Indefensible Defense of the Israel Lobby
A Neo-Liberal Mistake


The criticisms by notable progressives, including Stephen Zunes and Noam Chomsky, of the working paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, March 2006, by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer demonstrate how to operate in a contradictory manner and damage a mutually acceptable cause. The arguments note that the two professors are subscribers to the Realist School of International Relations and have shifted responsibility of U.S. foreign policy failures from the U.S. government to the influence of the Israel Lobby. As one example, Stephen Zunes, an admirable figure in the progressive community, and who deserves commendation for his years of efforts to promote social justice, erred carelessly in a report Zunes' arguments are specious and filled with obvious falsehoods, inconsistencies and smear techniques.

Since The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and other media demagogues have been exposed in their opportunistic attacks on the authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, (see Silencing Israel's Critics and Media Demagogues ), it is only fair that other critics, although they might consider themselves progressive or neo-liberal, also be exposed if their attacks are similar in pattern to the media demagogues.

Stephen Zunes article, The Israel lobby: How Powerful is it Really?, which first appeared on the Foreign Policy in Focus web site, has five major arguments against the working paper: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy:

(1) The professors subscribe to the pessimistic Realist School of International Relations.
(2) The working paper absolves the U.S. government of responsibility for foreign relations mistakes.
(3) U.S. policy in the Middle east is similar to its policies in other parts of the world, so why blame the Israel Lobby?
(4) The Military Industrial complex and its lobbies are the actual culprits for a misguided Middle East policy.
(5) The Israel Lobby is the victim; it works at the behest of the U.S. foreign policymakers. U.S. foreign policymakers don't work at the behest of the Israel Lobby.

Specious Arguments
Zunes complaint that the professors are attached to the Realist School of International Relations, is a "guilt by association" technique. Zunes writes:

It should be noted that Mearsheimer and Walt are prominent figures in the realist school of international relations, which discounts international law, human rights, and other legal and moral concerns in foreign policy. The realist tradition downplays diplomacy not backed by military force, belittles the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, and dismisses the growing role of international nongovernmental organizations and popular movements.

Zunes has given an extreme characterization to the Realist School of International Relations, and one that hardly applies to the recent and more complete thoughts of either Professor Walt or Mearsheimer. He does not consider there is a difference between subscribing to a historical analysis in the academic world that evolves a realist political theory and recommending the political theory be instituted as a force of history in the real world. Words by Walt and Mearsheimer contradict Zunes characterization.

Professor Walt writes in his book Taming American Power (that is Taming and not Promoting):

What is needed, instead, is greater confidence in America's fundamental principles and institutions and greater wisdom in understanding what U.S. power can and cannot accomplish. America's core values of liberty and opportunity unleash the energy upon which our economic prosperity is built. That prosperity, in turn, provides the sinews of our military power and the hard core of our international influence. But the ability to defeat other armies and our influence over the world economy do not give the United States either the right or the ability to impose these principles on others.

Instead of telling world what to do and how to live--a temptation that both neoconservative empire-builders and liberal internationalists find hard to resist--the United States should lead the world primarily by its example. If we have faith in our core principles, we will expect to win hearts and minds first and foremost because others will see how we live, and see what we have, and they will want those things too.

Mearsheimer's last book is titled:The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Note that Mearsheimer clarifies the great power politics as a tragedy.

In an interview, as part of the Berkeley Institute's "Conversations with History" series, which uses the Internet to permit the public to share a global forum for ideas, Mearsheimer said the following:

There's no doubt that there are huge numbers of people in that world who hate the United States, and a significant percentage of those people are willing to either sacrifice themselves as suicide bombers or support suicide bombing attacks against the United States. What we have to do is we have to ameliorate that hatred, and we have to go to great lengths to win hearts and minds. I don't believe that you can do that with military force. I think some military force is justified. If you could convince me that Osama bin Laden and his fellow leaders are located in a particular set of caves in Afghanistan at this point in time, I would be perfectly willing to use massive military force to get at those targets and to kill all of the al Qaeda leadership. But I think, in general, what the United States wants to do is not rely too heavily on military force -- in part, because the target doesn't lend itself to military attack, but more importantly, because using military force in the Arab and Islamic world is just going to generate more resentment against us and cause the rise of more terrorists and give people cause to support these terrorists. So I'd privilege diplomacy much more than military force in this war, and I think the Bush administration would be wise if it moved more towards diplomacy and less towards force.

Irrespective of the professors political theories, do theories of history relate to conclusions of the Israel Lobby?

Another criticism of the working paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has it excusing the U.S. government for foreign policy failures. Zunes writes:

What progressive supporters of Mearsheimer and Walt's analysis seem to ignore is that both men have a vested interest in absolving from responsibility the foreign policy establishment that they have served so loyally all these years. Israel and its supporters are essentially being used as scapegoats for America's disastrous policies in the Middle East.

Is this criticism correct or is it malicious?

We should all be very skeptical of what our leaders say, because they have powerful incentives to mislead us on occasion -- not always.

As you know, in German universities, your appointment as a professor is dependent on the state. These are all state-run universities, so you have to be very careful what you say when you are a German professor, for fear you might run afoul of the government.

The beauty of the American system is that we have all these private institutions, and even public institutions like Berkeley, where with the tenure system, professors are free to say whatever they want, and suffer hardly any consequences in terms of losing their jobs. Therefore, I think we have a very important responsibility to talk about important issues, and to challenge conventional wisdoms that other people might be unwilling to challenge. We have a real social responsibility here.

Obvious Falsehoods
Zunes has many incorrect and muddled statements in his report. Some of these statements:

Zunes: The Israeli government has been encouraging the United States to back off from putting too much pressure on Syria.
Response: Lt. Col. Gregory Reilly, a U.S. cavalry commander along the Iraq/Syria border has been quoted: "The Syrians are actually doing their job. They are more violent than we are. If they see someone,they will open up shooting." Since the Syrians "are doing their job" and the U.S. has no conflict with Syria, why is it constantly harassing Syria, if not for Israel? Former Prime Minisiter Sharon's remarks contradict Zune's comment.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has lumped Syria and Iran in his own "axis of evil." and urged stepped up international efforts to contain the two regimes. ABC online, Nov. 14, 2005.

Zunes: American presidents are hardly powerless when it comes to pressure by the Israel lobby....During the the Suez crisis of 1956 President Dwight Eisenhower strongly condemned the Israeli/French/British invasion of Egypt.
Response: In 1956 there was no Israel Lobby, maybe one person. Zunes has therefore proved that without an Israel Lobby, the U.S. can operate independent of Israel's interests.

Zunes: Perhaps the most twisted (Ed: malicious word) in their article is the author's claim that the 2003 invasion of Iraq 'was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. This is ludicrous on several grounds. ...Israel is less secure...it had been more than a decade since Iraq had posed any significant threat to Israel...
Response: The authors' claim could be incorrect; however, is their argument ludicrous or is Zunes' protest ludicrous? Many well-recognized political analysts subscribe to the "being pushed by Israel" scenario. Former CIA political analysts, Kathleen and Bill Christison, wrote in Counterpunch.org, Sept. 6, 2004, "The pro-Israeli Neocons, in a policy paper written for the Israeli military spoke frankly of Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it with a malleable monarchy."

Robert Novak addressed the issue in a column on Dec. 26, 2002.

WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: "The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim." The "some" are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war.

Zunes: Israel has played a major role in preventing victories by radical movements, not just in Palestine but in Lebanon and Jordan as well. Israel has kept Syria, with its radical nationalist government once allied with the Soviet Union, in check, and the Israeli air force is predominant throughout the region.
Response: Stephen Zunes wrote these words after the election of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah victories in Lebanon. What radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan have been near success and what has Israel done to prevent their "victories?"

U.S. Polices are the same throughout the globe, so why blame the Israel Lobby?
The author's claim that the Israel lobby is a major factor in the formulation of overall U.S. Middle East policy is plainly false. Indeed, (A) U.S. policy in the middle East over the past several decades...is remarkably similar to (B) U.S. policy toward Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. If the (C) United States can pursue such policies elsewhere in the world without pressure from the Israel lobby, (D) why is it necessary to explain policies in the Middle East?
|Response: Zunes must have failed Logic 101. Because A is similar to B, does not mean that C=D.

Zunes: The unfortunate reality is that the U.S. government is perfectly capable of supporting right-wing allies in efforts to invade, repress, and colonize weaker neighbors without a well-organized ethnic minority somehow forcing Congress or the administration to do so. To claim otherwise is to assume that without the pro-Israel lobby, the United States would be supportive of international law and human rights in its foreign policy. Given that U.S. foreign policy has rarely ever been supportive of international law and human rights, except when it corresponds with short-term political interests, why should the Middle East be an exception?
Response: Does this statement make sense: To claim otherwise is to assume that without the pro-Israel lobby, the United States would be supportive of international law and human rights in its foreign policy. Given that U.S. foreign policy has rarely ever been supportive of international law and human rights, except when it corresponds with short-term political interests, why should the Middle East be an exception? Is that analysis?

Zunes: It is certainly true that the United States is, in the words of Mearsheimer and Walt, “out of step” with the vast majority of the international community on the question of Israel and Palestine. Yet the United States is also out of step with the vast majority of the international community regarding the treaty banning land mines, the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the embargo against Cuba.
Response: Yes, and different lobbies, one of which is the Israel Lobby, are responsible for each misstep.

Zunes: The continued high level of U.S. aid to Israel stems less out of concern for Israel's survival than from a desire for Israel to continue its political dominion over the Palestinians and its military dominance of the region.
Response: Why does the U.S. want Israel to have political dominion over the powerless Palestinians and why would it trust military dominance to Israel? Why not trust it to Egypt?

Zunes: The Israel lobby, like most lobbying groups, is most influential when it comes to Congress. Yet Congress only rarely plays a crucial role in the development of foreign policy and, in recent decades, foreign policy has become even more the prerogative of the executive branch. Congress generally plays a reactive role regarding foreign policy.
Response: Doesn't the Senate make treaties? Doesn't the congress control appropriations, including military spending? It also seems that many pro-Israeli individuals called Neocons, have occupied important positions in the Executive branch of the U.S. government. Is Zunes telling us that the Israel lobby only affects domestic policy?

Blame the Military Industrial Complex
Zunes: The arms industry contributes more than $7 million each election to Congressional campaigns, twice that of pro-Israel groups.
Response: An irresponsible argument. Because there is a possible worse culprit, the Israel Lobby is absolved of blame. Nevertheless, the Israel Lobby's strength is also in media support and public relations and not only in supplying financial resources.

Zunes: The resulting arms race (in the Middle East) has been a bonanza for U.S. munitions manufacturers whose continued prosperity provide a major explanation for U.S. aid policy (to Israel).
Response: Another strange argument. The U.S. can easily transfer the $2 billion foreign aid to Israel, which is a great part of all of the U.S. foreign aid package, to other nations. Why stimulate Israel, especially when Israel competes with the U.S. in arm sales, emulates U.S. military designs and transfers technology to other nations, including China?

The Israel Lobby is the victim
Zunes: It has long been in Washington's interest to maintain a militarily powerful and belligerent Israel dependent on the United States. Real peace could undermine such a relationship. The United States has therefore pursued a policy that attempts to bring greater stability to the region while falling short of real peace. Washington wants a Middle East where Israel can serve a proxy role in projecting U.S. military and economic interests. This symbiosis requires suppressing challenges to American-Israeli hegemony within the region.
Response: We have now learned that Israel is not responsible for its aggressive actions.Notice the shift from U.S. military and economic interests to American-Israeli hegemony

Zunes:This also requires suppressing challenges to this policy within the United States and there is no question that the Israel lobby plays an important role in this regard. However, this is primarily an issue of the Israel lobby working at the behest of U.S. foreign policymakers, not U.S. foreign policymakers working at the behest of the Israel lobby.
Response" Zunes concedes that the Israel Lobby plays a role in suppressing challenges to U.S. foreign policy, but some strange mechanism controls its actions. The Israel Lobby is the victim.

A Conclusion
The most jarring and mysterious paragraph of Stephen Zune's critique of the working paper concerns himself:

As a result of my opposition to U.S. support for the Israeli government's policies of occupation, colonization, and repression, I have been deliberately misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and been falsely accused of being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism;" my children have been harassed and my university's administration has been bombarded with calls for my dismissal. I have also had media appearances and speaking engagements canceled, even by groups generally supportive of the right to dissent. (For example, in 2003, just two weeks prior to its annual meeting at which I had been scheduled to speak on U.S. foreign policy and international law, the State Bar Association of Arizona rescinded its invitation after the president and board received a flurry of emails claiming that I was "anti-Israel." A few years earlier, the Oregon Peace Institute canceled an invitation for me to speak at a forum in Portland following similar pressure from the campaign of the first district's Democratic nominee for Congress. And a recent peace studies conference at Hofstra University insisted at the last minute on adding a right-wing supporter of the Israeli government to their plenary program in order to counter my scheduled "anti-Israel" presentation, wherein I raised concerns about Washington's role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; at no other plenary session, even those involving other left leaning speakers on controversial issues, did the organizers at Hofstra insist upon such "balance" from the right.)

Zunes proves an argument of the working paper to be correct but doesn't acknowledge it. His experiences are chilling - a reminder of the Nazi storm trooper and Gestapo tactics. How is this permitted in American society? One would presume that by being subjected to this overwhelming abuse by pro-Israel forces, Zunes would praise the Mearsheimer and Walt exposition rather than attack it.

Those who are antagonistic to Israel's policies should note how successful battles are fought -- by complementing one another to improve worthwhile analysis and politely correcting omissions, and not by recklessly and unfairly contradicting those who have brought foreign policy discussion to an honest and welcoming level.

alternativeinsight
june, 2006

HOME PAGE     MAIN PAGE
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net