Time to weigh in on the Israel lobby debate
I have not commented thus far on the publication of the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer book on the Israel lobby. The reason is simple – I agreed to review the book for Haaretz and so have waited for that to be published. That review is now out and can be read in full on this post.
It is a long piece, but I hope that you stick with it. To briefly set out my stall: while I certainly take issue with the specific recent policy examples in the book (Iraq and Syria in particular), I would argue that the relationship between the US, Israel and the lobby that speaks in its name needs to change for everyone’s sake, that this book contributes to a re-think and that the authors are not driven by prejudice.
I am not an American Jew (despite the valiant and appreciated efforts of Matt Yglesias to enfranchise me as such). I can at best empathize with the sensitivities of American Jews and the raw nerves that the book and the debate surrounding it have touched. Some of the commentary, including from people I respect, admire and personally like – JJ Goldberg, Jeffrey Goldberg and Leonard Fein (I had to find a non-Goldberg) for example, pushes back powerfully against the book and comes from a place that is undoubtedly sincere and, I believe, often emotional. It is an emotive subject for me also, but my emotions are those of an Israeli (by choice admittedly) who has witnessed the devastating consequences of the lobby-mediated US policy towards Israel, on our ability to build an Israel of hope, peace, decency and dare I say, longevity.
Without himself being an Israeli, my friend and co-blogger here at TPM Café (he is much more prolific though) MJ Rosenberg probably captures the essence of this position best when he writes: “There is nothing pro-Israel about supporting policies that promise only that Israeli mothers will continue to dread their sons’ 18th birthdays for another generation.”
A key distinction to draw for instance is that it is not Israel per se that has become a strategic liability for the US, but rather Israel as an occupier (which is indeed, a liability to itself). To quote Walt and Mearsheimer, “if the conflict were resolved, Israel might become the sort of strategic asset that its supporters often claim it is.”
Some of the commentary, by the way, has just been plain shoddy – a word hurled too often at Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer. Leslie Gelb, reviewing the book in the NY Times is the most disappointing and inexcusable example of this. Gelb for instance claims that the official American policy against settlements and in favor of a Palestinian state proves the limitations of the lobby. Hardly! If anything it suggests the opposite – 40 years and over 400,000 Israelis living beyond the green line later – there is perhaps a disconnect and might this not require an explanation.
Understandably, Walt and Mearsheimer’s chapter about the Iraq war has drawn the most fire and ire – and with no small degree of justification. Yes, as Leonard Fein argues, the book does go too far in conflating the Israel lobby with neocons. But that act of conflating does not exist only in the minds of Walt and Mearsheimer. As I argue, the mainstream lobby allowed itself to be co-opted and it moved so far to the right and made such dubious alliances, that the co-option gave the impression of being almost seamless.
Yes, the ingredients of Middle East policy post 9/11 are characterized by elements of exceptionalism, not just continuity. But Israel and the lobby speaking in its name, out-sourced their policy to neo-cons (and even the Christian Right and also Islamo-phobes) with devastating effect. And Walt and Mearsheimer are not to blame for this unfortunate reality.
The more important challenges though concern the future. Freedom’s Watch and the push for a military attack on Iran has an eerie familiarity about it. Just look at who the prime donor and mover behind Freedom’s Watch is – Sheldon Adelson – close ally of Bibi Netanyahu who has poured millions into a pro-Bibi daily paper in Israel (read this Jim Lobe piece for more).
Will Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who care about and understand the connection between American security, Middle East stability and Israeli well-being stand up, speak out and be a counter-weight this time?
Ok, here goes – the full book review:
Two authors from the elite of American academia, an attempted answer to the what-went-wrong-for-the-U.S.-in-the-Middle-East question, and a controversy that has been brewing for over a year no wonder this book is on the New York Times Best-Seller list. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's book is far more expansive in scope, detailed in argument, and thoroughly sourced (106 pages of footnotes) than their 2006 article on the same subject, although their methodology still eschews firsthand interviews. This is a difficult and challenging book. It is also an important book that deserves to be keenly debated.
The book has generally elicited three types of response since its release. The first: Ignore it. Controversy, after all, breeds attention, debate and even sales, all of which, for some, are undesirable. Second: Take it seriously and deal with the substance, something this review will do in a moment. But before that, one must note the third type of response: To vilify, delegitimize and discredit the book and its authors. "Anti-Jewish bias" (Jeff Robbins, Wall Street Journal); "inspired by the Nuremburg Laws" (Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times); "a bigoted attack" (Alan Dershowitz) these are just a few of the Pavlovian responses to the book. Despite the accusations, this a not a hateful screed. Painful, yes. Prejudiced, no. As the authors close off each possible avenue of anti-Semitic intent or effect, they come across as thorough, not ritualistic or tokenistic.
According to Walt and Mearsheimer, both political scientists, the former at Harvard, the latter at the University of Chicago, "the Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy." Interest group politics, including ethnic lobbies, are for them central to America's democracy and pluralistic society "as American as apple pie." Multiple loyalties are also very American, and not confined to Jews. To specifically question the dual loyalty of Israel's supporters would be "wrong," say the authors, as they "have every right to advocate their positions." Walt and Mearsheimer argue that, far from controlling the media, the Israel lobby has to work hard to ensure that its position wins out. Perhaps unexpectedly, the authors even describe themselves as "pro-Israel," and declare, "we are not challenging Israel's right to exist, or questioning the legitimacy of a Jewish state." Hardly very radical stuff. Their gripe is with where the lobby, effective as they claim it is, has taken U.S. foreign policy. Yes, they recognize it would be easier and more comfortable to discuss the pharmaceutical, gun or Free Cuba lobbies. Alas, their theme is the Middle East.
Their more shrill detractors have either not read the book, are emotionally incapable of dealing with harsh criticism of something they hold so close (certainly a human tendency), or are intentionally avoiding a substantive debate on the issues. The authors' challenge is "to convince readers that the United States provides Israel extraordinary material aid and diplomatic support, the lobby is the principal reason for that support, and this uncritical and unconditional relationship is not in the American national interest." Proving the first point does not make for particularly arduous labor. Israel became the largest single annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in 1976 and has topped the league ever since. We receive approximately $500 every year for every Israeli (it's $5 per Pakistani). All this is rather nice. In fact, it is a remarkable achievement that few Israelis would prefer to do without. But is it a consequence of the Israel lobby's work? Rather than replying with an "obviously it is," and moving on, Walt and Mearsheimer treat us to an unforgiving debunking of the alternative explanations. This entails holding a mirror up to Israel and highlighting all the warts. We all know they exist, but still, it's not a pretty sight.
Punch to the gut
Chapter Three, "A Dwindling Moral Case," is their punch to the gut of any Israeli claim to extraordinary U.S. support on the basis of merit alone. It is hardly unfair that they give us the most egregious examples of Israel behaving badly, that is precisely what clinches their argument. Just for good measure, the vast majority of their sources are Israeli. Many will recoil at this chapter, especially when the criticism comes from outsiders. By the time the authors ask "which group [Israelis or Palestinians] now has a stronger moral claim to U.S. sympathy?,” the question is clearly rhetorical.
But what about Israel's value as a strategic ally? Walt and Mearsheimer are having none of it, and here the American elite consensus is probably on their side. If Israel was of "limited strategic value" during the Cold War, it has become a veritable "liability" in the war on terror. The alliance with Israel does not serve American Middle East interests as defined by these authors: It doesn't help keep Gulf oil flowing to markets; doesn't discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and certainly doesn't reduce anti-American terrorism originating in the region. Last year's bipartisan Iraq Study Group of wise American policy elders may have put it more politely, but they essentially reached the same conclusion. For Walt and Mearsheimer, support for an Israel that is at war with its neighbors "has fueled anti-Americanism ... gives Islamic terrorists a powerful recruiting tool, and contributes to the growth of radical Islam." It is not Israel per se that is a liability, but Israel as an occupier: "If the conflict were resolved, Israel might become the sort of strategic asset that its supporters often claim it is." The distinction should be on the radar screen of Israel's strategic planners. The authors argue that current Israeli policy is a liability to the U.S., and many would argue (the authors actually do) that it is also a liability to Israel itself. This is the first half of their argument often debatable, sometimes flawed, always compelling.
I would argue for instance that they understate at least three factors in popular culture that embellish U.S. support for Israel. First, there is a significant element of emotion, sentiment and identification in the way Americans relate to Israel; manufactured or not, it exists. Just witness the response to Shahar Peer at this year's U.S. Tennis Open. Second they refer to but underestimate the role of the Christian evangelical Zionists and their impact at the local level, especially in the media. The main Christian pro-Israel lobby group, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has grown exponentially in recent years. It is fanatical in its devotion and politically way over to the right, channeling millions annually to support settlements. A third and not unconnected phenomenon requires a closer look at America's warts namely, the prevalence of popular Islamophobia. Pro-Israel sentiment is strengthened not by Israel's moral case, but by an immoral negative stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims by many mainstream media outlets since 9/11. But Walt and Mearsheimer are less good at seeing America's warts, and totally overlook this trend.
Having set out their own stall, that this extraordinary state of affairs is explained by the influence of the Israel lobby, the authors then describe what the lobby is and how it operates. The lobby, they say, is a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations," not all of whom are lobbyists, with "fuzzy" boundaries. Their definition is interesting and probably over-inclusive, ranging from obvious groupings, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Christian Zionists, to think tanks, certain journalists and scholars, and the neoconservative movement (neocons), of whom more in a moment. It is not synonymous with American Jewry. Their description of how the policy process is "guided" would have most interest groups green with envy, and makes for entertaining, if at times disturbing reading. Former House Speaker Richard Armey's eminently quotable "my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel," from 2002, does get you thinking how it would be received were the Speaker of the Knesset to opine that "my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect America." The tools and tactics used include: draft legislation, speeches, talking points; tours of Israel for politicians and radio talk-show hosts; cultivation of congressional staffers; campaign contributions. Their analysis of campaign financing is weak and leaves one feeling somewhat short-changed.
Finally and not surprisingly, given their own treatment, the authors turn the spotlight on the ugliest face of supposedly pro-Israel activism-smear campaigns and silencing tactics, often perpetrated by organizations masquerading as watchdog groups. The attacks, for instance, on Kenneth Roth and Human Rights Watch, after they criticized Israel's offensive activity in Lebanon in 2006, were not only unjustified, undemocratic and un-Jewish, they are also a big turn-off for an increasing number of young American Jews.
Bad for U.S., bad for Israel
The second half of the book is devoted to concrete examples, with which the authors make their case that the lobby influences foreign policy in ways that are detrimental to the U.S. national interest, "and," the authors add, "although these policies were intended to benefit Israel, many of them have damaged Israeli interests." All of the examples are taken from the Bush era, post 9/11 and this brings us to the book's core weakness. Walt and Mearsheimer see too much continuity and not enough exceptionalism in this period. At the center of their argument stand the neocons, and their interplay with the Israel lobby.
The neocons are a tight-knit group of ultra-hawks, favoring unilateral projection of U.S. power as a benign hegemon. They are predominantly, though not exclusively, Jewish, congregate around certain think tanks and publications (notably the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard, respectively) and are most associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which set out their goals in the 1990s. After 2000, neocons took up key positions in the Bush administration. Walt and Mearsheimer place them four-square inside the Israel lobby. The reality seems more complicated than that. Many leading neocons, by their own admission, care greatly about Israel, but they want to impose their policy, not follow Jerusalem's. Unlike, for instance, AIPAC, which takes its lead from the Israeli government, and then tends to give it an extra twist to the right, the neocons adhere to a rigid ideological dogma and are not afraid to confront a government in Jerusalem they view as too "soft."
The view that sees neocons as spearheading the Israel lobby position under Bush has serious flaws. It is more likely that the neocons co-opted the Israel lobby, and Israel itself, to their own vision of regional transformation. This is more PNAC than AIPAC. Still, most of the Israel lobby were willing accomplices, and this represents their historic error. The gradual and consistent ideological drift to the right of key Israel lobby elements since the 1970s, and the hawkish excess of mainstream groups, made this cooperation not only possible, but natural, almost seamless. The picture is complete when the role of Ariel Sharon, then Israeli premier, is added. Sharon was a hawk, but no neocon. He viewed dreams of regional transformation, democratization and regime change with scorn and disdain, but he could spot a useful political ally when he saw one. The neocons would be his bulwark against being dragged into a negotiating process with the Palestinians or Syrians, as America re-calibrated its approach to the Middle East post-9/11. Negotiations were Sharon's "Room 101." The Dov Weissglas-Elliott Abrams channel saved him the trouble. Walt and Mearsheimer describe a damning end product, policies that are a disaster for America and Israel alike, but in over-conflating the neocons with the Israel lobby they overlook a dynamic and nuance that might have implications for the future.
Outsourcing regional policy
In recent years the Israel lobby, and even Israel itself, largely outsourced regional policy to the neocons, and this is crucial for better understanding all the issues that "The Israel Lobby" looks at: Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and the Second Lebanon War. Walt and Mearsheimer devote a chapter to each of these, but there is no space here for a detailed discussion of the entire region. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power" was, to quote Walt and Mearsheimer, a neocon "obsession," and it is more likely that Israel and the lobby fell into line in promoting the Iraq war than that they drove the agenda. Israeli leaders much too publicly went to bat for the war in American media outlets, and this is well documented in the book, even embarrassingly so (Ehud Barak, in The Washington Post: "Once he [Saddam] is gone there will be a different Arab world"), but there are also suggestions of senior Israelis urging caution in private. Democratic support for the war was propelled by the post-9/11 mood and a political fear of appearing weak on national security issues, and if the Israel lobby played a role it was not the leading one.
On Iran, the authors draw our attention to two missed opportunities, both under former-president Mohammad Khatami, for a comprehensive U.S.-Iranian dialogue, and suggest a diplomatic way forward out of the current impasse. They contend that Israel and the lobby are driving policy in the opposite direction. If that is true, and evidence is certainly out there, then it suggests the neocon world view is still in the driver's seat, and that Israel and the lobby have learned nothing from the last years. Israel, declaratively at least, prefers a diplomatic solution, and both Israel and her friends should be pushing actively for enhanced diplomacy, not the ratcheting up of military threats that so play into the hands of Ahmadinejad.
Syria is the arena in which the neocon-inspired U.S. position and the Israeli position seem most at odds: a policy of promoting regime change versus one that says, we are ready to negotiate with you (when we're not conducting military missions inside your territory). The book also makes the case that in the Second Lebanon War, the Israel lobby helped prevent early U.S. intervention to end the war. If that is true, it would present a particularly glaring example of the lobby working against the Israeli interest, and another reason why Israelis should follow this issue closely. Analysis of key ministerial testimonies to the Winograd Committee and the Interim Winograd Report itself suggests that very senior Israelis based their calculations and decisions on an expectation that the U.S. would pursue an early diplomatic solution. The neocons implacably opposed this, the lobby fell into line and Israel "reaped the rewards," all the way to the cemeteries.
Walt and Mearsheimer explain Bush Middle East policy as Israel-lobby driven. Another way to look at it would be: This is the first Republican administration since the Christian evangelical Zionists emerged as a potent force in the GOP; since the mainstream pro-Israel community planted itself firmly on the Likud right, and with an executive that contained a sizeable and senior neocon presence. At the same time a hawk was ensconced in the Israeli Prime Minister's residence (Sharon). Then came the shock of 9/11, followed by the swagger and hubris that followed an apparently easy military victory in Afghanistan. This was a potent mix. These actors can all be described with some accuracy as pro-Israel, but they are also all different, and charting a future course is helped by recognizing that difference.
Prescriptions on what to do next are precisely how Walt and Mearsheimer end their book. They come from the realist school of American foreign policy, and their policy advice combines off-shore balancing (deploy militarily only when under direct threat; maintain a military presence in, but do not own, the region) with broad diplomatic engagement and a push to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This last point is crucial, given the conflict's mobilizing and recruiting role for radicals, and its potency as a symbol for anti-American PR in the era of the Internet and Al Jazeera.
On addressing the lobby, the authors consider four options. They reject weakening the lobby via campaign finance reform as impractical, and countering it via an anti-Israel lobby as unwelcome, given that it might lead to anti-Semitism. They prefer countering the lobby with a more open debate on the Middle East and encouraging the evolution of a more moderate Israel lobby (building, for instance, on the work of Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek veShalom and the Israel Policy Forum). For liberal American Jews who care about Israel, that means ending the outsourcing contract with neocons and right-wing evangelicals. It also means disowning the McCarthyite hate-mongering tactics used by groups like Campus Watch, and accepting dissenting voices. On his delightfully named and popular blog, "Rootless Cosmopolitan," Tony Karon has spoken of the beginnings of a "Jewish glasnost." It will take though a greater commitment of time and resources from liberal Jews who pursue multi-issue agendas. This debate would become acutely relevant were the Democrats to re-take the White House in next year's election.
And finally, what about our role, in Israel? Three powerful conclusions emerge. First, as exposed in the Lebanon war and understood by the Winograd Committee, there is a dire lack of Israeli strategic planning capacity. How to respond to a weakened America in the region, occupation or peace with the Palestinians and Syrians, whether to outsource our policy to the neocons? For Israel, the answer seems to be: No comment. Israel lacks a definition of strategic objectives and their articulation to our friends across the pond. Second, alongside the undoubted benefits, the agenda pursued by the lobby in America has come at a great cost to Israel. NIS 45 billion could not have been wasted on settlements without U.S. complicity. As the book's authors argue, "Washington has helped insulate it [Israel] from some of the adverse consequences of its own actions," and that is a very dubious luxury indeed.
Finally, while the right was busy investing in building allies and alliances in the U.S., the left was asleep or intimidated or both. A small number of center-left Israeli politicians display an active interest in events States-side, but very few display sufficient courage and conviction to challenge the self-defeating orthodoxy of the current mainstream Israel lobby. It is an absence sorely felt. Walt and Mearsheimer suggest that "it is time to treat Israel like a normal country." Presumably unintentionally, they echo the classical Zionist goal of creating a normal country. The two are linked. Absent a different discussion with the U.S. and our friends there, Israel is unlikely to become normal. Perhaps this difficult book can help advance that discussion.
Very good essay. You seem to blame the Israeli left for not forging alliances in the US. They apparently have tried. Uri Avnery (http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery10042007.html) gives a summary of his efforts. One striking anecdote was as a member of the knesset. He had a tour planned for the US to speak to 31 synagogues, by the time he arrived in New York 30 had canceled. He found out that the ADL had sent letters to all the rabis on his list demanding that they cancel.
You also imply that the neocons manipulated Aipac into supporting the war. The Aipac meeting last winter when Cheney received a standing ovation and Nancy Pelosi was booed leaves me with a very strong impression and that is Aipac's membership as well as its leadership is an extreme right wing organization. They want war and they want the West Bank. period.
October 5, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read your review alongside Jeffrey Goldberg's in TNR. You too read different books, that's for sure. But when you combine the two, you come away with an interesting and correct method.
The first is Goldberg's warning -- don't boil policy down to any one thing. The second is your warning that even if the whole of the lobby critique doesn't hold up, policies are being made that are bad for both the US and Israel and it will take some willingness to look at ourselves, warts and all, to deal with them.
Goldberg is too defensive. Our scholars might be trying too hard to make a cogent offensive case. I think you're saying it's not as bad as the professors would have us believe but it ain't good either. I'm with you on that.
Now, I'm just going to get out of the way before the usual "argue about Israel" folks arrive...
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 5, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
our political discourse over Israel is hardly helped by characters like Abe Foxman, who shrilly accuses of anti-semitism (explicitly or, worse yet, through innuendo) anybody who questions the US-Israel orthodoxy.
There is something particularly disgusting about using the special victim status of Jews in order to advance a crass political agenda. I sincerely doubt that six million Jews died for AIPAC's agenda.
October 5, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent piece. My personal jury was still out on W &M but leaning towards the negative. You've opened my eyes and changed my views. I'm sure the anti-Jew and anti-Israel crowd so well represented here will jump with glee and take their usual views. But it appears they'll be as wrong as the pro-Jew and pro-Israel crowd that will also jump in. Comments can get very silly very fast here when I-P is the base subject. Again, thanks for a good and fair-reading and sounding essay.
October 5, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you--that says it all.
aMike
October 5, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
After a slow, careful read of this article, I came away with a strong wish that our Democratic presidential candidates would absorb the essence of the wisdom in this article and make it a major part of their policy (along with advocating only enough money for withdrawal from Iraq and an effective health care policy.)
Author Levy says, "A key distinction to draw for instance is that it is not Israel per se that has become a strategic liability for the US, but rather Israel as an occupier (which is indeed, a liability to itself)." To quote Walt and Mearsheimer, if "the conflict were resolved, Israel might become the sort of strategic asset that its supporters often claim it is." This approach would give prime importance to a diplomatic solution rather that catering to AIPAC and certainly rather than following Cheney's alleged plan of getting Israel to bomb Iran.
and on Iran:
"Israel, declaratively at least, prefers a diplomatic solution, and both Israel and her friends should be pushing actively for enhanced diplomacy, not the ratcheting up of military threats …"
A great essay. Now, could we elect as US president someone who would read the essay, could understand the essay and would do his/her best to implement strategies needed to achieve these goals.
October 5, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was exception, both in its careful, long essay well worth reading through and the courteous introduction at the start for us mere TPM types. I took away from it a criticism of the book I had not heard before: don't forget that the Bush administration is not representative of recent American history, and the Neocons are nuts, to the point of Israel's worst politicians to be faulted not as leading the charge but as following uncritically. It's depressing to be reminded of the current American policy, but I suspect you won't get much disagreement here!
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 5, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
God bless you!
Perhaps a small dose of sanity from an Israeli will have some beneficial impact on how we discuss Israel in the US. Be prepared to be villified though because you have said that Walt & Mearsheimer are not anti-semitic and that is the essence of heresy in some quarters.
Be that as it may, thank you and again may God bless you!
October 5, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
First and foremost I find Daniel's argument too long; it could have been made in 5 paragraphs.
I find the argumentation flawed logically and factually. It's good to remind readers that peace like marriage require two sides. Most of the time there is about one half of a side supporting peace. So talk of peace now is funny. It's not AIPAC and not the US.
Factually, forgetting that the affinity between the US and Israel is based on being immigrant societies, democracies and the Judeo-Christian tradition does not help. AIPAC has nothing to with it.
Every book that claims that the Jews control something, except synagogues, smells badly of the old "the Jews control the world" symptom. Unless of course AIPAC is a code name for the elders of Zion.
So even if AIPAC is strong and mighty, last I heard the US is an independent country (since 1776)) and as such, for instance, it vetoes the latest Israeli-Syrian agreement despite Israel wanting it. Or may be Bush is another code name for AIPAC.
October 5, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"First and foremost I find Daniel's argument too long; it could have been made in 5 paragraphs.
I find the argumentation flawed logically and factually"
I find yours too short. Perhaps you might flesh out the flaws you reference--surely your post is somewhat elliptical?
Be that as it may, consider that Saddam really sealed his fate through charity--those $5000. pensions paid to the widows of the Palestinian F-16 pilots killed in action were charged as a cassus belli; The flip side of collective punishment, if you will; Saddam is thus charged with "supporting terrorism", as if these payments were the equivalent of supplying the c-4 and the vests.
When all of the bullshit about "Atta in Prague", and "Zarqawi in a Baghdad hospital" is peeled away, it was these payments that stuck in AIPAC's craw...
October 5, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lobby this, lobby that, lobby something else,
when will we see the end of this constant parade
of foreign countries completely bypassing the UN
and directly panhandling OUR state representatives etc? I neither like nor hate israel, nor give favor nor emnity toward their
neighbors, but I DO wonder when all these nice
people are going to rediscover good borders
and fixing their own problems.
I think we've gotten so idiotic with foreign
aid that it's gone runaway, and people are lining
up down the block to sell their respective sob
stories to our Congress. I say 'to hell with that', take it to the UN, that's what it was
established for, that's why we pay billions
every year to support it, that's why they
went to all that trouble these last few years
to dig through the UN and clean house, try and
get rid of the fraud and corruption etc.
Bush did have one good point when he instructed
Congress to focus more on domestic issues, but,
since WE don't seem to have our borders anymore,
domestic issues have now also blended into
foreign ones. But, suffice it to say that
I think OUR Congress wastes too much time
on other countries' problems, and thereby
neglects fundamentals like balanced state and
federal budgets, to the detriment of americans.
There's lots of hard-luck stories in the world,
some genuine, some contrived, I think the question should be raised as to how to limit
taxpayer exposure to soft-hearted, short-sighted
policymaking...9 trillion and counting...
October 5, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is truly an excellent review and commentary; it is wise, well informed and helpful and it throws a lot of light on very difficult issues. It is excellent on its own merits, not because it is "pro" or "anti" anything. The fact that Daniel Levy is an Israeli, not an American should be noted. I hope this gets a wide reading in this country and in the rest of the world.
When discussing policy concerning Israel and the United States, the emphasis should first always be on whether what is proposed is wise, well informed and helpful or unwise, uninformed or harmful to the situation at hand.
The often knee-jerk tendency to characterize a proposal or a discussion as "pro-Israel" or "anti-Semitic" or "un-American" is not really helpful.
October 5, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Levy,
Thank you for your lucid essay on the Byzantine workings of the neocons. Apparently the "neocons" and the right wing Christians have not only corrupted U.S. foreign policy, but the Israel lobby as well, to the detriment of both nations. The 2006 debacle in Lebanon last year was a disaster for Israel.
These forces of darkness are leading the U.S. and Israel down the path of self-destruction.
The Republicans march in goose-step formation with Bush, and the Democrats do not have the wisdom and courage to stand up to their sick distortions.
Anyone who dares question U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel is denounced as an anti-Semite; and anyone who opposes the war in Iraq is branded a traitor who wants to see America lose.
October 5, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add to what I hasten not to call a legion of agreement, for that might bring up images of support for the Roman Empire, and think of all the mixed messages there, and for the Christian Right.
Of many good points, one that stood out was a lack of strategic planning. Thinking of some of the specific IDF responses to what unquestionably are attacks, I think of the WWI French Jeune Ecole and the Army leaders that urged cran and the offensive à l'outrance, as a means by which spirit and righteousness would conquer all. Unfortunately, those that assumed "all" would fall did not spend much time thinking of undoubtedly brave infantry, clad in bright red trousers, charging frontally into entrenched defenders, behind barbed wire, and equipped with machine guns.
Think of the demographics and birth rate of Israelis and Palestinians, and could someone again help me see what I'm missing about attritional strategy rarely working unless the side using it can afford to lose lives?
Israel's lack of geographic depth makes understandable a great concern with a luxury the Russians and Chinese had against land enemies: trade space for time. Any reasonable examination of modern weapons, however, makes claiming the settlements establish an effective defense in depth, simply because when modern weapons are considered, all of Judea and Samaria aren't very deep. 155mm howitzers with base bleed or rocket assist now can reach out and touch at 70 kilometers/44 miles, much less the newer AGS LRAP at 109 kilometers/59 miles. Rockets larger than the Qassam, much less guided missiles, outrange these pieces.
Yet the IDF met single Qassams with massively greater firepower, not necessarily with a great chance of killing those who fired it. In Lebanon, Israel got into trouble against heavy antitank missiles the Chechens had been using since 1999.
Not especially good strategists have been touting the benefits of walls since the Qin and Ming Dynasties, with side trips in time to the Maginot line, the Atlantic Wall, and the Siegfried Line and Berlin Wall. The Germans were a little slow on the point.
Active defense against rockets, ranging from the Oerlikon 35mm autocannons to the joint US-Israeli MTHEL laser system, seems to have been put asside, as well as the value of concrete, with the complementary benefits of chain-link fencing to predetonate fuzes.
Ignoring anything that might involve the I-P conflict or a Huntingtonesque "clash of civilizations" with Islam, guerilla theorists from the urban Marxist Carlos Marighella to the Greek Cypriot, George Grivas, again and again point out that massive retaliation encouraging, rather than suppresses, guerilla recruiting.
Even when people die, they can be remembered. The study of history seems ignored. Striking back harder and harder, against an enemy perfectly willing to use civilian shields, doesn't work. When the American Christian Right is eager to hasten the Rupture Rapture down to the last Israeli soldier, and any American forces that join in the caravan (than you, Sheikh Azzam), doesn't anyone stop and reflect?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Make peace, you fools!" [General Feldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt, asked, by Hitler's headquarters, once the Allies had landed in Normandy] [Yes, I know. He said it in German.]
October 5, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One big event that might help counter The Lobby, if the Justice Department doesn't call it off, is the long-delayed (three years) trial of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for espionage, scheduled for January 14th. Larry Franklin, their accomplice who is now serving a twelve year sentence, should testify, and a long wish-list of VIPs might be subpoenaed to testify as well.
Justin Raimondo: "The Rosen-Weissman trial will bring the dark side of the 'special relationship' between Israel and the U.S. into sharp focus – and it isn't going to be pretty."
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 5, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the "jewish lobby" has to change.
specifically, as I read the startribune tonight, i thought "you're becoming anti-semitic." i.e. "the jews" were protesting Desmond Tutu's invitation to St. Thomas University (source) and after the Bollinger incident, the Carter/Brandais incident and the Finkelstein incident, the "jewish lobby" seems to be a bunch of intolerant assholes, bullies mostly.
if the "jewish lobby" doesn't find a balance, I can't see myself ever having empathy towards them or israel.
To boldly go...
October 5, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
There are several aspects of your essay, discussion of W/M book, regional ME issues and I/P conflict.
I would like to understand YOUR prescription, as ISRAELI, how to resolve I/P conflict in the best interest of Israel.
Without himself being an Israeli, my friend and co-blogger here at TPM Café (he is much more prolific though) MJ Rosenberg probably captures the essence of this position best when he writes: “There is nothing pro-Israel about supporting policies that promise only that Israeli mothers will continue to dread their sons’ 18th birthdays for another generation.”
I don’t want to support such bad policies.
I would like to support Israeli people as best as I can and I would like to understand how I, average American Boris can help.
However, I would like to know whose policies you and MJ are talking about.
I assume that you are talking about policies of Israeli government elected by Israeli people.
From what I know , there are heated discussions in Israel what’s the best policies should be.
It seems that you suggest that Israeli people are unable to make the right decisions.
You seems to believe in the wisdom of American people.
Therefore you suggest that American people in general and American Jews in particular should serve as a collective arbiter of disagreements among Israeli people and that American people should make wise decisions that Israeli people are unable to make. In order for American people to make the right decisions about Israel, they need to hear from all Israeli.
Currently, only Likud point of view is being heard in US because among other things
McCarthyite hate-mongering tactics used by groups like Campus Watch. With a "Jewish glasnost" American people will hear all Israeli sides and will wisely decide how to resolve I/P conflict.
Did I summarize your ideas correctly?
October 5, 2007 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I misunderstand your post, and, for some reason, understood Levy's. I did not perceive him to be suggesting American people should be applying their wisdom to Israel, and telling the Israeli electorate what to do. If that's what you mean, or if you are being sarcastic, I disagree.
Israel needs to make its own internal decisions, unfettered by US groups that may seen pro-Israeli, but actually are making decisions in the interest of a geopolitical position or a religious experience.
Americans certainly need to make wise decisions about American policy towards Israel, which is quite different than the policies Israelis adopt for themselves. Americans need to make decisions about policy that balances the most important aspect being about what is best for America, and secondarily is about good will toward other nations, be they Israel or Iran. Such decisionmaking is never pure, as an absolutely optimal decision about what America should do might well cross the boundaries of national conscience.
In no way did I hear Levy suggesting
Could you cite specifically where he says that, or, perhaps, recheck your reading?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 5, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There three parts in this challange/goal.
1. extraordinary support - true
2. lobby is the principal reason for that support - absolutely wrong; the principal reason is that the US cannot tolerate another Holocaust.
3. not in the American national interest - there nothing more ambiguous than the US national interest. It is defined in too many ways, many of them contradictory.
The bottom line is that the goal of the book is also its assumption. I guess you have to be a professor at Harvard and Chicago in order to be able to put the cart before the horse. Way to go guys, next you should write a book about AIPAC convincing the world that Earth is round.
October 6, 2007 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"another Holocaust"
Man, I want some of what you're smoking...
We could cut Israel off tomorrow (and we should) and they would survive just fine.
Myself, I favor the one-state solution. One Semite, One vote, so to speak. But that's just speaking for the United Semitic Peoples' Kemalist Front.
(We're the last real Kemalists left, now that Turkey is going Islamist...)
October 6, 2007 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
not in the American national interest - there nothing more ambiguous than the US national interest. It is defined in too many ways, many of them contradictory.
This is preposterous.
Let's start with our interest in not being manipulated into committing war crimes in Mesopotamia to enhance the security of West Bank ethnic cleansers.
October 6, 2007 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC has 100,000 members,many of whom support progreive Democrats like Dick Durbin and Barbara Mikulsky and Bob Menendez and supported Kerrey in 2004. Why else would John Edwards shown up to greet them earlier this year which is where I met him and Elizabeth. Don't stereotype us.
AIPAC never took a position on whether Bush should invade Iraq. Show me one piece of evience that it did.
When an elected Israeli government once again supports the Clinton Plan, as one did in 2000 and another will when it is clear that the Palestinians can enforce a negotiated peace on their end , then AIPAC will support that Israeli Government's position.
October 6, 2007 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Levy,
It is a great blog, and deserves a link.
Thank you for a genuinely fair and balanced (in the best sense of that term) piece on the book and the controversy around it. I look forward to sitting this one out, however, and instead lurking and trying to enjoy the struggle between the inevitable tangential agendas for the rhetorical high ground in all its twisted Brechtian comedy.
October 6, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Great concluding point, tastefully presented as rhetorical question. My only complaint, and a minor one, is the cryptic reference to Sheikh Azzam. Please expand on that a little bit if you can indulge me. TIA.
October 6, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should read the book. Your questions are addressed quite specifically. Then come back here and show us where they are factually incorrect.
October 6, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for confirming that not all American Jews are AIPAC members or supportive of its policies.
Elsewhere in this thread, there have been possibly sarcastic comments that the Wise Peace Policies of America will determine that which the poor confused Israelis can't decide. Your comment
about AIPAC considering its opinions more definitive than the actual Government of Israel says this better than anything I can imagine.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slight typo -- that should be "Thank you, Sheikh Azzam". The Saudi, Abdullah Azzam (various spellings) and the Egyptian, Sayyid Qutb, are acknowledged as the philosophical/theological basis to al-Qaida. Qutb's main book was Milestones, while Azzam's was Join the Caravan.
My point here is that hard-line positions about the Great Satan supporting Israel very literally play into al-Qaeda doctrine. Every overreaction by the IDF, or recommended by hard-line Americans, may be just what radical Islamists want as recruiting propaganda for their "Caravan".
I am not suggesting every IDF action, including some hard ones, are inappropriate. For example, attacking the Beirut Airport, as long as it was being used as a supply point for rockets used against Israel, was quite proportional. There was a clear association between the airport and the Hizbollah infrastructure, and, by their very nature, airports are not residential, and, if there is to be a show of force, they are a fine place to have one. Also, runways are relatively easy to rebuild.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. Also, Americans who live safe and secure surrounded by friendly or at least apathetic neighbors have no business interfering in actions Israel feels necessary for its own self-defense.
But that does not mean that Americans must risk our own lives or treasure in support of those actions.
Israel fought to become a sovereign nation. Perhaps, it will have to fight again to stay a sovereign nation, but in the long run it can't remain a sovereign nation unless it can make policies that enable it to live in peace with its neighbors.
October 6, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Moyers interviewed two people Thursday night on his TV show. One was Rabbi Michael Lerner, the other an Evangelical College Professor, Dr. Timothy P. Weber.
They were discussing Televangelist Pastor John Hagee and the group he founded, Christians United for Israel.
They showed one film clip of Hagee, while preaching at his church, calling for the preemptive bombing of Iran. Other clips showed members of this group and their beleifs and I saw them as simply scary people ready to start a war in the Middle East simply because they see it will lead to the Second Coming.
Among other things, two points came out of the hour. Hagee referred to 50 million evangelicals and 5 million Jews coming together marching toward The Final Days.
Professor Weber claimed Hagee only had the support of 30% of the evangelicals and he wasn't sure how many of those 'fully' supported Hagee's agenda.(still a lot of people).
Rabbi Lerner said the Hagee people will welcome the Rapture while disregarding Jews who don't convert to Christianity leading them to spend eternity in hell. Sounds like Bush rhetoric; if you don't follow me you must be a traitor.
They seem to care about Israel, because it fits in with their Biblical beliefs which say you need Israel's existence in order to have the Rapture, but they seem to not care much for the Jews themselves.
This group may be the modern day Jim Jones Cult.
Anyhow, so much for the good Christian folk.
October 6, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's start with our national interest in not electing a person who has no business to be a gas station manager to be a President, and then blaming (some) Jews for foolish decisions that president made, even so huge majority of Jews voted against that person in the first place.
As you might know, unlike Bush administration, most key players in Clinton administration were Jews (pro-Israeli, Israeli lawyers). BTW, Gore, while not Jewish, is very pro-Israeli too.
As we all agree, overall US did OK, thank you very much, in spite of Israeli/Jewish lobby.
So, can we stop this silly game of misdirected blame.
David Remnick got it right in newyorker.com:
Taming the influence of lobbies, if that is what Mearsheimer and Walt desire, is a matter of reforming the lobbying and campaign-finance laws. But that is clearly not the source of the hysteria surrounding their arguments. “The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.
October 6, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As we all agree, overall US did OK, thank you very much, in spite of Israeli/Jewish lobby.
So, can we stop this silly game of misdirected blame."
I don't think "we all agree." I didn't support Clinton's sanctions and Madeline Albright notedl: "we think that 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the price."
Whatever the Israeli/Jewish lobby is, where there's smoke, there's fire.
And, yes, even Jesus was taking them on in the temple.
To boldly go...
October 6, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to assume there is a single pro-Israeli position for Americans. I do not, and I suspect many other Americans do not.
On military policy, for example, I see that Israel has suspended work on joint US-Israeli defense programs, such as MTHEL, but, in Lebanon, demanded resupply of M26 rockets. The US itself is retiring or converting the M26 due to the danger of collateral damage and creating antipersonnel minefields, but Israel seemed fine about using it in Lebanon. What happened to the active defense programs, which were promising, including the all-Israeli point defense system based on 35mm Oerlikon autocannons? If I may assume, from your writing, that American English was not your first language, I might assume you also were not exposed to older popular culture. There is a story about how the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by hostile tribes, and the Lone Ranger turned to his faithful friend and said, "I think this is it for us, Tonto."
"What do you mean by we, white man?"
When you say US did OK, could you share your definition thereof? I see military operations costly to the US and even more costly to the Iraqis. I see, related to those operations, regional instability and recruiting opportunities for extremists. Such extremists may well travel to Palestine as well as the US.
I see massive contempt toward the Constitution, violation of civil liberties, and much ideological activity encouraging fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I see a political leadership blaming various groups for the troubles of the world. Perhaps I don't remember that well, but wasn't there someone doing that in the 1930s? Short guy with a mustache, brown-haired and brown-eyed, but Aryan to the core, as he happily explained.
The US, not without urging by certain Israeli and Israeli lobby groups, is saber-rattling against Iran. The threats, rather than diplomacy and incentives, seem to center around a questionable nuclear weapons program, far smaller than Israel's.
So, what was this about the US doing OK?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, is the following:
And, yes, even Jesus was taking them on in the temple.
qualified mcs as anti-semite/anisemite/Jew hater?
October 6, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The main problem with AIPAC and the plethora of American rightwing Jewish pundits is their hypocrisy. They claim that American Jews should not criticize Israeli governments but only adhere to such a policy when that government is of the Likud party. They are not nearly supportive enough of Kadima or Labor governments and the choices they freely make.
It is hard to see how Israel had outsources its foreign policy to the neo-Cons when the American government has been headed by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. None are neo-Cons, though sloppy thinking gets them included, and I presume you agree it is very hard for Israel to openly defy the policy of the U.S. government when it is so active in the Middle East. This is not a problem caused by AIPAC or the Israeli lobby but the peculiar view of foreign policy held by the Bush Administration and the political weakness of Olmert.
Lastly, the real problem with the whole notion of the Israel Lobby is that by Walt and Mearsheimers views' the Israel Lobby includes most Americans. Poll after poll shows enormous support for Israel.
According to my cousin, who has met with Palestinian government leaders, the details of a deal are almost finalized. The Palestinian authority and the Israeli government know the deal. It is basically the Clinton proposal. Jerusalem to be split as a dual capital and the right of return to the ne Palestinian State to be unlimited, and acknowledgement of the problem of displacement and U.S. money to be paid to "settle" the refugee problem. According the the Palestinians the deal is known but the political will on both sides is lacking. They believe only the U.S. can provide the cover for such a deal and they have no confidence in Rice. This again does not seem to be a problem of AIPAC or the Israeli Lobby but an inept and ignorant U.S. government.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 6, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
Criticizing a specific group of Jews, or an individual that happens to be Jewish, hardly qualifies as antisemitism if there are independent reasons for criticism. It appears that some of the moneylenders of Jesus' time may have been unscrupulous, and some may have been Jewish. Some of the Jewish moneylenders may have been extremely ethical, while non-Jewish moneylenders may have been criminal.
Are you suggesting that criticizing Jews, under any circumstances, qualifies one as an anti-semite? I must be one, then, because while I recognize that Hell is not especially a Jewish concept, I'd like to think there is one, if inhabited by no one besides Dr. Baruch Goldstein.
Want to try some more sweeping generalities and attempts to play the guilt card?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking about Clinton Administration.
You misunderstood me.
October 6, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what! Polls like that are meaningless. Poll after poll would show enormous support for Ireland. That didn't mean Americans were going to fight the British army to drive them out of Ireland.
"Support" tells you nothing. Your bottom-line is simple demographics. For how many Americans is support for Israel more important than 100 other things?
Sure, Americans support Israel in the sense that they have a sentimental fondness for it and don't have a similar fondness for its neighbors. But Americans are going to put their own interests ahead of any other and you can delude yourself by paying attention to polls like that.
October 6, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't speaking uniquely of the Clinton Administration, but of US-Israeli relations since the fall of the USSR changed the strategic balance.
Do you seriously think something of the imprecision of "did ok" somehow lends itself not to be understood?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What US-Israeli relations had to do with
"I see massive contempt toward the Constitution, violation of civil liberties, and much ideological activity encouraging fear, uncertainty, and doubt. "
October 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Lobby: a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction"--W. & M..
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 6, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
All too often, when speaking of "support" for Israel, the word "support" is rarely defined, leaving it to be ambiguous.
Its similar to Bush saying "We've made 'PROGRESS' in Iraq."
or
"We don't torture."
Do I support Israel's right to exist? Sure.
Do I support Israelis being safe in their homes and jobs? Sure.
Do I support Israel existing in a world of peace and prosperity? Sure.
Do I support everything Israel does to bring these things about? Not so sure.
October 6, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't answered what you mean by the US "did OK." Is your style to answer questions with questions?
To respond, however, the US, I believe, combines with hard-line Israeli supporters, domestic and US, to keep up constant fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Islamic terrorism, and to use that as an excuse to justify any security act as anti-terroristic. The Israeli settlements policy, as well as the fear of Iranian nuclear research and the disproportionate response in Lebanon, however, helps justify this, by providing recruiting propaganda for terrorist groups.
There's nothing to worry about, of course, since Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Move along. These aren't the droids you seek. No one is brainwashed. Repeat after me: no one is brainwashed.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for an informative and insightful essay--it's refreshing when such loaded topics as this can be unpacked and analyzed instead of simplistic denigration and name-calling. While it is intellectually challenging to explore the facets of W&M's argument, there is much more wisdom for all to be gained in such an endeavor than a shout-down, so it is greatly appreciated in this forum!
October 6, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
You wrote The more important challenges though concern the future.
Let’s talk about the future.
It’s very unlikely that the next President will be as unqualified and unprepared to be a President as the current President. Therefore the issues that W/M address will be moot very soon.
There is a good chance that the next American Administration will have the same set of ME policy advisors as previous one.
Your former boss, Ehud Barak is current Minister of Defense and possible next Prime Minster.
Given that you have personal knowledge, why don’t you weigh in on what role if any the Israel lobby played in failure of Ehud Barak to reach an peace with Palestinians in 2000?
October 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC never took a position on whether Bush should invade Iraq. Show me one piece of evience that it did.
Ok, here it is--it took 0.17 seconds on Google:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w071001&s=judis100307
October 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My impression is that under Clinton administration overall US did OK.
Sorry, I don’t care to discuss what’s OK mean.
Let’s leave it at that.
October 6, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you announce opinions, then demand answers to questions. Where have I see this pattern before?
What was that, again, about the US doing again?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
If there must be sockpuppets, is it too sexist to ask that they be in black stockings? I don't preclude mere transvestites from transexual Transylvania.
October 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel: Even though I don't agree with all of this post, I've uprated it for the first paragraph alone.
Israel really did, in a sense, outsource it's foreign policy to American neocons. It happened during the Netanyahu administration. He commissioned a paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was written by a group that included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and the Wurmsers, among others who would be considered by W&M to be part of the Israel Lobby, and who turned up in positions of influence in the Bush administration. And let me say unambiguously that this does not mean that any of these people, along or together as a group, was responsible for the Iraq war or other elements of the wrong-headed Bush foreign policy. But they played a part, because their views were in a large part adopted by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Nor does it mean that their views represented the majority of American Jews; W&M made that clear in their earlier paper, and although I haven't yet read the book, my understanding is that they make that point even more forcefully in the book.
To illustrate what I mean, here are just a few excerpts from the Clean Break paper:
Although the term itself isn't used, this paper may represent the birth of the concept of regime change as a way to remake the ME in a manner that Netanyahu and the paper's authors felt would be more in line with Israel's interests, as they defined them. That hasn't worked out so well, has it?
So many of the basic concepts developed in this paper seem to have found their way into the policies and rhetoric of the Bush administration that the influence is hard to miss. Again, this doesn't mean that most Jewish Americans would support any of this, or that all Jewish Americans should be held responsible for the actions of the extremist few.
You're completely correct that most Americans support Israel, but most wouldn't agree with this particular brand of "support."
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 6, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget of of another influence in the Bush administration, Natan Sharansky.
Well, Don't blame Natan Sharansky."Beware of the man of one book." -
-- Saint Thomas Aquinas
October 6, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you interested in looking for solutions and a fresh look at policy, or are you only interested in fixing blame and defending those who agree with your positions -- not that you've been clear what they are.
Why should I not blame Natan Sharansky? I've written professional books. If someone follows my directions, and I had an error in them, it's my responsibility. It would be nice if the reader cross-checked and avoided the error, but I can't count on that.
If you are looking for blame, it would appear that both Bush and Sharansky each earned a share.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
This why it drives me berserk when Christian fundamentalists are referred to as "Zionist," or even accepted by right wing Zionists as any kind of valuable allies. Zionism has always been all about Jewish national self-determination. Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand being all about messianic redemption are not really all that interested in Zionism's priority of Jewish national self-determination -- especially when Israeli governments start talking about relinquishing claims or withdrawing troops and settlers from territories that Christian fundamentalits have determined vital for the second coming of their Lord and Savior.
October 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They remind me of the sort of safari partner that believes he doesn't have to run faster than a lion, just faster than you.
Would you consider Orde Wingate a legitimate Zionist who happened to be a Christian?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I support Israel's right to defend herself against any aggressor including Iran. Yes.
Do I support the United States taking military action against Iran in the absence of an attack on the United States. HELL NO!
October 6, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Banning Desmond Tutu from speaking at a university because he is “anti-Semitic,” is a good example of undue influence and muffling open debate. Much of the effectiveness of the lobby comes from influencing the agenda and framing the issues. More than anything, it’s what cannot be said regarding Israel, which is circumscribed in many different ways, that results in deciding US policy in the ME.
This is only a minor incident in the saga of the Liberty, but it makes me sick. Some of the sailors who survived were locked up and subject to drugging and “harsh” interrogations to keep them quiet. The whole incident has been covered up and framed as an accident for forty years, but I guess pro-Israeli influence has nothing to do with that, right?
PS: I don't know what your point is in using the phrase the "Jewish Lobby."
October 6, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bringing up a vagueness like "did OK", but then refusing to discuss it, does not exactly produce a peal of trumpets, a thunderous blare of drums, and a pure white light celebrating intellectual honesty. On the other hand, it does tend to be dark and damp under bridges.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many of the basic concepts developed in works of Milton Friedman seem to have found their way into the policies and rhetoric Reagan administration that the influence is hard to miss. Again, this doesn't mean that most Jewish Americans would support any of this, or that all Jewish Americans should be held responsible for the writing of Milton Friedman.
Hollywood, that was built by Jews, have destroyed the moral fabric of American society
Again, this doesn't mean that most Jewish Americans would support any of this, or that all Jewish Americans should be held responsible for the actions of the Hollywood Jews.
Shall I continue ?
H.L. Mencken said one time, "When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about money,' it's about money." And when you hear somebody say, "This is not about sex," it's about sex.
When you hear somebody say, "This is not about holding all Jewish Americans the actions of the extremist few,", ...
October 6, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, do not continue, unless you wish it said that you wish to continue playing the rather cheap card that any criticism, of any Jews, constitutes anti-semitism against all Jewish Americans. Your insistence on non-Jews really believing that Jews are monolithic and loyal only to themselves reminds me of the writings of someone...hmmm...I'll think of his name...he dictated them, in Landsberg Prison, around 1924?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 6, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dupl
October 6, 2007 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, it’s exactly that I meant to say
any criticism, of any Jews, constitutes anti-semitism against all Jews,
any traffic ticket given to any Jew, constitutes a traffic ticket to all Jews.
Thank you for understanding my comments so well.
But if you want a serious answer, here it is.
I’m sure, there were at least several Jews in Enron and Enron partner companies who played some prominent role in Enron collapse. One of them was Enron’s CFO.
There is nothing wrong not only criticized Enron’s CFO but there is nothing wrong to put him in jail.
What would be wrong is to put all Jews from all companies that were involved in Enron’s collapse in a special category and present them as a Jewish group that played a special role in Enron’s collapse , that manipulated Chairman and CEO of Enron for their own benefits.
This would be anti-Semitism, pure and simple.
BTW, it's exactly whar W/M did:
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in TNR:
One of the most serious charges that Mearsheimer and Walt level at AIPAC and its neoconservative fellow travelers is that they were indispensable in pushing America to invade Iraq. There is no doubt that neoconservatives agitated for the war, and that many neoconservatives are Jews; and there is no doubt that there were Jews, in and out of the Bush administration, who argued for the invasion of Iraq, including Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. Is that really all we need to know about the origins of the war? There were also some Christians at the scene, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, and Richard Myers. Some of those Christians were even in positions to order the invasion!
The assertion that the Iraq war would not have happened except for the lobbying of Jews is an echo of an ancient idea spread by anti-Jewish ideologues: that Jews, operating in the shadows, manipulate gentile leaders to unknowingly advance Jewish interests. In order to believe this in the case of Iraq, the argument would have to be made that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not merely idiots, but also uninterested in ruling. A couple of years ago I asked Rumsfeld to comment on accusations that the Jewish lobby maneuvered the administration into war. "I suppose the implication of that is the president and the vice president and myself and Colin Powell just fell off a turnip truck to take these jobs," he said. But Mearsheimer and Walt mention Cheney and Rumsfeld only for fleeting instants in their discussion of the origins of the war. They seem to think that William Kristol is the commander in chief.
October 7, 2007 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attributed to Machiavelli is the line "if you would be a Prince, you must not be moral. If you would be moral, you cannot be a Prince." This comment does not say a Prince must be immoral, but more that a Prince must be pragmatic.
From my own experience, I've known CIA personnel who would, after the fall of the USSR, meet with veteran KGB counterparts, now in the FSB. The mutual lament is "you were such great enemies.
Intelligence agencies are even less likely to be moral than a Prince, and be cynical enough not to try to know What Is Best For All. The Mossad certainly is no exception. Almost every intelligence agency, worthy of the name, has a deniable communications channel to countries, even hostile countries, of interest. Iraq and Israel certtainly had ways of communicating, and guided one another as to what each considered critical national interests.
If George W. Bush's morality is to be the guide to US policy, please arrange a seance, ASAP, with the shade of Niccolo Machiavelli. As was said after the fiasco of the Versailles Treaty, "God was satisfied with 10 commandments. Wilson wanted 14."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
One might also suggest that most here are Unenlightened, and you will be happy to Enlighten us, regardless of the increase in world stability and war crimes, and of the decrease of international cooperation and the ability to lead by example rather than force.
Do not make the mistake of believing I do not regard force as a last necessary option, just as pelvic exenteration, much less amputation, may be the only choice in medicine. I do not, however, regard force as the second choice, the first being semantically null descriptors such as "Axes of Evil."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, you have the floor, give us the "real explanation."
October 7, 2007 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't studied much of the dynamics of the Cold War, have you?
Jews were critical to Solidarity? Are you thinking of a fellow that wore a yarmulke most of the time, Karol Józef Wojty?a? Or were you thinking of Lech Walesa?
You think the dissident movement in the USSR had remotely as much to do with the fall of that government, as economic factors, Afghanistan, and the widening gap in military technology?
As far as your connection of dots, I am reminded more of a young boy, a constant annoyance to his teacher, who went up to the board for Show and Tell, and wrote:
.... .....
His exasperated teacher inquired of the significance of some simple dots. Little Johnny said "they aren't dots, they're periods, and there was a lot of attention at my house when my sister missed a few."
October 7, 2007 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
To claim that what W&M did is, or is not, anti-semitic is not as clear-cut as you would have it. It becomes a little clearer when one substitutes "Zionist" for "Jew". That still doesn't work, because the PNAC ideology of the US dominating the Middle East isn't strictly religious, even when considering Hagee and his ilk who want the Rapture, without any particular concern about what happens to Jews in the process.
?It starts to work better when one recognizes a hard-line Zionist grouping of multiple threads, which certainly contains Likud in Israel. This grouping also American hard-liners that seem to want to fight to the last IDF and US military person in punishing Muslims. I wouldn't necessarily include someone like Bar Kochba who -- please correct me if I misunderstand -- is focused on the direct I-P confrontation and a belief that only Israeli forces can keep the immediate peace. Bar Kochba, it is my understanding that you are neither beating the drums for military strikes on Iran, nor an indefinite American role in Iraq.
I'd like to find a better name than "the Lobby", because I see several fairly distinct components that have at least tactically common interests:
I believe that these groupings, with these variants, form a recognizable alliane, which may or may not be called the Lobby.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m thinking about Adam Michnik, who was much more important to Lech Walesa than Bill Kristol was to George Bush.
Is it your contention the US should change regimes whenever it dislikes them? It’s good question. US did try to change regimes in USSR and eastern Europe. I don’t hear much condemnation about such attempts. So it’s seems that there is acceptable precedent for regime change policy. The question is which regimes and how. Please don’t ask me for answers. I don’t have any. My point was that there is nothing wrong peer se with trying to resolve this question. You the dissident movement in the USSR had remotely as much to do with the fall of that government, as economic factors, Afghanistan, and the widening gap in military technology?It’s a very good question. that deserves another discussion. Some say that if oil prices stayed high , USSR would still exist.
However, I think, Jewish emigration and the dissident movement made the difference.
Look, North Korea is still there.
However, I’m not arguing that the lobby won Cold war or even played the important role in Cold War.
I’m arguing that if W/M would use the same scientific methods they used to prove importance the Lobby in Iraq war to the Cold War, they would conclude that the Lobby played as important role in the Cold War as in Iraq war.
October 7, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 7, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have evidence of this that can be cited, I trust, as opposed to saying W/M should have done it? So far, you have said little to convince me that the Lobby had any significant effect on the Cold War.
Israel did provide useful technical intelligence to the US, although the 1973 war came close to the nuclear threshold. I'm generally of the opinion that the USS Liberty incident was a total foulup on both sides, but it hardly was a contribution to ending the Cold War.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 7, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sure the anti-Jew and anti-Israel"
as they say, "you're your own worst enemy!"
To boldly go...
October 7, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not scientist, W/M are, they should try to explore this aspect of Lobby efforts.
For example, the result of work of the Lobby was
Jackson-Vanik amendment.
"The genius of Jackson-Vanik was that it found a constructive long-term way to help solve the problems of late 20th century victims of communism without use of military force. It helped change the direction of American anti-communist movements from a focus on domestic supporters of communism, which had led to McCarthyism, and military involvements, which had led to the quagmire in Vietnam, to a focus on using American economic strength to serve as a new underpinning of American values. It was a brilliant public policy innovation."
Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky wrote in his 2004 book The Case for Democracy:
"...Kissinger saw Jackson's amendment as an attempt to undermine plans to smoothly carve up the geopolitical pie between the superpowers. It was. Jackson believed that the Soviets had to be confronted, not appeased. Andrei Sakharov was another vociferous opponent of détente. He thought it swept the Soviet's human rights record under the rug in the name of improved superpower relations.... One message he would consistently convey to these foreigners (the press) was that human rights must never be considered a humanitarian issue alone. For him, it was also a matter of international security. As he succinctly put it: "A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors." (p.3)
I'm not arguing how important this work of the Lobby really was, I'm arguing that W/M should have explored this issue.
October 7, 2007 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arguably a sympathiser. How much did Wingate abide policy implementation independent of his military contribution? Compare and contrast the approach of our contemporary Evangelical Christians who go so far as demonizing Israeli policy stakeholders that advocate for Palestinian independence.
October 7, 2007 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was saying:
Did I say that Adam Michnik was more important
than He Who Was To Become John Paul II?
I have a different opinion.
US have tried hard to change regime in USSR for very long time using all available methods; military, economic, propaganda and so on.
Please, can't you just type in your search engine of choice: "fall Soviet Union oil prices"
Here is one of the links
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/06/why_did_the_sov.html
Let's me try again.
Please tell my how important was the role of the Lobby in Iraq war and who was in the Lobby
I'll use the methods to prove that the same Lobby was equally important in Cold War, probably in WW2, maybe in WW1 and probably in a few other wars.
October 7, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
jollyroger,
Understanding first of all that "semitic" is a linguistic category, and not an ethnic or national identification (as Wilhelm Marr applied the form of the term with all rhetorical cynicism to his 19th century Austrian Antisemitic League), we would need to know which language you endorse these ballots appearing in: Hebrew; Arabic; Farsi; some combination?
October 7, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even within the tradition of eccentric British officers, Orde Wingate was, to use the technical term, really weird. AFAIK, he did have a vision of a true Jewish state in the British mandate. On a policy basis, however, he had little impact on the British, although much more on the Haganah.
Early in WWII, he came to Churchill's notice, as one of the young and unconventional officers that Churchill liked to accelerate. As Churchill got to know him, however, the biographers give the sense that while Wingate was an innovative combat leader, he lacked the depth to create new doctrines that he could teach others, and his mental stability was a matter of concern. He died in an air crash, in the China-Burma-India theater, when he talked the pilot, against aviator judgment, into flying into bad weather.
While there were legitimate reasons to criticize him, everything I've read suggests that he was as fervent a Zionist as Herzl, but simply didn't happen to be Jewish. In no way was he a Christian Evangelical -- if anything, he had immense respect for Judaism. I am a little surprised that I never heard of him attempting to convert.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"which language"
Well, surely not Farsi.
My use of the formula was a pun upon the mandate of Baker v. Carr. 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
I don't really care in what language the people express their will--only that all persons within the political jurisdiction may vote.
As a "kemalist" I demand only that religion not make a voter special. (Neither specially good, nor specially bad...)
(as a hard core kemalist, I would advocate the immediate lifetime banishment from politics of any candidate who references a deity of any sort while campaigning, but that's because I am hard core.)
October 7, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
well, if that's the way you feel about it, OK then.
October 7, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny
October 7, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Cobra II in December 2001 Rumsfeld met with U.S. Generals to begin the planning of the invasion of Iraq. By September, 2002 no lobbying was needed. The invasion of Iraq was all but set.
It would not suprise me to see Israel supporting the ouster of Saddem Hussein. I would think that most moral people would supprt such an effort, for example the current foreign minister of Franch Bernard Kouchner. Obviously there were Iraqis lobbying to oust Saddem.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 7, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What it would suggest that you are the one outstep with Americans and the AiPAC might be just one of many voices of Americans.
One might say of this thread and that of the many like it at the Cafe. So many people here are just out of touch with the rest of America and are the ones truely delusional about this country.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 7, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then you should add to the mix he people like Ahmed Chalabi, Kanan Makiya and other Iraqi exiles.
As result, you’ll get a complex picture.
You’ll also see that here as well as in all important evens in 20th Century American History, some Jews played important role. Duh.
BTW, I don’t see anything wrong per se in advocating regime change in Iraq. Saddam was an extremely brutal dictator.
There was another war where Israel and Israeli lobby played very important role, probably more important than in Iraq war.
In this war Israel and Israeli lobby also used US to get rid of Israel’s main enemy while risked lifes of billions people.
I mean Cold war.
Israel and Jewish/Israeli lobby played a very important role in organizing a pressure inside US against USSR , they were very active in Solidarity movement in Poland, and in dissident movement in USSR.
Sakharov’s wife, a Jew herself, had very close relationship with Israeli lobby and was responsible for pushing Sakharov in dissident movement, as claimed by Soviet propaganda.
There is much more to write about and to connect Jewish dots.
I’m just wondering, why don’t we hear more about terrible role Israel and Israeli lobby played in regime change in USSR and Eastern Europe?
Where is W/M when we need them?
Forget about Iraq war, There is a bigger fish to fry :-)
October 7, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Wolfowitz went to Netanyahu with the idea of ousting Hussein after Clinton turned down the idea. Hetanyahu also turned it down. Netanyahu hasn't been prime minister for sometime. Sharon and Olmert have been the prime ministers in recent years.
Israel and Turkey have been allies for years. They have been working to hem in Iraq since the mid-1980s. The
The neo-Cons like the former lefties that they are people in the redeeming value of social action. Look at the neo-Con's crown prince William Kristol calling for action in Burma. The neo-Cons virtually all of whom come ouf of the NY Left believe that U.S. miltary power combined with a peculiar view of the inevitability of democracy support agressive actions around the world. This is what cause their break with more traditional conservatives such as George Will.
I think the bigger issue that you have to anser is why don't you support the removal of murderous, torturing tyrants such as Saddem if that is possible? It has always killed Bill Buckley that Jews traditionally vote Democratic, the real source of the Jewish Lobby, even though their incomes are at the level of Christians. The neo-Cons faith in miltary power, seeing Munich as too much the paradigm, as an agent of change seems rather misplaced. That as Jews they seek to change the world for the better seems rather consistent with Jewish tradition.
However, most of this debate is really about the secret silent power of the Jews. Levy when he talked about the Paper Walt and Mearsheimer wrote re-wrote it for them. What is not done anywhere on this thread is a real explanation for the power of the Israeli Lobby other than that its views are that of most Americans and opposed to those of those who see the world as victims and victimers.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 7, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't go there if I were you. Yeah, Israel and the US were partners in the Cold War. Israel often stepped in to support brutal dictators, for instance, when the US ostensibly wasn't going to do so.
Tony Karon was mentioned here. As he can tell you, Israel and apartheid South Africa were allies. Israel also helped train and arm Guatemala's security forces, the same ones that murdered 200,000 people. Israel actually has a long rather ugly history of arming rightwing murderers.
Which doesn't make them worse than the US, of course. I suspect there was some under the table agreement between various US administrations and Israel about having them support unsavory regimes when Congress tied the Administration's hands, but I have no proof of this.
October 7, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find The Lobby Deniers to be an interesting phenomenon--it is a fact that AIPAC is up near the top amongst the heavyweight DC lobbyists, yet some TLDers insist that this organization, whose purpose *by definition* is to swing US political figures in line with its positions, is really not that effective. And the story about Abe Foxman and the napkin full of signatures? Fuhgetaboutit!
Whatever their reasons, the LDFs (Lobby Denier Fundamentalists) have an uphill battle with credibility, when it is easy to find sourced references to said influence such as this:
October 7, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Uri Avnery essay was excellent, as this one by Daniel Levy is. Both take a thoughtful and dispassionate look at the W&M arguments, agreeing with parts, and providing intelligent criticism of the parts where they feel W&M may have missed something. I applaud them both.
I also want to apologize to you, syvanen, because I provided a link to the Avnery article in MJs thread, but neglected to credit you with finding the link. Sorry.
Others may have the same difficulty I experienced in accessing the Avnery article because of the Counterpunch firewall. The solution is to use Google to do a search on "Avnery" and "Israel Lobby."
Edited to add:
I just finished watching Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer speak about their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, on C-Span BookTV. It was an excellent presentation; the authors anticipated and thoroughly addressed many of the questions that have been raised by posters in this thread. The program represents a wonderful opportunity to learn more about what W&M really mean, by listening to them explain their ideas in their own words. The program includes a Q&A at the end.
Here is a link to the C-Span Book TV page about the program, which re-airs next Sunday, October 14:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on C-Span2
I watched the program on C-Span2, so I presume that will be the station on which it airs next week - best to check to make sure. There's also a video of the entire program available for purchase on the page.
I'm on my ancient old thinkpad right now, which doesn't do video, so I'm not certain but it looks like there's a free podcast available, since the BookTV home page says, "Watch LIVE Online Now!" This may be the link to live video: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8619&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No
(But you may need to change the "No" at the end of the link's text to a "Yes")
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 7, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You also ignored the actual attempt at regime change in Budapest, unexpected by either side. You conveniently ignored my reference to 24 June 1948. I could, but I won't. Apparently, you have not grasped the concept that a search engine finds unsubstantiated information. You have presented no evidence that oil prices, not Afghanistan or perestroika, brought down the USSR. You apparently expect me to go and do the research for your pet theory, for which you have given no conceptual preparations. I gave you numerous examples that the US did not directly attempt to implement Soviet regime change, certainly not as it did in Iraq, as it did against Mossadegh and is threatening again. You seem quite comfortable in ignoring anything that does not support your preconceptions. No, I will not do so, because you are again changing the subject. Your assertion was that the US attempted regime change in the USSR and Poland. I gave you numerous specific data as counterexamples, all of which you ignored.
I would be interested, however, how you would suggest a pro-Israeli, anti-Israeli, or any other kind of Israeli lobby affected World War I, which ended 30 years before the formation of Israel. Is this to be a pilot of a new science fiction show with a time travel theme?
I don't see you engaging in any serious discussion, but simply throwing out cliches and diverting questions with loaded questions. Others have taken that approach, to which troll rating seemed the answer most appropriate to the common good and the sounds of silence, much less life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I feel safe, however, in predicting you will never catch the last.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel.
As far as the lobbying goes, the primary target was and is the US Congress. That's where the real action takes place and the Democrats are pushing through stupid meddlesome legislation that is affecting our relationship with other countries and increasing their alienation from America.
Your coupling the Israeli support for ousting Saddam with some sort of "morality" is so off base that I truly wonder how much you know about what went on during the run-up to the war and Israel's FP. The Israelis in power couldn't care less about injecting democracy in the ME and have no problems supporting dictators as long as they don't make trouble for Israel and can be useful in one way or another. (The "Hashemite Dumpling", King Abdullah of Jordan is a big favorite.)
The arguments within Israel about deposing Assad of Syria are typical, with the majority of anaylsts coming down on the "better the devil you know" side. The push to topple Assad is coming from the usual American suspects who always know what's best for Israel.
I'm not surprised you find the warmonger Kouchner admirable. Obama "advisor" Dennis Ross thinks that he would be a fabulous choice to head up a reconcilation conference in Iraq. Right. Great idea.
" Obviously there were Iraqis lobbying to oust Saddem."
Yeah. Like Ahmad Chalabi, who burned Israel before he burned US.
October 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first point is aimed at the straw man in your own mind, which is the idea that AIPAC led the charge to war with Iraq. Even so, your strained explanation mistakenly conflates the military process of war planning with the political process of starting a war, or with the process of selling that war to the public. On that front, the Washington Post said, "Once it was clear that the Bush administration was determined to go to war [in Iraq], AIPAC cheered from the sidelines."
Obviously there were Iraqis lobbying to oust Saddem.
Yes, but given the fact that Ahmed Chalabi and other expat opportunists were either exposed as criminal frauds or failed to find any real constituency in Iraq, they are not the strongest allies for your position.
Also, the fallacy of this logic is the rhetorical sleight-of-hand between 'ousting' and 'military invasion.' Let's take your example of Bernard Kouchner:
October 7, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read a review by Norman Finklestein of a book of Goldberg's. Haven't read the book, but I thought the review was very informative: http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein10062007.html
October 7, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Continued at the end.
October 7, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have another discussion about regime change in USSR.
I think we argue about definitions. I agree there was
However, I think that long term goal of US was to change regime in USSR.
October 7, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a lying, disgusting Jew-hater who conveniently omitted the following from what the Judis peice you quoted:
"(AIPAC's spokesman Josh Block insists that the organization did no lobbying and that Kohr was misquoted.)"
October 7, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
You asked me about the reasons of fall of USSR.
My answer was
It’s a very good question. that deserves another discussion. Some say that if oil prices stayed high, USSR would still exist. However, I think, Jewish emigration and the dissident movement made the difference.
Then you asked me for more info.
I provided you with the link to the opinion of
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/06/why_did_the_sov.html
Yegor Gaidar who was Minister of Finance and acting Prime Minister in Russia.
Your answer was
You have presented no evidence that oil prices, not Afghanistan or perestroika, brought down the USSR. You apparently expect me to go and do the research for your pet theory, for which you have given no conceptual preparations.
I’m puzzled how could you possible conclude from my remarks
some say if oil prices stayed high, USSR would still exist
however, I think, Jewish emigration and the dissident movement made the difference
that oil prices is my pet theory.
Why I should present evidence for a theory I didn’t agree with?
I’m really curious to understand how your mind works.
October 7, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Falcon 1. Troll-rating for ad hominem next time.
If I had a nickel for every time a spokesman said his principal was misquoted...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
Head of MI5: We can't have unfounded, arrogant press speculation. That's the last thing we want.
Hacker: Even if it's accurate?
Head of MI5: Oh, especially if it's accurate.
October 7, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so terribly sorry that I interpreted the "some say if oil prices stayed high, USSR would still exist", which you brought up, that it was a position you supported. Why bring it up if you don't?
Further, you have refused to respond to any of the information I have suggested that the US did not actively attempt regime change, nor was it militarily disposed for doing so. Military disposition and doctrine is quite relevant when the standard of comparison is Iraq.
Do you even know what 10 SFG had as its mission, what happened on 24 June 1948, or why the Hungarian revolution was an existence proof for the lack of other than a rhetorical position?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
You ended the discussion with the following
I don't think that making such predictions is appropriate. I would appreciate if in the future you avoid comments like these.
October 7, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A sound bite from a President does not national strategy make. Direct attacks on the national intelligence center of a nation, or a conditional ultimatum of major military action contingent on the head of state exiling himself, is just a wee bit closer to actual intention about regime change, rather than rhetoric about it.
Further, when a nation threatens attack and launched a major, admittedly coalition, one against you about 12 years before, has major military forces poised to strike, and has been enforcing a no-fly zone, I'd be a bit more worried than if GWB had said "we win, you lose."
Mao said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Churchill said "it is better to jaw, jaw, than war, war." Which is more relevant?
You asked the way my mind works. The way my mind works is that I judge on the correlation of national forces and the actual actions taken place, not rhetoric. While I recognize that Khruschev's "we will bury you" is a poor idiomatic translation, I didn't interpret that as an immediate threat of regime change. I didn't even think of his actions of October 1962 as an immediate threat of regime change.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be happy to do so, should you follow the elementary intellectual courtesy of responding to direct and specific facts that I raise in response to your generalities that the US actively sought Soviet regime change, on the same level it sought Iraqi and Iranian regime change.
These matters of fact, not opinion, include:
Further, I'd appreciate less fantasy that Jewish organizations had a major role in Polish regime change, especially considering the role of John Paul II and the relatively small Jewish population left in Poland.
If you start responding in a straightforward manner to specific points, and not handwave about things like the Israeli Lobby in 1918, I shall avoid further observations of what I consider your lack of honesty in discussion, and your apparent intention to derail any criticism of Israel or Israeli supporters in the US.
Failing such response, Sir, I offer to you Clark Gable's final line to Vivien Leigh in that great classic film, Gone with the Wind.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I don't want to argue this point. It's not really main point of my original commment.
October 7, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retreat, when faced with superior odds, often is wise. Don't tell me...you were misquoted about the point I claim you brought up, which I countered to bring some order to your handwaving defense of not a monolithic Lobby, but some hard-liners in the US and Israel. I consider those hard-liners, whether a Lobby, Bathroom, or Kitchen, dangerous to the US and to Israel.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 7, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I ask you do so unconditionally.
I don't want to continue disccusion about regime change in USSR. It was not the main point of my original comment.
I think that discussion of Polish/Lobby connections is premature before discussing the main point of my comments.
I've corrected myself. In 1918 there was Zionist Lobby.
This is not an appropriate comment.October 7, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retreat, when faced with superior odds,"
Not at all, This is just not important point to discuss what the proper name to give to effort of US to win Cold War.
October 7, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may ask, and I shall refuse. With deliberation, I followed up on points you brought up, about regime change in general (the tu quoque argument), about US intentions to bring down the Soviet regime by external measures, and about Poland. I did so, and will continue to do so, when I read unquestioned defense of hard-line policies on the Middle East, brought by Israeli politicians or US supporters. Frankly, I tend to prefer the former, since they actually might have, at some time in their careers, put their lives on the line. Too many American hardliners are happy to offer the lives of as many American and Israeli soldiers as it takes.
The main point of your comments seems to be that made by many hard-liners, that there are no lobbying (as opposed to "the" lobby) organizations who may well be putting particular Israeli and ideological positions before the interest of the United States.
You corrected yourself about a 1918 lobby only when called on it, in the middle of a sarcastic retort. Emotional responses tend to lead to errors. Further, I seriously doubt that a Zionist lobby had any significant role in US politics during WWI. Even the role of a British one was far more a matter of gratitude to Chaim Weizmann than a general force in British politics.
How do you plan to enforce your ideas of appropriateness? I hadn't noticed, in your slightly over two weeks here, your being named a moderator. If you don't want to be called on hand-waving, don't hand-wave. If you don't want to be called on historical inaccuracies or apparent lack of knowledge of history, check your facts before posting. If you bring up subjects and your lack of information is demonstrated, don't expect me to honor your desire not to be further embarrassed.
Contribute meaningfully to discussion and get respect.
Falcon 9.
October 7, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is appalling. And they're sending millions of dollars to move American Jews back to Israel and into the settlements in the Occupied Territories. Take a look at this San Francisco Chronicle article from 2002.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 7, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't have to guess. You got it wrong.
My main point that I was trying to make was the following:
Depending on scientific methods used to study this issue you might or might not be right. Notice I wrote "maybe in WW1". I can't enforce my ideas of appropriateness. Telling somebody that he is hand-waving is fine.Discussing somebody happiness the following way is not appropriate:
I'm not asking for respect, I'm asking you to behave in civil manner.October 7, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
My main point that I was trying to make was the following:
I’m arguing that if W/M would use the same scientific methods they used to prove importance the Lobby in Iraq war to exploring the Cold War/the Lobby connections, they would conclude that the Lobby played as important role in the Cold War as in Iraq war.
Please tell my how important was the role of the Lobby in Iraq war and who was in the Lobby
I'll use the methods to prove that the same Lobby was equally important in Cold War, probably in WW2, maybe in WW1 and probably in a few other wars.
Your question was
Sure, it’s an easy question.
There was no Israeli lobby in WW1, there was predecessor of Israeli lobby, Zionist Lobby.
October 7, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
you old curmudgeon you, there ya go again, rabble rousin'!
Land o Goshen, I don't know who's worse, you or MJ Rosenberg.
October 7, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political science is to politics as Christian science is to internal medicine. This discussion isn't about reproducing W&M's research. Even in the physical sciences, a peer reviewer doesn't necessarily reproduce the experiment. Instead, they may devise a different method to test the hypothesis, and experiment that way.
You appear to demand that anyone disagreeing with you disagree on the basis of the W&M methodology, not any other logic. For example, you say, in reference to there for there not being an Israeli lobby in WWI, which I justify with the obviously irrelevant observationt that there was no Israel in WWI, A scientist, even a political scientist, describing Scientific Method begins with a statement of the data available, then proposing a hypothesis, then proposing and conducting research methods to prove or disprove the hypothesis. When you say "depending on scientific methods used", you are saying essentially nothing until you establish your methodology.
W&M, for all their faults, did make such statements. But do you use the conventionally accepted means of science to argue they are wrong? No. You say I am wrong, without any evidence, and then go on to say It's not W/M's responsibility to prove a hypothesis they didn't even state: that the Lobby played an important role in the Cold War. If it's your statement, conventions of scientific discourse requires you to restate modified data collection, one or more hypotheses, experimental methods, and the results of those methods.
It's hand-waving to do anything else. Do your own homework. If W/M were wrong, you should be able to establish that based on what they said. If you expect me to explain it to you, you fail to understand the nature of scientific discourse, W/M, or both.
You have stated a hypothesis that a Lobby was important in the Cold War. You have not collected data to support that, or described your methodology, not W/M's.
I have offered data to suggest that the basic principle you assert, that the US actively sought regime change in the USSR, is in error, because the US did numerous things that defended against Soviet expansion, but did not take significant direct action against the USSR as it did against Iraq. 24 June 1948 was reactive and defensive, although creative, as was the mission of 10 SFG.
When I mention direct attacks against Iraq but not the USSR, you reply with a Reagan soundbite, rather than any substance.
As far as asking me to behave in a civil manner, civility and respect are earned. If you want to make sarcastic comments about scientific method, don't think they will cause you to win friends, when you offer no supporting data. If you want to keep telling me I'm wrong, without any data but either opinion or demonstrable erroneous historical statements, I hardly consider that appropriate.
There is an energy crisis, and biomass may well contribute to the solution. So far, I observe your creating considerable biomass, but not substantive statements to support your hypotheses.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
Winston Churchill said of Clement Attlee, "a very modest man with a great deal to be modest about." I observe you are half-complying to that image.
October 8, 2007 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not asking for respect, I'm not demanding respect.
I'm asking but not demanding you to behave in civil mannner by not writing something like the following:
For the rest of your comments, I've divided our original discussion in the several sub-discussions. If you want to continue any of the sub-discussions, please comment there, otherwise,
have a nice day.
October 8, 2007 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Civil discussion is welcome, but civil discussion does not consist of unsupported statements that other posters are wrong. Civil discussion does not include forcing the discussion into a questionably accurate term from a book, in this case "scientific method", when that inaccuracy interferes with the main discussion.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 8, 2007 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you
Writing something like the following:
is uncivil.
Unsupported statement is in Eye of the Beholder.
Just because you think it's unsupported statement, it doesn't mean it's really unsupported statement. Even If it's really unsupported statement, it doesn't mean it's uncivil.
Even if you think it's uncivil, you have to agree that the "happiness statement" you wrote
it's much more uncivil that just "unsupported statement"
Anyway, Have a nice day.
October 8, 2007 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is a choice, my country, and I believe humanity, is better served by objectivity and truth than by civil statements of no content. Of course the "happiness statement" was uncivil. It was intended to be uncivil, since you ignored civil and factual comments. William Lloyd Garrison said When it comes to preferring civility over accuracy, I again say to you what Clark Gable said to Vivien Leigh.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 8, 2007 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see why you made your uncivil comments.
You thought that I was a tyrant.
Now all your comments make perfect sense to me.
Have a nice day.
October 8, 2007 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was more the wasting of argument, since sensible discussion is wasted when all is unsupported opinion, or when one side will not respond to factual information presented for presumably informed comment. I don't believe you have the power of a tyrant, much as you want your opinions accepted without challenge.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 8, 2007 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are more than welcome present your arguments to any any of subdiscussions.
Have a nice day.
October 8, 2007 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My post, my quote, but I'm glad you brought that up...
Last week, White House Spokesperson Dana Perino insisted that the White House is not sanctioning torture.
The Israeli government denies that it has nuclear weapons.
So, does that automagically make it true?
It seems that i'm not the one lying here;>
October 8, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink