Let’s Debate the Heresies of the Washington Thinktanks

by Philip Weiss on September 27, 2006 · 10 comments

One of the great potentialities in tomorrow night’s SRO debate at Cooper Union lies in the fact that on one side—No, Virginia, there is no Israel lobby—two of the three illusionists are bigtime Washington thinktankers, while on the other— the lobby keeps the Congress in a shoebox with holes punched in the lid— are three professors.

As we are frequently told, universities belong to the left. The academy is like an internment camp, the one place they can put ‘em all; and it’s become more and more irrelevant to policy-making. But the Washington thinktanks are camped next to the corridors of power. Dennis Ross is sure to make this point himself tomorrow night, when he holds over the professoriat the fact that he’s actually been in the White House, so he knows what he’s talking about.

Indeed, this is one of the most important points in the Walt-Mearsheimer paper that set off this debate: over the last generation, rich liberal ponds like Brookings and Carnegie got stocked with pro-Israeli carp; pro-Arab fish simply disappeared. I don’t know that it’s a conspiracy, it’s a hundred acts of devotion: conservative Jewish backers, recognizing the importance of thinktanks to the formulation of policy, have forcibly established an orthodoxy of opinion where it matters.

If I were asking Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross a question, I’d ask them about the intellectual culture of the thinktanks. Here are a few data points. Roger Hertog, chairman of the rightwing Manhattan Institute—”turning intellect into influence,” is their claim—got choked up at the annual dinner last year describing his core commitment to Israel. His friend and partner Bruce Kovner chairs the American Enterprise Institute, which gave a home to Dick and Lynn Cheney in days gone by, gives rightwing Jerusalemite Dore Gold $96,000 a year for what service it’s not clear, and has packed the White House with neocons like David Wurmser and Richard Perle who opposed the Oslo peace process and the concept of occupied-land-for-peace and came up with occupying-Baghdad-for-peace instead. AEI is also funded by Irving Moskowitz, a doctor whose cause is (illegal) religious settlement of the West Bank. Or there is Dennis Ross’s sock, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, epitomized by the former chief of staff of the Israeli Defence Forces who served as a distinguished military fellow last year when he was sued for alleged war crimes at Qana in Lebanon (the last time, in ‘96, not this time)(and sued by the Center for Constitutional Rights.) Or Martin Indyk’s spot, Brookings’ Saban Center, financed by “a fanatic Zionist billionaire” Israeli (per Alexander Cockburn), from which Ken Pollack launched the Iraq war for liberals with a book that as I have pointed out before spoke many times about vague Arab/Israeli “troubles” and their importance to the Arab street without once using the word occupation. (Israeli officials don’t like to say occupation; they prefer “administered territories.”) Move on to libertarian Cato, where I am told scholars were warned to pull in their horns on Israel last year lest they endanger funding. Or to the place these guys get to ski, the Aspen Institute, to which the brilliant Anatol Lieven was never invited again after bringing up the occupation as a source of Arab rage at a 2002 conference about 9/11. Or the Carnegie Institute for International Something or Other, where Lieven, then a fellow, became a “pariah” after publishing a book that was sharply critical of Israel, and from which he debarked for the underfunded Center for American Progress.

Excuse me, sir, do you have a question? This is not a time for speeches; there’s a long line of people waiting behind you to ask questions—

Oh, yes. My question. For Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross. There are scores of well-paid, pro-Israel thinkers at the established Washington thinktanks that help shape American policy. Can you point to even one such thinker who is an outspoken critic of Israel?

Related posts:

  1. Tehran spring also comes to Washington
  2. Would ‘Washington Post’ writer David Ignatius put his arm on President Obama during a debate?
  3. conspiracy theory or just conspiracy
  4. Flynt Leverett Calls Ken Pollack ‘Flat-Out Wrong’
  5. Is this getting stabbed in the back or the front?

{ 10 comments }

1 Perry September 27, 2006 at 9:47 pm

Think tanks are private organizations. They can do whatever they want. They are not subject to the rules of political lobbies.

There are many think tanks that are critical of Israel.

It's too bad for the violent, troubled "Arab Street" that there are 150+ million American Jews and Christians whose interest is the security of Israel. Get used to it. Most Americans are not anti-Israel like you.

2 Michael Gold September 27, 2006 at 9:57 pm

When I heard that Martin Indyk, a citizen of Australia and AIPAC staffer, was being named ambassador to Israel, I actually thought my informant said "ambassador from Israel."
Indyk went from AIPAC to Asst Secy of State to Ambassador. Not bad for a guy who received his citizenship by special act of Congress 24 hours before receiving a top job at the Clinton State Department.
The US "peace team" at Camp David in 2000 consisted of Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller and Robert Malley. All Jews and Zionists except for Malley who is Jewish but a critic of Israel.
Imagine if there was an Arab American on the US delegation negotiating peace. But there weren't. All Jews. Honest brokers! Yeah, right.

3 Brey September 27, 2006 at 10:44 pm

Actually, the US delegation consisted of the following indiviuals:

Bill Clinton
Secretary Madeleine Albright
John Podesta, Chief of Staff
Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Joe Lockhart, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary
Maria Echaveste, Deputy Chief of Staff
Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator
Martin Indyk, U.S. Ambassador to Israel
John Herbst, U.S. Consul General, Jerusalem
Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, NSC
Aaron Miller, Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator, Department of State
Rob Malley, Special Assistant to the President for Arab-Israeli Affairs and Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, NSC
Jonathan Schwartz, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State
Toni Verstandig, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State
Gemal Helal, Senior Advisor, Department of State

4 Rowan Berkeley September 28, 2006 at 6:04 am

I think there is enough meat in the above that it should have appeared as a magazine or newspaper op-ed article, not a blog entry. In other words, Phil, relative to the weight of your writing, you are getting marginalised. Of course, if you weren't, it would disprove the basic argument about Jewish media domination, that you, I, Walt, Mearsheimer, Uncle Tom Cobbley, and Mrs Cobbley are all making all over the world now, except in the US mainstream media.

5 J. Weisbrot September 28, 2006 at 12:46 pm

Mr. Weiss-

Your insight and fortitude is commendable. Thanks for being an honest, forthright observer of the capture of the US foreign policy and the absolute capitulation of the corrupt elected officials. Don't forget to turn your sights on the key partner in this operation- the US media- which were a necessary (if not sufficient component) of this takeover.

Best,

J. Weisbrot

6 mel gibson September 28, 2006 at 1:24 pm

keep up the good work little philly. in an age of worldwide media domination it is refreshing to find a christkiller who will admit to who is really behind all the wars in the world.
your friend,
mel
p.s. dad digs the column too!

7 Robert September 28, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Phil, how many tabs of acid are your going to take before the debate?

The joke is on The Observer.

8 B. Netanyahu September 28, 2006 at 2:16 pm

Dear Mr. Weiss:

We thank you for the recognition. But we certainly want to make sure you give props to the players behind the new US hegemony:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

PNAC, baby. Just remember,
we're all Israelis now- and
as I said sometime ago,
9/11 is a good thing for
Israel.

Hey Phil- what's that plane
doing flying into your
window!?!?!

Made ya look- just kiddin.
Maybe. We're watching you,
boychik.

Regards,

Benjamin

9 Lilli Genscher September 29, 2006 at 9:40 am

No one denies that AIPAC lobbied for war on Iraq. They did so to benefit Israel because that is what AIPAC does — lobbies for Israel. THey lobbied for this war even though Israel is a nuclear power and should be able to handle its own defense.

Apparently, AIPAC thought it preferable to have Americans die for Israel rather than to have Israeli soldiers die for Israel.

Why is that?

10 fred lapides September 29, 2006 at 9:58 am

If Israel controls American policy as is inmplied and stated, why is it that Isarel stopped the war in Lebvanon when told to do so by the US, and did not attack HeZbollah until granted permission by the US? Time and again, Israelil policy is controlled mainly out of Washington and not the other way around, as the anti-Israelil forces suggest .

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: Does Israel’s Former Foreign Minister Regard the U.S. Lobby as a Pillar of His Country’s Foreign Policy?

Next post: Never Mind the Bollocks–Here Is Walt and Mearsheimer!