Antiwar.com, CA
Oct 19 2007

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 484 pp.

The collective shrieking and caterwauling has been loud and
continuous. How dare these two scholars – John Mearsheimer from the
University of Chicago and Stephen Walt from the Kennedy School of
Government – suggest that U.S. support for the state of Israel
reflects something more than simple American national interest! The
outrage.

All of the usual epithets and insults have been hurled. Even if
Mearsheimer and Walt aren’t themselves virulent anti-semites, critics
assure us, their depiction of a strong political lobby advancing the
cause of Israel is in the long tradition of anti-semitism, a slightly
sanitized version of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," say.
Certainly the argument should not be heard: Speaking invitations have
been cancelled and leaders of organizations that lobby on behalf of
Israel have rushed out to deny that Israel has a lobby.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is particularly important
precisely because it addresses one of the third rails of American
politics: unconditional support for one small, distant country
largely irrespective of American national interests. Mearsheimer and
Walt have articulated what everyone in Washington knows – touch the
third rail and you die, politically or professionally. They write:

"It is difficult to talk about the lobby’s influence on American
foreign policy, at least in the mainstream media in the United
States, without being accused of anti-Semitism or labeled a
self-hating Jew. It is just as difficult to criticize Israeli
policies or question U.S. support for Israel in polite company.
America’s generous and unconditional support for Israel is rarely
questioned, because groups in the lobby use their power to make sure
that public discourse echoes its strategic and moral arguments for
the special relationship."

This sustained effort to close off debate, to prevent the slightest
criticism, is almost unique to Israel (and, ironically, is not so
evident in Israel itself). Nowhere else is one’s head blown off for
simply asking: is a particular foreign policy in America’s interest?

That partisans sometimes put ethnic preference above national
interest is hardly news. America’s Armenian and Greek lobbies, for
instance, have been pushing Congress to denounce Turkey over the
Armenian genocide of nearly a century ago. It’s a bizarre spectacle,
since it isn’t America’s business and there are no practical benefits
to be gained approving such a resolution. But ethnic Armenians and
Greeks are unconcerned about the impact of their ethnic preferences
on U.S. foreign policy.

African-American legislators pushed the Clinton administration to
invade Haiti. The U.S. had no policy reason to install a violent
demagogue, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, as president (In fact, Washington
forcibly removed him from power ten years later.) Rather, the
administration acted in response to racial pressure, as well as in an
attempt to make Washington appear even-handed, given its previous
focus on European and oil-rich lands for rescue.

Moreover, NATO expansion was fueled by a gaggle of
"hyphenated-Americans" who wanted America to protect their ancestral
homes. Countries like Latvia, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic
are security black holes – they consume American defense resources
while providing little in return. But Americans of various
ethnicities pressed hard to extend Washington’s defense guarantee to
these nations.

More recently, Ukrainian-Americans lobbied the U.S. government to
intervene in Ukrainian politics on the side of the Ukrainian-speaking
western section against the Russian-speaking eastern section. Most
Ukrainian expatriates and descendants of expatriates in America come
from the western part of the country, and they want the U.S.
government to help "their" faction triumph in their ethnic homeland.

There’s nothing wrong with Americans lobbying on behalf of any of
these causes. But it is important for the rest of us to realize that
these groups were not, in the main, lobbying for America’s interest.

Again, this is nothing exceptional. When farmers descend upon
Washington, they blather on about their great public purpose while
mulcting the public. But no one, thankfully, believes them. They are
lobbying to enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow
citizens. Similarly, U.S. security was not the goal of Americans who
pressed for action in Haiti and Ukraine and against Turkey, and to
expand NATO to the borders of Russia.

Americans should be no less skeptical of their motives than of the
motives of anyone else. Advocates of these positions may have
believed that their policy proposals would not hurt U.S. security.
They might even have deluded themselves into believing that advancing
their particular ethnic ends would be good for America. But most of
them were forthrightly advancing a foreign interest above America’s
interest.

So it is with the "Israel Lobby." No other country receives stronger
backing in America from a lobby – in reality a loose in collection of
lobbies, groups, and people. But from the America Israel Public
Affairs Committee to "Christian Zionists," there is a potent
political movement pressing the U.S. government to support Israel in
most every way at most every time simply because it is Israel.

Outraged cries ring out against anyone who suggests that U.S.-Israeli
policy is shaped by more than abstract geopolitical discussions in
Washington policy salons. But abstract geopolitical interests cannot
explain U.S. policy.

As Mearsheimer and Walt point out, Israel is a strategic liability,
not asset. Never has it provided significant assistance to America in
an international crisis. Today it is the one nation upon which
Washington cannot lean for assistance in the Middle East, because of
the hostile reaction that would be generated among its neighbors.

At the same time, Israel is the one country that, no matter what it
does, almost always involves the U.S. The attack on Lebanon last
year, for instance, was viewed internationally as the responsibility
of the U.S. as well as Israel because the former provides the latter
financial subsidies, weapons sales, and diplomatic support.
Similarly, no one would view an Israeli attack on Iran as anything
other than a U.S.-backed attack on Iran.

Particularly important in a world of terrorism is Israel’s role as a
Muslim grievance. Israel advocates bridle at anyone who points to
evidence that the U.S. has made itself a target by becoming an
accessory to Israel’s lengthy and brutal occupation of lands
containing millions of Palestinians as well as its numerous wars
against its Arab neighbors. Even if one is inclined to dismiss
criticism of Israeli behavior, foreign policy should be made with a
realistic appreciation of the consequences of different policies.

Observe Mearsheimer and Walt: "there is in fact abundant evidence
that U.S. support for Israel encourages anti-Americanism throughout
the Arab and Islamic world and has fueled the rage of anti-American
terrorists. It is not their only grievance, of course, but it is a
central one. … One need not agree with such sentiments to recognize
how unquestioned support for Israel has fueled anger and resentment
against the United States."

Such anger and resentment would be more understandable to Americans
if they were aware of the reality of life for Palestinians living
under a system that essentially is a Mideast form of Apartheid backed
by military rule. Mearsheimer and Walt point to policies which do no
credit to Israel, appropriately praised as a liberal, democratic
state surrounded by an amalgam of regimes varying in hostility and
brutality. Indeed, in Israel there is sharp debate, far more serious
and honest than in America, over treatment of the Palestinians.

Despite the strength of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s arguments, there are
still many issues over which even friends disagree. For instance,
Dimitri Simes, head of the Nixon Center, believes the authors
underestimate the fault of the Palestinian side in the collapse of
the Oslo peace process. He also contends that they underestimate Arab
provocations before the 1967 war.

Nevertheless, in the main The Israel Lobby holds up well. Perhaps the
most serious attack on the book by those who shout in unison that
there is no lobby is that most Americans support Israel for other
reasons. That’s true to some degree, but the level of support in part
reflects the truncated political debate which results in an
environment in which criticism is often shouted down and treated as
beyond the pale.

For instance, Americans who laud Israel’s commitment to democracy are
likely to know little about Israel’s undemocratic practicees in the
occupied territories. Americans who assume Israel’s strategic value
are likely to have little awareness of Israeli spying on the U.S. or
arms sales to U.S. adversaries.

Moreover, the Christian Zionist movement is largely disconnected from
any sense of national interest or interest of non-Christians. Using
junk theology, some Christian leaders argue that God has given the
land to Israel, or that today’s nation state of Israel must expand
before Jesus Christ can return. If anyone is subject to the claim of
"dual loyalty," it is Christians who are pushing the U.S. government
to advance their theological ends, not Jewish Americans who at least
attempt to articulate legitimate national interests.

The Israel Lobby is challenging, courageous, and provocative. There
is much in it that is well worth reading, even as one finds oneself
quibbling over a particular fact or interpretation.

Despite all of the bad news about U.S. policy which Mearsheimer and
Walt deliver, they end on a positive note: "Because the costs of
these failed policies are now so apparent, we have an opportunity for
reflection and renewal." Despite the continuing influence of those
who prefer to stifle debate, "A country as rich and powerful as the
United States can sustain flawed policies for quite some time, but
reality cannot be ignored forever."

We can only hope and pray that they are correct in this judgment.
Changing policy appropriately would make the U.S., friendly Arab
states, and Israel all better off.