The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mearsheimer (front) and Walt (back) at a presentation of their book at the Council for American-Islamic Relations after the end of the Lebanon War in 2006

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy ( English for " The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy 's") are published by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt from the year of 2006.

content

In it, the authors put forward the thesis that the largely unreserved support of Israel by the USA, which has been established since the late 1960s, runs counter to the interests of the United States and ultimately harms both states. The publication of the article sparked controversy in many countries, as the authors blamed the work of a pro-Israel lobby in the United States for the country's departure from objective American interests in the Middle East.

The article was originally commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly in 2002 , which eventually refused to reprint it. In March 2006 the text was printed in the London Review of Books . An expanded version was published in book form on September 4, 2007, simultaneously in English and a German translation. The following text deals with the journal article published in 2006.

Theoretical background

Mearsheimer and Walt approach the topic from the standpoint of neorealism in international relations , a sociological branch of political science. Neorealism represents a structuralist and behavioralist sub-theory of realism . This school of thought sees states as principled actors in international politics which, due to a lack of global sovereignty , find themselves in ongoing decentralized security- political competition with one another. Therefore, the maintenance and possible gains of power , especially hard power , are the mainspring of the international state.

Within neorealism, Walt and Mearsheimer often come to different views, owing to a substantial theoretical difference. Mearsheimer is the founder of the so-called "offensive realism" that he expounded in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics in 2001. In contrast, Walt's research has contributed significantly to “defensive realism”. While offensive realism basically assumes that a state ultimately strives for a hegemonic position in the international state system, advocates of defensive realism point out that the costs of such an approach for most states outweigh the ultimate benefit. They therefore prefer, for example, alliances as a model of security policy.

Overall, both Mearsheimer and Walt emphasize the unpredictability and volatility of international politics. The security of a state is in the foreground for guaranteeing its political capacity to act internally as well as externally. Against this background, realism largely subordinates deontological considerations both in analysis and in conclusion to security interests, "[the] national interest should come first in US foreign policy." In moral theory, political realism can therefore be assigned to consequentialism .

Both authors work together to popularize their research results. On September 26, 2002, for example, they published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times that criticized the ongoing plans for the eventual invasion of Iraq with six objections, and was signed by 31 other high-ranking political scientists. All stripes of realism argued that Iraq was largely contained and warned of the consequences of intervening.

theses

Against this theoretical background, the authors use the central line of argument that the Middle East policy of the United States under the Bush administration (2001–2009) does not pursue the actual interests of their country. One might assume "that the bond between the two countries is based on common strategic interests or on the enforcement of moral imperatives". Mearsheimer and Walt try to show, however, that "none of these justifications can adequately explain the remarkable amount of material and diplomatic support the US has given Israel". The authors blame a “loose association [sic!] Of individuals and organizations that are actively working to give US foreign policy a pro-Israeli direction” for the distortion of American self-interest .

They support this thesis with three main arguments. Firstly, the strategic value of Israel to the United States has declined since the end of the Cold War , secondly, the justification for the unreserved moral support of Israel has steadily dwindled, and thirdly, the influence of pro-Israeli groups has steadily increased regardless of foreign policy developments.

The authors question the strategic use of Israel in two respects. Already "Israel's strategic value during [the Cold War] [...] should not be exaggerated", as this is implicitly accused of pro-Israeli opinions. After that, Israel became "a strategic burden" for the US. Unlike the Soviet Union, which is perceived as threatening, they believe that terrorism is not a “tactic” to unite the opponents in the Middle East. They also question the often cited immovable loyalty of Israel.

Mearsheimer and Walt also dispute the normative reasons that are often cited for supporting Israel. The existence of Israel is justified and worthy of support, but not in acute danger. Explanations going beyond this, such as the democratic state, security interests and the Holocaust, lose credibility in view of Israeli history and domestic and occupation policies and would put a strain on relations with Arab states. For example, the Israeli and American understanding of democracy would diverge greatly on some points and the ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank would violate repeated American statements. In addition, the argument is invalid simply because the United States has repeatedly supported non-democratic governments for reasons of state .

Most of the paper examines the influence of the “Israel lobby” in detail. In the article and in public appearances, Mearsheimer and Walt rejected the accusation that they were speaking out against an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about the influence of a Jewish lobby in the US. On several occasions they emphasized the diversity of pro-Israel - Jewish and non-Jewish - lobbying work ranging from moderate to conservative individuals and organizations. In doing so, they compared the most prominent group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with other major lobbyists such as the AARP pensioners 'representatives , the National Rifle Association or the AFBF farmers' representatives, and in foreign policy groups with the lobby of the Cuban exiles . In a panel discussion at MIT , the authors regretted having retained their catchphrase “Israel lobby” instead of “Pro Israel lobby” or even “Pro Likud lobby”.

reception

United States

In a column on April 5, 2006, military historian Eliot A. Cohen accused Walt and Mearsheimer of making anti-Semitic arguments. While her article contained numerous factual half-truths, Cohen alienated the authors' turn to a domestic political issue, although the canon of political realism usually rejects such a methodology. The anti-Semitic content of the essay made Cohen an "obsessive and irrational hostile attitude towards Jews", which exposes them to "accusations of faithlessness, subversion and betrayal". According to him, Mearsheimer and Walt subsumed as a lobby individuals and persons between whom there were considerable differences of opinion, such as The Washington Times and The New York Times , research institutes such as the Brookings Institution or the American Enterprise Institute , or the architects and opponents of the Oslo peace process .

The essay was also criticized by Jeffrey Herf and Samuel G. Freedman . In 2012, Norman Finkelstein questioned Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis that the Israel lobby not only influences the US attitude to Israel and Palestine, but also that of other countries such as Iraq and Iran .

The NZZ stated that the major media were reluctant to make an assessment, but a debate had broken out on the Internet which, in the assessment of the NZZ author, was “consistently negative”. Even Christopher Hitchens had gone with the book to task which apparently founded on wishful thinking and characterize wrong out of this problem.

In a brief review of the magazine Foreign Affairs , the historian L. Carl Brown judges the work of Walt and Mearsheimer as a worthy analysis of the influence of lobby groups on American foreign policy. Walter Russell Mead sees the study rather critically. Although he praises the hitherto neglected approach of examining the principles of American foreign policy in the Middle East and the influence of non-state actors on Washington's decision-making, he accuses the authors of superficial, sometimes simplistic analyzes and incorrect judgments. Among other things, the key term lobby is not adequately defined and groups as diverse as AIPAC and Americans for Peace Now are subsumed under it. Mead also criticizes the extensive equation of neoconservatism and uncompromising pro-Israel politics. He protects them against the accusation of anti-Semitism and sees this impression as caused by inexperienced linguistic means.

Germany

In Germany, the book sparked a controversy between Alan Posener and Lorenz Jäger . Posener sharply criticized the book. The two scientists “not only turned the facts upside down, but also used a lot of anti-Semitic prejudices”. Posener believes it is undisputed that there is a pro-Israel lobby in America. To attribute this decisive influence on the foreign policy of the USA belongs to the area of ​​the conspiracy theory. Lorenz Jäger again criticized Posener's negative review. Conspiracy theory is "a fighting term that can frighten first-year students". It could not be “that the sociology of certain actors should be excluded from research”. The Innsbruck historian Helmut Reinalter denies that the book is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet": The authors did not show any aversion to Jews, nor was the lobby's attitude inadmissibly generalized, since Mearsheimer and Walt point to the minority position that they hold within the majority take liberal American Jewry; Since the lobby is just as open as other interest groups, the accusation that the presentation is conspiratorial is not conclusive. According to Walter Laqueur , the article, published in 2006, contains countless errors that have only been partially eliminated in the book edition.

literature

to the essay

to the book

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b c d John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. 2006.
  2. ↑ War In Iraq Is Not In Our National Interest . In: The New York Times . September 26, 2002 (copy in Bear Left! )
  3. ^ Eliot A. Cohen: Yes, It's Anti-Semitic . In: The Washington Post . April 5, 2006.
  4. ^ Letters . In: London Review of Books. 28, No. 7, April 6, 2006.
  5. ^ Samuel G. Freedman: In the Diaspora: A footnote's footnote . In: The Jerusalem Post . April 25, 2006.
  6. ↑ Natasha Mozgovaya: Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing. In: Haaretz . April 5, 2012, accessed March 15, 2013 .
  7. ↑ The Iraq war to show the influence of the Israel lobby , NZZ, April 9, 2006; Hitchens: The essay contains a lot “that is true and some that is new. But what is new is not true, and what is true is not new. "
  8. ^ L. Carl Brown: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy . In: Council on Foreign Relations (Ed.): Foreign Affairs . Volume 85, No. 5 (September / October). New York City 2006, Recent Books.
  9. ^ Walter Russell Mead: Jerusalem Syndrome: Decoding The Israel Lobby . In: Council on Foreign Relations (Ed.): Foreign Affairs . Volume 86, No. 6 (November / December). New York City 2007, Recent Books.
  10. ^ Alan Posener : Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory . Deutschlandradio Kultur , September 7, 2007.
  11. ↑ Lorenz Jäger : Debate: Does Israel Have a Lobby? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . November 15, 2007.
  12. ↑ Lorenz Jäger : The military-ideological complex . In: International Politics . No. 5, May 2008, pp. 52-61.
  13. ↑ Helmut Reinalter: The World Conspirators: What You Should Never Know . Ecowin Verlag, Salzburg 2010, p. 144 f.
  14. ↑ Walter Laqueur: A Guide for Conspirators . In: The world . September 8, 2007.