[Peace-discuss] Israel Lobby

[Morton K. Brussel]

All this is completely beside the point I was trying to make.  --mkb


On Dec 28, 2007, at 4:49 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 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
>>> ...