|
|
April 28, 2006
"Israel lobby" deconstructed
Debate rages over controversial essay by American academics.
PAT JOHNSON
A fascinating debate has been emerging since the March 23 issue
of the London Review of Books published an essay titled "The
Israel Lobby."
The book-length essay (shortened for the LRB), by John Mearsheimer
of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, develops
an interesting case about the influence of the domestic American
Zionist movement on American foreign policy. In Canada, it has drawn
debate in places like Canadian Dimension magazine. Critics
have questioned the quality of scholarship in the report and, of
course, people have implied or stated outright that the essay has
a hint of anti-Semitism about it.
The essay contends that the American foreign policy approach to
Israel has not been in America's particular interests and that the
policy exists primarily or exclusively because of the "Israel
lobby."
Almost every community of interest in the United States and other
democracies has what could be called a lobbying arm, be it formal
or informal. True, few have been as successful as the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). A survey a few years ago asked
congressional officials to name the most powerful lobbies on Capitol
Hill. AIPAC came second only to the American Association of Retired
People (which makes one wonder where the outrage is about the undue
influence of codgers in the American policy process).
The assumption upon which the entire essay rests is that the United
States has exhibited "unwavering support for Israel."
The authors write: "Other special-interest groups have managed
to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as
far from what the national interest would suggest...."
Statements like this raise more questions than they answer. If national
interest, in this context, means access to oil supplies, then certainly
support for Israel would be counter-productive to American interests.
If American interests are considered to be the growth and support
of democratic government and respect for human rights in the world,
then support for Israel fits ideally into the American self-image
of husbanding the flame of freedom.
The essay, for an ostensibly academic work, is chock-a-block with
supposedly self-evident statements. The authors contend that Washington
has consistently supported the Israeli position since the 1993 Oslo
Accords, which is a truly dubious assertion.
They state: "The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel
do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against
them (as in Lebanon in 1982)." This is plainly wrong, as last
week's al-Qaeda promise of vengeance against Israel and Diaspora
Jews (including, presumably, American Jews) proves.
Significantly, the authors refute the position that Israel and the
United States are united by a shared terrorist threat. Such an assertion
has the causal relationship backwards, they write: "[T]he U.S.
has a terrorist problem in good part because it is so closely allied
with Israel, not the other way around." This is definitely
an arguable point, though they make it as a statement of fact. But
this argument is so morally corrupt that it would replace the "Israel
lobby" with terrorists as a primary architect of American foreign
policy.
"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East," they
continue, "they are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests,
except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel.... Even if these
states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable
– neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because
the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering
overwhelming retaliation."
Retaliation is rather like closing the barn door after the horses
have left. The authors display indifference toward the possible
annihilation of the Jewish presence in the Middle East, certain
that the threat of retaliation would be deterrent enough. But retaliation
wouldn't do much good for millions of dead Israelis. In addition,
retaliation has never been a deterrent to Israel's enemies. Indeed,
retaliation has been one of their goals. Harsh Israeli retaliation
is a PR bonanza for Israel's enemies, particularly since the amorphous
nature of Israel's enemies makes retaliation against those states
that harbor terrorists appear to the world like Israeli aggression.
While Iran may develop nuclear powers, it would likely be Hezbollah
or some other nongovernmental entity that takes responsibility for
detonation. Even after the unthinkable, would the world be prepared
to accept American retaliation against Iran for an act of a third
party like Hezbollah? Israel's historical experience says no.
On top of all this, if Israel's nuclear attackers were of a particular
theo-ideological bent - and they'd almost have to be – retaliation
holds little foreboding to people who anticipate being greeted by
72 virgins on the other side.
The most telling paragraph of the authors' submission to the LRB
is this: "Its backers also argue that it [Israel] deserves
unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies;
it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes
and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has
been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection,
none of these arguments is persuasive."
The authors and those who share their views are prepared to dismiss
or negate every aspect of the Zionist narrative. While there is
some logic backing their positions, the essay is overwhelmingly
premised on the view that Israel has little to be concerned about
regarding its security and, even if it did, that should be of no
concern to Americans.
In reading the essay, it is impossible to avoid the tired, if necessary,
question: Is it anti-Semitism?
This question infuriates critics of Israel. The question implies
that the case against Israel is, if not premised on outright anti-Semitic
preconceptions, at least dismissive of every and any legitimate
claim against Israel. But as difficult as this might be to confront,
the role of anti-Jewish attitudes in this discussion is unavoidable.
There is a perception of the "Israel lobby" that dovetails
beautifully into the traditional and ancient view of Jews as having
power far beyond their number. While sharing characteristics with
anti-Semites does not perforce make one anti-Semitic, it does create
an added burden of proof.
If not indicative of explicit bigotry, the essay, at least, suggests
a carefree attitude to the right of Israelis to life and security.
And that, however categorized, is hardly a position we would conventionally
deem consistent with our concepts of humanitarianism.
The term "Israel lobby" is fraught and symptomatic of
the imbalanced playing field upon which this discussion occurs.
Like "partial-birth abortion" or "gold-plated pension
plan," the term "Israel lobby" is intended to persuade,
not elucidate. The question well-intentioned critics of Israel should
ask themselves is, To what end am I being persuaded and by whom?
Pat Johnson is editor of MVOX Multicultural Digest, www.mvox.ca.
^TOP
|
|
