Smear and distortion

Of course the intensity and quality of the criticism in this case will only support some of the points the authors make…

Well, the complete paper does contain this weird statement in fn. 1:

M&W: “Indeed, 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. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact.”
Do they really believe that the existence of a lobbying group marks the issues propounded by that group as harmful to the national interest? I.e., that all organized lobbying is bad? Or do they only make this point in the context of lobbying by pro-Israel interests?

Tom T:

In short, yes, they really do believe that the existence of a lobbying group marks the issues propounded by that group as harmful to the national interest. Waltzian neo-realists have some strange views about how the world works, and chief among them is the (untenable) view that all nations have an obvious self-interest that they would default to if it weren’t for annoying things like domestic politics. It’s not at all a view specific to this issue, but is most often deployed in the context of dismissing human rights and other non-security concerns as invalid considerations in the formation of foreign policy.

Yes, Otto. That’s so. Organized groups have power because they leverage the power of many individuals through…uh…organization!

Your point is?
Prohibit individuals from meeting and organizing?

I ask in all seriousness as I was just about to rewrite the same quote from the article as you did but I was going to substitute advocates of accomodation for the disabled. The quote from Walt/Mearsheimer is a bizarre in the context of legislative democracy.

I agree that there is no such thing as well-defined “American national interest”; otoh, I don’t think it would be difficult to name a number of events or policies uncontroversially harmful to the American national interests. Allowing a small interest group to control foreign policy in the middle-east (and to dominate the discussion of it) is obviously harmful to the American national interests. How could it not be?

It’s also harmful to allow Cuban exile dictate the US policy towards Cuba, but the damage here is much, much smaller.

Otto 5.”Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for steel interests is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about”
Yeah sure, like the many civil rights groups – all working against ‘the American national interest’.

[Moderator: I’ve deleted the second half of this comment since the heavy sarcasm contained an unwarranted accusation of bigotry against otto. Keep it polite people, and keep it more or less justified by what other people actually say, or get deleted or disemvowelled. CB]

Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim that American Jews have undue influence. They claim that AIPAC and a few other Jewish organizations have undue influence. As they say, “The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians…”

Take me, for instance. I am an American Jew. I’m a supporter of Israel. I have a job that brings me into contact with Britons, and I find that casual anti-Semitism is the norm. Like jet, I find the obsessive interest of some people in the fate of the Palestinians to be suspicious. And I do find this sort of anti-Semitism in the Mearsheimer/Walt article (as does jet).

BUT- AIPAC does not speak for me. I think that Likud policies are bad for Israel and that US support for them is bad for the United States. I think that the settlements are disasterously counterproductive and should be evacuated and that the Wall, which has worked admirably to diminish terror bombings, should have been built along the Green Line. I think that the Israeli approach to the PA has stengthened the hand of Hamas and has made peaceful resolution much more difficult. I think that AIPAC’s influence in the US strengthens the right wing in Israel and distorts and coarsens Israeli society. And I am very disturbed by the alliance of Israel’s supporters with fundamentalist religious groups that are bent on destroying American democracy and replacing it with a “Christian Reconstructionist” theocracy. I think this alliance is a terrribly destructive force in America, and I think that most American Jews are uneasy about it, and that many are strongly opposed to it.

So I wonder how this powerful lobbying group, which is unrepresentative of the views of most American Jews, has come to influence US policy in the way that it does. Mearsheimer and Walt have done a service in attempting to answer that question.

Jr.

You make it sound like a big deal. It’s simple. AIPAC etc etc is organized and they have a simple clear story. Liberal groups (which espouse chanting Kumbaya as their central foreign policy stance) simply have not convinced the American people that liberals have a better story.

Btw, are you really active in any groups which espouse your perspective? If not, you have your answer.

Political science is about this very subject — the power of organization.

I’m somewhat reluctant

[heavy sarcasm deleted]

Jet, that’s because Israel is the worst violator of the international law in the post-war period, that’s all there is to it.

The main, most often mentioned crime is military occupation of the territories taken in 1967 – what does it have to do with the situation in Sudan?

Are you trying to tell me that Israel’s leaders are somehow less deplorable than Sudan’s leaders? Maybe they are, but what does it have to do with the international law?

Two comments:

I am not convinced by their arguments that Israel is a strategic liability. After all, states in the Middle East are now substantially less hostile to us than they were 20 or 30 years ago. And that trend is likely to continue, whatever shape Iraq’s government takes, especially if the Iranian government begins to represent the feelings of its citizens. One reason for that is the military superiority of Israel and the pressure its friendship with the US has had on the surrounding states. Egypt is now an ally of the US – compare to what it was like 20 or 30 years ago, when it was a client of the Soviet Union. They are going to have to work harder to prove their case.

They also seem to ignore the existence of other lobbies vis a vis the Middle East. I’m thinking of the Saudi lobby, which is in many ways more powerful than the Israeli one. After all, we still support Saudi Arabia to the hilt, even after it has become clear that their aims and values are very much opposed to ours, much more than in the case of Israel. The Egypt lobby definitely exists, as does the Morrocan lobby (which seems extremely effective, actually). They seem to assume that under natural circumstances the US would cut Israel loose and support Arab states, but I don’t see how this would be true.

Okay Chris, you’re the boss. Pardon the last comment, I hadn’t seen your new instruction.

Sigh.

I was going to post “but only opposition to the Israeli lobby is automatically accused of racism” and then I decided not to,

And then I read number 14 (JR) and realised I had to,

JR: I am a British Jew. I am “obsessively” concerned with the treatement of Palestinians, because Halacha tells me it is wrong to deprive people of life, liberty and the right to earn a living.

Go on then… call me anti-semitic.

I’ve lived in the UK all my life. I have had experiences with anti-semitism (have in fact been beaten up). But I can count the instances of “caual antisemitism” on the fingers of one hand.

Donald Johnson,

The complicating factor for the Cuban lobby is that the right-wing leadership of the Cuban lobby is lily-white, and (along with much of the right-wing exile community) has problematic relations with non-white and mixed-race Cubans. So for anyone laying the charge of racism against critics of the Cuban lobby leadership, it’s pretty easy to laugh at the argument out of hand.

Yes….can we please stay away from the subject of Israel’s right to exist, ’48, ’67 and so forth? We all know where we all stand on these issues, and let’s face it, none of us are likely to change our minds anytime soon so……

Anyway, back to the article. I have four main problems with it.

First, as Hektor Bim points out, the idea that there is no countervailing Arab lobby movement is simply false: the Saudi lobby is as strong (or maybe stronger) than the Israel lobby. Moreover, links between the States and Saudi go back further than the links between the US and Israel. The US only really began to back Israel after ’67 (something the LRB article does not really mention or deal with, despite the problems it poses for their thesis). The links with Saudi on the other hand go back to February 11, 1945 and the meeting at Great Bitter Lake. Ever since then US foreign policy has been explicitly devoted to propping up the Saudi theocracy. The US could manage without Israel just fine, and in fact, famously, over Suez it told the Israelis to get knotted (they duly backed down, as well they might). But it would suffer extremely serious economic damage if Saudi Arabia decided to crack the whip.

The second problem (linked to this first problem) is that in arguing, essentially, that this was a ‘war for Israel’ then the crucial relation between the US and Saudi Arabia, and the reason for that relationship (oil) are ignored. In fact, as the writers say:

‘Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim.’

To which I can only say oh yeah? If by ‘direct evidence’ you mean George Bush saying ‘This was a war for oil’ then of course they are right, but he hasn’t said ‘this was a war for Israel’ either. There is a huge amount of indirect evidence (not least from common sense) that oil played at least a part in the calculations of the planners in the Pentagon and White House. Moreover, we know for a fact that the first Gulf War was about Saudi Arabia and oil, and had nothing to do with Israel. But the second gulf war could not have happened but for the first. Again this is a major problem for the LRB thesis.

Thirdly, the authors point out that many of the most aggressive proponents of the war are also fanatical Zionists. This is true, but proves nothing. Correlation is not causation. You cannot infer that just because the neocons back Israel that therefore the main CAUSE of the war was to protect Israel (and another point is that if it was to protect Israel it hasn’t been much of a success has it?).

Finally, the article only really deals with Congress and implies that George Bush is in fact desperate to create a meaningful state for the Palestinians and would do so were it not for those devious Zionists, a thesis I can only describe as fantastic. Bush is a fundamentalist loony Christian who believes that Israel has a part to play in the Rapture, which he believes is coming soon (he also, of course, believes that atheists should not be allowed to vote). A Palestinian state plays no major part in these calculations.

Zionism is important in the modern world, but it is dwarfed in importance when compared to the alliance between radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity that that we see in the Bush/Saudi alliance. Which is all about oil.

One more comment to Donald Johnson’s post.

_Everyone_ pulls their punches when states or groups they otherwise sympathize with engage in what they view as reprehensible actions.

Watch Noam Chomsky and his admirers tie himself in knots trying to show the Serbs weren’t totally reponsible for Srebrenica and how the death toll in Kosovo was exaggerated and how air strikes somehow mystically “forced” Serbs to ethnically cleanse the Kosovo Albanians, and anyway, what about East Timor?

Read Robison on the Soviet Union and try to avoid the sick feeling in your stomach.

I don’t want to just pick on leftists – there are reams of pages in the National Review on how apartheid wasn’t that bad or how we shouldn’t work too hard against Southern “exceptionalism”.

Watch British citizens hem and haw when the potato famine and the treatment of Catholics in British-ruled Ireland (and later Northern Ireland) is brought up. You can even see a little bit of that in Chris Bertram’s post.

Americans get uncomfortable when the eradication of the Native Americans is raised or American government actions in South America are brought up.

To be more germane to this thread, notice how resistant Palestinian supporters are to the extremely well-documented and widespread anti-Semitism (largely inherited from European tropes) in the Arab world.

It’s universal.

So yes, abb1, Jews have no difficulty at all in believing that the world is filled with insane anti-Semites.

I know that very well, but it’s a mistake; some kind of ghetto syndrome, often bordering on paranoia. An old friend of mine living in NY wrote to me about the recent car-burning riots in France – he has no doubt whatsoever that they were motivated exclusively by anti-semitism.

The sooner it’s overcome the better.

I think tom t. and not an ir guy both raise serious points about the deficiencies of the style of neo-realist analysis practiced by Walt and Mearsheimer. Much of their empirical argument for the power of the pro-Israel lobby rests on (i) the correct observation of the centrality of the defense of Israel in US foerign policy, together with (ii) an argument that the strength of this relationship is not justified by either powerful strategic considerations or compelling moral imperatives.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are right about (ii). The suggestion seems to be that if the defense of Israel were justified by strategic implications or compelling moral imperatives, then we wouldn’t need to posit the influence of a powerful lobby to explain the direction of US policy. Their assumption seems to be that motives deriving from strategic interests and compelling moral imperatives make themselves felt in US policy without benefit of a lobby or other kinds of domestic political pressure. That seems dubious to me.

But to accept this point, it seems to me, is to accept the conclusion that the vigorous and uniform congressional and executive branch support of Israel derives from other sources than manifest strategic necessity or moral imperatives. One alternative hypothesis is that the uncompromising and intense government stance just reflects the attitudes of a majority of the voting public – a majority that is so substantial, and so passionate about the defense of Israel, that they are either able to influence to influence national policy without needing any help from a lobby. Put another way, one could argue that we don’t need to posit strong lobbying pressure as the major factor in US support for Israel, since the lobby’s positions reflect the attitudes of a substantial electoral majority in America.

My own sense, however, is that the influence of the pro-Israel lobby – particularly AIPAC – is absolutely crucial here, and that its overall stance does not at all reflect the views of most Americans, most of whom (i) do not have anything close to the level of passionate commitment about Israel that is shown by our Congress, even where they roughly agree with the policy; and (ii) most of whom would certainly not prioritize foreign policy values and aims in the way they are prioritized by our national government.

I agree with the point that others have made – that the fact that some cause is represented by a lobby to organize political support, does not necessarily mean that the cause lacks broad popular support. But I do think that the most powerful lobbies have a common trait: They represent interests of groups in the US that are (i) minorities, but (ii)large enough and committed enough to influence policy decisively. For example, we don’t have a large and powerful pro-prosperity lobby, since most voters vote their pocketbooks and support prosperity, and government officials do not need the influence of a lobby to push them in that direction.

And we also have the direct testimony of the congressional representatives themselves about the power of AIPAC.

I suppose the most important issue in all this is not whether the lobby has influence, but whehter it currently influences US policy in a direction that is contrary to the “national interest” or contrary to the individual interests – practical or moral – of a majority of Americans. I think that is in fact the case.

I’m not convinced that Geras has smeared or distorted M&W.

It should be clear that M&W think of the “Israel Lobby” mainly as the “Jewish Lobby” (“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 …”), with some help from the Christian right (and, by implication, no one else?). In light of the equation of the “Israel Lobby” with American Jews, you might read M&W as claiming that American Jews mistakenly believe that providing support for Israel is in America’s interest, when it isn’t. Or, what seems natural given M&W’s realism, you can read them as saying that (a significant percentage of powerful) American Jews have placed Israel’s interest above that of the United States. The latter interpretation is a trope of modern anti-semitism (and structually similar to the powerful anti-Catholic trope that Catholics are subservient to the Vatican), and H&M and Geras are right to worry about it. Even if M&W are making the former point (and I’m not sure they are), they are easily read as making the latter. And to the extent that Geras is amplifying criticism of the latter reading, he’s got a point.

None of this is to say that American foreign policy toward Israel, or its formation, is somehow off limits for discussion. (Do you think Geras thinks that?) It’s just to point out that M&W are easily read as accusing the American Jewish community (or, again, significant portions of it) as being disloyal to U.S. interests.

I don’t want to be lumped in with Fine, but I also read the paragraph in which M&W say that the “Israel Lobby” is like all other lobbies as a hedge, which M&W qualify by summarily concluding that the “Israel Lobby” is much better at what it does than other lobbies. And since support for Israel is so antithetical to American interests, the implication is that American Jews are working harder, and doing a better job, than other special interests at defeating national interests to advance their loyalty to Israel. Given what M&W say (mostly through highly selective quotation) about how American Jews (or at least those in the “Israel Lobby”) form their policy views–not by asking whether some action is consistent with the national interest (whatever that may be), but by blindly following Israeli political leadership–there seems to me ample ground on which to dismiss the charitable view described above.

Chris Bertram is right, I think, about the influence of oil politics on US Middle East policy. It is at least as important a factor as Israel. However, I think the oil factor does a much better job at explaining US policy in the Gulf, for example, than its policy toward Syria and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. Oil-related matters play a role there too, but not enough in my view to explain the occasional obessions of US policy with the affairs in those countries.

I think it is also worth speculating about the oscillatory and two-track nature of some US relations in the region. My sense in the case of a place like Syria, for example, much of the relationship develops along a quiet strategic track, but with occasional outbursts of hard line public rhetoric from each side designed to placate various domestic constituencies – the pro-Israel hawks in the US, to take one example.

But this is a dangerous game, of course. And in the Bushg administration, the policy seems in reality to have passed several times from the hands of one group to those of another.

“It is hard to imagine how it might be possible to conduct a sensible argument with someone like Fine.”

True, because he takes the idea too far, not because the idea is worthless. He says “When an unwanted voice on the telephone says ‘I am not trying to sell you anything’, it usually means that he has some wildly expensive kitchen units or plastic windows up his sleeve. In this piece there are classic examples of denial. ‘There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy’ means that there is everything improper.”

He misses something in the translation of his analogy into the instant case. That something is “usually means”. When you get an unsolicited telephone call that says ‘I am not trying to sell you anything’ it really is true that it usually means they are about to try to sell you something. But if you end the conversation there, you can’t be sure they were employing denial. Assuming you have time, you can find out if they were employing unwarranted denial by listening to the rest of their pitch. If they try to sell you things later you have strong evidence that they were. Fine is clearly wrong to say that “There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy’ means that there is everything improper”. The phrase by itself obviously doesn’t mean that. But in the context of the rest of the article, it isn’t hard to argue that the language you quote exists not so much to help us gain a deeper understanding of their views, but rather to deflect criticism of their views. They argue that the Israel Lobby (capitalization theirs) is the preeminent force in shaping Middle East policy. They don’t look at the force of the Saudi lobby which any neutral observer would surely admit is at least worth considering as a strong influence in shaping Middle East policy. They ask stupid questions about “Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?” as if they were unaware that the US offered its own cities in a nuclear standoff to help protect Europe during the Cold War—Newsflash the US sometimes thinks that protecting the interests of another state advances our security concerns. Whether or not that correct in this particular case is the debate, but pretending that the idea is unthinkable is just stupid. They omit strategic concerns, like oil, that have shaped Middle East policy. They omit strategic concerns, like fear of the USSR, that have shaped Middle East policy (remember their time period of ‘analysis’ goes back into the 1950s and 1960s). In short they appear to be incompetent analysts. The article as a whole suggests that “In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better.” can be interpreted as defensive denial of what the rest of what they say. Fine is wrong to suggest that the words of the denial prove the denial. They don’t. The rest of their words prove (or strongly suggest) that the words you quote are a denial instead of a further explanation of their views.

Just one more comment,

Just once, could we have some actual discussion of foreign subjects aside from Israel, Iraq, and Iran on this blog? (I don’t count the UK and Ireland, since it seems some of the people actually live there.) After all, ETA just declared a permanent ceasefire today, there’s a developing situation between Ukraine and Transdniestria over custom enforcement, NATO developments in Afghanistan and possibly Darfur, etc. I realize that the topics chosen reflect people’s competencies and interests, but I would ask as a favor more effort be undertaken to pick topics on countries besides the I’s. (All of Eszter’s articles about Hungary are very interesting, for example.)

The more I think about the LRB article actually the more I think it’s bollocks. As someone pointed out earlier even if it was all true, it would only explain why the Democrats were biased towards Israel. But what would the Republicans have to gain from being pro-Israel?

Now, a sane answer to this would be that in many respects the Republicans ARE less biased towards Israel than the Democrats. But of course Mearsheimer and Walt want to make the (in my view incredible and unbelievable) claim that this war was in some way ‘about Israel’. So they therefore tie themselves in knots in attempting to show that the Israel lobby has ‘more’ influence on Bush than the Democrats (few people, surely, would argue that if Al Gore had won the 2000 election then the US would have gone to war with Iraq). How?

Secondly, they have an incredibly narrow view of ‘the national interest’ which they don’t even bother to define. As a matter of fact they don’t even bother to define ‘Israel’s interests’. In what way, precisely, was Saddam Hussein’s dying and collapsing regime a ‘threat’ to Israel? What were they going to do? Invade Israel? Iraq couldn’t even invade Kuwait. Develop a nuclear weapon? They tried that, and that didn’t work and everybody sane (this does not include Bush) knew that it would not happen again.

It probably is true that the Israeli’s are nervous about losing their nuclear monopoly in the region (more for reasons of political power than because this would genuinely threaten them)and would quite like Iran’s nuclear power programme ‘taken out’ (just to be on the safe side). This is very different from saying that it is in Israel’s interests for Iran to actually be invaded, especially after we have all seen what a disaster the Iraqi fiasco was.

Brendan,

I think you’re mistaken about the Bush Saudi alliance. The relationship between various western democracies and Arab oil producers have been fairly constant, regardless of the political or religious background of the western leaders. There may be a lot wrong with the specific Bush Saudi connection, but it essentially resulted in the continuation of existing US policy.

The point of the article is that the Israel lobby has shifted US policy against the interest of the US as seen in the realist worldview of the authors. In case of the Saudi lobby it isn’t clear how it shifted US foreign policy and whether it is against the interest of the US (again in the realist sense).

As such I don’t see any reason to conclude that the Bush Saudi relation is so important that we should ignore and not talk about the lobby of AIPAC and related organizations, as you would suggest. It looks a bit like a “Sudan is worse” type argument.

The article mentioned the relation between Israel and the Bush government, it doesn’t suggests at all that “George Bush is in fact desperate to create a meaningful state for the Palestinians”. It does say that that would be in the interest of the US to adopt a different policy.

And it does mention 1967 (in the first line). It uses these dates (’67 ’73 and ’76) to note the change in policy which they think is against the interest of the US.

The long version of the LRB artice is here.

Chris Bertram wrote:

Huh? I didn’t say anything about oil.

Excuse me Chris, my mistake. I meant Brendan.

Luc

Just before I start rambling, everyone here seems to accept that the authors of the LRB article are in fact self-proclaimed ‘realists’ in a reasonably clear neo-Kissingerean way. Given that this is the case….(and I don’t know myself but let’s accept it for the sake of argument….)

OK: anyway I accept your point, but if it is true it illustrates the grave limitations of a ‘realist’ interpretation of moden politics. The key problem is that ‘realism’ ignores what most people think is the most important aspect of geopolitics: morality.

In other words, instead of being an article (as most readers on the ‘left’ have interpreted it) about the pernicious influence of Israel on the US, and how this is unfair and how it leads to poverty and violence for the Palestinians, this is (on your reading) merely an article that raises an interesting problem.

The problem is this. According to your reading of the article the point of it is this. The US has backed numerous dictators throughout South America and Africa. In the Middle East, it still does: Saudi Arabia being a case in point. Now (implicitly) the authors agree that this is the correct thing to do. You should support Nazi-ism (or Jihadism or Stalinism) if it’s in your interests to do so.

But (according to the authors) here’s an interesting problem. It is not, according to the authors, in the US’ interests to support Israel. But US foreign policy (and my apologies to some of the more excitably right wing commentators to this blog) is unquestionably biased in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians. Why should this be?

The answer, according to the authors, is the Israel lobby. It is this lobby that is distorting the US’ own (correct) aim to maximise its self-interest. Instead, the US should support Saudi Arabia and (in Palestine) Hamas. In Iraq, the US should have supported Saddam Hussein. And so on.

My problem with this analysis is threefold:

1: it is a cartoon, merely (as Orwell pointed out many years ago, about crude Marxism) a way of saying ‘cui bono’. It presupposes that ‘interests’ are simple things that can be easily evaluated, and, indeed, that ‘nations’ actually do have interests. Links of culture and history and language count for nothing in this view, although they clearly do in the ‘real’ world. It ignores ‘systems’ issues (for example feedback loops (the classic one is an arms race) which lead to results no one really wanted but which were inevitable once the initial conditions were set up) and inertia (once the US had started to support Israel it was more likely to keep on doing so just because the infrastucture for support was already in place).

2: It ignores morality. But even if you think that’s the ‘right’ thing to do (surely in itself a moral judgement?) it is an objective fact that everyone in the world, from Bush to Bin Laden to Bibi to Blair, frame their policies in moral terms, condemn their enemies in moral terms, justify their actions in moral terms. You can disregard morality if you want, but to pretend that it actually doesn’t exist, and that people don’t make people behave in certain ways is insane.

3: It is interesting that the article itself is almost universally interpreted as claiming that US support for Israel is unjust, that it’s unfair, that it is in fact, immoral. But of course that’s the one argument the authors can’t make. So instead they have to make various arguments as to how the US would be ‘better off’ without supporting Israel. This may be true, but it’s also true that the US would have been ‘better off’ if it hadn’t invaded Iraq. But the US did invade Iraq. This in itself questions their thesis which is why they have to invent a fantasy explanation that this was ‘really for Israel’, an action which they can then explain with their deus ex machina the ‘Israel Lobby’.

But the fact is that Israel is NOT better off after the invasion of Iraq, and any sane person can see that it would be even worse off after an invasion of Iran. So their ‘explanation’ really explains nothing.

This discussion is displaying an inaequate understanding of how lobbies actually work. They use money, but they also use influence over personnel (bureaucrats and Congressional staffers), influence over the ideological environment. A Jewish lobby is particularly well placed to use those tools because the ethnic Jewish community in the U.S. combines great wealth with great intellectual firepower, and a substantial over-representation in ideologically influential areas like the media and academia. Key Bush administration foreign policy staffers are Jewish, and the Mearsheimer/Walt article specifically refers to the aid Jewish Congressional staffers give to AIPAC. The Ashkenazi Jewish community is also particularly intelligent and quite talented at generating ideological justifications for support of Israel, which they can use their many positions in the media and think tank world to propagate. The community is also fairly united around at least some form of military support for Israel. It’s a perfect storm of political power, each of the elements synergizes with the other.

Chris, you are showing a somewhat heavy hand in censoring posts. I hope you leave this one up and don’t read the above factual statements as somehow anti-semitic. I am an Ashkenazi Jewish academic who has seen this dynamic operating in my community and among my acquaintances (some of whom work for AIPAC) my entire life. If we’re going to raise this topic at all we should be realistic about it.

P.S. one also needs to look at the history of ideology as a separate force, instead of just looking for the “money” or “power” of the Israel lobby as the only influence. For example, the current power of the Israel (especially the old Likud-oriented) lobby over the Republican party is related to the migration of Jewish neoconservatives into the party in the 70s, combined with the rising generalized public hostility toward the non-Israeli middle east that began with the oil crisis in the 70s, continued with the Iran hostage situation, then Libya, then the Gulf War. Those factors combined with money and institutional influence allowed a particular segment of the Israel lobby to set up a narrative that portrayed Israel as the enemy of our enemies in the Middle East, and therefore our unquestioned friend. There is an alternative narrative (supported by many in the Jewish community as well) that emphasizes the benefits to the U.S. that could be created by taking an honest broker between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, while still protecting Israel’s right to exist. The Mearsheimer/Walt article doesn’t cover this ideological history well.

“In what way, precisely, was Saddam Hussein’s dying and collapsing regime a ‘threat’ to Israel?”

It supported the Palestinians, and remained uncowed by Israel. Whether that made Iraq a threat to Israel is debatable – but certainly (if reports in Haaretz are to be believed) it was perceived as one by many within the Israeli establishment.

I can’t help thinking, reading this thread, that there are quite a few people who are deeply worried about anti-Semitism because they think that it is a cover for criticism of Israel.

Are you seriously suggesting that a primary (or even large but non-primary) part of the Republican/fundamentalist-Christian alliance has to do with Israel?

American fundamentalist Christianism is extremely pro-Israel, though stridently anti-Jewish. Outlets such as Hal Lindsey’s go on and on about Israel. Israel and the Jews play a crucial role in the Left Behind series, supposedly read by 65 million Americans. The classic LaHaye-style construction of the End Times is based upon getting as many Jews as possible to emigrate to Israel, so that (1) the Rapture can get underway once an undefined “critical mass” of Jews in Israel is reached, (2) the majority of Jews in the world can be brutally exterminated, and (3) the remnant can be converted to Christianity. These are rabidly-held tenets of much of the Christian Right (though the Dominionists have their own peculiar take on things). I personally was informed by various conservative relatives in 2004 that George W. Bush was a better “friend to Israel” because he was “Christian.” Perhaps you wish to argue that right-wing fundamentalist Christians have no impact on Republican electoral strategies?

That there is a strong “Jewish-survival” lobby should not be a surprise. I see nothing wrong with it and no reason for Jews to be the least bit embarassed about it.

Attacks on the existence of such a lobby are not even veiled anti-Semitism.

So, raw data, since the policies of AIPAC are heavily aligned with Likud, and influential American neocons are much more likely to have cozy meetings with Mr. Netanyahu than Mr. Peretz, is Labour anti-Semitic for practicing the wrong flavor of Zionism? Because you seem inordinately fond of accusing those who criticize one particular set of Israeli political viewpoints of anti-Semitism.

I really don’t understand comments like jim harrison’s. Even if you grant that Israel is in some future time, definitively doomed, so what? All of us are doomed in the near or far future. All empires crumble, peoples disperse and are eradicated or change cultural referents, governments fade, etcetera. The Pontic Greeks lasted three thousand years, but even they were eventually destroyed by the Soviet Union and the Turks. You could say the same thing about the US, or Germany (two hundred years ago there wasn’t even a Germany, and many people thought there never would be one – there’s a “lost cause” for you).

What is this supposed to convince us to do? Shoot the horse because we know it will die sometime in the future and possibly inconvenience us? How do we know when it will die for sure?

‘American fundamentalist Christianism is extremely pro-Israel, though stridently anti-Jewish. Outlets such as Hal Lindsey’s go on and on about Israel. Israel and the Jews play a crucial role in the Left Behind series, supposedly read by 65 million Americans. The classic LaHaye-style construction of the End Times is based upon getting as many Jews as possible to emigrate to Israel, so that (1) the Rapture can get underway once an undefined “critical mass” of Jews in Israel is reached, (2) the majority of Jews in the world can be brutally exterminated, and (3) the remnant can be converted to Christianity. These are rabidly-held tenets of much of the Christian Right (though the Dominionists have their own peculiar take on things). I personally was informed by various conservative relatives in 2004 that George W. Bush was a better “friend to Israel” because he was “Christian.” ‘

This is absolutely correct and in itself demonstrates why talking about an ‘Israel Lobby’ as if that explains everything is pointless. The US (under Bush) would support Israel regardless of whether the Israel lobby existed or not, because Bush is an extremist fundamentalist who believes in end times, who believes that atheists should not be allowed to vote, who disbelieves in evolution, and so forth. His foreign policy is predicated on the idea that the world will end fairly soon and that the Rapture will then happen (so was Ronald Reagan’s when it wasn’t influenced by his wife’s astrologer) and makes no sense whatsoever unless you grasp that viewpoint.

Abb1

‘Not just “support”, but blind, unconditional, irrational, cult-like support; read some of those congressional resolutions. It’s just plain weird, counter-intuitive.’

It may be weird but it’s certainly not counter-intuitive. As every opinion poll demonstrates, as everyone notices when they go there (and by ‘there’ i mean the real America, not San Francisco) the US is a very very religious country. I wasn’t really joking when I talked about a Saudi/Bush alliance: it’s certainly a pragmatic alliance, but they both have similarties in terms of modes of though, culture and so on.

“American fundamentalist Christianism is extremely pro-Israel, though stridently anti-Jewish.”

But that wasn’t your point. Your point was that the administration is pro-Israel because: “In the matter of delivering votes, though, I would say support for Istrael among the Republicans skyrocketed once the pro-Israel lobby showed they could help deliver the votes of various fundamentalist Christian Zionists, as well as the votes of a whole bunch of non-descript Islamophobes and Arab-haters.”

As I said before, this is overreading the “delivering votes” issue. If you think that votes can be delivered, the fundamentalist vote is much more ‘delivered’ by internal social issues than by concerns about Israel. You make the same mistake as Mearsheimer and Walt–you confuse An effect with a primary effect. It may very well be true that concerns about Israel contribute something to the alliance between fundamentalist Christians and Republicans. But by formulating it as “delivering the vote” you inappropriately suggest that it is a big factor. It isn’t. It might be a marginal contributing factor, attitudes about Israel might be influenced by the alliance, but the alliance between fundamentalist Christians and Republicans is not based on the issue of Israel. If you were to focus on issues of Israel as if they were the most important (or even a largely important) reason for that alliance, your analysis would go awry because you aren’t grounded in the real dynamics. In a similar fashion, if you insist on analyzing all the US foreign policy in the Middle East through an “its all about Israel” lens, you are going to have serious problems understanding what is really going on. The “its all about oil” crowd doesn’t see the full picture, but they at least they are talking about one of the big factors.

Talk specifics. Do you think the US would have supported action against the USSR in Afghanistan if it weren’t for The Lobby? Do you think the US wouldn’t have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait without The Lobby? Do you think that the US wouldn’t done stupid crap in Iran with the Shah except for The Lobby? Do you think that the US wouldn’t have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam during the Bush I and Clinton years if it weren’t for The Lobby? If your (or Mearsheimer and Walt) analysis leads to “Yes” answers to any of these I suspect you aren’t looking very carefully. But if it doesn’t, the claim that The Lobby is the most important factor in US policy in the Middle East looks really odd.

I haven’t read the LRB article yet,but it strikes me that the notion of an “Israel lobby” is a bit outdated. I would take this to be a group that lobbied in support of Israel and its government, whatever that government’s position.

But it’s been clear for a long time that the most prominent lobbying is being done by people who are (or were until its recent breakup) partisans for Likud and against Labour. Their support for the Israeli government is conditional on the maintenance of aggressive expansionism. Norman Podhoretz had a piece in Commentary quite a while ago making this shift explicit.

This is much more typical of this kind of lobby, though the usual pattern is to suppport the “outs” agaisnt the “ins” as with the Cuba lobby.

john – as far as I know AIPAC has supported whichever government was in power. As Labour have gone more for subtle expansionism, than aggressive, there’s not a major difference in foreign policy for either party (both built settlements, assassinated Palestinian activists, etc, etc).

I don’t want to defend the MW article because for one thing I’ve only skimmed part of it. But regarding the Christian Zionist connection, I suspect that is a strong factor. I was a Christian Zionist myself once and grew up surrounded by people who’d read “The Late Great Planet Earth”, which was the 1970’s version of the “Left Behind” books. Support for Israel (because it’s all part of the events leading to the Second Coming) is just second nature to people who believe this stuff.

Now as for how this determines the stand taken by politicians, I don’t know. But it’s likely to make some difference. It’s not like there are a whole lot of Americans who go out of their way to read Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem and the New York Review of Books and clamor incessantly for a balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. To the extent that Christian American voters do care about Israel, the overwhelming majority are probably into this apocalyptic nonsense. And among the moderate and liberal Christians, some probably support Israel because of some vague sense that any harsh criticism of it is motivated by antisemitism. (I have a friend who seems to think like this.)

What this says about the Israel lobby is not so much that they are all-powerful, but that they’ve got some massive built-in (and mostly irrational) support from Christian Zionists.

Hektor Bim–I agree with part of what you say. People tend to be hypocritical on human rights. (I’m tended to get sidetracked by disagreeing with some of your examples, but it’s irrelevant to your larger point.) What I’m saying is that the way the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is treated in American political circles is a very good example of this widespread phenomenon.

Not to be dense, but what is here intended by anti-Semetic? The older non-racialist “Jew Hate” or the more modern racialist version? If it is the the last, then surely one would need to show a connection between the lobbying and underming of America’s national interest, how so ever one wishes to understand that, and the activities of the IR on the level of a racial compulsion. I didn’t see any of that kind of racialist thinking, which is not to say it wasn’t there.

if some wealthy Jews do support Israeli interests over those of the US, and it is anti-semitic to point this out, then it is anti-semitic to make a truthful statement.

Well, yes–and if Cian is a sociopathic anti-Semite with violent fantasies of mass murder of Jews, and it is out of bounds here to point this out, then it is out of bounds here to make a truthful statement.

Of course, I have no way of knowing what on earth Cian thinks about Jews or anyone else (except based on public statements, which do not justify any inference of sociopathy, anti-Semitism or violent fantasies of any kind). That’s why it would be entirely out of bounds for me to accuse Cian of such things.

Likewise, Cian has absolutely no clue what’s going on in the minds of “some wealthy Jews” who happen to believe that the US should offer support and friendship to the state of Israel. To suggest that they’re motivated by loyalty to a foreign country at the expense of their own is–or, at least, clearly ought to be–beyond the pale in respectable circles.

To suggest that they’re motivated by loyalty to a foreign country at the expense of their own is—or, at least, clearly ought to be—beyond the pale in respectable circles.

Why, would it be beyond the pale to note that, say, AARP activists or the greenpeace activists or anti-Castro Cubans are being motivated by loyalty to their cause more than loyalty to their own country? It’s said all the time about all kinds of activists. They all want their country to make sacrifices for the cause they feel is very important. It’s common, it’s obvious, it’s trivial. That’s the nature of almost any activism.

there are in fact some clues to what’s going on in the minds of lobbyists who openly acknowledge that Israel’s well-being is their first priority.

And which “lobbyists”, exactly, would those be? AIPAC certainly doesn’t profess such a point of view, and I doubt that any of its leaders or spokespeople ever has, either.

In fact, the list of “pro-Israel” figures that Mearsheimer and Walt associate with “the Lobby” goes far beyond AIPAC, to include virtually anyone who has ever said anything vaguely sympathetic towards Israel in the last twenty years–including, to name a few, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Bennett and George Will. Are you insinuating, then, that for all these people, “Israel’s well-being is their first priority”–and, moreover, that they’ve said as much in public?

Cian-
It is not correct that the AUT boycott was related to closures of Palestinian universities. see http://www.zionismontheweb.org/AUT/autres.htm The AUT activists were not trying to protect the academic freedom of Palestinian academics; they were attempting to isolate Israelis of all stripes, and the only ones that they could have any effect on were academics. They would have voted to bar Israelis from entering the UK if they thought that would make any difference. If you go to the website of Mona Baker, you will find that she encourages the boycott of all Israeli products and services, as well as products and services of companies that “have a track record of supporting Israel” — companies like Marks & Spencer and Danone. Similarly, the website of Sue Blackwell- a lecturer in English – not merely an academic boycott but a “cultural” boycott and disinvestment, yet she says that her university’s refusal to permit her to use her university website for such personal political purposes amounts to censorship.

I commented here at CT on the impropriety of academics – who benefit from academic freedom – abusing their privileged employment status to further their own political views. For example, if the editor of a translation journal (to take a non-random example) rejects an article that she would otherwise publish because it is by an Israeli academic, she is allowing her politics to interfere with her job. If you disagree, imagine a journal editor who decides to publish only articles by Christians, because all non-Christians are going to Hell. Still disagree?

BTW, Blackwell’s site gives a great example of how anti-Israel rhetoric can be perceived as anti-Semitic. Blackwell is scrupulous about disassociating herself from neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and other overt anti-Semites. But in a comment about the academic boycott, she mistranslates a verse from the book of Isaiah — which describes sins as being “scarlet” – as “as red as blood,” and then says that “the sins of Bar-Ilan University and other Israeli universities are certainly as red as blood, since they are complicit in the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and the oppression of Palestinian students and academic staff.” Now there is not a Jew in the world who is not on the alert for accusations of blood libel – an accusation that is particularly offensive from an Englishwoman. Yet when she has an interchange with an Israeli who calls her on it, she thinks that the discussion is “good-natured” – she has no idea of the offense that she has given.

Neil: Well, there’s an embarrassing typo. Didn’t mean to refer to you as “Heil,” sorry.

Can anyone scare up (so to speak) some numbers for the amount of money that AIPAC spreads around, and possibly some sense as to where those numbers fall in comparison to other lobbies, to help assess AIPAC’s influence in some ojective sense? Is that information published?

Finally.
Someone (tom t.) asks a very pertinent question.

“yet 98% of the US legislature along with the remainder of the US body politic agree entirely that unflinching support of all Israeli policy is in the national security interests of the United States. Do you seriously suggest that the Israeli Lobby is not responsible for this overwhelming unanimity?”

If you think the US supports all Israeli policy I suspect you don’t know much about the US-Israel relationship. The US oftens meddles with what any country other than Israel would consider internal affairs.

There is no mystery why Israel gets so much press: it’s because Israelis are (or tend to be) white. Cf the fuss over ‘white farmers’ in Zimbabwe.

The press will always prioritise stories and events in the world that features or affect white people. Moving down the ‘ethnic pyramid’, stories that deal with orientals will get the next amount of coverage, and then Asians. Blacks are nowhere, unless they are shown as being completely passive victims (in a famine, for example. The reasons as to WHY Africans might be dying in famines are, strangely, never gone into, except for brief, meaningless little statements about ‘the crops failed’ or something similar).

For example, an ‘objective’ history of the last 20 or 30 years would decide, I think, that one of the most important events has been the civil war in the Congo (‘Africa’s World War 2’). To the best of my knowledge this story has never been on the front page of ANY ‘white person’s’ newspaper.

Even Rwanda (perhaps the most significant story in terms of human rights since the rise of the Khmer Rouge) was more or less ignored in the white person’s (sorry, ‘Western’) world.

Likewise, Israel is supported because it is seen as a white enclave surrounded by dark skinned savages (code words like ‘democracy’ are usually used instead of ‘white man’s colony’).

I suspect a Palestinian would find it genuinely astounding that we are all here stroking our chins about the ‘reasons’ for ‘our’ support of Israel, ignoring the screamingly obvious fact of race and ethnicity.

Another thing: giving blank cheques to boneheaded Likudniks may not be in the best interests of the US, but having the meanest mother in the Middle East inside the tent pissing out definitely is.

No, this is the chicken-or-egg thing. Without that blank check boneheaded Likudniks might’ve been the same sort of eccentric fringe in Israel now the Michigan militia is in the US.

‘If the US dumped Israel, Israel would not pine away and die, it would go find new friends.’

For example, it is widely forgotten now, but, according to the Wikipedia ‘From late 1944 until 1948 Stalin adopted a de facto pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that the new country would be socialist and would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East.’ The USSR was instrumental in recognising the State of Israel in ’48, at a time when the USA was still lukewarm about it.

This is the problem of inertia which I mentioned earlier. Once you have started to support a country then there it is highly likely that you will contrinue to support that country. If the US stopped backing Israel then Israel would simply seek out new sponsors: China perhaps. And then all those nuclear weapons would be under the effective control of China.

“Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?”

I think this question is making the right pre-supposition: the U.S. national interest, at least on the surface, is not to support Israel.

But it is then a leap to conclude that the U.S. is therefore hostage to a lobby, which is making it go against its interest. There could be another reason: the U.S. is going against its interest (or at least its short-term interest) because it perceives it is the right thing to do, from a moral standpoint.

When a man is defending his self-interest and uses moral langauge, it is usually wise to discount his remarks – there’s a reasonable chance that he is just providing a veneer of justification. Note e.g. the general European support of the Palestinians – you can suppose it is for genuine moral reasons, but you can also suppose it is just to keep the oil coming.

On the other hand, when the U.S. supports Israel and uses moral language, one is confronted with the fact that it is *against* American national interest. It therefore should be given more weight.

Mmhm. 103 is poorly phrased. Let me try again : there is a distinct feeling of “Eurasia has always been our ally” in the u.s. mediatic wisdom about the alliance with israel.

“Remember, it’s not “support for Israel” that’s being questioned, but unqualified support for the right-wing expansionist ultra-nationalist fraction there.”

None of the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, nor Bush II have supported Israel in that way. Unqualified support? All of those presidents have used threats about their support to push Israeli administrations into doing things and changing policies.

The above aborted graphic was meant to be exclamation points in parenthesis, but apparently was interpreted as formatting. All apologies.

While I’m at it, here’s an addendum to the post. I neglected to mention the House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s speech at the same conference. Includes some good saber rattling aimed at Iran- have a look:

http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=999

Indeed, it is beyond question that US interests and Israel’s are inextricable…

abb1,

I did, but I can’t find the vote you’re referencing.

I’m not all that interested in stuff written by Jewish Republicans trying to convince Jewish Democrats to switch parties. They do it all the time, yet they remain a rather small minority.

But I’m curious as to what Congressman Frank objected to and why?

When it comes to Frank v. Delay – on any topic – I’m sure I would agree with Frank 100% of the time.

I just want to know what the man thought was grotesque and absurd, in this instance.

“Israelis are (or tend to be) white.”
What color do you think Palestinians are, green?
Here’s a picture of Mahmoud Abbas:

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20050716/wisrael0714/abbas.jpg

And here’s Israel Labor Party leader Amir Perez: http://www.inn.co.il/news.php?id=125487

Which one looks whiter to you?

One thing about Jews and Arabs: THEY LOOK THE SAME!

It doesn’t surprise me. I just want to know what he thought was grotesque and absurd.

Grotesque and absurd are my words. I apologise.

No need to. Seriously.

I’m just curious what their particular area of disagreement was – if it had something to do with settlements, terrorism, aid, or what have you.

Certainly the paper’s analysis of the US/Israel relationship is badly biased. Consider:

“The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein.”

This is bizarre. The inability to use Israeli bases – due entirely to Arab anti-Israel sentiment – is described as making Israel a strategic burden. Would matters have been different if the US had been less supportive of Israel over the years? I don’t see how. Use of Israeli bases would still have angered Arab members of the alliance.

And one would never know, reading this, that Iraq had in fact attacked Israel, and that the “diverted resources” were intended to protect against further attacks. The “anything” that Walt and Mearsheimer fear Israel might have done was fight back against its attacker. Wildly unreasonable and burdensome behavior, no doubt.

Again, suppose the US had not been particularly supportive of Israel over the years. Hussein might well have tried the same strategy – provoke Israel into a counterattack, thereby damaging the American coalition. This has nothing to do with American support for Israel and everything to do with Arab hatred of it. It in no way argues that Israel was a strategic burden.

Okay:

Have read the article a little more carefully now, I did promise a response to Dan Simon and to Neil.

First, to Dan:

In fact, the list of “pro-Israel” figures that Mearsheimer and Walt associate with “the Lobby” goes far beyond AIPAC, to include virtually anyone who has ever said anything vaguely sympathetic towards Israel in the last twenty years

As far as I can see they’re quite specific about basing their extended list of pro-Israel “lobby” figures on the ideologically neo-conservative (Bolton, Bartley, Bennett, Kirkpatrick and Will all fall under this heading) and on Christian Zionists. This doesn’t seem to me to be random, sloppy or consisting merely of “anyone who has ever said anything vaguely sympathetic towards Israel” — notwithstanding the bizarre attempt some neo-conservatives later made to uninvent the existence of their self-declared movement behind an ink-cloud of “anti-Semitism” accusations — so your statement is false.

As for specific quotations, obviously not every associated figure rates a direct quote in the article, but Dick Armey does (“‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.'”), as does Ernest Hollings, (‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here’), Seymour Reich (‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel’), and others. You may choose to interpret such statements differently from M&W, but IMO you can’t fairly accuse the authors of bringing motive into the debate out of the blue; they’re effective enough in making the basic point that Israel’s supporters — and those swayed by them — have often been quite frank about the role of motive. The question of whether those often-declared or acknowledged motives are warping the consideration of policies on the merits is therefore necessary.

Neil: Their consideration of alternatives is merely to state “WE don’t think Israel is of strategic benefit, WE don’t think there is a moral argument.”

This statement looks much more bizarre to me today than it did on first glance yesterday. Of course they don’t buy the strategic or moral arguments for the level of support for Israel (hence the whole article), but they don’t “merely” state this — they spend a good chunk of the article mounting detailed arguments for why the strategic and moral cases deployed by the lobby are unpersuasive, and go into considerable detail about the ways in which the lobby in concrete cases influenced decisions one way rather than another (most recently the infamous reversal of George Bush’s attempts to pressure Israel and his subsequent full-bore endorsement of Sharon’s policies and rhetoric).

If you disagree, this means that you would have to actually engage with the arguments that M&W make, not simply contend that they haven’t thought about alternatives and insinuate that there’s therefore something fishy going on in their article.

“When George Bush gets 12% of the vote in New York City and a 10% approval rating in France, how can it be that nobody in the US legislature sees things the way the Palestinians do?

The answer is that the Israeli lobby is damn good at lobbying.”

I don’t understand this line of argument. Bush’s vote in New York City and his approval rating in France aren’t particularly linked and to the extent they are linked they have very little to do with Palestinians and how they get treated.

Stalin doesn’t have a good reputation in the West, yet there is still disagreement about Kyoto. Pol Pot has a very low approval rating, yet there is general unanimity that the world is roundish. Is that the fault of the Israeli lobby?

“I don’t understand this line of argument. Bush’s vote in New York City and his approval rating in France aren’t particularly linked and to the extent they are linked they have very little to do with Palestinians and how they get treated.”

Who said they were linked? I am using examples of groups of people whose opinions are nearly unanimous on a subject- in this case their distaste for one GW Bush- as an example on how rare and typically artificial unanimity is (and more so in a legislature when the citizens they represent- or purport to- is divided on the issue).

Let me use a totally different example to highlight what I mean. In the movie Casino, Robert De Niro’s character gives an employee a b*llicking for not catching on that the casino was being scammed. The employee says, “there’s no way I could know that [the winners] were cheating”, to which De Niro says, “yes there is, there is an infallible way- they won!”. That’s the point of that example. Unanimity of opinion simply doesn’t exist. When it manifests itself- such as with the late Assad’s 99% of the vote election victory- sensible people raise eyebrows. In his case, the quote attributed to him was, “I wonder who the 1% was?”.

And speaking of unnecessary, comment 125 well qualifies.

Sebastian: And after years of painting Bush as bloodthirsty

… not clear who you’re claiming has done this for “years” (seems to me it’s more common to paint him as clueless and malignantly indifferent),

is a special

… not clear in what sense you’re using the word “special;” surely you’re not trying to claim that the role of the neocons in conceiving, selling and sort-of-planning the war has just occurred to people?

“the Israelis made him do it”

… which rendering of the above argument is, of course, fallacious…

argument really necessary?

I know you’re just trying to be cute, but you know… maybe don’t.

Having said that, I do share your confusion about why Majorajam is bringing up votes in New York and approval ratings in France. Neither are needed to point up the strikingly bipartisan AIPAC-partisanship in the US or its apparent disconnect with the values and priorities of, say, most American voters more generally and American Jews specifically.

“Who said they were linked? I am using examples of groups of people whose opinions are nearly unanimous on a subject- in this case their distaste for one GW Bush- as an example on how rare and typically artificial unanimity is (and more so in a legislature when the citizens they represent- or purport to- is divided on the issue).”

But one of things the US electoral system does is makes it difficult for very small minority opinions to be represented at all. Congress also voted 99-0 against Kyoto. There are times (often having to do with foreign policy) where the Senate chooses to make a show of unanimous or nearly unanimous support for something.

An alternative explanation is that US Congressman actually think supporting Israel is a good idea. It is less dangerous than offering US cities up for nuclear destruction in order to protect Europe from conventional attack, and we did that do.

Also I suspect there are some pro-Palestinian Congressmen who don’t want to be too loud about it because the Palestinians have continued their decades-long attachment to terrorism (including Islamic terrorism) and being closely associated with terrorism doesn’t fly too well anymore. (Remember that Mrs. Clinton was seen by some as pro-Palestinian in pre-9/11 days).

“But one of things the US electoral system does is makes it difficult for very small minority opinions to be represented at all. Congress also voted 99-0 against Kyoto. There are times (often having to do with foreign policy) where the Senate chooses to make a show of unanimous or nearly unanimous support for something.”

I don’t remember that Kyoto ever came up for ratification as it was clear it didn’t have the vote, but that’s neither here nor there. The degree to which the US support of Israel (and the character of that support) is in its strategic interests is highly debatable. The authors of this article make several strong points on the issue, so I won’t reiterate (although I will go on record as saying I don’t agree with their assessment that Israel was a liability during the 1st Gulf War). The point is that on this issue, US politicians don’t deviate no matter the extent to which support of Israel is not longer in our interest because of “The Lobby”- or rather the collection of interest groups acting to affect US policy toward Israel- make that so.

Can I prove that to you here and now beyond a reasonable doubt? No, and I don’t care to make the effort. However, I think it is very obvious both by implication of policy, by the rhetoric that comes out of Washington, the degree of deference to AIPAC, etc. etc. etc. (btw, note how Hillary’s change in perspective on Israel came with her growing political aspirations). You’d be surprised by how many quirky things get votes in the Congress, but putting a contingency on foreign aid that Israel actually implements the ‘road map’ plan it signed onto? Not a whimper.

“An alternative explanation is that US Congressman actually think supporting Israel is a good idea. It is less dangerous than offering US cities up for nuclear destruction in order to protect Europe from conventional attack, and we did that do.”

The US military alliances with Europe did not put it in jeopardy of nuclear attack. The Cold War did. The alliances were a strategic response to the Cold War. In any case, as I said, there may be people whose belief it is that support of Israel in accordance with current and recent US policy is in the strategic interest of the US. That’s fair enough. But certainly there are people who don’t and there’s very good reason to believe that it isn’t. You wouldn’t know that by listening to any US politician. The US could’ve twisted Israel’s arm to give more to Arafat and bought him off with aid- they didn’t. Had they we could’ve bought a lot of credibility and kudos in the world- instead we’re considered central to the problem (if not its leading cause) by those who care most about it, i.e. Arabs and Muslims. Has that helped us? I think you’ll find the answer is no.

Btw, the US supports Britain right? They’re our ‘special’ ally with a ‘special relationship’ (after the war of 1812 I gather). And what could be a more strategically important alliance than ours with them? However, we looked the other way as Americans were funneling money into an organization that was letting of bombs in London and we don’t share our military technology with them (they’re currently threatening to pull out of the JSF program because of said) yet we do share all with Israel. This as the authors point out that Israel has sold weapons systems to China against our will and competes with our defense industry globally (no tears on the last point however). Is all that the result of a strategic assessment? Ya think?

In fact, you are quite correct that “Israel’s supporters—and those swayed by them—have often been quite frank about the role of motive”. They routinely, consistently and publicly assert that they have America’s interests at heart—not Israel’s, nor any other group’s or country’s—first and foremost.

This is indeed their claim and it’s not necessary to accuse them of being disingenuous to be more than a little skeptical of its veracity. Take for example the AARP. They would stand fast against entitlement reform and in the same breath support increases in spending on education and other social programs, thereby refuting the critique that entitlements rob from the young and give to the old. Their interest is everyone’s interest according to them, and it may well be, and it may well be that they believe it, but that doesn’t mean the claim itself isn’t perfunctory. They do not oppose entitlement reform for the good of the Union, rather oppose it for the good of their constituency and then figure out how to argue that their opposition is for the good of the Union. This is the nature of special interests (e.g. is it conceivable under any circumstances that AIPAC would support an Arab league proposal over an Israeli one- even if US interests were served by the Arab league proposal?). Otherwise, as the authors point out, there would be no need for them.

So no, the authors have not come close to, “impugning without any evidence the loyalty of thousands of Americans”; a claim surely to be followed closely with allegations of anti-Semitism.

“Once you openly “accuse them of being disingenuous”—as Mearsheimer and Walt do—you’re simply arguing ad hominem.”

Except that, as I said, skepticism about the veracity of the claim doesn’t require the belief in its being disingenuous. The example of the AARP rather clearly illustrates what I mean- did you read it?

“This is, to be blunt, a stupid argument. If it had any validity, then we could infer that Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis was completely incorrect, merely from the fact that they felt the need to publish a paper about it. Why on earth, after all, would they need to argue on behalf of a point that they consider obviously correct?”

Then you have a different view of Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis than I have. My view of their thesis was that 1) the Israel lobby exerts definitive influence over US policy where Israel is concerned and 2) that the influence leads to policies that are not helpful to the US and hence that these policies are not in the strategic interest of the country. They also say that it is their belief that the policies advocated by various Israeli lobby organizations in the US are not helpful to Israel, (of which a good case could be made), but that is a tangential point (of which there are many- some more credible than others).

In any case, if I’m right than you may have to actually consider points 1 and 2 rather than accusing them of saying things that they haven’t.

Brendan, Bernard; Bernard, Brendan.

Not sure of your point here, but is it not true that Hussein attacked Israel with rockets?

Does nothing short of an invasion by ground troops count as an attack? Does Israel alone, among all nations, lack the right to retaliate against attackers?

In any case, if I’m right than you may have to actually consider points 1 and 2 rather than accusing them of saying things that they haven’t.

Hmm…perhaps you didn’t get to the part of the paper where they labeled AIPAC “a de facto agent for a foreign government”, and WINEP’s supporters and leaders as “individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda”. Or the bits about various neo-conservatives being “deeply committed to Israel”, or referring to their “devotion to Israel”. Or where they claimed that “the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate”, and that its “goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena.”

Or how about this paragraph:

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Do you still wish to claim that Mearsheimer and Walt don’t impugn the “Lobby’s” motives?

did I just see, in 137, a claim on the heels of that very argument that AIPAC has no history of arguing ad hominem?

I certainly don’t know that AIPAC has never wielded an ad hominem argument, and in case I haven’t made it clear already, I don’t see any justification for accusing Walt and Mearsheimer of anti-Semitism. But AIPAC and other supporters of Israel hardly dwell on such accusations against their opponents (have a look at their website if you don’t believe me). Rather, they focus on arguing the issues. In contrast, Mearsheimer and Walt spend, by my estimation, only about a quarter of their paper actually discussing the issue of American policy towards Israel. The rest is devoted to criticizing the methods–and worse, the motives–of those who disagree with them.

Are you saying that strictly speaking, it is always ad hominem to deduce someone’s level of commitment to a cause, or to open debate, from their actions?

To deduce, no–to argue for that deduction, of course. If I explain my motives for my actions, you are free to criticize either my actions or my professed motives. But if you can’t make the case against either of these without imputing some speculative alternative set of motives to me, then you have no case.

If I started denouncing you as an anti-Arab racist on this thread for trying to argue against Mearsheimer and Walt, would it be ad hominem for you to conclude that I don’t want an open debate?

I can conclude whatever I like about you, but “you don’t want an open debate” is an incredibly lame argument against–well, against pretty much anything. My inferences regarding your desires for open or closed debate would be entirely irrelevant to both my complaints about Mearsheimer and Walt and your charge against me. Invoking them would effectively be a plea for sympathy from onlookers–“trust my intuition about his feelings, not his explanation of them!”.

Obviously the authors allude to events and actions they don’t have space to go into in detail; you seem over-eager to try to read hints of anti-Semitism into this.

On the contrary–I have absolutely no idea why Mearsheimer and Walt are obsessed with the alleged motivations of those who advocate American support for Israel. I might be tempted to believe that they’re motivated by lack of a solid non-ad hominem case for their position. But in truth, if I had to guess, I’d guess that they actually believe that their position is rock-solid.

But it really doesn’t matter what motivates them. Likewise, their rantings about the methods and (especially) the motives of “the Lobby” are simply beside the point. Mearsheimer and Walt should have concentrated on the real issue–America’s optimal policy towards the Middle East. Of course, had they done so, their paper would have been much shorter and less controversial–although, I believe, just as transparently weak and ill-argued. The inflammatory accusations against “the Lobby” merely add sensationalism and bad-faith ad hominem argument to the list of the paper’s flaws.

“Speaking of lame arguments: comparing the general content of AIPAC’s website to the contents of a paper specifically about political tactics as if it proves something?”

The problem is that their argument about political tactics draws its conclusions in a circle.

It boils down to American policy in the Middle East ought to be ‘X’. They don’t define ‘X’ very well and even less do they justify why the policy ought to be ‘X’. They then assume that just because it ought to be ‘X’ (unproven but whatever) that the democratic process would naturally lead to ‘X’ if there weren’t meddling. That should be rather controversial in itself. Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that even if you correctly identify a better state, getting to it from the present state can be tricky.

Skipping over all that, they say that whatever ‘X’ is The Lobby absolutely definitely isn’t for anything like ‘X’. Therefore (smoke and hand-waving) the fact that the US policy is not ‘X’ must be because The Lobby is so powerful.

They fail to adequately explain what ‘X’ is, and they further fail to prove that:

‘X’ would be the ideal (or extremely good) policy.

‘X’ is the natural policy of the United States.

The United states doesn’t select ‘X’ because of some wrong-headed interest group.

The Lobby is that interest group.

I’d stopped monitoring this thread, but just to clarify on point 139. My wording was a little unclear earlier.

My point should have read:
If it is anti-semitic to ever observe that wealthy Jews support Israeli interests over those of the US, THen you are stating that it is anti-semitic to make a potentially truthful statement. Which I think is a very dangerous path to go down.

“Do you still wish to claim that Mearsheimer and Walt don’t impugn the “Lobby’s” motives?”

Not so sure. Reading the piece you’ve posted makes me think they didn’t leave any room for the possibility that the “Lobby’s” belief is that whatever is good for Israel, as they judge it, must be good for the United States. They could not have proof of what is in the hearts of the various individuals who are active in “the Lobby”, so this is polemical. This same carelessness does creep into their work in parts- notably through “slippage” from discussion of “the Lobby” as varying to homogenous- and is not flattering of it (in this example the carelessness does not imply what they say is wrong, but that it is gratuitous and relatedly, has the potential to be wrong).

As to the authors’ position, it is counterproductive but I have to say, I am somewhat sympathetic. Sympathetic because I have grown tired of the epidemic of cognitive dissonance in this country that has people believing whatever is in their best interest is in everyone’s no matter how little basis there is to believe that. Tax cuts that blow up the deficit and go mostly to the top quintile of the top 1%? Good for everyone! I have grown tired of the Skillings and Lays of this world masquerading their perfunctory prosthetic legitimations. And I believe that the Israeli lobby’s prosthetic legitimations are as perfunctory as any’s.

Having considered the locus of the problem however, I realize that this paper’s emphasis is misleading. It really wasn’t until after I had thought about it for a while that I realized that nearly all the critiques of Mearsheimer and Walt pick up on this issue of emphasis. In particular, it would appear in reading their work that the “Lobby” is solely responsible for the policies that they consider so reprehensible. But wait a second here- do our elected officials have no responsibility to act in the good of the country- to maintain fidelity to the Constitution? Yes, I’m certain I’ve read that somewhere. And what about our citizenry? Isn’t it their responsibility to hold the elected officials to account- to concern themselves with American actions abroad and to take an interest- to inform themselves? Sounds somewhat reasonable to me. And given that both of these rather important groups seem to have taken a flier on their responsibilities to God, country or whatever values they purport to have, is it really sensible to single out the special interest groups for blame? Especially in light of the epidemic of cognitive dissonance that’s going around? I would have to agree that it is not. That this particular item is the most damning short cut in a body of work that incorporates a number of short cuts.

The problem is not just the influence of the Israeli lobby. The problem is special interest influence which has gotten totally out of control. I missed it at first, (apropos), but this paper is missing the forest for the trees.