Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
About the anti-Israel lobby
Stephen Walt is another blogger on this site. So now we share two publishers. The other one we share, Farrar Straus & Giroux, published my last book and is publishing my next one and also published his book The Israel Lobby. As a consequence of this proximity, I followed the launch of that book and the hubbub over its stunning finding that there was an organized effort in the United States to promote America's support of Israel.
Upon this banal, dog-bites-man foundation, was built a frail intellectual framework arguing that America actually did not really have a strategic interest in maintaining close ties with Israel and supporting her and that we would actually be better off backing away from that relationship which had, in the eyes of Walt and his coauthor John Mearsheimer, become a liability. Walt continues his, how shall I put it, crusade?, jihad?...against this nefarious lobby and U.S. support for Israel on this website. He has sketched out a thought experiment in which he posits what might happen were it a few orthodox Jews fighting for their freedom in Gaza rather than the Palestinians. He has quoted George Orwell to make the point that he feels we are overlooking Israeli abuses against the Palestinians. He has suggested that the media is making Israel's case for it. (Please let me know where I can tune in to that. Mostly I get the opposite. Sometimes I think, the BBC ought to rename itself Death-to-Israel TV. I am often glad my college French is not good enough to watch the nightly news from Paris.)
In short, he has become as biased a pleader of special interests as he accuses the Israel Lobby of being. And as such he has become a member of the anti-Israel Lobby, a group that is every bit as vocal and at the moment seems to be even more empowered than the its counterpart. Members include Jimmy Carter and his former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, celebrity activists like Richard Gere, and many members of the media. Like the members of the Israel Lobby, they found their case on some very reasonable assertions. The Palestinians should have a state of their own and their plight is dismal. It is also a terrible tragedy that so many are the innocent victims of the conflict between Israel and, at the moment, Hamas.
But just as proponents of a strong U.S. relationship with Israel would do well to realize the damage that has been done to Israel's case by over-aggressive actions (most egregiously those associated with the brutal and mismanaged invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s), proponents of the Palestinian cause would do well to recognize that is grotesquely counter-productive to explicitly or implicitly support the leadership or the interests of Hamas, Iranian-backed terrorists who have violated their public trust with the Palestinian people by both failing to serve their basic needs and actively choosing to put them at mortal risk.
You want a thought experiment? What if Palestinian "freedom fighters" indiscriminately launched missiles into Israel, failing to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people only through ineptitude, and then they rushed back into densely populated civilian areas and hid behind women and children for cover? Of course, my thought experiment is even more worth thinking about for reasons that should starkly apparent to everyone, regardless of which lobby they may support.
Or what if the extremist leaders of Iran, avowed enemies of the United States and Israel, spent millions to support a terrorist group that sought to conduct a hostile political takeover of Lebanon and use it as a base to support elements of the ruling party in the Palestinian territories that viewed itself primarily as an agent for the destruction of Israel? Or what if the costs of continued conflict for the Palestinians, the Israelis, the United States, and the region were so high in human and economic terms, that all sides recognized that it was in their interests to combat the polarization of views that has protracted the conflict and work on implementing the end-state that virtually all have agreed is the only sustainable option: two countries, an internationally protected border, and a shift of focus from war to the kind of economic growth that is the ultimate peacekeeper.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
Is there an argument here?
I guess this qualifies as the kind of legendary discussion Foreign Policy is known for.
The argument, best as I can tell, is this:
1. Israel bias? Two words: Richard. Gere.
2. No, you're a lobby.
3. It's bad to "explicitly or implicitly support the leadership or the interests of Hamas." Deep.
4. And it ends with some self-righteous huffing about being above it all.
That should do it.
Is the US Always Right?
Your reference to 'the extremist leaders of Iran' contemplates that the US is moderate. However, I have long thought that the US is a dangerous nation that bullies and terrorises other nations and destabilises countries that it does not like. For instance, in the name of goodness, it goes half way around the world to bomb Iraq into a rock pile and to impose its will on other nations .
The US has long interfered in the affairs of other nations, covertly and overtly, and caused them enormous harm. Its justifications have been shown to be intellectually bereft. Consider the Domino Effect in Vietnam and WMD in Iraq. Both theories have been exposed as running on empty. Nevertheless, the US is convinced that its actions are justified, if not justified.
Presumably, the US is of the opinion that if other nations support its actions then they are on the side of 'goodness' but if they counter US interests then they are dangerous terrorists. Therefore, if Iran decides that it is wrong for the US to be in its backyard that argument has no validity.
The US is a dangerous nation. I will not be surprised if the US starts to falter because its bank balance is too overdrawn as a consequence of spending its dollars on bombs that have been dropped on other nations in the name of 'goodness'.
...?
I did not see much to argue with in this post, since I'm having difficulty locating its substance. But this quote just seems laughable. Has David Rothkopf ever watched American television? (Note that his evidence - scant as it is - is the BBC. The word "British" is in there for a reason.)
My sympathies tend to be with the Israelis, but is this all the bloggers on the site can muster against Walt's posts?
Israel is a woman?
Of course not. This may be a small grammar (and gender) quibble, but why does Mr. Rothkopf use the third person impersonal feminine pronoun? Imagine writing about Hamas and "her interests." Please use the impersonal in English when writing about a country.
As to the deeper issue here, my sympathies also lie squarely with the Israelis. Yet Mr. Rothkopf continues to fail to suggest how the campaign against Hamas will further Israel's security interests. It continues to have the opposite effect.
David, you're not good at
David, you're not good at explaining to anti-Israeli's about "the lobby".
First of all, it exists. There is no need to deny it. In fact denying it, is counterproductive.
Second of all, it is efficient, and successful. No need to deny that either. People can learn from our success, they should. It helps democracy.
Third, it is more informal, than formal, more about supporting Israel, than about coordinating. That needs to be clear to people.
It is the truth which is on Israel's side, not a lobby. In as much people are interested in this truth, they will join the lobby and defend Israel's interests.
Look at me, a schmuck on the internet. Do I get paid, do I organise or coordinate with AIPAC? No.
Does AIPAC always speak to me. No. Do I share the basic ideology of those who defend Israel. You sure bet I do. So does AIPAC. Hence I appreciate its work, overall. It's not always right, but without it, my voice would be all that smaller.
What we need to explain to the Walt's, is that while there is a strong Jewish and Evangelical movement favoring Israel, it is based on an interpretation of the world, which has nothing to do with dual-loyalties, but simply with reason. It isn't all tribal politics, nor sentiment. Since Jews comprise both sides of the Israel spectrum, the charge of tribalism is dubious. Any decent opinion poll of Jews in America, shows we are the most normative in terms of Israel. We are both its most vocal critics, and most ardent supporters. How do explain this, if we are so tribal?
Second, David. What you need to do, from the position of power you enjoy being able to blog here at FP, is expose the Arab lobby. It's been too long that official Jewish organizations try to shield these lobbies from scrutiny, for reasons not all together justified. This is where I have an axe to grind with AIPAC and the Presidents Conference.
I invite you David, to simply get FARA records for the last 8 years, and add up the money Saudi Arabia spent lobbying the US government. For some reason, not one site on the internet keeps track of these numbers, but I've counted them, and they are big. Then add the vast sums of money Bin Talal and his foundations pump into PR on behalf of Islam and Saudi Arabia, and add it up to the efforts by Saudi Arabia to lobby our government. Then add all the Bechtels and Chevron's, consistently anti-Israeli, consistently supporting the Arab boycotts of Israel. Pretty soon you understand that there is an Arab lobby, and it is vast, and it is 100 %, at every single turn, anti Israel.
American readers also deserve to know about the rest of the world, and how biased coverage is against Israel. Uk, France, Germany, China, Russia, Latin America- all anti-Israel. From the Pope to Mufti such and such, all anti-Israel. The Arabs-Muslims have more than 60 seats in the UN. They have a Muslim League, whose job is to harass Israel. They have powerful ethnic lobbies across all of Europe, across the entire developed world. They wield vast oil reserves and push neutral and non-aligned countries against Israel. They field terrorist organizations, finance conspiracies, provide weapons and moral sustenance to those out to kill Israelis.
You could go and on and on.
Now Walt will retort, that with all that, they still can't break the power of the Israel lobby. Darned right they can't, because with all that, the truth is still out there. Our congressmen and women know the odds against Israel, know how hard Israel works to play fair, know full well how much easier it is for them to deal with Israel, due to political commonality, to analyze and understand Israel, than with its neighbors who are wary of America, profoundly anti-American, and with non-transparent regimes. If Walt wants to be honest, most congressmen and women ARE PART of the pro-Israel lobby. And rightfully so! Their politics isn't informed by thugs, by savages lobbying rockets into suburbs. They understand what sovereignty means, and they know what a people ruled by thugs, tyrants, and terrorists, act like. They are fully aware of all the odds against Israel, and they are bombarded daily by Islamist and Arabs, nagging them about Israel.
Maybe one of our media's greatest failings, is to not let the Anti-Israeli's speak more. When you expose their lies and manipulation, their cause suffers. That's why congress doesnt' trust, or listen to these thugs, because they badger away at it.
So yes, there is a powerful Jewish lobby out there. It is united by clarity of vision, not power. The Walt's of the world point to us and say "aha, power, influence, distortion". The reality is "knowledge, truth, hard work." The Result, a Well Informed Congress.
Yes, the masses would have Hamas rain bombs on Israel, until all Israeli's swim across the Atlantic. No, the Congressmen of America understand, that you cannot allow a terrorist gangrene further eat away at statehood. They already screwed up in Somalia, and look where its been for 20 years. Everywhere, statesmen undervalued statehood, and now they are begging for fortune not to treat them roughly. They are hoping no further states decline into anarchy.
Thanks to people who defend Israel's statehood, our congressmen keep anarchy at bay. If ever a day comes, when the Arab lobby wins over our congress entirely, its curtains for Reason as such.
David Rothkopf, you are a
David Rothkopf, you are a zionist. You have no valid arguments so you present invalid ones. Bad job.
The problem americans face is that the conflict between israel and palestine is not a battle between right and wrong, but instead is a battle between wrong and wrong. It's bad gainst bad. Evil against evil.
Anybody who supports either side is a fool or a knave. You, David Rothkopf, are a knave.
To have a chance at anything like peace for israel/palestine, we need a blockade. Not one liter of oil, not one gram of food or fiber or metal imported into israel/palestine until all governments in the area dissolve themselves and all armies or armed gangs disarm. Treat the whole thing the way israel has treated gaza.
And then run it as a UN protectorate for the indefinite future. Maybe move the UN headquarters to Jerusalem as the world capital -- they probably don't belong in NYC.
Neither israelis nor palestinians have given any sign they're ready for self-government. Supporting israelis against palestinians is like supporting serbs against albanians.
Let the UN into Gaza
You are absolutely right....
Day 5 of the battle of Gaza and although Israel is winning on the ground the sand is shifting under its feet. Each passing hour is bringing more death and destruction to the people of Gaza and more support for the radicals in Hamas. What are the likely outcomes here?
- Israel kills off all the Hamas leadership, withdraws, shuts the gates and leaves the population with a leadership vacuum.
- Israel installs a puppet Israel-friendly regime.
- Israel sets up its own semi-permanent occupation government whose main job will be to put the boot to any Palestinians who object
Does anyone truly believe that any of these three outcomes will result in a likely settlement of the major conflict between the Israelis and Hamas? Does Israel stand any chance of solving this problem on its own?
As Hamas was the duly elected party in Gaza it is impossible to criticize them for operating outside the will of the people. This doesn’t make them worthy of respect but they definitely have a claim on being taken seriously as a negotiating partner. There is little doubt that if Israel manages to cut off the heads of the current leadership, a new set would quickly emerge to take their places. There is also little doubt that the new group would follow the path of the old and given the current, brutal Israeli response there is little doubt they would continue to find mass sympathy within the population.
It would surely be a grave injustice to the people living in Gaza to take away their autonomy but since Israel seems intent on a path of annihilation they may have to live for awhile without it if the alternative is their destruction. This is where the U.N. comes in. The UN is made for jobs like this, jobs that no one else wants and perhaps that no one else can do.
The Israelis certainly have much reason to be suspicious of the UN. Ever since the enlightened ones in Turtle Bay passed their resolution equating Zionism with racism the Israelis, along with their enablers in Washington, have pretty much thumbed their noses or cold-shouldered UN efforts to broker a peace. The latest insult to Israel, from their perspective, was the appointment of the blatantly pro-Palestinian American academic Richard Falk to be a special investigator into conditions in Gaza. (The Israelis simply denied Falk an entry visa, hardly subtle but highly effective.)
The fact is that no matter how much Israel might distrust and even despise the UN it is now time to put all that aside and embrace what the UN has to offer. Over the past two decades the UN, despite many setbacks, embarrassments and scandals did mange to put Kosovo and East Timor back together. The UN does nation-building and they have been screaming so intensely about Gaza of late that it would only be cosmic justice to give them a crack at running the place at least until a new, hopefully more moderate Palestinian regime could be put into place. If nothing else it would buy some time, perhaps a few years whereby the noose around Gaza’s neck might be loosened a bit and other saner voices might be brought into the dialog.
The first and major problem a UN administered Gaza would face would be establish itself as a legitimate protector and enforcer. In most calls for peacekeepers the Europeans and Americans bow out leaving it up to the Africans and South Asians to do the heavy lifting. This wouldn’t fly in Gaza. The British, French, Scandinavians and other Arab states would have to cowboy-up. If they don’t then the Israelis have every reason not to take world opinion seriously.
Once peace is established the UN could do what it does really well; set up hospitals, schools and feeding centers and hopefully light the flames for a revitalization of economic life. Of course the Palestinian’s sense of national pride would be shattered as is the case during almost any occupation, friendly or otherwise, but so might Israeli arrogance and paranoia be assuaged as well.
It is impossible to fault the Israelis for wanting to protect its citizens and rid itself of missile attacks but the size of its incursion and the brutality of its response show that Israel is over any line that might be considered proportional or even measured. This is street fighting at its ugliest and the real ‘winner’ is really in doubt.
President Obama, as an avowed supporter of the U.N., should twist the arms necessary to get a UN interim administration in place. This is not the time to worry about wounded vanities. Innocents are dying and there is already too much blood on the hands of both the self-righteous zealots and arm-chair critics.
About the "Anti-Israel Lobby"
How again was Hamas supposed to "provide basic services" when the Israeli and Egyptian governments were enforcing a strict blockade (an act of war, by the way) on everything, including food and medicine (never mind money and supplies)? It's not as if Hamas didn't try to work around this, either - at several points they cut holes in the barricade that imprisoned Gazans in Gaza, allowing them to purchase supplies.
Let's be honest here - Israel had no real intention of permitting Hamas to hold power in any part of the Palestinian Territories, which is why they didn't even bother to offer to lift the blockade if Hamas would stop firing rockets; they were hoping the blockade would drive Hamas out of power. Under those circumstances, what incentives does Hamas have to actually get along peacefully with Israel?
Hamas is not extremist; Israelis wouldn't fight an occupation
Don't disagree that people resist opposing arguments the more they argue, and I imagine Walt and Mearsheimer probably are not different in that regard - they're human, after all. And disagree with *a lot* with what they've written and said.
That said,
"He has sketched out a thought experiment in which he posits what might happen were it a few orthodox Jews fighting for their freedom in Gaza rather than the Palestinians. He has quoted George Orwell to make the point that he feels we are overlooking Israeli abuses against the Palestinians."
So Gaza is NOT ruled by extremists? How do you conceptualize Hamas then, and how much freedom *do* Gaza residents actually *have* in general, let alone today? Do you think Hamas is every Gaza resident, or do you think Fatah emerged the loser in an election and and a battle with Hamas?
Israel doesn't commit abuses? Every nation does. Israel does too. It controls the images of Gaza by refusing to permit journalists in. And I don't have a witty and intelligent retort to everyday abuses of Palestianis, other than try being a West Bank resident just "hanging out" at Israeli checkpoints, so maybe I should just shut up - but I think those points are worth making, and I agree with Walt. The Israelis were insurgents against the British, and indeed, there were internecine conflicts between rival insurgent groups. But more importantly and again, why would Israelis act differently under Arab occupation?
Mearsheimer is right on this: if Israel does not get a two-state solution, a democratic Zionist state will be unattainable.
I *do* wish he would go back to his realist roots and recognize the security dilemmas at play - unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon, and Hezbollah; unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (at considerable political and social cost and turmoil) and Hamas; unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank - more difficult than ejecting settlers from Gaza - and history will not recreate itself? See Richard Cohen's great editorial on this. But why won't Mearsheimer return to his realist roots - he argues world poltics is tragic because anarchy compels each state to always be wary of potential and actual competitors. Why should Israel be different than any other state in this regard? Walt's invocation of the Melian dialogue might be incredibly germane, and I'm not sure it's as wrong as he says it is (see Morgenthau on when people ignore the fundamental nature of politics).
Lastly and also, I think Walt and Mearsheimer, as students of politics betwen nations within the divides in political science, but not American politics, may have "strayed out of their lane. How does one measure the power of a lobby (the independent variable) outside the effects of that lobby (the dependent variable)? How does one account for causes independent of outcomes? Do Mearsheimer and Walt do so?
Anti-Israel lobby & French TV
I fully agree with your views on Stephen Walt as well as the BBC... just would like to add that you do not need to brush up on your French to get what Paris is broadcasting - we in Israel can watch, in English, the 24/7 news program called France24 - http://www.france24.com/en/
PS. Its now the three-state
PS. Its now the three-state solution, not two. One of those states will be a terrorist state, Gazaland- and will present a perennial problem for the world. Pray Israel can eliminate Hamas, and give some hope to Gazastan.
What an Idiotic Post
Surely you are capable of more intelligent thought than this rambling nonsense, Mr. Rothkopf.
Thank you for this article. I
Thank you for this article. I have quoted it in the Power to the Commentariat post, "Justice in Gaza" - http://powertothecommentariat.blogspot.com/2009/01/judgement-in-gaza_09.html
Dear Sir, Suggesting that the
Dear Sir,
Suggesting that the BBC be called Death to Israel TV undermines the arguments in your article by giving readers the impression that your emotions have gotten the better of you and are influencing your judgment. In all conflicts that it reports, the BBC tends to particularly focus on and condemn civilian deaths, which in this case leads it to criticize Israel. You are just not used to media outlets being critical of Israel, and to associate that with a wish for the death of Israel is simply stupid.
I believe that the US media is largely pro-Israeli. This is probably due to a number of commentators genuinely supporting Israel, but even more so by the US politicians competing for who could come up with the most Israel friendly rhetoric. Up to a certain point, the media commentary is extremely one sided. That progressively diminishes in inverse proportion to the death of civilians, as we witnessed a week ago and midway through the 2006 war in Lebanon. Finally, there is a faze of calling for a cease-fire, stressing though that it must be coupled with a resolution demanding actions to make it more difficult for the groups opposing Israel to do so in the future. Of course, those resolutions have not worked in the past against Hisbullah and will probably not either versus Hamas. Their support is deeply rooted in a wide section of their countries and the Arab population and are backed by the regional power Iran.
I read the book and believe that the power of the Israeli lobby is slightly overstated. I do not think that it was one of the reasons for the Iraq war, but that it played a role in convincing some to support it more strongly. Many counter by stating the prominence of the Arab lobby. What they do not seem to realize though is that it lobbies for Arab governments rather than the Arab population, and since they are dictatorships, their wishes do not coincide. Arab governments do not care enough about the Palestinian cause, especially the powerful oil rich gulf states. They are more concerned with staying in power. I believe that the Arab lobby does have a certain amount of influence on US foreign policy though, which is partly demonstrated by US policy concerning Lebanon. But its potential for critical influence is severely diminished by the fact that it is currently considered damaging for a US politician to be linked to Arab organizations.
The US media's "pro-Israeli" coverage is bound to change, as is the definition of "pro-Israel". The rise of the left, whose foreign policy ideology generally entails a more "civil" approach with further emphasis on dialog, human rights and international law will realize that Israels actions diminish the prospects of achieving peace in the region and are actually strengthening radical Islamic organizations by fueling Muslim hatred directed at the west. In short, the US media will start resembling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz rather than the Jerusalem Post.
Two state solution
The two state solution is clearly not the aim of Israel or they would have accepted the Arab League offer years ago. It is also clear that Israel will continue colonizing the West Bank with terrorists from it's side of the aisle, and that Tel Aviv considers apartheid a fine example of governance. Meanwhile, following the "Godfather" example of the Mafia, Israel is murdering the children of Gaza lest they grow up and pose a problem. My problem as a U.S. taxpayer is that Israel is doing the murdering with my dime and over my objections. If there is ever a Nuremburg to clarify who are the criminals in this slaughter I want written proof that I was against both sides. I would talk to my Congressperson, but that witless bunch of spineless clowns are so enjoying destroying the United States of America they haven't time to listen. (Obama aside, of course, who won't be different at all.)
wow.
i took your post as a casual observance of someone else's post. it's odd that it provoked this strong of a reaction from people.
in any case, i found it entertaining, and fairly spot on ... so, good job.
oh, and my french is great, and french TV is horrific.