Following up on the "Israel Lobby"

Posted by Joshua Holland at 12:40 PM on April 7, 2006.

On Tuesday I explored the brouhaha surrounding the publication of an academic paper called "The Israel Lobby" by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

As one might expect, there was feedback on my article a-plenty. Thanks to all of you who wrote nice things; to those of you who sent hatemail: I hope you didn't expect it to come as a big surprise.

I'd like to respond to two points made by readers.

First, a reader suggested that I was "ideologically motivated" in not including criticism of the scholars' paper from the left.

The article wasn't about Walt and Mearsheimer's paper, and it wasn't about the kind of responses that every controversial scholarly article gets from all sorts of different angles. It was about the unusual reaction this particular article elicited, all of which came from just who you'd expect it to.

But, for the record, here's Chomsky's critique of the paper, and here's one by Joseph Massad.

And I had my own problems with it. The scholars wrote plenty about Israeli propaganda but only noted in passing the terrific failures of the Palestinians in that regard. As Daniel Drezner (who is a first class prick in real life) pointed out, they didn't adequately reference the scholarly literature that's out there on interest group politics. Chomsky and others are right that they're shifting blame from a foreign policy elite intoxicated with Imperial hubris and mad for energy onto the Israel lobby. Actually, Walt and Mearsheimer just dismiss oil as a factor in going to war in Iraq with the contemptuous wave of a footnote.

I disagree with Walt and Mearsheimer's premise that foreign policy should be so narrowly focused on the "national interest." I don't believe there are "national interests," beyond some of the defining functions of a state like securing the territory. As I noted in my article, Walt and Mearsheimer are realists (they're "neo-realists" to be exact). I'm a long-time critic of realism, and of the eight assumptions that are central to their analytic framework I don't buy six. I'll leave it at that.

Moving on.

I got this highly civil critique from a regular reader and good liberal, Morton Reichek (name used with permission):

I am curious about what drives much of the so-called Left movement to take a consistently hostile view of Israel, critically nit-picking aspects of that country's situation to a degree shown no other country, let alone an American ally. Indeed, this critical obsession about Israel's alleged faults by AlterNet calls for some kind of psychological analysis. The obsession goes far beyond the legitimate concern about so-called "human rights."

I hate to say it, but I am starting to suspect what I deplore calling "self-Jew hatred." But after all, there seem to be so many members of the tribe among the Israel-bashers. And let me make it clear, I am as nauseated by the prominent Jewish neo-cons who led us into the Iraq disaster and am infuriated by the old-line anti-Semites who claim we went to war in Iraq to defend Israel. The Iraq war did Israel no favor. Indeed, it strengthened Israel's Muslim enemies.

Reichek is a rarity -- an octogenarian with a blog -- and on that blog he uses the combination of "so-called" and scare quotes, as above ("concern about so-called 'human rights'") to characterize legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. What he describes as "critically nit-picking" is the well-documented and truly horrible human rights record that Israel's racked up (one analysis by the Observer a few years ago found the IDF and Hamas tied for something like 36th place among the world's worst human rights offenders). The most cited human rights reports are, for obvious reasons, those compiled by Israeli human rights groups. Perhaps Reichek considers them to be afflicted with "self-Jew hatred."

But that's not the point that I find interesting. What I am constantly amazed at is the talking point -- that's what it is -- that the "left" has a "critical obsession" with Israel. The charge is that we don't worry about other governments' human rights records, we think nothing of other armed occupations and we don't call for the self-determination of anyone but the Palestinians.

What makes this argument so fascinating it that it is as transparently false as it is oft repeated. It's like arguing that the sky is orange or that dogs have five legs.

The "left," such as it is, was engaged in the anti-Apartheid movement, the movement to free Tibet and the effort to gain indepence for East Timor. We fought against Reagan's policies in Latin America, we objected to Most Favored Nation status for China. We fight sweatshops all over the world. Liberals are engaged in a dozen suits against multinationals for human rights abuses in Burma, in Nigeria and in Ecuador. We opposed interventions from Panama to Grenada. We were involved in movements for self-governance for Peurto Rico and have opposed Plan Colombia. Every year, thousands of liberals descend on WHISK (previously the School of the Americas) to protest the human rights abuses perpetrated by those we train there. Some get arrested every year knowing that they will serve time (sentences of six months are the norm).

Aside from all that, Reichek's right: the left only talks about Israel. At least the half of the left that isn't apologizing for Israel's policies.

That's not to say that Israel-Palestine isn't a prominent issue, or even that it isn't more prominent than those others.

Let's see, can we think of a reason? Oh yes, Israel is a client state with whom we have a truly unique relationship. Which other close ally has an analogous situation, exactly? (For that matter, what other occupation has lasted almost four decades?) Our tax dollars provide what amounts to $600 dollars per year for every man, woman and child in Israel, despite the fact that it is a solidly middle-income country. And our (almost) unconditional support for Israel buys us a ton of grief all around the world. No surprise, then, if people consider matters occurring over there slightly more immediate than what happens in Papua.

Anyway, the problem isn't Jews or Israel per se, just as the world's big problem isn't Christians or America. The problem is with the right. My views on Israel -- though I'm called a "critic" -- are in fact perfectly in line with the mainstream of the Israeli left. I think good people like Reichek -- good liberals -- often end up casting their lot with the reactionary Likudniks and settlers in the name of supporting Israel. Support the Israeli left -- criticize the occupation!

If you don't, then look at who you're getting in bed with:

Televangelist John Hagee told Jewish community leaders over the weekend that the 40 million evangelical Christians in the United States support Israel and that he plans to utilize this power to help Israel by launching a Christian pro-Israel lobby. […]

Hagee said his group would be a Christian - and more powerful - version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a large pro-Israel lobby, and would target senators and congressmen on Capitol Hill. A quarter of congressmen are evangelicals, and many American legislators represent regions that include a large evangelical population, he said. […]

Rabbi James Rudin, author of "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us," said Sunday that Hagee - one of 20 evangelical leaders who met with Ariel Sharon during his last trip to Washington - has been known for many years as an enthusiastic advocate of Israel, and is a typical right-wing Christian supporter of the country.

Some 400 Christian community leaders met in San Antonio in February to establish the lobby. Other than Hagee, its leaders include evangelist George Morrison; fundamentalist Baptist minister Jerry Falwell; and Gary Bauer, president of the American Values organization aimed at protecting marriage, family and faith. All are well-known supporters of Israel, and considered hawkish.

.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.