Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Lobby...and other things that go bump in the night
Soccer Dad: Poisoned ivies includes his initial take of a London Review of Books article entitled: The Israel Lobby (The Lobby) by Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard professor Stephen Walt. If you’re already inclined to blame Israel (before or after Bush – take your pick) for all the world’s woes then The Lobby will only feed into your paranoia. Otherwise, you’ll probably just wonder how low the barrier has dropped for becoming a professor at two of our supposedly top schools. Soccer Dad adds additional comments and links here.
Written in a seemingly calm and rational tone, the gist of their case seems to be that
“We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This 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.”
(A “loose coalition”…sounds like a fun group from which to meet women …but unfortunately, I never get notice of the meetings.)
Mocking those who profess the existence of some Jewish Cabal running this country is always good for a cheap laugh and adding a Harvard professor to their ranks just enhances the enjoyment. This is an example of their hard-hitting, no-stone-unturned expose of The Lobby:
“Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):
“Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.”
That’s right: Israelis “across the political spectrum” thought that getting rid of a man who had previously lobbed SCUD missiles into their midst and had been actively threatening Israel “would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.”
This is nothing more than a collection of cherry-picked anecdotes to support one-sided arguments. And when I read statements like this:
“At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.”
….I can’t even concede it was artfully done. After reading this drivel, I wonder if these two had news sources beyond Al Jazeera and the UN. Such scholarship would have been more appropriate from the Ted Kennedy School of Government.
Written in a seemingly calm and rational tone, the gist of their case seems to be that
- The US does a lot for Israel;
- Mearsheimer and Walt don’t agree we should…..therefore
- it must be because of the Lobby
“We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This 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.”
(A “loose coalition”…sounds like a fun group from which to meet women …but unfortunately, I never get notice of the meetings.)
Mocking those who profess the existence of some Jewish Cabal running this country is always good for a cheap laugh and adding a Harvard professor to their ranks just enhances the enjoyment. This is an example of their hard-hitting, no-stone-unturned expose of The Lobby:
“Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):
“Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.”
That’s right: Israelis “across the political spectrum” thought that getting rid of a man who had previously lobbed SCUD missiles into their midst and had been actively threatening Israel “would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.”
This is nothing more than a collection of cherry-picked anecdotes to support one-sided arguments. And when I read statements like this:
“At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.”
….I can’t even concede it was artfully done. After reading this drivel, I wonder if these two had news sources beyond Al Jazeera and the UN. Such scholarship would have been more appropriate from the Ted Kennedy School of Government.
Comments:
<< Home
Walt has actually done some good serious work in the past. He is one of the foremost exponents of the "realist" school that holds that the over-riding concern driving US policy choices should be the "national interest" narrowly defined. He would disparage all influences on policy that would cause the US to act against those interests. The Israel lobby is one of those influences -- for that matter so is the Saudi lobby and the oil lobby, and the farm lobby, and the steel lobby, etc.
What is significant here is not that Walt attacks the Israel lobby, many have done that before, but that he does so from his position at the Kennedy School. That would not have happened a few years ago.
There are interesting things taking place at Harvard and throughout the academic universe. The present crisis is forcing people who take ideas seriously to re-examine many of the assumptions that have guided their thinking for decades. I think that, however much we might find specific arguments repulsive, the discourse will in the end be healthy.
It is important, at a time when the US-Israel relationship is under attack in Europe and throughout the Muslim world, that we be forced to explain and justify that relationship -- to make it clear just how our long-term interests are served [as I think they are] by that relationship. This article should be taken seriously and deserves a serious response, not dismissal.
What is significant here is not that Walt attacks the Israel lobby, many have done that before, but that he does so from his position at the Kennedy School. That would not have happened a few years ago.
There are interesting things taking place at Harvard and throughout the academic universe. The present crisis is forcing people who take ideas seriously to re-examine many of the assumptions that have guided their thinking for decades. I think that, however much we might find specific arguments repulsive, the discourse will in the end be healthy.
It is important, at a time when the US-Israel relationship is under attack in Europe and throughout the Muslim world, that we be forced to explain and justify that relationship -- to make it clear just how our long-term interests are served [as I think they are] by that relationship. This article should be taken seriously and deserves a serious response, not dismissal.
I agree: I look at foreign relations/affairs with a what's-in-it-for-us attitude and everything, including our work with Israel, s/b up for discussion. My problem with this paper is the vagueness of their purported LaRouchesque Lobby. Who & what makes it up? What are the individual interests? I don't think designating a catch-all 'Lobby' adds much to the discussion - in fact, it acts as a distraction because it sounds so rhetorical and cliched....kind of like the generic use of the term Religious Right.
I think Israel is important to us strategically for reasons beyond the scope of tis comment. Their paper did little to disturb that assesment.
but thanks for reading.
I think Israel is important to us strategically for reasons beyond the scope of tis comment. Their paper did little to disturb that assesment.
but thanks for reading.
While I'm here, let me point you to an article you might want to comment on. It mentions attempts on the part of Baltimore Muslims to create separate communities wherein Sharia law will be observed.
The URL is: http://www.meforum.org/article/920
Post a Comment
The URL is: http://www.meforum.org/article/920
<< Home
