab states. Dershowitz also deflects the deplorable treatment of Palestinians is excusable because the leader of Palestinian people supported Hitler and that the Palestinians resisted the taking of Palestinian land by Jews. Dershowitz also omits fact, such that he notes that Israel has accepted Partition plans, however Israel has not acted on any of them. Dershowitz writes a wholly unconvincing critique of the Meirsheimer and Walt paper, only attacking certain statements, rather than putting forward an argument in response to "The Israel Lobby"
In conclusion, the Meirsheimer and Walt paper was very compelling and interesting, even if I did not agree 100% with the argument. Though I believe Meirsheimer and Walt overstate the influence of the Israel Lobby, I am in agreement that our support for Israel is not justified and that Israel is liability to US policy. I was disappointed that Dershowitz did not address this argument, or propose a legitimate justification for supporting Israel.
Collin Odell
The Israel Lobby hits a lot of very valid points that have been discussed ad nauseum for quite some time. This isn't to say they are bad ideas, but a lot of them have been part of criticism levied against the United State's policies towards Israel for sometime, which is discouraging because it continues to suggest that this longstanding criticism and outreach is continuing to be largely ineffective.
The Israel Lobby is a very polished collection of all of these longstanding complaints with some insightful commentary and just a dash of hyperbolic rhetoric. I agree that the United State's unwavering support for Israel is a large problem in foreign policy and mainly the result of domestic politics. I can also understand that the Israeli lobby has undue influence over the congress (Although perhaps it is not totally undue, because for better or worse there are very substantial amounts of evangelical Christians, Jews, and secular neoconservatives who are adamantly supportive both ideologically and financially of the vision and goals that the Israel Lobby offers). However, to assert in the paper that it has a stranglehold over the entire government and that the Israel Lobby essentially dictates all of our foreign policy excursions to us, up to and including those that do not directly involve Israel, is a bit of political hyperbole. I agree with the point he is trying to make, but some of the points are backed up by mere assertions and some over the top rhetoric that I don't think is particularly constructive.
However, the passage on terrorism is particularly noteworthy because it displays a foresight and understanding of the root causes and symptoms of international terrorism that current foreign policy dogma sorely lacks. The paragraph "‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip." has more wisdom in it than the last 4 years of collective foreign policy papers in The National Review.
The essay articulates one of the most vital arguments for improving United States relations with the Middle East when it argues that Israel's presence as a deterrent or protector of rogue regimes in the region is an endless money pit that is actually counter productive. American support for Israel is not the only reason that we are hated in the region but it is a significant contributing factor and the idea that the Syrian regime is a dangerous and immediate threat to the United States is a fairly laughable notion, but it is still uttered in the halls of power by people who are supposed to be respected experts. The discussion of the Israel as David in a David and Goliath metaphor was another fairly old argument, but it was presented in a much more convincing and reasonable way than it previously has been. All in all the article was a very good compendium of the long standing criticisms of Israel, an example of the some the excesses critics of Israel suffer, and perhaps a sad reminder that not much in there has changed in the last forty years.
The Israel Lobby points out a simple problem with U.S. politics that many nations have experienced. The existence of elections yields necessity for public officials to act in the name of public opinion, which is good for a democracy. The problem arises, however when a specific interest group's fiscal backing becomes imperative for the financing of a campaign. As a result of this system, public officials often act not in a way to provide for conducive, stable, and productive international relations when crafting their foreign policy, but instead in a way to get themselves re-elected, often with explosive consequences.
In the article, Mearsheimer and Walt detail the extent to which Israel has become a strategic burden, and the reason why the U.S. cannot simply break away from unquestioning support. They make the point that from the military aid given to Israel from the United States, "Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry." This preferential treatment, they assert, is the result of the Israeli Lobby employing two broad strategies. First, they claim that "it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch". Next, they explain that the Lobby attempts to control public discourse regarding Israel, to cast it in a favorable light.
These views are critically challenged by Alan Dershowitz in his response article. He claims that the myth of an Israel Lobby is continued by the allowance of 3 main types of errors in scholarly papers. These errors are that: "quotations are wrenched out of context", "facts are misstated", and "embarrassingly poor logic is employed." The rest of his paper explains why the points Mearsheimar and Walt make lack scholarly validity, and why readers must take a skeptical approach, and research facts presented by both sides of the argument. He continues by arguing against the described composition of the Lobby, and therefore questions whether or not its objectives include the "pursuit of Israel's interests over that of the United States."
In my opinion, the existence of lobbies at all is a detriment to democracy. When government officials are attempting to act in the name of the majority, their work is impeded when they attempt to represent special interests, who are only a small percentage of the greater population. That being said, the U.S. political system is based on representatives of different collectives of diverse people, so smaller group representation is perhaps not a bad thing. The question brings about a line-drawing problem, and one wonders about the legitimacy of a national lobby. Since the Israel Lobby accepts donations from citizens of all areas of the U.S., and devotes its resources to persuading various legislators from all areas of the U.S., you begin to wonder whether a citizen from Maine should have any impact whatsoever in the election of a representative for the state of Texas.
Walt and Mearsheimer with their realist background argue for a relationship with Israel which is primarily based on the material, strategic interests of the United States. Towards the end they do recognize a possible "moral dimension" but it is safe to say that for the authors the primary focus is increasing America's economic and military power and that the moral dimension is only a secondary legitimation tool and not the main thrust of the article. The premise is: Israel is a strategic burden which does not help increase or preserve America's influence in world politics. To support this they cite involvement in the two wars in Iraq where despite our military aid to the Israel, they are forced to stay on the sidelines rather than use their military force to our aid. How can we claim Israel is a strategic ally when using them will tear apart any coalition we have? After doing their best to prove that Israel is a burden they must find the reason why a strategic burden is supported--they find their agent in "the Lobby". The primary problem isn't that the agency chosen is AIPAC and the pro-Israel alliances in the United States even though that's what most critiques focused on. The problem is how they define strategic burden and the American national interest. They expect Washington to work under their limited conception of the national interest and then are surprised to see it doesn't and need to find a reason. Is Israel a strategic burden? Quite possibly from their point of view, but so are human rights and democracy promotion both of which try to make use of American military and diplomatic power in places which are not strategically important. But it would be an stretching it to say these are not in the American interest. There is no structural American interest and their paper fails from not recognizing how individual groups from all different backgrounds and with different conceptions of the national interest come together--bargaining--to form American policy.
Dershowitz and AIPAC do the same thing but from a different perspective. Of course, from them it's acceptable--because they're lobbying, not trying to write scholarly material. They try to present present a limited section of American interests as The American Interest and are successful in what they do to varying degrees. While AIPAC would like to take credit for this there are undoubtedly many reasons, as critics of the Walt and Mearsheimer article have given, for the success of 'pro-Israel" policies in the United States. Oil companies, the American arms industry, all have their own influence. The arms industry received billions from Israel while the oil companies aren't kept out of Arab countries for American support. If either of these were to change--especially the latter--so would American policy. AIPAC is trying to change the American interest by telling us that the American interest is support of Israel and who is acting against it. Mearsheimer and Walt are trying to tell us what the American interest is and who is acting against it. This behavior is part and parcel of what a lobby does--not of what an academic does.
As with any paper Walt and Mearsheimer suffer from the weakness of any monocausal explanation--the inability to put the influence of the agent you use into perspective. "The Lobby" is why America supports Israel. It also leads reader to believe that dual allegiances for citizens is odd or undesirable. Jewish people with strong links to Israel is no odder than Pakistani links to Pakistan. Yes, the former is more religious, ethnic while the latter is territorial, ethnic, but neither seem particularly odd. Nor is it different than an internationalist or anti-nationalist's dedication to the world system rather than the state. Citizens or residents of a country are bound to have allegiances and interests which transcend national borders. We cannot assume that people's interests can be broken down into "American" ones and "others". This might have been part of the reason why Mearsheimer and Walt went after the Israel lobby (well, and, they are the ones explicitly trying to influence the policies...). Industry and economic interests are something that Walt and Mearsheimer respect whereas interests that can be linked to other countries (even when represented by American citizens) are not. Therefore the authors were more likely to simplify their explanation in this regard.
The Walt and Mearsheimer article is most successful for its ability to create discussion and for allowing other academics to respond opening a subject that wasn't often discussed. While their article is overly simplistic and coming from a materialist perspective that many Americans would not agree it does begin to discuss an important subject: why does America support Israel? The key is having this debate more open. Those lobbying for Israel are pretty open and clear about their debate and we know they're lobbying for Israel. The oil and arms industry are less open about their motives or where their money goes. Citizens have many interests and American citizens by and large if asked will support Israel. There is nothing inherently wrong with this as long as we have a means of trying to find out what are the American people's interests, without essentializing the American interest to fit our theory, and then seeing how effectively government is acting on that.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby is an important, if controversial piece. Its main premise is a fair one, AIPAC is among the strongest lobbying groups in this country and tends to bend US policy towards its more narrow aims. In fact, this is true of all lobbying groups. They work to influence US policy to support the people they represent, often at the expense of other groups or America’s national interest in general. What makes the Israel Lobby more controversial is that they sway foreign policy, not domestic policy, making the ramifications not just a loss of jobs or funding for a project. Instead the ramifications of the Israeli Lobby are the absence of statehood for a people and, in reaction, the promulgation of extremism and terror.
There are legitimate criticisms of Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece, for instance the idea that all American Jews place a higher importance on Israeli interests than American interests, that should be addressed. However, Dershowitz’s belief that the very notion of an Israel Lobby is anti-Semitic, renders his response ineffective.
While I agree with Mearsheimer and Walt that AIPAC holds a fair amount of sway over US policies, I disagree with them on exactly what they have been able to accomplish with this sway. All presidential hopefuls must make a speech before AIPAC pledging their love for the state of Israel and vowing to be “a good friend.” However, in reality this doesn’t mean anything on the policy side of things. It is true that George Bush was hampered in his resolve to freeze settlements by the influence of AIPAC. However, Mearsheimer and Walt’s assertion that the Israel Lobby drove the US to go to war with Iraq is at best an overstatement and at worse a ridiculous allegation.
The ideas illuminating from the Israel Lobby are important ones. AIPAC is the second strongest lobby in the country and drives much of the public debate regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. They do have an influence on US foreign policy. However, the idea that somehow every Jew in this country subscribes to AIPAC’s beliefs is false. In addition, the notion that an AIPAC representative has veto power of all US foreign policy is equally as false. The US president is forced to navigate a very rough course in order to achieve a balanced policy regarding Israel and its neighbors. However, a strong, knowledgeable President would be able to bring AIPAC on board in, for instance, pursuing a 2-state-solution. After all, Israel, the US, and AIPACs interests are in alignment when it comes to peace in the middle east.
AIPAC is a big issue in American politics in the way that it is a lobbying group that acts in a very different and more controversial manner. The most powerful lobbying powers, such as the AARP and the AFL-CIO, affect politics on the domestic level while AIPAC exclusively works America’s foreign policy concerning Israel. AIPAC creates an interesting problem in the way that it communicates with the Israeli government to guide how the interest group should act in swaying the opinion within the United States. Under this guidance, AIPAC is trying to harmonize their voice with the voice of Israel. Ariel Sharon told an audience one time that the best way to help Israel is to help AIPAC. Essentially, AIPAC is an agent of Israel which works within a powerful country to ensure that its ‘mother country’ gets what it wants from the foreign realm.
One way that AIPAC is gaining hold over the political dimension of the United States is through its members who are prominent Christian radicals and evangelists. In this way the Jewish majority of AIPAC’s agenda is being passed on to its brother religion, which consists of the majority within the United States. In Mearsheimer and Walt’s article, they mention that the evangelists believe that Israel’s right to exists is based on biblical texts of the Israelites belonging to the Promised Land. Also a moral argument is brought to the table because of the oppression and violence that accompanied the Jews throughout history. In this way, support is garnered because some people feel bad that the Jews have been mistreated so they deserved a homeland. This sentiment should not be acted upon because the Palestinians did not have a hand in the atrocities of the Nazi regime yet had their homeland seized from them and they became the oppressed. Even David Ben-Gurion admitted that he sees why Palestinians would not make terms with Israel based on the creation of Israel and oppression of the Palestinians.
AIPAC does realize that its support for Israel has many different facets, such as the moral and religious obligations, but there is also the fact that many perceive Israel to be the Untied States’ staunchest ally and we must protect them. Israel does not necessarily act as the ally, although they are economically and militarily powerful. There has been evidence which showed that Israelis have spied more than any other American ally. After US requests to halt the establishment of settlements, Israel has continued to settle in West Bank and Gaza. Israel also has been dealing with China behind the United States’ back by giving them sensitive military technology. If the American public realizes all of these things, they may voice that the alliance with Israel is a waste of time and AIPAC could quickly lose standing in the political system.
-Norman Burnosky
Post a Comment