Politics

The Israel Lobby in the US

The Israel Lobby: John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (LRB, Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006).

I was discussing American Jews with an American friend the other day. I suggested that if American Jews remained silent about Israel, they risked being considered willing, silent partners in its actions, and in US policy that supports such action. Amartya Sen has suggested that we each have multiple identities which we prioritize depending on context. American Jews, I am afraid, will be seen as Jews first, and Americans second.

Perhaps my criticisms were misguided. John Mearsheimer is a respected expert on International Relations, with a clear belief in realism. So when he writes how US policy in the Middle East is directed not by US interests or even the American Jewish community, one should listen. When he asserts it is directed by the Israel Lobby, he is actually venturing very far into unchartered territory.

It is a well known fact that the Israel Lobby is strong in the US. But this paper makes clear just how far its influence goes, and how well it has managed to control the institutions and the debate on the Middle East. And it is a testament to the Lobby’s power that this article first appears not in the USA, but in the London Book Review.

This should be required reading for every American, even if it takes a few sittings (see also further reading below).

The paper proceeds along well researched lines showing the extent of support the US provides:

• Approximately $3 billion in direct assistance each year (roughly one-fifth of all foreign aid). Unlike for other recipients, this aid is given entirely at the beginning of each fiscal year, has few strings attached, with no accountability requirements.
• Nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, access to top-drawer weaponry and intelligence the US denies even to its NATO allies.
• Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.
• The US has allowed Israel to acquire nuclear weapons, and blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda.

It then takes apart the many arguments for such support. Israel is the dominant power in the region, even without US support. Nor does such support further US interests, as it has proven to be expensive, has not been reciprocated by Israel, and complicates relations with other allies in the region. Equally important, the terrorism that threatens Israel does not threaten America, so the case for a common enemy also does not apply.

Perhaps most telling, for me, is how convincingly the article takes apart Israel’s argument for a moral high ground of self-defense. It points out that Israel was founded by taking land away from Palestinians, a fact hardly even mentioned today. And Israel’s recent actions have taken it further from claiming recourse to historical persecution as a defense:

• The creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved ethnic cleansing by Jews
• Between 1949 and 1956, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, most of them unarmed.
• The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.
• During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under.
• Since the second Intifada, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority innocent bystanders.
• The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1).

But this paper is not about what Israel does in the Middle East. If Israel’s actions did, on the whole, further US interests, Mearsheimer and Walt would probably have endorsed them, regardless of their legality or morality. As they point out, this is not the case. Rather, as they say:

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.

The tragedy of the situation is clear to any distanced observer. Israel is no longer part of the solution, and its intransigence in negotiating with its neighbors has led to an extended period of conflict, with no immediate end in sight. US support has allowed that situation to persist.

Related Reading

• A followup appeared in Foreign Policy (July/August 2006).
• The Economist (3 August, 2006), also has a related article: To Israel with Love.
• The Nation has two interesting articles: Is Israel Good for the Jews? and APIAC’s Hold discussing the dilemna of American Jews.
• As an interesting aside, in my attempt to find opinion pieces that admit to Israeli atrocities, a Google search for the article Atrocities in the Promised Land showed how difficult it can be. Of the first 30 results, not one belonged to a major US news outlet.
• This blog post is a good example of the arguments used to defend and further Israeli interests. It sidesteps the core issue - is US policy furthering US interests - while repeating ad-nauseum Israel’s ‘democracy’ (which treats Arabs as 2nd class citizens), threats to its existence (which ignore that it is Palestinian existence that is actually under threat ), and as a last resort attempts to ascribe anti-semetism to anyone that does not support Israel.

© 2006 The Discomfort Zone.