The Road to Annapolis/ Walt-Mearsheimer Again
Oct 10, 2007 | AIJAC staff
Update from AIJAC
October 10, 2007
Number 10/07 #02
The venue has been announced for the proposed Middle East meeting in November (probably around the 26th) – it is to occur in Annapolis, Maryland. This Update features pieces on the diplomatic challenges and problems in the lead-up to the meeting.
First up, former Middle East mediator Dennis Ross offers some advice to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on what she should be doing to prepare for the meeting. In particular, he advises very intense involvement with the parties, including a willingness to make bridging proposals, plus being prepared to step back from plans for a detailed final “political horizon” in favour of more interim agreements if the former proves not feasible. For this full analysis of the serious challenges and strategies for surmounting them, CLICK HERE. Making some additional useful points about both the barriers and recent positive developments in preparation for the Annapolis meeting was Washington Institute for Near East Policy scholar David Makovsky.
Next up is an editorial from the Jerusalem Post reminding everyone that, even as there is an effort to push ahead with peace talks, there are still doubts not only on the ability of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to implement a peace deal, but the degree to which Palestinian society is actually ready to agree to one. The editorial cites evidence that, despite ostensible recognition of Israel since 1987, there are still major segments of Palestinian society which remain strongly opposed to a genuine two-state peace resolution along the lines which both Israel and the West envision. For this reminder of this other major obstacle to such a deal, CLICK HERE. More on how the Palestinian refugee issue relates to this problem from Israeli pundit Ruth Gavison and former senior official Yossi Ben Aharon.
Finally, American author and journalist Jeffrey Goldberg has a detailed, and very pointed, dissection of the new book by American academics Walt and Mearsheimer, which expands on their widely discussed claims about the power of the so-called “Israel Lobby”. He finds their claims what he calls “Judeocentric”, that is, displaying a belief “that Jews exercise disproportionate control over world affairs, and that world affairs may therefore be explained by reference to the Jews”. He also deals with the shallowness of their discussion of Arab-Israel issues, their claims about”suppression” of debate on the topic, and the absurdity of the assertion that the “Israel Lobby” is responsible for the Iraq war, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For this insightful take on a much-talked about book, and thesis, CLICK HERE.
by Dennis Ross
The New Republic Online | Post date 10.08.07
Secretary of State Rice is planning to convene an international meeting in Annapolis sometime in November. While President Bush has spent little time during his tenure on Arab-Israeli peacemaking, he has embraced Secretary Rice’s ambitious desire to use the Annapolis meeting to endorse a statement of principles on how to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Secretary seems convinced that she can put in place a new foundation to guide peacemaking in the future, and, even if this foundation cannot be implemented any time soon, it will provide the essential baseline for a two-state solution when it becomes possible.
Rice returned from her most recent trip to the Middle East enthused that the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian president are having serious conversations about permanent status issues. She believes these discussions vindicate her decision to pursue a “political horizon” on the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees, and borders.
Perhaps, but these initial discussions have to be translated into mutual concepts and then agreement. And, as the two sides convene small negotiating teams for the first time this week, they will discover how difficult the task is going to be. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert needs to show the Israeli public that Palestinians are not only prepared to make a historic concession and give up the right of return for Palestinian refugees, but that there is reason to believe that Palestinians will actually live up to the commitments they make on fighting terror and stopping rocket attacks. With Hamas consolidating its control in Gaza, words alone will not be convincing to Olmert’s countrymen.
For Mahmoud Abbas, the challenge is no less daunting. If he is going to give up what has been the core of the Palestinian narrative–namely, that Palestinian refugees will have the right to return to their homes–he must be able to point not only to what Palestinians will get in return on Jerusalem and borders but when they will get it. He (and certainly his negotiating team which is made up of all the key veterans of the Oslo process) will want a timeline and will want it accompanied by other rapid changes on the ground (like lifting checkpoints and releasing thousands, not hundreds, of prisoners) to prove that these are not empty promises.
Conceptually, both sides may know what is required for a deal that will end the conflict, at least in principle. However, after nearly seven years of no process and a great deal of violence–and rejectionists in control of Gaza–the price of compromise has gone up, not down, and “delivery” is going to be the real measure for both sides. Do either Olmert or Abbas have the political strength to take the necessary steps?
Secretary Rice may argue, justifiably, that it is worth testing the proposition, particularly at a time when it is essential to show that secular, national Palestinians can offer the Palestinian people a future and the Islamist Hamas cannot. Here again, the instinct may be right, but how one tests the proposition is very important. The Hamas narrative is that diplomacy never works and therefore “resistance” and violence are the only answer. It is paramount that the testing process cannot raise expectations and then fail to deliver anything, lest she prove Hamas right.
The Secretary has rightfully said that the international meeting cannot just be a photo op. Truth be told, the meeting will be a failure even if it produces more than just pictures: If all it creates are generalities and abstractions without some tangible steps and credible follow-on mechanisms, it will be a step back. A “day after” strategy will be essential for proving to both skeptical publics that something credible is now underway.
So, what needs to be done? The Secretary is basically going to have to live with both sides over the next 6-8 weeks. She needs to determine what is bridgeable between the two sides and what is not. This, too, will not be easy; neither side is going to want to concede anything truly important except at a moment when they feel they have no alternative and they are out of time. But here is the rub: it is not clear that either side really believes they have to make existential concessions by November.
One reason the Secretary will need to be shuttling between the two nearly non-stop is to keep pressing to see how far they are truly willing to go and what they need from the other side (and us). What she cannot afford to do is wait and hope that the pressure of the impending meeting will yield what she wants. In fact, she must be careful not to create the impression that she needs the meeting more than anyone else. In such a circumstance, the Israelis and Palestinians will let all the pressure build on her to get something from the other side before they offer anything.
Interestingly, the Saudis, who the Secretary, Olmert, and Abbas desperately want to attend, seem to be playing the run-up to the meeting precisely this way. They have yet to commit to coming; instead, they are laying down the conditions for what it will take for them to participate. Unsurprisingly, their conditions are becoming increasingly more demanding, not less.
In such circumstances, Secretary Rice would be wise to offer bridging propositions once the positions of the two sides become clear, and begin to offer her own fallback objectives if she finds the responses demonstrate that the gaps are unlikely to be bridgeable. One value of using fallback objectives is that they offer another way to see how interested the two sides genuinely are in an agreement of principles on the core issues. Moreover, having the fallback objectives and being able to deliver on them can still make the meeting worthwhile.
Thus, if the Secretary is unable to produce a text that outlines the core tradeoffs on Jerusalem, refugees, and borders, she might go for lesser, but still important, agreement on: the scope of sovereignty, state to state relations, and a process to begin to develop such relations; Israeli territorial withdrawal(s) from the West Bank conditioned on agreed milestones on Palestinian (or others’) performance on security; a freeze on expansion of existing Israeli settlements and a commitment not to develop the E-1 area; an ongoing process with agreed criteria on Palestinian prisoner releases to ensure at least some prisoners are released every few weeks; a serious mechanism (with leadership involvement) for ending incitement and the teaching of hatred; working groups to develop options on Jerusalem, refugees and final borders; and implementation committees to ensure all obligations are fulfilled.
Such an outcome might not be everything the President and the Secretary want, but if it were achieved it would transform the current reality between Israelis and Palestinians. Statecraft involves not only developing clear objectives that can be tied to the means that we and others can employ to achieve them, but also knowing what to aim for and when to do so. Let’s hope Secretary Rice knows when to press, what to press for, and also when to back off–if the alternative is a failed meeting.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.
Jerusalem Post, Oct 8, 2007 23:57 | Updated Oct 9, 2007 0:26
In his speech opening the Knesset’s winter session yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert covered a lot of ground. He and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik exhorted the members to debate with civility, a call that once again will likely, unfortunately, go unheeded. He announced a major push to advance the drafting of a constitution during Israel’s 60th year.
Inevitably, however, these and other critical issues will go largely ignored as the spotlight shines on the issue that has preoccupied us throughout the modern Jewish state’s short history, the conflict with the Arab world. Once again, a diplomatic “process” is emerging, prodding us to ask ourselves how this particular layer, heaped upon so many others, might conceivably be different.
The difference, we are told, is that for the first time, a Palestinian leadership has emerged that is truly interested in accepting the two-state solution: namely, a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
This is a striking claim, both for what it says about the Palestinians now and what it says about the last few decades of diplomacy. Israelis, after all, have been hearing that Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist since 1987, when Yasser Arafat “renounced” terrorism and the US opened a dialogue with the PLO. We heard the same again in 1993, with the signing of the Oslo accords.
Yet it was after all this “recognition,” following Israel’s attempt to actually create a Palestinian state by agreement in 2000, that years of a vicious suicide bombing campaign ensued, as did the rise of Hamas, which openly embraces terror and rejects Israel’s right to exist within any borders.
Now, in the context of the latest talks between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, we catch a glimmer of how, until now, the more the Palestinians have claimed to “recognize” Israel, the more entrenched their fight against Israel seemed to become. This glimpse comes in the form of a letter to Abbas from Salman Abu Sitta, a prominent spokesman for Palestinian refugees, as reported by our correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh.
“We are aware of the pressure you are under to abandon the Palestinian position and endorse Israel’s vision,” Abu Sitta writes. “But what has drawn our attention more than anything is Israel’s attempt to redefine the two-state solution. Israel now wants mutual recognition – Israel as the national homeland for the Jews and, on what’s left of the land, Palestine as the national homeland of the Palestinians.”
Abu Sitta called on all Arabs to reject this Israeli formula as “extremely dangerous,” since it was tantamount to abandoning the Arab right to Palestine and accepting Jewish historical and biblical rights to the land. In his eyes, such a formula would also “abandon the right of return after decades of fighting.”
This letter is revealing because it suggests that, for all the previous Palestinian talk of recognizing Israel and the previous ostensible embrace of the “two-state solution,” this never meant either an acceptance of the Jewish right to sovereignty in its ancient land, or even to accepting Israel’s right not to be overwhelmed demographically by Palestinians.
In short, Abu Sitta is accusing Abbas of considering peace with Israel in the sense that Israelis, Europeans, Americans and any other supporters of peace understand the word: peace with Israel, not peace as a euphemism for the struggle to destroy Israel.
We can only hope that Abu Sitta is right, that Olmert is right, in their assessment of Abbas’s intentions.
But beyond such hope, Abu Sitta’s concerns demonstrate two critical lessons for true peace-seekers: 1) that past agreements and diplomacy cannot be taken as proof that Palestinians have truly come to terms with building a state alongside Israel, and 2) that the demand of a “right of return” to Israel is completely inconsistent with the plain meaning of the two-state solution as Israel and the West understand it.
We do not know what, if anything, will emerge from the planned conference in Annapolis next month. We do know that success or failure should not be measured by whether some document is produced, but by whether the Palestinians show some sign of accepting exactly what Abu Sitta fears: that peace with Israel means ending the campaign to destroy Israel.
This is why it has become so important for Israel that the Arab side accept the Jewish people’s right to renewing its national self-determination in this land, not just Israel’s de facto existence. If the Arab world in general, and the Palestinians in particular, are not ready to accept the former, they are not ready for peace. If they continue to meaninglessly repeat only the latter, they are reserving the right to continue to seek Israel’s destruction.
by Jeffrey Goldberg
The New Republic
Post date: 10.01.07
Issue date: 10.08.07
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 484 pp., $26)
In October 2002, Osama bin Laden issued a statement in which he analyzed America’s inexhaustible number of sins and prescribed ways of repenting for many of them. The statement was, by the standards of bin Laden’s cave encyclicals, unusually coherent. (Unlike, say, his most recent video, released in early September, which ranged across the sub-prime mortgage crisis, America’s high rate of taxation, and the work of Noam Chomsky–the latter treated sympathetically, of course.) The 2002 letter laid out in a somewhat deliberate fashion bin Laden’s main complaints, and it helped to answer a question that Americans often ask: Do they hate us for who we are, or for what we do?
Bin Laden’s answer was, why choose? In his epistle to America, bin Laden asked Americans to submit to Islam, which he called “the religion of showing kindness to others.” He excoriated us for our immorality: “We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honor and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants [and] gambling.” He condemned us for manufacturing AIDS, which is a “Satanic American Invention.” He also declared himself in opposition to the pervasive practice of incest in America, “in the face of which neither your sense of honor nor your laws object.” He plangently concluded that “it is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” We are the worst because we “invent” our own laws to govern ourselves, rather than embrace God’s law, or more precisely, his God’s law, sharia; and because we mandate the separation of religion from politics; and because we allow usury.
The American addiction to usury is most upsetting to bin Laden. As is well known, the charging of interest–at usurious rates or otherwise–is banned by Islam. The institutions of “Islamic banking” were developed to find a way to conform to Islamic law and still prosper. Bin Laden’s view of usury, and of Western banking practices, is characteristically unsophisticated. And he has a theory about its historical origins: Western banking is Jewish banking. “As a result of [usury], in all their different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life, making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense.”
The Jews, of course, are a preoccupation of bin Laden’s. They are an important source of immorality, and, in their union with Christianity–the “Zionist-Crusader alliance” of which he often speaks– they have for centuries propagated falsehood and heresy. In conjunction with the Christians, the Jews also advocate policies that undermine the interests of Islam. It is not merely American financial and political support for Israel that frustrates bin Laden, but, crucially, America’s role in perpetuating the idea that Palestine was once a Jewish homeland, and that the Jews of today are, in fact, proper Jews at all: “It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah.”
In the 2002 letter, bin Laden blames America for providing support to the usurping Zionists, but a careful reading of his rant will show that American support for Israel is only one of his many grievances against America. “You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir,” he writes. “You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices…. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world…. Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands.” And in the Al Qaeda heartlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan, it is often Hindus–and, in some places, Shia–who are the unfortunate focus of Islamist zeal. (“The polytheists”–the Hindus– “are Satan’s agents in the world,” the Al Qaeda terrorist Fazlur Rahman Khalil once told me.) The Al Qaeda worldview is a fevered jumble, in which hatred never lacks an object and infidels are infinite.
It is rather uncontroversial to call Osama bin Laden an anti-Semite. He is the easy case. But since many people in the West are queasy about attaching the label of anti-Semitism to almost anybody, regarding the charge of anti-Semitism as itself proof of prejudice, let me begin by describing bin Laden’s view of history less inflammatorily–not as anti-Semitic, but as Judeocentric. He believes that Jews exercise disproportionate control over world affairs, and that world affairs may therefore be explained by reference to the Jews. A Judeocentric view of history is one that regards the Jews as the center of the story, and therefore the key to it. Judeocentrism is a single- cause theory of history, and as such it is, almost by definition, a conspiracy theory. Moreover, Judeocentrism comes in positive forms and negative forms. The positive form of Judeocentrism is philo-Semitism, the negative form is anti- Semitism. (There are philo-Semites who regard the Jews as the inventors of modernity, and there are anti-Semites who do the same; but the idea that Spinoza, Freud, and Einstein are responsible for us is as foolish as the idea that their ideas are jüdische Wissenschaft.) In both its positive and negative forms, Judeo- centrism is always a mistake. Human events are not so neatly explained.
In the inflamed universe of negative Judeocentrism, there is a sliding scale of obsession. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, seems at times to view the world entirely through the prism of a Jewish conspiracy, and he regularly breaks new ground in the field of state-supported Holocaust denial. In Cairo, the activities of Jews, Israeli and other- wise, are a continual source of worry. Many of the monarchs in the Gulf countries, by contrast, will sometimes exploit anti-Jewish feeling for political reasons, but they do not seem to be personally obsessed by Jews. They are too worldly for that. In Europe, too, one finds great variations in the expression of Judeocentrism. There are still traces of Holocaust-induced philo-Semitism in places like Germany; but there are also figures such as Clare Short, the former British cabinet minister, who recently blamed Israel for global warming.
America, too, has a history of Judeocentrism, and also of the negative kind, the essence of which has been the belief that Jews, in order to advance their own interests, are responsible for entangling America in unnecessary wars–what we now call “wars of choice,” which the Jews, it is alleged, have chosen for us. In the years leading up to World War II, the Jewish desire for war against Hitler was a constant theme of Father Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, and Joseph P. Kennedy. “Instead of agitating for war, Jews in this country should be opposing it in every way, for they will be the first to feel its consequences,” Lindbergh said in a speech in Des Moines on September 11, 1941. In more recent times, figures such as Patrick Buchanan, Louis Farrakhan, and David Duke have updated the notion and explained America’s woes–Buchanan cleverly, Duke crudely, Farrakhan insanely–as the work of the Jews. (In 1990, as the first Bush administration was building up to war against Iraq, in order to expel Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait, Buchanan stated that “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory.”) Perhaps the best and most succinct expression of this school of American Judeocentrism was offered by Mel Gibson when he explained, upon his arrest for drunk driving, that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”
It is an odious tradition, and I do not see how any thoughtful or decent individual would wish to belong to it. (I say thoughtful because the theory has no analytical value, and decent because the theory has harmful consequences.) But the tradition has now found a couple of unexpected new tribunes. The Judeocentric understanding of America’s foreign policy is now the special province of two ostensibly reputable scholars, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University. The two men gained their fame–which is wildly disproportionate to their achievement–last spring, after the publication of an article in the London Review of Books that condemned the activities of Jewish-American supporters of Israel and argued that those activities are responsible for an astounding number of world-historical developments.
In the article, the word “lobby” was ominously capitalized, Robert Ludlum style, as “the Lobby,” to connote the perfect grip of pro-Israel activists upon Washington. In their new book, which builds on (and worsens) that earlier work, Mearsheimer and Walt lower-case the word “lobby,” as a small tribute, I suppose, to the reality-based community. They have also excised some of the rougher language of their original blast. They have corrected some, though not all, of their errors of fact. But otherwise the book remains true to the malignant and dishonest spirit of the article. It represents the most sustained attack, the most mainstream attack, against the political enfranchisement of American Jews since the era of Father Coughlin.
he villains in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy are almost entirely Jewish. Many of the chapters of the book contain extensive lists of Jews (even Rothschilds) who, the authors claim, act against the best interests of the United States. And act effectively: the Israel lobby in this book is an invincible juggernaut. In some of Mearsheimer and Walt’s pages, AIPAC resembles SMERSH or THRUSH. The America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, you see, “has an almost unchallenged hold on Congress,” and therefore on the United States. (In the London Review article, the “hold” was described as a “stranglehold.”)
And how do we know that AIPAC has a hold on Congress? This is a very good question. For Mearsheimer and Walt are so thoroughly under the spell of their own assertions that they do not seem to notice the circular (or more precisely, agit- prop) quality of what they have written. Consider a typical sentence: “The real reason why American politicians are so deferential [to Israel] is the political power of the Israel lobby.” That is not a proof. That is what requires a proof.
So what are Mearsheimer and Walt’s methods? A hasty survey of a vast literature on Israel and the Middle East, clearly unfamiliar to them until very recently, so as to cite every and any remark that suits their purpose, its context or its veracity notwithstanding. Most significantly, and by their own admission, Mearsheimer and Walt did no reporting. They did not interview a single member of Congress for their book about Congress. Perhaps it is beneath them as scholars to behave like journalists. But their methodological arrogance, their failure to meet any serious standard of empirical inquiry, their slavish reliance on second- and third-hand works, is astonishing. The truth of what they say is just completely obvious to them. At an appearance in September at the bookstore Politics and Prose, in Washington, Walt confidently asserted that “I think if we had interviewed every member of Congress and every lobbyist at AIPAC we would not have found a substantially different story than the one we reported.” How does he know?
After baldly declaring, in the manner of conspiracy theorists, and over and over again, also in the manner of conspiracy theorists, that AIPAC dominates Congress (at the same time claiming, risibly, that “we do not believe the lobby … controls important institutions in the United States”), Mearsheimer and Walt then proceed to catalog all the mistakes and the crimes for which AIPAC and the many other groups that make up the pro-Israel lobby are, in their omnipotence, responsible. Mearsheimer and Walt are not alleging the existence of a secret Jewish plot to control American foreign policy; they are alleging the existence of an open Jewish plot to control American foreign policy. The most remarkable of their allegations–this one is actually quite breathtaking–is that the pro-Israel lobby is causally related to the attacks of September 11. They claim that AIPAC’s control of Congress forced America into an unnaturally close alliance with Israel, and that this alliance infuriated bin Laden, as well as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the operation, who acted against America in large part because of its support for Israel.
This is not quite the view, commonly heard in the Arab world, that Israel had a direct hand in the destruction of the World Trade Center; but still it is heinous. The unmistakable message of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is that the destruction on September 11 was caused in significant measure by the Jews. “The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it has long been so supportive of Israel,” Mearsheimer and Walt write. “Many people may not realize how much America’s one-sided policies have cost it over the years. Not only have these policies helped inspire al-Qaeda, but they have also facilitated its recruitment efforts and contributed to growing anti-Americanism throughout the region.” At Politics and Prose, Walt called America’s support for Israel “one of the key causes” of “America’s terrorist problem.” He went on to say that “American policy gives some individuals in the Arab and Islamic world cause to attack the United States as happened on 9/11.” Cause! Ponder that word.
Never mind that Mearsheimer and Walt exaggerate the centrality of the Jews in bin Laden’s worldview. (The transcript of his September video makes this clear.) Al Qaeda’s war on America is only one of three wars that Mearsheimer and Walt blame on Israel and its mainly Jewish supporters. They argue that pro- Israel Jews in America were “the principal driving force behind the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003”; and they argue that it is only Jewish organizations, and their patrons in the Jewish state, that are now fomenting a war against Iran.
To support their preference for an American-Iranian détente, Mearsheimer and Walt present a spectacularly partial rendering of the pertinent history–they do not even consider that one barrier to better relations with the theocratic dictators in Tehran might be our inconvenient but painful memories of the hostage crisis. And in making their case that it is only Jews who oppose reconciliation with Iran, they neglect to mention, among other things, European opposition to the Iranian nuclear program. Their Judeo- centric interpretation of the Iran hawks does not consider the possibility that Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, might have been motivated only by French national security interests when he recently said that Iran’s obstinacy on the nuclear question would have “catastrophic consequences.” Or has AIPAC gotten to him, too? But wait–Sarkozy is one-quarter Jewish. No wonder he is militant about Iran! (Mearsheimer and Walt like to explain the pro-Israel attitudes of American politicians in gross tribal terms. Howard Dean’s “unabashed” pro-Israel stance, for example, is explicable when you grasp that “Dean’s wife is Jewish and his children were raised Jewish as well.”)
Mearsheimer and Walt stretch their Iran argument to the snapping point. They contend that Israeli politicians and their supporters in America exaggerate the existential threat to Israel posed by Iran, because Iranian radicals have not actually called for the elimination of Israel. They assert that “Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to vanish from the page of time’ (or to be erased from the pages of history’) is often mistranslated as a call for Israel’s physical destruction (i.e. to wipe Israel off the map’).” Often mistranslated? I wonder how good their own Farsi is. But Al Jazeera–no known Jewish control there–reported in 2005 that at the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran, Ahmadinejad declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Ahmadinejad’s own website described the speech this way: “He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.” The official Iranian broadcast service reported that “Iran’s President … on Wednesday called for Israel to be wiped off the map.'” Surely there are clearer ways to express a desire for coexistence.
It is mystifying that Mearsheimer and Walt would so easily destroy their own credibility by stating as fact lies that are so easily refuted. Perhaps it is because they have become dedicated enemies of complexity. When did it become legitimate in American political science to explain complicated phenomena by single causes? Not even the blizzard of footnotes at the end of their book can disguise the fact that it is an exercise in simplification. Or is their intellectual imbalance owed to a different pressure–to the rage of the realist, perhaps? Mearsheimer and Walt are prominent advocates of the “realist” approach to foreign policy; and there is nothing a realist despises more, from Henry Kissinger to Samuel Huntington (to whom this book is dedicated), than domestic interference in the crafting of foreign policy. What right does an ignorant and emotional ethnic group have to disrupt the plans of wise statesmen and the analyses of detached academics? But such disruptions are an integral part of the American system–as America’s Cubans and Turks and Greeks and, yes, Jews have regularly, and quite legitimately, demonstrated. Mearsheimer and Walt’s Judeocentric view of American policy in the Middle East is just a way of pinning the American system that they dislike on the Jews.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a book of continuous astonishments. Each chapter contains assertions of Jewish misbehavior, or criminality. The history of the Arab- Israeli conflict recounted here is comically one-sided, even by the standards of Israel’s revisionist historians. In Mearsheimer and Walt’s telling, Israel is perpetually the aggressor; it has never made a serious move toward peace and compromise; and its existence has never been threatened by the Arabs, who are portrayed as out-numbered, out-funded, and under-armed victims of Zionist aggression. The Israel of Mearsheimer and Walt is simply unrecognizable to anyone who is halfway fair and halfway learned about the Middle East. Various scholars have already demolished their recounting of Israeli history, most notably Benny Morris in the pages of this magazine. Morris’s research into the origins of the war for Israeli independence in 1948 was put to perverse use by Mearsheimer and Walt, and he reclaimed it with authority. I will not dwell here on their many mistakes and distortions, except to point out two of the most obvious ones: their claim that Israel’s Arab neighbors did not hope to destroy the Jewish state in 1967, and their claim that Israel, under the leadership of Ehud Barak, did not offer Yasir Arafat anything fair or interesting at Camp David and Taba in 2000. Both are easily refuted. (An obscure little volume called My Life, by Bill Clinton, makes a quick hash of their account of the peace process.)
Like Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt condemn Israel for behaving in an un-Christian manner. “Christian Zionists may believe that biblical prophecy justifies Jewish control of all of Palestine, but other Christian principles–such as Christ’s command to love thy neighbor as thyself’–are sharply at odds with Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian subjects,” they piously write. But the Palestinians, of course, love their neighbors. Not willing to undermine their portrait of the Palestinians as lambs before the Jewish wolf, Mearsheimer and Walt only fleetingly acknowledge the existence of Palestinian terrorism (without ever once mentioning the number of Israeli victims of Palestinian terror–or American victims, for that matter), except to observe that Palestinian terrorism was forced on the Palestinians by Israel’s unrelenting suppression after the 1967 war. “Not surprisingly, Palestinian resistance has frequently employed terrorism, which is usually how subject populations strike back at powerful occupiers.” Such an analysis assumes that the reader is unaware that Palestinian terrorism against Israel predates the 1967 war and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It is also an insult to other subject populations: the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, in an interview five years ago, was explicit about his rejection of terrorism, saying that “we could have bombed movie theaters in Baghdad and buses like the Palestinians, but we made the decision not to. It would have been wrong.” Like so many supporters of the Palestinians, Mearsheimer and Walt have no use for their historical agency. The Palestinians are always responsible for nothing.
n building their case against Israel and its supporters in America, Mearsheimer and Walt prophylactically denounce anti-Semitism. But at the same time they argue that it barely exists, or that its existence has no bearing whatever upon this bitter discussion: “While the charge of anti-Semitism can be an effective smear tactic, it is usually groundless.” Usually when, and usually where? No, not all criticism of Israel or AIPAC is anti-Semitic. Wait, let me say that again. No, not all criticism of Israel or AIPAC is anti-Semitic. But the idea that no criticism of Israel or AIPAC is anti-Semitic is just as ridiculous. To proceed with their generalized and somewhat defensive point, Mearsheimer and Walt ignore an abundance of evidence about Europe, including the well- publicized British parliamentary report on anti-Semitism, issued in September 2006, which found anti-Jewish incitement in Britain to have reached crisis levels. The leader of that parliamentary inquiry, Denis MacShane, wrote in The Washington Post last month that “Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti- Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous.”
Not so, say Mearsheimer and Walt. The number of anti-Semites in Europe, they write, is “small and their extreme views are rejected by the vast majority of Europeans.” They do not deny, though, that “there is anti-Semitism among European Muslims, some of it provoked by Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians and some of it straightforwardly racist.” This is a bizarre and foul passage, its foulness easily clarified by a simple act of substitution. Imagine Farrar, Straus and Giroux publishing the following sentence: “We would not deny that there is some racial prejudice among whites, some of it provoked by the misbehavior of African- Americans, and some of it straightforwardly racist.” Mearsheimer and Walt are the sort of scholars who think that if you wish to understand racism, study blacks, and if you wish to understand anti- Semitism, study Jews. They are chillingly unaware that such views are complicit with the prejudice that they claim to abhor.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is premised on many such nasty and false ideas, but underpinning them all is the belief that America supports Israel only because the pro-Israel lobby forces it to do so. Mearsheimer and Walt contend–we have heard this contention many times before–that Israel has no strategic or moral value to America, and that a proper foreign policy would cut Israel adrift. What is unfathomable to them is that many Americans, Jewish and otherwise, admire Israel. Forty years of polling has consistently shown that Americans support Israel in its conflict with the Arabs. Why? There are a multitude of plausible reasons. Both Israel and America were founded by refugees from European religious intolerance; both are rooted in a common religious tradition; Israel is a lively democracy in a part of the world that lacks democracy; Israelis seem self-reliant in the manner of American pioneers; and Israel’s enemies, in many cases, seem to be Amer- ica’s enemies as well. And perhaps some obstreperous Americans side with Israel simply because the radical Islamists demand that they stop.
None of these possible explanations has penetrated the minds of Mearsheimer and Walt. There is only one cause for America’s support for Israel, they say: the lobby, its money, its muscle, its effectiveness at suppressing dissent about its activities and about the depth of Israel’s crimes and strategic uselessness. (More about dissent in a moment.) The ultimate lesson of this book is that America must free itself from the shackles of the pro-Israel lobby. It is this message, more than any other, that makes Mearsheimer and Walt the heirs of a certain American current. In 1940, Joseph P. Kennedy went to Hollywood to address its mostly Jewish studio chiefs. As recounted in Neal Gabler’s An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Kennedy told his lunch audience to “stop making anti-Nazi pictures or using the film medium to promote or show sympathy to the cause of the democracies’ versus the dictators.'” He told the executives that the Jews were already being blamed for the war. His bullying was effective: the studio chiefs, uneasy about their ethnic heritage and therefore susceptible to the call of assimilation, were frightened into compliance by his message, until America entered the war a year later. Mearsheimer and Walt have set themselves a similar goal: to convince non-Jews that their Jewish fellow citizens do not have their best interests at heart, and, further, to harass or to rattle or to embarrass American Jews into silence. Their book is not an act of scholarship, but an act of intimidation.
But wait. Isn’t AIPAC the one that is in the business of intimidation? “The lobby has gone to considerable lengths to shape public discourse about Israel by putting pressure on the media and academia and by establishing a tangible presence in influential foreign policy think tanks,” Mearsheimer and Walt insist. “Efforts to shape public perceptions often include charging critics of Israel with anti-Semitism.” The publication of their article in the London Review of Books certainly provoked controversy. It was designed to provoke controversy. But our heroes’ skin proved too thin for controversy. Though they were extensively praised in Europe, where everybody is of course much saner because they are beyond AIPAC’s reach, Mearsheimer and Walt experienced a good deal of withering criticism in America. (And also some fair, even generous coverage here, including a credulous Washington Post Magazine cover story about their work.) And yet their ideas have been widely debated and discussed. And yet they received a dizzying advance to turn their essay into this book. And yet their book is already a best-seller.
They claim that they themselves are victims of the pro-Israel lobby, but the existence of their book, and the sensation that attends it, rather negates their self-pity. I mean, somehow The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy slipped past the lobby. When I visited Amazon.com to check the book’s ranking a few weeks ago–it was at number thirty- five–I learned that customers who bought it also purchased The Power of Israel in the United States; Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History; They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby; and of course Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. So there is a literature of this sort, and a market for it. And yet in their own minds–this is the comic dimension of this sad story– Mearsheimer and Walt are dissidents. They portray themselves, and the many American critics of the pro-Israel lobby, as free-speech martyrs. In this way the fellows at number thirty-five resemble their idol Jimmy Carter, who complained about being muzzled even as his book was climbing the best-seller lists. They seem to think that anybody who disagrees with what they say is deny- ing their right to say it. The truth is that most of Mearsheimer and Walt’s critics do not want to suppress their ideas. They merely want to refute them.
The pro-Israel lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt contend, goes to any length to steer media coverage in Israel’s favor: “If the media were left to their own devices, they would not serve up as consistent a diet of pro-Israel coverage and commentary.” And whose devices, precisely, are they left up to? We are awfully close to the Elders of Z. here. Mearsheimer and Walt’s opinion that the press in America is robotically pro-Israel only betrays their ignorance of the American press. They are apparently unacquainted with the work of the editorial boards of, say, The New York Times and The Boston Globe. They might recall the life and work of the late Peter Jennings. They identify such columnists as Richard Cohen of The Washington Post and Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times as Israeli sympathizers, which is true in the sense that Cohen and Friedman do not support the murder of Israeli civilians or the extinction of the Israeli state. But when Friedman’s words suit their own tendency, when he writes critically of Israeli policy, they cite him. So Friedman is an agent of Israeli interests, except when he is not. At his Politics and Prose talk, Walt said that American columnists represent a narrow spectrum of opinion on Israel. “If you look at punditry in the U.S., there’s no equivalent of a Robert Fisk or a Patrick Seale,” he said. This is true, but I cannot lament the loss. Patrick Seale is the court biographer of the Assad family, and the author of a book that identifies Abu Nidal, a mass murderer of Jews, as an Israeli agent; and Robert Fisk is a rabid anti-Zionist who has lately made common cause with the September 11 conspiracy movement.
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that the pro-Israel groups have gone to dangerous and unprecedented lengths to shut down “honest” debate–one that would presumably credit the ideas of such fearless truth-tellers as Fisk and Seale–about Israel. They provide numerous examples. “Jewish Voice for Peace was denied a booth at a major Jewish community event in the San Francisco area on the grounds that it was insufficiently supportive of Israel, and the Hillel chapter at the University of Texas refused to give an organization called Jewish Students for Palestinian Rights space to conduct a study group.” And “pro-Israel groups were more active shaping media coverage than pro-Arab groups were; in 1970, for example, the Conference of Presidents distributed press kits (complete with photos and feature stories) to more than seventeen hundred newspapers and to major wire services.” And “to discourage unfavorable reporting on Israel, groups in the lobby organize letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations, and boycotts against news outlets whose content they consider anti-Israel.” And “following the publication of our original article … the president of the War College received phone calls from several members of Congress who questioned whether it was appropriate to have us speak at the conference. To his credit, the president took no action in response to these calls and we appeared without incident.” And “a subsequent invitation to Walt to speak in a lecture series at the University of Montana also provoked heated denunciations by several faculty members, who began a protracted but unsuccessful campaign to have the faculty coordinator of the lecture series removed from his post.” Booths, press kits, letters, phone calls. Get it? The chilling pattern is clear. First they come for the faculty coordinator of the lecture series at the University of Montana, then they come for you.
There is an interesting book to be written about the power of AIPAC, and other pro-Israel lobbying groups, in Washington. There is also a book to be written about the moral failings of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. I myself wrote a version of that latter book. But my recoil from Israel’s settlement policy was not a recoil from Israel itself: I remain a believer in the legitimacy and the necessity of a national home for the Jewish people. I regard territorial compromise, and the establishment of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as the only solution to this savage conflict. And I am not much of a believer in AIPAC.
I have three reasons for my distaste for AIPAC. The first is a matter of style: AIPAC’s leaders tend toward glibness and certitude, when the Middle East is a dense and ambiguous place. The second is that I dislike single-issue lobbies and single-issue politics–the duties of American citizenship require more than that; and I worry about the distorting impact of money in political campaigns. The third is that AIPAC has leaned rightward in recent years, and today seeks to drum up support for policies that do not seem to me to be in Israel’s best interests. On the issue of aid to Israel, AIPAC reflexively seeks from Congress generous grants that also do not seem to me to be in Israel’s best interests. It is true that economic aid is being phased out, but military assistance is being increased–Israel receives about $3 billion a year in direct aid, although it has become a well-off country (even if the numbers of its poor are scandalously high). As an American taxpayer, I would rather see some of that money go to poorer countries. And I tend to think that Israel would be better off–more independent, more responsible with its own money–if it paid for American weaponry out of its own treasury, rather than with American aid money. I believe Israel should slowly wean itself from American aid, but AIPAC first has to agree to this.
Now, none of these criticisms requires any courage on my part. Indeed, these opinions are all widely held and widely debated within the exceedingly unmonolithic Jewish community, and they betray no particular animus toward the Jewish state. (Mearsheimer and Walt have no grasp whatsoever of the diversity of American Jewish life. In a single sentence, they identify the Zionist Organization of America, which is run by the revanchist Morton Klein, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which is run by the progressive David Saperstein, as interchangeable cogs of the pro-Israeli machine.) Mearsheimer and Walt are for the two-state solution, which is banal but fine. Yet when did support for the two-state solution require support for a Jewish conspiracy theory? Why couldn’t these formerly credible scholars have made their criticisms of AIPAC and of Israel without demonizing Jews and demonizing Israel? And do they know anything, anything at all, about lobbies in the nation’s capital?
Of course AIPAC acts forcefully, even arrogantly: for lobbyists, that is one definition of professional success. Several years ago, at dinner with Steven Rosen, who was the foreign policy chief of AIPAC until he came under suspicion of passing American secrets to Israel (he has not yet been brought to trial), I mentioned the controversy involving a former president of AIPAC who was caught on tape bragging that he had “cut a deal” with the first Bush administration to provide higher levels of aid to Israel. I asked Rosen if AIPAC suffered from the affair. He reached across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.” As I say, arrogant. But there are a hundred or more lobbyists in Washington who could pull off the napkin trick: lobbyists for the gun lobby, and for oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, and for the anti-Castro lobby and the Saudi lobby. And try getting any administration to challenge China’s record on human rights. For China, the town is wired in a way that must fill AIPAC with envy. Say the word “China” in Washington, and congressmen, lobbyists, and Cabinet officials all hear the same thing: “summer home.”
Mearsheimer and Walt write about the lobbying activities of AIPAC and other Jewish lobbying and advocacy groups as if they had never set foot in the capital. Here is their description of the way in which AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups do their work: “In addition to direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, the lobby rewards or punishes politicians largely through an ability to guide the flow of campaign contributions. Organizations in the lobby also put pressure on the executive branch through a number of mechanisms, including working through government officials who are sympathetic to their views.” Imagine that!
One of the most serious charges that Mearsheimer and Walt level at AIPAC and its neoconservative fellow travelers is that they were indispensable in pushing America to invade Iraq. There is no doubt that neoconservatives agitated for the war, and that many neoconservatives are Jews; and there is no doubt that there were Jews, in and out of the Bush administration, who argued for the invasion of Iraq, including Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. Is that really all we need to know about the origins of the war? There were also some Christians at the scene, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, and Richard Myers. Some of those Christians were even in positions to order the invasion!
The assertion that the Iraq war would not have happened except for the lobbying of Jews is an echo of an ancient idea spread by anti-Jewish ideologues: that Jews, operating in the shadows, manipulate gentile leaders to unknowingly advance Jewish interests. In order to believe this in the case of Iraq, the argument would have to be made that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not merely idiots, but also uninterested in ruling. A couple of years ago I asked Rumsfeld to comment on accusations that the Jewish lobby maneuvered the administration into war. “I suppose the implication of that is the president and the vice president and myself and Colin Powell just fell off a turnip truck to take these jobs,” he said. But Mearsheimer and Walt mention Cheney and Rumsfeld only for fleeting instants in their discussion of the origins of the war. They seem to think that William Kristol is the commander in chief.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy further asserts that the Israeli government itself had been arguing vociferously for an American invasion of Iraq since 2001. Mearsheimer and Walt point to public-opinion polls that showed that, across the globe, only the civilian populations of Israel and Kuwait supported the war. They write as if mystified by these findings. It is worth noting that both Kuwait and Israel had been attacked by Saddam Hussein–Kuwait by his army, Israel by his missile force. Perhaps this explains the poll results. And yet the fact is that the Israelis, and the pro-Israel lobby, were focused mainly on the threat from Iran, not Iraq, during the first years of this decade. AIPAC supported the administration in its pursuit of Saddam Hussein, but only after the invasion seemed to be a fait accompli. Last month, in an interview, Lawrence Wil- kerson, who was Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, and who is an adversary of administration neo- conservatives, told me that Israel had been consistently warning the administration that Iran was the main threat, not Iraq. “The Israelis tried their best to persuade us that we were focused on the wrong enemy,” he said, “and that they were very leery of destroying the balance of power in the Middle East. But once they understood that we were going to war, come hell or high water, they weren’t going to get on the wrong side of the president of the United States.” (Wilkerson, of course, makes no appearance in this book.)
And yet even the charge that Jewish organizations took us to war in Iraq is not the low point in Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. Its most sinister accomplishment is surely the accusation that Al Qaeda attacked America because America supports the Jewish state. Again, Mearsheimer and Walt are convinced that the America-Israel connection is what moves bin Laden. At Politics and Prose, Mearsheimer uttered this remarkable statement: “Osama bin Laden wanted very much to make sure that the attacks struck at Congress, which he saw–quite correctly–as the location of the critical support of the United States for Israel.” Mearsheimer seemed pleased, rather than appalled, that bin Laden’s analysis of Congress’s priorities squared so perfectly with his own.
Yes, bin Laden has Jews on the brain. But he also obsesses about much else. Don’t trust me on this; trust the (non-Jewish) experts. “You could take Israel out of the equation and Al Qaeda would still want to attack us,” Lawrence Wright, the author of The Looming Tower, told me. “Israel is a tremendously powerful recruiting tool, but there are people who are drawn to Al Qaeda for many different motivations. For Zawahiri, the main goal was Egypt. For bin Laden, the main goal was to expel American troops from Saudi Arabia.” Richard Clarke, the Al Qaeda expert in the Clinton and Bush administrations, said that “if you look at Al Qaeda’s own writing and their public statements, Israel was not a major theme. What they say is pretty clear. They want to eliminate the presence of the far enemy’–us–from the Islamic world, because the far enemy props up the near enemy,’ the moderate Arab states. If they increase the pain on us, they believe that they can topple the Arab regimes. If Israel didn’t exist, they’d be doing the same thing.” And Peter Bergen, the Al Qaeda expert at the New America Foundation–one of just three Washington think tanks that Mearsheimer and Walt praise for escaping the control of the Israel lobby–told me that, while the Israel-Arab conflict provides strong recruitment, “Pakistan is the epicenter of planning and training, and the Kashmir conflict is the strong engine there.” Mearsheimer and Walt claim that the “Zionist-Crusader alliance,” the Al Qaeda shorthand for Islam’s main enemy, is a reference to the pro-Israel lobby and its Christian Zionist allies in Washington. Bergen disagrees. “I never take it to mean AIPAC. It means Jews, Christians, the People of the Book, the entire West. It’s a big concept. I can’t remember bin Laden ever mentioning AIPAC.”
In their discussion of these matters, Mearsheimer and Walt seem not just mendacious but also shallow. They are dilettantes in the subject, tourists in the conflict. Consider an example. After cherry-picking quotations from jihadists to support the view that America’s ties to Israel brought us the attacks of September 11, they raise the subject of Sayyid Qutb’s anti-Americanism. Qutb was a terribly important Egyptian Islamist, and Al Qaeda’s main intellectual inspiration. Mearsheimer and Walt instruct that “Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian dissident whose writings have been an important inspiration for contemporary Islamic fundamentalists, was hostile to the United States both because he saw it as a corrupt and licentious society and also because of U.S. support for Israel.” But wait. Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966, almost a year before the Six Day War. It was not until after that war that America replaced France as Israel’s chief protector and arms- supplier. In fact, throughout the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration was often quite hostile to Israel. So Qutb’s objection, then, was not to American support for Israel, but to American recognition of Israel. If this is the case, then Islamist anger at America predates our support for the usurping Zionists. And if this is so, then Al Qaeda would have attacked the United States whether or not America was Israel’s patron, and whether or not the pro-Israel lobby existed. Therefore, as far-fetched as this may seem, the Jews should not be blamed for the attack on the World Trade Center.
One would think that the editors at Farrar, Straus and Giroux might have harpooned this leviathan of a contradiction before it reached print. Unless of course you believe, as I do, that Farrar, Straus and Giroux has all along been allowing Mearsheimer and Walt to undermine their own credibility by promoting their abysmal arguments about Jewish power. The publishing house, you see, is not known to be a part of the Jewish lobby, but its owner, the German company Holtzbrinck, has been emphatically friendly to Israel, in part out of guilt that its founder was a Nazi. Remember, everything is not what it seems. This book about a malevolent conspiracy may itself be the work of a benevolent conspiracy. I mean, cui bono? Who really benefits from making anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism seem so indefensible? Come to think of it, the name Mearsheimer does have a bit of a Jewish ring.
Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The AtlanticPrisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide.