-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 - 4:04 PM
Share
At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, one measure of the impact that our book on the Israel lobby has had is the lengths that some critics go in their attempts to discredit it. The latest entrant into this field is recovering Iraq hawk Peter Beinart, who earlier this week offered a new and truly goofy "refutation" of our argument about the lobby’s role in causing the Iraq war.
Beinart's critique is straightforward. He says that Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan "blows a hole" in our (alleged) claim that "America wages war in the Muslim world, in large measure, because of the Israel lobby." We make no such argument, of course, but it seems that careful reading is not one of Beinart's strengths. We did argue that the lobby played a critical role in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, although we emphasized that it "did not cause the war by itself." His "evidence" against his made-up charge is the fact that key organizations in the lobby such as AIPAC have been largely silent on Afghanistan, focusing instead on the familiar issues of Israel-Palestine and Iran. Yet Obama upped the ante in Afghanistan anyway.
Furthermore, a number of prominent neoconservatives have endorsed Obama's Afghan surge, even though this step makes military action against Iran less likely, which, according to Beinart, would be "bad for Israel." Thus, he reasons, the neoconservatives' position on Afghanistan proves that they "aren't warlike on Israel's behalf, they are just warlike," which Beinart thinks is more evidence that the lobby (and more generally, a concern for Israel) had little to do with the Iraq war.
There are many holes in this argument. Here are four.
First, whether the lobby and Israel played a critical role in causing the US to invade Iraq in March 2003 is an empirical question that revolves around the facts of the decision-making process that led to that war. In our book, we presented abundant evidence of the neoconservatives' key role in conceiving, advocating, and helping make the decision to invade Iraq, and we also showed that other key groups in the lobby -- including AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs -- supported it as well. Prominent individuals in the lobby such as Mortimer Zuckerman, David Harris, and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, as well as "pro-Israel" pundits like Martin Indyk, Ken Pollock and Beinart himself, were cheerleaders for the war, even though the overall population of American Jews was less supportive of the war than the U.S. population as a whole. Whatever factors led Obama to put 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan are largely irrelevant for understanding what happened in the years and months before we invaded Iraq, let alone the lobby's role in shaping other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy. On the latter point, I might note, Beinart admits it has "great power."
Second, the logic behind Beinart's discussion of how Afghanistan relates to Iraq makes no sense. He thinks that finding a case (Afghanistan) where the United States went to war or escalated an ongoing war that the lobby cared little about proves that we are wrong about Iraq, because it shows that you don't need the lobby to make a war happen. But we never said the lobby's influence was behind every war the United States has fought since Israel's founding, or even every military action the United States has undertaken in the Middle East; such a claim would be absurd. Indeed, Beinart's depiction sounds to me like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, which attributes to Jewish organizations a sinister and all-powerful control over nearly every aspect of U.S. policy. Needless to say, we explicitly rejected this sort of argument in our book.
In fact, most groups in the lobby never had much interest in Afghanistan, so it's hard to see what their lack of enthusiasm for Obama's surge tells us about their influence on the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Saddam's Iraq, on the other hand, had fired SCUD missiles at Israel in 1991, was giving money to the families of suicide bombers, and was suspected of seeking WMD. Thus, it is easy to understand why many groups in the lobby wanted the United States to invade Iraq, or why the Israeli government overcame its initial reservations and pushed for war once it understood that the Bush administration intended to deal with Iraq first and then train its gunsights on Iran.
Third, Beinart is of course correct to note that the neoconservatives tend to be enthusiastic about using military force and that they are therefore likely to favor some wars that have little to do with Israel's security. He is also correct in observing that they have a Manichean view of international politics. But contrary to what Beinart implies, virtually all neoconservatives are also deeply committed Zionists who believe that the United States should use its military power to promote Israel's interests, which they tend to see as indistinguishable from the interests of the United States. It is no accident that in 1998 the neoconservatives started pushing hard for war against Iraq, not against Afghanistan or North Korea. And after toppling Saddam, they hoped to use America's formidable military might to go after Iran and Syria, Israel's other main enemies in the Middle East. In short, one can be "warlike and hold "a Manichean worldview," and still "be warlike on Israel's behalf." And the neoconservatives are clearly both.
Fourth, Beinart's argument depends in good part on the fact that getting more deeply involved in Afghanistan makes it more difficult to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This issue is much more important than Afghanistan to Israel and if the neocons care so deeply about Israel, then it ought to be more important to them. Yet the neoconservatives strongly support Obama's surge (though they are also quite hawkish when it comes to Iran). To Beinart's way of thinking, this must mean that an attachment to Israel isn't very important to them after all; they are just overly fond of using military force.
That's not what is going on here. Virtually all prominent neoconservatives are deeply and openly committed to Israel's security -- sometimes dramatically so -- and there are two obvious reasons why they favor getting more deeply involved in Afghanistan, even it does make it more difficult to confront Iran. First, history shows that they are incompetent strategists who often advocate policies that they think will be good for Israel but in fact turn out to harm the Jewish state. The invasion of Iraq is an obvious case in point, as its main beneficiary turned out to be Iran. Second, the neoconservatives are happy to see the United States embroil itself with countries and groups in the Arab and Muslim world, because maintaining a constant state of tension between the United States and Islam is a good way to safeguard the "special relationship."
In sum, neither the neoconservatives' strong support for Obama's recent decision on Afghanistan, nor the relative indifference of groups like AIPAC, tells us much about the lobby's role in defending the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel or its influence on the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images for Meet the Press
EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
"At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, one measure of the impact that our book on the Israel lobby has had is the lengths that some critics go in their attempts to discredit it."
Why would that be self-congratulatory?
The fact that he makes a bad argument doesn't mean that his assertion - that you didn't make a good case for your hypothesis that "the Lobby" was a major factor (a "necessary but not sufficient" condition) for us engaging in the Iraq war - is right. Your argument was pretty weak, mostly for reasons other than what Beinert posits.
It comes down to one question really - would we have gone into Iraq had your "Lobby" not existed? I think pretty much assuredly we would have. In this, one aspect of Beinert's argument is sound - it doesn't take much for us to engage in overseas adventurism.
The Iraq War lobby and the Israel lobby
David in DC:
The Iraq War lobby: AEI, Christian Zionists, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Commentary, Hudson Institute, JINSA, neoconservatives, neoliberals, News Corp., PNAC, Weekly Standard, WINEP, etc. In other words, the core components of the Israel lobby, especially the Likud wing of the Israel lobby. Israel lobby deniers insult our intelligence and make themselves look ridiculous when they try to hide their role in promoting the Iraq War and other disastrous foreign policy ventures.
Which lobby is agitating most conspicuously for an Iran War? The Israel lobby -- the same lobby which engineered the Iraq War, and which is trying to ignite a generalized global conflagration between "the West" and Islam on behalf of Israeli political objectives.
Obviously, naming those who did want to go in does not answer the question -- repeated, would we have gone into Iraq had Walt's "Lobby" not existed?
For the thread's consideration on this question, an article about polling data printed four days before the invasion:
Posted 3/16/2003
With a war against Iraq perhaps days away, Americans are backing President Bush but remain split over launching an attack without United Nations support, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm
The neocon propaganda campaign for the Iraq War
Yes -- the American public was subjected to a barrage of pro-Iraq War propaganda (often deceitful propaganda) in the mainstream media -- which are largely owned and dominated by neoconservatives and neoliberals with "passionate" feelings towards Israel. Data mine the Washington Post op-ed page for pro-war sentiment in, say, the years 2001 through 2005, paying close attention to the organizational affiliations and political agendas of the agitators, and the Israeli/Likud factor rather leaps out at one. No other factor even comes close in reasonably explaining the motivations of members of this clamorous propaganda machine.
So now the mainstream media is "the Lobby" too?
Certainly if you include every American who was for invading Iraq, or said something which could be remotely interpreted as supporting the invasion, as belonging to "the Lobby", then Walt's hypothesis will hold.
But, as Chomsky puts it:
M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class [nb: and apparently most of the mainstream media - DinDC] -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion).
The Israel lobby and the American mainstream media
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and most of the mainstream media, are dominated by various arms, networks and individual promoters of the Israeli government and Israel lobby political line, yes. And these social and financial networks are easy to graph and analyze. Nothing has more impressed this state of affairs on my mind than the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal for the last decade -- nearly a solid wall of neoconservatives and neoliberals propelled by strong emotions about the Israeli interest and the slaying of the enemies of Israel. This is why the MSM became full-throated cheerleaders for the Iraq War and refused to do even minimal due diligence in evaluating neocon rationales for the war cooked up at neocon think tanks and policy centers like the AEI, WINEP, CSP, FDD and JINSA.
So both major political parties and the mainstream media are part of "the Lobby"? Did these politicians get elected by bamboozling the American people, or are the American people part of "the Lobby" too?
You see where I'm going with this. The American people, by a large majority, supported the invasion of Iraq. The American also elected a Congress which is, as you put it, dominated by members of "the Lobby". At some point you are either, 1) drawn to the conclusion that this is what the American people want, or 2) relegated to making la-la land conspiracy type theories, telling us that you know that Americans really want something different from what their words and actions tell us, if only they knew the "truth".
And mainstream media as part of "the Lobby"? Right. I am getting the picture that Walt's book would have been significantly shorter if, rather than naming names of people in "the Lobby", he just named those not in it.
Regarding the mainstream media and the Iraq war, I tend to doubt that their support for the war was driven by their concern for Israel's interests. This is another la-la land type of assertion.
You highlight why Walt's work received some of the substantive criticism it did. In addition to the errors of commission and omission and unscholarly rhetoric, he defined his "Lobby" so broadly as to render the conclusion almost meaningless.
The Israel lobby and the American mainstream media
David in DC:
Regarding the mainstream media and the Iraq war, I tend to doubt that their support for the war was driven by their concern for Israel's interests. This is another la-la land type of assertion.
Really. Tell you what: can you name *any* Iraq and Iran War ringleaders in the mainstream media who have been driven "by their concern for Israel's interests"? A few particular names and your reasons for thinking that Israel plays a central role in their politics.
Naming particular names isn't showing that "the mainstream media's coverage during the runup to the Iraq war was based on concern for Israel".
I think pretty clearly it wasn't, individual pundits notwithstanding. In any event, way more people get their news from TV than from the specific newspapers you named (or any newspapers, for that matter). When you talk about the mainstream media, first and foremost you need to look at the networks.
The Transparent Cabal by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski
The Bottom Line (to the Afghan quagmire):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2009/10/bottom-line.html
One just has to read Dr. Stephen Sniegoski's 'The Transparent Cabal' book to see how the JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons pressured for US (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney whose wife is a fellow at AEI) to invade Iraq in order to secure the realm for Israel in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda (access the 'A Clean Break' link at the upper right of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM if interested further):
In-Depth Discussion: In Israel’s Interest – US Policy Influenced by Media and Neocon Agenda:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-depth-discussion.html
Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal”:
http://america-hijacked.com/2009/08/16/stephen-sniegoskis-lecture-on-his-book-the-transparent-cabal/
Civil War(s) in Iraq/Afghanistan: Back Door to War on Iran (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):
http://america-hijacked.com/2009/09/14/civil-wars-in-iraq-afghanistan-back-door-to-war-on-iran/
John Mearsheimer on the Afghan quagmire:
http://america-hijacked.com/2009/11/03/john-mearsheimer-on-the-afghan-quagmire/
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
http://tinyurl.com/npvwbh
I hate to make references to popular culture, but I think it was in the film "Heaven Can Wait" the James Mason character makes an assertion to the effect that the more forcefully someone tries to deny or to refute something,the more likely the something being denied/refuted tends to be true.
The endless attempts of the Neo-Conmen and the Israel Lobby loiterers to attempt, at every blessed opportunity, and at the slightest of provocation,the existence of the Israel Lobby, it's gargantuan influence, and the seemingly endless negative fallout for US foreign policy justs tells me how defensive and reality-resistent these folks are. If not plain and outright dishonest.
Also known as "the lady doth protest too much". Even Shakespeare recognized the methods of the Israel Lobby. But I am much cheeredby Dr. Walt's "history shows they are incompetent strategists".
Indeed they be; so why the great rush to follow their advice?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Alas, their ability to game the US domestic political system and monopolize the agenda-setting, establish the terms of debate and "police" the boundaries of permissible discourse is indeed breathtaking, and quite sad to say, in it's monotonous and predictable regularity as well as it's near-invincibility.
Just consider this : The Israel Lobby has NOT lost a battle since the AWACS sale in December 1981. That's 28 years! Just recently the evil empire known as the NY Yankees won their 27th World Series [I write this as a Yankee fan in recovery]. Just imagine if they had managed to do that in 27 consecutive years!
Remembering the rhetoric for invading Iraq at time, first; there was Iraq developing nuclear weapons, then Saddam was in collusion with al Qaeda, consequently linked to September 11th., and finally he tried to kill my dad.
But at the same time, there was heavy neo-con influence in the administration urging regime change in the Middle East, as well as Israeli encouragement(open)for the invasion, as a pre-requisite for improving the chances of peace ultimately between the Arabs and Israel.
Therefore, under the circumstances it would be normal for pro-Israel lobbies in the USA to urge for the invasion to take place, and for the neo-cons to play a major role in instigating the invasion, especially that they did not make their close affinity to Israel's interests obscure.
khairi janbek.paris/france
I am pretty sure Beinart has no idea how political science works. His use of "placebo" is a wildly misplaced metaphor. I can't believe a joker like that is a professor of political science.
Also, he clearly never read the book.
Nobel Prize for Sir Gerald Kaufmann
Beinart looks like a jerk. Like a passionate young Netanyahoo.
This is the best commentary on the state of affairs in Israel, from a pro-Israel, Jewish, knighted member of parliament, Sir Gerald Kaufmann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8
Breaking News: US-made Underground Steel Barrier in S-Gazastrip
Israel lobby latest
The tech-savvy and effective Americans are helping (who?) constructing an 18 meter deep steel-barrier, to prevent the current smuggling of all kinds of badly needed materials and goods into the Gaza-strip. Who got the idea, who calls the shots, who paid for it?
BBC News, Wednesday, 9 December 2009: Egypt starts building steel wall on Gaza Strip border
By Christian Fraser
BBC News, CairoEgypt has begun constructing a huge metal wall along its border with the Gaza Strip as it attempts to cut smuggling tunnels, the BBC has learned.
When it is finished the wall will be 10-11km (6-7 miles) long and will extend 18 metres below the surface.
The Egyptians are being helped by American army engineers, who the BBC understands have designed the wall.
The plan has been shrouded in secrecy, with no comment or confirmation from the Egyptian government.
The wall will take 18 months to complete.
For weeks local farmers have noticed more activity at the border where trees were being cut down, but very few of them were aware that a barrier was being built.
'Impenetrable'
That is because the barrier, made of super-strength steel, has been hidden deep underground.
The BBC has been told that it was manufactured in the US, that it fits together in similar fashion to a jigsaw, and that it has been tested to ensure it is bomb proof.
It cannot be cut or melted - in short it is impenetrable.
Intelligence sources in Egypt say the barrier is being sunk close to the perimeter wall that already exists.
________________
Comment:
This is inhuman to help with this, because the goods and materials are badly needed. And if any weapons comes in, this is comparable to the worthy cause when American freedom fighters got weapons during their War of Independence against the British. So the Americans are on the wrong side of history here, - their own history. But the human quest for freedom cannot be stopped. If this steel barrier really is impenetrable [I will recommend looking for the joints] the Palestinians will find a way around it, even if this means installing lifts to go under it.
I see, so the school children of Sderot
are supposed to be the equivelent of the British Red Coats or their Hessian mercenaries.
I also didn't realize that Thomas Jefferson advocated that General Washington should put the entire populace of the British Isles to the sword; all of what HAMAS preaches.
The future of ethno-religious nationalism
Jacob Blues,
What Thomas Jefferson advocated was core American values: a society based not on ethnic or religious nationalism (or, even worse, messianic ethno-religious nationalism), but on modern Western democratic principles, derived from Enlightenment universalism. Most of Israel's problems stem from its core belief system, and its problems are only going to multiply if it continues to cling to an ideology that has failed in spectacular ways over the last two centuries wherever it has been embraced. (Examples: the Confederacy, Nazi Germany and apartheid white South Africa.) Do you really think that ethno-religious nationalism has a future anywhere in the world? Why do you think that Europe abandoned ethnic nationalist ideologies? They don't work. They lead to disasters. They invariably self-destruct.
I've just heard Obama's speech in Oslo
Comments on Obama's speech in Oslo
It was just too long, and too intellectual. And a PR-disaster, judging from the reaction of the grim-looking audience. For a speaker, it is usually a good idea to try to swing -- or make an impact on -- the audience. However, if your speech was crafted back in Washington by a 26 year old, and you yourself has the nickname: "The Tennis-match" owing to your rapid movement of your head from side to side in order to read from your two teleprompters,- you really cannot expect that your speech will resonate among the audience. And it clearly didn't in Oslo. The majority of the public probably didn't have a very great command of the English language - just like the majority of the global audience.
This prompts the speaker to speak in general terms and choose carefully his wording, like when John F. Kennedy said: "Ich bin ein Berliner". If he had started elaborating about all sorts of semi-intellectual subjects like Obama did, I'm not sure that he would now have been remembered the way he is.
So the lessons is: Make it short. Obama could basically just have said Thank You. According to my mind that would have been far more prudent, than venturing into all sorts of justifications for making War, as he did - clearly reflecting the intellectual state of mind of his 26 year old speech-writer.
An astonished world audience heard the American President talk about "Hitlers armies" and in the next sentence the issue was "al-Queda" - thereby implying that the two threats are in any way comparable. Incidentialy this is the standard reasoning of many members of The Israel lobby; the common factor of course being that both is perceived to be enemies of Jews. Either this speech has had inputs from said lobby, or the 26 year old speech writer is adhering to prevailing 'political correct' winds blowing in Washington.
Walt's "argument" completely falls apart because he fails to understand the fact that Israel and Ariel Sharon himself were completely against the Iraq invasion. Israel wanted the US to focus on Iran.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html
The Israel lobby and the Iraq War
Reading the fine print in the Gareth Porter article:
Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding his plan to take down Saddam.
Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq's Arab neighbors.
After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on August 16, 2002, by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
and:
Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Saddam Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favor of Iran after the US defeat of Saddam's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neo-conservatives with ties to the Likud Party in Israel were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint US-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Saddam and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.
That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think-tank the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and aimed at the Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The neoconservatives referenced above represent the core component of the Israel lobby, and they were the ringleaders of the Iraq War. (Apparently many members of the Israeli government possess better judgment than the Israel lobby in the United States.)
Nothing in your quote changes the fact that after 9/11 Israel and Sharon did not want the US to invade Iraq. They just went along with it AFTER Bush had decided to invade.
Your mouth says "no, no, no" but your eyes say "yes. yes, yes.'
I laugh myself sick when someone tries to claim that Israel's official silence in terms of the American invasion of Iraq somehow means that they were not it's intended, indeed the primary, beneficiary of the US's misguided war. You don't see or hear anyone in Israel advocating that Israel not harvest the benefits of a Saddam-less Iraq, do you? And you certainly don't ever see or hear any Israeli criticize the US decision and it's outcome. Except of course for those who prefer that the US marshall it's resources to fight Iran first for Israel's benefit and at Israel's behest. God knows, the US is not even free to make it's own mistakes in the cosmically entitled, totally-cossetted worldview of Israel and its minions.
Ever hear of the Sherlock Holmes dog-that-didn't bark-explanation?
One really ought to read a book before criticizing it. On p. 233, for example, you would find this passage: "...by early 2002, when it was becoming increasingly apparent that the Bush administration was thinking seriously about another war against Iraq, some Israeli leaders told U.S. officials that they thought Iran was the greater threat. They were not opposed to toppling Saddam, however, ...and [they] never tried to convince the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq. Nor did the Israeli government ever try to mobilize its supporters in the United States to lobby against the war. On the contrary, Israeli leaders were worried only that the United States might lose sight of the Iranian threat in its pursuit of Saddam. Once they realized the Bush administration was countenancing a bolder scheme, one that called for winning quickly in Iraq and then dealing with Iran and Syria, they began to push vigorously for an American invasion." On pp. 234-38, we present the evidence that Sharon's chief spokesman, along with Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres all made statements endorsing the war. And we debunk the "Sharon opposed the war" fiction on pp. 261-262. We make it clear that the idea of invading Iraq did not originate with Israel--it was the neocons' foolish notion--but the suggestion that Israel opposed the war is false.
Addressing US pubic opinion in favor of the invasion
Walt,
Do you buy into Sean's notion that the mainstream media is part of "the Lobby"?
And how do you reconcile the fact that Americans supported the invasion by a margin of 2 to 1 if we could get UN approval and by a majority even if we couldn't with your assertion that the invasion wouldn't have happened without "the Lobby"?
Did "the Lobby" manipulate public opinion such that it moved it from being against the invasion to being solidly behind it?
The Israel lobby and the mainstream media
David in DC,
My argument is not that the mainstream media "are part of the Israel lobby." I am arguing that the Israel lobby has substantial influence in the mainstream media, and that neoconservatives and neoliberals in particular have been provided with a big megaphone by the MSM to broadcast and propagandize their war agenda.
I just provided you with 100+ names to support that claim -- the analysis could go much deeper of course, exploring pro-Israel social networks within the mainstream media that interlock with pro-Israel organizations, policy centers and think tanks like WINEP, AEI, FDD, CSP, AIPAC, the Saban Center, etc. The supporting data is plentiful, to say the least, and is regularly provided in mainstream Jewish publications like Forward and JTA.
You said the mainstream media is dominated by "the Lobby". Since the mainstream media gets to decide who they put on, that seems to be saying that the mainstream media is complicit, ie, is part of "the Lobby".
I don't see any other way to interpret that, but I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying, so please clarify if I am misunderstanding.
As for your list of names, I am not all that convinced given the fact that most are from conservative outlets, some are obviously not part of "the Lobby", and others are simply Israeli politicians (including the PM) and government employees who get to talk on TV once in a while.
The Israel lobby and the mainstream media
David in DC,
There is an exasperating lack of factual specificity in most of your posts -- is there any chance that could you get beyond airy generalities? If you think that any names on that list of 100+ pro-Israel activists should be removed, please be specific and explain why.
I would say that the Israel lobby dominates (but doesn't entirely control) the mainstream media and both the Republican and Democratic Parties, yes. When is the last time you witnessed any major political leader from either party, or any major mainstream media pundit, strongly challenge, say, AIPAC with the same aggression that they direct at Republicans or Democrats (or other nations) on a daily basis? The current political situation with regard to Israel is positively surrealistic. Israel has morphed into something like religious cult in the United States (literally so in the case of Christian Zionists and many Orthodox Jews), in which absolute devotion and declarations of "love" are demanded from many pro-Israel activists. It seems to me that they have created the conditions for a hellacious backlash.
"I would say that the Israel lobby dominates (but doesn't entirely control) the mainstream media..."
Again, isn't that saying the mainstream media is part of "the Lobby"?
You love your lists of names, but I don't even recognize half of them. It is also somewhat meaningless, given that one could derive the same list of opposing voices that nobody has heard of from leftist publications. Except why would someone even take the time? Just like Walt's book, you try to build your case by presenting half of the story. In other words, lies of omission.
IMO you should have the courage of your convictions - if you think the mainstream media is part of "the Lobby" then say so. It sounds crackpot, as we all know, which is why you are dancing around it.
Neocons Engineered the Iraq War
David in DC,
I am making careful intellectual discriminations when I describe relations between the Israel lobby and the mainstream media; you are trying to set up straw men to knock down because you can't deal with carefully discriminated facts.
You didn't name a single pro-Israel activist and Iraq War ringleader in the mainstream media who was miscategorized in that list of 100+. And you have failed to name a single major player in the mainstream media who is an ardent activist for any ethnic nationalist lobby other than Israel. Israel has come to play a role in American politics that is frankly bizarre in the way that it is out of sync with the main currents of American culture.
Regarding the roots of the Iraq War: planning and plotting for the war began well before Bush and Cheney took office (see the posts here on the Clean Break paper from the mid-1990s). The three main policy groups that planned and promoted the war -- the PNAC (Project for the New American Century), AEI (American Enterprise Institute) and JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) -- are all entirely inhabited by pro-Israel activists and militants with close ties to Israel's Likud. They crafted most of the words which came out of Bush's and Cheney's mouths with regard to Iraq, the Iraq War, the Global War on Terror, the Clash of Civilizations, etc. Bush and Cheney were their tools and front men.
None of this is going to make a dent on your cult beliefs -- you still havent mentioned a singular particular fact about these issues, and you make it obvious that you couldn't care less about the facts. As the neocons themselves proudly declared, reality-based policymaking and analysis isn't their thing. They are true believers, in the grip of a messianic ethno-religious ideology that is on a collision course with the entire world. They earnestly believe that God and history are inexorably on their side. We shall see.
I believe your "careful intelletual discrimations" are sophistry, and if these are straw men I am setting up, please explain more clearly what these "discriminations" are.
1) You need to explain why the mainstream media, if it is not part of "the Lobby", gives the Lobby such a disproportionate megaphone (according to you).
2) You need to show that the time given to "the Lobby" is actually disproportionate. It is not enough to name names from one side, you need to show that the other actually has less. Would that be difficult case to make? Probably yes, but given your list you seem to have the time on your hands and the motivation for it. It is your argument and yet you keep badgering me to make it for you.
3) Other ethnic lobbies? For better or worse, the I-P conflict dominates the news, so of course you see it talked about significantly more than the others. I expect you will ascribe this to "the Lobby", but as a counterexample I would point to the attention the UN and rest of the world pays to the conflict without any influence from "the Lobby".
4) You still have a lot of dots to connect to make your case. I think it is well documented that the mainstream media was for the invasion of Iraq. You haven't shown that it took that position because of feelings for Israel. Even if some of the people on your list did**, who gave them that megaphone and why? If the mainstream media isn't part of "the Lobby" perhaps the main motivation wasn't about Israel, as I said above, but about what they thought was best. Unless you are suggesting that wanting the same thing as "the Lobby" makes a group part of "the Lobby", regardless of motivation.
(**Please be clear about which Americans you think put Israel's interests before the US's. Walt makes it pretty clear that he is making no charges of dual loyalty, but it sounds like you might be. I believe this might be true because otherwise, if the case being made by these named names for the invasion is primarily about US's interests, then it contradicts your earlier statement.)
5) I am not interested in playing the naming names game with you. I don't believe quantity of names means quality of your argument. Walt took the same tack, and it is possible you are just skimming names out of his book. Again, you make your case. As much time as we take composing these posts, it would take at least 20 times that to create a list which is ultimately more meaningless than these posts (and that is saying something!).
6) A lot of this can be explained by the fact that the media is giving Americans what they want, and not the other way around (telling them what to think). Also, Americans are quite disproportionately pro-Israel, so one would think that there would be more pro-Israel elites/intellectuals. Is this the case? Perhaps concoct more lists to see :-).
Americans also were very much for the invasion of Iraq. Were they convinced by the same things the mainstream media saw? I think that explanation is much more likely than the fact that some "Lobby", which somehow forced the "non-Lobby" mainstream media into giving them disproportionate airtime, convinced the American people to do something they otherwise would not have.
I would still like to hear Walt's answer to this. He seems to always pick the low hanging fruit to address, followed with a smug "See, we were right", avoiding those criticisms too difficult to address or that would take him into uncomfortable territory. It would be a good idea for a blog post, where he could devote a good amount of time/space to it and have it out there to refer to in the future when people brought up this same question. It would relate to this post here, in that it is addressing the same topic ("the Lobby" and the Iraq war).
The maintstream media has been to a very large extent beaten into self-censorship by the likes of Media Watch. There are hordes of Davids in DC that respond to even the mildrest of criticisms addressed toward Israel as "anti-semitism" or pro-Palestinian stories with yells for "balance". The mainstream media just doesn't want the hassle. Is this too hard to uderstand for someone whose mind is tuned to pilpullistic twirlings?
There are hordes of Davids in DC that respond to even the mildrest of criticisms addressed toward Israel as "anti-semitism"...
This is false. Because you can't actually address the facts, you stoop to these false accusations.
It's possible you are confusing me with Sean, who did note that your friend was veering into anti-Semitic territory. Believe it or not, even some of those like Sean who are proponents of Walt's "Lobby" hypothesis will recognize overt anti-Semitism when they see it. I just ignore the jokers.
My comment was intending to be in reference to another article. But I'll repeat, when Prof. Walt comes a calling, the crazies come pouring in.
Scottgoose: Crazies associated with the Israel lobby
Do you have any idea how many crazies are associated with Israel and the Israel lobby, starting with Christian Armageddonists like John Hagee and Jewish fundamentalist rabbis in the settler movement? Try reading the comments section of any major Israeli or Jewish publication, or of any major Jewish American neoconservative blog (like Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged), and you will be deluged with the most extreme hate speech, racism and religious fanaticism.
Any thoughts on that subject?
With regard to how the New York Times covered Soviet crimes under Stalin: it is one the biggest scandals in modern American history, and a subject of serious research and scholarship by mainstream American historians. Do you know much about the subject?
Thank you for saving me the effort of articulating the majority of my beef with the crazed holocaust-rationalizing poster you are responding to. My hats off to you. This argument has such ludicrous undertones that I would love to hear Prof. Walt weigh in on this.
The Israel lobby's defense of the Israel lobby
One is repeatedly struck by how much Stephen Walt's level of writing and analysis, command of the facts and civility exceed that of his "critics" (usually emotional attackers, flailing around with an angry head of steam). Walt nailed the facts down right and proper in this latest post.
Prof. Walt,
I've heard this repeated by Mearsheimer as well at the debate in Cooper Union - something you both repeat to answer the charge that Israelis were not particularly interested in going to war in Iraq and viewed Iran as the real threat.
Your response above undercuts your own argument as most people understand it which is that the Israel lobby is driving much of US foreign policy - they are the drivers and decision makers are the followers - but what you just wrote above is the reverse - arguing that the lobby simply did NOT OPPOSE the decision of the Bush and Cheney - and really where is the outrage in that? When the majority of Americans did not oppose the war - why is it the job of the Israeli government and other pro-Israel organizations to actively oppose a popular war? Even Juan Cole did not actively oppose the war early on - in fact, some supporters of your thesis would even have taken such a situation as proof that Israel was not a reliable ally - this is the outrage? - that the Israel Lobby simply wasnt part of the anti-war left and didnt try to fight the position of an elected US government that had the support of the majority of Americans?
The Israel lobby and the Iraq War
The Israel lobby -- to be specific, the neoconservative/Likud wing of that lobby -- was the chief ringleader of the Iraq War. Abundant evidence to support this claim has already been presented in this discussion. PNAC, AEI, JINSA, CSP, WINEP, FDD, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, etc. -- are you familiar with the inner workings and interlocking associations among these components of the Israel lobby? Look it up -- they're an incestuous crowd.
One really ought to read a book before criticizing it. On p. 233, for example, you would find this passage: "...by early 2002, when it was becoming increasingly apparent that the Bush administration was thinking seriously about another war against Iraq, some Israeli leaders told U.S. officials that they thought Iran was the greater threat. They were not opposed to toppling Saddam, however, ...and [they] never tried to convince the Bush administration not to go to war against Iraq. Nor did the Israeli government ever try to mobilize its supporters in the United States to lobby against the war. On the contrary, Israeli leaders were worried only that the United States might lose sight of the Iranian threat in its pursuit of Saddam. Once they realized the Bush administration was countenancing a bolder scheme, one that called for winning quickly in Iraq and then dealing with Iran and Syria, they began to push vigorously for an American invasion." On pp. 234-38, we present the evidence that Sharon's chief spokesman, along with Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres all made statements endorsing the war. And we debunk the "Sharon opposed the war" fiction on pp. 261-262. We make it clear that the idea of invading Iraq did not originate with Israel--it was the neocons' foolish notion--but the suggestion that Israel opposed the war is false.
The various meetings in the region; on high political level, confirm what is written on P.262. Indeed, the war was a consequence of a naive and misguided ideology, mixed with an administration's desire to prove its muscle, and encouraged by Israel as a pretext for improving the Middle East peace prospects. On the lighter side, I suppose we can all blame Mr. Woodward for breaking the news.
khairi janbek.paris/france
So what you are saying is that:
1. Israel did not come up with the idea for invading Iraq,
2. Israel did not push the US in into invading Iraq,
3. Israel favored the invasion only after Bush had already made up his mind to invade.
Yet, you assert it was the "Israel Lobby" who "played a critical role in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003"? Why are these"neocons" part of the "Israel Lobby" when they are supporting ideas that Israel did not even support until convinced by Bush's scheme?
You list a bunch of Jewish groups and Jewish individuals in your post who pushed for the war, but they clearly were not lobbying for Israel or even the right wing Israeli government led by Sharon as Israel only went along "[o]nce they realized the Bush administration was countenancing a bolder scheme."
Now here are your problems.
Why should this group of Jewish organizations and individuals be considered the "Israel Lobby" if they don't even agree with the right wing in Israel?
Why are the Jewish groups singled out when far more non-Jews wanted to invade?
Why are Jewish individuals singled out when far more powerful non-jews actually were the architects of the invasion? Bush, Cheney, Rummsfeld.
You are ignoring the role of non-jews and non-Jewish groups, focussing on the role of Jews and Jewish groups and then linking them to Israel (because they are Jewish) even though they don't even represent the views of the Israeli right wing.
Prof. Walt,
I've heard this repeated by Mearsheimer as well at the debate in Cooper Union - something you both repeat to answer the charge that Israelis were not particularly interested in going to war in Iraq and viewed Iran as the real threat.
Your response above undercuts your own argument as most people understand it which is that the Israel lobby is driving much of US foreign policy - they are the drivers and decision makers are the followers - but what you just wrote above is the reverse - arguing that the lobby simply did NOT OPPOSE the decision of the Bush and Cheney - and really where is the outrage in that? When the majority of Americans did not oppose the war - why is it the job of the Israeli government and other pro-Israel organizations to actively oppose a popular war? Even Juan Cole did not actively oppose the war early on - in fact, some supporters of your thesis would even have taken such a situation as proof that Israel was not a reliable ally - this is the outrage? - that the Israel Lobby simply wasnt part of the anti-war left and didnt try to fight the position of an elected US government that had the support of the majority of Americans?
No Different to prof.Walt's Argument.
" One of the few member states to offer unambigious support for the Amercian action was Israel..Virtually all Israelis welcomed the downfall of one of their implacable foes, and many hoped that the display of power by their best friend in the world, would have a restraining effect on other hostile neighbors". Strobe Talbott; The Great Experiment. p.361.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Why Walt's argument is persuasive
Dave123,
Some key neoconservative and neoliberal ringleaders of the Iraq War (the Israel lobby)
1. Abram Shulsky 2. Ari Fleischer 3. Ariel Cohen 4. Benjamin Netanyahu 5. Charles Krauthammer 6. Christopher Hitchens 7. Clifford May 8. Dan Abrams 9. Daniel Pipes 10. Danielle Pletka 11. David Brooks 12. David Frum 13. David Horowitz 14. David Wurmser 15. Dennis Prager 16. Dore Gold 17. Douglas Feith 18. Ed Lasky 19. Elliott Abrams 20. Eric Edelman 21. Frank Gaffney 22. Fred Hiatt 23. Frederick Kagan 24. Haim Saban 25. Jack Abramoff 26. Jamie Glazov 27. Joel Mowbray 28. John Bolton 29. John Hannah 30. John Podhoretz 31. Jonah Goldberg 32. Joseph Lieberman 33. Joshua Muravchik 34. Judith Miller 35. Kenneth Adelman 36. Kenneth Timmerman 37. Laurent Murawiec 38. Laurie Mylroie 39. Lawrence Kaplan 40. Lewis Libby 41. Marc Grossman 42. Mark Steyn 43. Martin Indyk 44. Martin Peretz 45. Max Boot 46. Meyrav Wurmser 47. Michael Ledeen 48. Michael Medved 49. Michael Rubin 50. Mortimer Zuckerman 51. Natan Sharansky 52. Norman Podhoretz 53. Pamela Geller 54. Paul Wolfowitz 55. Peter Rodman 56. Reuel Marc Gerecht 57. Rich Lowry 58. Richard Perle 59. Robert Kagan 60. Seth Lipsky 61. Sheldon Adelson 62. Ted Belman 63. Thomas Friedman 64. Victor Davis Hanson 65. William Kristol 66. William Luti
The list could easily be greatly expanded. Many of these voices were offered a prominent platform in the mainstream media. Anti-Iraq War voices were systematically squelched in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.
Dennis Prager wasn't for invasion; but once the decision was made, he was for supporting it, because losing any war is bad for AMERICA.
Hey, dont forget this uber-important and telling document "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm." How much clearer does anyone need it to be? Talk about Smoking Guns!
"Securing The Realm" is a interesting turn of a phrase. I didn't realize that either Israel or the USA was a monarchy. The USA does often seem like a vassal state of Israel more often than not, alas.
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.1/rosen.php
"Al Qaeda is not determined to do evil for the sake of evil. It is a movement that won support, to the extent that it has, in response to America’s imperial excesses. Many of the popular grievances and resentments it mobilizes—including U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and for friendly dictators—are legitimate, even if killing American civilians is a heinous means of addressing them. The resentments were not produced by al Qaeda’s ideology. They have existed for decades. The causes have remained the same, though the discourse used by those who fight imperialism has changed from secular to religious. Addressing these problems at their roots would do much more—for Afghans and for us—than sending in the military once more to do the work of decent politics."
The Neocons' Clean Break Paper (written for Benjamin Netanyahu)
History Commons on Benjamin Netanyahu
July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy
The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [Washington Times, 10/7/2002; Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/2003] The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other authors include:
* influential neoconservative academic and former Bush adviser Richard Perle, primarily responsible for the content of the paper;
* Meyrav Wurmser, the future director of the neoconservative Hudson Institute’s Center for Middle East Policy;
* her husband David Wurmser, the future chief adviser for Middle East policy for future vice-president Dick Cheney;
* neoconservative Douglas Feith, who will be the prime architect of the Iraq war;
and:
Aggressive, Militant Israeli Policy towards Arab Neighbors
Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon (see February 1982), the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says. [Perle, 7/8/1996; Guardian, 9/3/2002; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3/19/2003] Iraq is first on the list of nations to be transformed. Saddam Hussein must be overthrown, the authors say.
and:
Late Summer 1996: Neoconservatives Push for War with Iraq, Reshaping of Middle East to Favor Israel
After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States (see July 8-10, 1996), US neoconservatives mount an orchestrated push for war against Iraq and an overall reshaping of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996). At first, the offensive takes place in the pages of US newspapers and magazines. William Kristol and Robert Kagan write articles for the magazines Foreign Policy and the Weekly Standard; syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer and A. M. Rosenthal use their columns to push the idea; Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz pen op-eds for the Washington Post; “Clean Break” co-author David Wurmser writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and publishes a book, Tyranny’s Ally, in which he proposes that the US use its military to literally redraw the map of the Middle East (see Late Summer 1996). Neoconservatives are transforming Christian evangelicals’ argument that Americans are God’s “chosen people” into secular terms, and argue in their op-eds and articles that it is, in author Craig Unger’s words, the US’s “moral duty to project that greatness throughout the world—using American military power, if necessary.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(61)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE