Mearsheimer and Walt Revisited
By Aaron Goldstein (08/31/07)
On September 4th, Farrar, Straus & Giroux will release a book titled, The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who teach at the University of Chicago and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, respectively. The book expands on the ideas they set out in a controversial essay titled, “The Israel Lobby” that appeared in The London Review of Books in March 2006.(1)
Given the book’s imminent release, I thought it would be worth re-examining some of the arguments made in the original essay that was the genesis of this controversy. The controversy here, of course, is that America’s Israel lobby acts as a proxy for the Israeli government and does their bidding. In so doing, the United States is putting Israel’s interests ahead of its own. “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 U.S. interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical,” write Mearsheimer and Walt.
In Mearsheimer and Walt’s world, if not the Israel Lobby in Washington, all would be splendid in the Middle East. They assert amongst other things that the United States has a terrorism problem because of Israel; Israel was eager for the U.S. to invade Iraq; Palestinian terrorism is nothing more than a response of Israeli colonization of Gaza and the West Bank; things are bad in the Palestinian Authority because Israel won’t grant them a viable state and that Israeli treat Arabs are second class citizens. In so doing, Mearsheimer and Walt gloss over the objects and intents of Iran, Syria and the late Yasser Arafat. Mearsheimer and Walt express indignation at being accused of anti-Semitism. But as I will demonstrate concerning their gross misrepresentation of the facts concerning the aforementioned arguments a healthy skeptic cannot help but think anti-Semitism played a role in the construction of their essay.
1.) The U.S. Has a Terrorism Problem Because of Israel
Mearsheimer and Walt write, “The U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around…There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.”
Let’s see if I have this straight. The United States has a terrorism problem with Osama bin Laden and al Qaida because of “Israel’s presence in Jerusalem”? If Israel is not present in Jerusalem where ought it to be present? Botswana?
To be certain, bin Laden is interested in “Palestine” where it concerns the al-Aqsa mosque as it is the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina.
Yet when one examines Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa one clearly sees that the focus of bin Laden’s animosity is America, not Israel. Don’t get me wrong. Osama won’t be buying Israel bonds in the foreseeable future. But the title of the fatwa reads, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Most of the fatwa bemoans the presence of American soldiers in bin Laden’s native Saudi Arabia. “Terrorizing you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty,” bin Laden writes. (www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) What exactly does Israel have to do with the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia? For bin Laden, the Palestinians are, at best, a peripheral concern. If not for the al-Aqsa mosque they would be of no concern to him at all. If Israel was bin Laden’s primary concern why not then attack an Israeli embassy instead of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya or why not attack an Israeli naval ship instead of attacking the U.S.S. Cole?
Mearsheimer and Walt claim, “As for so called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel.” Maybe Mearsheimer and Walt should tell that to the American hostages seized in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 or to the families of those American soldiers killed at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 by Hezbollah. What did these attacks by the Iranian government and their surrogates on Americans have to do with Israel?
While Israel’s close relationship with the United States is a factor for Islamic terrorists Israel is not the principal reason the United States has a problem with terrorism. The United States has a problem with terrorism because it is the most powerful nation on earth. Those who want to wreak havoc and destruction will have the greatest impact with the country that has the biggest economy and mightiest military. That mighty military now finds itself in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
2.) Israel Was Eager for the United States to Attack Iraq
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that Israel was eager for the United States to attack Iraq in 2003. “Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure,” write Mearsheimer and Walt. It is certainly true much of the Israeli political establishment wanted Saddam removed from power. Yet Mearsheimer and Walt curiously omit the fact that Iraq launched 39 Scud missiles into Israel during the 1991 Gulf War killing two people. The missiles did extensive damage to property as well as the psyche of Israelis who were issued gas masks. After all, it was feared the missile warheads would contain chemical agents much like the saran gas used against the Kurds in 1988. When Saddam spoke at a summit of the Arab League in 1989 he told those assembled that Iraq “had the means to burn half of Israel.” Let us also not forget the $25,000 checks Saddam gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel had good reason to want Saddam Hussein removed from power. Though whatever Israel’s motivations and that of the Israel Lobby in the United States if President Bush had not arrived at the conclusion Iraq was developing WMDs based on the intelligence provided to him he would not have chosen to strike Iraq in March 2003.
Yet if the War in Iraq was motivated in good part, as Mearsheimer and Walt suggest, to make Israel more secure one can argue that objective has not been met. The re-emergence of Iran and its nuclear program put Israel in as precarious a position as it was at the height of Saddam’s power. While Saddam said he wanted half of Israel burned, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped off the map altogether.
3.) Palestinian Terrorism is a Response to Israeli Colonization of Gaza & The West Bank
Mearsheimer and Walt argue, “Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” This might very well be Mearsheimer and Walt’s most absurd argument in the entire paper. Clearly, the authors are unfamiliar with the history of either the PLO or Hamas.
The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1965. At that time, Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Its charter called for the destruction of the State of Israel. The notion of Palestinian statehood only came about in 1974 some seven years after the Six Day War. Even then the idea was that Palestine would supplant Israel.
Mearsheimer and Walt are correct to characterize Palestinian terrorism as not being random in its nature. But it is not in response to Israel’s actions. It has been in response to Israel’s very being. Palestinian children are indoctrinated from a very early age to not only view Israel as the devil but to view Jews as little more than apes and pigs. Whether in their school textbooks, their children’s television programming, in their mosques and in their homes Palestinian children are taught the virtue of martyrdom. It is no accident that Palestinian suicide bombers occupy the highest place in Palestinian society. Schools, streets and soccer fields are named in their honor. Critics of Israel can bring up Baruch Goldstein to their hearts desire. No Israeli school, street or soccer field will ever be named in his honor.
Palestinian terrorism has been quelled over the past several years due to the construction of the much vilified security fence. It has done its job which is to keep Palestinians from committing acts of terrorism inside Israel. However, Israelis do continue to face rockets being launched from Gaza by Hamas. If Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israel colonizing Palestinian territories then why do the rocket attacks continue more than two years after Israeli tanks left Gaza?
4.) Israel Won’t Grant the Palestinians a Viable State
What does this mean? Mearsheimer and Walt write, “Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control.” This Bantustans the authors are referring to consisted of the entire Gaza Strip and more than 90% of the West Bank including Eastern Jerusalem under Palestinian control. But this was not enough for Arafat (and evidently insufficient for Mearsheimer and Walt as well). Yet Arafat failed to make a counteroffer other than to demand that Israel leave Gaza and the West Bank immediately. To put the matter into perspective, the Zionists did not get all they wanted from the 1947 UN Partition Plan which divided the British mandated territory of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Nonetheless, the Zionists accepted what was offered to them while the Arabs refused their state. Better to have something than nothing at all. My how little has changed in six decades. What might have been if Arafat had accepted Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000.
On the other hand, if Arafat had accepted Barak’s offer there was never a guarantee a Palestinian state would have been viable. Israel (nor for that matter the Israel Lobby in the United States) does not have the power to create a viable Palestinian state. Only the Palestinians can do that themselves. So long as the Palestinians continue to teach their children that Jews are apes and pigs and that their ultimate aspiration is kill oneself and take as many innocent civilians with you as impossible instead of building a vibrant economy with thriving public institutions there will be no viable Palestinian state. Salam Fayyad, the American educated economist, who now serves as the Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister in the West Bank has shown some promise. If not for his leadership it is doubtful that Palestinian police would have risked their lives to save an Israeli soldier who accidentally wandered into Jenin earlier this week. But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been in talks with Hamas – the same organization whose members were throwing Fatah supporters off roofs in Gaza a couple of months ago. One cannot help but wonder if Abbas is trying to clip Fayyad’s wings.
Even if Abbas comes to an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Abbas, Fayad and the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank must implement and enforce the agreement. This means the establishment of law and order balanced with an independent judiciary, a free press, free markets and a reformation of the Palestinian education system that will eliminate incitement against Jews as part of its curriculum. That would be a viable Palestinian state but only the Palestinians, not Israel, can bring that about.
5.) Arabs Are Treated as Second Class Citizens in Israel
Mearsheimer and Walt write, “Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the U.S., where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.”
Yet Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are citizens with full rights and responsibilities. Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights than their counterparts in Arabic and Muslim countries. Arab Israelis can vote and run for the Knesset. Indeed 10% of the Israeli Knesset is filled by Arabic members. One of those members currently sits in Ehud Olmert’s cabinet. One of Israel’s Supreme Court justices is a Palestinian Arab. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Can Jews vote or run for public office in Arabic or Muslim countries? Could a Jew sit on a Shari’a Court? Is Hebrew an official language anywhere in the Arabic or Muslim world? Certainly, Arabic women in Israel have rights that their counterparts in the Arabic and Muslim world could only dream of. While Arabs are not required to serve in the IDF there are several Arabs who hold high ranking positions in the IDF. Could a Jew serve in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard?
This isn’t to suggest that Arab Israelis don’t face challenges in a Jewish state. But the fact the Israeli government established a commission into the situation of Arab Israelis demonstrates its willingness to identify problems, admit shortcomings and make efforts to redress them. Would any Arab or Muslim government establish a similar commission for its Jewish population?
Put another way many have objected to Canada’s treatment of its Aboriginal population. Over the years, the Canadian government has implemented policies towards Aboriginals that were inconsistent with its commitment to equality. Aside from occasional international criticism, I don’t see Mearsheimer or Walt advocating the United States discontinue its close relationship with Canada on the basis of its treatment of Aboriginal peoples.
The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt bemoan Israeli treatment of its Arab citizens while ignoring the plight of Jews in Arabic and Muslim countries is troubling. The same can be said of Arab and Muslims living under authoritarian or totalitarian rule in Arab countries.
6.) Fawning Over Iran, Syria and the late Yasser Arafat
When one reads “The Israel Lobby” one is left with the impression that Israel is the most heinous country on earth. One is also left with the impression that countries like Iran and Syria are benign actors who pose no threat to the United States and only pose a threat to Israel because of the doing of the Israel Lobby.
Mearsheimer and Walt refer to Arafat as “the Palestinians’ elected leader” and bemoaned President Bush’s ostracism of him. Yet they never mention Arafat was “elected” Palestinian Authority President against token opposition in January 1996. They also neglect to mention the January 2002 parliamentary elections were suspended and never held. Indeed, Arafat remained Palestinian Authority President until his death in November 2004.
They also never mention the reason Bush ostracized Arafat. In January 2002, the IDF seized an Iranian ship called the Karine A that was smuggling weapons to the Palestinian Authority, which was supposed to be demilitarized under the auspices of the Oslo Accords. The raid happened at the time when then U.S. Middle East envoy General Anthony Zinni was meeting with Arafat. In a letter to President Bush, Arafat denied having knowledge of the ship or its mission. This turned about to be a lie and that ended Arafat’s relationship with Bush. This is a glaring omission on the part of Mearsheimer and Walt. They would have us believe that Bush wouldn’t meet Arafat out of spite.
Mearsheimer and Walt blame the Israel Lobby for the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act and the Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. They argue there was no reason to pick on Syria as it had supported UN Security Council Resolution 1441 concerning Iraq and had provided it intelligence concerning al-Qaeda. “Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee). If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and U.S. policy towards Damascus would have more in line with the national interest,” write Mearsheimer and Walt. I gather Mearsheimer and Walt want to live in a world without an Israel Lobby.
Curiously, Mearsheimer and Walt go as far as to accuse the United States of being “the de facto enable of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.” Yet Mearsheimer and Walt appear untroubled by Syria’s decades long occupation of Lebanon and are silent concerning Syrian involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
To give you an idea of how benign the authors views Syria and Iran one must read the following paragraph:
Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the U.S. to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.
Where does one begin? So the Israel Lobby is hostile to Iran and Syria but Iran and Syria have no hostility towards Israel? If it weren’t for the Israel lobby Iran wouldn’t hold Holocaust Cartoon Contests? The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt do not mention Iranian and Syrian involvement in the Iraqi insurgency and their interest in perpetrating it speaks volumes about their scholarship or lack thereof. It might have also been useful to mention that Iran and Syria have long been on the U.S. State Department’s list of countries that support terrorism. The United States needs the help of Iran and Syria to quell the insurgency in Iraq about as much as it needs for Michael Vick to volunteer to take your dog out for a walk.
Conclusion
Is Mearsheimer and Walt’s work anti-Semitic? Let’s see. They argue that Israel is responsible for the United States having a problem with terrorism. They argue Israel was principally responsible for the United States deposing Saddam Hussein. They argue that Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israeli colonization when in fact it is a response to Israel’s mere existence. They argue that Israel is responsible for creating a viable Palestinian state even though only the Palestinians can do such a thing. They argue that Israel treats its Arab citizens in a second class manner even though Arab and Muslim countries cannot be said to tolerate their Jewish populations much less their own Arab and Muslim populations. They accuse Israel of crimes against the Palestinians while whitewashing the dubious actions of the late Yasser Arafat. They claim the Israel Lobby is responsible for fomenting hostility against Iran and Syria while whitewashing the dubious actions of both countries in Iraq and in Lebanon.
Given that Mearsheimer and Walt single out Israel for scorn while ignoring countries with far more egregious behavior I can only conclude that their piece is, in fact, anti-Semitic. I am sure Mearsheimer and Walt will accuse me of silencing them. This is a power that I do not possess. The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt have expanded their essay into a full length book and were according to The New Yorker paid in six figures for it indicates to me they have no need to write prison diaries. Mearsheimer and Walt are free to criticize Israel. But I am free to characterize their criticisms as anti-Semitic if I see fit.
As for the Israel Lobby, I also believe they bestow upon it a power it simply does not possess. Mearsheimer and Walt write, “Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists.” That Mearsheimer and Walt would suggest that Israel Lobby is responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians is defamatory and absolves suicide bombers and the Palestinian leadership who incited them from culpability and responsibility for their actions.
But equally astonishing Mearsheimer and Walt would have us believe the Israel Lobby not only controls U.S. foreign policy but Israeli foreign policy as well. Talk about chutzpah. The Israel Lobby does not discourage Israel from doing anything. Individual members might have reservations about the wisdom of negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas or potential talks with Syria but the Israel Lobby will not actively undermine any initiatives taken by the Israeli government in those directions. To suggest otherwise would be to make the argument the Israel Lobby lobbies on behalf of Jewish Americans and not for Israel.
1) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
