Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-24-2006, 01:54 PM  
DanT DanT is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Casino cash: $5815
Mearsheimer and Walt on the Israel Lobby

Prof. Mearsheimer, a legendary teacher at my alma mater, recently coauthored an interesting essay on the Israel Lobby, which can be found here:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

This provoked an interesting essay from Christopher Hitchens:
Overstating Jewish Power

Last week, the New York Times published an Op-Ed from Tony Judt on the ensuing debate:
A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy
Posts: 3,073
DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2006, 01:56 PM   #2
DanT DanT is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Casino cash: $5815
Here are the opening paragraphs of the Mearsheimer-Walt essay:

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.
Posts: 3,073
DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2006, 01:58 PM   #3
DanT DanT is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Casino cash: $5815
Here are the opening paragraphs of Hitchen's essay.

It's slightly hard to understand the fuss generated by the article on the Israeli lobby produced by the joint labors of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was published in the London Review of Books. My guess is that the Harvard logo has something to do with it, but then I don't understand why the doings of that campus get so much media attention, either.

The essay itself, mostly a very average "realist" and centrist critique of the influence of Israel, contains much that is true and a little that is original. But what is original is not true and what is true is not original.

Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel's help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points.


However, 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. If the Jewish stranglehold on policy has been so absolute since the days of Harry Truman, then what was Gen. Eisenhower thinking when, on the eve of an election 50 years ago, he peremptorily ordered Ben Gurion out of Sinai and Gaza on pain of canceling the sale of Israeli bonds? On the next occasion when Israel went to war with its neighbors, 11 years later, President Lyndon Johnson was much more lenient, but a strong motive of his policy (undetermined by Israel) was to win Jewish support for the war the "realists" were then waging in Vietnam. (He didn't get the support, except from Rabbi Meir Kahane.)
Posts: 3,073
DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.DanT must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.