I've just finished reading the remarkable book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The book basically argues that the Israel Lobby has much influence over U.S. policy toward the Middle East, and that this has
The authors Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Walt (Harvard University) were asked by the Atlantic Monthly to write an article about the Israel Lobby’s impact on U.S. foreign policy. According to the authors, the Atlantic didn’t want to publish it even though the edited version were in compliance with “prior agreements and incorporating virtually all of [the Atlantic’s] suggestions” (1). Instead, Mearsheimer and Walt managed to get the article published in the London Review of Books in March of 2006. The article eventually became this book. The article became very popular and criticised: the article was downloaded from university websites 275,000 times by July 2006, and it was attacked in several news papers by people in the Israel lobby, calling the authors anti-semites (2). The article also got much positive feedback and the discussion didn’t die out as some in the Lobby had predicted. The authors believe the article made evident that the policies pursued by the Lobby and the pro-Israel Christian right were not shared by the American people nor the mainstream Jewish community (3). Mearsheimer and Walt approached this topic not to point the finger at Israel or because they’re anti-American:
The special place Israel has in American politics is evident in that anyone who aspires to become the President of the United States “go to considarable lenghts to express their deep personal commitment [to Israel]” (5). Thus, support for defending Israel is an election-winning strategy and anyone who want to endorse more of a reciprocal policy on the Israel/Palestine issue, will most likely “fall by the wayside.”(6) Many politicians do mingle with the Israel Lobby: they speak at AIPAC’s conferences, e.g. presidential hopefuls Clinton and Obama, both expressing their commitment to Israel’s security. The question the authors pose is “[w]hy does Israel, and no other country in the world, receive such consistent deference from America’s leading politicians?” (7) They categorize common arguments as to why Israel receives such support: the strategic argument, which holds that Israel is an important strategic partner and; the moral argument, which emphazize the shared values of Israel and the United States. Both these lines of arguments are mistaken. Israel is a liability in pure strategic terms. At the same time, the authors believe there’s a moral case for protecting Israel if its survival was threatened, but as Israel commits autrocities or “brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Terroritories, moral considerations might suggest that the United States pursue a more evenhanded policy toward the two sides, and maybe even lean toward the Palestinians.”(8) The main reason, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, as to why the United States don’t have a more reciprocal approach to the Israel-Palestine question is the Israel Lobby.
The Lobby is described as a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations” that tries to influence US policy so that it favours Israel’s interests. The Lobby doesn’t control US policy and it’s not a conspiracy. Rather, it’s pursuing its aims overtly like any other lobby group, which is legitimate. The Lobby also exersice great influence over U.S. foreign policy, more than any other groups, and politicians from both the parties “fear the lobby’s clout” and therefore don’t want to criticize Israel (9).
The United States have been involved in the region since the Balford Declaration in 1917, which U.S. President Woodrow Wilson endorsed. In 1919, the U.S. send a delegation to inspect the British Mandate of Palestine and it even went against the proposition of the Balfourd Declaration, i.e. the establishment of a Jewish state, because that the inhabitants of the land opposed the influx of Zionist settlers (10). It wasn’t until after after the Six-Day War in 1967, that the United States would come to support Israel fully. Prior to 1967, the United States had tried to have a balanced policy toward the Middle East. Because of the Arab states was an important strategic assess the United States didn’t want to commit itself to Israel. In the Cold War era Israel was to be viewed as an important strategic asset because the Soviets supported the Arab states with arms sells. Another factor which helped change U.S. policy regarding the Middle East was the growing influence of the Israel Lobby (11). This has been partly due to the Lobby’s efforts to shape public discourse so that it portrays Israel as a strategic ally, and reflects the moral arguments for the special treatment of Israel. Merasheimer and Walt sees this phenomena in the discourse around Carter’s Israel-critic book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Because of his critique of Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories and that it resembles the Apartheid system, Carter has been smeared and deemed an anti-semite and even a Nazi-sympathiser. And because the Lobby’s arguments concerning the moral commitment to Israel and Israel as a strategic ally of the United States, Mearsheimer and Walt says, “it has little choice but to try to stifle or marginalize serious discussion.”(12) There is a discrepancy between what the American people think about support for Israel and the actual policy. Polls from 2006 for example show that 66 per cent of Americans think that the Israel Lobby has to much influence (13). The key point made by Mearsheimer and Walt is that this discrepancy is caused by the Lobby’s influence on Capital Hill. Accordingly, the Israel Lobby is by-passing the the electorate, i.e. the Lobby don’t have to try to persuade the American people anything, but the politicians directly. Consider the following short anecdot from Mearsheimer and Walt:
A significant problem to overcome when studying or debating the Israel Lobby becomes apparent when reading Mearsheimer and Walt’s book; the possibility of conflating the Israeli lobby with Judaism or a conspirity. When disclosing the influence of Jewish and pro-Israeli groups one at the very same time is giving leverage to anti-Semitic groups, no matter how one might articulate its case. This is a dilemma which Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledge, but they are in some sense ducking this issue: the bulk of the book explains that people who are pro-Israel exerts to much influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy. This influence or power is used to advance Israel’s objectives, and it has been a very successful enterprice so far. According to the authors, if it haven’t been for the Israel Lobby U.S. policy would have been more reciprocal, and in effect this would probably have made the Middle East look quite differently than it does. I’m not sure if Mearsheimer and Walt successfully demonstrate the difference between a powerful and thus influential Israel Lobby and a “secret Jewish conspiracy”. The argument that the Lobby exercises their power openly isn’t a good enough argument, because we can just choose to call it an “open conspiracy”. They correctly argue that the Lobby’s power isn’t to say that the Lobby controls the United States, but for the people in for example Palestine it probably looks a lot like it. Another issue which Mearsheimer and Walt fail to address is the normative question whether or not the lobby system is a healthy feature in American politics. If the lobbying groups are by-passing and surpassing the American electorate, what does it mean for the democratic system? This question is paramount, but because Mearsheimer and Walt are themselves Americans, brought up in this political culture, they don’t give any indication that they’ve given this much thought. They contend that the lobbying firms are doing things that any one can do. It‘s as if all Americans are on the same level of influence. As if most Americans could give up their jobs and lobby for their cause. This is analogous to a notion that is commonly held by liberals, i.e. it’s the same for everybody. Well, this is incorrect. Now, the people lobbying for Israel are, according to the authors, much better organized the average groups who summon people to demonstrations because they usually do it on their spare time. The advocators of Israel are perhaps also more ambitious and diligent when it comes to forwarding their issues, while their would be opponents are not. The core criticism of the lobby system is that individuals and groups exercise great influence over decision makers and thus by-passing the voters who are supposed to exercise that power. This is a problem for democracy, not an inevitably feature of a political system. In this respect, I believe that Mearsheimer and Walt fails to adress the core issue, namely the lobbying system itself.
Notes:
(1) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. vii. According to former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and AIPAC official, Martin Indyk, the Atlantic thought it was to long and Mersheimer and Walt didn’t want cut the article’s size. ( “This House believes the pro-Israeli lobby has succefully stifled Western debate about Israel’s actions”, The Doha Debates [www.thedohadebates.com/debates/debate.asp?d=10&s=3&mode=transcript])
(2) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. viii.
(3) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. ix. (4) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. x. (5) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 3.
(6) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 3.
(7)Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 5.
(8) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 5.
(9) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 6.
(10) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 7.
(11) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 7.
(12) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10.
(13) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10.
(14) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10-11.
The authors Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Walt (Harvard University) were asked by the Atlantic Monthly to write an article about the Israel Lobby’s impact on U.S. foreign policy. According to the authors, the Atlantic didn’t want to publish it even though the edited version were in compliance with “prior agreements and incorporating virtually all of [the Atlantic’s] suggestions” (1). Instead, Mearsheimer and Walt managed to get the article published in the London Review of Books in March of 2006. The article eventually became this book. The article became very popular and criticised: the article was downloaded from university websites 275,000 times by July 2006, and it was attacked in several news papers by people in the Israel lobby, calling the authors anti-semites (2). The article also got much positive feedback and the discussion didn’t die out as some in the Lobby had predicted. The authors believe the article made evident that the policies pursued by the Lobby and the pro-Israel Christian right were not shared by the American people nor the mainstream Jewish community (3). Mearsheimer and Walt approached this topic not to point the finger at Israel or because they’re anti-American:
[W]e adress this topic because it is central to some of the moral arguments commonly used to justify an exceptional level of U.S. support for the Jewish State. We focus on Israel’s behaviour […] because the United States focuses an extraordinary degree of support on Israel. (4)
The special place Israel has in American politics is evident in that anyone who aspires to become the President of the United States “go to considarable lenghts to express their deep personal commitment [to Israel]” (5). Thus, support for defending Israel is an election-winning strategy and anyone who want to endorse more of a reciprocal policy on the Israel/Palestine issue, will most likely “fall by the wayside.”(6) Many politicians do mingle with the Israel Lobby: they speak at AIPAC’s conferences, e.g. presidential hopefuls Clinton and Obama, both expressing their commitment to Israel’s security. The question the authors pose is “[w]hy does Israel, and no other country in the world, receive such consistent deference from America’s leading politicians?” (7) They categorize common arguments as to why Israel receives such support: the strategic argument, which holds that Israel is an important strategic partner and; the moral argument, which emphazize the shared values of Israel and the United States. Both these lines of arguments are mistaken. Israel is a liability in pure strategic terms. At the same time, the authors believe there’s a moral case for protecting Israel if its survival was threatened, but as Israel commits autrocities or “brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Terroritories, moral considerations might suggest that the United States pursue a more evenhanded policy toward the two sides, and maybe even lean toward the Palestinians.”(8) The main reason, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, as to why the United States don’t have a more reciprocal approach to the Israel-Palestine question is the Israel Lobby.
The Lobby is described as a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations” that tries to influence US policy so that it favours Israel’s interests. The Lobby doesn’t control US policy and it’s not a conspiracy. Rather, it’s pursuing its aims overtly like any other lobby group, which is legitimate. The Lobby also exersice great influence over U.S. foreign policy, more than any other groups, and politicians from both the parties “fear the lobby’s clout” and therefore don’t want to criticize Israel (9).
The United States have been involved in the region since the Balford Declaration in 1917, which U.S. President Woodrow Wilson endorsed. In 1919, the U.S. send a delegation to inspect the British Mandate of Palestine and it even went against the proposition of the Balfourd Declaration, i.e. the establishment of a Jewish state, because that the inhabitants of the land opposed the influx of Zionist settlers (10). It wasn’t until after after the Six-Day War in 1967, that the United States would come to support Israel fully. Prior to 1967, the United States had tried to have a balanced policy toward the Middle East. Because of the Arab states was an important strategic assess the United States didn’t want to commit itself to Israel. In the Cold War era Israel was to be viewed as an important strategic asset because the Soviets supported the Arab states with arms sells. Another factor which helped change U.S. policy regarding the Middle East was the growing influence of the Israel Lobby (11). This has been partly due to the Lobby’s efforts to shape public discourse so that it portrays Israel as a strategic ally, and reflects the moral arguments for the special treatment of Israel. Merasheimer and Walt sees this phenomena in the discourse around Carter’s Israel-critic book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Because of his critique of Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories and that it resembles the Apartheid system, Carter has been smeared and deemed an anti-semite and even a Nazi-sympathiser. And because the Lobby’s arguments concerning the moral commitment to Israel and Israel as a strategic ally of the United States, Mearsheimer and Walt says, “it has little choice but to try to stifle or marginalize serious discussion.”(12) There is a discrepancy between what the American people think about support for Israel and the actual policy. Polls from 2006 for example show that 66 per cent of Americans think that the Israel Lobby has to much influence (13). The key point made by Mearsheimer and Walt is that this discrepancy is caused by the Lobby’s influence on Capital Hill. Accordingly, the Israel Lobby is by-passing the the electorate, i.e. the Lobby don’t have to try to persuade the American people anything, but the politicians directly. Consider the following short anecdot from Mearsheimer and Walt:
Steven Rosen, the former AIPAC official who has been indicted for allegedly passing classified documents to Israel, illustrated AIPAC’s power for the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.” These are not idle boasts. […]when issues relating to Israel come to the fore, Congress almost always votes to endorse the lobby’s positions […]. (14)
A significant problem to overcome when studying or debating the Israel Lobby becomes apparent when reading Mearsheimer and Walt’s book; the possibility of conflating the Israeli lobby with Judaism or a conspirity. When disclosing the influence of Jewish and pro-Israeli groups one at the very same time is giving leverage to anti-Semitic groups, no matter how one might articulate its case. This is a dilemma which Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledge, but they are in some sense ducking this issue: the bulk of the book explains that people who are pro-Israel exerts to much influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy. This influence or power is used to advance Israel’s objectives, and it has been a very successful enterprice so far. According to the authors, if it haven’t been for the Israel Lobby U.S. policy would have been more reciprocal, and in effect this would probably have made the Middle East look quite differently than it does. I’m not sure if Mearsheimer and Walt successfully demonstrate the difference between a powerful and thus influential Israel Lobby and a “secret Jewish conspiracy”. The argument that the Lobby exercises their power openly isn’t a good enough argument, because we can just choose to call it an “open conspiracy”. They correctly argue that the Lobby’s power isn’t to say that the Lobby controls the United States, but for the people in for example Palestine it probably looks a lot like it. Another issue which Mearsheimer and Walt fail to address is the normative question whether or not the lobby system is a healthy feature in American politics. If the lobbying groups are by-passing and surpassing the American electorate, what does it mean for the democratic system? This question is paramount, but because Mearsheimer and Walt are themselves Americans, brought up in this political culture, they don’t give any indication that they’ve given this much thought. They contend that the lobbying firms are doing things that any one can do. It‘s as if all Americans are on the same level of influence. As if most Americans could give up their jobs and lobby for their cause. This is analogous to a notion that is commonly held by liberals, i.e. it’s the same for everybody. Well, this is incorrect. Now, the people lobbying for Israel are, according to the authors, much better organized the average groups who summon people to demonstrations because they usually do it on their spare time. The advocators of Israel are perhaps also more ambitious and diligent when it comes to forwarding their issues, while their would be opponents are not. The core criticism of the lobby system is that individuals and groups exercise great influence over decision makers and thus by-passing the voters who are supposed to exercise that power. This is a problem for democracy, not an inevitably feature of a political system. In this respect, I believe that Mearsheimer and Walt fails to adress the core issue, namely the lobbying system itself.
Notes:
(1) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. vii. According to former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and AIPAC official, Martin Indyk, the Atlantic thought it was to long and Mersheimer and Walt didn’t want cut the article’s size. ( “This House believes the pro-Israeli lobby has succefully stifled Western debate about Israel’s actions”, The Doha Debates [www.thedohadebates.com/debates/debate.asp?d=10&s=3&mode=transcript])
(2) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. viii.
(3) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. ix. (4) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. x. (5) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 3.
(6) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 3.
(7)Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 5.
(8) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 5.
(9) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 6.
(10) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 7.
(11) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 7.
(12) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10.
(13) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10.
(14) Mearsheimer J. John, Walt M. Stephen (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. NY, Farras, Straus and Giroux. p. 10-11.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar