I think the review, penned by Israeli political analyst and independent journalist/blogger Daniel Levy (he occasionally writes opinion pieces for Haaretz, is about as balanced as you can really get for a topic as politically-charged as this: namely, the role AIPAC and other Israeli lobbyist organizations play in shaping the contours of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Indeed, Levy seems to have read the book quite closely, yet he has done so in such a way that allowed him to maintain an emotionally detatched perspective; he considers the evidence and conclusions presented by the authors in an open-minded but simultaneously critical manner. As I don't think I have the inclination to read the book in its entirety, and I doubt I could maintain anything remotely resembling an unbiased viewpoint on the authors' powerful charges, I think Levy has done me a great service by reading and evaluating the book.
He starts of his review with a statement that summarizes his views on the Lobby and its influence: “I am convinced 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.” While he finds various details in the book with which he finds fault with, for the most part he accepts the central thesis propagated by Walt and Mearsheimer in an apologetic, uncritical manner. As Levy is an Israeli journalist firmly positioned on the left wing of political ideology, it is perhaps not surprising that he would feel most comfortable arguing from this particular perspective. Nevertheless, while he is a great writer who generally offers readers a nuanced analysis of Middle East geopolitics, I think he unfortunately got this one wrong.
According to Levy, a “key distinction” to draw here 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).” I would argue, though, that one cannot use the charged description of Israel as an occupier of Palestinian Territories in the same way one could (quite justifiably) describe the US’s present occupation of Iraq. In the former case, even though the Israeli government under the leadership of various politicians across the ideological prism, the territory in question is Israeli land – a matter long ago settled by the UN and as a result of 1the 1967 and 1973 wars and further illustrated by the refusal of the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Yassir Arafit to accept the compromises offered by Israel in the now discredited Oslo Accords conmpleted in 1993.
Levy next goes on to acknowledge that:
“The [W–M] 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 . . . 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.According to Levy, the book does an excellent job of rebutting the commonly-held assumption (by the American public and political elites) that Israel is a worthy beneficiary of the US’s billions of dollars in economic and military aid granted in recent decades by providing an exhaustive list of evidence of the Jewish state’s violations of international human rights law; in particular their historic and continual mistreatment of Palestinian refugees. The authors also connect the dots here by outlining why such largess on the US’s part on Israel’s behalf is a direct result of the Israeli Lobby’s efforts, as opposed to a a foreign policy course driven solely by the engine of where the US’s perceived best geopolitical/economic/military interests lie.
According to Levy, if Israel was of "limited strategic value" during the Cold War, it has become a veritable "liability" during the current so-called “Global War on Terror.” He states:
“The [US’s] 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.
He also takes issue with one of Walt and Mearsheimer’s arguments on the grounds that the authors are intellectually sloppy in describing the different historical and political etymologies of “neocons” and the Lobby’s “pro-Zionist” membership:
Walt and Mearsheimer place [neocons] 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.
If you’re like me and interested in the subject matter discussed here, mostly because regardless of one’s personal views we should all be able to agree that the conflicts ignited here are quite significant in understanding the mess the Middle East is currently embroiled in, but don’t have the stomach to read through “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, this book review is a pretty good place to start your research. If you'r intersted in the book's background, history and an outline of its thesis, I've culled a very basic summary here (most of the primary sources can be accessed here:
Content
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical".[2] They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses" (see Campus Watch and U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509). The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."[1]
"The Lobby"
The paper says the following about "The Lobby":
• "We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."
• "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests."
• "The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay...all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will."
• "In addition, the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will."
• "Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).”
• "Jewish-Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and well-known.”
• "Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process."
• "AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress."
• "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress."
• "The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections."
• "Key organizations in the Lobby also directly target the administration in power ... [and] make sure that critics of the Jewish state do not get important foreign-policy appointments"
• "Pro-Israel congressional staffers are another source of the Lobby’s power. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] … who happen to be Jewish, who are willing … to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness.... These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators.'"
• "The Lobby’s perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel."
• "The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide."
• "Were it not for the Lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today."
• "American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."
• "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach."
• "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel."
• "Jewish philanthropists have established Israel studies programs (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programs that already exist) so as to increase the number of Israel-friendly scholars on campus."
• "No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy — an influence that AIPAC celebrates — stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite."
• "the [Iraq] war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it."
• "Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israel officials and pro-Israel groups like AIPAC."
• "the Lobby must keep constant pressure on U.S. politicians to confront Tehran."
• "If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed, then Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
• "It is not meant to suggest that 'the lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."
• "Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them."
• "There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy; the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy... For the most part the individuals and groups in it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better." However, "the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about."
•"Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so ... But that is not going to happen anytime soon."
On U.S. support for Israel
Economic: According to the authors, Israel is "the largest total recipient since World War II" of U.S. aid. "Total direct U.S. aid to Israel for this period amounts to well over $1.4 trillion from 1973 to 2003. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is about one-fifth of America’s foreign aid budget." The authors claim that "This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain."
The authors claim that "Israel is the only recipient of U.S. aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent." According to the authors, this makes it "virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes."
Diplomatic/political: The authors write, "Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members together." They further posit that the U.S. also "blocks Arab states’ efforts to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s agenda."
Analysis of Israel as a Strategic Asset and the moral case for support
The authors state: "This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained U.S. backing. But neither rationale is convincing". The authors offer the following in support of this argument:
Israel as a Strategic Asset
"Backing Israel is not cheap, however, and it complicates America's relations with the Arab World."
"The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden."
"In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states."
"More important, saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards; the U.S. has a terrorism problem because it is so closely aligned with Israel, not the other way around."
"As for the so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel."
"A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally."
The Moral Case for Support
"There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's continued existence, but that is not in jeopardy."
"Today Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons."
"That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid."
"The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians".
"Yet on this ground (seeking peace), Israel's record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents."
"...Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister of Israel declared that 'neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.'"
See this article by Ari Berman for The Nation as well as this article written by Michelle Goldberg for Salon for more background on the topic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment