[Peace-discuss] Israel Lobby

[C. G. Estabrook]

The question is not, does an Israel lobby exist -- of course it does -- 
but who gives a better account of its nature and influence, M&W or 
Zunes? I think the answer is clearly the latter.  Zunes writes, "There 
is no denying that the Israel Lobby can be quite influential, 
particularly on Capitol Hill and in its role in limiting the broader 
public debate. [It is however] incredibly naïve to assume that U.S. 
policy in the Middle East would be significantly different without AIPAC 
and like-minded pro-Zionist organizations."

M&W's book is dedicated to Samuel P. Huntington (whom Chomsky used to 
jeer at for his title as "Professor of the Science of Government" at 
Harvard), the originator of the "clash of civilizations" argument.  M&W 
and their mentor Huntington belong to the "realist" school of American 
political science [sic] that did so much to makes pol. sci. departments 
  in US universities so ridiculous in the Vietnam era and afterwards. 
M&W's "realism" is shown when they write about the 2003 invasion that 
"Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly 
any direct evidence to support this claim" [sic]!

Having ignored the reason for the war, they have to invent another one, 
viz., "the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel 
more secure" [sic]. This, even though we now know that the Israeli 
government was rather hesitant about the Bush's administration's 
determination to invade.

If the invasion of Iraq wasn't about oil, what were the US interests, 
undermined in so dastardly a fashion by the Lobby? Writing in 1993, 
Chomsky gives the general answer of the Realist School, to which M&W 
adhere:

One might take the heroic stand that in the special case of the United 
States, facts are irrelevant. Thus the Eaton Professor of the Science of 
Government at Harvard instructs us that the United States must maintain 
its "international primacy" for the benefit of the world, because its 
"national identity is defined by a set of universal political and 
economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private 
property, and markets" (Samuel Huntington). Since this is a matter of 
definition, so the Science of Government teaches, it would be an error 
of logic to bring up the factual record. What may have happened in 
history is merely "the abuse of reality," an elder statesman of the 
"realist" school explained 30 years ago; "reality itself" is the 
unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as 
our minds reflect it," and that shows that the "transcendent purpose" of 
the United States is "the establishment of equality in freedom in 
America," and indeed throughout the world, since "the arena within which 
the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become 
world-wide" (Hans Morgenthau).

Zunes refers, succinctly and accurately, to "a rather simplistic and 
reductionist understanding of U.S. foreign policy by these prominent 
center-right international relations scholars."  He points out that his 
own critique of M&W was criticized by "those who insisted that it was 
not oil interests, military contractors, ideological imperialists, and 
related powerful sectors of America’s ruling class who were responsible 
for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other tragic manifestations of U.S. 
foreign policy in the Middle East, but was instead the responsibility of 
a rich cabal of Jews who manipulated the Bush administration to engage 
in policies it would not have otherwise supported."

That's nonsense, and it's good of Zunes to say so. --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> The fact remains that Mearsheimer and Walt have been essentially 
> singular is documenting and publicizing the influence of the Israeli 
> lobby and the links of so many neocons to the Zionist program. They 
> brought the question into the open, more so than anyone else. Thus, 
> Zunes' article, despite a few rejoinders to the contrary, is a 
> disservice in the sense that it in effect tends to absolve that lobby 
> and its followers, vociferous or silent,  from having /any/ 
> /significant/ /influence/ on U.S. foreign policy in West Asia/Middle 
> East. The question is not whether the lobby was "primary" in determining 
> U.S. policy, as in Iraq—it may well not have been, we don't know for 
> sure—, but whether it was a significant influence in that policy. I 
> think someone on the left must be delusional not to understand the 
> strong correlation between positions of the Zionist/neocon/Netanyahu 
>  spokesmen and the actions of the U.S. government. One may then dispute 
> whether or not this was in their mutual self interest in all instances. 
> There is no need to confirm a total convergence of interests, only that 
> there has been a significant factor in aligning Israeli interests along 
> U.S. interests by the lobby and its followers in the media, the NYT and 
> WP especially. Zunes tends to pick and choose his arguments so to defend 
> himself from critics angry that he dissed the Mear and Walt 
> contribution, absolving Israeli policies and lobby influence in the 
> process. 
> Finally, my opinion is that Zunes' arguments about the domestic scene, 
> i.e., the submissiveness and conformity of congressional representatives 
> to Israeli interests, as for example in Lebanon and to Palestinians, is 
> shallow, specious and unworthy of an anti-imperialist, anti-war 
> commentator. 
> 
> On the other hand, Zunes is on the mark in condemning U.S. policies in 
> general and in pointing out that M&W do tend to absolve the U.S. 
> government of evil machinations all over the world. Yes, M&W may be 
> apologetic of U.S. aims, hence naive in that respect, but not naive in 
> perceiving U.S. Zionist influence on U.S. foreign policy. 
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 1:33 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>>    The Israel Lobby Revisited
>>    Stephen Zunes | December 20, 2007
>>    Foreign Policy In Focus 
>>    www.fpif.org
>> ...