US storm over book on Israel lobby:

[Praxius]

I posted this because I seen many in here debate over this topic... perhaps some will find this a bit interesting:



BBC NEWS | Americas | US storm over book on Israel lobby

The power of America's "Jewish lobby" is said to be legendary. Commentators the world over refer to it, as though it were a well-established fact that US Jews wield far more influence than their numbers (2% of the population) would suggest. But this presumed influence is also a delicate issue in the US, and is rarely analysed. How does the lobby work? Is its power truly legendary, or just a legend? Two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, have set out to answer those questions, and triggered a firestorm of controversy as a result. Their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which builds on a 2006 article in the London Review of Books, says the reasons for US support for Israel need to be explained. America spends $3bn a year in largely military assistance - one-sixth of its direct aid budget - to help a prosperous, nuclear-armed country, and strongly backs Israel in negotiations on Middle East peace. But according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the US gets remarkably little in return. They reject the argument that Israel is a key ally in America's "war on terror". On the contrary, they contend, US patronage of Israel fuels militant anger - as well as fostering resentment in Arab countries that control vital oil supplies. One-sided The authors also reject the common view of Israel as a democratic outpost that needs protection from deadly enemies. It is indeed a vibrant democracy, they say, but also a regional giant ready to use its considerable firepower against civilians. If both these arguments are weak, they say, the real reason behind US support for Israel is domestic - the activities of the American Israel Political Action Committee (Aipac), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and like-minded groups and think tanks. Mearsheimer and Walt do not talk of a "Jewish lobby", as these groups do not speak for all US Jews and include many non-Jews, but of an "Israel lobby", whose main aim, they say, is to convince America that its interests are aligned with those of the Israeli state. The book analyses the lobby's sources of influence - notably its financial muscle and the reluctance of critics to speak out. Pro-Israeli contributions to US campaigns dwarf those of Arab-Americans or Muslim groups. Like other interest groups, the Israel lobby also influences debate by rounding on politicians and commentators who take positions it does not like - but it does it particularly effectively, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. Those who might think of questioning US support for Israel know they are in for a fight, making it more trouble than it is worth. The resulting lack of discussion, the book says, has skewed US policies across the Middle East. Most controversially, it argues that the lobby played an important role in the Iraq war. No conspiracy Perhaps not surprisingly, Mearsheimer and Walt have unleashed a torrent of criticism - though not from Aipac, which has made no comment. "Their conclusions are classic anti-Semitic canards - such as control of foreign policy against the interest of the US, the Jews controlling the media and getting America into war," ADL director Abraham Foxman told the BBC News website. After reading the original article, Mr Foxman wrote a book-length rebuttal entitled The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control. Many attacks have been highly personal. In a fierce critique of their scholarship, Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote in the New Republic of the original article: "Were 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body." Virtually all reviews of the book in the mainstream US press have been negative. "They have often misrepresented our arguments badly or tried to smear us by either saying or hinting that we are anti-Semitic," Mr Walt told the BBC News website. He and Mr Mearsheimer deny recycling old fantasies of Jewish conspiracies. Their book repeatedly states that pro-Israeli lobbying is not secretive, but conforms to the open rules of America's democratic system. The authors regard their excoriation in the US press as a sign of the lobby's effectiveness, and point out that reviews abroad have been much more favourable. "This in some way confirms our basic argument that it's much easier to talk about this subject outside the United States than we do inside the US," he says. Cause and effect However, some of Mearsheimer and Walt's US critics have been less vitriolic and harder to dismiss as angry polemic. Robert Lieberman, a Columbia University political scientist, argues that they overstate the lobby's financial power. Mearsheimer and Walt cite cases of members of Congress losing their seats after running afoul of pro-Israeli groups which then bankrolled their opponents. But Mr Lieberman says the contributions involved are unlikely to make a difference and the book fails to establish a clear link between lobby money and victory. Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in 2004 despite the fact that he got more pro-Israel funding than any candidate that year. "For any anecdote they come up with, you can come up with an anecdote that demonstrates the opposite," Mr Lieberman says. Perhaps the most contentious argument in the book is the direct causal link it tries to establish between lobby activity and US Middle East policies. But political preferences can be influenced by any number of factors, such as popular pressure, party politics or heartfelt conviction. Although Mearsheimer and Walt do their best to discard those alternative explanations for the US pro-Israeli stance, many are unconvinced. "Is this the manipulation of a tiny group, or is this politicians not wanting to take a stand that is unpopular with the broader public?" Walter Russell Mead, of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the BBC News website. Mr Mead - who wrote a lengthy critique of the book in the journal Foreign Affairs - also says Mearsheimer and Walt give too vague a definition of the lobby to make any credible conclusion about its impact. Opening up The fact that the book invites criticism, however, is also a strength. Its scholarly, dispassionate tone is meant to encourage a debate. "Reasonable people can disagree and one of the reasons we want to have a discussion is to get issues out in the open so people can talk about them," Mr Walt says. Tony Judt - a prominent historian and critic of Israel - does not accept every point made by Mearsheimer and Walt, but he credits them with lifting a taboo. The main effect of the lobby, he says, has been self-censorship. "There are people out there who are anti-Semitic obviously, and you don't want to find yourself in their company, so you end up saying nothing," he says. Mr Judt himself is not afraid to speak out, but he has to tread more carefully when he criticises Israeli policies in the US than he does in Israel itself. "I have written articles in Haaretz that no American newspapers would touch," he says. In this context, he adds, Mearsheimer and Walt's book is an "enormous act of intellectual courage". "They gained nothing from it, but the community has really gained something because with each little step like that, the conversation opens up a bit more."

It certainly raises the questions for both sides though.

[Lasher]

Good post!!

[Nemiroff]

What a bunch of half truths and misinformation, yes isreal is a powerful country, but its about the size of new jersey with most of its territory being dessert its army must be very limited and its completely surrounded by enemies much larger then itself. Also yes it has nukes, but its surrounded by oil and oil filled countries, and its enemies are practically floating on oil, if the detonate a nuke, them, their enemies, and if we're lucky, only that half of the globe might go up in flames.
So what if our friendship with isreal is pissing off terrorists half of them are looking for excuses to get pissed, you don't need to join isreal for that, just make a cartoon they don't like and they'll try to bomb you. Isreal is a great ally against terror, it even had its own war, sending its own soldiers, unlike our other allies who help the terrorista while paying us lip service and asking for money.

Arab groups may not have a powerful lobby but they control oil and oil prices, a small exclusive discount would be like a multi billion dollar contribution. Isreal has never intentionally used its firepower to hurt civilians. ISREAL IS THE ONLY WARRING NATION IN HISTORY THAT WARNS BEFORE EVERY ATTACK AND GIVES ENOUGH TIME FOR THE TARGET TO BE EVACUATED.

America is uptight, more so then any other country, let's say a new study showed that women were dumber then men, the feminists in this country won't hear it.

[adam10312]

You are missing the point Nemiroff...

You are responding to the book (which you have not yet read, by the way). I think this post is more about the controversy over the book and the criticism it is receiving.

I think that whether or not the US has an unfair pro-Israel bias is irrelevant right now. The main thing is that there should be no resistance to discussion of it. If there is, then we have a problem. Anyone who labels these guys anti-semitic immediately just because they opened up discussion about this is a major bigot (like Foxman).

I think everyone here can understand this, considering open discussion is the major purpose of this website.

[Praxius]

The main point I found interesting wasn't in regards to anti-semitism, or if talk should be open more about it... which are all still good points to debate...

... but the thing that caught my eye was that these Israel Lobbiests have more influence on what goes on in the US then the US people themselves. To me, something's up in that department, considdering they only represent 2% of the population..

[shrike]

Quote by: prax To me, something's up in that department, considdering they only represent 2% of the population..

You assuming that only Jews support Israel.....

[PatrickHenry]

Agreed that to talk about the Israel lobby in the US gets the attention of the Israel-uber-alles crowd.

And they will come after you with lies and accusations.

Let's talk about it anyway...

[adam10312]

Quote by: Praxius The main point I found interesting wasn't in regards to anti-semitism, or if talk should be open more about it... which are all still good points to debate... ... but the thing that caught my eye was that these Israel Lobbiests have more influence on what goes on in the US then the US people themselves. To me, something's up in that department, considdering they only represent 2% of the population..

The Israel lobbyists don't make up 2% of the population, Jews make up 2% of the population. I don't know what % the Israel lobbyists make up.

However, any lobbyist group has a disproportionate influence on what goes on in the US. Influencing something with money is purpose of a lobbyist group. From wikipedia:

"Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to effect influence, typically over government authorities and elected officials."

So this is no surprise. What is surprising is that, for some reason, any other issue is open to debate and discussion, but this one isn't. My tax dollars are going to Israel, so I should know why. Israel is indebted to me because I have been working and earning money and then letting them use it. So we should definitely have open debate about it. If no one wants to talk about it, fine- just stop using my money for it.

[Nono]

Yes, that's the point: the obvious is an Unutterable Taboo.

Yet another blind spot on the US media landscape.

[Athena]

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, president of the US 1913-1921 opposed Israel, and supported the soverienty of Arab countries. He objected to the British and French control of the region, because he reasoned the Arabs had a right to soveriengty. Does anyone want to argue the Arabs did not have the right to soverienty?

Following the war of 1948 the US reluctently acknowledge the existence of Israel, largely because the US wanted Israel in its pocket, not on the side of the USSR. However, President Eisenhower 1953-1961, threaten to withhold annual payments to Israel if it didn't back down in its war with Egypt. Meaning we still sided with Arabs and Egypt, and Iran opened their arms to the US because they thought the US was making empirialist Britian back off. With Johnson, our mid east/Isreal policy reversed and our troubles in the mid began.

Does the Israel Lobby have influence? With men like Pat Robinson being a very influential Zionist, you bet this lobby has power. Religion is a huge campaign issue this year and many Christians are Zionist, believing when the Jews rebuild the temple, Jesus will return and save our sorry asses. Yes, the lobby and religion has a powerful impact on politics.

In general Jews are very well organized and can destroy people's political careers. When a local newspaper published one of my letters to the editor that was not favorable to Jews, men began calling me afraid for me and what the Jews would do to me, and telling me how their careers were ruined by Jews. Jews are very nice people, but they are also very well organized and very influential. In comparison, Palestinians do not have good ties with the US, and Arabs in general have nothing like the Jewish power in our media. The biggist problem Arabs have with us, is they don't understand our culture as well as Jews do, so they don't have the same ability to present their case. The representation of their side on any issue, is pathetic! Between this difference in media power and the religious Zionist, the Jews are favored in the US, especially since Johnson reversed our political position.

[Nono]

Yes, that's how the lobby-driven, corporate-controlled system in the US works. What's the problem with calling a spade a spade? Beats me.

[Charlatan]

Where does support from Israel come from? Is it because they are bankable, that they will return money that they lend? Is it because of the education levels and employment rates? Something makes America see greatness in Israel so thay invest in it, probably becuase it will yield returns. Forget about the history, the only history you should worry about is the credit history for now, as all wars are expected to be forgotten. You can't hold racial reasons against Israel for that long, I don't think anyone will care if they can make peace, and historically it's all under the bridge - digging it up is looking for an excuse to blame someone for something or get something out of someone, or, rarely, to explain something - which goes back to blaming someone more or less. It is no secret that America gives Israel money, so there must be no real deviousness going on, but the fact that they cannot explain why they are doing so is cause for concern. Does America owe something to Israel? Does Israel have a good way of asking for money? It must be more than a publicity stunt, but giving off so much money to someone who would be very jealously watched by their neighbours is even more reason for concern. Is this favouritism? There must be some ability to repay the debt that other countries lack lying in Israel, or, America must be up to some sort of war effort in broad daylight, logically.

Let's look at it this way, say America sees it like this, one person works hard on average all day long while another sort of person works much less hard for the same amount of money, so who do you invest in? You would want to employ as many of the hard working people as possible, right? I mean investing in less hard working people would result in less work for the same amount of money. Now let's say America sees Israel like another Japan, right, and then they think why not get as many of these people to work for us as possible? The way you can prove which countries have good worers and which don't is to get a track record of thier task completion times, somehow, and compare them. Then you will know who works better than whomever else.

Any other reason could be really wrong to invest in a country like that. It is groundless or it is devious, and it can't be groundless, because what country would do such things, and it is a secret, well sort of, so if not because of a hard work ethic, it must be devious, right?