Controversy II
The second controversy will focus on the debate about the impact of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy in the Middle East. We will start by reading the key article by Mearshiemmer and Walt and its criticism and then also look at the storm generated by President Carter's book. Here is a useful article on the article. Here is a link to AIPAC.
posted by Muqtedar Khan @ 9:10 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
I believe that the Mearshiemmer and Walt article forces us as the general public to re-evaluate the role of America in Middle Eastern relations.
The article is plainly biased against the "Israeli Lobby," and for good reason. I would like to see much more research into the lobby before I can truly believe whole-heartedly that it is indeed as pervasive in U.S. politics as the authors claim.
All of the "symptoms" of the Israeli Lobby are absolutely, undeniably true: we are supporting Israel to the point of sabotaging ourselves, politicians from both sides of the aisle support Israel unquestionably, our support serves us no diplomatic purpose (either in the Mid-East or with Europe), and there is absolutely no reciprocity. It is a moral and financial pit which we have willingly thrust ourselves into for decades.
My contention is this: is the lobby really solely responsible for this, or is it simply encouraging a notion that Americans seem to have taken for granted over decades? Does the lobby truly have the power to "make and break" politicians at will, or do our politicians support Isreal because of a fear of breaking with American tradition? I would rather believe that the lobby exerts such power rather than believe that our support of Israel is forever intrinsic to the values our politicians hold most important. If it is a question of the lobby's power, bringing it into the limelight may lead to a break in its power. If supporting Israel is simply deeply rooted in American politics because of a long-standing tradition, then our support of the country is much scarier.
The criticism of the article is absolutely absurd. It boils down to accusing Mearshiemmer and Walt of anti-semitism bordering on Nazism, which is absolutely untrue. While I agree that some of their facts are second-hand and their article borders on accusations of a conspiracy theory, I believe that the basic features of the article (which I outlined above) are true.
I would like to see more research done on the "Israeli lobby" to see how far its roots go into Capitol Hill and if it is indeed as pervasive as the article claims.
Steven Gold--
According to John K. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, Israel has been a threat to the United States’ interests. Israel was used as an ally for the United States during the Cold War against - ironically, though even with US aid, Israel passed US secrets to Soviet Russia. Later, the US’ support of Israel ‘triggered an OPEC oil embargo,’ which we all know raises prices of our ‘precious’ gasoline. Israel has ignored previous agreements they make with the United States, even giving secrets to our ‘new enemy’ China. To make matters worse, Israel has continually spied on the United States.
Now the question becomes does every country do this, take resources given by one country and use it against it? Probably, if not certainly.
What becomes an issue here is, does the Untied States care? If I gave money to someone, and I found out they were using it against me, I would be pissed. The US has warned Israel about this (and other humanitarian issues), and the Israel’s response is debatable. What we do know is that Israel has not withdrawn from the West Bank, and the issue of the Gaza Strip is still in question (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7069203.stm). While the US aid for 2005 is the lowest since 1984, it is still a lot (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html).
Why does the United States still allow this? Is it because of threats from ‘the Lobby’ that funding will be pulled if politicians do not support Israel? According to Mearsheimer and Walt, yes. This shows American greediness (or that of the politicians). Why just blame ‘the lobby’ and not include the politicians? Isn’t this essentially bribing the government? Can we call the politicians whores for performing tasks for the highest bidder? If pimps (or ‘the lobby’ in this analogy) does not approve of the whore, they will just find another one; or just find another politician. This is what ‘the lobby’ does. If the politicians consciously knew that Israel was becoming more of a threat to the United States, maybe they would act differently … hopefully.
Aside: This case study has grown fairly large and is being published internationally (http://www.forward.com/articles/11754/). Yet at the time of this article, no Hebrew-publishing company has signed on.
--Steven Gold
I think that in the absence of an IL is it a very realistic possibility that American policy in the Middle East would become more balanced. With the strong presence of the Lobby and their enormous influence, it seems impossible to claim that they do not have extremely significant roles on shaping U.S. policy. They were rated the 2nd strongest Lobby in the UnS, and they have influential Jewish and Christian Zionists supporters in Congress. In addition, they play an important role in US elections by not only donating large sums of money to campaigns but demonstrating very high voter turn out rates. They work extremely hard to stifle any Israeli criticism and remain favorable in the media and to the US public, this is extremely valuable to them since they have little to no competition from an Arab lobby. They are willing to organize boycotts, demonstrations, and letter writing campaigns, and they try to remain a prominent voice/figure on college campuses. They do everything in their power to project a favorable image which the Arab population largely lacks to the US public. The IL has been able to effectively align themselves with the US saying that we are in the War on Terror together. Their constant presence is undeniably a determining factor in a lot of US policy and beliefs. However, Mearshiemmer and Walt’s article shows that we do have prominent political figures that are willing to take a stance against the situation. For example, they mention Howard Dean’s plan to adopt a more even role in the Palestinian conflict. Although he was attacked by the lobby, it shows that American politicians do see a need for change. Without such a strong lobby pushing in the pro-Israel direction there would be less pressure on Washington and more flexibility to make even based policy decisions. President Bush called for Sharon to withdraw from the West Bank in 2002 and although he too backed down as a result of pressure from the Lobby and Congress, it goes to show that there is condemnation for Israeli behavior in our political system. Maybe if there was not such a strong pro-Israel presence, the US would have more freedom to follow more equal minded paths.
However, it seems that even without a pro-Israel lobby there would still be a number of decisions made in favor of Israel. Part of the Lobby’s success is due to the number of Jewish and Evangelical Christians in Congress who do not necessarily need a Lobby to make their decisions. It is very unlikely that these members of Congress will compromise their beliefs in the absence of a Lobby. They have very strong opinions and goals they want to see achieved and a Lobby is not necessary for them to do that.
While I think policy may become more balanced, I do not necessarily think that the absence of an IL will eliminate anti-Western terrorism. Israeli support is undeniably a significant factor in anti-Western sentiment, but it is definitely not the only one. Walt and Mearshiemmer claim that bin Laden and other terrorist organizations use our support for Israel as a recruiting tool which is likely true, but the criticism by Dershowitz states that bin Laden’s driving factor for 9/11 was US presence in Saudi Arabia. It is clear that support for a Jewish state is not the only source of conflict between the US and the Arab world. I think that the absence of the IL and adopting more balanced policies toward the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will definitely put the US in a more favorable light, but I think it is very naïve to think that it will end terrorism. There are plenty of other reasons that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda do not like Americans and Israel is only one piece of the puzzle. We are extraordinarily different from the Arab world and are viewed as pushing our culture and ideals on them regardless of the existence of a Jewish state and their lobby. As long as there are such substantial differences between the two worlds, there is going to be conflict. In addition, we are not the only country who has been the target of terrorist attacks. As Dershowitz article suggest, the presence of an Israeli lobby had little bearing on terrorist attacks in London or Madrid.
I agree with Mitch that the Mearshiemmer and Walt article is very biased against "The Lobby". However, what really disturbs me is Dershowitz's criticism picking out all the flaws in this so-called academic paper. It disturbs me to think that acclaimed professors would not necessarily check out all the sources and information they are citing before allowing their work to be passed around the world. I would find it interesting though to see if anyone had written a criticism of Dershowitz's criticism to see if his response was properly researched.
At least however, it did provoke a debate within the US of the power of lobbies, AIPAC in particular. I do find some of their goals disturbing; one being the goal of passing a House Resolution congratulating Israel on the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War and "praising the Jewish state for reunifying Jerusalem and protecting religious freedom in the city, and calling on the president to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." What democratic country could honestly praise another country for a war?
Another goal of AIPAC's is to "Prohibit U.S. aid and contacts with the Hamas-led PA until its leaders recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and ratify previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements." Israel on the other hand we should provide with aid regardless of whether they pay heed to our policies that US aid should not be used for building settlements in the West Bank.
Amongst their other policy goals are a list of accountability acts where they ask different Arab countries to take responsibility for the conflicts of one point or another. But when is Israel going to take it share of the responsibility?
Personally what I took from our debates in class is that the Israeli Lobby is strong. It seems to have enough influence to be able to steer the media to provide only certain information. The reason I feel this is true is because we just are not aware of the Palestinian struggle within the United States. Israel seems to always be put in the spotlight of injustice. And control of information is power. It has been demostrated over and over again throughout history. Where there is information control there is the ability to create propoganda, and mold people to your cause. I am not anti-Israel by any means, but I do believe that all sides of the story should be provided to our policy-makers and our public.
The Israeli Lobby article offers a different and very real perspective on the the relationship between the United States and Israel. Initially after reading the article, I felt angry at American policy toward Israel. I was unaware of the extreme level of support that the US gives to Israel and the article was very persuasive in getting me to strongly question the actions of the lobby.
However, after reading it again, the article leaves reasons to be skeptical. The amount of support the US gives Israel is undeniable, but is the lobby really responsible for it? The article does not offer a true counter arguement that it can refute. The criticism article is just as one-sided. Mearshiemer and Walt make it appear that the Lobby is the absolute worst thing to ever strike America and Dershowitz trys to persuade the reader that Mearsheimer and Walt are Lunatics.
Both do make strong points, but I believe the truth to how much power the Lobby actually has lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, slightly favoring Mearsheimer and Walt's perspective.
mike kirby
I think these articles are some of the most interesting I’ve read in awhile. They both seem to have some very valid points in them. While I may not wholly agree with either the M and W article or the Dershowitz article, the former really forces people to ask the question if there is an all encompassing pro-Israel lobby that drives what the United States and the world do to support Israel. There does seem to be some unexplainable blind support for Israel and all its causes even at the expense of the security of the United States. It’s documented that Israel has been selling classified United States technology and information to countries we may classify as less than friends with no reprimands from our government. Israel consistently ignores the requests of its so called allies and friends in the United States in order to further their own agendas. If Israel is going to conduct themselves in a purely realist way then our government needs to do the same. “Realism, which holds that the world is a dangerous neighborhood, that good intentions don't mean very much and that the key to order is a balance of power among armed states.” If you subscribe to this line of thought, that the world is a dangerous place then the United States is playing the part of the naive victim for no apparent reason. The problem is that we do not act as if the state is the most important because we keep allowing Israel to compromise us without any regards for the situations it puts us in. Why? I ask why our government puts another’s security ahead of its own. While I can’t answer the question with one hundred percent certainty I can surmise that the “Israeli lobby” and all their connections have something to do with it. Maybe it’s is just that most policy makers are afraid of being labeled anti Semitic or maybe there really is some sort of lobby pulling all the strings behind the scenes. While I don’t personally believe that there is one organized group that controls our actions regarding Israel and the conflict, there does seem to be a “perfect storm” of sorts that allows Israel free reign in whatever choose they do without the fear of reprisals. Either way our continued, unquestioning support for Israel combined with an almost complete aversion to even listening to Arab concerns/ideas about the conflict does not bode well for anyone, except Israel that is.
In the absence of an Israeli Lobby, US policy in the Middle East would be more balanced and would not cause anti – Americanism and there would be no anti-western terrorism/ jihadism
This statement is very complex and while the authors Mearsheimer and Walt would agree with this statement I do not. It is undeniable that the Israeli Lobbies in American such as AIPAC hold a lot of power when it comes to influencing congressmen and other government officials. However I do not believe that the lobbyists are powerful enough to reshape American foreign policy when something is proposed that does not suit them. The charge that Mearsheimer and Walt make that Sharon together with the lobby were able to alter the Bush Administrations policies to their liking is an exaggeration, “Sharon and the Lobby took on the President of the United States and triumphed”. I think the decision making process is much more complicated them simply abiding by the pressures from Israel and the Lobby. They also accuse that our foreign policy is shaped “almost entirely to US domestic policy” and the Israeli Lobby. In continuation they claim that the Lobby has managed to convert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest should be. Today American foreign policy focuses on preventing and eliminating further terrorist attacks, not on the state of Israel. In response to why Israel has been a friend to the United States for years Dershowitz states both countries are democratic and born out of Western Traditions with rich western cultures in an area with totalitarian theocracies or oppressive dictatorships. As a result part of our foreign policy is aiding Israel and helping them to keep security in the region, which in turns helps the United States. While the Israeli lobby does play a large role in pushing for pro-Israel policies, I don’t believe the situation in the Middle East would simply go away without the lobby’s existence. To say that US policy would be more balanced in the Middle East without the lobby is far reaching. Even without the intense political pressure presented by Lobbyists, the United States would still consider Israel one of its strongest allies, for reasons such as the Israeli army’s destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. This action aided the US by harming and providing a set back to the Iraqi nuclear program. It is possible the United States could better balance their policies in the region but I believe that regardless of the lobby we would still align ourselves with Israel. To say that a more balanced US policy would rid the Middle East of Anti Americanism is an exaggeration. The Anti-Americanism that these Arab countries feel is deep rooted and has been taught through the generations. I agree one of the reasons for the hatred is the United States relations with Israel but the reasons are longer and that is just one on the list. Mearsheimer and Walt state the United States “has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely aligned with Israel” and that Bin Laden was primarily motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem. Dershowitz however disproves this claim by stating Bin Laden was motivated by the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. This goes to show that the Anti-Americanism felt is much more complicated then simply being a question of US relations with Israel. Anti Americanism is hatred for the American culture and way of life as well, not solely policies that the United States enacts. Much of the hatred stems from opposing religious views and idealistic differences. While hatred remains and the US stays more powerful than those who oppose it, I think that the terrorism will continue for it is felt all over the world not only in the United States. The argument that in the absence of an Israeli Lobby, US policy in the Middle East would be more balanced and would not cause anti – Americanism and there would be no anti-western terrorism/ jihadism, in my opinion is a stretch. Even without the Lobby, The United States would still align itself with Israel and the anti Americanism as well as anti western terrorism would continue.
Money talks. As everyone has mentioned before me, it is undeniable that the Israeli lobby has money – and is willing to donate large sums to politicians. These politicians simply need to be pro-Israel, no matter what the issue. The question becomes here, however, is this like the NRA donating money to a Republican candidate so that he continues his anti-gun stance, or is this just a little more dangerous – that is, is the United States being hurt as a result of the actions, presence, and money of the IL on Capitol Hill? According to Mearsheimer and Walt, US support of Israel is disguised on moral and strategic grounds, while really being the result of the Israel lobby.
I think its really interesting, almost ironic even, how Dershowitz accuses Mearsheimer and Walt of taking quotes and information out of context, yet he does the same thing in the introduction of his paper, pulling out snippets and quotes from their papers. I think Dershowitz does a poor and intentionally over crude job of paraphrasing Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument, simplifying it in order to make them sound as callous and unintelligent as possible. While admitting that obviously one needs to give credit and reference when one is quoting someone else, by putting the things that Mearsheimer and Walt say in quotes, it’s almost that Dershowitz mocking Mearsheimer and Walt and saying that it’s not true. For instance, if I say “Yea, I think Khan’s class is fun.” you would think that I think Khan’s class is fun. But if I say “Yea, Khan’s class is “fun””, then that sort of puts a different spin on it. Additionally, I think that Dershowitz focuses too much on the end part of Mearsheimer and Walt ‘s argument, without bothering to address or refute the first part; which I believe Mearsheimer and Walt really show how although we think Israel needs our help because of the big meanie Arabs, they are in fact, quite capable of handling themselves.
I think some of the claims made in Mearsheimer and Walt’s article are bit specious – for instance, there are tons upon tons of think tanks in Washington DC, all pushing their opinion, motives, biases, and ideas onto Congress. I think it’s quite unfair to point out the pro Israeli think tanks as being any different than any of the others. Secondly, I think their bit about the Campus Watch is a bit off as well – there are tons of “Campus Watch” groups attacking every campus and everybody for whatever they believe in (as we all have learned through the actions of FIRE and UD’s residential diversity training).
As a matter of opinion, I think that the Mearsheimer and Walt article raises some uncomfortable questions, questions that people don’t want to answer, and don’t want to think about. Why does Israel get $3 billion in direct foreign assistance, without having to account for a single dime of it? I also think that Mearsheimer and Walt bring up an excellent point, one that Dr. Khan has mentioned in class. That is, that Israel and the United States should be strong allies because we’re both “fighting terrorism” – yet we are both fighting very different terrorists. Israel is dealing mainly with Hamas and Hezbollah – the United States is dealing with Al Qaeda. So no, I don’t think that there is an overwhelming big IL monster lurking in the halls of Congress, influencing everybody to the point that the US is being hurt, but I think that it would not hurt for the United States to take a long hard look at exactly what it’s gaining and losing by supporting Israel – perhaps there would just be a little less hatred of the United States in the Middle East with a little more accountability demanded by the US on Israel.
Allison Schwier
There is no doubt that an influential Israeli lobby exists, just as influential lobbies exist for a myriad of other interest groups such as the elderly (AARP), labor unions (AFL-CIO), the oil industry (API), environmentalists (Sierra Club), and more. Amazingly, Mearsheimer and Walt imply that the mere existence of any lobby implies that its cause must not be in America’s interest, for otherwise, the lobby would not be necessary: “Indeed, the mere existence of the [Israeli] 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.” This is perhaps one of the most illogical and uninformed statements about American politics I have ever read, and consequently, I seriously doubt whether Mearsheimer and Walt even believe it themselves. I think it very unlikely that Mearsheimer and Walt would argue that Social Security is not in America’s interest by the mere existence of the AARP, for example.
Contrary to the media’s portrayal of evil “special interest groups” on Capitol Hill, lobbies actually serve an extremely valuable function in our complex democracy—they provide information. Our policymakers are busy people, and they simply do not have the time to fully investigate and research the nuances of every issued they confront. Lobbies provide information to policymakers about issues and the level of public support certain positions command. Furthermore, lobbyists have a huge disincentive to lie to America’s policymakers, for if they do, they will lose their access entirely. It is important to remember that lobbyists are agents for their principals—that is, in the case of the Israeli lobby, American Jews and other supporters of Israel, and perhaps even Israel herself, her citizens, and her government.
If a member of the Israel lobby, or any lobby, for that matter, purposely provides to an American policymaker misinformation which leads to an unwise decision with negative electoral consequences, he will lose all credibility and access, and no longer be of any value to his principals. Now you might assert that the dishonest lobbyist might not be caught, as the policymaker might still be reelected in spite of relying on misinformation. But if that is the case, then there is no reason in the first place for the lobbyist to be dishonest. In other words, the policymaker will make whatever choice is most likely to reassure his reelection—that much is clear. The lobbyist’s only true task, consequently, is to demonstrate to the policymaker that his position is in fact in the policymaker’s electoral interest. There is nothing the Israeli lobby can do, however, if the American people believe that support for Israel is not in their best interest—lying will surely not help, and will probably only end up in hurting future efforts. We can thus conclude that ultimately, lobbies of all sorts, while exerting a large influence, are checked by the political process and the American people which clearly believe Israel to be in their best interest.
On a side note, America’s support for Israel has been hardly unconditional or uncritical, the most prominent example being the stance of the US on Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and other occupied territories. At least three US presidents have loudly declared the settlements to be both an illegal and otherwise unwise barrier to peace. George H.W. Bush even directly confronted Israel over its settlement policy, threatening economic sanctions, and actually withholding nearly $500 million in aid from the Jewish state.
I think that the Mearshiemmer and Walt article raises some very interesting points about the power that lobbies can have. I agree with Mitch's first comment... the article is indeed quite obviously biased, they used strong language and made the power of the Israeli Lobby seem almost mafia-esque, especially when it comes to their affect on college campuses. It seems as though this article was written to raise awareness; they weren't too far off the mark, as we have seen with Professor Khan's incident with the Israeli veteran and the discussion panel. It is amazing to see this sort of extremely defensive behavior in action... even now (as I am posting last minute) you can google the Professor's name, and keywords such as "anti-Jewish," "bigot," and "douchebag" come up in the search results. It is important to realize that "bias" doesn't mean wrong, just one-sided. I am only now beginning to comprehend the scope and influence that lobbies can have, and they are quite necessary in our complex system of government. It seems to be quite obvious that the Israeli lobby has a great deal of leverage in the United States, especially when it comes to foreign policy; it makes sense, what other loyalty does the US have to Israel other than its representatives here? While I believe there is some discourse over the subject, it is obvious that a politician would have a lot to lose and would have to have something to make up for the loss of support.
The criticism article seems to prove Mearshiemmer and Walt's point, labeling their criticisms as blatant anti-semitism. I would definitely be interested in reading more about the Lobby's tendency to play the anti-semite card.
Although the Mearshiemmer and Walt article has been seen as biased against the Israel Lobby, I think it's extremely interesting and telling to see how quickly and emotionally Dershowitz responded to in his own words a paper that "is little more than a compilation of old, false, and authoritatively discredited charges dressed up in academic garb".
I find it hard to believe that he would write a response to a paper that he believed had no merit. In my opinion, the Mearshiemmer and Walt article brought up good points to think about such as our support of Israel to the point of it backfiring on us,lack of diplomatic purpose, and instances of Israel turning their back on the U.S.
The article by Dershowitz does not provide a valid counter arguement to the Mershiemmer "Working Paper". It reads more like an agry response by a person who refuses to see that there is a different side to the arguement. It is interesting that Dershowitz does not attack as much the article itself, as much as he does the authors. In my oppinion this is not only counter-productive but unprofessional as well. The arguements he presents
as a proof of the inacurate facts within the Mershiemmer article are also skewed. He claims that the palestinians were offered partition plans and they rejected them: but he does not mention that the plans however were unfair to the Palestinians, gave the better land to the Israelis and did not adress much important to the Palestinians issues such as the right of return and Jerusalem. In his pursuit of making a counter-arguement to the Mersheimmer paper, Dershowitz is too focused on simply denying things without really providing an arguement for his side. If the Mershiemmer article according to Dershowitz is inaccurate, than the Dershowitz paper according to me, does not provide an arguement for that claim.
As I said in the controversy debate, Dershowitz completely manipulates the text of mearsheimmer and walt to defend his positions and attack there's. I looked up statistics from the pollingreport.com which support the stats of M&W. Also, as I said in the debate, the AARP is number one must influential lobby- which make sense since 16% of population is 60 and over, and a much larger portion of the population has already begun retirement plans. AARP is a group that represents the interests of a lot of Americans. But the certain Jewish lobbyists, run campaigns counter to domestic interests. No one can argue that the media is dominated by a pro-Israel viewpoint, and that many high ranking execs in the media are Jewish (as I named in the debate). It can't be denied that the American media plays a substantial role in this. In Feb. 2007, 58% of Americans sympathized more with Israelis then with Palestinians (20% in favor). Yet, our Jews are only 1.8% of the population. On a CBS survey in 2006, Only 6% of Americans thought the Israel issue was MOST important for political leaders to concentrate on. Every other choice, were domestic issues: i.e fighting terrorism, economy, health care, lowering gas prices. So why does Israel play such a large part in American media, and our budget? I say... look to the lobby, and the power of the purse
Mike Decio
The controversy at hand what "In the absense of an Israeli Lobby, US policy in the Middle East would be more balanced and would not cause any anti-americanism and there would be no anti-western terrorism/jihadism."
After reading both the Mearshiemmer and Walt article and the Dershowitz article I would like to state my understanding and opinion on the matter.
To begin with, the Middle East is a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. The United States have had interest in the region throughout history as well as in the present and almost certainly in the future. In the past US has had interest in the region for a few reasons. For example, during the Cold War the US needed balance against Russia; we needed specific allies in the region. Also, the US had an interest in removing some of the great powers out of the area. Today the US seeks to create stability in the region. The US has an uncritical and unlimited support for Israel and an interest in promoting democracy in the region. Also, the US has interst to sustain open access to trading markets in the region. And we all know of Americas interest in oil within the region.
Therefore, without the Israeli Lobby and the unlimited support for Israel the US still has other factors of interest in the region even though Israel is certainly the strongest. Furthermore, US policy and support for Israel is not the only cause of anti-americanism. Anti-americanism in the Middle East began in about the 1950's as a result of WWII and the interst of Soviet Containment creating mistrust in the region. In addition, the notion of anti-western was in a way inherited from Great Britain and European powers. During the Ottoman Empire the Muslim world was united but then the West, France and GB, diveded the ME in order to keep the Arab World oppressed and unable to regain power. Therefore, the notion of anti-westernism was created from a desire to overthrow the powers and reunite the Muslim world and retaliate vs the oppressors, Frane and GB. In the end, GB withdrew from the region and their support for an Israeli state basically passing the baton to the United States.
Furthemrore, there are also other causes to anti-americanism. A majority of which are all in relation to the conseqences and aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US support for dictorial regimes in the region and the ME sees the US as a barrier to the Islamization of the Muslim world.
In conclusion, I do not feel as if the with the removal of the Israeli Lobby there would be no cause for anti-americanism and anti-western terrorism. However, I do agree that with the absense of the Israeli Lobby the US policy in the Middle East would most likely become more balanced and less bias.
Before reading the article by Mearshiemmer and Walt, I was unaware of the powerful sway the Jewish lobby held over the United States’ relationship with Israel, and the amount of blind support given to Israel.
When the Jewish lobby is more powerful than powerful domestic lobbies, especially such as powerful lobbies like the NRA, then something is off. I felt that the article was meant to ignite discussion concerning the lobbies influence and to bring this issue to the forefront in academia. I found it interesting that the response article fell right into the trap of denouncing Mearshiemmer and Walt as being anti-Semitic; which was predicted by the two authors. In fact the critical article lacked the scholarship it accused Mearshiemmer and Walts of lacking.
U.S policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict would definitely be more balanced with the absence of the Jewish lobby. From an observatory perspective, the Jewish community is actively involved in making sure the youth supports and is completely loyal to state of Israel. This issue boils down to biases, and as shown in our very class and these articles, those without passionate bias have no voice.
Dave Hanna
The Mearshiemmer and Walt article, has spurred the debate on the effects of the Israeli lobby. I think it is an important article, to begin the discussion about the influence of the Israeli Lobby. Why else would the United States give 140 Billion since WWII uncontested, when no other NATO nation has gotten that. I did not know much about the lobby before I read this article, howver it brought to my attention several interesting points. Mearshiemmer and Walt discuss the power of the lobby, with many powerfull neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and others high in the administration involved. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in the US after AARP, that is saying alot about its influence on American policy. The fact is they do have a lot of power. Now I do not necessarily agree with everything they have written, but I think this article brings up the point that more should be done to look into the power of the lobby.
Dershowitz's critisim is not entirely unfounded, but I would say it is a little rediculous. He points out that they are taking statements out of context, but then he goes on and does the same thing. He continuosly contradicts himself. An example is when he says that Mearshiemmer and Walt "aknowledge the lobby is not monolithic" but later in the same paragraph says "they claim the lobby is single minded" this continues throughout the article. It is not so much a critique of the paper by Mearshiemmer and Walt but as Mitch said in the first Blog, "accusing Mearshiemmer and Walt of anti-semitism bordering on Nazism". While I agree with Dershawitz, that some of their research is just rehashing what has already been said, he is bashing their credibilty.
In the Mearshiemmer article, they state that "one executive at CNN 6000 e-mails complaining about anti-Israel stories" no wonder no one really ever runs anti-Israel stories. When I lived over in the Middle East stories of Israelis buldozing houses just to find one guy, or shelling of towns with helicopters were played almost daily. Any story like that would get a news outlet thousands of e-mails accusing them of being anti-Israel. I agree with Dershowitz that facts on the Lobby should be researched more, especially by Academics at Harvard, but at least maybe this paper will place the influence of the Israel Lobby on peoples minds. Until other Lobbies are strong enough to stand up to AIPAC and spur a true discussion on US-Israel policy, I don't think we will move forward in the Peace Process. Israel can sustain itself. in the Mearshiemmer Article they discuss how our support of Israel lends to terrorism. I feel this may be partially right, that terrorists use the plight of the Palestinian People, and US support for Israel as a grievence. While removing support for Israel is not the answer for an end to terror, it seems that maybe we should for once look at our foreign policy, and start winning the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East. If there is ever going to be a debate on the Lobby then academic papers are the place to start, although I think there should be more research.
Dave Hanna
The Mearshiemmer and Walt Article failed to explain how important Israel and Israel’s military is to our interests. Yes, we do give a lot of money to Israel and don’t ask many questions but we get a regional power in return, just like the states that backed Israel before us. Look at Britain and France, the states that bankrolled and armed Israel before we decided to – did they do so because of a lobby? Was it some unthinkably powerful Jewish lobby in Paris that was behind the money, guns and jets that France sent to Israel? Of course not, France is a rather anti-semitic country yet they supported Israel because a powerful and loyal Israeli military was strategically important to them (see the Suez Crisis) just like it now is to us.
We should also note that Israel is merely one of the few less admirable states that we give money to – Egypt is second on our list of foreign aid recipients. If Mearshiemmer and Walt are right and the only real reason for giving aid to Israel is because of the Jewish lobby wouldn’t there be some highly influential Egypt lobby? Of course not, Egypt doesn’t need a lobby – the American people can hate Egypt as much as we want but so long as it is in our interest we will give them money and guns free of lobbying. Yes, the Israel lobby has played a hand in shaping our policy toward Israel but if they were to disappear tomorrow we would still support Israel for the same strategic reasons that other states supported her before and for the reasoning that drives us to support states like Egypt. Mearshiemmer and Walt irresponsibly downplayed the importance of our strategic relationship.
I think the cartoon posted on this blog page is a little over the top. In the corner it says it was written in 2005 by a Muslim observer so this is obviously why it picks fun at AIPAC. The cartoonist depicts an AIPAC office in this cartoon with much mockery. He makes sure to place AIPAC’s full name, American-Israel Political Action Committee on the top of the Palestinian flag making it seem as though AIPAC is the name of Israel. Also the depiction of multiple big star of David’s is a little over the top. The cartoonist obviously wanted the Star of David to be the main attraction in this cartoon. However, I think the cartoonist should have taken into consideration the religious value of the star before making a mockery of it in the cartoon. In fact, the cartoon does more insulting of the Jewish religion and their religious symbol than it does of AIPAC the group it intended to mock. Insulting other religions is not only politically incorrect but it is morally wrong and next time this cartoonist wants to mock a political group they should leave out the religious insults.
Post a Comment
<< Home