Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, April 9, 2010 - 4:02 PM
Share
If you would like to read a textbook example of a dust-kicking operation, please look at Robert Satloff's heated response to my recent post explaining the problems that can arise when top-level foreign policy officials have strong attachments to a foreign country. I seem to have struck a nerve.
There are only two important issues here, and Satloff ignores both of them. First, do some top U.S. officials -- and here we are obviously talking about Dennis Ross -- have a strong attachment to Israel? Second, might this situation be detrimental to the conduct of U.S. Middle East policy?
Regarding the first question, there is abundant evidence that Ross has a strong -- some might even say ardent -- attachment to Israel. These feelings are clearly on display in his memoir of the Oslo peace process, and they are confirmed by his decision to accept a top position at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP) -- an influential organization in the Israel lobby-upon leaving government service in 2000. As Middle East historian Avi Shlaim put it in his own review of Ross's book:
Ross belongs fairly and squarely in the pro-Israel camp. His premises, position on the Middle East and policy preferences are identical to those of the Israel-first school. Indeed, it is difficult to think of an American official who is more quintessentially Israel-first in his outlook than Dennis Ross."
Furthermore, Ross served in recent years as chairman of the board of the Jewish People's Policy Planning Institute, a think-tank established by the Jewish Agency, which is headquartered in Jerusalem. Satloff does not mention this key fact, but the implications are unmistakable. Why would anyone take such a job if they did not have a deep-seated commitment to Israel?
There is nothing wrong with Ross (or any other American) working for WINEP or chairing the board of an organization like JPPPI. As I've emphasized in my previous writings on this topic, I also see nothing wrong with Ross or Satloff, or anyone else for that matter, working to promote America's "special relationship" with Israel. The same is true for those individuals who support the Cuban-American National Foundation, the American Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association, or the Indian-American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA). Others may disagree with the policies that these interest groups push, but so be it; that's how the American political system works. Thus, Satloff's claim that I am engaged in some sort of McCarthyite witch-hunt is false.
This brings us to the second question: While all Americans certainly have the right to hold different attachments and to express them openly, is it a good idea for someone with a strong attachment to a foreign country -- in this case, Israel -- to be given responsibility for making and executing U.S. Middle East policy?
I believe the answer is no, and that there is ample evidence in the historical record to supports my position. For example, in 1993, the Oslo Accords handed the Clinton administration a golden opportunity to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close. The PLO had finally recognized Israel's right to exist, the Rabin government was genuinely interested in making a deal with the Palestinians, and the Oslo framework had laid out a path to end the conflict. U.S. Middle East policy at the time was guided by Ross and a number of other individuals who had strong attachments to Israel.
What happened over the next seven years? As Ross's deputy Aaron David Miller later recalled, the United States acted not as an evenhanded mediator, but as "Israel's lawyer." The result was a "peace process" during which Israel confiscated another 40,000 acres of land in the Occupied Territories, built 250 miles of bypass and connector roads, added 30 new settlements, and doubled the settler population, with hardly a peep from Washington. The denouement was the ill-fated Camp David summit in July 2000, a hastily arranged and poorly managed attempt to browbeat the Palestinians into accepting a one-sided deal. It is telling that former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, a participant at Camp David, later admitted that "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David, as well."
Of course, the Israelis and the Palestinians also contributed significantly to Oslo's failure. My point, however, is that American interests -- and the cause of peace more generally -- would have been better served by a more balanced team. Nor is that just my view: other recent studies of the peace process have reached similar conclusions.
One might say much the same about the handling of the peace process under President George W. Bush, who assigned Elliott Abrams a critically important role in making his administration's Middle East policy. Abrams's zealous attachment to Israel is beyond dispute, and Bush ended up adopting policies that not only failed to move the peace process forward, but led to further Israeli colonization of the Occupied Territories and helped provoke the Palestinians into a counterproductive war with each other. Moreover, the United States ended up backing Israel to the hilt in its disastrous wars in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-2009. All of which suggests that it is a bad idea to assign top officials to work on issues affecting countries for which they have demonstrably strong attachments.
Mr. Satloff never challenges me on this point. Indeed, he is silent on the issue. However, this conflict of interest problem is a real one and other countries -- including Israel -- pay it serious attention, as they should. Consider the case of Michael Oren, the current Israeli Ambassador to the United States. He was born and raised in the United States and subsequently immigrated to Israel, which led him to hold dual citizenship. But when Prime Minister Netanyahu nominated him to serve as his ambassador in Washington, Oren had to renounce his U.S. citizenship before he could take up his post. The reason was simple and compelling: someone employed to advance Israel's national interest should be as free as possible of any conflict of interest. In this case, a policy that is good for Israel would also be good for the United States.
I might add that my thoughts on this subject do not reflect any animus toward Ross himself. Although we have different views about some aspects of U.S. foreign policy, my past exchanges with him have always been civil and I have never questioned his dedication to his various government jobs. I would also note that he taught courses on diplomacy and Middle East peacemaking at the Kennedy School for several years while I was serving as its academic dean, and I approved his appointment each year without hesitation.
It should surprise no one that Satloff has come after me on the issue of "dual loyalty," even though my original post explicitly argued against the use of that term. After all, he is WINEP's Executive Director and WINEP, as noted, is a key organization in the Israel lobby. It was founded in 1985 by three individuals: Larry and Barbi Weinberg, who had formerly been the president and vice-president of AIPAC; and Martin Indyk, who was previously deputy director for research there. These founders understood that AIPAC's efforts would be enhanced if there was a separate, seemingly "objective" research organization to provide consistently "pro-Israel" analysis and commentary, while AIPAC concentrated on more direct lobbying activities. Although WINEP claims that it provides a "balanced and realistic perspective" on Middle East issue, anyone who spends a few hours examining its website and reading its publications will realize this is not the case.
In fact, WINEP is funded and led by individuals who are deeply committed to defending the special relationship, and promoting policies in Washington that they believe will benefit Israel. Its board of advisors is populated with prominent advocates for Israel such as Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Mortimer Zuckerman, and there's no one on this board who is remotely critical of Israel or inclined to favor any other country in the "Near East."
Although WINEP employs a number of legitimate scholars and former public officials, its employees do not question America's special relationship with Israel and Satloff himself has a long track record of defending Israel against criticism. That's his privilege, of course, but why does he get so angry when someone points out that WINEP is not neutral, and neither are the people who work there?
In short, Satloff doth protest too much, and I think I understand why. He knows that what I am saying is true; he just doesn't like anyone calling attention to the elephant in the room. Plus, he knows that plenty of other people can see the elephant too, and are beginning to realize that the lobby is pushing an agenda that is not in America's interest. No wonder he's so upset.
David Silverman/Getty Images
EXPLORE:THE BLOGOSPHERE, OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, BUSH'S LEGACY, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, POLITICS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
I am surprised that more people do not focus on the implications of having an Israeli dual citizen as Chief of Staff. On the one hand, it seems as if that could pose deeply troubling issues. On the other hand, if anything Rahm seems to encourage Obama to take a more critical stance toward Israel and not to put up with so much Bull--t from the Likud party. There are more senior Jewish folks in the Obama White House than ever before, especially on the economic team, but that seems to have given the President more leeway to get tough with Israel.
Please show evidence that Rahm is dual citizen
Rahm is not a dual citizen. Your assertion is libelous.
Unlike Israel, we have freedom of speech here. Take your ignorance back to Israel, your ilk are not wanted here anymore.
Yeah, Rahm is a reeeeeeaaaaal (Israeli) REAL HERO
Google it genius.
Israel always shreiks BLOOD LIBEL! ANTISEMITE!
That what they said about the swedish guy about organ trafficing. Remember? So, whats next for Israel? Soap? Lampshades?
How could someone like Rahm, who was a volunteer in a foreign army, receive a US government security clearance!??
I found it odd that the First Dude, Mr. Palin, was a member of a group that advocated the overthrow of the US Government and that didn't seem to raise any eyebrows about security clearances for him or his aspiring spouse.
Anyway, the discussion of Emanuel's so-called dual-citizenship is a red herring for nothing intelligent to add to the debate - much like the Birthers. The real problem is an American electorate that refuses to see past myopic arguments that unhelpfully link the idea that support for a Palestinian state is akin to support for terrorists. As long as the Isreali lobby has an audience for that one, we can't move this discussion forward. In my mind, Israeli intransigence toward resolving its conflict with Palestine is the single greatest threat to US security. The US needs to unilaterally recognize the Palestinian state and begin the steps that will lift up the Palestinian people as partners rather than Israeli-created bogeymen.
rahm emanuel's security clearance
How could Rahm get security clearance? Well that's easy....it was a guy named Dov Zokheim, or was it Barry Goldstein...hmm...actually...maybe it was Rob Eichmann...anyways....all it takes is to be a member of the tribe and you're all set to go
Just to buttress Mr Walt's case...
...and to address Mr Satloff's claim that WINEP employs gentiles and Arabs, please consider the following as well
Here are all of the listed Arabs, Turks and Persians on WINEPs staff and their recent publications, just to give you an idea of what little they have to say about Israel, much less offer criticism, and how central the criticism of anything remotely "Islamic" is to their scholarship:
Soner Cagaptay, Turk
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1440
Where he decries the democratically and duly elected AK Party's crackdown on coup-plotting secular fascist generals as some sort of 'Putin-esque' purge of innocent liberal patriots.
He has written on Turkish relations with Israel, but surprise surprise, the article is basically a whipping of the AK Party for failing to honor Turkey's quiet, unquestioning relationship with Israel.
Mehdi Khalaji, Persian
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1405
Titled: The Iranian Republic of Fear
Self explanatory. He has no known public mention of Israel, much less criticism of it.
Hassan Barari, Jordanian Arab
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3123
His most recent book, "Israelism," is a critical look at Israel studies in Arab countries and its failures, not the other way around. Again, he's analyzing the problems and failures of Arabs, not even getting close to criticising Israel.
Nazar Janabi, Iraqi Arab
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=513
Never has said a word on-the-record, never written an article, or given an interview about his views of Israel.
Mohammad Yaghi, Palestinian Arab
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=516
Virtually every article he's written for the institute has been an analysis and criticism of Hamas and Fatah, not Israel or its potential mistakes, even if they were tactical. This Palestinian Arab from Ramallah has written multiple times in WINEPs policy review, and yet there isn't ONE SINGLE criticism of Israel in ANY of his writings. How is that possible?
Ahmed Ali, Iraqi Kurd (?)
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=70
No single public record of ever talking about Israel, much less criticizing it.
Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian Arab
Satloff's mentioning Ibrahim requires a bit of nuance. Ibrahim may be classified by WINEP as their "First Arab Resident Scholar," but he only wrote one major piece for them which encapsulated his views on how Sadat's peace deal with Israel was vidicated. And that was almost two decades ago. My guess is that Ibrahim may not be so comfortably received back into WINEP considering his open criticism of the previous administration's policies in the region since then. So Satloff is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082200978.html
So the record speaks for itself.
@SMCI60652
thank you for your commented listings. the conclusion of your characterization is that the middle eastern native staff of WINEP is nothing less than a bunch of modern uncle tom´s, denying their cultural heritage and assimilating to pro-zionist thought and ideology.
@walt
keep on that great work and don´t let this moanbag satloff defame your articles.
Your accusations are conjecture. The same can be said (and was said) about Walt.
You just do not want to go there, do you?
I tend to agree with Steve that Satloff doesn't make a good case, but Steve, you don't address his most damning point.
Namely, that your accusations of "dual loyalty" (however you finally decide to define it) single out Israel and Jews. Yes, there are pro forma recitations of other lobbys such as the Cuba lobby, and in your other work there is the obligatory mention of "Christian Zionists", but when push comes to shove it is always Israel and Jews you seem to be singling out. This, despite the fact that there are many other examples you could use, as you tell us. This is no to imply anything, but it is a fact that can't be argued.
And we don't have to rely on hypothetical 'what ifs' in order to see what position you would take if the shoe were on the other foot. We have an example of another individual who was nominated for top position which involved to interpreting intelligence/events and making recommendations to the President. His area of concern would have included the middle east, and he also had a strong financial and sentimental attachment to a middle eastern country, along with an objective paper trail showing it. He would have Of course, I am referring to Chas Freeman and the country is Saudi Arabia.
Needless to say, you came out in full-throated attack mode, not about the appointment of Freeman, but aimed at those raising the same questions about Freeman as you do about Ross.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but this doesn't hold true for your charges of "dual loyalty", Whatever your rationale, it is a troubling and obvious double standard.
Could the reason Walt doesn't spend much time addressing other groups that have "divided loyalties" is because the countries that those groups agitate for don't do nearly as much to undermine the US's security and position in the world?
Sark, that is a thoughtful answer, but if you think about it (and if this is really part of the explanation), it is the Arab-Isreali conflict that is the issue. And there are two sides to this conflict. What Walt is doing is simply picking a side. He not only appears unconcerned with the Arab lobby (of which Chas Freeman is a part), he actively supports it. Which brings us back to the "troubling and obvious double standard" I point out.
Pro-Israel activists and confused loyalties
David in DC wonderfully demonstrates the problem with permitting foreign lobbies too much influence in American politics. He wrote:
"It is the Arab-Isreali conflict that is the issue. And there are two sides to this conflict. What Walt is doing is simply picking a side. He not only appears unconcerned with the Arab lobby (of which Chas Freeman is a part), he actively supports it."
Wrong: Walt and Freeman are aligned with only one side -- the *American* side, and every serious *American* foreign policy expert understands well that the United States has important interests in the Arab/Muslim world that it needs to cultivate and protect.
David in DC frames these issues not from the American perspective but from the Israeli perspective. Anyone with this kind of ideological profile and with these confused loyalties should be kept far away from the levers of power in American foreign policymaking. They will eventually succeed in inflicting enormous damage on America and Americans.
Dave in DC. When Chas Freeman was the Saudi ambassador, he was accused of "clientitis" by none other than James Baker. (And Baker should know, his own law firm represents the Saudi Royal family). However, Freeman's service to the Saudis paid off, and he wound up with a nice cushy job at a Saudi funded "think tank" when he left his post. Well, Walt's no dummy either. He knows where the bread gets buttered, and has his own retiremnt to think of. So, no, let's not be naive. Is it really a coincidence that all of his articles just happen to mirror the Arab line on Israel?
finally you idiots have realize that Israel is using the U.S like a $2 whore . Are you aware that during the last Israeli election A .Lieberman promise to make Israeli Arabs take an oath of allergiance to Israel. How about doing the same for U.S jewish citizens make them take an oath of allergiance to the U.S . Especially senators and congress officials.
APS, you are correct. Baker does accuse Freeman of "clientitis". I had never heard of this before, so double checked it. Baker relates this in his book "The Politics of Diplomacy".
You are also correct that subsequent to his ambassador stint, Freeman set up a pro-Arab think tank, which is directly analogous to Walt's "Lobby". The difference with Freeman's group is that it is directly funded by the government of Saudi Arabia and not only US citizens. This is important information and belies the assertion made by another poster above that...He [Freeman] spent the overwhelming majority of his career working in/on China and was Ambassador to Saudi Arabia for only 3 years.
The same poster also maintains that the DNI position is not comparable to Ross' portfilio. As we have seen, among other things the DNI chairs the group in charge of producing the NIE's, the outputs of which recently have been highly politicized and used as tools to shape public opinion. If anything, DNI is a position where it is more concerning that we have someone with an attachment to a foreign country, not less. While Dennis Ross can offer his opinion to the President, same as the DNI and any number of other advisors, the President does not have to take it (and it appears currently that he isn't where Ross is concerned). On the other hand, when the DNI produces a document with the imprimateur of the intelligence community, it goes a long way towards shaping public opinion.
On taking an oath in US politics..
Wikipedia: The Kol Nidre is a declaration recited in the synagogue before the beginning of the evening service on the evening of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It is worded: "All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
How, um, anti-Zionist of you, James.
From the same Wiki article:
"...Kol Nidrei has often been employed out of context by some to claim that Jews cannot be trusted..."
"Because this prayer has often been held up by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are untrustworthy, the Reform movement removed it from the liturgy for a while. In fact, the reverse is true: Jews make this prayer because they take vows so seriously that they consider themselves bound even if they make the vows under duress or in times of stress when not thinking straight. This prayer gave comfort to those who were forcibly converted to Christianity, yet felt unable to break their vow to follow Christianity. In recognition of that history, the Reform movement restored this prayer to its liturgy."
But over the centuries many Gentiles have believed that this was supposed to negate any contracts that Jews had made with Gentiles, and possibly many ignorant Jews believed that also.
Is this some anti-Zionist editorializing, J Thomas?
I don't find anywhere in that article where it specifies that this only applies to contracts between Jews and non-Jews. I only see one reference that is even close to this, and it relates to writings made almost a thousand years ago by a Spanish author. If so, you seem to have homed in on the one single sentence in a very long article that could paint Je..., er, Zionists in a bad light.
Judah ben Barzillai, a Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his work on Jewish law "Sefer ha-'Ittim", declares that the custom of reciting the Kol Nidre was unjustifiable and misleading, since many ignorant persons believe that all their vows and oaths are annulled through this formula, and consequently they take such obligations on themselves carelessly.[7]
"you don't address his most damning point.
Namely, that your accusations of "dual loyalty" (however you finally decide to define it) single out Israel and Jews."
I don't see any problem with that....if its a problem for the American people that there are organizations that are pushing agendas that put the interests of other countries before their own, then it shouldn't matter that you're starting with one group rather than all of them at the same time. Its not a double standard by any means...I dont think Steve is suggesting that it is ok for Cuban Americans to push the US into a war with another country based on the interests of Cuba rather than the US. He seems to be suggesting that it is a trend that is damaging to American interests and the American people and it should be stopped regardless of which group does it....that he is pointing out Israeli activity in the US is only reflective of the fact that it is the most active foreign lobby in the US and it's actions are by far the most contrary to American interests and its actors are by far in the most sensitive positions. If the same could be said of Cuban Americans, I'll bet that is what Steve would be writing about.
May I ask...are you ok with influential Americans in sensitive positions putting the interests foreign country before the US?
"What is good for the goose should be good for the gander"
I don't understand what your position is....are you suggesting that it should be a free-for-all with all government officials serving whichever foreign country they feel like? Or do you take offence that others were not called to task before the Israel lobby? Or would it satisfy you if Steve included criticism of the Cuban lobby in addition to the Israel lobby? What is it that you have a problem with?
I see, J Thomas. It just struck me as odd that you would chime in with this.
Yeah, it is possible that many Jews do or did feel they could religiously justify breaking contracts with non-Jews. But there is no evidence for it other than statements from anti-Semites.
3777, read the thread.
I don't disagree entirely with you. The issue with Steve's position is that he frames it in the general sense, but it really isn't a general concern. If it was, at the very least he would have remained mum when a Saudi/Chinese client was poised to assume the influential position of DNI. But he didn't remain mum, he went slightly bonkers defending the appointment, compulsively making post after post attacking those voicing the exact same concerns Steve does here.
May I ask...are you ok with influential Americans in sensitive positions putting the interests foreign country before the US?
Of course not, but that isn't what we are talking about here. The fact that you even ask makes me think that you got the subtext of Steve's message, his repeated denials notwithstanding.
David in DC: Ethnic nationalist politics
1. Have you ever stopped to consider why you are bogged down in conflict and arguments about your ethnic nationalist issues, and the interests of a foreign government, when most Americans abandoned that mode of politics decades ago?
2. Do you think ethnic nationalist politics has any future in the United States or anywhere else in the world?
3. Have you noticed that much of the activity of pro-Israel activists in America consists of embittered and often abusive attacks on their fellow Americans? For one of the more glaring examples, see Pamela Geller's vile assaults on Barack Obama at Atlas Shrugs.
3. Have you managed to convert anyone to your point of view on Mideast politics, or only succeeded in further polarizing your adversaries against you?
4. Why would you expect ethnic outsiders to be as emotionally involved with your ethnic problems and interests as you are, when in most cases they no longer define themselves in ethnic terms or pay attention to their own ethnic issues?
5. How many times a day do you think about your ethnic enemies?
1. What is America's "special relationship" with Israel?
Please someone inform me: does taking $10 million PER DAY from the US treasury make it a special relationship?
2. Steve: it is OK for any citizen to hold any office, as long as citizens of the opposite persuasion are also so permitted.
i.e. I would not mind having BOTH Dennis Ross and David Duke, or have neither.
The problem is the pro-zionist litmus test to get positions in the Admin and Capitol Hill. Not Ross himself.
David Duke?
was checking if anyone's paying attention.
A pro-zionist and an anti-zionist would balance each other well in the admin.
SIR_MIXXALOT lets the cat out of the bag by terming David Duke an "anti-Zionist." David Duke has a long record as a neo-Nazi and anti-Semite. While it's true people of this orientation are hostile to Israel, their hostuility is derived from the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, and not from anything Israel either does or doesn't do.
We should probably be grateful to SIR_MIXXALOT for uncovering the reality of those who call themselves "anti-Zionist."
lyrical pimp slap, sending Satloff back to his ideological street corner.
Anyone else notice those most deserving of criticism tend to be the ones least able to take it?
David in DC: US/Saudi relations
The American government has cultivated close relations with Saudi Arabia since the FDR administration, if I recall correctly, as a matter of economic self-interest. Emotional Arab ethnic nationalism had nothing to do with it (and Chas Freeman is certainly not an Arab ethnic nationalist). Dennis Ross, on the other hand, gives every sign of being an obsessive ethnic nationalist.
Messianic ethnic nationalists are often easy to spot: they are strident, aggressive, irrational, paranoid, thin-skinned, verbally abusive, self-obsessed and insensitive to the sensibilities and needs of those outside the ethnic nationalist cult. Those kinds of personality traits seem to come with the territory, across all ethnic nationalist groups, and especially the more fanatical ones.
Modern Western democracies want none of it -- ethnic nationalism is nothing but trouble.
Regarding the Robert Satloff essay on Dennis Ross: it's an embarrassment for WINEP. This is the level of work you get when you are basically producing paid propaganda rather than doing honest research and scholarship. None of this neoconservative agitprop is going to stand up to scrutiny as serious scholarship or analysis a decade or two from now.
I suppose when an acedemic is not writing history and politics, he/she will be writing propaganda; that is of course if we can distiguish between both. For some, Prof. Walt is a propaganda writer, and for others Mr. satloff is a propaganda writer. In this day and age, and as it has always been probably, it always depends on which side you stand on the ideological spectrum.
khairi jabek.paris/france
Propaganda is often outright or thinly veiled incitement to violent action against one demon or another -- often incitement by one ethnic or religious group against another. This is a good example:
Michael Ledeen; The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened, Where We Are Now, How We'll Win; 2002; St. Martin's Press
Scholarship, on the other hand, provides important and lasting insights into facets of the world, for instance:
Niall Ferguson; The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World; 2008; Penguin Press
The shelf life of propaganda -- particularly that of the frenetic and overheated quality -- is brief, and it tends to look petty and ridiculous in retrospect.
Propagandists are often interested in distorting or obscuring the truth for narrow partisan ends; scholars seek out the truth from a spirit of the universal quest for knowledge.
Emotional Arab ethnic nationalism had nothing to do with it (and Chas Freeman is certainly not an Arab ethnic nationalist). Dennis Ross, on the other hand, gives every sign of being an obsessive ethnic nationalist.
This is a little dust kicking of your own, coupled with a completely unsupported and scurrilous charge against Dennis Ross.
The dust-kicking - neither I nor Steve Walt has limited our discussion of attachments to to "ethnic nationalism".
The unsupported charge - Dennis Ross isn't an "obsessive ethnic nationalist" simply on your say-so, and most certainly doesn't exhibit the negative traits on your laundry list.
David in DC: Dennis Ross and ethnic nationalism
Chas Freeman has organized his mental, emotional and political life around ethnic nationalism not at all (and certainly not around Arab ethnic nationalism). Dennis Ross *has* organized his mental, emotional and political life around ethnic nationalism -- specifically Jewish ethnic nationalism, Zionism and the interests of Israel. Why do you think he has insinuated himself near the top of the American government in trying to control American Mideast policy? For him, it's all about Israel and his narrow ethnic nationalist politics. He has dedicated his life to pursuing his ethnic nationalist agenda.
You yourself are an obsessed ethnic nationalist -- you have made dozens of posts on this forum alone which have complained bitterly about insults and threats to your ethnic nationalist interests in Israel. Most posters here have never once mentioned their ethnic identity, issues, problems or enemies -- they are not mired down in that kind of primitive politics.
Many of these Israel-centric ethnic nationalists in the neoconservative and neoliberal worlds are also religious nationalists -- which makes them ethno-religious nationalists. Ethno-religious nationalists tend to combine the worst characteristics of both ethnic nationalists and religious nationalists. Apartheid white South Africa was largely driven by an ethno-religious nationalist ideology, as was the Confederacy during the US Civil War.
How about you? Does religion play any role in your version of Zionism? If so, which variety of religion? (Most of the early Zionists were secularists, by the way; quite a few of them were also Marxists.)
Dennis Ross is a leading member of the Israel lobby
David in DC: Would you agree that Dennis Ross is richly embedded in an ethnic nationalist matrix?
Dennis Ross associations:
1. ADL (Anti-Defamation League)
2. AIPAC American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
3. attacks on John Mearsheimer
4. attacks on Stephen Walt
5. Bilderberg Group
6. Daniel Pipes at WINEP
7. David Makovsky co-author
8. Haim Saban at the Saban Forum
9. Iraq War ringleaders
10. James Woolsey at UANI
11. James Woolsey at WINEP
12. Joshua Muravchik at WINEP
13. JPPPI (Jewish People Planning Policy Institute)
14. Libby Legal Defense Trust
15. Martin Kramer at WINEP
16. Martin Peretz at the New Republic
17. Martin Peretz at WINEP
18. Mortimer Zuckerman at WINEP
19. neoconservatives in the Republican Party
20. neoliberals in the Democratic Party
21. Paul Wolfowitz at WINEP
22. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
23. Richard Perle at WINEP
24. Robert Satloff at WINEP
25. the Israel lobby
26. The New Republic
27. UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran)
28. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
Here is a curious point: What are the ties that bind Dennis Ross to Lewis Libby? Ross was a member of the Libby Legal Defense Trust.
Also, according to Wikipedia, Ross is a religious Zionist:
"He later became religiously Jewish after the Six Day War. In 2002 he co-founded the Kol Shalom synagogue in Rockville, Maryland."
"In short, Satloff doth protest too much..."
Let "scholastic" masturbation commence...
Thank you Progfessor Walt. Your commentary has helped break an old taboo in Washington, leaving you open to attack from those who love to throw around the expression 'anti-semite' as a way to censor and silence their critics.
It is undeniable that our security has been severely compromised by our blind attachment to Israel. But to argue the point cogently, forcefully, ex-cathedra as you do takes guts man and I admire you for it. Satloff of course is guilty of the very sin he ascribes to you: McCarthyism. The irony is that it is his loyalties that are so clearly divided.
I have not hitherto been a diligent reader of FP, so perhaps the subject has been tackled here before, but I would welcome a serious analysis of the nature of Israel's democracy, given its neo-apartheid nature. I mean we did not praise South Africa as a democracy when it was a white-ruled state, despite the regular trips to the ballot box by the white folks, precisely because the brutality and injustice of apartheid made a mockery of our understanding of democracy.
For that matter, I am always puzzled by the enthusiasm in D.C. for the two state solution which would cement into place the religious nuttery on which the Israeli state is currently built. To be truly accepted into the family of democracies Israel must end all religious tests for citizenship and all statutory ethnic discrimination. Let Israel and its illegally occupied colonies reconstitute themselves as a secular federation of all semites in the area, Jews and Palestinians, with Swiss-style cantons which can cater to narrower tribal loyalties: secular Jews in Tel Aviv, orthodox Jews in west Jerusalem, Christian Arabs in Bethlehem, Muslim fundamentalists in Gaza etc.
Come on Professor Walt! Assail the next taboo and leave the Satloffs of this world to stew in their own shallow histrionics.
Life in the settlements -- 60 Minutes
CBS News' 60 minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n
Israeli Govt. Official on whether there is Apartheid in Israel -
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
By SHULAMIT ALONI
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Thanks, you illustrate with this example that US Jewish interests are more often in line with conservative Israelis only. People don't seem to realize how many liberal Jewish Israeli peace activists there are, and that the politics of a large number of Israelis are further left than that of Jews in the US. I encourage people to read Ha'aretz for some more perspectives. I find that American Jews seem to think Israeli Jews tend to share their political views on Israel. This is a mistake.
I guess your good self's examples illustrate my point Mr. Seanmcbride. Seeking out the truth from a spirit of universal quest of knowledge, I would say at best only leads to the relative truth; which incidentally conforms to the notion of pay in order to play.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Sir mixalot, Israel's special relationship helps more
than the relationship the U.S has with any other country in the middle east, who is a better ally, the saudi's who fund Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan who spread poisenous ideology against the west and especially the u.s you don't seem to be bothered by their treatment of women or thier Muslim only cities( is that aparatheid?), where do you think they get money, The syrians, the Iranians who kill U.S soldiers, you want to save lives start riding Camels and walking to work everyday, don't give any of these terror supporters any money and that will solve a lot of the problems.
Start developing green technology and reduce the us dependance on oil. Or maybe you think the u.s needs no allies in the middle east, we are the only true friend and as much as you hate it you need to deal with it we truly like America and we truly will help them in any way we can.
Unlike your arab buddies which only want the american money and defense against Iran, why do you think the whole 5th fleet is in the gulf they are protecting the saudis from the Iranian's how much do you think the U.S pays to all the gulf states to keep their bases there???
How much does it cost to impose democracy on these muslim countries??
3 billion is a small price to pay, we fight for our own defense and will help when needed, we have the same values so deal with it because it isn't going to change although you are trying very hard to delegitamize Israewl and change the facts
Budahh: Basic rules of ethnic nationalist politics
If you are arguing about your ethnic nationalist politics with ethnic outsiders in a way that is strident, self-righteous, nagging, needy, manipulative, propagandistic, confrontational, etc., you have lost the argument before it began. There is no conceivable way that one can win that kind of argument -- the more you argue, the more you alienate your audience and adversaries. Think about it -- it's a universal law of human nature.
At some point, most intelligent people figure out that ethnic nationalist politics is a losing proposition from the get-go. They don't permit themselves to be trapped by it.
Buddah, it is not either-or.
I Hate the Saudis and the current Isareli govt.
Point is: The Saudis don't take $10,000,000.00 from the US taxpayers EACH DAY.
I don't have to choose between duchebags in the middle east. False Dichotomy.
I want to keep US $$$$$$$$$$$$ in the US.
At least with the Saudis we get something for our $$$$$$: OIL!
For the support of Israel we get..................a big bullseye painted on each American.
Ok lets look at it that way, it is definitely in the U.S interests to have a strong Israel in the middle east, it is a U.S interest to have a true friend anywhere in the world wouldn't you agree? The u.s shouldn't be imposing democracy I agree, but they should support ones that are struggeling for their survival because we share the same values and interests, We do provide good inteligence to the U.S, during the cold war Israel provided enourmous amounts of info that the u.s would have never gotten. Today in the war on terror it is an interest to have a good intelligence source, we are good at intelligence sorry.
It gives the u.s power to have influence over israel, it gives them power with the arab countries as oppose to what you think.
I don't know how much the war costs but it is around 100 billion $ a year, so it is quite a bit more than what you think. I don't know how much it costs to have the strong presence in the gulf but it is a lot to keep such a big force around there for so long.
Iran has never attacked any of it's neighboors hahahahaha, Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror in the world, who killed the marines in Lenbanon? Iran uses it's proxies all ove rthe world to commit acts of terror, who supports shia militias in Iraq and provides financing and high quality IED's, Saudi Arabia has a Shia minority population in the south of the ecountry where all the oil fields are and Iran is meddling there as well, Iran claims sovereignty over Islands in Baharain, they have the hutti rebels in yemen, and are meddling in Iraq daily, The gulf arabs are scared of Iran which wants to be a regional power and dominate, they don't even care about Israel as much as they care about Iran, it is just political rhetoric today, if you ask anybody in the rab world what is the main issue they will tell you it is sunna and shia fighting and not Israel.
You are mistaking if you think the arab world will like the u.s better if it didn't support Israel, it will only encourage the extreme elements in the region, the reason there is no peace is because of extreme elements and terror.
General partereus called the IDF chief of staff and denied having said that Israel risks the U.S troops security and v.p biden said he never said that.
The haters will find a reason to hate, Israel is the excuse now, it will be somehting else tomorrow if Israel is gone.
I understand completely why Walt has to defuse every bomb before he throws it.
But, not being a public figure and fortunately impervious to any damage I can be blunt.
First I don't agree that a citizen 'has a right" to work to promote a foreign country's interest ..UNLESS ......they are doing it strictly on their own dime and not seeking to influence US foreign policy in that country's behalf .
If some group wants to raise money for, or prevail upon that foreign country's 'own' leadership for political changes for what they see as beneficial to that country that's their right.
Putting US Jewish activities or the Cuban Exile community's activities and the activities of those like Ross and his ilk on par with " their rights as an American citizen" is a actually a "perversion of our democratic rights".
The whole Orwellington idea that somehow being a US citizen gives one the 'Right" under the 'US Democratic System' to have a higher allegiance to their 'former' or' true homeland' and activity work in behalf of their higher allegiance to any other country he or she pleases is absurd in the extreme.
I won't bother quoting Geo Washington on this, although he saw it clearly for what it was and warned against it..let's just say the US Oath of Allegiance and those of most other countries, doesn't require renouncing all loyalty to prior 'princes and potentates'.... . for no reason.
Democracies , because of their upholding of individual rights, are the prime targets and nesting grounds for special interest groups who sometimes use those rights for their own agendas and loyalties.
These so called "Rights" on steroids is why our government now resembles an international shopping bazaar instead of a government for, of and by the US people and why our foreign policy resembles a Psychozoic spider's web.
Dick Armey on MSNBC..."my first duty is to Israel's security"
Chuck Schumer.............."a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel".
Henry Waxman...............'no one not sympathetic to Israel will be on my committee".
Congressman. Ackerman............"my concern for Israel is why I in congress".
Ad nauseum.
It's insane. Period. I don't know the answer because it has now gone so far and become so accepted. I have argued for an update of US treason definitions to reflect current political realities and for conflicts of interest to be recognized and enforced.
However I doubt that will happen. So what we can expect is more 'tyrannies of minorities' that will eventually destroy the democratic system that allowed them to rise.
Maybe then we can start over. Without a political or presidential candidate having to pledge allegiance to a foreign country instead of our own to get elected.
Getting at a REALLY good point here
"These so called "Rights" on steroids is why our government now resembles an international shopping bazaar instead of a government for, of and by the US people and why our foreign policy resembles a Psychozoic spider's web."
Good line. Sometimes the really good stuff gets lost in the enthusiasm of posting, right? From healthcare reform to banking reform, there is a question of a lack of competence that is more accurately a case of corruption, for all practical purposes.
In foreign policy the situation is more pernicious because the driving forces are effectively national constitutencies who stand to be better organized (Cuban-Americans, The Saudi's, etc), AND better funded.....they can hide their sources and are not necessarily hamstrung by fund-raising to the extent even someone like the NRA is. It was clever, and telling, how Satloff danced around this issue in his rebuttel to Walt, volunteeering how WINEP accepted not a dime of foreign money, whereas the reality is they are underwritten by a small group of ultra-rich likudniks who are essentially trans-nationals, and unapologetically Israel-first to the degree they have an allegiance.
Then we've got the reality that for however many people read blogs like these, the majority of Americas are sooooo easily swayed by the media drumbeat of people like those on FOX. In the day to day effort to get by....which is increasingly draining.....the spare bandwidth necessary to see thru the propaganda becomes an onerous expenditure. What energy they can spare really needs to be spent on trying to understand Obama is really not going to euthanize granny.......
One way or the other, we must get our putative leaders in-line. But the system has become the facade of a democracy, and hardly even the ghost of the benevolent republic our founders origianlly envisioned.
How Ironic. All of the personal attacks on posters who dare disagree with Professor Walt - particularly attacks on their loyalty - are perfect examples of the type of McCarthyesque smears that Robert Satloff was writing about. Strange, but this blog is proof of Satloff's thesis.
And why, the attacks? Well, because some folks, like "Dave in DC", simply pointed out the obvious; that Professor Walt is being hypocritical in attacking Dennis Ross while defending Chas Freeman. Even James Baker accused Freeman of "Clientitis" with respect to his commitment to Saudi interests. And in his memoirs he gave specific example of Freeman putting Saudi interests ahead of American ones during the first Gulf War.
So, does Walt have any problem with this? Of course not. Nor has he ever suggested that folks look into Hussein Obama's foreign Muslim father or schooling in Indonesia. (Of course he'd go wild if it were Israel).
And the reason is simple, because if you lift the veil ("burka"?) of his pro-America facade, its clear that he's simply a pro-Arab partisan when it comes to the Israeli - Arab conflict. And that's fine, he has a right to be. But let's not pretend that its some coincidence that he staunchly defends those who push the Arab line, while attacking anyone (like Ross) who may deviate from it even slightly.
Israel and her amen corner, vocal, rolling in laundered US aid money, and utterly unscrupulous in pushing their Israel uber alles mantra, has been driving and controlling US Mid East policy (which largely drives the overall foreign policy) for decades. You and Professor Mearsheimer have been couagious and steadfast in educating the greater american public to this imoral and intolerable situation. America owes you a great debt of gratitude.
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.
(71)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE