The Israel lobby: How powerful is it really?

[Wiilo]

By Stephen Zunes

 

(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)

 

Since its publication in the London Review of Books in March, John Mearsheimer's and Steve Walt's article "The Israel lobby and US foreign policy" - and the longer version published as a working paper for Harvard University's John F Kennedy School of Government - has received widespread attention from across the political spectrum.

 

These noted professors put forward two major arguments: the first is the very legitimate and widely acknowledged (outside of official Washington) concern that US Middle East policy, particularly US support for the more controversial policies of the Israeli government, is contrary to the long-term strategic interests of the

 

 

United States. Their second, and far more questionable, argument is that most of the blame for this misguided policy rests with the " Israel lobby" rather than with the more powerful interests that actually drive US foreign policy.

 

The Mearsheimer/Walt article has been met by unreasonable criticism from a wide range of rightist apologists for US support of the Israeli occupation, including Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel (who accused the authors of being "anti-Semites"), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (who falsely claimed that the authors gathered materials from websites of neo-Nazi hate groups), pundits such as Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, and publications such as the New York Sun and The New Republic. The authors have also been unfairly criticized for supposedly distorting the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though their overview is generally quite accurate. The problem is in their analysis.

 

The article has garnered unreasonable praise from many in progressive circles, who have posted it on websites, circulated it on listservs, and lauded it as an example of speaking truth to power. Though critiques in establishment circles of the bipartisan US support for the Israeli occupation are unusual and welcome, progressive promoters of the article have largely failed to assess the ideological agenda of its authors and the validity of their specific arguments.

 

It should be noted that Mearsheimer and Walt are prominent figures in the realist school of international relations, which discounts international law, human rights, and other legal and moral concerns in foreign policy. The realist tradition plays down diplomacy not backed by military force, belittles the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, and dismisses the growing role of international non-governmental organizations and popular movements.

 

With some notable exceptions, Mearsheimer and Walt were largely supportive of US foreign policy during the Cold War and subsequently. For example, during the 1980s, Mearsheimer - a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - opposed both a nuclear-weapons freeze and a no-first-use nuclear policy. A critic of non-proliferation efforts, Mearsheimer has defended India's atomic arsenal and has even called for the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states such as Germany and Ukraine. He was also an outspoken supporter of the 1991 US-led Gulf War.

 

It is ironic, then, that these two men have suddenly found themselves lionized by many progressive critics of US foreign policy as a result of their article. Any adulation should be tempered by the authors' blind acceptance of a number of naive assumptions regarding America's role in the world, such as their assertion that the foreign policy of the United States - the world's No 1 arms supplier for dictatorial regimes - is designed "to promote democracy abroad".

 

It is always welcome and significant when traditional conservatives, hawks, and others in the foreign-policy establishment speak out against specific manifestations of US foreign policy, such as when Mearsheimer and Walt joined other prominent conservatives in academia in opposing the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. However, such realist opposition grows not out of concern over any of the important moral or legal questions but out of a rational calculation that a particular war could lead to greater instability and thereby run counter to America's national-security interests. Indeed, Israel's violation of international legal norms and its impact on the civilian population in the occupied territories are mentioned in the article primarily as a way to counter claims that US policy in support of the Israeli government is based on a moral imperative.

 

What progressive supporters of Mearsheimer's and Walt's analysis seem to ignore is that both men have a vested interest in absolving from responsibility the foreign-policy establishment that they have served so loyally all these years. Israel and its supporters are in essence being used as convenient scapegoats for America's disastrous policies in the Middle East. And though they avoid falling into simplistic, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial notions regarding Jewish power and influence for the failures of US Middle East policy, it is nevertheless disturbing that the primary culprits they cite are largely Jewish individuals and organizations.

 

Also problematic are the article's references to US Middle East policy resulting in part from the influence of "Jewish voters", since most American Jews take more moderate positions regarding Iraq, Iran and Palestine than does Congress or the administration of President George W Bush. Similarly, while Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim that the Israel lobby is monolithic or centrally directed, they fail to emphasize how not all pro-Israel groups support the policies of the Israeli government, particularly its right-wing administrations. Groups such as Americans for Peace Now, the Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Israel Policy Forum all identify themselves as pro-Israel but oppose the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's unconditional support for Israeli policies.

 

 

WANT TO READ MORE GO TO: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE23Ak01.html