Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 2
Quote
Rebuttal to Mearsheimer and Walt
BY DAVID GERGEN
It brings no joy to issue a public rebuttal against a valued colleague, but there are moments that demand no less. The occasion is the publication of an essay titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," written by two professors, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, the academic dean and my colleague at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
In essence, their 82-page piece argues that U.S. policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a pro-Israel "Lobby." "The core of the Lobby," they say, "is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests."
As a result, "the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel."
Mearsheimer and Walt assert that for decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the lobby has manipulated our political system to give short shrift to Palestinians, was a "critical element" in the decision to invade Iraq and is now skewing our policy on Iran (the United States, they say, "can live with a nuclear Iran").
Not only are these charges wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office, but they also impugn the unstinting service to America's national security by public figures like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and many others.
As a Christian, let me add that it is also wrong and unfair to call into question the loyalty of millions of American Jews who have faithfully supported Israel while also working tirelessly and generously to advance America's cause, both at home and abroad. They should be praised, not pilloried.
To be sure, pro-Israeli groups in this country, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, push hard to gain the support of U.S. political leaders. AIPAC is officially registered as a lobbying group, but that does not mean that its members are engaging in something sinister.
It is just not true that the Israel "Lobby" has captured U.S. policy toward the Middle East. As David McCullough writes, Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948 out of humanitarian concerns and in spite of pressure from Jewish groups, not because of it. Since then, 10 straight American Presidents have befriended Israel - not because they were under pressure but because they believed America had made a commitment to Israel's survival, just as we have to other threatened outposts of freedom like Berlin, South Korea and Taiwan.
Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest.
Moreover, history shows many instances when our Presidents have sharply opposed the Israeli government. I was there when Ronald Reagan, a great friend of Israel, was so repelled by pictures of victims in Lebanon that he insisted the Israelis call off their assault on Beirut (they did).
Has Washington sometimes tilted too much toward Israel? Of course, just as we have toward other friends overseas. Is our policy in the Middle East worthy of serious debate? Absolutely, and we should defend the right of academics to question it.
But let that debate go forward with a clear mind and an understanding heart. And let us remember that our friendship with Israel has always been rooted in noble values - just as our friendships have been with other outposts of freedom.
Gergen is a professor of public service at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of its Center for Public Leadership. He served as a White House adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
Originally published on March 26, 2006
Quote***
Rebuttal to Mearsheimer and Walt
BY DAVID GERGEN
This wasn't much of a rebuttle. More of a "Nuhh Uhh, is not". Just a couple of things to point out. First of all he states:
"Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest."
To which I say "Is he on crack"?
Secondly, even the person who he says should be insulted by the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, Dennis Ross states:
"It's pretty clear that they (AIPAC) are a significant source on the Hill".
He tries to play down the influence on the Executive branch but he admits that they are a significantly powerful lobby. Sorry, no text, only audio.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5539456
Andy9o8 2
Actually, a number of well-known people have published rebuttals to Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis. Each article/author being subject to its/his/her own scrutiny, of course.
My main point was to show that there's a broad range of opinion on the issue out there, and that Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis isn't just dangling out there in the public domain without rebuttal.
My main point was to show that there's a broad range of opinion on the issue out there, and that Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis isn't just dangling out there in the public domain without rebuttal.
QuoteActually, a number of well-known people have published rebuttals to Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis. Each article/author being subject to its/his/her own scrutiny, of course.
My main point was to show that there's a broad range of opinion on the issue out there, and that Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis isn't just dangling out there in the public domain without rebuttal.
Fair enough
This is for another thread but it goes to point out the problem with pretty much everything as I see it is the influence that lobbyists have on our lawmakers. The taxpayer pays for the resulting legislation/earmarks and the entities which hire the lobbyists have to get that money from somewhere, often in the form of higher prices. One of the saddest examples of this was a story I saw last week about the growing number of municipalities which are hiring lobbying firms in order to get in touch with their own legislators. I can't remember if I posted that one or not.
I think this deserves a repost.
Researchers Say U.S. Policy Influenced by Israel
Morning Edition: July 6, 2006
Researchers Say U.S. Policy Influenced by Israel
LYNN NEARY, host:
This morning, we’ll meet two academics who violated a taboo. John Mearsheimer teaches at the University of Chicago, Stephen Walt is at Harvard. Together, the noted academics wrote a paper called, The Israel Lobby; it questioned the power of groups that support Israel and the United States.
STEVE INSKEEP, host:
That paper sparked a storm of criticism. Today and tomorrow, we’ll examine their argument that support for Israel is not always in America’s national interest. John Mearsheimer says he decided to question what he calls The Israel Lobby, after events in 2002.
Professor JOHN MEARSHEIMER (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago): The Israelis had occupied, or reoccupied, the Palestinian areas that they had been given control over, as a result of the Oslo Peace Process. And President Bush told Ariel Sharon, in no uncertain terms, that he was supposed to withdraw his forces. Sharon then made contact with The Lobby, and The Lobby went to work. Bush was forced, after about a week’s time, to back down. He was, in effect, humiliated by The Israel Lobby.
And that event made me realize just how powerful The Lobby was. And it also made it quite clear to me that The Lobby could force the United States to operate in ways that were not in its national interest.
INSKEEP: Gentlemen, let’s dig into that example. When you say The Israel Lobby went to work, what specifically did they do, as far as you can tell, to move U.S. policy?
Prof. MEARSHEIMER: Well what happened was, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, put significant pressure on senators and congressmen, and got them to approach the White House, and to tell President Bush, in no uncertain terms, that it was not possible for him to try to face down Ariel Sharon. And as a result, what happened was, that Bush backed down.
INSKEEP: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of many, many, many lobbying organizations in Washington. What would give them the influence to move the opinions of senators, members of Congress, even the White House?
Professor STEPHEN M. WALT (Academic Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University): This is Steve Walt. AIPAC is extremely well organized and well funded. It’s very good at channeling campaign contributions to candidates who are supportive of Israel, and against anyone that they think might be unsupportive of Israel. They also spend a lot of time up on the Hill. They help congressmen prepare talking points and things like that.
Other organizations that are part of this broad coalition, write op-eds, challenge anyone who is critical of Israel so that Israel is perceived in a very favorable light. This is, again, the standard tactics that most interest groups employ, but they are particularly effective at it.
INSKEEP: You argue also, that The Israel Lobby was at least one factor in the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq. Why do you think that?
Prof MEARSHEIMER: It's quite clear that from about early 1998, forward, there was one group that was pushing very hard for war; and that was the neo- conservatives. And the neo-conservatives are closely identified with Israel, and have been pushing American policy for a long time to support Israeli objectives. Which, of course, they believe are consistent with American objectives. But there is an abundance of evidence that it was those forces, specifically the neo-conservatives and the leaders of The Israel Lobby, who were pushing for that war. And it is that evidence that led us to make the argument that they were a necessary, but not sufficient cause for the conflict.
INSKEEP: Which gets into one of the complexities here. You’re acknowledging that The Israel Lobby, at most, was one of the factors here.
Prof MEARSHEIMER: Our argument is that it was a major driving force. And if you took that major driving force away, in all likelihood, you would not have had a war.
INSKEEP: Stephen Walt, as you examined the history of what you describe as The Israel Lobby, did you find an example where they did not get what they wanted?
Prof. WALT: Well, there is a number of things where they haven’t gotten what they wanted. They pressed very hard, for example, for the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem. They have occasionally failed to prevent certain weapons sales. But the key goal is to make sure that nothing interferes with broad American support with the very high level of American economic aid - roughly $3 billion a year - that goes to Israel - the most to any country.
So no matter what Israel does, whether it continues building settlements; whether it spies on the United States; whether it sells our military technology to other countries; no matter what Israel does, one of The Lobby’s main goals is to make sure that nothing interferes with broad American support.
INSKEEP: Gentlemen, can we get to the underlying issue beneath all of this debate? Is it in the U.S. national interest to provide support to Israel?
Prof. WALT: I think it’s very important to distinguish between support for Israel’s existence, and a willingness to defend Israel if its survival were ever in danger. I think that is in American interest, and it’s one that John and I both support.
It’s a separate question whether the United States should be providing unconditional backing for Israel, and for all of Israel's policies. Most notably, the continued occupation and control over the Palestinians, and the refusal to negotiate a long-term peace settlement with the Palestinians. That’s something that the United States pays a large price for, in terms of our image in the Middle East, and our image elsewhere in the world.
INSKEEP: I should mention, Stephen Walt, just to note, that Israeli spokesmen would dispute almost every phrase of what you just described. When you say refusal to negotiate a long-term peace settlement, they would add a lot of qualifications to that.
John Mearsheimer, what do you think?
Prof MEARSHEIMER: My argument is very similar to Steve’s. Our piece was not anti-Israel. We believe there’s a powerful moral case for Israel’s existence. And our argument is, is that Israeli policy, and American support for Israeli policy, is not in America’s national interest.
INSKEEP: I want to try to understand what concretely you would want to do differently. Because if you have made that fundamental decision that you’re going to support Israel, and you’re in this messy situation where there’s plenty of blame to go around on many different sides, isn’t that going to force you into some compromises? What could you really do differently?
Prof. WALT: This is Steve Walt. If you imagined The Lobby being less influential, the United States, I think, would still be supportive of Israel’s right to exist and supporting Israel’s core security. But the United States would be using its leverage to prevent the construction of settlements. The United States would have formulated its own proposals in peace negotiations, which we tended not to do. We tended to clear our positions in advance with Israel. The United States would, in our judgment, have been much less likely to have invaded Iraq. And finally, we would have been adopting a much more flexible policy towards a number of other regional problems, most notably Iran.
INSKEEP: John Mearsheimer?
Prof MEARSHEIMER: Yeah. I would add to that, that I think the United States would also have put significant pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians a viable state of their own. The conventional wisdom in the United States, especially among many American Jews and supporters of Israel, is that it is the Palestinians who have been the principle obstacle to the two-state solution, not the Israelis. I think that’s not the case.
I think there is certainly blame to go around to all sides, but I think the Israelis have essentially been unwilling to give the Palestinian a viable state since 1967. And I think in the absence of The Lobby, the United States would have put great pressure on Israel to settle the conflict.
INSKEEP: John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, thanks very much.
Prof. WALT: Thank you.
Prof MEARSHEIMER: You're welcome, Steve.
INSKEEP: And this debate continues tomorrow, when we’ll talk with one of Mearsheimer and Walt critics, former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross.
You’re listening to NPR News.
Copyright ©2006 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information, please contact NPR's Permissions Coordinator at (202) 513-2000.
This transcript was created by a contractor for NPR, and NPR has not verified its accuracy. For all NPR programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative version.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites