[Mb-civic] Molly and Norm on "The Israeli Lobby"

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

      Let's call the Israel lobby the Israel lobby
      Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

      04.25.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- One of the consistent deformities in
American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and
the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.

      A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at
the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international
affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "The Israel
Lobby" was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And
all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and
academe.

      For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious      --
that there is an Israel lobby in the United States -- Mearsheimer and Walt
have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky
academic work." Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went
totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring
article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them "liars" and "bigots."

      Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America -- its leading  working
group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It calls
itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and it attempts to influence U.S.
legislation and policy.

      Several national Jewish organizations lobby from time to time. Big
deal -- why is anyone pretending this non-news requires falling on the
floor and howling? Because of this weird deformity of debate.

      In the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle
debate about Israel. In Israel, they have it as matter of course, but the
truth is that the accusation of anti-Semitism is far too often raised in
this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel.

      Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost.  Now
I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled
"self-hating Jews." As I have often pointed out, that must mean there are
a lot of self-hating Israelis, because those folks raise hell over their
own government's policies all the time.

      I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk "you're
anti-Semitic" charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do
know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.

      And I wonder if that doesn't produce the same result: giving up on  the
discussion.

      It's the sheer disproportion, the vehemence of the attacks on anyone
perceived as criticizing Israel that makes them so odious. Mearsheimer and
Walt are both widely respected political scientists -- comparing their
writing to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is just silly.

      Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt
paper, including a too-broad use of the term "Israel lobby" -- those of us
who are pro-Israel differ widely -- and having perhaps overemphasized the
clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby.

      It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability
first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to
figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization,
but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of
themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they
have victimized others.

      But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but
its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their
arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American
foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States
has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past.

      Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one
that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of
"anti-Semitism." In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The
Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and
is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

      To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the
matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about
conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism -- it's about rational
discussion of American interests. And, in my case, being pro-Israel. I'm
looking forward to hearing from all you nutjobs again.

      (c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

***

 http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=186#ngfc

 Norman Finkelstein comments:

 Several correspondents have queried my statement in The Irish Times.
 Their concerns seem genuine, which means a serious reply is warranted.

 The quote in question reads: There is credible evidence for the claim
 that the Iraq war was a Jewish war. I happen to believe that the evidence
 is superficial but nonetheless there is evidence for it. So, if as the
 situation gets worse in Iraq, if Jews are scapegoated, it is in part a
 disaster of their own making.

 (I would have preferred if the reporter had put Jewish war in
 quotation marks; otherwise it's accurate.) The context of this
 statement was the controversy swirling around the Walt-Mearsheimer
 paper on the Israel Lobby. I observed that the paper's broad
 resonance, as well as the excited response from Israel's apologists, was
 due not only to the academic pedigree of its authors but also the
Iraq debacle.

 To their credit W-M highlight that American Jews were less supportive of
 going to war than Americans generally. However it's impossible to escape
 the impression that Jews, whether in Israel or those taking their
 marching orders from Jerusalem, played an instrumental role in triggering
 the war. W-M quote statements by Israeli leaders across the political
 spectrum (Barak, Peres, Sharon, Netanyahu) exhorting the U.S. to attack;
 recall that "as President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq,
 America's most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his
 defense" (quoting the Jewish Forward); and list the many prominent Jewish
 neo-conservatives inside the Bush administration (Douglas Feith, Scooter
 Libby, Paul Wolfowitz) and outside it (Bernard Lewis, Robert Kagan,
 Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol) who "played especially critical
 roles in persuading the President and Vice-President to favor war,"
 ostensibly because they were "deeply committed to Israel." Indeed W-M
 might have noted that the incitement of mainstream Jewish organizations
 for attacking Iraq was especially conspicuous in light of the strong
 opposition voiced by the Vatican, World Council of Churches, the United
 Church of Christ, and so on.

 As I told The Irish Times, I neither believe that the main impetus
 behind the war was the Israel Lobby nor do I believe that the first
 loyalty of Jewish neo-conservatives is to Israel. It nonetheless
 remains true that a self-declared Jewish state pushed hard for the
 war; that powerful Jewish organizations faithfully doing Israel's
 bidding pushed hard for the war; and that prominent Jewish
 neo-conservatives who parade their love of Israel pushed hard for the
 war. Is it really a shock if Americans might now wonder whether Iraq
 wasn't a "Jewish war," and don't those who created this disastrous
 impression bear some culpability for it?

 04.15.2006


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.


"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
 former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060427/002bc0bf/attachment-0001.htm