Subscribe to Print Edition | Tue., September 25, 2007 , | | Israel Time: 17:07 (EST+7)
Haaretz israel news English
web haaretz.com
  Back to Homepage
Print Edition
Diplomacy
Defense Arts & Leisure Real Estate Jewish World National Advertising
Magazine Week's End Business Opinion Rosner's Domain Anglo File Books Travel
del.icio.us
Digg It!  new
It's lobbying, but is it really pro-Israel?
By M.J. Rosenberg

Critics of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Steven M. Walt (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), cannot be surprised that the attacks on the book prior to publication helped propel it as high as no. 10 on Amazon's best-seller list. Not only that, the names "Mearsheimer-Walt" have become almost People-magazine famous, odd for two mild-mannered political scientists from the University of Chicago and Harvard, respectively.

It just shows you what a little "buzz" will do - and a lot of buzz surrounds this book.

And why not? It's an important, heavily sourced and documented book (108 pages of footnotes) by two distinguished professors at two of our best universities. It deals with Middle East policymaking at a time when America's problems in that region surpass our problems anywhere else. And it is a serious book about a subject that is decidedly provocative, a much improved and expanded version of the original London Review of Books article.

Advertisement
The book asks the question: How much power does the pro-Israel lobby have? The authors answer: Too much, and both America and Israel suffer as a result.

It's an arguable question, and people are definitely arguing about it. It is also the kind of book you do not have to agree with on every count (I certainly don't) to benefit from reading it.

The authors do not say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the existence of a pro-Israel lobby. As political scientists, they understand that lobbies are as American as corn in Kansas. They know that lobbies play a major role in virtually all areas of American policy-making, domestic and foreign. Nor do they suggest that the pro-Israel community is out of bounds when it uses its influence on Israel's behalf.

Their question is whether or not that influence is used to promote policies that are in America's interest, or even Israel's.

The authors' answer is "no." They believe that the interests of both countries would be better served by aggressive American involvement intended to produce an Israeli-Palestinian agreement along the lines of the so-called Clinton parameters. Israel would withdraw more or less to the '67 lines, a Palestinian state would be established, Israel's security would be guarded by ironclad guarantees, and the Palestinians would abandon any future claims on Israeli territory. They believe that it is the influence of the lobby that has prevented the U.S. from vigorously pursuing this goal, despite the fact that both presidents Clinton and George W. Bush have endorsed it.

I spent almost 20 years as a Congressional aide and can testify from repeated personal experience that senators and House members are under constant pressure to support status-quo policies on Israel. It is no accident that members of Congress compete over who can place more conditions on aid to the Palestinians, who will be first to denounce the Saudi peace plan, and who will win the right to be the primary sponsor of the next pointless Palestinian-bashing resolution. Nor is it an accident that there is never a serious Congressional debate about policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. Moreover, every president knows that any serious effort to push for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement based on compromise by both sides will produce loud (sometimes hysterical) opposition from the Hill.

Walt and Mearsheimer mostly limit themselves to exploring whether all this is good for the United States (and to a lesser extent, Israel). The question I ask today, and not for the first time, is whether this type of behavior is good for Israel. Forty years after the Six-Day War, the occupation continues, the resistance to it intensifies, and Israelis in increasing numbers question whether they have a future in the Jewish state.

Has "pro-Israel" advocacy consistently produced "pro-Israel" ends? At several critical moments, it most certainly has not.

Was it pro-Israel to lobby the Nixon administration in 1971 to support Israel's rejection of Anwar Sadat's offer of peace in exchange for a three-mile pullback from the banks of the Suez Canal? Nixon capitulated to the pressure and backed off, leaving Israel free to reject Sadat's offer. Two years later, Sadat attacked and Israel lost 3,000 soldiers in a war that would have been prevented had Israel accepted the Sadat initiative. Israel gained nothing in that war, and ended up giving Sadat all the territory he sought in 1971, and much more.

Was it pro-Israel to urge the Reagan administration to back Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982? That war, and its bloody aftermath, lasted for 18 years, with the last Israeli soldier not leaving Lebanon until 2000 - after a thousand soldiers were killed. Just days after Israel's invasion, Lebanese Christian forces massacred almost a thousand Palestinians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps. And 241 United States Marines, serving as post-war peace keepers, were killed (the most on any single day since Iwo Jima) when Hezbollah blew up their barracks. In the end, the war accomplished nothing and Israel withdrew unconditionally.

Was it pro-Israel to press Congress to attach so many onerous conditions to aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority that Abbas was unable to demonstrate to his people that a moderate president, who fully accepted Israel, would produce benefits that they would not achieve by choosing Hamas. The U.S. (and Israeli) policies of all sticks and no carrots led predictably to Abbas' defeat by Hamas and a Hamas-controlled Gaza that has resumed its attacks on Israeli towns.

Was it pro-Israel to prevent the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations from insisting on a permanent freeze on settlements or, at the very least, the immediate removal of the illegal settlements? Wouldn't Israel be infinitely better off if the United States had used friendly persuasion to end the settlement enterprise right from the get-go? After all, the vast majority of Israelis consider the settlements to be impediments to peace and so has every president since the first settlement was erected.

Similar questions could be asked about the arguments favoring the Iraq war as good for both the United States and Israel (when critics correctly predicted that it would be disastrous for both), and should be asked about some future attack on Iran.

These questions are especially urgent with a presidential election coming up.

Once again, presidential candidates are being told that in order to earn the "pro-Israel" label, they must heartily endorse the status quo. That means that when asked what they would do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they must state unequivocal support for Israeli policies. They must put the onus for the failed diplomacy of recent years on the Palestinians. They must indicate that although they support peace, they will not adopt the kind of proactive peacemaking engaged in by presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. They must never use the words "even-handed" or "honest broker." There is a script and the candidates must not deviate from it.

For the vast majority of us who care deeply about Israel, the politically correct (and safe) approach to Israel is insulting. Sure, it keeps candidates out of trouble with that small minority of the pro-Israel community which believes that Israel can survive as a Jewish state while holding on to the territories. But that isn't most American Jews, not by a long shot.

Candidates who avoid saying what they believe out of fear of offending lobbyists and activists who have been proven wrong over and over again are not doing Israel any favors. And they should not be rewarded for it by being granted the label of "pro-Israel."

There is nothing pro-Israel about supporting policies that only promise that Israeli mothers will continue to dread their sons' 18th birthdays for another generation. For that we are supposed to be grateful?

M.J. Rosenberg is director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.
Bookmark to del.icio.us
Jewels of the East
For years Kfar Saba, Ra'anana and Hod Hasharon have been competing for the lead.
Dodging the crunch
The Bachar Commission did a fine job of protecting us from the global credit crunch.
  1.   Good Article 11:25  |  Natallie Durson 21/09/07
  2.   Truly said,of all the potential candidates for the presidential 11:25  |  lakshmi 21/09/07
  3.   Rosenberg is considered part of "The Lobby" 11:30  |  Slibovitz 21/09/07
  4.   8 MILLION MUSLINS IN THE US 11:34  |  indrajaya 21/09/07
  5.   Certainly more so than Rosenberg 11:42  |  David Teich 21/09/07
  6.   Facile arguments without logic 11:49  |  jerry 21/09/07
  7.   M. J. Rosenberg 12:12  |  Choni Davidowitz 21/09/07
  8.   Finally - an article that says it like it is 12:17  |  dana 21/09/07
  9.   Really dumb article 12:20  |  Moshavnik 21/09/07
  10.   where do we start 12:21  |  harzion 21/09/07
  11.   rosenberg`s last paragraph is rather glib 12:24  |  benshalom 21/09/07
  12.   m j rosenberg 12:27  |  macaulay 21/09/07
  13.   #6 It was Israel that picked a fight in 1982 12:29  |  Jens 21/09/07
  14.   mr rosenberg gives the two authors the benefit 12:30  |  talleyrand 21/09/07
  15.   Self-interest at work 12:34  |  Mark Lincoln 21/09/07
  16.   here is certainly room to disagree with the jewish lobby 12:39  |  a e housman 21/09/07
  17.   No more US taxpayers money to support apartheidic Israel 12:41  |  Mark 21/09/07
  18.   Dana, a real friend. 12:44  |  omigod 21/09/07
  19.   mr rosenberg what you do have israel do differently? 12:45  |  g n trevelyan 21/09/07
  20.   Would be interesting article if even one example he used was true 12:45  |  Dr. L. Brnd 21/09/07
  21.   dana "for israel`s long term sake" 12:58  |  ghanem tueni 21/09/07
  22.   the dana who pretends to give disinterested advice 13:01  |  pierre gemayel 21/09/07
  23.   dana "absolute power corrupts absolutely" 13:05  |  may chidiac 21/09/07
  24.   Sounds like a good summary of what`s wrong. 13:05  |  Tony Price 21/09/07
  25.   Mark Lincoln # 15 - oh, Oh... 13:09  |  dana 21/09/07
  26.   mr rosenberg and "occupation" 13:10  |  ehud barak 21/09/07
  27.   Show me the money! 13:23  |  W 21/09/07
  28.   Shmuel Rosner, please read this article... 13:49  |  Kol ha-Nevi`im 21/09/07
  29.   Rosenberg is right 13:50  |  Jeff Gold 21/09/07
  30.   #17what money? do you read the financial press? 13:51  |  victor hardman 21/09/07
  31.   Quote from the Shah of Iran in 1974 14:23  |  Tom 21/09/07
  32.   Natalllie Durson - over the top 14:26  |  Mary W. 21/09/07
  33.   Lobby to Be Concerned About is the Saudi One 14:26  |  Yoram 21/09/07
  34.   is it in the usa`s interest to stand with israel? 14:37  |  lord byron 21/09/07
  35.   the name is rosenburg not a good name at any time 14:44  |  victor hardman 21/09/07
  36.   Anti-Israel newspapers in the US love the M&W book... 14:47  |  CK Tan 21/09/07
  37.   26#Ehud Barak is right 15:00  |  Alon Fisher 21/09/07
  38.   the jews and the united states 15:02  |  blesstheusa 21/09/07
  39.   # 4 You Sound Like A Democrat 15:04  |  Tony Anthony 21/09/07
  40.   Be careful of the Christian Right 15:05  |  Chaim Gorenstein 21/09/07
  41.   Jens you are trying to gain favour for Denmark???? 15:07  |  Alon Fisher 21/09/07
  42.   They havent been doing a bad job 15:09  |  Alon Fisher 21/09/07
  43.   OF COURSE IT IS ALWAYS GOOD FOR ISRAEL 15:28  |  indrajaya 21/09/07
  44.   Novak Is Better than Rosenberg 16:26  |  Tod Zuckderman 21/09/07
  45.   Slibovitz, #3, is spot on 16:28  |  Jake 21/09/07
  46.   The electoral nuance of American Presidential Politics 16:52  |  David Hoffman 21/09/07
  47.   The authors` true complaints (which are justified) 17:22  |  Tosefta 21/09/07
  48.   Nonsense 17:38  |  Gina 21/09/07
  49.   Dana -- Hurts, doesn`t it? 17:41  |  Gina 21/09/07
  50.   great article, notwithstanding Teich and other yahoos 17:43  |  rickibobbi 21/09/07
  51.   Thank you for your objective view 17:44  |  AJE 21/09/07
  52.   Mark --polls show majority of americans support Israel 17:45  |  Gina 21/09/07
  53.   Mark Lincoln- apartheidic Israel 17:47  |  Fed Up 21/09/07
  54.   Natallie - You can`t distinguish between jihadists and Muslims 17:52  |  Gina 21/09/07
  55.   Israel is the problem 17:58  |  Arthur Seyss-Inquart 21/09/07
  56.   Israel is the problem 17:58  |  Arthur Seyss-Inquart 21/09/07
  57.   GOOD ARTICLE 18:05  |  JACKAL 21/09/07
  58.   #47- Tosefta as fact-ignorant of US as he is about Israel 18:10  |  Dr. L. Brnd 21/09/07
  59.   arrogance reigns.... 18:17  |  ravi 21/09/07
  60.   Most Israeli lobbies... 18:33  |  ManInTheMiddle 21/09/07
  61.   AIPAC et al. - the Anti-Israel Lobby 18:47  |  David 21/09/07
  62.   "why has the united states been willing to set 18:54  |  antisemitesanon 21/09/07
  63.   lobby 18:55  |  dave 21/09/07
  64.   #40 You confuse 18:56  |  david 21/09/07
  65.   when the interests of israel and the usa do not coincide 18:58  |  antisemitesanon 21/09/07
  66.   Burned by Dr. Brnd #58 19:00  |  Tosefta 21/09/07
  67.   that the usa chooses to stay in saudi has nothing to do 19:05  |  antisemitesanon 21/09/07
  68.   Rosenberg is Correct 19:32  |  Moshe 21/09/07
  69.   Excellent article 19:40  |  arik 21/09/07
  70.   A curious utterance for a resident of Tveria 19:51  |  Jasmine Murphy 21/09/07
  71.   The real question... 19:59  |  Victor 21/09/07
  72.   what a lie "biblical obligation" 20:03  |  The Guru 21/09/07
  73.   The role of the Israel lobby 20:06  |  Wendy Sandler 21/09/07
  74.   Pro-Israel? 20:22  |  P. J. Casey 21/09/07
  75.   Curious information about Jasmine Murphy #70 20:35  |  Tosefta 21/09/07
  76.   Harzion: some history for you 21:18  |  Janice 21/09/07
  77.   Gina #48, 49 - On love, fickle is she... 21:19  |  dana 21/09/07
  78.   victor hardman 30 21:22  |  realism 21/09/07