The money is a minor, side issue. The largest recipient of US largesse is not Israel or Egypt, but Iraq. And see how both Iraq and the US have "benefited" from that.

The issue is that Israel is currently incapable of looking after its own interests (except in an exceedingly narrow, short term kind of way). A unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West bank and the fencing off of East Jerusalem and the rest in a way that would reduce a Palestinian state to a pathetic collection of Bantustans is good neither for the Palestinians nor for the Israelis.

AIPAC has been a disaster lately (and is largely unrepresentative of US Jewry) but it's been an irrelevant disaster. Without AIPAC, Bush would still be pursuing the same policy, which is to watch from the sidelines the region self-destruct and do nothing. Leadership is more than handing out a check. Right now, the US is irrelevant in the conflict.

Meanwhile what the Iran "crisis" is showing is that time is not on Israel's or America's side. The irony is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solvable (think of Taba for the rough contours of a solution), and the US should put huge pressure on all parties to solve it. But wait long enough, and the problem then will be unsolvable. And that's the tragedy.

I do not know of a single person who gives them money and very few who actually agree with their views.

And yet they have a budget of about $47 million/yr and some 200 employees.

Whoops, sorry about that.

We come to the central paradox of the whole matter, and while Daniel and I have jousted over this issue before, I will pause to agree with him that it IS more than of passing interest that many of the more well-known Jewish columnists of, dare I say it, the neocon persuasion, while quick to condemn those Jews and Gentiles who would criticize Likud Israeli governments were not the least bit squeamish about strongly attacking past Labour governments and their peace negotiations.

Where we differ, I guess, is whether we, the majority of Jews who do differ from AIPAC and the "Israel Lobby", have any responsibility to take public action to point out that these people who loudly claim to speak in our name, are not in fact speaking for us. I think we do, and it's important to say so. It's hard to do that when you're busy defending them as victims of antisemitism. Instead, I think we need to be defending M and W from the bogus charge of antisemitism, as Eric Alterman did, while clearly making some of the same criticisms as JoAnn Mort does here.

So while I agree with Ms. Mort and Alterman that there are problems with the Mearshimer/Walt thesis, these could have and should have been discussed without being derailed into the swamp of discussing whether anti-Semitism was the motivating factor behind the paper - which, of course, is a play right out of the AIPAC book. One might legitimately wonder whether Jews who oppose AIPAC are just chicken (afraid of being slammed as self-hating), don't care about it as much as AIPAC does or what.

On the subject of their $47 million annual budget, I don't see a mystery there. I have long suspected that their funding source is overwhelmingly a small group composed of primarily the wealthiest elements of the Jewish community, and from this group, $47 mil is not all that astounding. Additionally, I would expect that this section of the Jewish community has more areas of agreement with the Bush administration than just Israel. There is probably a natural affinity with the rightwing economics of the Bushites as well.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

To simply reduce U.S. aid to Israel--without a nuanced, engaged policy for the region isn't good for the U.S. It doesn't move anything forw

 

Why not?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Matt poses a fundamental question and challenge. The very same challenge that M/W pose

 - Why?

United States Aid to Israel: Funding the Occupation

Israel is a funded state. Despite its own relatively healthy economy, it continues to receive aid from the US, in disproportion to both the country’s population and needs.

The financial aid alone that Israel receives from the US allows it to purchase tanks, helicopter gunships, F-16 war planes, machine guns and bullets – all of which it uses to commit human rights violations against the Palestinian people on a daily basis. When it is not possible for the Israeli government to use the funds directly on military expenditure, their use elsewhere frees up other Israeli government funds to pay for military salaries, services and facilities.

Military power is required for Israel to maintain its occupation of the Palestinian territories, implemented through a system of expanding settlements, checkpoints and closure. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the US is funding and supplying the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, as without financial subsidies from the US, the Israeli government would have found it considerably more difficult to sustain its military occupation of the Palestinian territories for the past thirty-four years.

Snapshot of the state of Israel

• Israel’s population is 6 million people, including:
  
  › 182,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank
  › 20,000 illegal settlers in the occupied Golan Heights
  › 7,000 illegal settlers in the Gaza Strip
  › 176,000 illegal settlers in East Jerusalem1

• Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world, and Israelis enjoy a per capita income higher than Ireland, Spain, or oil-rich Saudi Arabia.2

• Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.3

• Since 28 September 2000, Israeli police, soldiers and settlers have killed more than 2,050 Palestinians -- the vast majority of them civilians -- in contravention of international law.

A BREAKDOWN OF UNITED STATES AID TO ISRAEL

Financial Aid

The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world, receiving over one-third of total US aid to foreign countries4, even though Israel’s population comprises just .001% of the world’s population and has one the world’s higher per capita incomes.

• Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. The interest costs born by US taxpayers on behalf of Israel are $49,937,000,000 – making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $134,791,507,200 (more than $134 billion).5

• The total cost of this financial aid to US tax payers per Israeli is $23,240.

• Since 1992, the US has offered Israel an additional $2 billion in loan guarantees every year.6

• Nearly all past loans to Israel have been forgiven – leading Israel to claim that they have never defaulted on repayment of a US loan – with most loans made on the understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them.

• In 1997 alone, the total of US grants and loan guarantees to Israel was $5.5 billion, i.e., $15,068,493 per day.

Military Aid

The United States provides direct and indirect military aid to Israel – totalling more than it gives to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean put together, whose combined total population is 1,054,000,000.

According to a US Department of Defence Joint Report to Congress in March 2001, “It is in the United States’ national interest to promote the existence of a stable, democratic and militarily strong Israel, at peace with its neighbours […]”.7 According to a US State Department statement in November 2002, the US government is committed to “maintaining and enhancing Israel’s security and qualitative edge over any combination of adversaries” and “the important advantages the US-Israeli strategic relationship has and will continue to provide us.”8

• Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is grants to foreign governments financing the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training. Israel receives 50% of the FMF budget request. The large sums paid by the US to Egypt and Jordan are in recognition of the two countries signing peace accords with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively.

FMF Budget Request FY 2001:Total budget request:$3.54 billion Budget request for Israel:$1.98 billion Budget request for Egypt:$1.3 billion Budget request for Jordan$75 million

• The Economic Support Fund (ESF) promotes economic and political stability in areas strategically important to the US. It is not intended for military usage, but allows the recipient government to free up other money, therefore providing indirect military aid. Israel receives the largest single grant of the Near East budget, which alone is 79% of the total ESF request.

ESF Budget Request, FY 2001:

 Total budget request:

 $2.313 billion

 

Budget request for Near East:

 $1.828 billion, including:

 

Israel

 $840 million

 

Egypt

 $150 million

 

WB/GS

$100 million

Furthermore:

• 18 of the 92 pending arms sales transfers in the year 2000 were to Israel;

• Israel has the world’s largest fleet of F-16s outside the US, currently possessing 200 jets -- with a further 102 on order with American manufacturer Lockheed Martin;

• In June 2001 Israel again requested $800 million in supplementary US aid. This was originally pledged to cover the cost of the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon – in other words, Israel was being paid for complying with international law. As Israel re-requests this package, administration officials have considered linking it to the implementation of the Mitchell Report, again effectively paying Israel to comply with international standards;9

Charitable Aid

Private donations to American charities initially constituted one quarter of Israel’s budget. Today, it is estimated that these tax-deductible donations exceed $1.5 billion per year. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax deductible contributions to a foreign government does not exist for any other country.

US aid to Israel: A violation of US law

US law prohibits the President from providing military aid to any country that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights”.10 Under the 1967 US Arms Export Control Act, it is illegal to use US weapons to carry out extra-judicial killings. This act stipulates that weapons be sold to “friendly countries solely for internal security and legitimate defence.”

• Since September 2000, the Israeli army has used attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 missiles to target Palestinian civilians, homes, forces, buildings and in demonstrations. In its Human Rights Report, the US State Department declared that Israeli army actions were an “excessive use of force”, noting that the Israeli forces used live ammunition, even when they were not in imminent danger, and that the Israeli military “shelled PA institutions and Palestinian civilian areas in response to individual Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians or settlers”.

• The Israeli government’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories have been condemned by human rights organisations worldwide. The Israeli army’s “excessive use of force” towards Palestinian civilians and its policy of “state assassinations” violate international human rights law. In supplying military aid to such a state, the US is violating its own laws.
   

1 CIA World Factbook, July 2001
2 Zunes, Stephen, “The Strategic Function of US Aid to Israel” (Washington Report on the Middle East December 2002)
3 ibid.
4 Washington Report on the Middle East December 2002
5 Ibid, as of 1 November 1997.
6 Ibid.
7 Foreign Military Training and DOD engagements, Activities of Interest, vol. 1, (fiscal year 1999-2000), Joint Report to Congress, March 1, 2001. Full text available through Federation of American Scientists’ website
8 “US promises Israel $2.16 billion military aid 2004,” Reuters, 21 November 2002
9 The Jerusalem Post, 28/6/01
10 22 USC 2304(a)

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

What did Mossad know and when did they know it??

CIA warned Bush of no WMD in Iraq: retired official

The question that must be asked then (and this is similar to the one that M/W ask) is why DOESN'T "Big Oil" provide a countervailing pressure, as to some extent, in previous eras like Bush I and before, it did?

I think the answer is that Big Oil has decided that Israel provides enough in the way of services (intelligence, etc.) to the American imperium in the Middle East (concerned above all with oil) to justify its silence if not its support of AIPAC. Please remember, I'm not talking about American politics in general, and any supposed preference for democracy it may have, but about Big Oil.

This is where the "realist school" theory of M/W begins to break down. They seem to view the US National Interest in the Middle East (again, primarily oil) as better served by staying in the good graces of the oil-producing states. But what if the situation is so screwed up that it actually makes more sense (again from the oil perspective) for the United States to be feared rather than loved?

This policy has served Big Oil well for a number of years. But M/W may still have a point. The time window in which this constellation of forces is able to predominate may not be infinite, and the risk is large for all players, Big Oil, the United States, Israel, the Arab states, that the situation could blow up beyond any hope of repair. That is what appears to be happening, and is one reason why the M/W paper strikes the nerves it does.

sTiVo,

Why, "by different scholars, please"

Here's why.  Perhaps the most brilliant aspect of Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis is their preemptive complaint of overplaying the antisemitism card -- effectively innoculating their thesis against any reasonable examination of the antisemitic implications in a thesis that never quite defines its subject, and leaving "The Israel Lobby" to implicate any American Jew interested in a secure Israel with putting Israeli or Jewish interests ahead of US interests (whatever those may be -- Walt and Mearsheimer are conspicuously vague on the notion of genuine US interests as well).

I didnt they were deprived of money, however it would not take too many donors to give that much money. However, knowing a few Jew as I do I know none who give to AIPAC. It might explain why AIPAC seems to be unrepresentative of many American Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I would suggest the real reason Big Oil has not put more pressure on US policy toward Israel is that the Arab Oil countries don't really care about Israel. Israel is no threat to any oil producing country. There is immense suspicion if not downright hostility toward the Palestinians.

No Arab leader has really put themselves out for the Palestinians. After the Iraq invasion of Kuwait both Kuwait and Saudi Arabi Arab cut off funding for the PLO. Jordan certainly does not want to see an ascendent Palestinian state on its borders.

Israel makes for a nice scapegoat for Arab leaders. There are more political rights for Arab citizens of Israel than in Arab countries and great economic wellbeing. If there were rally a Palestinian State which saw political rights and economic growth what Arab ruler would find that a comfort?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'd like to see an argument that a 2-state solution, which means the insistence that there be an ethnically Jewish state - even at the expense of the human right of the refugees to return to Israel - which is contrary to the wishes of most of the people of the Middle East, is in the US' interests.

Arnold, some version of the two-state solution is in the US interest, and indeed the global interest, because it is in the interest of all of us to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promote peace and stability in the Middle East. And the two-state framework is the only one which has half a chance of generating a workable settlement.

I also don't like the idea of a state that is built on structural ethnic uniformity. But the one-state solution is an an unachievable fantasy. Israel is a heavily armed state whose citizens would resist attempt to implement such a solution most strenuously. Not even the United States could implement it. If you think regime change in Iraq was a disater, just imagine the chaos and violence that would accompany any serious effort to pressure nuclear-armed Israel into changing the fundamental character of its state.

Of course there are those who think it is in our "interest" to work strenuously and uncompromisingly to eliminate every political situation which is an affront to our moral and ideological sensibilities. But that is not a reality-based approach to global affairs. The world frequently fails to cooperate with our moral theories, and our capacity to replace the real world with parts of an ideal one is severely limited. Let's not get carried away with neocon-like transformational delusions.

Perhaps the most brilliant aspect of Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis is their preemptive complaint of overplaying the antisemitism card

Which their opponents fell right into by rushing into antisemitism charges against M/W instead of the relatively reasoned arguments you make here. M/W is not the be-all and end-all on this topic by any means, and there are many grounds on which it can be criticized as vague. But trotting out the antisemitism charge at the very beginning, basically ensured that the reasoned discussion of US Middle East policy would not happen - and that's what AIPAC intended. AIPAC wants the discussion to end behind the closed doors of the Bush/Cheney administration.

If M and W are flawed messengers, where were the better messengers all this time?

“Literally, from Israel's birth, as that great Democrat Harry Truman took the courageous step to immediately extend America's hand to recognize the State of Israel...Democrats have done all we can to foster the special, enduring relationship between the two countries. Maintaining Israel's security is a key U.S. national security interest...”

Howard Dean

"M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.

Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

Noam Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999

WHEN JEW-HATER NOAM CHOMSKY SAYS M-W ARE WRONG HOW CAN ANYBODY BELIEVE THEM?

But the one-state solution is an an unachievable fantasy. Israel is a heavily armed state whose citizens would resist attempt to implement such a solution most strenuously.

I just can't envision Israeli voters voting to commit to a war they will lose rather than to accept refugees so that Israel peacefully and gradually passes the 40% threshold where Zionists believe Israel loses its Jewish character and then passes the 50% threshold years, maybe even a generation after that.

And the fact is that without US support, Israel will eventually lose its war against everybody else in the Middle East. Even Israel's nuclear arsenal does not change that, and Israel cannot maintain a regional nuclear monopoly without US support.

Of course there are those who think it is in our "interest" to work strenuously and uncompromisingly to eliminate every political situation which is an affront to our moral and ideological sensibilities.

I don't expect some here to agree that the protection of Israel's ethnic character was an important motivation for the US invasion of Iraq. I will put up a longer post concerning that later today in the discussion tables. For now, I'll just remind everyone of two things:

1 - It was commonly argued at the time that the road to peace with the Palestinians ran through Baghdad, and that when the Palestinians lost Hussein as a patron they would accept a peace with Israel on terms more preferable to the Israelis.

2 - The Saudi Government, the Kuwaiti Government, the Jordanian government, every regional government except Israel's publicly took stances opposed to the war. The populations of every state in the region other than Israel's were also strongly opposed to the war.

*******

Another thing is that I thought the original poster was speaking of interests as conventionally strategically defined, not a moral "interest". I've heard the moral arguments before. Going through them here would not change anyone's mind about anything.

If anyone hasn't seen a discussion of the moral arguments and is interested, ask in a reply and I'll look through the archives and find a link to one where Zionista or Greenbaum or someone and I go back and forth for a couple of dozen posts about the moral aspects of US support for Israel's ethnic character.

I still have not seen the strategic argument, if the original poster did not mean it is in the US strategic interest, but rather the US moral interest to get a two state solution, then I retract my question. I don't need to hear her argument about that.

Mearsheimer and Walt may or may not be personally anti-Semites but their paper is most definitely anti-Semitic.

Define anti-Semitic.

I would say that, looking at the current state of the Middle East, the current prices at the gas pumps and the current profits of the oil companies, it is clear that oil companies have a stake in Middle East instability, not Middle East stability. And Israel, whatever else it is, is not a force for Middle East stability.

Why don't we begin with the indisputable proposition that people like you-- who would like Israelis to make a deal with a government that supports homicide bombers-- constitute, thankfully, a minority in both major parties, and absolutely nothing you do, and nothing you say, will change that for years to come.

"I have been critical of some aspects of what the Israeli Government does. People say you cannot criticize another government. That, of course, is not true. People in this body spend most of our time criticizing other governments. It is perfectly legitimate to express points of view. Indeed, the more closely one feels allied to a nation, it seems to me the
more your obligation is to speak out, if there are some differences, in a constructive and helpful way.

But those who are urging Israel to do more have to take due account of the steady, relentless pattern of terrorism of which it is the victim. Look what happened in Spain. Two hundred people were brutally murdered and a government fell, because they think it was an inappropriate reaction in terms of trying to blame people. But would anyone now be pressing the Spanish Government to enter into negotiations with al Qaeda which appears to be the author of this?

When the U.S. was the victim of thousands of murders and, given the population, Israel has seen a comparable number, if not more, murdered by terrorists, none of us here felt that the answer was to go further with negotiations.

I am not opposed to peace negotiations. I think it is very much in Israel's interest. I think the ability to get out of the settlements so that Israel can be a Jewish democratic state, setting an example for the world of how to achieve democratic values in the Middle East, that is very important. So I don't think the peace process ought to be abandoned.

But I do believe it is important to take due note of what we are asking a democratic Nation to do: negotiate peace under difficult circumstances with an entity from which murderist terrorists come, and an entity which does too little to deal with it."

Barney Frank

expatjourno2,

...Israel, whatever else it is, is not a force for Middle East stability.

As opposed to what?

So it's okay to cite Chomsky when he agrees with you, but puts you outside the pale when he doesn't? OK, Sage, you're right, I can't argue with that.

The money is a minor, side issue

That's never true in politics or in life.

The issue is that Israel is currently incapable of looking after its own interests (except in an exceedingly narrow, short term kind of way)

This is supposed to describe a nation, culture and people that have the most astonishing record of survival in human history

The irony is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solvable.

And this about the most intractable conflict in the modern world.

rated 4 by one user

I thought I'd found the depths of liberal stupidity. I see there is no bottom

I

Arnold Evans,

There is at least an argument that the billions of dollars and scores of soldiers lives that the US is sacrificing every month in Iraq would not have been necessary if not for the US position on Israel.

When you put it like that, it is not so much an argument as it is a conclusision in search of a premise.

Zionista refers us to a definition of anti-Semitism that contains the following:

The argument has been made, and it seems to me a good one, that what ultimately needs to be asked is not whether one can theoretically be anti-Israel but not antisemitic but whether, practically speaking, one's criticisms of Israel reflect a double standard or not. If a person bitterly attacked Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, but also similarly attacked China for its treatment of Tibetans, Russia for its treatment of the Chechens and India for its treatment of the Kashmiris, I would not attribute the criticism to antisemitism even though Israel has far more justification for its actions than any of these countries. If, on the other hand, the same person singled out only or mainly Israel for criticism, an antisemite is what he or she is.

This definition is itself anti-Semitic. It attempts to absolve those who support Israeli brutality against Palestinians by declaring that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel without simultaneously criticizing China, Russia, and India for their treatment of minority groups. There are many individuals who uncritically support Israel – because it is a Jewish state – who would never dream of supporting equivalent brutality by China, Russia or India.

Rather than slandering as anti-Semites those who oppose the Israeli occupation we should be condemning those morally depraved individuals who blindly support the brutal Israeli treatment of the Palestinians because it is a Jewish state. We would rightly condemn any American who openly supported the Chinese, Russian and Indian treatment of their minority populations. Those who defend Israeli treatment of the Palestinians deserve the same condemnation we would visit on any American who openly supported the Chinese, Russian and Indian treatment of their minority populations.

You know you're just proving M/W's thesis, right?

instability, maybe?

AIPAC is definitely an insufficient explanation for pro-Israeli tilt of almost entire American political spectrum, as Sage aptly demonstrated (with trollish zeal, I regret to say, 20 consecutive post make you a troll).

There list of peculiarities of American public opinion is longer: that gasoline taxes are evil, small cars are dangerous, prisons should be plentiful and every prison sentence should be a life sentence, that "are are the most generous nation on Earth". My favorite: 20% of the public thinks that they are in top 1% of earners.

What genuinely puzzles me that as Israel strategic position has an increasingly lopesided character, and as Israel defeated two intifadas in a row and as Israel has zero external constraints in dealing with Palestinians, "friends of Israel" grow more and more paranoid, lobing accusations of anti-Semitism and "objective anti-Semitism left and right (well, mostly left).

Some very serious and quite liberal Jews went on record saying that while Kerry never said a cross word about Israel, he is nevertheless on the left, and the World's left wishes the destruction of Israel, and thus they cannot vote for Kerry. I presume that they were privy to the Protocoles of the Elders of The Left.

force a peaceful settlement

Why think small? Why not force world peace?

I think the charge of anti-Semitism has already gone there. It has been thrown around dishonestly for too long as a tactic by people trying to cut off debate to have any meaning at all anymore.

Given that Israel is in conflict with most of the region's governments and hated by all of the region's peoples (other than its own citizens), it's pretty obvious that the region would be a good deal more peaceful if the UN had not brought it into existence in the first place. That, in itself is not necessarily an argument against its existence, only an acknowledgement that Israel's existence has not come without cost.

You can reach that conclusion only if you believe that all the liberal Democrats have said what I have quoted because they are terrified of the "Lobby" and not because they truly believe in those positions. M/W offer not one scintilla of evidence for that proposition.

That article makes some mildly interesting historical and lingusistic points before getting around to its foolish definition of antisemitism in the last paragraph.

The significance of the hyphen is that it implies that there is something called "semitism" which there is not. Antisemitism is simply opposition to the Jews. Then it goes to point to the term's origin in late 19th century Germany, something that I never knew before.

Not everything changed on 9/11 but this is one thing that did, and it was much commented on in the Israeli press at the time. 9/11 could be used to convince the Americans of the rightness and inevitability of their hard-line position against "the Arabs". And while the blinders have lifted to some extent with regard to the Iraq war, they have not lifted on this issue. AIPAC played a role here, but yes, it doesn't explain everything.

I have to disagree with you here. I think that other black leaders should denounce Farrakhan AND Jewish leaders should denounce AIPAC on practical, if on no other grounds. Maintaining a "united front" is counterproductive because non-blacks and non-Jews are going to think that black and Jews, by their silence, approve of Farrakhan and AIPEC.

This is unfortunate because, in reality, there is a wide range of opinions within both groups. Obscuring that fact reinforces stereotypes, thereby encouraging bigotry, the first step of which is always to feel that one can make general statements about "them," rather than to see each person as an individual who may or may not share characteristics with other members of a given group.

There is also the issue of credibility. Eric Alterman, for example, is more credible to me on Israel-related issues because he expresses opinions he has clearly arrived at independently.

the uniquely common values and interests which America and Israel share

Sage, can you clarify what shared values are unique to Israel and the US and not shared with other allies such as Britain, Canada, etc.? This idea that we have some kind of special shared values with Israel different from the values we share with other close allies strikes me as myth.

I have several concerns about this AIPAC--Israel -- American uncritical support issue:

First. Why is the issue of Zionism not debated? Why does our national discussion assume that Zionism is a legitimate, even favored, perspective?

Second. Why is it that when one says something critical of Israel or Jewish people one is quickly labeled anti-Semitic? Why is this method of dismissing those who disagree with conventional or orthodox opinion not criticized?

Third. Years ago, one of the writers at Tikkun stated that Jews, as a group, have joined the Protestants as the economic and political elite of the U.S. The first issue discussed in any introductory political science textbook is that economic and political elites define the values by which the rest of us live. Why do we not question the legitimacy of the values that are defined for the rest of us?

Fourth. I think the influence of AIPAC likely comes from three sources: a) the amount of money they can throw at an issue, b) their cleverness and skill in mobilizing alliances and coalitions and presenting that through well orchestrated public relations campaigns, and c) their use of the historical hunger of Jewish people for a homeland to encourage support and legitimacy for this positions. Why are AIPAC’s attempts at manipulating Jewish opinion not questioned by other Jewish organizations? AIPAC presents itself as the voice of Jewish people (all Jewish people), and no one questions that, why?

Fifth. It is said that a more intelligent debate over the Israel/Palestine issue is occurring in Israel than is permitted to occur in the U.S. Was the creation of the State of Israel by the West a colonial invasion of Arab-Muslim lands, or was it the fulfillment of the Zionist dream that western powers have adopted as national policy? Why is the legitimacy of Israel as a nation state not discussed?

Sixth. Why is it assumed that Israel must be economically, politically and militarily dominant in the Middle East in order for it to survive and feel secure? Why the arguments of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East are considered illegitimate, including those of Osama bin Laden?

cadabra

As Matt comments, the paper's scholarship is less than steller. I would be less complimentary-it's really shockingly sloppy.

Jo-Ann, please support this accusation.  

You say, for instance, that "sources are quoted out of context," but don't give examples. You say it "defies believability" that a paper "on Mideast policy" doesn't mention oil. But the topic of the paper isn't as broad as "Mideast policy"--it's a much narrower topic, why US support for Israel is so strong. (Oil is mentioned once or twice, by the way.) And you say "As for the Iraq War, the authors might have noted that the majority of American Jewish opinion was--and is--solidly anti-war." In fact, on pages 31-32, the authors say the following:

Although  neoconservatives  and  other  Lobby  leaders  were  eager  to  invade  Iraq,  the  broader  American  Jewish  community  was  not.153   In  fact,  Samuel  Freedman  reported  just  after  the  war  started  that  "a  compilation  of  nationwide  opinion  polls  by  the  Pew  Research  Center  shows  that  Jews  are  less  supportive  of  the  Iraq  war  than  te  population  at  large,  52%  to  62%."154   Thus,  it  would  be  wrong  to blame  the  war  in  Iraq  on  "Jewish  influence."   Rather,  the  war  was  due  in  large  part  to  the  Lobby’s  influence,  especially  the  neoconservatives  within  it.  

Unfortunately, it seems that the criticism of W/M has been every bit as shockingly sloppy as the paper itself is alleged to be.

1) Why is the issue of Zionism not debated? As: shall Israel be dismantled? I think that Jews should not be paranoid because this attitude is limited to a fringe, but feel free to correct me.

2) Why critics of Israel are labelled "anti-Semitic"? I disagree with such labelling, but the truth remains that some critics are anti-Semitic, plus, the implication that Israel should be dismantled are so dreadful to Jews (like me) that name-calling is truly a natural reaction.

3) The relevance of that point is obscure as presented.

4) AIPAC may be clever, but the effects of that cleverness can only tilt the public opinion a bit from a position that would emerge naturally. Actually, the fact mention in point 3) explains why we would naturally side with people who are presumed to be similar to our elite against the people who are very different from us.

5) Here you seem to suggest that it is easier to discuss imperialist origins of Israel and its legitimacy as a state in Israel than here, unless you conflate two issues: an intelligent discussion and the discussion of the latter two points.

6) Perhaps because WE think that we must be militarily and economically dominant in order to survive? This is a subtle question: what shall one do if one is dominant? Use this superiority to the hilt and try to make it ever more lopsided, or recognize that there can be too much of a good thing? The latter is damn difficult intelectually and next to impossible politically.

Well, I don't see any moral case in that post, nor did one seem to be intended; I appreciate your posts and you are reasonable and informed, but are you sure you aren't being disingenuous here? Again, I think you are basing your opinions on dubious assumptions, which are not widely held either on the left or the right. Discard them, and the strategic argument is obvious. US military aid is not so terribly important anymore, economic aid is nice - oppression is very expensive - but neither are essential for existence in the present form in the pre67 borders. It's the diplomatic support that is most important in continuing the present policies - It is clear that if the US said very nicely - "accept the 2002 Saudi plan or we won't oppose economic sanctions in the UNSC" - Israel would squawk a bit, but fold. But that is just a pipedream.

Without US support, Israel cannot maintain its technological military advantage over its neighbors. I do not believe Israel's voters believe Israel could indefinitely defeat opponents that are much more numerous and equal or superior technologically, as Israel's opponents will be eventually without active US efforts to prevent it.

Well, I, and I think most observers, strongly disagree, particularly about the first sentence. The way that the opponents would achieve technological parity is if they became modern advanced industrial economies like Israel itself. Before the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq looked to be heading that way - its population was very well educated, by some measures better than Israel even; but now? What you are saying is only true in an unforeseeable very long term.

Israel can use tactical nukes without worrying about civilians as long as Israel has a regional nuclear monopoly, which it cannot maintain without US support.

One of Van Creveld's points, based on the geography, is that the first is not true; and that a nuclear monopoly is not necessary - for of course if an enemy used WMDs against Israeli civilians, its civilians would be subject to MAD too. His general view of the military outlook, after withdrawal from the occupied territories, is something like - "are we dreaming?" - could it be better than this?

Anyway, at present, the refugees really aren't the main issue; most wouldn't return even if they could. Land is. It is pretty clear that if Israel just accepted the 2002 Saudi plan and made an honest effort to help solve refugee problems, it could have its cake (pre 67 Israel) and eat it too (longterm Jewish majority). But nooooo, it prefers policies of awe-inspiring foolishness, in addition to their criminality. Guess it is trying to compete with us for the Earth's dumbest criminal prize. :-)

Juan Cole always says beautifully what I (and many others) mean but tend to jumble.

I accept your premise that the the U.S. and Israel do not share a set of unique values, different from those of other democracies. I vehemently reject the premise that they share no values or interests.

You're not entirely wrong.

But then again, how does kissing the wife of a visiting dignitary (which is something any First Lady might do), translate into being anti-Israel? Hmm, did she also kiss Rabin's wife? That whole thing is a silly canard.

But let's suppose Hillary was as "obtuse" as me. Suppose she instead said, "Israel deserves peace and security. I supported then, and I support now, peace in the Middle East between Israel and its Arab neighbors as the surest way of delivering that peace and security. If elected, I will continue to work tirelessly to bring that result about." Is that anti-Israel? I don't think so. But the response would have been deafening. She would consider herself lucky to have emerged alive.

Now, the question is, if there was no "Lobby", if Wolfowitz, Kristol, AIPAC, the WSJ and Fox did not exist, is the conclusion that Hillary was anti-Israel one that the Jews of New York would have reached on their own, or is it one that needs to be whipped up by organs like the above. I'm frankly not sure. But the fact that Hillary Clinton bowed to political reality doesn't disprove the power of the Israel Lobby.

Because the Lobby does exist and its implicit threats are real, and every politician knows it.

There are actually three definitions, one per word in the "Check it out" comment.

Further, I think it says something that every comment, until sTiVo's, missed the point that antisemitism does not even have a Jewish origin, but originated as an effective rhetorical device for the 19th century propaganda of Wilhelm Marr.  Ironically enough, to organize a host culture against a minority based on its perceived "control" of the host nation's socio-political culture.  Much like what Walt and Mearsheimer are doing with The Israel Lobby.

expatjourno2,

Given that Israel is in conflict with most of the region's governments and hated by all of the region's peoples (other than its own citizens), it's pretty obvious that the region would be a good deal more peaceful if the UN had not brought it into existence in the first place.

First, let's consider sTiVo's comment upthread:

Of course you're talking about the Arab governments, and not necessarily their people, which is one big reason why the situation is so unstable.

If we can accept sTiVo's distinction between the governments and the peoples of Israel's neighboring states, then upon what shall we base our certainty on the idea that Israel is the source of instability in the region?

Juan Cole.  So beautifully eloquent and clairvoyant....

With both Iraq and Iran in flames, the Likud Party could do as it pleased in the Middle East without fear of reprisal. This means it could expel the Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan, and perhaps just give Gaza back to Egypt to keep Cairo quiet. Annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the waters of which Israel has long coveted, could also be undertaken with no consequences, they probably think, once Hizbullah in Lebanon could no longer count on Iranian support. The closed character of the economies of Iraq and Iran, moreover, would end, allowing American, Italian and British companies to make a killing after the wars (so they thought).

Zionista...have you edited the link to the definition that you provided, to change where it leads? When I click that link I'm taken to the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism, that clearly does not contain the material you and the other posters above are referencing; you all appear to be discussing a different article. What definition of anti-Semitism are you discussing?

Wordie,

Zionista...have you edited the link to the definition that you provided, to change where it leads?

Wow.  Surely a good-faith discussion waiting to happen....  But no, Wordie.  They link to Wiktionary, Wikipedia, and the Forward, respectively.

******

I marvel at the way any examination of antisemitism and its implications is cited as a means to supress discussion while Zionism is routinely characterized as "racist," "colonial," "imperialist," and Jewish national rights are casually dismissed as illegitimate.  It doesn't leave a whole lot left to discuss, does it?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Colonization of Palestine Precludes Peace
By Jimmy Carter




For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community. Israel's occupation of Palestine has obstructed a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land, regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasir Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet.
-----

I marvel at the way any examination of antisemitism and its implications is cited as a means to supress discussion while Zionism is routinely characterized as "racist," "colonial," "imperialist," and Jewish national rights are casually dismissed as illegitimate. It doesn't leave a whole lot left to discuss, does it?

It's not the examination of antisemitism and its implications that is cited as a means to suppress discussion. It's the charge of antisemitism that is used to suppress discussion.

The examination of antisemitism and its implications is merely used to change the subject.

Further, I think it says something that every comment, until sTiVo's, missed the point that antisemitism does not even have a Jewish origin, but originated as an effective rhetorical device for the 19th century propaganda of Wilhelm Marr.

I, for one, did not "miss the point." I ignored it as having no possible relevance to the discussion. It's an interesting etymological curiosity and it is ironic that a word that is now usually wielded by Jews was coined by someone who hated Jews. Nothing more.

The problem with this Adminstration is that it's not flexing any muscles--it's not flexing anything at all. You can't push for U.S. interests in a region when you haven't figured out what those interests are. I, for one, believe that it is in the U.S.' interest to force a peaceful settlement, a 2-state solution, between Israel and Palestine. (It's also in Israel's interest--but I want to be clear, I am speaking as an American on behalf of U.S. interests here, and confident that my affection for Israel does not color my ability to promote an argument on behalf of U.S. foreign policy).  

The problem with the U.S.-imposed solution fantasy is that it imagines that the U.S. can really impose a solution on the Palestinians.  The fact that it has so little leverage over the Palestinians is why Peace Processors constantly focus on pressuring Israel.  The levers (foreign aid) are apparent and (contrary to supporters of the Invincible Lobby Theory) have worked in the past - most significantly at Taba where Clinton not only forced Barak to negotiate under fire, but also to cross numerous red lines without any Palestinian reciprocity. 

The Bush administration's theory was that a democratic PA would have to be more responsive to its public and this would lead to pressure to moderate diplomatic positions in order to deliver economic development.  It was certainly a step forward from the Clinton-era support for Oslo's installation of Arafat as a "Mubarak-lite" dictator who was supposed to keep a lid on terror.  But "solving" this problem requires far more than the standard party line of the left - that the US should pressure Israel to evacuate the settlements and turn the other cheek in response to terror.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The problem with the U.S.-imposed solution fantasy is that it imagines that the U.S. can really impose a solution on the Palestinians

 

I've over 6 Billion good reason the US can act as an honest broker of this conflct without "imposing" anything other than the return of illegally stolen land to its owners.

 As far as fantasies and imposed settlements are concerned, don't look now, but that is exactly what Kadima is about to do!

Time for honesty here. Really

expatjourno2,

I, for one, did not "miss the point." I ignored it as having no possible relevance to the discussion. It's an interesting etymological curiosity and it is ironic that a word that is now usually wielded by Jews was coined by someone who hated Jews. Nothing more.

This is very intriguing attitude from one who demanded the definition of antisemitism to begin with.  Why should we dismiss the definition of antisemitism as defined by the inventor of the term as "nothing more" than "an interesting etymological curiosity," when such context is necessary for any examination of the antisemitic implications in Walt's and Mearsheimer's thesis?  (Otherwise, again, why would you even have demanded the definition to begin with?)

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 Touching the third rail
By Arnaud De Borchgrave

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- A quarter of a million people marched in Manhattan. One hundred thousand squeezed into Madison Square Garden, many of them in uniform. Over 100,000 telegrams deluged the White House. All demanded the immediate recognition of the about-to-be-born new state of Israel. Most of President Truman`s cabinet was against it. The most formidable naysayer was then Secretary of State Gen. George Marshall.

 

Following World War II, foreign policy professionals wrote scores of position papers that warned an independent Jewish state would trigger a 'reject phenomenon' throughout the Middle East. David K. Niles, in charge of Jewish affairs at the White House, was a persuasive advocate of, and organizer for, Israel. The Holocaust of six million Jews, the telegrams and the marchers in New York clinched it for Truman.

Since [the] Israeli and U.S. interests have gradually merged, a perception carefully nurtured by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably Washington`s most powerful lobby, or at least co-equal in influence with the NRA (National Rifle Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). With some 200 employees and 100,000 wealthy benefactors, AIPAC claims it doesn`t have to register as a foreign agent because all its funding comes from U.S. sources. There are also over 500,000 Israelis with dual citizenship, a number of them AIPAC contributors.

Over the years, AIPAC has maneuvered to make Israel the third rail of American foreign policy. The handful of Congressmen who have been critical of Israel over the past 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap, or, worse, lost their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents. Israel is an integral part of America`s body politic.

Yet the recent publication of 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,' an 83-page paper published on Harvard`s website by two prominent academics, ran into a firestorm of vilification from government, academia and the media for documenting what is already well established.

I can accept that if the paper is saying all (or even any of that, now that I think about it), it's antisemitic. The definition works for me better than the historical one Zionista linked to. As I understand it, though, it's not talking about American Jews in general but groups like AIPAC, which, while composed largely of Jews and which may report to the Israeli Government, do not by any means represent the views of American Jews in general.

This discussion will be over by the time I get around to reading the original paper, but I promise that I will read it with an open mind and if I see the things you see in it, I'll say to myself, "That Daniel A. Greenbaum was right. What repulsive people Walt and Mearsheimer are."

Joanne...

I've thought a lot about how to reply to your posting. I really have some mixed feelings. For instance, right at the beginning you describe the M&W paper as "heavily-debated," and I would have to disagree with that, as what is primarily debated anytime the paper comes up is not the issues raised by it, but whether or not it is anti-semitic. As another poster mentioned, I would like to know where, specifically, you see the paper as being sloppy, and as someone else said, the paper is not about US mideast policy, but about the ways our policy is skewed in favor of Israeli interests - oil isn't the issue for the purposes of the discussion the authors wish to have.

You also mentioned sources quoted out of context - did you mean the ben Gurion quote? I've read that there are some who dispute that quote. Dershowitz has slammed it in his refutation of the M&W paper. But Juan Cole had some interesting things to say about that in a recent article entitled "Breaking the Silence:"

For example, Dershowitz makes much of the fact that the authors quote Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion misleadingly, creating the impression that in the late 1930s he was advocating the violent expulsion of the Palestinians. In fact, as Dershowitz points out, in the quote Ben-Gurion was not calling for expulsion, but expressing a bizarre conviction that the small Zionist state he then envisaged would persuade the Palestinians to relinquish their claim on an independent state in the rest of Palestine. What Dershowitz does not mention is that Ben-Gurion's "plan" was so fantastic as to bring into question his sincerity in stating it as he did. Israeli historian Benny Morris noted, Ben-Gurion "always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller.'" And in fact, when push came to shove in 1947 and 1948, Ben-Gurion did explicitly order expulsions, as at Lydda and Ramla, and was implicated in others by virtue of being in command at the time. Ben-Gurion also kept the 700,000 expelled Palestinian refugees from ever returning or being given reparations: Their villages were razed, their houses bulldozed or taken over, their orchards seized.

But, then you went on to note:

The problem with this Adminstration is that it's not flexing any muscles--it's not flexing anything at all. You can't push for U.S. interests in a region when you haven't figured out what those interests are. I, for one, believe that it is in the U.S.' interest to force a peaceful settlement, a 2-state solution, between Israel and Palestine. (It's also in Israel's interest--but I want to be clear, I am speaking as an American on behalf of U.S. interests here, and confident that my affection for Israel does not color my ability to promote an argument on behalf of U.S. foreign policy).

But that's not what this Adminstration has tried to do at all. It's tinkered around the margins, and then forced its completely bogus Arab democracy initiative on a reluctant--and weak-- Abu Mazen,(instead of forcing Israel to strengthen Abu Mazen) leaving us with the present mess. To simply reduce U.S. aid to Israel--without a nuanced, engaged policy for the region isn't good for the U.S. It doesn't move anything forward.

And there we find common cause, I think. Although I might quibble with whether Bush has tried anything substantial - as amazing as it may seem, Bush was the first to recognize the idea of a Palestinian state, and actually made some efforts in the direction of peace, pushing UN Resolution 1397, for instance. (As someone who is not at all fond of Bush, to put it lightly, it is difficult for me to acknowlege these things). The problem is that more recently, he has waffled. He's indicated that he might support the unilateral plan, then he said he might not.

Nonetheless, I do agree with you on the rest of your assessment. It is in the interests of both the US and Israel to have peace in the region through a two-state solution, but Bush is not doing enough. And the insistance that the elections take place in January, despite Abu Mazen's hesitations, was clearly short-sighted.

If the Israelis wish for the US to offer continued aid, and that aid ultimately goes to support those policies which are designed to maintain and Jewish ethnic/cultural majority in Israel, then I think it would be entirely reasonable that the US demand that far more territory be returned to the Palestinians, than is currently being contemplated by Israel, as a condition of receiving any more aid. For instance, Israel is demanding that it retain for security purposes territory that international law has made it clear needs to be returned to the Palestinians. I say, if Israel wants to retain Palestinian land for security purposes, then it should be prepared to offer a substantial amount of equally-valued land to the Palestinians in return - not just an equal or lesser amount, as some of the agreements of the past have attempted to do, but a LOT MORE LAND. That's not at all the intent of the Sharon/Olmert unilateral plan. Peace will only happen when both sides feel they have gotten a fair deal. Israel simply must be led to recognize that however much the creation of the state of Israel was just for the Israelis, for the Palestinians it was a deep and continuing injustice. The only nation that could possibly lead Israel to this recognition is the US, but neither Israel or the US government appears to recogize this rather basic fact, and without that recognition, any peace effort is going to fail.

Finally, Joanne, although we disagree about several issues regarding the M&W paper, I do want to say that I really appreciate your efforts to discuss it. And a thanks to TPM Cafe as well, in providing a forum for these discussions to be attempted.