| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"peace.seeker.27" |
| Date: |
05 May 2006 06:06:40 PM |
| Object: |
MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
May 5, 2006
Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel
in American Foreign Policy?
By JOHN MEARSHEIMER and STEPHEN WALT
We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject
that had become difficult to address openly in the United States
(London Review of Books, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a
strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have
chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have
also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received,
and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media
and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people--including Jews and
Israelis--believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US
relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the
letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the
most salient points of dispute.
One of the most prominent charges against us is that we see the lobby
as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy. Jeffrey Herf and Andrei
Markovits, for example, begin by noting that 'accusations of powerful
Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of
modern anti-semitism' (Letters, 6 April ). It is a tradition we deplore
and that we explicitly rejected in our article. Instead, we described
the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without
a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many
Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues.
Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on
the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there
is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behaviour. Thus, we can
easily believe that Daniel Pipes has never 'taken orders' from the
lobby, because the Leninist caricature of the lobby depicted in his
letter is one that we clearly dismissed. Readers will also note that
Pipes does not deny that his organisation, Campus Watch, was created in
order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to
discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East.
Several writers chide us for making mono-causal arguments, accusing us
of saying that Israel alone is responsible for anti-Americanism in the
Arab and Islamic world (as one letter puts it, anti-Americanism 'would
exist if Israel was not there') or suggesting that the lobby bears sole
responsibility for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.
But that is not what we said. We emphasised that US support for Israeli
policy in the Occupied Territories is a powerful source of
anti-Americanism, the conclusion reached in several scholarly studies
and US government commissions (including the 9/11 Commission). But we
also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason
America's standing in the Middle East is so low. Similarly, we clearly
stated that Osama bin Laden had other grievances against the United
States besides the Palestinian issue, but as the 9/11 Commission
documents, this matter was a major concern for him. We also explicitly
stated that the lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton
or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is
abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within
the lobby played a central role in making the case for war.
At least two of the letters complain that we 'catalogue Israel's moral
flaws', while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other
states. We focused on Israeli behaviour, not because we have any animus
towards Israel, but because the United States gives it such high levels
of material and diplomatic support. Our aim was to determine whether
Israel merits this special treatment either because it is a unique
strategic asset or because it behaves better than other countries do.
We argued that neither argument is convincing: Israel's strategic value
has declined since the end of the Cold War and Israel does not behave
significantly better than most other states.
Herf and Markovits interpret us to be saying that Israel's 'continued
survival' should be of little concern to the United States. We made no
such argument. In fact, we emphasised that there is a powerful moral
case for Israel's existence, and we firmly believe that the United
States should take action to ensure its survival if it were in danger.
Our criticism was directed at Israeli policy and America's special
relationship with Israel, not Israel's existence.
Another recurring theme in the letters is that the lobby ultimately
matters little because Israel's 'values command genuine support among
the American public'. Thus, Herf and Markovits maintain that there is
substantial support for Israel in military and diplomatic circles
within the United States. We agree that there is strong public support
for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with
America's Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is
substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a
favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and
discussion of Israel's less savoury actions. Diplomats and military
officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many
of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however,
because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if
they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans
would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle
East would look different.
On a related point, Michael Szanto contrasts the US-Israeli
relationship with the American military commitments to Western Europe,
Japan and South Korea, to show that the United States has given
substantial support to other states besides Israel (6 April). He does
not mention, however, that these other relationships did not depend on
strong domestic lobbies. The reason is simple: these countries did not
need a lobby because close ties with each of them were in America's
strategic interest. By contrast, as Israel has become a strategic
burden for the US, its American backers have had to work even harder to
preserve the 'special relationship'.
Other critics contend that we overstate the lobby's power because we
overlook countervailing forces, such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and
Islamic advocacy groups . . . and the diplomatic establishment'. Such
countervailing forces do exist, but they are no match--either alone or
in combination--for the lobby. There are Arab-American political
groups, for example, but they are weak, divided, and wield far less
influence than AIPAC and other organisations that present a strong,
consistent message from the lobby.
Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is
Herf and Markovits's claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East
policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that
region's oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also
deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is,
how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US
policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to
Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing
countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour
the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would
almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and
the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force
against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil,
there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much
evidence of the lobby's influence. Oil is clearly an important concern
for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973
Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten
access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America's terrorism
problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and
helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq.
Regrettably, some of our critics have tried to smear us by linking us
with overt racists, thereby suggesting that we are racists or
anti-semites ourselves. Michael Taylor, for example, notes that our
article has been 'hailed' by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke (6 April).
Alan Dershowitz implies that some of our material was taken from
neo-Nazi websites and other hate literature (20 April). We have no
control over who likes or dislikes our article, but we regret that Duke
used it to promote his racist agenda, which we utterly reject.
Furthermore, nothing in our piece is drawn from racist sources of any
kind, and Dershowitz offers no evidence to support this false claim. We
provided a fully documented version of the paper so that readers could
see for themselves that we used reputable sources.
Finally, a few critics claim that some of our facts, references or
quotations are mistaken. For example, Dershowitz challenges our claim
that Israel was 'explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship
is based on the principle of blood kinship'. Israel was founded as a
Jewish state (a fact Dershowitz does not challenge), and our reference
to citizenship was obviously to Israel's Jewish citizens, whose
identity is ordinarily based on ancestry. We stated that Israel has a
sizeable number of non-Jewish citizens (primarily Arabs), and our main
point was that many of them are relegated to a second-class status in a
predominantly Jewish society.
We also referred to Golda Meir's famous statement that 'there is no
such thin g as a Palestinian,' and Jeremy Schreiber reads us as saying
that Meir was denying the existence of those people rather than simply
denying Palestinian nationhood (20 April). There is no disagreement
here; we agree with Schreiber's interpretation and we quoted Meir in a
discussion of Israel's prolonged effort 'to deny the Palestinians'
national ambitions'.
Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis did not offer the
Palestinians a contiguous state at Camp David in July 2000. As support,
he cites a s tatement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and
the memoirs of former US negotiator Dennis Ross. There are a number of
competing accounts of what happened at Camp David, however, and many of
them agree with our claim. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that
'the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign
territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem
.. . . to the Jordan River.' This wedge, which would bisect the West
Bank, was essential to Israel's plan to retain control of the Jordan
River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to
Dershowitz's claim, there was no 'second map' or map of a 'final
proposal at Camp David'. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in a note
beside the map published in Ross's memoirs that 'no map was presented
during the final rounds at Camp David.' Given all this, it is not
surprising that Barak's foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key
participant at Camp David, later admitted: 'If I were a Palestinian I
would have rejected Camp David as well.'
Dershowitz also claims that we quote David Ben-Gurion 'out of context'
and thus misrepresented his views on the need to use force to build a
Jewish state in all of Palestine. Dershowitz is wrong. As a number of
Israeli historians have shown, Ben-Gurion made numerous statements
about the need to use force (or the threat of overwhelming force) to
create a Jewish state in all of Palestine. In October 1937, for
example, he wrote to his son Amos that the future Jewish state would
have an 'outstanding army . . . so I am certain that we won't be
constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual
agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbours, or by some other
way' (emphasis added). Furthermore, common sense says that there was no
other way to achieve that goal, because the Palestinians were hardly
likely to give up their homeland voluntarily. Ben-Gurion was a
consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the
Zionists to talk openly about the need for 'brutal compulsion'. We
quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist
Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that
'it is impossible to imagine general evacuation' of the Arab population
of Palestine 'without compulsion, and brutal compulsion'. Dershowitz
claims that Ben-Gurion's subsequent statement--'we should in no way
make it part of our programme'--shows that he opposed the transfer of
the Arab population and the 'brutal compulsion' it would entail. But
Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the
Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they
should not 'discourage other people, British or American, who favour
transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it
part of our programme'.
We close with a final comment about the controversy surrounding our
article. Although we are not surprised by the hostility directed at us,
we are still disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the
substance of the piece. The fact remains that the United States is in
deep trouble in the Middle East, and it will not be able to develop
effective policies if it is impossible to have a civilised discussion
about the role of Israel in American foreign policy.
John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt University of Chicago & Harvard
University.
This letter originally appeared in the London Review of Books.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
05 May 2006 06:29:54 PM |
|
|
peace.seeker.27 wrote:
May 5, 2006
Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel
in American Foreign Policy?
By JOHN MEARSHEIMER and STEPHEN WALT
<snip>
Excellent rebuttal to the lying Zionist carcinogens and their
smear campaigns against these men. America, wake the hell
up!
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
----Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "serwad" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
05 May 2006 09:44:26 PM |
|
|
<floresrikitic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146871794.534881.26350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
peace.seeker.27 wrote:
May 5, 2006
Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel
in American Foreign Policy?
By JOHN MEARSHEIMER and STEPHEN WALT
<snip>
Excellent rebuttal to the lying Zionist carcinogens and their
smear campaigns against these men. America, wake the hell
up!
Unfortunately, my friend, it is too late to help America get a grip on
itself, and extract itself from the ZioNazi clutches. These two fine
gentlemen have foreseen the bleak future for America.
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
----Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
06 May 2006 03:07:36 AM |
|
|
Ultimately what will be proven, because the Israel-1st traitors to
America can never hide it anymore, is that it will end quite simply.
The truth is, a HUGE percentage of Americans have coverted from their
Christ to a new religion of Christo-Judaism. They see Judaism as a part
of the Christianity, linked together with a common fate. In the end,
they will openly admit - their support for Israel is GREATER than their
support of America. They will admit, that handing over American
government to Israel influence IS WHAT THEY LIKE. They LIKE the 9-11
False Flag because they LIKE the Zionist 'WW3' vs Islam. They LIKE
Judaic racism. They DO have deep racist hatred of true racial semites
aka Arabs. They ARE JeWhite Power, want Whites of Jewish conversion in
power across the board.
There is this growing illusion as the lies of 9-11, the Holohoax, their
infestation of government and media - that people will object to it
when fully exposed.
They know it is there. Israel-1st Americans openly, willingly, GLADLY,
hand over America to the Israeli-mafia and their agents. GLADLY. With
joy in their hearts they will sit down in the evening and watch fake
corporate news to get their daily instructions.
It is not a matter of exposing the truth. The American Zionist Horde of
fallen Christians who willingly grovel, ape, and lick the feet of the
JeWhite Power supremecists Judaism, fully support this treason. It is
their religious fantasies and racist lusts for killing brought to life.
There will not be any uprising, only applause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "serwad" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
06 May 2006 06:45:45 AM |
|
|
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1146902856.499947.230570@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Ultimately what will be proven, because the Israel-1st traitors to
America can never hide it anymore, is that it will end quite simply.
The truth is, a HUGE percentage of Americans have coverted from their
Christ to a new religion of Christo-Judaism. They see Judaism as a part
of the Christianity, linked together with a common fate. In the end,
they will openly admit - their support for Israel is GREATER than their
support of America. They will admit, that handing over American
government to Israel influence IS WHAT THEY LIKE. They LIKE the 9-11
False Flag because they LIKE the Zionist 'WW3' vs Islam. They LIKE
Judaic racism. They DO have deep racist hatred of true racial semites
aka Arabs. They ARE JeWhite Power, want Whites of Jewish conversion in
power across the board.
There is this growing illusion as the lies of 9-11, the Holohoax, their
infestation of government and media - that people will object to it
when fully exposed.
They know it is there. Israel-1st Americans openly, willingly, GLADLY,
hand over America to the Israeli-mafia and their agents. GLADLY. With
joy in their hearts they will sit down in the evening and watch fake
corporate news to get their daily instructions.
It is not a matter of exposing the truth. The American Zionist Horde of
fallen Christians who willingly grovel, ape, and lick the feet of the
JeWhite Power supremecists Judaism, fully support this treason. It is
their religious fantasies and racist lusts for killing brought to life.
There will not be any uprising, only applause.
You have hit the nail on the head, my friend!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
06 May 2006 07:05:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ultimately what will be proven, because the Israel-1st traitors to
America can never hide it anymore, is that it will end quite simply.
The truth is, a HUGE percentage of Americans have coverted from their
Christ to a new religion of Christo-Judaism. They see Judaism as a part
of the Christianity, linked together with a common fate.
Which makes this particularly hilarious, considering that Jews see
Jesus Christ, the very foundation of Christianity, the numero uno
figure in the religion, as hardly more than a liar and a fraud.
This never ceases to amaze me (the stupidity of most modern
Christians).
They know it is there. Israel-1st Americans openly, willingly, GLADLY,
hand over America to the Israeli-mafia and their agents. GLADLY. With
joy in their hearts they will sit down in the evening and watch fake
corporate news to get their daily instructions.
Well put.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
06 May 2006 08:50:13 AM |
|
|
<clifffreeling@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146917129.055533.275930@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
fastillion@charter.net wrote:
Ultimately what will be proven, because the Israel-1st traitors to
America can never hide it anymore, is that it will end quite simply.
The truth is, a HUGE percentage of Americans have coverted from their
Christ to a new religion of Christo-Judaism. They see Judaism as a part
of the Christianity, linked together with a common fate.
Which makes this particularly hilarious, considering that Jews see
Jesus Christ, the very foundation of Christianity, the numero uno
figure in the religion, as hardly more than a liar and a fraud.
This never ceases to amaze me (the stupidity of most modern
Christians).
They know it is there. Israel-1st Americans openly, willingly, GLADLY,
hand over America to the Israeli-mafia and their agents. GLADLY. With
joy in their hearts they will sit down in the evening and watch fake
corporate news to get their daily instructions.
Well put.
I don't know what it is with these crazy yids. When the messiah returns,
isn't he going to convert some of the Jews to Christianity, and off the
rest. Isn't that what the whole Armageddon thing is about?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
07 May 2006 01:31:45 AM |
|
|
On 6-May-2006, wrote:
Ultimately what will be proven, because the Israel-1st traitors to
America can never hide it anymore, is that it will end quite simply.
The truth is, a HUGE percentage of Americans have coverted from their
Christ to a new religion of Christo-Judaism
[snip rest of lies]
Wow, this one is even whackier than most!
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
06 May 2006 07:01:02 AM |
|
|
serwad wrote:
<floresrikitic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146871794.534881.26350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
peace.seeker.27 wrote:
May 5, 2006
Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel
in American Foreign Policy?
By JOHN MEARSHEIMER and STEPHEN WALT
<snip>
Excellent rebuttal to the lying Zionist carcinogens and their
smear campaigns against these men. America, wake the hell
up!
Unfortunately, my friend, it is too late to help America get a grip on
itself, and extract itself from the ZioNazi clutches. These two fine
gentlemen have foreseen the bleak future for America.
I'm not so sure about the long-held Zionist dream of taking over
the U.S., and the world in the end. It is their dream for sure, and
they have made huge gains on getting their hooks into America,
but they have always failed in the end (in trying to take over
host countries) and I believe they will again. The masses--
regardless of stupidity level--eventually seem to wake up.
And we must always remember that not all Jews are Zionazis.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
07 May 2006 01:30:47 AM |
|
|
It's nice of Cliff to prove hisown lies by following my dictum
about the best way to *tell* how great a liar someone is.
RE-plonk, loser!
Susan
On 5-May-2006, wrote:
[snip cliff's lies]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: MEARSHEIMER and WALT: The Storm over "the Israel Lobby" |
07 May 2006 01:33:54 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:rug7g.557$W83.489@trnddc07...
It's nice of Cliff to prove hisown lies by following my dictum
about the best way to *tell* how great a liar someone is.
RE-plonk, loser!
And just what "lies" did he state, you thick Irish *****?
Are you still lying about being a jew?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
