I just read “The Israel Lobby”
October 17, 2007
(the book) over the weekend. You can read a shorter version online, here.http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
After reading the book, my opinion was that although they present some compelling arguments, their continual reiteration (about one third of the book) that they’re not against the zionists entitys’ right to exist, that there is no jewish conspiracy, that lobbying is legitimate, etc. etc. was better proof than anything else. Has anyone else here read it?
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
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’. 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, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
-mohammed
Entry Filed under: Ruckus. .
18 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Twishandy | October 17, 2007 at 6:53 pm
The B.S. of the argument is in the opening paragraph. The centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is the U.S.A. not Israel.
One would have to prove such a statement before going on to talk about how misguided that policy is.
Are you telling me that the U.S. pursues globalization, NAFTA, its energy needs, based on what’s good for Israel?
Old-time Russians still believe that in Shul Jews pray for drought.
2.
mohammed | October 17, 2007 at 7:43 pm
twishandy
why don’t you read what it says?
this is the exact quote
“the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel.”
Middle Eastern!
3.
Twishandy | October 17, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Sorry, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy is energy, and money, not Israel. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, are way more important than Israel. The GDP of Israel is insignificant in the scheme of things.
There is a religious aspect of Jesus, Jews, and the Rapture, but it’s far from the centerpiece.
As a client state of the USA Israel does some military testing for Israel, recently house-to-house combat in densely populated areas, but in my experience the most competent plumber is still not the centerpiece of the family.
4.
mohammed | October 17, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Anyone with a brain can see that Americas interest would dictate that it’s middle eastern policy should be tilted toward the arab countries like the ones you mentioned, instead of antagonizing them for the sake of a third world banana republic.
You said “Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, are way more important than Israel.”
Has America withheld arms shipments from israel because Saudi Arabia asked them to or the other way around?
5.
Twishandy | October 17, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Now you see why you shouldn’t believe all the shit you read about America in the newpaper. In many respects, America is what flag-waving patriots believe. It is the superpower and moral authority. Maybe it’s America – and not M”HM – who runs the world. America puts aside its own veneal interests and does what is right. Would it be easier, to just let the Arabs do what they want? Maybe. But the U.S. does not let the Arabs Countries satisfy the bloodlust of its basest citizens. America appreciates the civic participation of Jews, the Nobel winners who had the fortune of not going to M”HM’s schools.
Sorry for conflating my Middle Eastern views with my anger toward King Moshiach Schneerson.
6.
Twishandy | October 17, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Now you see why you shouldn’t believe all the shit you read about America in the newpaper. Maybe America is what flag-waving patriots believe – those who give their lives in its service. That it is the superpower and moral authority. Would it be easier, to just let the basest of Arab elements do what they want? Maybe. But the U.S. does not allow that. America puts aside its own venial interests and does what’s right. Maybe it’s America and not the Hasidim who are the lights unto the nations?
Or maybe America wants the participation of Jews, the Nobel Prize winners, because it is financially advantageous. There’s no doubt that many Jews have achieved, produced, disproportionately in the U.S. and gained influence, because of their own efforts — and good fortune of having not been sent to M”HM’s schools. And there’s no doubt that most of Israel’s leaders, left, right, and center are corrupt grease-balls, which is why I don’t move there. But America looks after its own interests first, not Israel’s. Israel does not control the USA.
7.
mohammed | October 17, 2007 at 11:40 pm
venial interests? moral authority? wtf are you smoking?
The American President and Congress were elected to serve American interests, and doing anything else, no matter how “moral” it may be, is a misuse of power and trust. It’s like a CEO deciding to give charity from his stockholders money.
American policy shouild be based, first, last, and in between on what’s good for America. If that means letting israel go to hell in a handbasket so be it. Morality would be accepting refugees when it does.
Even granting for the sake of the argument that America should defend its basic right to exist, it would certainly be in Americas interest to be more balanced, even tilted toward the Arab viewpoint.
To quote you again, “Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, are way more important than Israel.” that’s where the money and energy is.
What exactly does the basest of Arab elements mean? Giving Saudi Arabia AWACS? defending the Palestinians basic human rights?
And after you’re finished with those questions, try to explain this
“Or maybe America wants the participation of Jews, the Nobel Prize winners, because it is financially advantageous”
What does American Jewrys participation in their countries affairs have to do with the tilt of foreign policy?
Would they all retire if it changed?
8.
Twishandy | October 18, 2007 at 2:36 am
America looks out for more than its own interests. It does take a moral position in the affairs of others. Maybe that’s hard to grasp if you’re self-centered. In relation to certain Arabs my government does business with them and yet does not give them the green light to vent their basest instincts like another 1929 Hebron Massacre on a nationwide scale.
Aside from the moral aspect, the U.S. Jewish community’s desires are important to the President and Congress because of their disproportionate productivity. Jews who aren’t busy “studying” and teaching Rabbi Schneerson’s discourses revealing himself to be the Moshiach, often make for awesome citizens.
9.
Twishandy | October 18, 2007 at 2:41 am
And the Palestinians, it’s time they take responsibilty for their actions. Their problems are self-induced.
10.
shmorgelborgel (Judio Loco) | October 18, 2007 at 10:20 am
You’re both right.
11.
Twishandy | October 18, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I read that on his wedding night the great prophet Mohammed made his wife cry twice. He wiped his bloody dick on her doll.
12.
mohammed | October 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm
You’re doing a nice dance evading my questions.
“America looks out for more than its own interests. It does take a moral position in the affairs of others.”
Can I take this to mean you’re admitting that Americas policy in the middle east is NOT based solely on its own self interest?
Walt and Mearscheimer actually have a chapter in the book debunking different aspects of the moral authority myth, and I could argue the point with you myself, if you would elaborate a little more on what moral position you think America is taking.
So far you’re just throwing around heavy, yet meaningless words.
“moral authority” “the basest of Arab elements” “their basest instincts”
Who are the basest of Arab elements? All 300 million muslims in the middle east? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? The Palestineans? What are their “basest instincts”? Self defense? Self determination? Basic human rights?
“But the U.S. does not allow that. America puts aside its own venial interests and does what’s right.”
Do you know what venial means? What’s venial about Americas interests?
And what’s “right”?
Aside from the moral aspect, the U.S. Jewish community’s desires are important to the President and Congress because of their disproportionate productivity.
Are you trying to say the jewish community in the US would produce less if America changed its foreign policy?
Or is “disproportionate productivity” another way of saying jewish money and influence?
I certainly agree that American foreign policy is tilted toward israel because of the US Jewish communitys “disproportionate productivity”. The question is if that’s in Americas national interest.
13.
Twishandy | October 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Israel gets two billion a year in aid. The cost of the Iraq war is a billion + a week. This war is to protect American energy needs and the Saudi Royal family. By time the war is done – if ever – that will = the cost of 100s of years of helping Israel.
The same thing of the Gulf War, billions to help (the US and) Kuwait.
1,000s of dead and 10,000s wounded soldiers.
Israel as benn in five wars. No US soldiers sent to fight for them.
These two instances alone dwarf all the help America has given Israel since 1948.
To my mind this puts to rest the notion that America’s centerpiece of Middle Eastern Foreign policy is Israel. The centerpiece is the United States.
Has America helped its ally — yes it has. But that does not make it it’s centerpiece policy. That is a cannard. Bullshit.
As for “Venial Interests” that was in relation to your notion that America may do absolutely nothing but make money and care about nothing else.
When America sent aid to Iran after the BAM earthquake a few years back was that to benefit Israel too?
What are your thoughts on the Mossad’s “involvment” in 9-11?
Do you wear a tinfoil hat?
14.
Shmorgel de Borgel | October 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“Venial Interests”
You mean “venal interests”.
Venial means forgivable, as in a “a venial sin”
“Venal” means corrupt.
15.
Dumbest Debate Ever | October 19, 2007 at 10:16 pm
The keypoint is that America is not a corporation, you can’t define its “national interest” in terms of simple profit maximization.
How does America profit from defending South Korea from the North? How does it profit for guaranteeing Taiwain’s stability, how does it profit from intervening in Kosovo? From acting in South Ossitia?
The point is very few Americans view foreign policy as a chess game, but instead want American foreign policy to do the right thing. And for most Americans that means reshaping the world in America’s image.
16.
mohammed | October 21, 2007 at 9:39 pm
That begs the question. Was the Iraq war in Americas national interest?
There’s a rather strong case to be made that it wasn’t. You apparently agree with that, although the theory that it was to protect the royal House of Saud is one of the more creative that I’ve heard. (tinfoil hats, anyone?)
Even granting, just for the sake of the argument, that the Iraq war was in the national interest, you seem blithely oblivious to the fact that “centerpiece of foreign policy” would be defined as what was the consistent, long term, focal point of foreign policy, not the short term reactions to sporadic flare ups. To use an anology, someone who spends 4 years and $100,000 dollars of tuition on Law school, and then gets into a car accident and spends a million dollars in a month on health expenses, would still have spent the last 4 years focusing on his law career.
I believe American national interests are the welfare of its citizens and the state of the Union.
Do you disagree?
Does American policy in the middle east serve those interests?
Whether Congress was justified in spending us tax dollars on humanitarian aid to foreign countries when there are still us citizens under the poverty line is a whole ‘nother discussion, and really not relevant.
You seem to miss answering three out of every four questions, and answer the last one with simplistic, disingenuous cliches.
Can’t you do any better than that?
17.
Twishandy | October 22, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Read the article in yesterday’s (Sunday Oct. 21) online NY Times about the corruption of Haliburton, Blackwater, et al, and the bilions, tens of billions, of earned and missing money, and then say with a straight face that America’s middle eatern foreign policy – today the Iraq/Afghan war -has anything to do with Israel. As for only addressing 1/4 of your arguments I won’t let you distract me with 75% more bullshit, until you concede that your original argument holds no water. Then I’ll take you on on all the other ones. One at a time.
The fact is Israel is right about way more than it’s wrong. And the Palestinians are wrong about WAY more than they are right. People like you, who argue for the so-called Palestinians, point to the areas where Israel is wrong and ignore all that is right, and support to all where the Palestinians are right and ignore all where they are wrong.
Golda Meir put her finger on it along time ago. Arabs have to love their kids more than they hate Jews.
Besides your passion for Palestinians was old like two years ago. Get involved with Mynamar or something. Now that Hamas ousted Fatah no one gives a hoot about your cause.
18.
mohammed | October 22, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Allow me to call to your attention that your last post said nothing substantive at all. Besides for admitting that you evaded most of my questions, all you did was say the israelis are right, the palestinians are wrong and quote an old russian whore. Not even any illogical arguments, just “the fact is”.
Arguing with you is frustrating, and I’ve come to the conclusion it’s not worth the effort.
I asked a few friends to read through the conversation and tell me if I’m misunderstanding you somehow, and the general consensus is that you’re a moron.
That’s a fairly charitable assesment in my opinion, but my friends are nice guys. At any rate, I had enough. Have a nice life.