It's Changing: John Kerry, At Brookings, Says US Mideast Policy Needs Overhaul
The Chas Freeman controversy demonstrates, more than anything else, that the status quo lobby is running scared.
Three things have them waking up in night sweats: President Barack Obama, the American public's reaction to the Gaza war, and Avigdor Lieberman.
The status quo lobby never liked Obama and preferred others in the primary and McCain in the general (in contrast to the Jewish community which went 78% for Obama). The Gaza war was a PR nightmare. It looked like a 21st century military blitz against the kids in "Slum Dog Millionaire." And Avigdor Lieberman, and an all-rightwing government, is a propaganda disaster. No Livni or Peres to soften a far right government's image. (Also Israelis worry that Hillary Clinton still remembers that Netanyahu came to Washington at the height of the Lewinsky crisis to hobnob with Gingrich and Falwell as if her husband was toast).
And now this. John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered a speech today in which he said that the United States needs to stop deferring to Israel on matters that affect our security, and not just theirs.
Best part: "Nothing will do more to make clear our seriousness about turning the page than demonstrating -- with actions rather than words -- that we are serious about Israel freezing settlement activity in the West Bank."
Read or watch Kerry here.
It's the economy. We can't afford our foreign policy anymore.
March 5, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you liked Netanyahu, you'll love this guy....
See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069122.html
MJ's job at the IPF is going to get a lot harder.
March 6, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's changing"
I'll believe it when I see it. All I see right now is a hit job on Freeman that seems to be working.
John Kerry is next. If the lobby is unsuccessful at effectively sidelining Kerry, I may believe that things are starting to change.
March 5, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to agree that this speech is heartening, though a bit on the sunny side (necessary, I suppose).
However, it's a real stretch to interpret Kerry's remarks as an indication that "the United States needs to stop deferring to Israel on matters that affect our security, and not just theirs." And while it certainly represents a break from Bush to call for the US to take an active role in freezing settlement expansion, it's not exactly big news.
March 5, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that MJR is correct.
The new crew in DC is proceeding slowly, but it seems that a new establishment consensus is in place. And Israeli hardliners have wet powder, so to speak. I hope that we are witnessing a supertanker making a turn. Position the right people in all key policy and intelligence positions first. Bolton, Feith etc. can make a trip to Hawaii.
March 5, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's changing all right.
Lieberman demanding 'full autonomy' as foreign minister
Dr. Strangelove walks into the room, goes to the map on the wall, and points his finger hard on IRAN.
March 5, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, in conjunction with my recent vow to ease my carping tone, I should say, "thank you, MJ for linking to this."
March 5, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, your conclusions are a bit premature. There has to be some sort of evidence before you can state that "it's" changing. Also, do you have a problem referring to the so-called status-quo lobby by its more explanatory and identifiable title: The Israel Lobby? Who the hell is the status-quo lobby? Couldn't that include the entire Republican Party and quite a few Democrats on issues ranging from Defense spending and a non-progressive income tax, to the continuation of private health care at the expense of national converage?
p.s. @BluePearl: Dr. Strangelove was in a wheelchair.
March 6, 2009 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ has a vested interest in promoting the idea that the "status quo" crowd is losing influence. It makes it seem that he and his crowd is gaining influence, which means more attention and donations to him. So whenever he talks about people opposed to him losing influence, take that into consideration.
But it is probably fair to say that the tone in Washington is changing with respect to the Middle East. Almost all of that is due to the change in US Administration. There was always going to be different tone coming from Obama and the Democrats, compared to Bush. But I've seen little evidence that either the public at large or even official Washington has had such a strong reaction to either the Gaza war or Avigdor Lieberman.
So there will likely be some pressure on Israel with respect to the settlements. And I actually wouldn't be surprised if Netanyahu makes some gestures to accomodate Obama and halt settlements in order to prove what a moderate he is these days.
But in the end, the smart money is on nothing much changing. The big picture is still the same: the Palestinian Authority is too weak to do a deal, Hamas will never make true peace and Israel will not make big concessions while half the Palestinians are represented by leaders who pledge eternal war and continue their aggression. And as long as Iran represents an existential threat to Israel, they will always be wary of anything that could possibly be construed as weakness.
The myth perpetuated by MJ and his ilk is that the "status quo" pro-Israel lobby in the US likes this state of affairs and is actively sabotaging any effort to move away from it. No doubt there are some like that. There are some people actively promoting the idea that Israel needs to be more aggressive and that Israel has a right to expand its settlements. But the truth is that this represents a small proportion of the attitudes in Washington. Most people would like to see peace, would like to see a Palestinian state emerge and would like Israel to do what it can to encourage it, including freezing and eventually rolling back the settlements. However, they recognize that while aspirations are one thing, the practical realities facing policymakers are quite another thing.
March 6, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know MJ except by what he writes.
Aside from whatever expertise he brings to the table, I think he is vested in hope.
I don't say that as silly reference to the Obama slogan, but to make a point: Lots of things in politics and human affairs are deemed to be "impossible." The reasons "why not" are always easy to stack up and, given the length of any conflict, stack high.
For example, which betting man would have bet on slavery being defeated in the US in, say 1820? Back in, say, 1917, what betting man would have bet on desegregation ever being done away with. And back in 1965, what betting man would have predicted a black president--winning by a landslide, no less and picking up states like NC?
No, what we would have had in all those cases were dozens of people on all sides of the debate or divide stacking up all the reasons why change would "never happen." All "good" reasons, too; all with merit.
But when the will is there, change can happen. Change, even very difficult change, doesn't contravene the laws of physics. It doesn't ask that balls drop upward or the earth spin off its axis. Nor does it require humans to reproduce asexually.
So, at bottom, MJ is an advocate for change and for hope, because without the latter, the former doesn't happen. People give up and go home and try to make the best of it. That's MJ's agenda in a nutshell. So naturally he's going to pick up on any real reason for hope in the hope that it augurs change.
As to this: "Most people would like to see peace, would like to see a Palestinian state emerge and would like Israel to do what it can to encourage it, including freezing and eventually rolling back the settlements."
Yes, most people, maybe all people, would like to see "peace." The same goes for a Palestinian state. But it stands to reason that unless there's sufficient land, a Palestinian state becomes more or less an impossibility. I think we can all agree that any state needs land as a bare requirement.
Now, since people build "settlements," they can also stop building them, and they can also unbuild them or take them down. There are zillions of building projects around the world that get put on hold all the time. There are zillions of buildings that are demolished around the world all the time. In fact, as a "Wigwag" (a Zionist) over at The Washington Note has argued, moving large numbers of people from "here" to "there" has also taken place fairly often in various places around the world.
But unless people TAKE any of these steps, or make serious steps in that direction, it is hard to believe that they are truly interested in a Palestinian state emerging. So they can say whatever they want, but it's not going to happen unless they actually DO something that moves things in that direction.
March 6, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel will only stop settlement activity when they have no choice. As Aaron David Miller said, in 25 years of meeting with Israeli officials, the USG never threatened them over settlements.
And we see the results of merely calling them "unhelpful."
March 6, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually incorrect. The first Bush Administration threatened Israel that they would withhold loan guarantees if they continued settlements.
March 6, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Threatened? Did they stop? No.
Compare to the sanctions actually appllied to Arab States. Nice try with the "virtual" sanctions, Brad.
March 6, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your previous statement said they had never been threatened. That was incorrect.
March 6, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice distinction without a difference. Not much of a threat if they just blow it off.
March 6, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you say. We need to test the limits of what is possible and push for what seems impossible.
The difference with your examples I see is that while "the smart money" might have been on thinking something like segregation would remain in place, the fact is that lifting segregation hadn't ever been tested, so there was no way to know.
By contrast, there is hardly an issue anywhere in the world that has had more resources, more brainpower and more political attention thrown at it than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American administrations going back at least to Nixon have banged their head against this particular wall and ended up with not much except a cracked skull. There is abundant evidence, based on decades of time and billions of dollars spent that this is simply the thorniest, knottiest foreign policy problem out there. We have tried all of the obvious things. It has defeated the best intentions of everyone. There just isn't some obvious solution that's going to make this problem go away. It will likely outlive us all, sad to say.
As for the idea that settlements can be just as easily unbuilt as built, all I have to say is that you can say that about a lot of things. Why haven't we lifted the Cuba embargo, even though it is demonstrably ineffective and silly? Why haven't we cut agricultural subsidies, even though they are a huge tax on 97% of the population for the benefit of 3%? In each case, a highly impassioned minority distorts the debate. Israel hasn't done much about unbuilding settlements because to do so will tear the country apart and likely cause the collapse of the government. And as long as there a bigger security issues to confont, it won't ever be a big priority to tackle that impassioned minority. It's that simple.
March 6, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Brad,
A few quibbles and comments...
The difference with your examples I see is that while "the smart money" might have been on thinking something like segregation would remain in place, the fact is that lifting segregation hadn't ever been tested, so there was no way to know.
Tintin: We did have reconstruction and a time when there were a fair number of blacks in Congress. So light did peek through, but was relatively quickly blocked out by our baser instincts.
By contrast, there is hardly an issue anywhere in the world that has had more resources, more brainpower and more political attention thrown at it than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American administrations going back at least to Nixon have banged their head against this particular wall and ended up with not much except a cracked skull. There is abundant evidence, based on decades of time and billions of dollars spent that this is simply the thorniest, knottiest foreign policy problem out there. We have tried all of the obvious things. It has defeated the best intentions of everyone. There just isn't some obvious solution that's going to make this problem go away. It will likely outlive us all, sad to say.
Tintin: I guess is true in the aggregate. But what's missing here is more detailed analysis. For example, was Arafat REALLY offered a great deal? Is it really true that he proposed no counter-offer? These claims have been seriously challenged. And if the challenges are true, we'd have to say that this isn't just a super-thorny problem that the best minds have failed to solve, but a problem that these minds have refused, in the final analysis, to solve. And I don't mean to put the onus simply on the Israelis, but am using this as an example of my point. If this is true, we have a failure of will to solve, not a failure to find a way to solve, if you see what I mean. I guess you could chalk it up to "bad timing": When one side is ready or readier, the other side isn't because it thinks it can get more by holding out.
I also happen to think that there's a trajectory to these conflicts: For example, it's a bit disingenuous for the pro-Palestinian side to point to the 2002 Arab offer as proof that they are willing to deal. Leaving aside any problems with the proposal itself, look at how long it took for them to come up with it! What 54 years after the war? It's not like you can wish away 54 years and simply say, "Okay, now we're ready to agree that the 48 war is over." No; attitudes and policies harden over that time. You're a wee bit late to the party, friend.
As for the idea that settlements can be just as easily unbuilt as built, all I have to say is that you can say that about a lot of things. Why haven't we lifted the Cuba embargo, even though it is demonstrably ineffective and silly? Why haven't we cut agricultural subsidies, even though they are a huge tax on 97% of the population for the benefit of 3%? In each case, a highly impassioned minority distorts the debate. Israel hasn't done much about unbuilding settlements because to do so will tear the country apart and likely cause the collapse of the government.
Tintin: Here you appear to be arguing in favor of The Lobby thesis, Brad. AIPAC, an impassioned minority, has blocked forward movement. Is that what you're saying?
And as long as there a bigger security issues to confont, it won't ever be a big priority to tackle that impassioned minority. It's that simple.
Tintin: Here you appear to be arguing for the use of a bigger stick to get people's attention: For example, no more US aid unless the settlements are dismantled; no more vetoing Security Council actions; even imposing a settlement. IOW, if one is interested in a two-state solution, your theory would point to finding a way to push the issue higher up on Israel's and perhaps the Palestinians' list of "security issues." Is this what you mean?
March 6, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of quick responses:
They've been challenged by people with an ax to grind. Bill Clinton himself said that the Israeli offer at Camp David was credible, which is what you'd want and expect in a negotiation. Arafat didn't respond.
No, I'm talking in an Israeli context. The settlers and their political supporters are the impassioned minority.
I suppose that's one way to interpret things. It's theoretically possible for the US to hold a gun to Israel's head and say dismantle the settlements or else. But that would be about as effective as Israel bombing the Palestinians so hard that they'll rise up against Hamas. Nice theory - doesn't work in practice. At the end of the day, American leverage over Israel is a lot less than people think. Israel makes the security decisions that are right for it, and has to deal with its own political reality.
March 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've been challenged by people with an ax to grind. Bill Clinton himself said that the Israeli offer at Camp David was credible, which is what you'd want and expect in a negotiation. Arafat didn't respond.
Does Swisher have an axe to grind? What axe?
I read there are others who challenge this version, too, but can't name them for you right now.
March 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Malley and Hussein Agha (?) have written about this in the New York Review of Books.
In the end, I don't think the two views are incompatible. Israel's offer was less than ideal, and less than it has been made out to be, to be sure. But saying that doesn't resolve Arafat of responsibility for failing to come up with a counteroffer. And in the final analysis, I don't think Arafat was ever prepared to compromise on the right of return - a problem that remains unresolved to this day. Clinton too deserves some blame for failing to lay the groundwork and trying to cram down a deal on his own compressed schedule.
March 6, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always amused by responses like this. It reminds me of the way New Yorkers used to be 25 years ago when crime was so much more of a big deal in the city. A guy would get mugged and then blame himself for being such a fool to have been in that neighborhood in the first place. Sooner or later, you have to get outraged that you're being mugged!
Similarly, on the IP issue, you can get so caught up in process - should more prep have been done? did Barak say the right thing at this meeting? - that you lose sight of the fundamental outrage. So because Clinton made mistakes of process, that means it's understandable that Arafat blew up the region?
No. There was no reason for Arafat to have done what he did, even if Barak's offer was completely inadequate, which it wasn't.
March 6, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, it seems unclear whether Arafat "blew up the region" or whether the region blew up and he strove to ride the tiger rather than get eaten by it. I can't quote you chapter and verse, but it would appear that he didn't order the intifada to take place if that's what you mean.
March 6, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't what I was saying at all. Just that Israel's offer was not "everything the Palestinians always wanted" - as it is often made out to be. The rest is on Arafat.
March 6, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad:
I generally agree with many of your criticisms of MJ and his agenda. I understand and share your pessimism - perhaps more accurately, realism - about the situation. In short, I suspect we agree about many things.
But what I find absent in your comments is any sense of what you see as a way forward. "Smart money" may be on nothing major changing. True, the PA is probably too weak to make a deal, Hamas is not likely to reverse course and Iran remains ascendant. But none of this is an excuse for inaction - to dismiss any positive overtures, throw up one's hands and lay the blame squarely on Palestinian/Arab rejectionists.
What I have missed in your comments is any sense, given the dismal reality you are apt at pointing out, of how you see a way forward. Surely, if the status quo (in the traditional sense, not MJ's) is so grim, there must be some steps short of the devastating war we saw in Gaza, to improve the situation and move us closer to peace, even if only in small increments.
As I mentioned on a previous thread, the new administration's apparent commitment to what appears to be sustained diplomatic engagement is welcome after Bush's enabling of some of the worst impulses of the Israelis. I too disagree with MJ's relentless and one-sided focus on the settlements as the key to changing the equation, but am encouraged that the Obama team seems willing to exert some pressure to confront Israeli rejectionists as well.
I thought Kerry's speech struck a good tone and included many positive steps. As he pointed out, Israel has long complained of not having a strong partner in the peace process, but has actually failed to take any steps to strengthen the PA and has in fact undermined it through actions like the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Kerry also proposes steps to strengthen the PA while bypassing Hamas - most notably by encouraging participation in a unity government that agrees to abide by previous agreements.
One need not share MJ's boundless optimism or his belief that this represents some kind of major sea change from the "status quo" - whatever that is. But I think it's incumbent that when you dismiss these overtures as tired repetition, you offer some alternative framework for improving the situation, however slight.
March 6, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a fair criticism. I agree that the status quo is not attractive. I also agree that it is incumbent on critics of the peaceniks to offer constructive suggestions.
The problem I see is that any constructive suggestions that are politically feasible will seem hopelessly small-bore when compared to the scale of the issue and the danger it represents. Suggestions abound for ways to make small differences. But together they will come nowhere near a "solution" to the issue.
I think the efforts of Gen. Dayton in training the security forces of the PA are worthwhile and should be expanded. I think there should be pressure on Israel to agree to a moratoriam on future land expropriations. I think aid should be more targeted at building businesses. I think American policy should be focused on the next generation of Palestinian political leaders and doing what is possible to nurture them and encourage them to be efficient administrators. Corruption is one of the biggest plagues the Palestinians face and anything we can do to fight that will have beneficial effects.
Like I said, small-bore. But the reality is that is all there is at this time. We are in many ways just waiting and hoping that the next generation of leaders will be stronger and more amenable to real progress.
The status quo is NOT attractive. But it may be the least bad option out there.
March 6, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Butchering 412 Palestinian children is not "attractive," but it is quite symbolic of Gun Zionism.
March 6, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no cause for optimism stemming from this timid and mealy-mouthed speech. Kerry gives one line of lip service to the notion of a Palestinian unity government, but the speech shows that the so-called unity government really consists of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. The rest of the speech is filled with similarly tired and intellectually bankrupt continuities with the Middle East policies of the Bush administration during is second term.
The most disturbing thing about the speech is how enthusiastically Kerry embraces the dotty strategic vision of building Arab-Israeli peace around a new Cold War-style wall of containment around Iran. I had hoped that this goofy plan would die with the Bush administration. This whole notion of gambling US security and national interests in the Middle East on an implausible Arab-Israel united front against a much over-hyped common threat is both dangerous and doomed to failure. It foolishly delays progress on a more productive US relationship with Iran, and subordinates our Iran policy to the aims of a fizzling, amateurish gambit.
The containment gambit is built on myths. There is no Iranian "hegemony" or near-hegemony, or threatened hegemony, in the region. And Iranian meddling in the affairs of other countries is no greater than that of any number of other players in the region. Everyone in that region attempts to influence the affairs of other states to the extent they can in the pursuit of their own interests. Iran seems to be punching about in proportion to its weight class - no more and no less. Add to this that the United States is uniquely ill-positioned to start preaching the message of "non-meddling" in Middle East affairs. It's an absurd posture for the US to adopt.
The Middle East needs a balance of power underpinned by by engaged and practical US relations with all of the major players in the region. It does not need some stupid new Cold War. This seems like a classic case of a great power making a blundering mess out of a contemporary state of affairs by projecting a historic pattern from a past it understands onto a situation to which it is inapplicable.
American politicians seem incapable of grappling with the hypothesis that Iranian efforts to check and distract Israeli power have at least something to do with its need to defend itself against open and obvious threats: Israel is openly hostile to Iran and its government, actually possesses large numbers of nuclear weapons, and chatters daily about its inclinations to mount assaults on Iran, or encourage the US to do this for them. And US politicians continue the deeply unrealistic, obtuse policy of ignoring the nuclear elephant in the room.
Our Iran policy is still being held hostage to Israeli preferences, and Kerry is playing the role of stooge and sucker. When are American politicians going to develop the stones to stand up for the security of Americans, and pursue policies that actually make Americans safer? My family's safety and future are being compromised by the forays of the witless Kerry and his fellow band of intimidated Washington boobs. When the misfiring Cold War against Iran turns into a hot conflict. it is my kind - and yours - who are going to be sucked up into the maelstrom.
Also, the so-called Arab "moderates" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are in fact despots. Lets drop the euphemisms, OK.
If Kerry has been deputized to send out signals from the Obama administration, then I am now officially bummed.
March 6, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan: The policy is not "nutty." A bankrupt Empire and its satellites are watching the natural development of a country of 70 million. And the Empire does not control its development. Hence, the country is evil. It is a "state sponsor of terrorism." It is the new "Third Reich."
Declining empires always demonize up-and-coming states. (Look at British pre-WWI propaganda about Imperial Germany.)
And don't forget: Without control of Iran, the USG has no way to control the Caspian. (Except through Afghanistan. And how is that going?)
Iran is evil because the Empire needs it to be evil. Until we pull it into our orbit. And then they will be rebranded as "moderate." (Notice that "moderate" Saudi doesn't allow its people to vote or its women to have driver's licenses. )
March 6, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Our Iran policy is still being held hostage to Israeli preferences, and Kerry is playing the role of stooge and sucker. When are American politicians going to develop the stones to stand up for the security of Americans, and pursue policies that actually make Americans safer?"
In the real world, such a startling assertion, that American foreign policy vis-a-vis a nation like Iran, is being held hostage by supporters of Israel (many of whom just happen to be Hebes like me), would be subject to proof. That's why this isn't the real world and is more akin to a parlor game. And that's why in the real world polished assessments like this one from my good friend Dank, who obviously has thought this through and genuinely believes what he's writing and doesn't have a biased bone towards Jewish people in his body, plus two bucks, get you on the subway.
March 6, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will never be enough evidence for you. That is a choice, not an absence of data.
March 6, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know they aren't also AMERICAN preferences? The US took out Allende. The US took out Mossadeq. The US supported Saddam, until we didn't. And, of course, US destroyed Viet Nam without any urging from Israel, AFAIK.
Seems to me there have been a LOT of malign US preferences implemented around the world. So to pin the entirety on one piece of the puzzle--a fashionable exercise right now--strikes me as wrong based on the facts.
It also creates the illusion that if we could only excise this one wart, America could get back on the good foot, which is where it "naturally" wants to be.
March 6, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are good points. But a confluence of interests begs an obvious question: Why lobby for Isarel so hard if their interests are our interests?
I await your reply.
March 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because ALL interests require maximum lobbying in our system. It's not as if all the inarguably GOOD causes in our country just naturally get funded by Congress as this argument would predict.
In fact, it is often the opposite, as far as I can see. Everyone thinks that "education" is a good idea, but it often goes begging, and teachers' groups have huge lobbying arms. Lots of people believe in a strong defense, but still lobbying for defense is big business. Sometimes, a big lobbying effort, say AARP, just means that a lot of people believe in it, but still worry--even though they are close to a majority of the population or soon will be--that their needs will be overlooked unless they stand up and shout.
I don't think there's much relation, if any, between the worthiness of a cause and the strength of its lobbying effort. No causes just sell themselves, because there is always a big competition for a limited amount of funds and the limited attention spans of our Congresspeople.
March 6, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is certainly true that all causes need a champion, would you agree that AIPAC is not really about facilitating understanding of Israel's desires as coercing politicians to agree with them.
Consider this: Back in 2006, both Rep. Issa and Rep. Rahul refused to vote against the resolution supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon. Rahul said the resolution made him sick....but he voted for it anyway.
What does that tell you?
March 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is certainly true that all causes need a champion, would you agree that AIPAC is not really about facilitating understanding of Israel's desires as coercing politicians to agree with them.
Tintin: I would say, in all seriousness, that lobbying is only partly about "facilitating understanding" and mostly about winning. I don't think that LaPierre or the head of big tobacco care about understanding per se; they care about the Rep understanding THEIR perspective and voting their way. Lobbyists do provide information, but I doubt you could find a lobbyist who presented information intended to support his opponent's POV...EVEN IF IT WERE ACCURATE INFORMATION. Of course, if he's smart, he'll want to appear evenhanded, but he's not a scholar in search of the truth and his discussions with the Rep aren't designed to arrive at what you or I would call "the truth," assuming that can be determined.
Consider this: Back in 2006, both Rep. Issa and Rep. Rahul refused to vote against the resolution supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon. Rahul said the resolution made him sick....but he voted for it anyway.
What does that tell you?
Tintin: It tells me that lobbyists apply a lot of pressure and certainly AIPAC does (from what I can see). It tells me that Reps are frequently cowards and feel stuck between competing interests and their own consciences. But this is hardly unique to the IP issue. The gun lobby is also very strong and now Dems can hardly mention the issue: It's a loser largely because of the efforts of the NRA. And this is a right enshrined in our Constitution! You know, Biden voted for the bankruptcy law largely because of all the credit card companies in his state.
March 6, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But we're really arguing apples and oranges here. You note that lobbying implicitly coerces people and is commonplace. I argue that the confluence theory is actually false because the lobbying that is applied by AIPAC (and the NRA in the gun context) is so intense that it actually produces negative outcomes that would not be generated by argument alone. That is to say, the resultsl are 90% coercion, 10% persuasion.
And are these results good for the US? Simply look at the the US relationship with most of the Muslim world, and you will find your answer.
March 6, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on fire today...
Very interesting discussion.
March 6, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But we're really arguing apples and oranges here. You note that lobbying implicitly coerces people and is commonplace.
Tintin: Coerce how? They use money and language, as far as I can see. Some lobbyists probably play more hardball than others. But the object is still to get the Rep to vote a certain way, THEIR way. The Rep is ALWAYS free to vote how he or she wishes. He may not get the check, he may be the target of bad press, but that is the life of the politician. You say coercion; I say the object is to win.
I argue that the confluence theory is actually false because the lobbying that is applied by AIPAC (and the NRA in the gun context) is so intense that it actually produces negative outcomes that would not be generated by argument alone. That is to say, the resultsl are 90% coercion, 10% persuasion.
Tintin: It is hard to know how Congress would vote if there were no lobbyists. I think it's a bit self-serving to project that they would vote "your way." So I say, negative to whom? One side wins; the other side loses. If you say, the American people lose, I say that there is no such thing as an American people who all agree on one thing and all want to go one way. And they divvy up in different ways on different issues. Look, if so and so hadn't persuaded Truman, perhaps Israel wouldn't have come into existence. Would things have been better in that case? Perhaps for the Palestinians; perhaps not. Perhaps for the Jews; perhaps not.
I do agree that some lobbyists are probably more intense than others and play more hardball.
And are these results good for the US? Simply look at the the US relationship with most of the Muslim world, and you will find your answer.
Tintin: I think there have been "some" negatives; I can't say how many, honestly. As has been pointed out in many places, the US has done a lot to mess up its relationship with the Muslim world all on its own. It's easy to suppose that things would be better with one less headache (Israel), but I think it's facile.
March 6, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you decide to correspond like a gentleman, I might think about engaging you.
March 6, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I will soldier on regardless...
March 6, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K writes: "Iranian efforts to check and distract Israeli power have at least something to do with its need to defend itself against open and obvious threats: Israel is openly hostile to Iran and its government, actually possesses large numbers of nuclear weapons, and chatters daily about its inclinations to mount assaults on Iran, or encourage the US to do this for them. And US politicians continue the deeply unrealistic, obtuse policy of ignoring the nuclear elephant in the room."
Okay, but let's look at some assumptions about Iran that have floated around. For example, it was argued that Iran would never produce a nuclear bomb because, the imams said, it violated Islamic principles, and we know how those guys feel about Islamic principles. But then along came the NIE, I think it was, that said that Iran had GIVEN UP its pursuit of the bomb back in 2003. So progressives said, "See? They don't want a bomb." But the flip side of this, it seems to me, is that the NIE was saying that, prior to 2003, Iran DID want the bomb and WAS pursuing it despite their Islamic principles. So I think we have to be careful about assumptions all around. We can't just pick them up and put them down when they're no longer useful.
Now others say that Israel's possession of nukes is provoking a nuclear arms race. And Iran NEEDS the bomb to protect it from Israel and, of course, from the US who is just following orders from crazy Israel. Okay. But Israel started work on the bomb in about 1958. They achieved it, I think, in the early 1970s. It was largely an open secret. Did this provoke a nuclear arms race among the other Middle East countries--countries that certainly had the money to pursue a program? Vanunu openly spilled the beans in the mid 1980s. Did this provoke an arms race? Israel "lived with" the Iranian regime through the 1980s and 1990s. Did Israel threaten the Iranian regime with destruction because of its "Islamic government" was openly hostile to Israel? I don't think so, but I'm happy to be corrected.
So the notion that Israel is provoking this conflict or arms race needs some examining in my mind. Seems to me that if Iran stopped talking about the Zionist devil, the non-existence of the Holocaust, and the desire to see the Zionist regime disappear from the pages of time (or get wiped off the map, whichever translation you prefer), and, in fact, recognized Israel as a legitimate state under the UN charter, it would go a long way toward cooling the conflict between the two countries. That shouldn't be too hard to do, right?
As far as I can tell, Israel isn't "threatening" to nuke Pakistan, another Islamic country with the bomb. Or am I mistaken?
I also had to smile at your sanguine acceptance of Iran's "meddling" as something everyone in the region does. Apparently it's cool for everyone to do it EXCEPT the Zionist State, which is condemned for doing what everyone else does. Uncovering the presence of Israel military advisors in any hot spot is just more "proof" of the worldwide and all-powerful Zionist conspiracy that will be the ruin of the world.
And if you want to say that Israel is punching above her weight, I think you'd have to agree that she's had a pretty heavy roster of opponents--at least over her brief lifetime. Yes?
March 6, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin: "Israel "lived with" the Iranian regime through the 1980s and 1990s. Did Israel threaten the Iranian regime with destruction because of its "Islamic government" was openly hostile to Israel?"
1. Before the Iraq War, we had "dual containment" of Iraq and Iran. Dubya destroyed that.
2. Iran is an independent oil producing state; Saudi is a dependent oil-producing state. Which one is considered "moderate"? (Not the one where their woman have driver's licenses.)
3. According to Robert Baer in "Dealing with the Devil: The Rise of the New Iranian Superpower," Isarel and Saudi both fear Iran because (1) Iran and Saudi are the only two strategically important countries in the ME; (2) Saudi wants to remain "essential" the US, and Iran would offset them; (3) Iran is the gateway to the Caspian and American plans to control, or at least have access to, that oil; (4) a reapproachment with Iran will greatly degrade the strategic importance of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan; and (5) we have a lot more in common with Iran than Saudi Arabia.
So which countries are whining the loudest about Iran? The ones who positions will be downgraded by a resurgent Iran. Let the downgrading begin!
March 6, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, there is no mystery about the fact that relations between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been consistently terrible since the founding of that republic after the Iranian revolution, and that each state, with good reason, feels threatened by the other. When a state like Israel - one of the parties in a tense proxy war in an unstable and vital region - decides to possess nuclear weapons, that is an inherently threatening, destabilizing and provocative choice. It wouldn't matter if Israel never issued a single provocative statements, since the action itself is provocative. The recent provocative statements only add to the legitimate perception of threat on Iran's side. And yes, the provocative statements and decisions of that boob Ahmadinejad also add to the perception of threat on Israel's side.
The same destabilizing equation would be in place if it were Iran that possessed the 200 nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter how these two state got to be enemies. The fact is that their relations are mutually hostile, and so if one of those states builds a powerful asymmetric military arsenal, then the other is naturally going to look for ways to defend themselves against that threat. What else could be expected?
The word "meddling" is tendentious. Countries frequently work to advance their interests by developing allies and relationships inside other countries. Iran has been working since the Iraq war to develop a more favorable relationship with the government of Iraq than it enjoyed when Iraq under Saddam's regime. Since ran suffered tremendously as a result of the Iran-Iraq war, this seems like a perfectly normal and healthy thing for a country to do. But the US chooses to classify these new relationships between neighbors as "meddling". Meanwhile the US actually maintains an occupying army inside Iraq. The whole phony diplomatic posture is comical.
The goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a sound one. The goal of promoting a denuclearized Middle East is just as sound, and even more to urgent. But the United States is prohibited by the absurdly convoluted folds and routine inanities of its diplomatic posture from even mentioning this obvious global threat. That's a scandal.
It is frankly ridiculous to hold that the decision by the state of Israel to develop and maintain a large and potent arsenal of nuclear weapons in a tense region is not provocative, while holding that the decision by Iran to develop capabilities that might some day lead to its building a nuclear weapon is horrifyingly provocative. And the US posture of "strategic silence" on Israel's arsenal - i.e. declining to mention large, obvious and overwhelmingly relevant truths that are politically inconvenient - renders laughable our diplomatic positions on Iran. It make our whole country look like a bunch of morons, which as an American myself I resent. Our professed concerns about Iran and nuclear weapons in the Middle East would have much more credibility if they were coupled to a believable and consistent position on regional non-proliferation and denuclearization. But as things stand, they are not, and our position is a joke.
March 6, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the United States and other countries in the region would not consider Iran to be a threat--with or without nukes--even if Israel wasn't in the picture. We have other important allies in the region--allies with oil. The Arab world for the most part, certainly the Gulf States, fear Iran a helluva lot more than they fear a nuclear Israel. Indeed, most of these states, autocratic or not, probably thank their lucky stars that Israel is rattling its sabre against the Iranians. And the U.S.? We didn't support Iraq against Iran in the 1980s because of Israel. We have had a rocky relationship with the Iranians since the Ayatollah took over. They haven't forgotten that, Israel or no Israel, it was our CIA who put the Shah back in control in the 1950s.
Finally, as you know, the Times reported in January that Israel's request for assistance in a plan to bomb Iranian alleged nuclear sites was rejected by the Bush Administration. That in of itself plainly belies the notion that our polcy is held hostage by the Israelis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Iran%20Israel%20january%202009&st=cse
I continue to look myself in the mirror my confessing concern about alleged extraordinary control of American foreign policy by Israel. It's just wrong in so many ways. I'm a pretty strong zionist, proud of it, but I'm an American first and I favor better relations and even direct contacts with Iran. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into this folly that we should presume control of American foreign policy by Israel and some of its supporters.
Dan, do you think the United States should just let Iran build nuclear weapons because Israel has them? You think, but for Israel, the great swath of the American people would agree with you? I don't for a second.
March 6, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Countries are always threatened by rivals...that doesn't mean that the fears are appropriate. Iran feels very threatened by Iraq (it invaded in Iran), by the United States (it bandies around the phrase "regime change") and Israel (which is leading world-wide propaganda campaign against the Iranian state).
So we have established that Iran feels "threatened". Does that mean that Iran's fears are legitimate....are moral...or Iran can preemptively attack Israel because of these fears?
The whole basis of neo-conservatism was the self-justifying argument that "I am scared, therfore I have the right to attack you."
Before 2003, countries that attacked other countries because they could were called "Aggressors."
March 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure exactly what specific threats you are talking about, Bruce. But I assume that in some parts of the Arab world, the chief concern is that a unified Iran-Iraq bloc would supplant Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states as the dominant player in the region's oil business. Iran does not have armies in neighboring countries, so I do not think the military threats are all that serious. And despite the occasional hype, Iran is still some way from having nuclear weapons capability. To the extent the Arabs are worried about Iranian power, it is chiefly economic power that is the concern, and the strategic benefits economic power confers. They also may be worried that the more egalitarian and quasi-democratic Iranian social and political model is a threat to their monarchic social traditionalism.
Both the Saudis and the Israelis also have a common interest in working to prevent improved US relations with Iran. Both states enjoy a privileged special relationship with the US, and that relationship gives them extraordinary influence in world affairs, as well as providing an impervious diplomatic umbrella shielding them from much international opprobrium and opposition. What both of those states fear is that the United States will eventually make the same kind of practical decision about its relationship with Iran that it made about its relationship with China in the 70's. Thus, they have been working to foment US-Iranian conflict and prevent the dawn of that new relationship.
Since I believe an improved relationship with Iran, an opening of full diplomatic and commercial relations with the Islamic Republic, and a modest consequent demotion of our ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia, would all be very much in the interest of the United States, I believe that Israel and Saudi Arabia are here, as in many other cases, seeking to advance their own interests in ways that are detrimental to the interests of the US. That's not shocking or surprising or nefarious. That's what states do: seek to promote their own interests. Its not up to Israelis or Saudis to advance American interests; it's up to the US to stand up for its own interests. But much of Washington refuses to do this.
I do indeed think that if Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were not in the picture, the threats perceived by the US to be posed by Iran would be regarded as minimal. Instead, Iran would be seen as a land of golden economic and geopolitical opportunity, and we would have long ago re-established full diplomatic relations and flooded the country with trade delegations. You only have to listen to US politicians verify this. What do they say the Iranian threats consist in? Support for Hizbollah and Hamas, or the possible future construction of nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israel. It's mainly about Israel.
Finally, as you know, the Times reported in January that Israel's request for assistance in a plan to bomb Iranian alleged nuclear sites was rejected by the Bush Administration. That in of itself plainly belies the notion that our policy is held hostage by the Israelis.
Not at all. I didn't say that Israel actually commands the US and gets its way every time, but that our policy is held hostage to Israeli preferences. Our leaders are constantly reacting to Israeli temper tantrums and threats, and seem to live in constant fear of offending Israel's delicate sensibilities. The whole contemporary atmosphere of extravagant anti-Iran rhetoric and over-hyped threat discourse is an indulgent sop to Israeli preoccupations.
Dan, do you think the United States should just let Iran build nuclear weapons because Israel has them? You think, but for Israel, the great swath of the American people would agree with you? I don't for a second.
How did you get that from my comment Bruce? I said that the United States should promote a nuclear-free Middle East. My suggestion is that US support for Israel, and its irresponsible decision to look the other way and tolerate a large Israeli nuclear arsenal, have created the conditions that are bound to lead to the desire for nuclear weapons among other states in the region like Iran. And I suggested the attempts in the diplomatic arena to prevent Iran from going nuclear are laughably lacking in international credibility because they are accompanied by an obtuse failure to acknowledge the 200 ton nuclear gorilla that is already in the room. The typical cowardly failure of US politicians to confront Israel has, as in so many other cases, lead to a more dangerous world for me and my family. We've had 40 years of foreign policy malpractice in this country from US politicians who refuse to do their jobs. Americans are going to get killed over this, and Washington is to blame.
March 6, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said that the United States should promote a nuclear-free Middle East. My suggestion is that US support for Israel, and its irresponsible decision to look the other way and tolerate a large Israeli nuclear arsenal, have created the conditions that are bound to lead to the desire for nuclear weapons among other states in the region like Iran.
Tintin: Perhaps, but Israel has had weapons for decades. In what way was this "bound" to lead Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. It hasn't led SA to seek to acquire them, has it? It hasn't led Turkey to acquire them, AFAIK. This notion that because the US turned away--back in the 1970s--and this has led to Iran seeking to acquire these arms needs some serious examination in terms of cause and effect.
And I suggested the attempts in the diplomatic arena to prevent Iran from going nuclear are laughably lacking in international credibility because they are accompanied by an obtuse failure to acknowledge the 200 ton nuclear gorilla that is already in the room. The typical cowardly failure of US politicians to confront Israel has, as in so many other cases, lead to a more dangerous world for me and my family.
Tintin: But at this point, all the US could reasonably do is insist on Israel joining the NPT. Would that reduce the arms or eliminate them? Since their mere existence appears to be provocative, I don't see how the US could do anything--short of forcibly disarming Israel--to calm the fears of the Muslim world which, it would appear, has only recently led to Iran's "need" for the bomb.
Moreover, I fail to see how the US getting friendly with Iran commercially threatens Israel or SA in any way unless you're suggesting that said ties would lead the US to demand certain things of Israel we wouldn't otherwise demand. Even though Iran is RELATIVELY more enlightened than SA, it is hardly a place where liberty reigns. So even if the US were to go after some of that Iranian booty, it doesn't stand to reason that Iran could then blackmail the US into turning its back on Israel. I know Parsi argues this, but I just don't see how the dots connect. There is still a values gap, I'd say, especially when Iranian justice involves things like pouring acid into the eyes of perpetrators. That's a long way from the Israeli Supreme Court's idea of justice.
March 6, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I laugh when I see people assuming Iran wanting nukes is all about Israel having nukes. It's the single proud Persian ancient state with all kinds of ancient tribal Arabs to the west of it (some of which it recently had a long brutal war with,) the former Soviet Union to the north of it (which invaded and occupied Afghanistan for many years,) Pakistan and that big monster India, both with nukes as well, to its east, and that even bigger monster, China, always hungry for resources, not that far away. It wants equal standing. I've read several times that a lot of those anti-mullah urbanites are very supportive of their country having the bomb, and that doesn't surprise me, as they are a very proud people in a neighborhood of "others."
March 6, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Persian pride factor can be diminished if Iran is not being asked to accept a permanent second-rate and subordinate status, but non-proliferation in Iran is tied to a global denuclearization commitment.
March 7, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin: But at this point, all the US could reasonably do is insist on Israel joining the NPT. Would that reduce the arms or eliminate them? Since their mere existence appears to be provocative, I don't see how the US could do anything--short of forcibly disarming Israel--to calm the fears of the Muslim world which, it would appear, has only recently led to Iran's "need" for the bomb.
It starts with a diplomatic initiative aiming at broader antiproliferation and denuclearization effort among the great powers, with the US, Russia, the Europeans and the Chinese signing on in a joint statement with a commitment to begin reducing their own nuclear stockpiles.
Following that, Obama makes a speech in which he publicly acknowledges US awareness of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons - an acknowledgment that would in itself constitute a breakthrough - and then invites Israel to participate in the global denuclearization effort, and drive to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. The diplomatic push to prevent Iran from going nuclear could then take place in that revised context.
A similar, but separate effort could be launched in the more difficult India-Pakistan arena. But the key to denuclearization among lesser powers is to get great power buy-in first. US aid and aid from other powers should be made conditional on cooperation in the global denuclarization agenda.
March 7, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K writes: "It is frankly ridiculous to hold that the decision by the state of Israel to develop and maintain a large and potent arsenal of nuclear weapons in a tense region is not provocative, while holding that the decision by Iran to develop capabilities that might some day lead to its building a nuclear weapon is horrifyingly provocative."
Yes, but Israel has had weapons for DECADES. Why wasn't it provocative--in the sense that it provoked others to acquire them--back in the 1970s and 1980s? Or the 1960s for that matter? The notion that the mere existence of nukes is provocative needs some examination. Certainly, on the face of it it's false, as many countries do NOT feel threatened by the mere existence of US weapons. For decades, as I say, the very rich Saudis and very rich Iranians did not feel they needed to have nukes themselves to ward off Israel. Egypt, even when it was at odds with Israel has never moved to arm themselves with nukes as far as I know.
March 6, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly, on the face of it it's false, as many countries do NOT feel threatened by the mere existence of US weapons.
Every country that has hostile relations with the US certainly does feel threatened and intimidated by US nukes. After all, that's why the US has these weapons in the first place.
I can't believe that you mean to take seriously the idea that the possession of nuclear weapons is not an inherently a dangerous and provocative state of affairs.
March 7, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
IPF is being pressured to fire MJ for his support of Chas Freeman. So writes mondoweiss.
March 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mondoweiss is trying to make hay which is what he does. MJ is safe and secure with IPF. But through all the screaming I offer this rational and sincere assessment, and that is that those who really and truly wish to place at the forefront the fundamental goal of IPF and organizations like J Street and APN, to wit, the creation of an independedent and contiguous Palestine based on the contours of the pre-'67 armistice lines, with a shared capital of Jerusalem, should think twice and then again about why the hell we would compromise that goal by playing "prove the existence of the all-powerful Lobby" with respect to Chas Freeman. Priorities, priorities, priorities. I think everyone should spend a couple of decades at the bargaining table and then perhaps I won't sound like a total whack and a nutjob. But I know that there are some folks out there who know exactly what I'm talkin' about. There is a disconnect here. Chas Freeman ain't what it's all about, and spending political capital on Chas Freeman is hurting the goal I think most of us believe is fundamental.
March 6, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, I do believe that aggressively focusing on Israel's expansionist settlement policy in the West Bank is fully consistent with the two-state priority.
March 6, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it wasn't Freeman it would be some other guy that might have 'Iran' or 'Saudi Arabia' on his resume. Zinni went down pretty quickly, hell why not go for Freeman too. Freeman the highly qualified, 'patrotic' guy appointed for his analytical skills not policy skills and the 'ISRAEL lobby' still has to pitch a fit, to show how desperate and controlling they are. No this is a good and open example as to the "existence" of 'the lobby' and how it operates. This flexing of power is v. relevant to Israel and the Palestinian issue.
...and thanks BluePearl for the heads up.
March 6, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink