The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deuterium (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 7 April 2006 (Well poisoning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is a working paper published by John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Academic Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, in March, 2006 claiming that U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by AIPAC.

Summary

According to their paper, "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical".[1] Mearsheimer and Walt also argue that AIPAC is a source of serious concern for the United States' national security.[2]

Reception

Praise

The paper was called a "wake-up call" by Daniel Levy,[3] a former advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who went on to say "their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support".[4]

Former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, now of the Independent Institute, wrote that "The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby—validating both the lobby’s existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name." Peck is generally in agreement with the paper's core thesis: "Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies." [5]

David Duke involvement

The paper was also praised by David Duke,[6] [7] [8] who "devoted his entire half-hour Internet radio broadcast on March 18 to the paper",[9] and who, on March 21, 2006, was interviewed by Joe Scarborough regarding the paper on MSNBC's Scarborough Country program.[10] Duke has stated he is "surprised how excellent it is" and claimed his views had been "vindicated". According to Duke, "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons".

In response, Walt stated "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world".[11]

London Review of Books Editor Mary-Kay Wilmers, who originally published a shortened version of the paper responded to David Duke's praise: "I don't want David Duke to endorse the article. It makes me feel uncomfortable. But when I re-read the piece, I did not see anything that I felt should not have been said. Maybe it is because I am Jewish, but I think I am very alert to anti-Semitism. And I do not think that criticising US foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic. I just don't see it."[12]

Mixed reviews

Columnist Christopher Hitchens agreed that "AIPAC and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy", and stated that the paper "contains much that is true and a little that is original" and that he "would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt". However, he goes on to say "what is original is not true and what is true is not original", and that the notion that the "Jewish tail wags the American dog... the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and... the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden" is "partly misleading and partly creepy". [13]

A Haaretz editorial said that the paper expressed "an anti-Israeli feeling" and that it "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them". Although it goes on to say that "the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome." It concludes that "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."[14]

According to Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post "In the international online media, [the paper] has attracted largely positive coverage. By contrast, U.S. and Israeli commentators have described their findings as outrageous and scandalous."[15]

Criticism

The paper was criticized by Harvard University faculty and others; Marvin Kalb insisted it failed to meet basic quality standards for academic research, while Representative Eliot L. Engel described the authors as "dishonest so-called intellectuals" - he insisted they were "entitled to their stupidity", and had a right to publish it, but also supported "the right of the rest of us to expose them for being the anti-Semites they are."[16] The Anti-Defamation League published an analysis of the paper which described it as "amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy" and a "sloppy diatribe".[17] The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, described by Mearsheimer and Walt as "pro-Israel",[1] published a detailed study of the paper, saying that it was "riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject".[18]

Alan Dershowitz wrote an extensive repot challenging the factual basis of the report, the motiations of the authors and their scholarship. Dershowitz claimed that, "The paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrasingly weak logic is employed."[19]

Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, argues that the paper bears all the traditional hallmarks of anti-Semitism: "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews", accusations of Jews of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments", as well as selection of "everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group" and equally systematical suppression of "any exculpatory information".[20]

British journalist Melanie Phillips called the paper a "particularly ripe example of the ‘global Zionist conspiracy’ libel". According to Melanie Phillips, "[t]he fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in this LRB paper are quite astonishing." For example, she dismisses the paper's assertion that Israeli citizenship "is based on the principle of blood kinship" as "totally untrue" because "[a]rabs and other non-Jews are Israeli citizens." Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stands "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Melanie Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the London Review of Books". [21]

Responses to criticism

Harvard's Kennedy School of Government removed its logo, more strongly wording its disclaimer and making it more prominent, and insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors. [22] [23] [24] The Kennedy School said in a statement: "The only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors"[25] and stated that they are committed to academic freedom, and do not take a position on faculty conclusions and research. [26]

Mark Mazower, a professor of history at Columbia University, wrote that it is not possible to openly debate the topic of the article: "What is striking is less the substance of their argument than the outraged reaction: to all intents and purposes, discussing the US-Israel special relationship still remains taboo in the US media mainstream. [...] Whatever one thinks of the merits of the piece itself, it would seem all but impossible to have a sensible public discussion in the US today about the country’s relationship with Israel." [27]

Criticism of the paper has itself been called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in The Australian: "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views...Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interest." [28] The editor of the London Review of Books, Mary-Kay Wilmers said after the LRB was accused of anti-Semitism, "one of the most upsetting things is the way it can contribute to anti-Semitism in the long run just by making so many constant appeals and preventing useful criticism of Israel." [29]

Mearsheimer has stated, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby." [30] He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are philo-semites and strongly support the existence of Israel." [31]


See also

External links

References

  1. ^ a b Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  2. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Kennedy School of Government Working Paper Number:RWP06-011, March 13, 2006.
  3. ^ Levy, Daniel So pro-Israel that it hurts, Haaretz, March 25, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.
  4. ^ Goldberg, Nicholas. Who's afraid of the 'Israel Lobby'?, The Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.
  5. ^ Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby, Edward Peck, April 6 2006
  6. ^ Clyne, Meghan. Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel, New York Sun, March 21, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  7. ^ Guttman, Nathan. 'AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda', The Jerusalem Post, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.
  8. ^ Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke, The Washington Post, March 26, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.
  9. ^ Radin, Charles A. 'Israel lobby' critique roils academe, The Boston Globe, March 29, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006
  10. ^ 'Scarborough Country' for March 21, show transcript, MSNBC, March 21 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006
  11. ^ Lake, Eli. David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean, New York Sun, March 20, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.
  12. ^ Editor hits back over Israel row, Peter Beaumont, The Observer, April 2 2006
  13. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Overstating Jewish Power: Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby, Slate, March 27, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.
  14. ^ A warning from America, Haaretz Editorial, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 27, 2006.
  15. ^ Morley, Jefferson. Global Divide on Israel Lobby Study, Washington Post, March 31, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.
  16. ^ Clyne, Meghan. Harvard's Paper on Israel Called 'Trash' By Solon, New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  17. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise, Anti-Defamation League Analysis, March 24, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.
  18. ^ Safian, Alex. Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, March 20, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  19. ^ Dershowitz, Alan A reply to the Mearsheimer Walt "Working Paper", April 6, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.
  20. ^ Cohen, Eliot (2006-04-05). "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic". The Washington Post.
  21. ^ [1]Phillips, Melanie. The graves of academe. Accessed April 6, [[2006]
  22. ^ Clyne, Meghan. A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper, New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  23. ^ Rosner, Shmuel. Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper', Haaretz, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  24. ^ Safian, Alex. Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  25. ^ Borger, Julian. US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby, The Guardian, March 31, 2006. Accessed March 31, 2006.
  26. ^ Bhayani, Paras and Friedman, Rebecca. Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby', The Harvard Crimson, March 21, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.
  27. ^ When vigilance undermines freedom of speech, Mark Mazower, Financial Times, April 3 2006
  28. ^ Cut & paste: Let's have an open and honest debate about Israel, The Australian , April 3, 2006.
  29. ^ Beaumont, Peter. Editor hits back over Israel row, The Guardian, April 2, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.
  30. ^ Mekay, Emad. Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges, Inter Press Service News Agency, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.
  31. ^ Borger, Julian. US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby, The Guardian, March 31, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy&oldid=47379178"