|
July 12, 2006
Foreign Policy has Roundtable in its July/August issue on the 'Israeli Lobby& US Foreign Policy' text by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. which I mentioned here. (An edited version of the Mearsheimer and Walt text was published by London Review of Books.)
Presumably Foreign Policy responses would go beyond the polemics of sloppy scholarship and outright bigotry (anti-Semitic) The Australian response has been muted, but there is a polemical response by Michael Park at Club Chaos. He says:
It appears that the idea of the Israeli Lobby as the prime mover behind the foreign policy decisions of Washington is set in stone. There is a significant rump of opinion that the invasion of Iraq --illegal as it was--was at the behest of this supposed nefarious cancer within the body politic of the United States... . The invasion of Iraq had little to do with Israeli interests and much to do with strategic US interests. Those interests being resources, along with economic and political influence. The all powerful "neocon cabal" --with their "Lobby" puppeteers --who had fabricated the reasons for and planned the war itself were "done over" by international oil. The core of this was the fact that these people (the "neocons") had-- amongst other economic articles of faith---planned for the privatisation of the entire Iraqi oil industry and its support structure.
True, the invasion of Iraq had to do with US strategic interests. But Mearsheimer and Walt do not talk in terms of a ' "neocon cabal"--with their "Lobby" puppeteers' They talk about the conflation of US and Israeli national interests.
In their contribution to the Roundtable Mearsheimer and Walt say:
The "special relationship" with Israel, we argue, is due largely to the activities of the Israel lobby--a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who openly work to push U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. The lobby is not synonymous with Jewish Americans, because many of them do not support its positions, and some groups that work on Israel's behalf (Christian evangelicals, for example) are not Jewish. The lobby has no central leadership. It is not a cabal or a conspiracy. These organizations are simply engaged in interest-group politics, a legitimate activity in the American political system. These organizations believe their efforts advance both American and Israeli interests. We do not.
They make a distinction between US national interest and Israeli national interest. The U.S. support for Israel has been unwavering, but it is sometimes inconsistent with American interests. They ask : Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security to advance the interests of another state? Their answer is "the unmatched power of the Israel lobby."An Israeli Lobby, I would add, that seeks to keep Israel strong, the Palestinians weak, and the United States from exerting pressure on Israel. Or more extremely, Israel has the right to pursue whatever policies it chooses-- including expanding its presence on the West Ban--without any interference from the United States.
Mearsheimer and Walt say that in their text:
We described how the Israel lobby fosters support within the U.S. Congress and the executive branch, and how it shapes public discourse so that Israel's actions are perceived sympathetically by the American public. Groups in the lobby direct campaign contributions to encourage politicians to adopt pro-Israel positions. They write articles, letters, and op-eds defending Israel's actions, and they go to great lengths to discredit or marginalize anyone who criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
They give Iraq and Iran as two examples.
The Foreign Policy responses would go avoid the charge of anti-Semitism or attempt to constrain discussion of the US relationship with Israel by imposing a narrow political correctness and consider the arguments on the actual issues involved. Unfortunately, we cannot judge this as the Roundtable articles at Foreign Policy are behind a subscription wall. However, I found the response by Dennis Ross over at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy.How does Dennis Ross respond? He says that:
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israel lobby is governed by its concern for Israel, not America. They say it drove the United States into a disastrous war in Iraq and is now pushing for a similarly dangerous war against Iran. Mearsheimer and Walt discuss other maladies caused by the lobby, but it's their concern about U.S. policies toward Iraq that have principally motivated them to "expose" the lobby.
'Exposed' is a strange word, given that organizations that constitute the Israeli Lobby are openly engaged in interest-group politics in the American political system.Lobbying is quite open in the US as it is a legitmate activity in liberal democracy.
Ross says that Mearsheimer and Walt overstate their case. Take Iran, he says. It is not just the Israeli Lobby that cares about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. So do the British French and Germans --they want to confront Iran more than the US and the Israeli Lobby isn't driving them to do it. Hence Mearsheimer and Walt overstate their case.
That, however, isn't what Mearsheimer and Walt say. They are talking about the US, the power of the Israel lobby and the negative effect it has had on US policy . They say:
With Saddam Hussein removed from power, the Israel lobby is now focusing on Iran, whose government seems determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Despite its own nuclear arsenal and conventional military might, Israel does not want a nuclear Iran. Yet neither diplomacy nor economic sanctions are likely to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Few world leaders favor using force to deal with the problem, except in Israel and the United States. AIPAC and many of the same neoconservatives who advocated attacking Iraq are now among the chief proponents of using military force against Iran.
It's the use of force that marks the difference here and this is where we have US and Israeli national interests coinciding. So what kind of debate is this? It's not even an engagement. If there is an Israeli Lobby, as Ross seems to accept, then what is its policy agenda? Is it how I've represented it: A LIkud agenda that seeks to keep Israel strong, the Palestinians weak, and the United States from exerting pressure on Israel. Or more extremely, Israel has the right to pursue whatever policies it chooses-- including expanding its presence on the West Ban--without any interference from the United States. Or for a more a more muscular aggressive US presence in the Middle East and beyond.
How does the lobby operate? How does it target Congress? Have there been occassions when the President and Congress have been divided on Israel? If so, how has the Lobby intervened then? Has it successful? Who banked down?
Isn't this the kind of enegagement that is needed? An opening up of the discussion?
previous
|
I heard a fellow on NPR, I think he had been in the Clinton and Bush(I) Administrations? Anyway he said the Israel lobby has little influence on the executive, and more on the legislative. Congress being more open to influence from money and junkets.
The executive policy making is more a closed shop and not so open to lobbying, especially true in the case of foreign policy which is an elite pursuit.
However the current Administration contained many neo-conservatives with strong views on Israeli policy such as Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Feith.