History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Dana Milbank presents a devastating account of an appearance yesterday by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer before the Council on American Islamic Relations. After beginning with an impressive display of bipartisanship--Mearsheimer, despite his proclaimed expertise on how Congress functions, managed to mispronounce the names of both House majority leader John Boehner and Maryland congressman Chris Van Hollen, a rising star in the Democratic Party--the duo offered a series of comments that will do little to quell their critics or impress the undecided about the intellectual impressiveness of their thesis. As Milbank noted,"Whatever motivated the performance, the result wasn't exactly scholarly."
Both men repeatedly singled out Jews (Wolfowitz, Feith, Elliot Abrams) when describing policies that have broad support in the upper levels of the administration. When asked why he took this approach, Walt replied, "I could have mentioned non-Jewish people like John Bolton."
Mearsheimer, Milbank noted, "made no such distinctions as he used 'Jewish activists,' 'major Jewish organizations' and the 'Israel lobby' interchangeably." He accused Israel of having briefed the administration months in advance of their plans to attack Hezbollah; when asked to supply evidence, he cited the "public record." From where: Al Jazeera?
Some points the duo made were undoubtedly true. Walt, for instance, pointed to the US-Israeli alliance to explain the Bush administration's policies in the recent conflict in Lebanon. But how these policies directly related to the alleged massive influence of Jews high in the administration the Harvard dean didn't say. More bizarrely, Walt suggested that if not for the Israel lobby, the Iraq war "would have been much less likely." Many items might explain the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq. But Saddam Hussein as of 2002 wasn't exactly Public Enemy #1 for Israel.
Mearsheimer concluded the appearance by donning a button, "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." There's some high-level intellectual commentary.
"Do you honestly think that the Israeli regime would have had you talk with an Israeli Arab about anything if it wasn't certain that whatever was said wouldn't further stoke you up on loyalist propaganda?"
This is a rare glimpse into the paranoid world of Israel-bashers. Israel is no more a "regime" than Canada, and I'll bet a months pay that KC was not shuffled from place to place by party apparatchiks directing him to friendly Arabs whose families would be sent to Siberia if they mispoke. Ralph really needs to get out of Georgia more!
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
You're right--regime is a pretty neutral term. I drew an incorrect, and linguistically unjustifiable, conclusion.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
KC:
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I hope never to be as objective as Ralph when it comes to this subject.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/30/2006
I've heard that said, and I don't have any sources closer to the action to contradict it directly, but based on discussions like Mark Grimsley's (and the tenor of discussions over at LeVine's) I wonder if there's any way that Israeli forces could have done better. The political strictures -- time and resources -- and strategic decisions -- aerial emphasis -- were prety bad to start with.
Ralph E. Luker -
8/30/2006
Yes, and the army's long-standing pre-occupation with policing the occupied territories apparently left it ill-prepared for serious warfare.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/30/2006
Also, if you're so convinced that the wall is worth the billions that Israel has spent on it so far, you might have taken issue with Mechal Sobel's husband, Zvi, who just lived through the rocket attacks on Haifa, and who said in a recent post here that the billions spent on it have been a foolish waste of money.
There are two very different kinds of security which are being discussed here. Zvi Sobel is entirely correct that the wall provides no real protection against aerial assault, or mass attacks; KC's mayor is entirely correct to note his own experience (echoed in statistics more broadly) that the construction of the wall corresponds with a decrease in "retail" terror -- suicide bombers, in particular.
Whether the wall was "worth billions" depends on a lot of things. Anyone who thought that unilateral disengagement -- the policy of which the wall was a part -- was a panacea is going to be disappointed. Anyone who thinks that unilateral disengagement is a total failure because of Hezbollah ignores the fact that, in spite of everything, most of the world thinks Israel was justified in going after them, whereas continued occupation of Lebanon would have eroded Israel's readiness, moral standing and probably produced even worse results.
Ralph E. Luker -
8/30/2006
I'll pardon your error, when you admit that Israel has a regime, just like the United States, the Soviet Union, Canada, and any other governed state have regimes. I don't know where you need to get out of more often, but a dictionary would help.
Ralph E. Luker -
8/30/2006
If "Israel kept the United States informed" etc., what is the telling damage in the article when Mearsheimer makes the same claim and acknowledges that he can't "prove it." Also, if you're so convinced that the wall is worth the billions that Israel has spent on it so far, you might have taken issue with Mechal Sobel's husband, Zvi, who just lived through the rocket attacks on Haifa, and who said in a recent post here that the billions spent on it have been a foolish waste of money. Do you honestly think that the Israeli regime would have had you talk with an Israeli Arab about anything if it wasn't certain that whatever was said wouldn't further stoke you up on loyalist propaganda?
Robert KC Johnson -
8/29/2006
I'm sure Israel did keep the Bush administration informed of its defense preparations--just as I'm sure the US keeps Israel similarly informed. It's what allies do. (I'm sure the US and the British similarly share.) But this has nothing to do with the Israel Lobby that W+M spend so much time attacking.
As to the rocket attacks--this conflict proved that Israel lives in an extremely dangerous area, with neighboring movements (not states) that deliberately target civilians. Regardless of whether you're attacked by rockets, suicide murderers still have to be stopped. The security fence has proven remarkably effective in achieving this goal--which cannot be met through primarily military means.
As someone who supported Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza, I'm hard pressed to see how a more conciliatory US policy toward the Palestinians would have done any good. As long as the Palestinian government was unable or unwilling to prevent its territory from being used as a base to launch suicide murder attacks against Israeli civilians, it's hard for me to see how stopping these attacks couldn't have been the #1 goal of any Israeli government. When I visited Israel this summer, our group met with an Israeli Arab town manager, who was strongly opposed to the Olmert government's policy, but nonetheless supported the fence, because it had made his town sfaer as well.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/29/2006
I just read the piece. Somehow it hadn't hit me that they were speaking to a primarily Muslim audience....
Nah, nothing to worry about. Just disinterested scholarship. Interesting questions, and all that. No harm done.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/29/2006
There've been a number of pretty mainstream sources which cited the Israeli briefings (Mark LeVine had some links, if I recall) all of which struck me as entirely unremarkable. As Ralph points out, the US is Israel's best friend (though it could be a smarter friend, at that) and consultation is natural. Moreover, most militaries have contingency plans in place with regard to known (and even sometimes rather unlikely; e.g. our Canadian invasion plan) adversaries.
I'll have to go read the Milbank piece, but a public forum is, by nature, going to be an abbreviated and unfootnoted version of a work.
The button just reinforces the sense that M/W were playing "rock star scholar", trashing the joint to display their "cool" anti-establishmentarianism...
Ralph E. Luker -
8/29/2006
I read Dana Milbank's piece as well, but I left it with the impression that it wasn't going to change anyone's mind. Pro-Israeli partisans, like yourself, were likely to latch onto as confirming evidence of something. More skeptical readers like me were likely still to say: is it in the United States' interest, or even in Israel's interest for United States' policy in the Middle East to be tied so consistently to the policy of whatever regime happens to be in power in Israel? Given the war's revelation of the foolishness of the wall on which Israel has spent billions, Israel and the Palestinians might have been well-served if the United States had indicated that it thought building the wall only worsened tensions. And, if you don't think that Israel kept the Bush administration informed of its preparations for an attack on Hezbollah, I'm astonished at your naivete. Israel might have been better served by a United States that urged Israeli restraint.
