US-Israel ties bad for peace: Soros

George Soros, the billionaire investor, has added his voice to the debate over the role of Israel's lobby in shaping US foreign policy.

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros takes issue with "the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]" in Washington and says the Bush administration's close ties with Israel are obstacles to a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Soros, who is Jewish but not often engaged in Israeli affairs, echoed arguments that have fuelled debate in academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the US Jewish community.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism," wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.

AIPAC has consistently declined comment on such charges, but many of its supporters have been vocal in dismissing them.

Historian Michael Oren, speaking at AIPAC's 2007 conference in March, said the group was not merely a lobby for Israel. "It is the embodiment of a conviction as old as this (American) nation itself that belief in the Jewish state is tantamount to belief in these United States," he said in a keynote speech.

The long-simmering debate bubbled to the surface a year ago, when two prominent academics, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, published a 12,500-word essay entitled "The Israel Lobby" and featuring the fiercest criticism of AIPAC since it was founded in 1953.

AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most influential special interest groups in the United States, its political clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.

The AIPAC members are all US citizens and the group receives no funding from the Israeli government.

Its annual conference in Washington attracts a Who's Who of American politics, both Republicans and Democrats.

Unwavering support

Mearsheimer and Walt said the lobby had persuaded successive administrations to align themselves too closely with Israel.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism"

George Soros, the billionaire investor

"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but much of the rest of the world," they wrote.

No other lobby group has managed to divert US foreign policy so far from the US national interest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of Israel are essentially identical, they wrote.

The two academics said that pressure from Israel and its lobby in Washington played an important role in President George Bush's decision to attack Iraq, an arch-enemy of Israel, in 2003.

Mearsheimer and Walt found no takers for their essay in the US publishing world. When it was eventually published in the London Review of Books, they noted it would be hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing such a piece.

It has been drawing criticism that ranged from shoddy scholarship to anti-Semitism, chiefly from conservative fellow academics and political supporters of the present relationship between Washington and Israel.

In his contribution to the debate, Soros said: "A much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties."

That influence is reflected by the fact that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid in the world.

Going mainstream

Mearsheimer and Walt are now working on expanding their article into a book - to be published in September by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The company has not commented on online reports that it paid the two authors a $750,000 advance and plans to print one million copies.

Another mainstream publisher, Simon and Schuster, already discovered that not only is it possible to publish criticism of Israel but it can also be good for the bottom line.

Former president Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" shot up the bestseller lists after its publication last November; stayed there for more than three months and is still selling well.

It had an initial print run of 300,000 copies and there are now 485,000 copies in print, said Victoria Meyer, a spokeswoman for Simon and Schuster.

Carter's book and its reference to apartheid provoked angry reactions - more in the United States than in Israel, where leftists opposed to the occupation of the West Bank have been accusing the government of apartheid practices for years and where the word has lost its shock value.

In response to charges of bias and anti-Semitism, Carter said he wanted to provoke a discussion of issues debated routinely and freely in Israel but rarely in the United States.

"This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times during a tour to promote his book. "It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

According to Oren, the pro-AIPAC historian, the Carter book and the Mearsheimer-Walt paper had the same "insidious thesis" and suffered from the same flaw - ignoring oil as a driving element in US policies on the Middle East.

Soros Slams AIPAC

Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:19 p.m. EDT

The billionaire investor George Soros has added his voice to a heated but little-noticed debate over the role of Israel's powerful lobby in shaping Washington policy in a way critics say hurts U.S. national interests and stifles debate.

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros takes issue with "the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)" in Washington and says the Bush administration's close ties with Israel are obstacles to a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Soros, who is Jewish but not often engaged in Israel affairs, echoed arguments that have fueled a passionate debate conducted largely in the rarefied world of academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the U.S. Jewish community.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism," wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.

AIPAC has consistently declined comment on such charges, but many of its supporters have been vocal in dismissing them. Historian Michael Oren, speaking at AIPAC's 2007 conference in March, said the group was not merely a lobby for Israel. "It is the embodiment of a conviction as old as this (American) nation itself that belief in the Jewish state is tantamount to belief in these United States," he said in a keynote speech.

The long-simmering debate bubbled to the surface a year ago, when two prominent academics, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, published a 12,500-word essay entitled "The Israel Lobby" and featuring the fiercest criticism of AIPAC since it was founded in 1953.

AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most influential special interest groups in the United States, its political clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.

Its annual conference in Washington attracts a Who's Who of American politics, both Republicans and Democrats.

UNWAVERING SUPPORT

Mearsheimer and Walt said the lobby had persuaded successive administrations to align themselves too closely with Israel.

"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but much of the rest of the world," they wrote.

No other lobby group has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy so far from the U.S. national interest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of Israel are essentially identical, they wrote.

Once considered an honest broker in the Middle East, the United States is now seen in much of the Arab world as an unquestioning backer of Israel, according to international opinion polls.

Peace moves have been at a near-standstill since the failure of Israeli-Palestinian talks in 2000 at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. The Bush administration, accused by the Arab world of relative neglect, has said it hopes to promote peace in its final two years despite the political weakness of Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

The two academics said that pressure from Israel and its lobby in Washington played an important role in President George W. Bush's decision to attack Iraq, an arch-enemy of Israel, in 2003.

Mearsheimer and Walt found no takers for their essay in the U.S. publishing world. When it was eventually published in the London Review of Books, they noted it would be hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing such a piece.

It has been drawing criticism that ranged from shoddy scholarship to anti-Semitism, chiefly from conservative fellow academics and political supporters of the present relationship between Washington and Israel.

In his contribution to the debate, Soros said: "A much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties."

That influence is reflected by the fact that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world.

GOING MAINSTREAM

Mearsheimer and Walt are now working on expanding their article into a book -- to be published in September by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The company has not commented on online reports that it paid the two authors a $750,000 advance and plans to print one million copies.

Another mainstream publisher, Simon and Schuster, already discovered that it not only is it possible to publish criticism of Israel but it can also be good for the bottom line.

Former President Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" shot up the bestseller lists after its publication last November, stayed there for more than three months and is still selling well.

It had an initial print run of 300,000 copies and there are now 485,000 copies in print, said Victoria Meyer, a spokeswoman for Simon and Schuster.

Carter's book and its reference to apartheid provoked angry reactions -- more in the United States than in Israel, where leftists opposed to the occupation of the West Bank have been accusing the government of apartheid practices for years and where the word has lost its shock value.

In response to charges of bias and anti-Semitism, Carter said he wanted to provoke a discussion of issues debated routinely and freely in Israel but rarely in the United States.

"This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times during a tour to promote his book. "It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

According to Oren, the pro-AIPAC historian, the Carter book and the Mearsheimer-Walt paper had the same "insidious thesis" and suffered from the same flaw -- ignoring oil as a driving element in U.S. policies on the Middle East.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

The Israel Lobby - portrait of a great taboo

The power of the Israel lobby in the United States

Video includes John J. Mearsheimer, Richard Perle, Lawrence Wilkerson, Tony Judt John Hagee, Earl Hilliard, Kenneth Roth, Michael Massing, and Daniel Levy.

Produced by VPRO

April 2, 2007

This 51:12 minute program was broadcast as part of the Tegenlicht documentary stream. Although made for Dutch TV, the soundtrack is in English, because all the interviewees are English-speaking.

See De Israël Lobby Portret van een groot taboe: de macht van de Israël lobby in de Verenigde Staten, the VPRO page for this documentary

Machine translation(Babelfish)

Israel lobby

Portrait of a large taboo: the power of Israel lobby in the United States

Monday 2 April 2007 20.55 Ned 2

Wednesday 4 April 2007 14.30 Ned 2 (recurrence)

Keep the United States does Israel standing? And how long do they continue with that still? Can you make commments in United States, however, on that reality, or are pro-Israël the lobby financially and politically this way strong that the relation to Israel taboo is and with that taboo? And what nevertheless happens there with them that it onzegbare to the jaw dares couples?

In March 2006 the American political economists controversial Article ' The Israel lobby and US foreign policy ' published John Mearsheimer (University or Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard). In this they do not demonstrate that it - longer - in the interest of the US is current support and protect Israel. With political shifts in the congress and increasing doubt concerning conducted in the middle of east policy is possible this the spark becomes in a kruitvat. Back-light speaks debate with the people concerned in this ' new realism '.

Both groupings are speaking or to the order: they that the strong link between wants keep the US and Israel in score (neocon Richard Perle, the Lebanese-Christian Brigitte Gabriel and evangelist John Hagee, the lobbyclub AIPAC), and they on this provide that criticism and not seldom ' victim ' became of the lobby. congress member Earl Hilliard Alabama selected alignment to the Arab world and were vervolgens outstripped by a political antagonist who got much Aipac-geld behind itself. Of the historian Tony Judt, who dared claim that Israel ' oorlogszuchtige and intolerant, belief etnostaat floated is become ', a reading at the last moment was called off. And Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth became personal getarget after criticism on violence which used Israel in the mini war against Lebanon of last summer.

Finally the question to what extent pro-Israël the lobby eventually stipulates the military and political interest of Israel himself: colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (ex-stafchef of Colin Powell) hoever explain the influence of the lobby stretch in the decision structure on the white house. And to congress member and democratically president candidate Dennis Kucinich the question to what extent contemporary politicians can pro-Israël withdraw themselves in fact to the long arm of the lobby. Lobby, congress, the white house and Israel himself lijken in a choking embrace to have ended up: (how) can that change ever?

The Jewish owned New York Observer squeezes out Israel Lobby critic

Related
Jared Kushner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
New Perch For ‘Lobby’ Observer

Gabriel Sanders | Fri. Mar 16, 2007

After close to a year of authoring a blog hosted by the Web site of The New York Observer, journalist Philip Weiss has decided to pull up stakes and strike out on his own.

The reasons, Weiss said, were part economic, part political.

“I wanted money after a year, and the Observer didn’t want to pay me, and they were uncomfortable with my politics,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Forward.

Over the past year, Weiss has devoted considerable space on his blog — called MondoWeiss (now located at www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss) — to the question of American Jews and Israel. He has been a champion of the controversial paper published last year by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in which they argue that the “Israel Lobby” wields too much power over American foreign policy.

According to Observer editor Peter Kaplan, Weiss’s move was initiated not by the paper but by the writer. Though Kaplan conceded that he and Weiss differed over money, he insisted that he has no trouble with Weiss’s politics.

“I love Philip as a writer and as a human being,” Kaplan said. “As far as I’m concerned, he could have run his blog under the Observer’s auspices forever.” Kaplan said that he hopes to continue to use Weiss as a writer for the paper’s print edition.

In his new blog’s maiden post, Weiss, who considers himself an anti- or non-Zionist, retreated a bit from the charge that the Observer was uncomfortable with his politics. Instead, he said, the paper’s site was perhaps an inappropriate venue for his own personal thoughts on Israel and America, especially ones that draw a hostile response.

“One of the problems with the Observer site was the invective,” he wrote, “which I did a lousy job of policing.” He invited visitors to his new site to be courteous. “If people want to comment, they should keep out obscenity, scatology, etc. You know where the line is.”

The Observer has itself seen some changes of late. Bought in August by Jared Kushner, the 26-year-old son of scandal-plagued New Jersey developer Charles Kushner, the paper switched last month from broadsheet to tabloid format.

Fri. Mar 16, 2007

The American Jewish community's pretence of consensus on Israel is crumbling

Cracks in the wall

February 10, 2007 11:00 AM

Richard Silverstein

Reading the Independent Jewish Voices manifesto and other posts written by signatories, I've been struck by the similarity in themes and similarity of political developments within the American and British Jewish communities.

Over the past six months, two notable developments have set Israel and diaspora Jewry adrift. The first was Israel's war in Lebanon, whose failure caused grave paralysis both in the military and within the government. The second was publication of the Walt-Mearsheimer essay about the Israel lobby's influence on US Mideast policy.

This has become a multi-front war now, with new fronts emerging in seemingly spontaneous fashion. One of the new fronts is Jimmy Carter's new book, which Old Guard Jewish organisations seem to have in their shorthairs. Another is an essay, sponsored by the American-Jewish Committee, purporting to analyse the phenomenon of the "new" anti-semitism professed by liberal Jews who criticise Israeli policies. On yet a third front, three American Jewish peace groups, Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, and Brit Tzedek, fought an epic battle against an AIPAC-sponsored Congressional bill to criminalise contact with Hamas - the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Bill.

Perhaps realising the importance of this victory, George Soros and other wealthy liberal Jews have been meeting for months to plan for the establishment of an independent Jewish lobby that will counter AIPAC's strident nationalist advocacy.

AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have enjoyed virtual hegemony as the voice of American Jewry on Israel. It is why presidents, senators and Congress members have voted AIPAC's way (until recently) on virtually all legislation of interest to the group.

But now, if you put your finger to the wind, you can sense a change. Jimmy Carter's book is a sensation, having sold 200,000 copies as of January 14. The more Jewish greybeards attack it, the more it sells. The book seems to have struck a chord.

The old Israel "consensus" and leadership approaches are ineffective. When AIPAC speaks, politicians no longer salute quite as crisply as they once did.

Enter a relatively obscure recent internal political battle within a group called the Israel Campus Coalition. The group is composed of American Jewish groups active on college campuses. The liberal Union of Progressive Zionists hosted a national tour by the Israeli refusenik group, Break the Silence. At its speaking engagements, the refuseniks criticised the occupation.

The hard-right Zionist Organisation of America took special offence that Israeli soldiers who supposedly had shirked their responsibility to serve their country were telling Jewish college students that Israel behaved badly. The group moved to have UPZ expelled from the ICC. Last week, after wide coverage in the Jewish media, ICC voted not to expel UPZ.

On the heels of this, Israel's consul general in Los Angeles, Ehud Danoch wrote a foreign ministry report attacking not only Break the Silence, but another refusenik group currently touring the US, Combatants for Peace. Announcing the report, Yediot Ahronot claimed (only in the original Hebrew version of the story) that the refusenik tours were "funded by US Palestinian organisations." Further, the report stated that such tours "damaged Israel" and "must be stopped". The most incendiary language was eliminated from the English version of the story published at Ynetnews.

Both UPZ and Brit Tzedek affirm they have neither sought nor accepted funding from Arab organisations for their tours.

The consul general's report also takes the unusual step of criticising Hillel by name for hosting events on the Break the Silence tour because "the willingness by Jewish communities to host these groups and even fund them is painful". It is highly unusual, and some might say inappropriate, for Israeli diplomats to single out American Jewish organisations by name for criticism.

The report reserves its harshest judgment for Israelis:

These refuseniks are cynically using their reserve soldier status and causing damage to the state of Israel. It's possible that these organizations aren't aware that they have turned, over time, into tools in the hands of North American Muslim campus organizations and that they have crossed the line between their aspiration to be an influential force within Israel to becoming a clearly anti-Israel force causing Israel great damage in the world.

One wonders what political purpose was fulfilled by the internal Israeli publication of these spurious charges. I think it's an issue of the political powers that be losing their footing and no longer being able to place their political priorities in proper perspective. They are deeply afraid of the potential moral power of the refusenik message of saying "No" to the current policy of endless conflict. They ascribe more power to this movement than it has and more danger than it represents.

Recently, Joel Beinin, a Stanford University Mideast specialist, was to speak at a San Jose school. The Silicon Valley Jewish Community Relations Council got wind of the program and enlisted school parents and students to protest. Beinin's invitation was rescinded the day before he was to speak.

The JCRC director explained her opposition to Beinin's presentation by saying that the professor "opposed Israel's existence". Any presentation he gave must be balanced, on the same programme, by a countering perspective. The Israeli-Arab conflict, she contended, is too complicated to allow such an "extreme" perspective to go unanswered.

This is an impoverished view of the Israeli-Arab debate. I call it the "balance syndrome": people are allegedly so prone to the blandishments of the anti-Israel crowd that its every public utterance must be monitored and countered by someone representing the "right" perspective.

The Beinin incident mirrors Tony Judt's cancelled speaking engagement at the New York Polish consulate where he was due to talk about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Such strong-arming makes Jewish pressure groups look weak and frightened. They do a great disservice because the ideas espoused by Judt, Beinin, Carter or Israeli refuseniks are debated freely within Israel itself.

Why must we here be treated as if we are invalids in need of spoonfeeding when it comes to policy debates about Israel?

What are we afraid of? Do we not do Israel an injustice by viewing her as so delicate that entertaining a few "unpopular" ideas will lead to her extinction? The Israel I know and love can withstand such debate. In fact, I believe that Israel is only strengthened by the free exchange of ideas.

A new weapon in the battle for that free exchange of ideas has been a burgeoning culture of American Jewish blogs devoted to Israeli-Arab peace. Tikun Olam (my own blog) and Muzzlewatch broke several of the stories mentioned above.

These blogs and a score of others - because they are independent of communal consensus or pressure - have proven to be a useful tool in questioning the established order of American Jewish leadership and its priorities.

Click here for a full list of articles in the Independent Jewish Voices debate.

U.S./Israel: The dual-loyalty question is being mainstreamed

the new york observer

Another Achievement of the AJC: 'The New Republic' Joins Me on Dual Loyalty Issue

A few weeks back I brought up the charge of dual loyalty with respect to the neocons who claim that Israel's interests and the U.S.'s interests are identical. A very sensitive question, yes, and a lot of people got upset with me, including friends.

Well now in The New Republic, John Judis has joined me in legitimizing this question. Here is the money quote:

On the one hand, Rosenfeld, Harris, and others want to deny that American Jews and American Jewish organizations like AIPAC suffer from dual loyalty in trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. It's anti-Semitic or contributes to anti-Semitism, they say, to make that charge. On the other hand, they want to demand of American Jewish intellectuals a certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and to Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists. And that's probably the case. Many Jews now suffer from dual loyalty--the same way that Cuban-Americans or Mexican-Americans do. By ignoring this dilemma--and, worse still, by charging those who acknowledge its existence with anti-Semitism-- the critics of the new anti-Semitism are engaged in a flight from their own political selves. They are guilty of a certain kind of bad faith.

This is intellectually valiant work, Judis should be applauded; and TNR praised for running the piece. As for the demand made on Jewish intellectuals to be loyal to Israel, it is one that anyone who has worked for the New Republic (I did it once, and carried Marty Peretz's anti-U.N. water for him) has experienced.

Wow, I'm just stunned by this. It's another achievement of the AJC report, which Judis's piece addresses (and of Walt-Mearsheimer, who broke the whole thing open). Don't you see what is happening? The dual-loyalty question is being mainstreamed. The degree to which neocons and neolibs and American Jewish journalists generally have been recruited in passive/unconscious identification with Israel is, as I've said here before, a legitimate issue. The suppression in the American Jewish community of any alternative discourse to Zionism—well, thanks to the AJC, the bridges are being dynamited...

FILE UNDER: Neocons, Politics, Culture, Religion, U.S. Policy in the Mideast

Posted by Phil Weiss on February 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Permalink
---
Editor's note: Going after the dual-loyalty thing is gutsy. Recall Herr Chertoff is an Israeli.

Here's an excerpt of a thread from one of my postings today which is relevant to the "anti-semitism" construct used to bludgeon critics:

"I see some people are still playing the enemies game by acknowledging the political term "anti-semitism".

Once again:

Antisemitic is a word that the zionists carefully chose to accomplish several goals: It denigrates their opposition, it implies a unified philosophy between Hebrews, jews, zionists, and sabbateans, and most importantly, it usurps the Semitic bloodline for exclusive use by european ashkinazics and sephardics with the implied usurpation of the land and biblical blessings promised to the Semitic children of Abraham.

I completely reject that word because it is a political tool, not a verb, noun, or adjective. I refuse to use it or acknowledge it."

Some prominent Americans are courageously speaking up against Zionism and deserve the thanks of Arabs

Arabs must listen

Ibrahim Nafie

---

Former US president Jimmy Carter is locked in fierce battle with the Jewish lobby. Since his recent book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, Carter has become the whipping boy of the Israel lobby and the neo-cons. He appeared in several debates with pro-Israel lobbyists and lectured at Jewish institutions to explain his point of view, but his calm composure failed to bring him anything but slander and abuse. Israel's supporters have accused Carter of lying, of stealing maps and documents, of hunger for publicity, and -- guess what -- racism and anti-Semitism.

Despite the vilification, Carter has stayed the course. A few days ago, he lectured at Brandeis University, a dominantly Jewish institution. Carter talked about his book, saying that his choice of the term "apartheid" was meant to be thought-provoking, for he wanted people to think carefully about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. He added that he used the term "just" 28 times in his book because a peace settlement has to be just in order to last. Israel's policy towards the Palestinians was undermining peace in the region, he stated.

In his talk to Brandeis University students, Carter recalled his earlier political career, noting that when he ran for senate, governor of Georgia, and president of the United States, his rivals would take the occasional personal jibe at him. But not once, he said, was he ever called a liar, a bigot and a coward, or accused of plagiarism and anti-Semitism. "It hurts," he admitted.

The campaign against Carter shows how powerful the Zionist lobby is. It also shows that prominent figures are not afraid to speak up anymore. Two political scientists, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have spoken about the control of the media and think tanks by the Israeli lobby. Their remarks made them the target of attacks, but they didn't retract their views.

I believe that people such as Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer are giving valuable support to Arab rights. They work from inside the system, offering calm arguments and sober views. This is something we miss in the Arab world, where opinions are often tainted with emotion.

Those Americans who tell it as it is, despite Zionist pressures, deserve our thanks and appreciation. Arab civil groups and study centres need to invite those people to give lectures here. We need to learn from them and thank them. Would an Arab organisation invite Jimmy Carter so that we may discuss his views and listen to his advice?

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Al-Ahram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wes Clark, Are You Ever in Hot Water With the Israel Lobby!

January 10, 2007 at 1:09 am

Shmuel Rosner, one of the U.S. Israel Lobby's best friends in the Israeli media, is on the warpath against Wes Clark. Why? Because he had the temerity to "out" the Lobby (particularly Aipac) for beating the drums for war against Iran.

Arianna Huffington got a call from Clark after he'd read a Bibi Netanyahu interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave in which the old 'peacenik' detailed his efforts to lobby the Bush regime to take out the Iranian nuke facilities. Bibi asserts in the interview that American military intervention is all but a done deal. I don't know about you, but I'm with Wes on this one. This sort of stuff is Netanyahu's metier. It's what he's made for as a politician. Manipulating public opinion in favor of harsh nationalist Israeli policies using hysteria and paranoia. I, for one am glad Clark called Netanyahu out on this one. If Netanyahu wants to be Slim Pickens ridin' that H-bomb down to the ground to nuke some "Russkies" in Dr. Strangelove, I'd prefer that the bomb not have U.S. markings on it. Let Bibi find someone else to do Israel's dirty work for it (not that I'm advocating that Israel bomb Iran either).

This was Wes' statement to Huffington:

"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table — but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships."

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Boy oh boy is Wes in hot water with the Israel Lobby. He just yanked their chain and are they going to roar like a lion. This guy's gonna be called an anti-Semite and far worse things. Actually, it's already started. Rosner wrote this:

Gee, what can he possibly mean by "pressure being channeled from the New York money people"?…How and why has it become so easy to speak in this way about the Jews? Second: What does it mean politically?

It is, actually, rather troubling, even scary. People in elite circles somehow came to the conclusion that denouncing the Jewish community and its support for Israel is now becoming acceptable. Walt and Mersheimer came first, than former president Carter, now Clark - and we already have a new trend on our hands. A Jewish leader with whom I spoke yesterday asked me this most disquieting question: Is the ice thinner than one might have thought?

Politically, it is voices coming from the Democratic party, again, a nuance that the Republican Jewish Coalition could hardly miss. Yesterday, it released a statement [sic] "strongly condemned 'blatantly anti-semitic' remarks made by Retired General Wesley Clark in an interview with Arianna Huffington and urged the Democrat presidential aspirant to apologize… This is yet another sign that the veiled and not-so-veiled anti-Semitic sentiments that are rampant in the left-wing blogosphere are seeping into the 'mainstream' of Democrats' political discourse."

Gimme a break. When asked about U.S. military action against Iran, Clark correctly notes that the mainstream American Jewish community is "divided," but that the Israel Lobby's leaders ("New York money people") are united in favor. What is factually inaccurate about that statement?? Nothing. Everyone knows that Aipac has been promoting war with Iran for a terribly long time. If you don't believe me go look at the media coverage of their last national gathering. And do you really believe that Aipac is NOT trying to influence the White House & Congress on the issue of bombing Iran?

I wouldn't have said "NY money people" because Aipac's leadership is spread all over the country. It's an unfortunate and imprecise choice of words. But calling them "pro-Israel donors" would've worked just as well.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is a bunch of neocon hacks trawling for an issue. Clark's interview seems just as good a way to take it to the Dems as any. So they went on the warpath. And Rosner is their willing handmaiden. A non-issue, boys. As Bill Clinton used to say: "This dog won't hunt." But hey, you can't fault 'em for trying. They spent $1-million plus trying to dent Jewish support for Dems in the last election. What happened? Jewish support went UP.

Wes, DO NOT apologize. Hold your ground. You're precisely right. Much of the national Jewish leadership is sounding the trumpet for us to blow Iran's nukes to smithereens. But American Jews are by no means united behind such a position. Democrats need to oppose U.S. military action against Iran. If that means tangling with Aipac then so be it. Aipac should get out of the way on this issue and let the U.S. decide what is in its national interests. It should not be trying to tell U.S. leaders that what is in Israel's interest (and it is highly debatable whether such adventurism would be in Israel's interest) is also in the U.S. national interest.

Haaretz, known for its progressive analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict, has some of the most acute, passionate, and profound columnists writing on this subject. It has had tremendous correspondents like Amos Elon covering the U.S. beat. Now it has Shmuel Rosner. It's as if CBS passed the national news anchor baton directly from Walter Cronkite to Charles Johnson. What an embarrassment.

Filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society

aipac supports attacking iran haaretz huffington post netanyahu lobbies u.s. leaders for iran attack shmuel rosner

Permalink | TrackBack

Walt and Mearsheimer Rebut (and Humble) Their Critics

Editor's note: Both blogs are acting up. I may have to move to the other one shortly.
---
the new york observer

I've just gotten a copy of a 79-page paper called "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Critics of 'The Israel Lobby'" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The scholars began circulating the rebuttal privately in December but have not published it on-line, I gather, because they are working on a book about the lobby and are trying to keep some of their powder dry till publication. Nonetheless, the paper is getting around. I find it exciting, and will be referring to it in days to come.

On first reading, my chief response is (surprise) positive: the paper humanizes Walt and Mearsheimer, the voice is warmer and more intimate than their stunning original of last March. You have the feeling here of two minds struggling through a difficult subject. For instance, the authors say that it was former Harvard Dean Walt's decision—not Harvard's—to remove the Harvard logo from the on-line Kennedy School version of the original after newspapers began referring to the paper as "the Harvard study," but that given the great symbolism attached to this gesture, it was a mistake, and illustrates the saying, no good deed goes unpunished.

The sense of intellectual engagement here is thrilling. The tone is, Here is what our critics have said, here's our response. W&M itemize a wide range of critical arguments, and detail them, including the Forward's assertion, "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews." And while they don't give an inch, really, the respectful debate they are pursuing ennobles them and honors the contributions of Benny Morris and even Alan Dershowitz—far more than Dershowitz, who slimed these guys, deserves. For instance, there is a shocking quote in here from Dershowitz on MS/NBC, saying that W&M "copied" their words from neo-Nazi websites. Thus vilified, some people would threaten to sue. These scholars take the argument on calmly. God bless America.

Something else that humanizes the document is the section at the end titled, "Our Mistakes." O.K., a number of these are penny-ante, still the tone is humbling. "...there are places where our choice of words could have been clearer or more nuanced... although we went to some lengths to demonstrate that we harbor no animus towards Israel or its more ardent defenders in America, it is possible that some of our discussion did not make this point as forcefully as would have liked. First and foremost, we regret having capitalized the word 'Lobby' in our original article..." Etc.

The paper concludes with a moving statement about the controversy. The ferocity of the attacks "offers additional evidence of he lobby's efforts to create a climate that discourages questioning of its actions, Israeli policies, or the U.S.-Israeli relationship. This situation is not healthy for American democracy." Hear, hear.

But now the anger over their publication seems to be dissipating, and what they had hoped for is coming to pass: a discussion of the ideas on their merits. Myself, the March day that a friend first emailed me W&M's paper and I read it through at my desk with my eyelids glued open was a great day. I had long felt constrained by the lobby, it had limited my work and freedom. W&M had a liberating effect.

FILE UNDER: Journalism, Politics, Culture, U.S. Policy in the Mideast

Posted by Phil Weiss on January 9, 2007 12:13 PM | Permalink

Revisiting the Israeli Lobby Debate

by Rami G. Khouri

Released: 12 Dec 2006

---

CAMBRIDGE, MA -- Is there a rational, sensible middle ground between those who question or deny the Holocaust against the Jews and threaten to wipe out Israel, and those who maintain that Israel can do no wrong and must receive total, perpetual American support? That middle ground has been thin in recent years. In the United States, in particular, it is almost impossible to discuss in public the issues of Israel’s policies, Israeli-American relations, and how these two impact on America’s degraded ties with the Arab world.

The prevalent tone of public and private discussions remains a questioning of why the Arabs and Iranians hate Israel and America, and make political or military war against them. The dominant litmus test of legitimacy is for Hamas and Hizbullah to recognize Israel’s right to exist, without asking Israel to halt its continuing assaults on Arab lands and rights. That attitude, over decades, has understandably generated a strong reaction against Israel and the US throughout the region and the world.

This cyclical, cause-and-effect nature of Israeli-American-Arab relationships is rarely acknowledged in the United States. A rare exception was the paper published in March by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University. In “The Israel Lobby,” they questioned whether the pro-Israel lobby in the United States served the best purposes of Israel and the U.S., or whether its virtual stranglehold on U.S. policies in the Middle East actually is detrimental to both Israeli and American national interests.

Their original paper in the London Review of Books and the Harvard website generated fierce criticism, to which they initially offered only occasional, partial responses. They were accused of a wide range of terrible deeds and sentiments, including anti-semitism, blaming the Jews for America’s troubles in the Middle East, seeing American Jews as disloyal or even treasonous citizens, cavorting with racists like David Duke and other neo-Nazis, being anti-Zionists who do not feel that Israel’s survival is important, exaggerating the power and nature of the pro-Israel lobby and its control of American foreign policy, and many other major and minor points.

To find out where things stand now and what might happen next in this important debate, I went to see Stephen Walt in his Kennedy School office at Harvard the other day. The authors knew their article would be controversial, Walt told me, because it addressed a set of important issues that few mainstream scholars or journalists had examined. They expected professional criticism and personal attacks, because they challenged some powerful individuals and organizations, and cast doubt on principal American-Israeli historical claims and policy positions. They feel they opened a space for an honest debate on the issue, where the focus should remain.

Walt and Mearsheimer are now completing a full length book on the subject of the Israeli lobby and its impact, to be published in the United States and a dozen other countries next year -- a good sign, given that the original American journal that has commissioned their article subsequently declined to publish it. Equally importantly, they have written a detailed 80-page point-by-point essay responding to all the accusations and criticisms made against them by a wide range of people.

Their essay is a calm, specific rebuttal of every criticism made against their original paper, showing the criticisms to be overwhelmingly mistaken and invalid. Where they found some criticisms to be justified, they show why the points raised do not significantly affect their main arguments.

They grouped the many attacks against them into three broad groups: unsupported ad hominem accusations of being anti-semites, liars, or bigots who relied on neo-Nazi websites; clear misrepresentations of their views, by accusing them of arguments they did not make, or ignoring important points that they explicitly made; and, accusations that the original essay was riddled with factual errors and was sloppy scholarship.

Most criticisms aimed to discredit the authors, divert the discussion to tangential issues, or bury the original paper’s core arguments about the questionable impact of the pro-Israel lobby. The rebuttal essay convincingly shreds the arguments of all the critics, whether respected scholars or others. It also reaffirms their original point: any honest discussion of U.S.-Israel relations and policies will often be met with a broadside assault by the pro-Israel lobby to silence the debate.

The authors are respected, established and self-confident enough to withstand such an assault that would have felled lesser folks. Intelligently, they disdain the sort of cheap personal attacks and innuendo that were hurled at them, and instead maintain their sharp focus on the core issue that they feel deserves wider discussion.

“We feel that we have started an important public debate in the United States and abroad,” Walt told me.

“The United States faces many challenges in the Middle East, and Americans need to be able to discuss all of the forces that shape U.S. policy in this region in a candid and serious way,” he added, reflecting the tone of their rebuttal essay.

“We are gratified that this conversation is now occurring, for what America needs is a sober and calm discussion of these issues based on logic and evidence, as opposed to a conversation filled with name-calling and character assassination, or myths and misconceptions.”

Sounds like the American way to me, and very much worth affirming in the United States and emulating around the world. Walt and Mearsheimer were right in March to raise this issue, and they are right again today to move the debate forward in a calm, facts-based manner.


Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, and co-laureate of the 2006 Pax Christi International Peace Award.

Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global

Israel, Alone

December 13, 2006

The nuclear cat is out of the bag – and Olmert issues a warning…

by Justin Raimondo

Israel's long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity came to an end the other day when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in answer to a question about hisnu country's rumored WMD arsenal, replied, "Iran openly, explicitly, and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [the Iranians] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" Ha'aretz avers, "It is not clear whether this was a slip of the tongue on the part of Olmert or an intended statement" – and his aides and supporters are certainly scrambling to explain his comments away as a linguistic mix-up. Yet, taken in context – not only the context of the interview, but the context of Israel's present position – I would argue the Israeli Prime Minister was sending a message not only to Iran, but also to the U.S. As a rebuke to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rants about wiping Israel off the map, Olmert's is the perfect retort. Everyone knows that Israel has at least 400 nukes, and it isn't hard to guess in which direction they're aimed. Olmert is pointedly reminding the Iranians of what everyone has known for quite some time. All the Israeli prime minister has to do is give the order, and Tehran would be reduced to a pool of molten glass. The message sent to Washington – and, indeed, to the entire world – is that Israel is making a clean break with the policies of the past, based as they were on a strategy of economic, diplomatic, and military dependence on Western allies. Israel feels it has been abandoned by the West, including not only Britain but also the U.S. – and all bets are off. This fear of abandonment, although greatly exaggerated, is not entirely unfounded. It is based on a sensitive reading of the political dynamics in the U.S. and the threatened future of Israel's "special relationship" with the Americans. The Israel lobby in the U.S. has recently taken it on the chin four times in a row, without so much as getting a punch in edgewise: it started with the arrest and indictment of two top AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, for espionage. They are charged with funneling classified information, some of it high-level stuff, to Israeli embassy officials. Then there was the Harvard University research paper authored by professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, documenting and decrying what they called "the Lobby" and its distorting effect on American foreign policy. Now there's the Baker-Hamilton commission linking the Palestinian question to our "grave and deteriorating" prospects in Iraq, and, to top it off, the Jimmy Carter book. The Lobby is reeling. For the first time since the Eisenhower era, our Israeli-centric policy in the Middle East is being openly and successfully challenged. In the past, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has been able to effectively neutralize all critics by smearing them, and the charge of "anti-Semitism" has been applied with an absurdly broad brush to everyone from Gore Vidal to Pat Buchanan and all points in between. However, this case is getting increasingly hard to make. Are we now to believe that the U.S. Department of Justice, Harvard University, Baker and the Bush I crowd, and Jimmy Carter are all part of a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy? Surely not. With the British endorsement of the Baker group's conclusions, one would also have to include Tony Blair among the conspirators. When Mearsheimer and Walt published their paper, the Lobby likened them to David Duke. They can't pull that, however, with Baker's wise men, a former president, and the British prime minister. The Lobby has cried wolf once too often. Tony Judt, who has taken more than a few hits from the tireless efforts of the amen corner, recently noted the new atmosphere of glasnost when it comes to discussing the "special" status of American-Israeli relations: "What seems to me the case is that if you keep pushing, if you insist there at least be a discussion of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper … even a discussion about the failure to discuss it, something does change. And it seems to me there's a shift." The Israelis recognize this shift, and Olmert's alleged slip of the tongue is their answer. The "clean break" strategy embraced by the Israelis, predicated on the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Americans, has so far played out pretty much as outlined in a notorious game plan drawn up by top U.S. policymakers, including neocon point-man and former Defense Policy Board official Richard Perle, former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, currently Dick Cheney's top adviser on Middle Eastern affairs. The agenda put forth in this widely cited 1996 document, intended as advice to then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was meant to confront the central conundrum at the heart of the Zionist predicament: how to overcome its essential dependence on the West. As a settler colony, implanted by force of arms and sustained by aid from abroad, Israel has from the start been dependent on outside forces to ensure its survival. What was needed, argued the Clean Breakers, was a new offensive that would repudiate the concept of "land for peace" and set Israel free from Western-imposed constraints. Invoking the "right of hot pursuit," Israel would launch periodic invasions of Palestinian and Lebanese territory – and set the stage for strikes against Syria and Iran. The road to Damascus and Tehran would run through Baghdad, however, as the authors of "A Clean Break" put it: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." Syria and Lebanon were seen by the Clean Breakers as the front line in their battle to expand the frontiers of Israeli power. Following a successful campaign to "redefine Iraq," it would be possible to envision a "profound" shift in the regional "strategic balance of power." Jordan would be drawn into the new order, and the Israelis would succeed in "diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." A decade after the Clean Break scenario was conceived, its policy prescriptions read like prophecies. However, as the game plan approaches its projected climax – an attack on Iran and/or Syria – there are numerous indications the U.S. is bailing, and not only in Iraq. The appearance on the American political and intellectual scene of forces willing and able to challenge the Lobby's unquestioned hegemony over U.S. foreign policy – especially when it comes to the crucial [.pdf] Middle East – threatens to scuttle the Clean Break scenario. Israel wants regime-change in Syria and Iran, while the Baker-Hamilton folks want to open up negotiations with them over the future of Iraq. And the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis on the Lobby's vanguard role in fomenting war with Iraq is taking root. As the two distinguished professors put it: "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. 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." Citing Philip Zelikow's by-now infamous remarks that the war was really all about the threat to Israel, and not the U.S., Mearsheimer and Walt reference a report in the Washington Post that "'Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.' By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached 'unprecedented dimensions', and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programs. As one retired Israeli general later put it, 'Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities.'" Now that the full disaster in Iraq is unfolding in all its bloody viciousness and tragic futility, the Israelis are catching a lot of the blame, and the power of the Lobby is being undermined, perhaps fatally. The cord to the U.S., which has sustained Israel for so long, is in danger of being cut – before Israel is ready to make the break. Iraq is destroyed, but the front-line enemies of Israel – Syria and Iran – are still left standing. Not only that, but Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear program, and James Baker is whispering sweet nothings in Bashar Assad's ear. No wonder the Israelis have abandoned all pretenses of reasonableness and are now threatening to plunge the Middle East into the throes of a nuclear Armageddon. Israel is alone against the world, or so their leaders seem to believe: cornered, they are revealing their true face, snarling their resentment and defiance – their ire directed not just or even primarily at the Iranians, but at U.S. policymakers. Olmert has found the elusive "weapons of mass destruction" said to be lurking somewhere in the Middle East, threatening the peace and shadowing the land with the darkest, most ominous war clouds. We know – now – they aren't anywhere in Iraq, and our own CIA tells us the Iranians are a good 10 years away from acquiring nukes. No, they are right where Mordechai Vanunu told us they were. Would the Israelis ever use them? That is the question that we have to ask in light of Olmert's unprecedented admission. After all, why "come out" to the world as a nuclear power at this particular moment? Surely the threat of a nuclear first strike against Iran is implicit in Olmert's "slip of the tongue." The Israeli conceit is that to equate a regime such as the one that rules in Tehran with Israeli "democracy" is an obscene "moral equivalence" that overlooks the obvious: after all, we can trust Tel Aviv with WMD, but not the Iranian ayatollahs. Yet the growing extremism dominating Israeli political life, as demonstrated by the rise of such a dangerous character as Avigdor Lieberman, points to a troubling trend that has culminated in Olmert's stunning announcement. We are now about to experience the consequences –the "blowback" – of our Israel-centric policy, which has fostered and nurtured Israeli ultra-nationalism in the womb of the "special relationship." As in so many other cases of aiding and abetting foreign "freedom fighters," we'll find we have created yet another monster. By the time this realization dawns on us, however, it will, unfortunately, be too late.

President Carter, Mearsheimer and WaIt and The Israel Lobby

02:45

Call-In In Depth with Jimmy Carter

C-SPAN, BookTV

Former President Jimmy Carter, author of a new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
is interviewed from his home in Plains, Georgia. He answers a question about the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper discusses groups like AIPAC and the influence on the US political system and the support of Israel.

Dual Loyalty and the “Israel Lobby”

By Gabriel Schoenfeld

From issue: November 2006

In late August, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) hosted an event in Washington, D.C. entitled “The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Response to the War in Lebanon.” It featured two political scientists, John J. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor at Harvard and former academic dean of the university’s Kennedy School of Government. Back in March, the two men, both of whom are identified with the “realist” school in foreign policy, had stirred an intense controversy with an article in the London Review of Books entitled “The Israel Lobby,” which they then also published as a “working paper” on the Kennedy School’s website.

MORE:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/printArticle.aip?article=com.commentarymagazine.content.Article::10136