Monday, July 17, 2006
The Israel Lobby, redux
After the London Review of Books published the infamous The Israel Lobby I, along with much of the blogosphere, reacted with some scathing comments (Maryland Conservatarian: The Lobby...and other things that go bump in the night and Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin & "The Lobby"). I stand by those earlier comments as I link to a recent Washington Post Magazine piece, A Beautiful Friendship?, which revisits the issue.
“It's really about the perceived power of the Israel lobby, a collection of American Jewish organizations, campaign contributors and think tanks -- aided by Christian conservatives and other non-Jewish supporters -- that arose over the second half of the 20th century and that sees as a principle goal the support and promotion of the interests of the state of Israel.” (emphasis added)
…or maybe it’s just a matter of principle for many of us.
While the author, Glenn Frankel, expresses some skepticism, the Walt/Mersheimer piece is overall given a respectful treatment in large part, I believe, because the two professors are from Harvard and Chicago.
“In March two distinguished political scientists -- Stephen Walt from Harvard and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago -- published a 42-page, heavily footnoted essay arguing that the Bush administration's support for Israel and its related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security." (note the footnoted version can be found here: KSG:The Israel Lobby)
Mr. Frankel recounts some of the history of this purported lobby, focusing on its most visible member – AIPAC. One part of the story was of particular interest:
“Nevertheless, the Israel lobby, and AIPAC in particular, gained a reputation as the National Rifle Association of foreign policy: a hard-edged, pugnacious bunch that took names and kept score. But in some ways it was even stronger...
“Then one day it went too far.”
He went on to describe AIPAC’s efforts to overcome President Bush’s (#41) insistence that Israel not use loan guarantees toward Gaza and West Bank settlements…and how they got smackdown for their efforts. I found this story of particular interest because I never read anything about it in the professors’ paper.
Mr. Frankel’s goes on to favorably cite another Walt/Mersheimer effort: An Unnecessary War
“In the prelude to the invasion of Iraq, Walt and Mearsheimer published an article in Foreign Policy magazine in January 2003, titled "An Unnecessary War." It concluded that Iraqi leader Hussein was weak and eminently deterrable without resorting to force…
“We went to war anyway, and many of Walt and Mearsheimer's most dire predictions came to pass. No one in government had listened to them.” (emphasis added)
And what were those most dire predictions that came true? I’m guessing Mr. Frankel thinks they’re somewhere within this final paragraph of Foreign Policy article:
“Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.”
And maybe someone at the Washington Post (obviously not Mr. Frankel) can ask the professors to answer just why they didn’t notice the so-called Israel Lobby as a primary reason for our involvement in Iraq back in 2003 if the Lobby is such an 800-pund gorilla in the corner. Or if they would like to revisit their earlier declaration that:
“First of all, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or more generally that Iraq is collaborating with al Qaeda against the United States. Hawks inside and outside the Bush administration have gone to extraordinary lengths over the past months to find a link, but they have come up empty-handed.” (An Unnecessary War)
Maybe the reason no-one in the government listened to them is because they don’t appear to have anything particularly relevant to say. They come across as little more than agenda-driven, ivory-tower academics who crave influence without wanting to do the hard-work of actually applying their advice to the real world and being held accountable for the results.
The timing of this piece puzzles me although I’m sure Mr. Frankel wrote his article well in advance of the recent Hezbollah terrorism. Still, I’ve come across nothing since March to indicate these two deserve any kind of respect for their obvious disdain for both Israel and those of us who refuse to jump on their anti-Israel, anti-Bush bandwagon.
“It's really about the perceived power of the Israel lobby, a collection of American Jewish organizations, campaign contributors and think tanks -- aided by Christian conservatives and other non-Jewish supporters -- that arose over the second half of the 20th century and that sees as a principle goal the support and promotion of the interests of the state of Israel.” (emphasis added)
…or maybe it’s just a matter of principle for many of us.
While the author, Glenn Frankel, expresses some skepticism, the Walt/Mersheimer piece is overall given a respectful treatment in large part, I believe, because the two professors are from Harvard and Chicago.
“In March two distinguished political scientists -- Stephen Walt from Harvard and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago -- published a 42-page, heavily footnoted essay arguing that the Bush administration's support for Israel and its related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security." (note the footnoted version can be found here: KSG:The Israel Lobby)
Mr. Frankel recounts some of the history of this purported lobby, focusing on its most visible member – AIPAC. One part of the story was of particular interest:
“Nevertheless, the Israel lobby, and AIPAC in particular, gained a reputation as the National Rifle Association of foreign policy: a hard-edged, pugnacious bunch that took names and kept score. But in some ways it was even stronger...
“Then one day it went too far.”
He went on to describe AIPAC’s efforts to overcome President Bush’s (#41) insistence that Israel not use loan guarantees toward Gaza and West Bank settlements…and how they got smackdown for their efforts. I found this story of particular interest because I never read anything about it in the professors’ paper.
Mr. Frankel’s goes on to favorably cite another Walt/Mersheimer effort: An Unnecessary War
“In the prelude to the invasion of Iraq, Walt and Mearsheimer published an article in Foreign Policy magazine in January 2003, titled "An Unnecessary War." It concluded that Iraqi leader Hussein was weak and eminently deterrable without resorting to force…
“We went to war anyway, and many of Walt and Mearsheimer's most dire predictions came to pass. No one in government had listened to them.” (emphasis added)
And what were those most dire predictions that came true? I’m guessing Mr. Frankel thinks they’re somewhere within this final paragraph of Foreign Policy article:
“Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.”
And maybe someone at the Washington Post (obviously not Mr. Frankel) can ask the professors to answer just why they didn’t notice the so-called Israel Lobby as a primary reason for our involvement in Iraq back in 2003 if the Lobby is such an 800-pund gorilla in the corner. Or if they would like to revisit their earlier declaration that:
“First of all, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or more generally that Iraq is collaborating with al Qaeda against the United States. Hawks inside and outside the Bush administration have gone to extraordinary lengths over the past months to find a link, but they have come up empty-handed.” (An Unnecessary War)
Maybe the reason no-one in the government listened to them is because they don’t appear to have anything particularly relevant to say. They come across as little more than agenda-driven, ivory-tower academics who crave influence without wanting to do the hard-work of actually applying their advice to the real world and being held accountable for the results.
The timing of this piece puzzles me although I’m sure Mr. Frankel wrote his article well in advance of the recent Hezbollah terrorism. Still, I’ve come across nothing since March to indicate these two deserve any kind of respect for their obvious disdain for both Israel and those of us who refuse to jump on their anti-Israel, anti-Bush bandwagon.
