Five years ago yesterday, a friend sent me the link to the Walt and Mearsheimer piece on The Israel Lobby, and I sat at my computer with my mouth open. A seal had been broken, and I believed that it was high noon for the Israel lobby. As it turns out it was 2 in the morning, but let’s not quibble. A seal had been broken, and I thought that no longer would Chris Matthews get to act dumb about why American officials took such a different view from European officials of Saddam Hussein's threat. Well, this was why, and we all knew it.
Looking back, I can't escape the importance of the authors’ prestige. It made a big difference; these were Establishment players and there was a feeling around the paper that they had laid their careers on the line and all the perquisites too. Steve Walt was a Harvard dean with a future in a Democratic administration. Now he was about to be labeled an anti-Semite by the jealous guardians of power. I called him that day and left a message on his office machine, thanking him. Over the days and weeks to come, big guns had to be wheeled out to take the authors on, and in the fervor of the denial, by one Jewish writer after another, you could see a confirmation of the authors' thesis.
That is one thing I loved about the piece: it described my own experience in the media. The authors weren't journalists, but now they were getting a taste of that orthodoxy for themselves, from the time that the Atlantic killed the piece and they had had to go to the London Review of Books to publish it.
Today I still feel enormous gratitude. The Israel Lobby was a costly thing to write. The smearing never stopped, I imagine it surprised even the authors. A few months later they appeared on a panel at the Naval War College in Rhode Island with a fellow realist, a Jew named Robert J. Art. The subject of the talk wasn’t the Israel lobby but it was a generous act on Art’s part to share the stage. People were making million-dollar threats to Harvard over the paper, or at least Marty Peretz was, and the rabbi who headed the Harvard Hillel threatened them in the Nation. The New York Sun and the Washington Post and the Yivo Institute were smearing the authors. It was great to see Jews stand up for them-- Uri Avnery in Israel, too.
Speaking personally, their paper was a doorway on an intellectual path and more than that, my literary material. So many of the issues I am most deeply interested in in life, power, access, Jewish identity, the Iraq war, the relationship of neoconservatism to Zionism in my parents’ New York Jewish generation, the meritocracy in my generation, the media, had been barred to me; editors had said these were trivial topics, or anyway they were not to be examined through a Jewish lens. Walt and Mearsheimer made clear that these were great subjects. Thus these political scientists gave me permission. I dedicated a lot of the first year of this blog to supporting them. James North told me that Darwin had had a bulldog in the London newspapers, and you are their bulldog. I was happy to play the part, I was so grateful to be able to speak about the things I thought about.
I wasn’t in full agreement with them. They were precise academics who had spent time in Israel. (Mearsheimer is a former air force captain and admired Israeli pilots.) They talked about the Israel lobby and did not use the words Julian Schnabel does, or Zbig Brzezinski, the Jewish lobby. No that was sloppy thinking to them; and so they steered clear of the issue of messianism in the Jewish community. That became central to me. I wanted to learn about the rise of Zionism in Jewish life, and the collectivized spirit of Jews on behalf of other Jews, the willingness of Jewish bankers to use their bond-writing power to free my ancestors from Russia at the turn of the last century (thank you lobby!) and a few years later, Herzl’s offer to the Sultan to relieve the Turkish debt and work on the Armenian persecution p.r. problem for the Turks in Europe in exchange for Palestine. And so the Israel lobby lit up for me the special role of Jews in western life, a role I am largely proud of but one that it was intellectual idiocy to pretend was not a signal factor in Middle East policy making.
What was the effect of the paper broadly? Was it right? And what of the leftwing’s criticism?
For a while the paper was only read in brown paper covers, but everyone read it. It opened up a whole new field of consideration if not expression. Scott McConnell wrote about that effect here yesterday. I expected the big newspapers to begin to do investigative pieces on the paper; that didn’t happen (Michael Massing was the sparkling exception, in the NY Review of Books). Still the blogosphere responded. I know countless editors and reporters and officials who studied the paper if they could not speak openly about it. It affected their thinking. It opened things up, it is still having an effect. The authors published a book, The Israel Lobby, a year after the paper, in 2007, and I compared it to Silent Spring, Unsafe at Any Speed, and the Jungle. These comparisons seem righter than ever, the effect of their muckraking was that large. I have no doubt that Obama has read the paper and understood it as a roadmap to reality, and Rand Paul too.
Of course they were right. In the Security Council settlements veto of three weeks ago, even Mitchell Plitnick, a doubter, saw the lobby at work. Obama is nakedly worried about 2012, that’s conservative Jewish power. The whole world is against this project, and a progressive Democrat goes along with the religious right in Israel because of collectivized Jewish political power. For my part I have written that the denial of a Palestinian state, when everyone and his brother have gotten their states, is an American Jewish achievement. (And so, in its time, will be the loss of the Jewish state: the lobby was never simply satisfied with the 67 line.) It’s hardly a coincidence that of the six Americans on stage at the Cooper Union debate of the paper in September 2006, three who argued against the thesis or doubted it (Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Anne-Marie Slaughter) all have served in government or would again. The three who were against it never did, including Rashid Khalidi, an Obama friend who was smeared during the 2008 campaign.
As for the left, well, Walt and Mearsheimer’s analysis had a strong moral component-- they said that the occupation went against human-rights values, and they hammered away at Palestinian suffering-- and this made it easier for many on the left to acknowledge the wisdom of their theory. It is a measure of their political creativity, and also of their excommunication by the mainstream liberals who should have championed them, that in May Walt and Mearsheimer will be featured speakers (along with Alice Walker, Laila El-Haddad, Ralph Nader, and Rebecca Vilkomerson) at an anti-AIPAC convention in Washington.
Of course some on the left disparaged the Israel lobby theory and will never be convinced by it. These are chiefly materialists who say that corporate interests direct Amercan foreign policy; and that if Israel wasn’t serving the military industrial complex it would have been dumped years ago. I never found this critique persuasive. For one thing there was little evident material interest in the Iraq war, not when oil concessions are going to Chinese and Russian companies. And material interests never ruled my life, nor Noam Chomsky’s life, nor Gary Bauer’s, nor Bill Kristol’s either. Material interests didn’t push the religious right that turned out to support George Bush in ’00 or ’04. No-- religion, fear, devotion, tribal loyalty always seemed to me to be stronger passions than the pursuit of the holy buck; and when people in my extended family asked, Is it good for the Jews? they weren't talking about money. In that sense the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis was romantic. In taking on the special relationship, they were writing about love.
obvious signs of decline. What will it mean for Israel ?
link to ft.com
Faced with an overstretched military, massive government debt and popular disenchantment with foreign wars, Washington is looking for its partners to do more, even if that means the US playing a mere supporting role. So as Mr Obama warned Muammer Gaddafi of impending military action, he specified that it would not be the US but Britain, France and Arab states that took the lead – an ultimatum very unlike those of the era of Mr Bush.
“Of course some on the left disparaged the Israel lobby theory and will never be convinced by it. These are chiefly materialists who say that corporate interests direct Amercan foreign policy; and that if Israel wasn’t serving the military industrial complex it would have been dumped years ago.”
Is it not possible that they exploit and serve each other’s interests? MaslaHa is fantastic and descriptive word in Arabic.
I think “convergence of interests” covers the USA’s foreign policy as it concerns Israel. The MIC and BIG OIL and maybe BIG BANKS want an American empire (else we’d not have it, I feel sure, The Lobby notwithstanding), but The Lobby adds to the imperialistic impulse at so many points, and the I/P and I/A conflicts do sell arms, often American-made arms. Lotta money to be made there.
Because the USA does not really (and almost not even in charade) believe in human rights, the I/P mess doesn’t bother the USA’s establishment in its heart. If the rest of the world does lip-service to Palestinian human rights (and rule of law), well, that’s a mere charade until they do more than talk. Israel has at least taught the USA to ignore mere talk.
So, so far, the pro-empire and pro-Israel forces in the USA “converge”. And not The Lobby alone, but both, explain USA’s policy vis-a-vis I/P. That said, The Lobby is more obvious as an enforcer and will take the heat for what it demands, even if the rest of the establishment goes along or even pushes for what it demands.
Herzl’s willingness to offer to relieve the Turkish debt and work on the Armenian persecution p.r. problem for the Turks in Europe in exchange for Palestine a few years later.
phil, did you write a post about this? if so can you link to it?
hat tip, you say, to Pat Lang, I have to admit that I was really hesitant about the Lobby thesis, but how to explain this? If not with the shortcut Lobby?
David Habakkuk has a brilliant article on the topic too.
leander, your german filter has been blinding you to what is going on here in the us, probably in europe too. i have seen your posts for years and marveled at your resistance to seeing the truth. i think it would be very interesting if you investigated that and exposed it . and i mean, talk about that filter, about your prejudices and what has prevented you from letting in everything that has been presented here at mondo. sorry to be so blunt , don’t have the energy to craft it in a softer way. honestly, i am curious about it.
Perhaps Leander, a German lady of Catholic faith, has been constructed of (vicarious, birthright guilt) ice that melts rather slowly, is a new sort of Golem? From the Habakkuk article she references:
“… to the suicidal nature of recent Israeli policy, and indeed of the whole attempt to colonise the West Bank. The extent to which Netanyahu simply has not grasped the implications of his actions was made amply evident in the extraordinary phone call he made to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to express his disappointment after Germany supported last month’s UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories to be illegal and a ‘major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace’. The resolution, which was sponsored by at least 130 countries, this was supported by all members of the Security Council, apart from the United States, which vetoed it. His complaint provoked a furious response from Merkel, according to Haaretz, who complained that Netanyahu had not ‘made a single step to advance peace.’
Even with Germans, the assumption that one can rely on Gentile guilt over the Holocaust to inhibit criticism of Israel cuts less and less ice. One comes back again to the automatic assumption that opposition to what Israel does reflects hatred of Jews – related to which is the assumption that accusations or imputations of anti-Semitism are both an appropriate and effective means of stifling such opposition. In fact, as the balance of opinion about Israel shifts, such accusations not only progressively lose traction, but become counter-productive. The use of the post-war taboo on anti-Semitism, which arises out of the Holocaust, to stifle criticism of Israeli policy tends to create a particularly toxic form of resentment, which comes when people are prevented from expressing thoughts and feelings they regard as perfectly legitimate – while enabling those creating resentment to blind themselves to the fact they are creating it. It also is visibly tending to weaken the taboo, which is much to be regretted.
That there are sinister undertones to some of the opposition to Israeli policy – and certainly among some pro-Palestinian activists – is clear. A revival of anti-Semitism, as also the current upsurge in Islamophobia, is something to which men and women of goodwill should be implacably opposed. But anti-Semitism is certainly not the prime driver of the ongoing shift of opinion in Britain as elsewhere against Israel, and until Israelis and their supporters abroad grasp that fact, they will continue to act in ways which are leading inexorably to the end of the Zionist experiment, and indeed may already have put paid to hopes for its survival.”
The rise in Jewish anti-Zionism, especially among our youth, should help settle the question, is it the Zionist lobby or material interests that keeps the U.S.-Israel alliance so tight? If it’s the former, as anti-Zionist Jews become increasingly visible and effective, with a concommitant decline in the Lobby’s power, there should be some slippage in the unwavering U.S. support for the settler entity. If it’s material interests, however, the Zionist lobby could melt away and the U.S-Israel axis will hardly be effected.
What a watershed moment in US history. And it took the courage of a two well-respected foreign policy pragmatists to stand up and become voices for identifying the problem.
The well funded lobby is spending it’s great amounts of cash to counteract what they want concealed about Israeli policy. It’s what Mearsheimer had said would occur. And it’s long overdue.The battle that wages behind the daily headlines.
there’s no denying Walt and Mearsheimer changed the landscape of our national discourse forever and the waves from their study have not even begun to reach their destination. i really can’t think of anyone other than perhaps grant smith (forward by phil) who has done as much investigative work to expose the lobby but grant doesn’t carry the scholarly prestige of the W&M (wiki still refuses to host a page for grant!).
of course hosting a blog is a different kind of work. it’s a way of engaging daily and ordinary people can interact. but more importantly you and adam expose truth and information on a daily basis. it builds and builds so that anyone paying attention or wants to has access to the exposure you provide. the work you do here is incalculable. it is huge huge huge huge.
thank you.
massive snowball effect in operation. thank you mondoweiss.
Yes, thank you Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer. I have that book since 2007 and am proud to show it to any visitor :-)
What I admire most about the both of them is how they never retreated, even when it became clear that the mainstream was insulting them at every corner.
But also extend these thanks to all the other pioneers, especially Phil and Adam (I learned of M&Ws paper only through MondoWeiss) for putting their energy into all of this.
Overall, I’m very sympathetic to your point of view. However, I think you’re mistaken on this count: “For one thing there was little evident material interest in the Iraq war, not when oil concessions are going to Chinese and Russian companies. ”
The price of oil and its general availability is much more important to the United States than who happens to get concessions. In addition, the US did not gain the political influence in Iraq that it expected, and so one can not judge intent based on the outcome.
It is clear enough that one of the goals of the war was to see Iraq rehabilitated as a major oil producer, without a hostile Saddam Hussein in power. And there is indeed evidence to support the notion that oil concerns were a factor. They were mentioned explicitly by Bush’s chief economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, in the run-up to the war:
“When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production [each day] to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.” – Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2002.
“But under every plausible scenario, the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war. The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil” which would tend to lower oil prices he [Lindsey] said. – Washington Times, September 19, 2002.
Although his calculations turned out to be very wrong, these statements are understandable in light of the review that was conduct in the lead up to the 2001 Bush-Cheney National Energy Policy. It had plenty to say about Iraq. For example,
“Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his ‘victory’ against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime.”
“The resulting tight [oil] markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key “swing” producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.” – Baker Institute Study No. 15 “Strategic Energy Policy – Challeges for the 21st Century”, April, 2001, prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations.
The war had many proponents. Some may have been Israel-first neo-conservatives, but that label doesn’t apply to all of the important principals (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld). In this light, I think it makes most sense to take a broad view of the reasons for the war. It was about power and deepening American hegemony over the Middle East. There were many reasons for this, and Israel may certainly have been uppermost in the minds of some. But it wasn’t the only reason.
Policies were non-sensical. Actions were not. US policy during Republican administrations has been to keep the price of oil high and to keep the profits from that oil flowing to the Anglo-American oil majors and American banks. Wars keep prices high. Dictatorships manage the flow of profits to American capitalists and the American elite. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Walt and Mearsheimer have nothing to add to this debate.
I see, Max Ajl, you did not read W & M’s book. Get a copy, go to the index, looking up “oil.” The oil factor, including the oil factor regarding Bush Jr’s war on Iraq, is covered in many places throughout the book–what you say deals with a comparatively very minor aspect of why the US regime attacked Iraq in 2003. You can start with Chapter 8, Iraq And Dreams Of Transfoming The Middle East. Within that Chapter 8, there is a sub-chapter: Was Iraq A War For Oil? After Chapter 8, use the index entry “oil” to additionally see
something much more than “smoke and mirrors.”
Patrick is not wrong as far as he goes. He concludes:
“It was about power and deepening American hegemony over the Middle East. There were many reasons for this, and Israel may certainly have been uppermost in the minds of some. But it wasn’t the only reason.”
W & M give us 463 pages comparing the various alleged factors and motivations of US foreign policy in the Middle East. There’s a reason why they called their book The Israel Lobby, and not Big Oil, or US Security.
I read the book. But that does not mean the book was right. It wasn’t. The job of imperial ideologues is not to present an accurate picture of social reality. It is to mis-describe it in the interests of which sector of capital they happen to be advocating for. Things are of course hopelessly confused for them because they long for an autonomous state safeguarding the interests of all of American capital. Not going to work, among other reasons because capitalist sectors are too antagonistic and because “American” capital is a misnomer — for one thing it owns much of the Israeli economy, something else that M+W missed.
Many benefited from Iraq II. Israeli elites, oil companies, finance, weapons manufacturers, and capital generally which avoided deflation. On oil specifically, oil majors profit from instability in the Middle East, and have since 1973. That’s part of why the Republican administrations they fund keep on going to war there (unless you thought America goes to war in the ME to defend democracy?) Since W & M don’t understand this, they do not give us a plausible account of the motivations behind Iraq II. That’s fine unless you treat it as the Bible.
RE: “And material interests never ruled my life, nor Noam Chomsky’s life, nor Gary Bauer…” – Weiss
MY SNARK: Gary Bauer is such a sweet, sweet man. And so G_dly! He is like a little (but ever expanding), divine songbird. Thanks for mentioning him, Phil; it really brightened my day!
Well said, Patrick. America’s primary interest in the ME is oil. If the American people were to choose between keeping our special relationship with Israel or a $1.98 gallon of gas I think we would choose the gasoline.
Darwin’s Bulldog. Thomas Huxley. link to en.wikipedia.org
RE: “James North told me that Darwin had had a bulldog in the London newspapers…” – Weiss
AND TODAY ISRAEL HAS ITS BULLDOGS: Neocon Foreign Policy, by Philip Giraldi, Antiwar.com, 03/24/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com
Israel’s supporters buy and coerce the loyalty of elected officials and the MSM. They mistake their loyalty for the love of the American people. but most Americans don’t care about Israel, and people who are bought and coerced and made to be afraid become resentful.
George Carlin never addressed who controls, effectively owns America, but he did address annoyingly well their vehicle(s) and how it disempowers Wee, the people:
link to youtube.com