Posted on 03/26/2006 3:43:54 PM PST by abu afak
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.
KAAA-PING!!
Only the most radical liberals believe we should just let the Arabs push the Jews into the sea.
Mearsheimer and Walt are going to get pounded into the ground over their paper. They deserve it.
... but... but... but Pat Buchanan (and his ever-ready chorus of online apologists) says there is too, is too! Oh, who to believe...?!? < /sarcasm>
"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."
That's really the most important line of the article. As another commentator pointed out earlier this week, we must ask ourselves why these researchers feel that there is something nefarious about AIPAC, but say nothing about the lobby for relations with any other nation. The entire point of the study seems to be the accusation that Jews are not loyal to the US... and yes... that IS anti-semitism
Ping
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
"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."
I know it is and I BOLDED it on another board I posted it on but it's a bit more difficult here, especially within a long article, as then the whole post must be coded to avoid compression into one large paragraph etc
...? I'm sorry... but: did you mean that to be addressed to me? :)
Right; and the present gang of GOPers are conservatives.
I do think there is an Israel lobby. On the other hand, our policy is being guided more by other factors, particularly of late.
No Kent
it was to posted in response to BattleofBritan
Perhaps its because two of the top officals at AIPAC have been charged with espinoge and passing classifed documents to a foreign power....just a guess.
"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."
One sentence of clarity vs. 82 pages of BS.
You may all grovel.
I would suggest that some restraint is in order before flinging the a-S word at people over your subjective judgment about what their point seems to be.
Ever since Frank Rich suggested that Bob Dole was anti-Semitic just because Dole spoke critically of the trash being produced in Hollywood, I have looked with instant suspicion at anyone bringing news that some previously respected person was trafficing in anti-Semitism. It wins no friends, to say the least.
I didn't even know about the Bob Dole incident you were referring to, and I agree that it was an absurd basis for calling him anti-semitic.
However, this is quite a different situation. Anti-"zionism" or Anti-Israel sentiment has become a very common tool for the legitimization of anti-semitism, particularly in academia. Note for example a ban in some English universities against Israeli academics, regardless of their actual views on the situation.
I reject the common claim (made by these authors as well), that anybody who criticizes Israeli policy is accused of anti-semitism... indeed many great friends of Israel have criticized Israeli policies (whether from the right or the left of the political spectrum), and no such accusations are aimed at them. The problem is when true anti-semitism is hidden in anti-Israel rhetoric. For example the authors claim that they have discovered a mass 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.", questions the loyalty of US Jews in a way that no other group is similarly questioned, particularly not groups that advocate America's allies.
"Perhaps its because two of the top officals at AIPAC have been charged with espinoge and passing classifed documents to a foreign power....just a guess."
First of all, the incident you mention is a relatively recent development, while the accusations of disloyalty made by the authors have been made all over the world against Jews for thousands of years.
Secondly, two officials being charged with espionage does not vindicate the academics sweeping claim that the "Israel lobby" as a whole, which they later clarify as code for "American Jews", are disloyal to American interests.
David Gergen stumbles upon the truth. It's enough to renew your hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.