A recent article in the London Review of Books has stirred up some heat in the blogosphere of late. Written by two prominent policy scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, its basic thesis is an old but generally accurate one:
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.
They go on to list a number of foreign policy decisions made by the United States in deference to Israeli strategic interests and, arguably, against American ones. This due to the tireless efforts of the Jewish and Israeli lobby in Washington. Again, an old argument, often justified, but just as often a blandly monolithic judgment that obscures the wrenching nuances of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, offers a palliative to this type of narrow reasoning:
Mearsheimer and Walt present the situation as one where the Jewish tail wags the American dog, and where the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and where the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden. This is partly misleading and partly creepy.
Hitchens proceeds to list numerous instances where American policy contradicted Israeli interests and refutes the notion that it is principally American support of Israel that inflames Islamist extremists the world over.
Both pieces are well-reasoned, long on facts and argument, while short on cant and bluster. As Hitchens points out, what is particularly striking about the debate, as evidenced in Mearsheimer and Walt’s piece, is the insinuation, often merely hinted at cryptically, that there is some sinister Jewish cabal directing American-Israeli policy from behind the scenes.
Another old story. What a lot of people critical of American support for Israel seem unwilling to admit, or to say out loud at any rate, is that the Jewish-Israeli lobby is just good at what it does. It’s not sinister or conspiratorial or corrupt, it’s an interest group that has worked the lobbying system successfully. Granted, complaints about whether the lobbying system in this country is ethical and transparent are totally legitimate, but the American Israel Public Affairs Committee must abide by the same rules as any other lobbyist group.
That’s our system. Form a group, pump legislators with cash, gradually affect policy over the years. Not perfect by any means, but not somehow uniquely accessible to pro-Israel Jews. Lobbyists do wield inordinate amounts of power, but the Jewish groups that advocate for Israel have the same type of power and access as the Saudis (an unqualified disaster of a relationship). But no one is snidely referencing Wahhabi cabals or conspiracies. Both are just playing the dirty money game of Washington D.C.
