10: John Mersheimer’s observations on the current crisis (the one with Israel)
University of Chicago political scientist, John Mersheimer wrote with Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Though the two took a lot of heat, the book in many ways opened the current conversation about AIPAC. The credentials and moderate views of the two made it possible to have a normal discussion about the American-Israeli relationship. Here is Mersheimer on the recent flare up and his assessment of what is likely to happen.
“There will be more crises ahead, because a two-state solution is probably impossible at this point and ‘greater Israel’ is going to end up an apartheid state. The United States cannot support that outcome, however, partly for the strategic reasons that have been exposed by the present crisis, but also because apartheid is a morally reprehensible system that no decent American could openly embrace. Given its core values, how could the United States sustain a special relationship with an apartheid state? In short, America’s remarkably close relationship with Israel is now in trouble and this situation will only get worse.” http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/17/john-mearsheimer/taking-sides/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3206
UPDATE: Here are the views of the non-governmental U.S. foreign policy establishment: A Council on Foreign Policy round table: Elliot Abrams, Leslie Gelb, Daniel Senor, Steven Cook, and Steven Simon. http://www.cfr.org/publication/21671/usisrael.html
UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer announces that the whole thing is Obama’s fault! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802747.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The Los Angeles Times called Mearsheimer and Walt’s book a “malicious” “rhetorical cesspool.” Here’s the Anti-Defamation League on what they describe as “classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control.”
“…a biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy…
On every issue, the authors start with unproven, anti-Israel assumptions and then look for isolated examples to justify these assumptions. One does not have to take a pro-Israel position to recognize that the authors, despite their reputations, have no interest in producing a serious, balanced work. The result is a sloppy diatribe…to demonize what they describe as the “Israel lobby”…by definition working against what is good for America. …{the authors promote the] ideas that Jews…are more loyal to an outside party…than to their own country; and that Jews don’t function as individual citizens, but as a cabal.
All of these examples point to the authors’ relentless obsession to see the world through their own narrowly conceived and intentionally distorted prism. It makes for one of the most unprofessional works coming out of respectable quarters. Undoubtedly, the anti-Israel forces will be citing this study for a long time to come. Because of its extremism, however, we can hope that mainstream individuals and institutions will see it for what it is…”
http://www.adl.org/israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp
Read the book!
The ADL is not a credible critic of the book. It had mixed reviews when it appeared; some very critical, some accepting the main thesis about AIPAC while criticizing omissions; others were generally favorable.
Here is an excerpt from Tony Judt in the New York Times:
“[in] spite of [the paper's] provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources and is mostly uncontentious.” He goes on to ask “[does] the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course — that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That’s a matter of judgment.” He concludes the essay by taking the perspective that “this essay, by two ‘realist’ political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind.” And that “it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state.”[39]” The whole range of reactions can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
The responses of both the ADL and AIPAC over the last week and a half seems to pretty clearly confirm the Mersheimer-Walt thesis that there is an Israeli lobby that has an out-sized influence on U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East generally. Next week, we’ll see if they still have that clout.
Actually, your’re quite wrong. Here’s the ADL showing you how balance works:
Foxman slams Israel on Jerusalem announcement
March 11, 2010
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Israel’s announcement of new housing starts during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit was a “disaster,” Abraham Foxman said in a rare rebuke.
“Whatever the motivation and whoever the responsible party, it is the government of Israel that justifiably is held accountable for converting an optimal moment in U.S.-Israel relations into a moment of crisis,” Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, wrote in a post on the liberal Huffington Post Web site.
All things to all people:
Here is Foxman in today’s Ha’aretz:
“The continuation of the crisis is the fault of the U.S. Whatever happened, the prime minister apologized publicly and privately, issued a statement, the interior minister issued a statement, Israel did an al-het, [Biden] even accepted it. And then to wake up in the morning and to find [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley saying these terrible words – and this is not only the secretary of state, this is the president – and what’s worse, – with this linkage is also a belief that you can appease the Arabs, that all you must do is to placate them by giving them settlements.” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156488.html
I’ve been watching this for years and I have never understood what the “pro-Israel” position is. Within Israel there is a vigorous democracy with a great deal of internal criticism about the government. Are those critics anti-Semites too? Or is the the case that one has to actually be an Israeli in order to criticize the Israeli government, but that if one is not an Israeli, then to voice the very same criticisms makes one a racist?
“Pro-Israel”? At the moment this seems to mean pro-Likud and pro-Shas and the other right-wing parties in Netanyahu’s coalition; the bottom line more settlements, more settlers, and the eternal postponement of a Palestinian state. Israelis who are not part of this coalition understand that this is a no-win policy. Which Israelis will prevail; that remains to be seen.
For us, the question is why we acquiesce in further settlements?
Who is “us”?
Here’s the latest Gallup poll:
February 24, 2010
Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record High
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ — For the first time since 1991, more than 6 in 10 Americans — 63% — say their sympathies in the Middle East situation lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians.
If a pollster had called me, I would have said I support Israel. If given the chance, I would have also said that I don’t support Israel’s policies in the West Bank (settlements) and Gaza (the blockade).
Your far-flung fantasies aside (since deleted), Mr. Hanley, that’s what this discussion is about.
I’m relieved to hear you profess your support for Israel, Mrs. Steinfels.
Mazel tov!
And you, Mr. Hanley, you support what?
I support journalists who don’t make irresponsible allegations like this:
“The responses of both the ADL and AIPAC over the last week and a half seems to pretty clearly confirm the Mersheimer-Walt thesis that there is an Israeli lobby that has an out-sized influence on U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East generally.”
We’ll see proof of the pudding when AIPAC meets in Washington this week.