The Power of the Israeli Lobby?
There is a debate raging in the U.S. today about the power of the Israeli Lobby. This debate has been triggerred by an article written by two very distinguished professors from Harvard and Chicago University.
Here you can watch one of the debates by clicking here.
You can read the article and its critics here.
United States of Israel by Robert Fisk
15 Comments:
Ben-Ami brought up a good point that no one can criticise Israel or zionist lobby groups without being branded as anti-semetic, and also that it is not possible for a reasonable debate on Israeli policy in any society with a racist past. The criticism is further complicated by the tight alliance between Israel and US, so criticizing Israel is unpatriotic for Americans
I totally agree with what mnoellef said. It is almost a requirement now to be "pro-Israel" in order to be qualified as an American. It is interesting how anyone who criticizes Israel is being called an anti-semite. And anti-semite has become a very everday label, that people put on each other. I wonder if one day, the use of the word will be so vague that people would not be able to differentiate between an actual anti-semite, or a person who criticizes Israel. By the way, Iran had a Holocaust cartoon contest and it is interesting to see how they the same mentality as that of Ben-Ami. Some of their cartoons depict the close US and Israeli ties, and how some Israelis are reiterating the Holocaust to justify their acts in Palestine, and how a critic of the Israeli government is labelled as an anti-semite.
To Check out some of the cartoons, click on this link. It is written in farsi, but you can also check out the English version.
http://irancartoon.ir/
Also check this link about one of the Brazilian cartoonists who has been called an anti-semite and has had several life threats by the Israelis.
http://www.irancartoon.com/120/Danger.htm
Sol Stern in April of 2006 wrote an article titled “When there was no Jewish Lobby” in it not only does he claim that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer’s paper was filled with errors and inaccuracies but he also claims to offer an idea of what would happen if an Israeli lobby did not exist. Much of the evidence Stern presents is based on American attitudes from the 1930s and 40s what he called the “unemotional approach” to the subject of the Holocaust. Stern claims that it was only through a group called the “Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe”, a forerunner to today’s lobby, that the US Government was finally compelled to actively attempt to save Jews from death camps. I believe there is a difference between a group representing the concerns of a people that had no other form of representation in the world as was the case in World War Two and a group that pressures the US Government to support a foreign government no matter what. Stern gives no speculation on what might happen today in the absence of the Israeli lobby but one thing is for sure, with or without US support Israel will still exist and will still be a voice for the Jewish people in the world.
Here is the link to the article
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=22139
On the Debate.
One of the things that became apparent to me from watching this debate was the difficulty in distinguishing between labels associated with making criticisms. It seems that any criticism towards Israel automatically makes that person anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, or anti-Zionist. This should not be so. Scholars should be able to make criticisms and the recipients of the criticism should be able to take it for what it’s worth and leave aside the labels that can oftentimes corrupt the validity of legitimate arguments.
Having not actually read Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece myself, I can’t say whether or not I feel it has any anti-Semitism to it, but from hearing his defense at the debate, I think the piece is probably just a much needed and poignant criticism of Israel’s policies and the Israeli Lobby within America.
I also feel that Tony Judt made two very important points. First was his comparison of communist criticism feeding McCarthyism with that of Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece fueling anti-Semitism. I liked his comment that just because idiots and bigots can feed off of honest criticism, it doesn’t make that criticism any less valid. Judt’s next point was corroborated later by Rashid Khalidi that the Israeli Lobby in America silences most criticism in the US media and that the Arab-Israeli Conflict is a one-sided debate in the US. To me, the fact that Americans can’t get honest media coverage about a country which our tax dollars aid is preposterous.
The last point that struck me was made by an older man during the question and answer session. He mentioned that Israel has the same GDP as Spain and South Korea; yet, the US gives them billions of dollars a year. Most of that money is military aid, not economic aid. The other point was that Israel has some 200 nukes. So then why are we giving them military aid when they already have the supreme weapon?
What I saw to be the most important notion to come out of the debate was that in order to get anywhere with peace negotiations there must be open dialogue. Some panelist agree that the lobby and other forces don't allow this open debate because they often label those who oppose some of Israeli policies and American foreign policy as being anti-semetic. Consequently this “closes down conversation” as Tony Judt said. I think this can be seen in Martin Indyk's reaction to the paper. He labels it as on the verge of anti-semetic but more so unscholarly so it seems like he doesn't feel it is worthy for thoughtful debate. I am not scholar so I can really judge but like they said if the piece was that bad than would the London review of Books publish it and sponsor a debate in addition? Also I think that possibly Indyk’s calls the piece unscholarly instead of anti-semetic because it would almost prove the point of Judt and Mearsheimer.
Tony Judt was most interesting to me. He brought up a number of points that shows the difficulties in discussion. He showed an example of how the media is unwilling to have a fair discussion, when he was asked by a major newspaper if he was Jewish or not, and also how people in the lobby prevent accurate and honest debate, when he accused Martin Indyk of being “faux naïve.”
I think the woman’s question at the end sums up Mearsheimer’s point. When she asked him to respond to the fact that American policy towards Israel may just go along with many American’s “like” for Israel because of shared values, I immediately started to think of the values I share with Israel and its policies towards Palestinians. I can’t say I share any really and would not want to live in a place where the majority of citizens do share these values. While I am still unsure of the amount of influence that the Israel Lobby has on American foreign, I do know that the uninformed American public may have a greater influence on these policies by not questioning them. Most people accept the information they are given and don’t look any further. If the Lobby has a great deal of influence over the media than I definitely think there is a “United States of Israel.”
I found it funny that Rashid Khalidi didn't speak much, but he kept highlighting that the discussion was too narrow for any practical pragmatic results. As the debate went on, I kept thinking this was too true.
Tony Judt also brought a good point that national interest is determined by having honest open discussion on issues. One of the issues we are not allowed to talk about in America is Israel.
In the start, they argued over whether the article and/or its writers were anti-semitic. Then they broke down into whether the article supports anti-semiticism therefore it is pseudo anti-semitic. All in all, a pure waste of time.
Martin Indyk brought the good point that the umbrilla of the Lobby is very broad and gives the wrong impression as an united force, even if John and Stephen says otherwise in the article. There's a dominant culture to not talk about or oppose Israel which is what I think John was trying to stress. Rashid also brings this up in part 6.
The whole thing is basically that Israel isn't an allowed topic to be discussed. What the article actually said is not as important as the reaction it brought. John says multiple times that the Lobby is legit and what they do is what any other group would do. So whats the point? The point is the American people are fed misinformation because of this Pro-Israel dominating culture from media to politics to even debate. There's no counter Arab political group that can counter the Pro-Israeli lobby. The American politics and American culture in general lends itself to not what's right but what's beneficial to Me right now. Whether than what's right or good for everyone in the long term. So there's a huge absence of any pressure or resources for changes to be made.
On the United States of Israel.
Fisk makes a lot good points in his article about Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece. First, he notes that the strength of the Israeli Lobby is obvious to all non-Americans and that this essay would have not caused such a large stir outside the US. I know personally that I’ve never been aware of such a thing until taking this class. It makes me wonder if it is because of the strength of Pro-Israeli lobbies that America and the American Media are so sensitive about this topic.
It also struck me that AIPAC and other pro-Israeli are referred to as cabals involved in some sort of a conspiracy. So what if they channel money to opponents of politicians who are deemed as unfriendly to Israel. Isn’t that the point of having a lobby? I feel that that is much more of a fault within the American political system than a conspiracy. It’s a shame that by transferring some money you can buy yourself an opinion in Congress.
Despite all else, the authors of this piece claim that they wrote it to posit the question of whether or not Pro-Israel Lobbies and the US’s backing of Israel is detrimental to the US national interests. Fisk notes in his article several examples of the lobbies going, what I feel, is too far. I think that it is wrong for a foreign lobby to push for America going to war with Iran. If indeed it is so that Israel’s safety and security are being put beyond that of America’s own, then I feel that Mearsheimer and Walt were justified in writing this essay.
I found Mearsheimer and Walt's article to be extremely exaggerated and filled with more opinion than fact. Of course, as a Jew, this article incites me, but that is not the sole reason I consider many of its claims ignorant and flawed. For one, the idea that all of U.S. foreign policy revolves around its relationship with Israel is outrageous. The U.S. has throughout time intervened in the Middle East far before Israel was even a state. For strategic trade reasons as well as its wealth of natural resources, the Middle East has always been a U.S. hub of interest. That the U.S. is hated by Arabs on a global scale is all because of its support for Israel is another outrageous claim. The U.S. has been resented for centuries by people in the Middle East and other regions for its' expansionism and imperialism in the area. The authors make it seem as if the U.S. did not support Israel, that Americans would not be experiencing terrorism today. I won't even begin to comment on how unjustifiable that claim is.
Another point I found very off target was their statement that terror against Israel is not random and is always a direct "response to Israel's campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza." There is surmountable evidence that when Israel would make any move to move away from the status quo in these areas, terrorism would spark despite those initiatives. In Gaza, as soon as Israel left, Palestinians were firing rockets over the border into Israel.
Another claim I found to be ignorant was the issue of Israel as the opposite of an underdog. Walt and Mearsheimer expouse the idea that Israel is so much stronger than their Arab counterparts even without the help of the U.S. and that Israel doesn't need its help because the Palestinians can't hurt it. There are 22 Arab nations surrounding Israel. The only thing stopping anyone from wiping out Israel in one simple invasion is the U.S. If the U.S. ceased to back Israel, its protective case would disappear, causing many anti-Israel Arab states to release their anger against Israel in a manner that could simply destroy it.
The article also mentions that Israel isn't a valuable allie because it just "sits on the sidelines" when the U.S. is engaged in crises in the Middle East. This argument undercuts their point. If Israel did assist the U.S. in every engagement in the Mid-East, there would be even more hatred towards the U.S. and Israel. Furthermore, when the authors mention that Israel only gave back the Sinai due to U.S. pressure, their entire argument is invalidated. If Israel's best showings of cooperation with its neighbors can only be accomplished through U.S. pressure- shouldn't U.S. continue to maintain that position??
OK I'm gonna stop here, cuz this comment is ridiculously long...
In response to the last two comments...
The writers said there's nothing necessarily illegal or conspiracy-like that AIPAC and other pro-Israeli people are doing. It's perfectly legal and the same as any other lobby group. The difference is that there isn't anything close to a strong Arab lobby.
The writers also never claim that the US always does exactly what Israel wants. We went to Iraq first and then going to Iran when Israel wanted Iran only. What they're arguing and the entire purpose and importance of the paper is that the Israeli lobby is pushing US foreign policy that is counterproductive to our national security and interests.
Yes, we've intervened before in the Middle East and all over the world for our own selfish reasons. But right now, we're supporting Israel in even international illegal actions which is causing a huge backlash and hatred among the international community.
I fear that people are reading or changing words that aren't even in the piece because of their personal feelings or affiliations. The very opposite of what's necessary for a meaningful and open dialogue to take place.
Well thinking about it, there's one way that your arguement would hold. It would be if Israel and US interests were one and the same. Which the writers spend a good portion of their paper dedicated to proving false. But if you think they're wrong on this issue then I guess you're wrong that US isn't motivated by Israel because the US is only doing what's good for itself.
I have to agree with the notion in the current discussion and the debate. To ignore the presence and influence of both religious idelogies having a role in the conflict. As we have discussed in class religion is not the sole reason for the conflict nor is either side united on their beliefs. However not to look at and analyze such ad hoc culture movements is to be naive.
A point in the debate I found interesting was the idea that the piece isn't anti-Semitic so much as it has the potential to incite anti-Semitism and lend credence to anti-Semitic discourse and thought. When I actually sat down and read the article, I was floored by how anti-Semitic I found it to be. Now, I very much doubt that the authors are vehement ant-Semites by any means, but they do seem to be patently, unwaveringly, unquestioningly anti-Israel. When writing such an incendiary article (as any critical of Israel is to some degree), the authors must know they'd become targets. Writing it in such an incredibly pompous tone will only enrage their critics more, seems like something of a publicity stunt to me.
With 45 pages of (best I can tell) completely unqualified attacks on Israel and the Israeli Lobby the piece reads like anti-Israeli propaganda. If you were to tell me it had been written by a noted anti-Semite, I wouldn't think twice. The authors go out of their way to characterize the Israeli lobby and Israelis as something of a school of fish, thinking and acting as one. At the same time, they paint these Israelis with the same brush as immoral and intolerant with no regard for those affected by their actions. I might be overthinking this, but his use of "Zionist" and its various related forms on page 10 borders on anaphoral and among the anti-Semites I know, this word has an extremely negative connotation. I've heard "Zionist" used as a direct insult on many occasions. Not to say that they shouldn't use that word - that would be a ridiculous - but it caught my eye.
In addition to being generally hyperbolic, the article also grossly overestimates Israel's relevance in terms of US policy; it's important, no doubt, but I don't know what Israel-centric universe Mearsheimer and Walt reside in. The two of them manage to perpetuate just about every Jewish stereotype I can think of (positive and negative); even ignoring the fact that the article is full of overblown misinformation important to the discussion they would have to be certifiably insane not to expect accusations of anti-Semitism and a significant backlash from the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli community. Really.
The factor that I find most remarkable about this paper is its ability to be interpreted across a wide spectrum of understanding. As the debate that followed the publication of this paper makes clear, it can be interpreted as an anti-Semitic paper or it can be seen as a legitimate and factual paper that details a controversial, sensitive and very important situation within the U.S. When I read the paper I attempted to maintain as objective a viewpoint as possible and in doing so I recognized numerous spots in which a personal opinion or previous leaning could easily affect the interpretation of the text. Specifically, the use of the umbrella term “The Lobby” (despite the initial disclaimer against anti-Semitism) and the seemingly endless criticism of Israeli policy and actions throughout history are a major source for an anti-Semitic interpretation of the text. However, there are numerous disclaimers against this interpretation and I believe that there is hardly any alternative as to how to have formatted such an argument so that it would not appear to be anti-Semitic towards an un-objective eye.
My personal interpretation of the argument put forth in this paper is the conclusion that the influence of the “Lobby” on U.S. policy does run a risk of jeopardizing American interests; but that there can be no accusations made against the Israeli “Lobby”. Throughout the paper I found a striking similarity between the argument against the Israeli Lobby and the “Losers” argument. The “losers” argument that I refer to is the same one that I often heard against the Yankees during their reign of baseball superiority. (Disclaimer: I am neither for nor against the Yankees). I often heard people saying that it was not fair that the Yankees could just buy all the good players and therefore win the most games and be the dominant force in baseball. However, there was nothing illegal in the matter that the Yankees won their games. (Not taking into consideration steroids). I feel that anyone who complains about the power of the Israeli lobby, in particular the power of AIPAC, is employing the same losers argument. I can find no fault in an agency that has taken advantage of every legal opportunity offered and thereby grown into a juggernaut lobby group. It is no fault of AIPAC that they “have no serious opponents in the lobbying world” (40). Meirsheimer and Walt say that the solution lies within open and free discussion of the power of the Israeli lobby, but I feel that there is little to discuss. The Israeli lobby is a juggernaut that has great and legal influence within American politics. What is really needed is the formation of similarly powerful lobbying groups that can balance the influence that the Israeli lobby has developed within American politics. Until those who complain about the power of the Israeli lobby openly challenge them through equally legitimate means, they will just have to deal with the immense power that the Israeli lobby yields.
The Israeli lobby has tremendous power in influencing US foreign policy, but one must look at the situation in terms of the broader historical context. The US has a historical past with Jewish people; we’ve taken them in, accepted them, and Jews have thrived in this country. They have more than thrived. Jews have enormous clout, both electoral and financial in America. They dominate politics, media, and law in our society. So the rest of the US is backing the Jewish lobby and the Jewish political agenda, because it has been mixed into the mainstream view, because Jews are so integrated into American society. Jews have defined what it is to be modern and secular.
The difference with the Muslim population in the US is that they are a much more recent group to come, and we have not fully seen their integration into society. The Arab lobby’s clout is not as large because they have not had as much history in the United States. For example, as Dr. Kahn mentioned in class, the Muslim population in the US is 6 million – around the same or more than the Jewish population, but the majority of them are younger than 20. Kahn also argued that with their common identity they need to mobilize around a common issue. “By now Muslims should have bought the ACLU,” Kahn said in class a couple weeks ago. What an interesting thing to ponder. The Muslims in American have a weaker influence because of their lack of organization around a central issue. Arab Americans are somewhat of a foreign entity to much of the rest of the American population, like Jews were a couple generations ago. To back the Israeli lobby is to back the Western world. The US government is not going to risk going against the strength of a group whose general concern for the security of Israel has come to mean not only defending the Jewish people, but also defending the Western, secular world.
There was much discussion in this debate about the term "anti-semite" and when it can be appropriately applied. However, I think people are overlooking the problems caused by a more fundamental, popular term in this debate: "Anti-Israel." The term "Anti-Israel" is dangerously vague and used far too often. For me, it seems to imply that one is not simply opposed to certain (or even all) aspects of Israeli policy, but rather that they are against the state of Israel as an entity. I believe one can be strongly opposed even to the methods and politics behind the formation of Israel, but as long as they aren't advocating the dissolution of Israel today (and I think few Americans would), they can't accurately be described as anti-Israel.
I doubt that even the authors of "The Israel Lobby," who made it clear that they are opposed to strong American support of Israel, would actually like to see Israel "wiped off the map." They may be against most Israeli policies, and may even be considered, under some definitions of the term, "anti-zionist" - but I don't believe they can, or should, be labeled as "ant-israel." The use of that term is what, in my opinion, causes critics to take the next step and start labeling people as anti-semitic.
Whenever conservatice American pundits and politicians have been quick to use the term "anti-america" to describe those who speak out against the administration's terrorism-fighting policies, there has been widespread concern and blacklash. So why aren't people concerned about the regular use of the term "anti-israel"?
Post a Comment
<< Home