Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

SquareMelon · Aug 5, 2008

And that is most abvious during the US presidential election. If one observed Obama while visiting Israel, one would think Obama is running for the presidency there. It very much the same for the other candidate Mr. McCain.

The question that many who are not familiar with the local politics in the US ask is why is that. Somebody running for the highest office in the only super power in the world trying hard to appeal to a country that is not his to get elected in his own country.

This study titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government tries to answer. It was published in 2006.

KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series : The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

It is an interesting read, the authors contend that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. They argue that the justifications for this intimacy is based on false assumptions that do not stand.

They outline that Israel is in fact a liability to the US rather than an asset strategically and financialy, they refute the arguement of moral superity by showing that Israel is not a real democracy.

Then they talk about Israel lobby AIPAC and how it manipulates the media and control politics.

Here is a link to a summary that includes a link to a shorten version of the study.

Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

Enjoy the read,

Tashah · Aug 5, 2008

SquareMelon said:
Here is a link to a summary that includes a link to a shorten version of the study.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm

Lol. commondreans.org is a known anti-Israel website.

As for the study, here is a spot-on review from the WSJ...

Monday, March 20, 2006 3:32 p.m. EST

<snip>
A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.</snip>

<snip>
Now of course, just because Duke endorses Walt and Mearsheimer doesn't mean they endorse him. Indeed, we suspect they're as mortified by this praise as Yale is by the criticism it has received over Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Yet without ascribing to them any invidious motives, it seems fair to say that their views dovetail disturbingly with those of unquestioned anti-Semites.</snip>

<snip>
Walt and Mearsheimer argue that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," and therefore the only possible explanation is "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." The premise is plainly false; the "Israel Lobby" in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the opening paragraphs of the paper explaining why.

We'll pass over their strategic arguments. We find them wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits.</snip>

<snip>
Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby."</snip>

Source: Wall Street Journal - OpinionJournal Archives

DarkWizard12 · Aug 5, 2008

SquareMelon said:
And that is most abvious during the US presidential election. If one observed Obama while visiting Israel, one would think Obama is running for the presidency there. It very much the same for the other candidate Mr. McCain.

The question that many who are not familiar with the local politics in the US ask is why is that. Somebody running for the highest office in the only super power in the world trying hard to appeal to a country that is not his to get elected in his own country.

Because we are a pro-israel country. If the Mid-east was ever to be united, I would want it to be under israel.

Go Israel. ISRAEL FTW!

SquareMelon · Aug 5, 2008

Tashah said:
Lol. commondreans.org is a known anti-Israel website.

As for the study, here is a spot-on review from the WSJ...

Then that site is for sure not controlled by AIPAC:mrgreen:

surely, there is a better spot on review than this

Dezaad · Aug 5, 2008

The following is Tashah's quote with the relevant portions left in black pixels and the irrelevant portions in greyed out. It is entirely irrelevant that criticism of Israel, AIPAC, their influence etc. "dovetails" with anti-semites. Of course it does as does any criticism of such. Thus all critics may be smeared (because any critic would likewise dovetail).

Let me be clear, here. I am an ardent advocate of the preservation of the State of Israel and the taking of measures to ensure that the nation of Israel remain largely Jewish in culture. I sympathize with the building of the wall and the unity of Jerusalem inside the country of Israel. I believe that our openness in the U.S. to Jewish religious freedom has benefitted our country by making those of Jewish Heritage feel safe and welcome here. I wish that it will always be so.

It is my opinion that, while certainly more influential than they deserve, these entities are not so influential that they have shifted our policies significantly. And, I highly doubt that they are responsible for the Iraq War.

Nevertheless, I see this 'guilt by association' fallacy presented so often in the context of Jewish issues that I couldn't let another instance go by without pointing it out. It is just utterly ridiculous and burdens the critical reader with the onerous task of sifting through your arguments (I name them yours because you chose what to quote) for the actual relevant portions.

Your credibility is reduced by them and you would be better off leaving such cheap, emotional 'arguments' aside.

Tashah said:
Lol. commondreans.org is a known anti-Israel website.

As for the study, here is a spot-on review from the WSJ...

Monday, March 20, 2006 3:32 p.m. EST

<snip>
A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.</snip>

<snip>
Now of course, just because Duke endorses Walt and Mearsheimer doesn't mean they endorse him. Indeed, we suspect they're as mortified by this praise as Yale is by the criticism it has received over Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Yet without ascribing to them any invidious motives, it seems fair to say that their views dovetail disturbingly with those of unquestioned anti-Semites.</snip>

<snip>
<b>Walt and Mearsheimer argue that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," and therefore the only possible explanation is "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." The premise is plainly false; the "Israel Lobby" in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the opening paragraphs of the paper explaining why.</b>

We'll pass over their strategic arguments. We find them wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits.</snip>

<snip>
<b>Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.</b>

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby."</snip>

Click to expand...

Source: Wall Street Journal - OpinionJournal Archives

SquareMelon · Aug 6, 2008

Next, I will be postig a summary to this study, I will be mostly using the summary the authors provided and or mine. this will allow proper discusion point by point.
First the authors deal with the $$$$$

Financial Facts

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.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems

Infinite Chaos · Aug 7, 2008

Tashah said:
Lol. commondreans.org is a known anti-Israel website.

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America

Click to expand...

The truth is that Europe is far more questioning and critical of the situation in the middle east. We don't have a huge pro-Israel Lobby working to change or divert government policy. You will find that Jews (and some Muslims) here have tended to integrate into the political parties and there is no the same rabid pro- anti discussion in our politics. Thus people can be more critical and in some cases have to declare their interest or bias.

The problem with a lot of American politics and very evident on this board is the "lowest common denominator" factor which reduces any discussion on Israel to either you are a 100% Liberal or 100% Conservative - you are either 100% Republican or 100% Democrat - or you are either 100% pro-Israel or 100% anti-Israel.
Anything that vaguely relates to US politics becomes tainted by people wanting to jump in and accuse posters of being one or the other - I have several times been accused of being a "Democrat" or even an "Obama supporter" - when in fact I am simply asking questions about things I have grave doubts about.

The shame of this is that intelligent discussion about some areas of debate just cannot continue or even be heard without simplistic pandering to the crowd sitting waiting by the "thank you" button. I had a whole lot more hopes for a site such as this but I am becoming rapidly disillusioned by the level of discourse and failure to exchange ideas - very often when there is a relation to US or Israel in the discussion.

So what is the position? Can we ever discuss Israel or the Middle East without someone throwing in "nazi" or "anti-Israel" charges? Can anyone discuss US politics openly without "you Liberals this" or "you Conservatives that" being thrown at the poster?

I will surf a little while before deciding whether to stay or go but I'm not hopeful things will improve.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 7, 2008

What a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It's even come to where a thread about photography has politics thrown into it... :doh

Tashah · Aug 7, 2008

Dezaad said:
Nevertheless, I see this 'guilt by association' fallacy presented so often in the context of Jewish issues that I couldn't let another instance go by without pointing it out. It is just utterly ridiculous and burdens the critical reader with the onerous task of sifting through your arguments (I name them yours because you chose what to quote) for the actual relevant portions.

Your credibility is reduced by them and you would be better off leaving such cheap, emotional 'arguments' aside.

Not my argument. I found a critique of the so called “study” in the Wall Street Journal. If I had used a source such as the Jerusalem Post or Ha’aretz, I could sort of understand this complaint. I didn't do that. I found the critique in a highly repected and very widely read US publication. In addition, the author of this “study” critique is a gentile, and not Jewish.

What the WSJ critique clearly points out - with examples - is that rather than being an honest academic inquiry into the effects of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy, the authors bring nothing to the table beyond the already debunked myths and memes articulated by highly biased Israel disseminators. The precise sort of bias common in such anti-Israel websites as commondreams.org - which the OP author suggested as a source.

It is what it is... a canned regurgitation of previously debunked canards and fallacies which - as the WSJ denoted - has no place in honest academia.

new coup for you · Aug 7, 2008

Actually I think Haaretz probably has more genuine criticism of Israel in its Op Eds then the WSJ does.

Often the Israeli media is far more open with its criticism then the American media is.

Anyway, so this is what happened:

A liberal college did a study regarding Israel.

A conservative paper criticized it.

Woo, couldn't see that one coming.

Tashah · Aug 7, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
The shame of this is that intelligent discussion about some areas of debate just cannot continue or even be heard without simplistic pandering to the crowd sitting waiting by the "thank you" button. I had a whole lot more hopes for a site such as this but I am becoming rapidly disillusioned by the level of discourse and failure to exchange ideas - very often when there is a relation to US or Israel in the discussion.

Beltway-style politics is now the common demonimator. Without doubt, there has been an increasing and consistent slide by all sides into this abyss. I've been around the message board block. It is the same virtually everywhere. You will also find that when it comes to Israel or Palestine, most folks are already firmly esconced in one camp or the other. I have found that the vast majority of I/P threads are either excercises in sophomoric propaganda, or they are dedicated to the boring and fruitless blame game. Extremely few treads explicitly address the current I/P situation and the possible solutions.

Infinite Chaos said:
I will surf a little while before deciding whether to stay or go but I'm not hopeful things will improve.

It will get worse the closer we come to the election. Guaranteed. Perhaps after that turning point...

DivineComedy · Aug 7, 2008

SquareMelon said:
If one observed Obama while visiting Israel, one would think Obama is running for the presidency there.

The question that many who are not familiar with the local politics in the US ask is why is that.

First, "many who are not familiar with the local politics in the US" probably have not heard about the unrefuted Ali Abunimah and Mary Mitchell disclaimers, and do not understand what it all means in context:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/30602-oreo-cookie-containment.html#post1057590153

Enjoy the Read.

Second, when the topic says, "Lebanon May Legalize Hezbollah Terrorist Group," and we do a Google search of "Hezbollah" to find out how things are going in the news, and the first thing to pop up is "Israel releases 5 prisoners in Hezbollah swap," some of us want to spit in Israel's eye, and sometimes we do until we puke, but in the end we realize we love them so very much it makes us cry and we hate the "many who are not familiar with the local politics in the US ask is why is that" guts so much we can hardly contain ourselves.

SquareMelon · Aug 7, 2008

new coup for you said:
Actually I think Haaretz probably has more genuine criticism of Israel in its Op Eds then the WSJ does.

Often the Israeli media is far more open with its criticism then the American media is.

I agree, the Israeli media is far more open about many issues than the US media not just the WSJ. One reason may be is that they do not fear being accused of the anti-Semitic and rest of the typical accusations that the Israel Lobby and their supporters dish out instantly

SquareMelon · Aug 7, 2008

Tashah said:
Not my argument. I found a critique of the so called “study” in the Wall Street Journal.

There were many other papers that were published to counter this 'Study' that were much more powerful and scholarly than the one you quoted.

P.S, Haaretz would probably have more credibility with those from the other side on the I/S issues.

SquareMelon · Aug 7, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
The truth is that Europe is far more questioning and critical of the situation in the middle east. We don't have a huge pro-Israel Lobby working to change or divert government policy. You will find that Jews (and some Muslims) here have tended to integrate into the political parties and there is no the same rabid pro- anti discussion in our politics. Thus people can be more critical and in some cases have to declare their interest or bias.

The problem with a lot of American politics and very evident on this board is the "lowest common denominator" factor which reduces any discussion on Israel to either you are a 100% Liberal or 100% Conservative - you are either 100% Republican or 100% Democrat - or you are either 100% pro-Israel or 100% anti-Israel.
Anything that vaguely relates to US politics becomes tainted by people wanting to jump in and accuse posters of being one or the other - I have several times been accused of being a "Democrat" or even an "Obama supporter" - when in fact I am simply asking questions about things I have grave doubts about.

The shame of this is that intelligent discussion about some areas of debate just cannot continue or even be heard without simplistic pandering to the crowd sitting waiting by the "thank you" button. I had a whole lot more hopes for a site such as this but I am becoming rapidly disillusioned by the level of discourse and failure to exchange ideas - very often when there is a relation to US or Israel in the discussion.

So what is the position? Can we ever discuss Israel or the Middle East without someone throwing in "nazi" or "anti-Israel" charges? Can anyone discuss US politics openly without "you Liberals this" or "you Conservatives that" being thrown at the poster?

I will surf a little while before deciding whether to stay or go but I'm not hopeful things will improve.

I am new here. I have been reading the threads. I think the most that one can get from a message board is to try to show that there are 2 sides to every story that involves disputes and that the truth is some where in between. That by itself is a great achievement considering that a lot of people do not hear but one side.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 10, 2008

Tashah said:
Beltway-style politics is now the common demonimator. Without doubt, there has been an increasing and consistent slide by all sides into this abyss. I've been around the message board block. It is the same virtually everywhere. You will also find that when it comes to Israel or Palestine, most folks are already firmly esconced in one camp or the other. I have found that the vast majority of I/P threads are either excercises in sophomoric propaganda, or they are dedicated to the boring and fruitless blame game. Extremely few treads explicitly address the current I/P situation and the possible solutions.

It will get worse the closer we come to the election. Guaranteed. Perhaps after that turning point...

Thank you for your very well written explanation. On your comment about "most folks are already firmly esconced in one camp or the other." - is illuminating and depressing at the same time. However, I will give this a little more time, maybe once the US election is over people might start discussing rather than posturing.

We'll see.

cherokee · Aug 11, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
Thank you for your very well written explanation. On your comment about "most folks are already firmly esconced in one camp or the other." - is illuminating and depressing at the same time. However, I will give this a little more time, maybe once the US election is over people might start discussing rather than posturing.

We'll see.

I once thought Abbas could bring peace between Palestine and Israel but I know now it was just wishful thinking. Peace will never come between the two until the Hamas and the Hezbollah are destroyed but even then another Islamic group will take its place.
I fear the conflict will keep on raging until Islam itself comes out of the dark ages. The truth is Islamic group(s) all over the world will never allow its poster child (Palestine) to be taken from them.

Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

SquareMelon

Member

Tashah

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot

SquareMelon

Member

Dezaad

SquareMelon

Member

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

Tashah

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin

Tashah

DivineComedy

SquareMelon

Member

SquareMelon

Member

SquareMelon

Member

Infinite Chaos

cherokee

Devil Dog

Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

Member

Sir Poop A lot

Member

Member

Upper West Side Jacobin

Member

Member

Member

Devil Dog

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency