Tweet
Teh EV!L Israeli Lobby
The protocols of Harvard and Chicago
By Tom Segev
Stephen Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago; in their circles, they are considered important scholars. This week, the two caused a major uproar with a long essay about the influence of the Israel lobby, which they published in the March 23 issue of the highly prestigious London Review of Books. Their main assertion: The United States was dragged into the war in Iraq to promote the interests of Israel, as opposed to its own real interests. That happened, claim the two, because of the influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington.
The essay is worthy of attention because of its timing, three years after the start of a war that is now being viewed as one of the greatest failures in U.S. history. It cannot be dismissed as anti-Semitic nonsense, nor should it be attributed to the conspiracy theories produced by Noam Chomsky and his disciples.
The link between the Israel lobby and those in the White House who pushed President George W. Bush into attacking Iraq, leads Walt and Mearsheimer to assert that support for Israel no longer promotes the national interest of the United States, and that it is doubtful whether it ever did: At most it promoted politicians, who gave in to the Israel lobby because of its influence on voters, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Support for Israel is too expensive - $500 annually for every Israeli (not so much, actually) - and brings America into conflict with the Arab world; U.S. support for Israel led to the attack on the Twin Towers, write the two professors (this requires a more profound explanation).
Advertisement
The Israel lobby often claims that Israel and the U.S. share basic values. Not true, claim the authors: Israel's policy of occupation is not consonant with the basic values of American democracy. That is quite a pathetic argument: Israel held the values of democracy sacred at a time when several states in the United States were still prohibiting blacks, including the descendants of the slaves, from traveling in the same bus as whites. Even today, the United States is far removed from the values of justice that it presumes to represent, with its racial discrimination, death penalty and a concentration camp in Guantanamo.
In fact, it can be claimed that U.S. support for Israel reflects the fact that neither country respects the values of democracy, but this claim would destroy the thesis of the two respected scholars. Similarly, they do not confront the fact that the Israeli lobby in the U.S. usually operates by the accepted rules of the game in America, and expresses the view of a majority of Americans.
The article is very arrogant: Most of it is written in the past tense, as though reflecting historical research. In fact, the authors' academic degrees do not make their opinions any more worthy than those of readers of the newspapers that they often cite, including Haaretz, Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post. The editor who allowed the two to touch on so many topics that are irrelevant to the issue did not do them a favor: Yitzhak Shamir did in fact operate as a terrorist, but the Britons whose rule he wanted to eliminate also defined the fathers of American independence as terrorists. And who even remembers Shamir today? Similarly, I wouldn't have dragged the murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris into this debate: What for, dear professors? After all, not every anti-Semitic incident in the world is an Israeli invention, wouldn't you agree?
What begins as an attack on Israel and its lobby, soon turns out to be part of a domestic debate: One gets the impression that Walt and Mearsheimer attack U.S. support for Israel because they don't like President Bush. One can understand them. Apparently, they won't be angry if the Israel lobby decides that Bush is bad for Israel, and works against him. Nor would they be opposed if someone were to convince the administration to force Israel to withdraw from the territories.
They are right: Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better. Therefore, the authors are also correct in the most important argument in their essay, which unfortunately is too incidental: The Israel lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests. It made the continuation of the occupation and the settlements possible. Its influence led, among other things, to missing out on a peace treaty with Syria and to a loss of the opportunities created in Oslo. The effort to suppress the Palestinian national movement did not enhance Israel's security; on the contrary, it brought Hamas to power.
Now there is great excitement there in America on account of this essay, but maybe not really. Israel's influence is based on an ancient anti-Semitic myth about the Jews who rule the world. This is a myth that is self-fulfilling as long as the world believes in it: If you shatter it, you have eliminated Israel's influence. From that point of view, Walt and Mearsheimer are doing the Israel lobby a good service.
By Tom Segev
Stephen Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago; in their circles, they are considered important scholars. This week, the two caused a major uproar with a long essay about the influence of the Israel lobby, which they published in the March 23 issue of the highly prestigious London Review of Books. Their main assertion: The United States was dragged into the war in Iraq to promote the interests of Israel, as opposed to its own real interests. That happened, claim the two, because of the influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington.
The essay is worthy of attention because of its timing, three years after the start of a war that is now being viewed as one of the greatest failures in U.S. history. It cannot be dismissed as anti-Semitic nonsense, nor should it be attributed to the conspiracy theories produced by Noam Chomsky and his disciples.
The link between the Israel lobby and those in the White House who pushed President George W. Bush into attacking Iraq, leads Walt and Mearsheimer to assert that support for Israel no longer promotes the national interest of the United States, and that it is doubtful whether it ever did: At most it promoted politicians, who gave in to the Israel lobby because of its influence on voters, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Support for Israel is too expensive - $500 annually for every Israeli (not so much, actually) - and brings America into conflict with the Arab world; U.S. support for Israel led to the attack on the Twin Towers, write the two professors (this requires a more profound explanation).
Advertisement
The Israel lobby often claims that Israel and the U.S. share basic values. Not true, claim the authors: Israel's policy of occupation is not consonant with the basic values of American democracy. That is quite a pathetic argument: Israel held the values of democracy sacred at a time when several states in the United States were still prohibiting blacks, including the descendants of the slaves, from traveling in the same bus as whites. Even today, the United States is far removed from the values of justice that it presumes to represent, with its racial discrimination, death penalty and a concentration camp in Guantanamo.
In fact, it can be claimed that U.S. support for Israel reflects the fact that neither country respects the values of democracy, but this claim would destroy the thesis of the two respected scholars. Similarly, they do not confront the fact that the Israeli lobby in the U.S. usually operates by the accepted rules of the game in America, and expresses the view of a majority of Americans.
The article is very arrogant: Most of it is written in the past tense, as though reflecting historical research. In fact, the authors' academic degrees do not make their opinions any more worthy than those of readers of the newspapers that they often cite, including Haaretz, Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post. The editor who allowed the two to touch on so many topics that are irrelevant to the issue did not do them a favor: Yitzhak Shamir did in fact operate as a terrorist, but the Britons whose rule he wanted to eliminate also defined the fathers of American independence as terrorists. And who even remembers Shamir today? Similarly, I wouldn't have dragged the murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris into this debate: What for, dear professors? After all, not every anti-Semitic incident in the world is an Israeli invention, wouldn't you agree?
What begins as an attack on Israel and its lobby, soon turns out to be part of a domestic debate: One gets the impression that Walt and Mearsheimer attack U.S. support for Israel because they don't like President Bush. One can understand them. Apparently, they won't be angry if the Israel lobby decides that Bush is bad for Israel, and works against him. Nor would they be opposed if someone were to convince the administration to force Israel to withdraw from the territories.
They are right: Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better. Therefore, the authors are also correct in the most important argument in their essay, which unfortunately is too incidental: The Israel lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests. It made the continuation of the occupation and the settlements possible. Its influence led, among other things, to missing out on a peace treaty with Syria and to a loss of the opportunities created in Oslo. The effort to suppress the Palestinian national movement did not enhance Israel's security; on the contrary, it brought Hamas to power.
Now there is great excitement there in America on account of this essay, but maybe not really. Israel's influence is based on an ancient anti-Semitic myth about the Jews who rule the world. This is a myth that is self-fulfilling as long as the world believes in it: If you shatter it, you have eliminated Israel's influence. From that point of view, Walt and Mearsheimer are doing the Israel lobby a good service.
Comment