Adolar
10-17-2007, 05:46 AM
Everyone with an IQ above January room temperature in an Eskimo's
igloo is well aware of the power wielded by the Israel Lobby, which
inspires outright terror in the U.S. Congress.
I suppose you could call it an equal opportunity smearbund, since it
makes no distinction as to race when it sics its Rottweilers on
hapless congressman who, even unwittingly, cross the line by
questioning Israel's status as a sacred cow, utterly incapable of
doing evil.
Coming readily to mind without the slightest research would be, among
whites, ex-Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas ("Israel controls
the U.S. Senate"), ex-Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, and ex-Rep.
Paul Findlay of Illinois (see his book "They Dare to Speak Out").
Among blacks, we have ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (her crime was to
demand a re-opening of the U.S.S. Liberty incident during a Special
Orders talk), ex-Rep. Gus Savage of Chicago's south side for
criticizing the billions given Israel through both foreign aid and
armaments, and ex-Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama for various crimes of
lèse-majesté re Israel. Hilliard, after losing the primary election,
spoke about how "The Lobby" frightens both House and Senate members,
and commented "they know that what happened to me can happen to them."
Back in the days of Ariel Sharon, you could criticize him in Israel
itself, but doing the same in America would be at your own risk--
unless you were retiring and not seeking re-election as in the case
of Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt explain in this interview why
they decided to speak out against the close relationship between the
U.S. and Israel.
http://www.alternet.org/story/65271
Eric Chinski, the editor of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's
provocative new bestseller, asks the authors whether their book is
good for the Jews and good for America. This interview originally
appeared on the Web site of the publishing house Farrar, Straus and
Giroux. Thanks to TruthDig for resurfacing it.
Why did your article "The Israel Lobby," which was published in the
London Review of Books in 2006, provoke such heated discussion around
the world? James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine: " 'The
Israel Lobby' slammed into the opinion-making world with a Category 5
force." How would you describe the reaction?
The article received enormous attention because it challenged what
had become a taboo issue in mainstream foreign policy circles, namely
the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. Middle East policy. We did not
question Israel's legitimacy and explicitly stated that the United
States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is at risk, but we
did argue that pro-Israel groups in the United States were
encouraging policies that were ultimately not in America's national
interest. Although the views we expressed are often discussed openly
in other democracies -- including Israel itself -- they have rarely
been set forth in detail by mainstream figures in the United States.
The article was also of great interest to many readers because it has
become increasingly obvious that U.S. Middle East policy has gone
badly awry. Although a number of groups and individuals either
mischaracterized our views or attacked us personally, many other
readers agreed that such an examination of the lobby's role was long
overdue.
Why did you feel the need to follow up the article with your
book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"? What more is there
to say?
Writing a book provided an opportunity to present a more nuanced and
complete statement of our views, and also allowed us to address some
of the responses to the original article. Although the article was
long by magazine standards, space limitations forced us to omit
several key issues and to deal with other topics more briefly than we
would have liked. Events like the 2006 Lebanon war had not occurred
when the article was published, and additional information about
other episodes -- such as the U.S. decision to invade Iraq -- had
since come to light. Thus, writing a book allowed us to refine our
analysis and bring it up to date.
In particular, the book presents a more detailed definition of the
lobby, an extended discussion of its development and rightward drift
over time, an examination of the role of the so-called Christian
Zionists, and an analysis of the controversial issue of "dual
loyalty." We also offer a more detailed description of the various
strategies that groups in the lobby use to advance their goals within
the U.S. political system. The book also addresses the widespread
belief -- as illustrated by Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit
9/11" -- that oil companies are the real driving force behind
America's Middle East policy, and explains why this view is
incorrect.
Finally, our original article did not offer much in the way of
positive prescriptions, but the book outlines a new approach to U.S.
Middle East policy that would better serve U.S. interests and, in our
view, be better for Israel as well. To that end, it also identifies
how the influence of the lobby might become more constructive, for
the good of both countries.
What is the extent of American financial, diplomatic, and military
aid to Israel, and how does it compare with other states'?
Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military
assistance, having received more than $154 billion in U.S. aid since
its creation in 1948, and it currently receives roughly $3 billion in
direct U.S. assistance every year, even though it is now a prosperous
country. The United States also consistently gives Israel diplomatic
support, and consistently comes to its aid in wartime, as it did
during the 2006 war in Lebanon. Most important, U.S. support for
Israel is largely unconditional: Israel receives generous American
assistance even when it takes actions that the U.S. government
believes are wrong, such as building settlements in the Occupied
Territories. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once remarked,
U.S. backing for Israel is "beyond compare in modern history."
Isn't America's special relationship with Israel based on strong
strategic and moral arguments? Isn't it important for the United
States to have an ally that shares our values in a region dominated
by extremism and enemies of America?
Israel is not the strategic asset to the United States that many
claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War,
but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over.
Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism
around the world, helped fuel America's terrorism problem, and
strained relations with other key allies in Europe, the Middle East,
and Asia. The United States derives some tangible strategic benefits
from its close security partnership with Israel, but it pays a high
price for them. On balance, it is more of a liability than an asset.
igloo is well aware of the power wielded by the Israel Lobby, which
inspires outright terror in the U.S. Congress.
I suppose you could call it an equal opportunity smearbund, since it
makes no distinction as to race when it sics its Rottweilers on
hapless congressman who, even unwittingly, cross the line by
questioning Israel's status as a sacred cow, utterly incapable of
doing evil.
Coming readily to mind without the slightest research would be, among
whites, ex-Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas ("Israel controls
the U.S. Senate"), ex-Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, and ex-Rep.
Paul Findlay of Illinois (see his book "They Dare to Speak Out").
Among blacks, we have ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (her crime was to
demand a re-opening of the U.S.S. Liberty incident during a Special
Orders talk), ex-Rep. Gus Savage of Chicago's south side for
criticizing the billions given Israel through both foreign aid and
armaments, and ex-Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama for various crimes of
lèse-majesté re Israel. Hilliard, after losing the primary election,
spoke about how "The Lobby" frightens both House and Senate members,
and commented "they know that what happened to me can happen to them."
Back in the days of Ariel Sharon, you could criticize him in Israel
itself, but doing the same in America would be at your own risk--
unless you were retiring and not seeking re-election as in the case
of Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt explain in this interview why
they decided to speak out against the close relationship between the
U.S. and Israel.
http://www.alternet.org/story/65271
Eric Chinski, the editor of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's
provocative new bestseller, asks the authors whether their book is
good for the Jews and good for America. This interview originally
appeared on the Web site of the publishing house Farrar, Straus and
Giroux. Thanks to TruthDig for resurfacing it.
Why did your article "The Israel Lobby," which was published in the
London Review of Books in 2006, provoke such heated discussion around
the world? James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine: " 'The
Israel Lobby' slammed into the opinion-making world with a Category 5
force." How would you describe the reaction?
The article received enormous attention because it challenged what
had become a taboo issue in mainstream foreign policy circles, namely
the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. Middle East policy. We did not
question Israel's legitimacy and explicitly stated that the United
States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is at risk, but we
did argue that pro-Israel groups in the United States were
encouraging policies that were ultimately not in America's national
interest. Although the views we expressed are often discussed openly
in other democracies -- including Israel itself -- they have rarely
been set forth in detail by mainstream figures in the United States.
The article was also of great interest to many readers because it has
become increasingly obvious that U.S. Middle East policy has gone
badly awry. Although a number of groups and individuals either
mischaracterized our views or attacked us personally, many other
readers agreed that such an examination of the lobby's role was long
overdue.
Why did you feel the need to follow up the article with your
book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"? What more is there
to say?
Writing a book provided an opportunity to present a more nuanced and
complete statement of our views, and also allowed us to address some
of the responses to the original article. Although the article was
long by magazine standards, space limitations forced us to omit
several key issues and to deal with other topics more briefly than we
would have liked. Events like the 2006 Lebanon war had not occurred
when the article was published, and additional information about
other episodes -- such as the U.S. decision to invade Iraq -- had
since come to light. Thus, writing a book allowed us to refine our
analysis and bring it up to date.
In particular, the book presents a more detailed definition of the
lobby, an extended discussion of its development and rightward drift
over time, an examination of the role of the so-called Christian
Zionists, and an analysis of the controversial issue of "dual
loyalty." We also offer a more detailed description of the various
strategies that groups in the lobby use to advance their goals within
the U.S. political system. The book also addresses the widespread
belief -- as illustrated by Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit
9/11" -- that oil companies are the real driving force behind
America's Middle East policy, and explains why this view is
incorrect.
Finally, our original article did not offer much in the way of
positive prescriptions, but the book outlines a new approach to U.S.
Middle East policy that would better serve U.S. interests and, in our
view, be better for Israel as well. To that end, it also identifies
how the influence of the lobby might become more constructive, for
the good of both countries.
What is the extent of American financial, diplomatic, and military
aid to Israel, and how does it compare with other states'?
Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military
assistance, having received more than $154 billion in U.S. aid since
its creation in 1948, and it currently receives roughly $3 billion in
direct U.S. assistance every year, even though it is now a prosperous
country. The United States also consistently gives Israel diplomatic
support, and consistently comes to its aid in wartime, as it did
during the 2006 war in Lebanon. Most important, U.S. support for
Israel is largely unconditional: Israel receives generous American
assistance even when it takes actions that the U.S. government
believes are wrong, such as building settlements in the Occupied
Territories. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once remarked,
U.S. backing for Israel is "beyond compare in modern history."
Isn't America's special relationship with Israel based on strong
strategic and moral arguments? Isn't it important for the United
States to have an ally that shares our values in a region dominated
by extremism and enemies of America?
Israel is not the strategic asset to the United States that many
claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War,
but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is over.
Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism
around the world, helped fuel America's terrorism problem, and
strained relations with other key allies in Europe, the Middle East,
and Asia. The United States derives some tangible strategic benefits
from its close security partnership with Israel, but it pays a high
price for them. On balance, it is more of a liability than an asset.