-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 5:33 PM
Share
It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however -- fueled primarily by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians -- the ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders of Israel began switching sides, too.
Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service, detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.
First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism. But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy, and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only democracy in the Middle East."
But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally of the United States. Of course,Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey, and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.
Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not. So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq -- even though Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- and why they are now pushing for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.
As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.
One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's interests over America's. After all, if the interests of the two states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue (a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.
I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions -- yes, billions -- of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues, such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President Obama's failures on this front -- despite his repeated pledges to do better--make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.
Although the United States and Israel do share certain common interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly) will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal track record and their underlying motivations.
MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, ISLAM, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, TURKEY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
the internet has neocons all figured out. too bad the mainstream media and murdoch press is still behind times.
Oh, Please don't be so vapid, Walt
First of all, "neocons," we all know, is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews." Second, for anyone who's familiar with our relations with Turkey and their internal politics, they've been moving away from Israel and the West and towards an Islamofascist posture for the past 10 years. Furthermore, it is the Democrats who now -- with Obama in power -- have refused to call genocide, genocide in Armenia. This was a promise, by the way, Obama made to the Armenian community, but having gotten their votes, he saw fit to break.
The United States under FDR applauded, foolishly, the USSR and specifically Stalin. Then when the Cold War broke out, the US rightly condemned and moved away from "Uncle Joe" as FDR sickeningly called him. Now, am I to understand that the American Democrat Party were therefore hypocrites 'cause once a friend with Joe Stalin, you had to remain friends with him even as you learned he was filling mass graves? Or are you supposed to stand up when you see that someone you viewed positively -- albeit wrongly so, especially in light of the Armenians, Greeks, and Cyprus -- reveals themselves to be monstrous?
This is really much ado about nothing, and just a chance to strike out at someone you clearly hate -- in this case, Jews and those who support them.
Yaaaaaaaaawn.
He shouldn't be confused with a neo-con. Many who are in the neo-con camp aren't neo-cons but simply war hawks/profiteers. It just so happens that most neo-con's are war hawks/profiteers--just do the not so difficult research. Here's a clue, US foreign policy think tank--funded by military contractors. That is the only explanation that these people always resolve for more war.
One must be fair and consider 1. they may be deeply insecure and thus paranoid, clinging to guns for security 2. they could just be boors who can't imagine a more creative, controlled outcome than war or 3. they could be sophistic, whores advocating for their sponsors. Beyond this, there are a few true believers who would fall into category one.
Each time there is a reply that contains the label "islamofascist", there is no need to read further. The writer is responding with propaganda. Facts and reasoning are never addressed in the reply. Stephen Walt is a realist who writes factual information. Turkey is demonstrating respect for its citizens -- something the Obama administration does not demonstrate when Israel is involved.
Intellectual Terrorism at its Best...
I picked up the term "intellectual terrorist" as applied to Prof. Walt from a post by Phil Weiss (mondoweise.net), which claimed Norman Podhoretz had labelled Dr. Walt with that term in a to-be-published article. The point: the neocons and militant Zionists (not all Zionists are militant racists) are guilty of what Kevin McDonald has aptly termed "moral particularism." That is, they are all for universal values and all for one, one for all, except when it comes to Israel. Then, it is Israel uber alles. Yes, I know McDonald is what some have (with reason) termed a white supremacist, but I think he is right on target with his charge of moral hypocrisy where Israel is concerned.
The mainstream media are a neocon op
Antimko,
The mainstream media are largely owned and dominated by neocons (Rupert Murdoch is a case in point), have consistently promoted neocon policies (like the Iraq War), and have labored mightily to advance and protect the neocon movement. They are the last parties one should expect to provide an honest analysis of the neoconservatives and the horrific damage they have wrought on American interests. They are all about all pro-neocon spin all the time.
Maybe now we can get some momentum toward investigating Sibel Edmond's charges about Turkish espionage.
You know looking at the way Neocons behave it really makes one wonder where their loyalties are. Israel and America are not one and the same and Israel is increasingly becoming a liability.
Neocons need to chose who's flag do they pledge to? The stars and stripes or the Star of David.
Picking up on the various comments, as well as evident power of "these people" and their dispositon to use it, lets see how well Turkey fairs with such an.......anti-semetic...attitude.
Noting how, for example, how such remonstrations would be the political kiss of death in the US, due to how resources could be marshalled to the offenders opponents, lets see how the Turks do trying to maintain it in any significant way. True, in the US it is easier to simple buy compliance. But in this case, just think of all the grief that might accru to the Turks due to pressure brought on US legislatures to discipline them....truly scarey.
That Elders of the Councils of Zion stuff may've been malarky back in the Day, but maybe it gave someone some ideas. Lets just stick to the facts and make the occassional hypotheses to test them out......
Seriously, Stephen, I think your success with the "Israel Lobby" has somehow led you to believe that everything that happens in the Middle East must be connected to Israel. For someone claiming to be a "realist," you sound an awful lot like the ideologues you so disdain.
You first suggest that the neo-con about-face on Turkey has everything to do with that country's new, more critical position towards Israel. Yet you ignore everything else going on around Turkey that has made this position the most logical one to pursue. Europe has snubbed Turkey by not allowing it into the EU, and the US no longer sees Turkey as the necessity that it once was during the Cold War. So naturally, Turkey has turned away from being the US' lackey in the Middle East, and has looked to project its power to countries in its backyard (i.e. the Arabs, Iran, even Armenia). This is the only option they were left to pursue, but in order to effectively project power to a ME population that is extremely hostile towards Israel, Turkey had to change its position on that matter and become the Israel-critic that it is today. This likely would've happened with or without the AKP.
To the neo-cons, the fact that Turkey is no longer 100% "with us" (lets remember their mantra, "you're either with us, or against us"), but willing to pursue policies that may be divergent from those of the US, and the fact that Turkey is so willing to work with Iran while also becoming something of a hero to the Arab populace is a slap in their faces. They simply are too ideological to tolerate it. Sure, Israel is a part of it, but it has much more to do with the fact that Turkey is no longer wholly within the US' sphere of influence than with its policies towards Israel.
I suppose I could touch upon the whole Israel got the US to invade Ira
I've been reading your blog for a while now, and again and again I'm astonished at how you, someone so well-read and well-educated, are willing to ignore the simple rules of geopolitics just to criticize Israel. Walk a few doors down to "The Call" and take a lesson from Ian Bremmer on how the world really works.
What you write is perfectly true and so is what Dr Walt writes. They are not mutually exclusive since Dr Walt’s interpretation lies within yours. He is looking closely at the last few straws while you are concerning yourself with the camel’s overall burden.
While I am at the screen, the EU did not snub Turkey. There was never the remotest possibility that Turkey would join the EU. That was simply one of those US enthusiasms the rest of us play along with until they die a natural death. You would get better odds for Sarah Palin marrying Prince William than you would ever have got for that preposterous notion.
The EU allowed Turkey to apply for membership in the late 1980s, with the constraint that Turkey would have to meet certain economic, political, and humanitarian requirements first. In the 1990s, Turkey watched as many former Eastern Bloc countries were admitted to the EU, while Turkey was kept out, despite the fact that it made substantial progress in the areas outlined by the EU. While the Euros may never have been serious about admitting Turkey into their fold, the Turks only fully realized this about a decade ago. So in the minds of the Turks, they were snubbed.
"Europe has snubbed Turkey by not allowing it into the EU, and the US no longer sees Turkey as the necessity that it once was during the Cold War."
You have both of these totally backwards. I don't think Turkey wants anything to do with the Euro right now. In fact, we haven't heard much talk of that in a year. Since the economic collapse and particularly since the Grecian formula failed the continent Turkey has found herself buoyed by her independence. I don't know if you're familiar with the BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China and their moves to find a new currency.
As to the strategic importance of Turkey versus Israel, it's not even close. Don't know if you've been following what's been simmering in the Caucuses and the Black Sea, but our access through there is vital. Further, 70% of our troops in Iraq are deployed through Turkey. You are delusional if you think the blue albatross of Israel compares in anyway.
Did you forget what the generals have said? That Israel and her inflammatory policies are a liability. If our movements and cooperation are substantially constrained in Turkey we will see our Generals march on Capitol Hill.
Seriously, Stephen, I think your success with the "Israel Lobby" has somehow led you to believe that everything that happens in the Middle East must be connected to Israel. For someone claiming to be a "realist," you sound an awful lot like the ideologues you so disdain.
You first suggest that the neo-con about-face on Turkey has everything to do with that country's new, more critical position towards Israel. Yet you ignore everything else going on around Turkey that has made this position the most logical one to pursue. Europe has snubbed Turkey by not allowing it into the EU, and the US no longer sees Turkey as the necessity that it once was during the Cold War. So naturally, Turkey has turned away from being the US' lackey in the Middle East, and has looked to project its power to countries in its backyard (i.e. Arabs, Iran, even Armenia). This is the only option they were left to pursue, but in order to effectively project power to a ME population that is extremely hostile towards Israel, Turkey had to change its position on that matter and become the Israel-critic that it is today. This likely would've happened with or without the AKP.
To the neo-cons, the fact that Turkey is no longer 100% "with us" (lets remember their mantra, "you're either with us, or against us"), but willing to pursue policies that may be divergent from those of the US, and the fact that Turkey is so willing to work with Iran while also becoming something of a hero to the Arab populace is a slap in their faces. They simply are too ideological to tolerate it. Sure, Israel is a part of it, but it has much more to do with the fact that Turkey is no longer wholly within the US' sphere of influence than with its policies towards Israel.
I've been reading your blog for a while now, and again and again I'm astonished at how you, someone so well-read and well-educated, are willing to ignore the simple rules of geopolitics just to criticize Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/knesset-to-hold-session-on-armenian-genocide-1.296894
lol... Just a coincidence I'm sure
Everything this guy thinks of has to do with Israel. I think he's more "Israel-Centric" than the Israel-lobby. Honestly, no one talks about Israel more than Walt, not even the "neo-cons."
The point is totally missed. Turkey hasn't fallen out with the neo-cons or anyone else due to the flotilla incident or do to its situation with Israel. There is a larger transformation taking place. The ruling Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) had a stranglehold on power and “appears to be moving Turkey away from its pro-Western and pro-American orientation to a more Middle Eastern and Islamist one.”
Turkey in 2006 became the first NATO member to host the leader of Hamas (a terrorist organization, according to the United States and the EU) and “enthusiastically” hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Turkey also temporarily blocked U.S. warships from delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia, was cool to the U.S. withdrawing forced from Iraq through Turkey, and made moves to strengthen its relationship with Russia.
Then there’s Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has developed close ties with Ahmadinejad and openly attacked Israeli President Shimon Peres, while AKP and other Islamists “sponsored a flood of anti-Israel demonstrations, billboards and anti-Semetic rhetoric.” Erdogan also questioned calls for Iran not to produce nuclear weapons and, together with Brazil, Turkey attempted to derail U.S.-led UN sanctions against Iran.
The Washington Post explains Turkey’s turn in foreign policy as rooted in a desire to expand business ties and become a regional player. It underemphasizes, though, the geopolitical and extremist religious roots of Turkey’s massive shift in foreign policy — the neo-Ottoman attempts to recreate a Turkish sphere of influence in the Middle East, and the AKP Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to build an Islamic state.
THUS the picture is much much bigger than Israel. The flotilla incident was more or less the GIANT PUBLIC MOVE that announced Turkey's emergence as a major player in the middle east, and not just an EU wannabe nation. A professor of foreign relations should be able to see the forest past the trees. In this case Walt totally misses the main issues and problems.
Most Neo-cons have been disquieted by Turkey's Islamist leanings for a long long time. Some have openly been warning about Turkey's movement towards Islamism for years (Daniel Pipes, Barry Rubin, Caroline Glick, and Soner Cagaptay) . The rest are finally vocally unleashing their anger at Turkey as Turkey vocally unleashed its policy towards the East with the flotilla affair. Essentially both Turkey and the Neo-cons held back their true feelings and reservations until two weeks ago.
Err... no and no. I think it's pretty obvious that we're different people: he likely read my post and copied some of my points and key words (i.e. "delusional"), perhaps in an attempt to either bolster my arguments or to try and add to the (albeit small) chorus of people that are not so quick to pounce on Israel, especially on this blog. The obvious differences in syntax, argument structure, context, and grammar, should further make this clear.
I'm going to assume you simply read the subject of my post, then his, and either didn't bother actually reading the argument, or did and failed to come up with any way of refuting it (thus leaving you with no other option than trying to smear me, I suppose - AIPAC would be proud!). I'm leaning towards the latter.
Let me address some problems with your hypothesis:
first of all, warships don't deliver humanitarian aid.
Turkey is trying to be a stabilizing force in the region, and war is a de-stablizer.
It's not going to enable war on it's neighbors, especially pre-emtive wars lacking evidence.
Israel attacked Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza and kills palestinians at will. With George Buses statements harkening religious war activates Arab mythology. Between that and Israel through it's war making, it has become a symbol to rally against.
Turkey is in a supreme position to assume the moral mantle for the muslim world, because most Arab/Muslim states are either repressive US client states or are too weak to act. If you actually listen to PM Erdogan he makes a lot of sense and is giving Israel great advise that it's leaders lack the wisdom to take. For instance, stop acting like a colony project and behave like an organic state, be peaceful and they will be accepted. Israel wont last by acting as a western out post, as though they are the gatekeeper holding back the barbarian hordes. - which they are not by the way.
You reference Daniel Pipes and Caroline Gligk, how much more delusional and right wing, neocon warmongering and bloodthirsty and immoral can one get? And you think they are good sources? (!) They'll brainwash you with hatred.
Turkey has also come along way from being dominated by their military, which housed a secret right wing nato stay behind army called the grey wolves, which has overthrown their civil government a half a dozen times in 30 years. They were CIA aligned and the US was responsible for the coup, as well as instituting religious instruction in schools to counter the perceived communist threat. The turn toward religion the US needs to wear around its neck like an albatross, although the government and society is still mostly secular.
Walt is no less a criticized figure
and ostracized by most mainstream professors.
my reference to the various authors (pipes and glick) simply was to disprove Walt's argument. I don't give a shit if you love them or hate them. However, these "neo-cons" have been arguing about the demise of Turkey-Israel relations and Turkey's fall into the Islamic sphere for years. They didn't just start disliking turkey after the Flotilla incident, which is what Walt claims. Therefore, there have been neo-cons (many if you do your research) who have been uneasy with Turkey for a long time. You all miss the main point for silly political details.
Second, I also don't care if you like Turkey's emergence as an eastern power or not. It is antithetical to U.S. interests as it displaces our power. Turkey is not a moral giant either. It's aggression against the Kurds, invasion of Iraqi-Kurdistan and indiscriminate shelling of villages there, coddling of terrorist groups and terrorist supporters, friendship with Omar Al-Bashir, and Ahmedinijad (who a year ago murdered democratic student protesters), and Syria (who has been supporting Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, hizbollah, and killed Rafiq Hariri) definitely does not place Turkey on any moral high ground.
"Walt ostracized by most mainstream professors"
Vilkssweden - You are not a mainstream professor. You are just an internet troll who goes around blindly supporting Israel
"first of all, warships don't deliver humanitarian aid."
Example 1 would be the US Navy providing aid to a tsunami stricken Indonesia.
.
Example 2 would be the US Navy providing aid to earthquake stricken Hati.
.
Next question?
"Turkey is trying to be a stabilizing force in the region, and war is a de-stablizer."
.
Right, which is why they put 50,000 Turkish troops on Syria's border demanding that Assad hand over Abdullah Ocelan and which is why they have an ongoing border conflict with the Kurds.
Turkey's so-called mantle of morality
"Turkey is in a supreme position to assume the moral mantle for the muslim world,"
.
1. The Armenien genocide issue.
.
2. The blockade of Armenia
.
3. The occupation of Cyprus
.
4. The decades long fight with the Kurds, including repression of its own Kurdish population.
.
5. The shmoozing up of Sudan's Bashir creater of not one, but two ethnic conflicts that have killed millions.
.
6. The love fest with HAMAS.
.
7. Turkish prisons.
@MILKS - who's an admirer of Prof Walt?
All I did was refute your empty claims that he's anti-semetic and your tiresome petty rants. Stop recycling the same old accusations that don't hold any weight and make you look foolish, and think for yourself
Most Neo-cons have been disquieted by Turkey's Islamist leanings for a long long time. Some have openly been warning about Turkey's movement towards Islamism for years (Daniel Pipes, Barry Rubin, Caroline Glick, and Soner Cagaptay) . The rest are finally vocally unleashing their anger at Turkey as Turkey vocally unleashed its policy towards the East with the flotilla affair. Essentially both Turkey and the Neo-cons held back their true feelings and reservations until two weeks ago.
When turkey was more solidly in the secular camp, Israel supporters stood behind it. The muslim turkish leaders stood behind Israel (which one can consider just as hypocritical as pro-Israel supporters defending turkish interests). When the situation changed (namely the AKP party taking over) Israel supporters became more disquieted with supporting turkey and members of the AKP party in the turkish government became more disquieted about supporting Israel.
It's not that complicated nor does it need a childish "naa naaa a boo boo, everyone is a hypocrite but meeeeeeeee," as spoken by an Israel-obsessed professor in this article.
Wow, enough with the ad hominem attacks everyone. Grow up. Respond to teh arguments.
OK, Steve has posited an observation (neocons have turned on Turkey), and offered an explanation (Turkey is no longer playing nice with Israel because Israel is mean). A few observations:
1. It does seem many of Steve's recent posts are about Israel's culpability for various problems...almost obsessively so.
2. The international environment that led to close relations between the US and Turkey has changed. Neither needs the other as much now, so they assert their differences more. Surely this explanation must occur to you Steve as it is perfect realist logic. If so, then the necons are merely responding in a realist fashion.
2. Turkey's policies changed first. Pro or anti-Iraq War aside, the Turks screwed us. 4ID was left sitting in ships in the Med instead of being the anvil to 3ID's and the Marine's hammer. This is not an insignificant issue. This indicated an unreliable ally. Various restrictions on the use of Incirlik also fall into this category.
3. Turkey's domestic politics are changing from secularism protected by the military to a more democratic but increasing Islamic (not Islamist) governance.
4. And yes, Turkey has become more oppositional to Israel. One must ask if it has anything to do with point 3 above.
So Mr. Walt, why, with 4 very viable potential causes, have you selected #4...and even if it is number 4, if 4 is caused by #3, then is this surprising?
Bottom line, Turkey has changed and it should not be surprising that some groups views of Turkey change when Turkey changes. It would be irrational for it to be otherwise.
To be honest I bet most realists, if they were asked, would likely express shifting views on Turkey as well (most likely due to Factor 1 above)...but does that make them inconsistent and feckless?
Neo-cons were likely harboring doubts about Turkey since 2003 when it refused to allow the US to use its bases as a staging point for operations in Iraq. Since then, the success of the moderate but Islamist AKP and Turkey's pursuit of Middle East policies that are more in its own self-interest (and which may come to the detriment of the US) have further solidified in the minds of the neo-cons that Turkey is no longer the stalwart ally that it once was in the Cold War. Ultimately, Turkey's increasingly critical and hostile (since the flotilla raid) stance towards Israel was, I believe, the last straw for the neo-cons, who now see Turkey as a threat to US hegemony in the region. Couple that with the Turkey/Brazil Iran nuclear deal, which many saw as an attempt by the Turks to undercut the US' plans for Iran (which were, by the way, formulated by the non-neo-con Obama Administration), and one can understand why Turkey has so quickly become the bane of the neo-cons.
The problem with Walt's argument is that he effectively equates the Israel lobby with the Neo-Conservative movement, but they are not one and the same. There are neo-cons in organizations like AIPAC who hold a pro-Israel US stance as a core tenet of their beliefs. But the neo-con agenda as a whole is far more broad and complex, and while Israel is certainly an important component of that agenda, it is certainly not the most prominent one.
Neo-cons were questioning turkey's value
since 2002 and 2003 - when the AKP party came to power and when turkey refused us a base to launch our invasion of Iraq. Walt's obsession with Israel causes him to view everything through an Israel-centric lens. A professor should do more research before he writes an article.
Prof Walt says that Israel is ONE factor among MANY
He never says that Israel support is the catch-all variable that explains every motive (Iraq War, Neocon turn against Turkey), but that it is a significant reason for such actions amongst many others. So what if he has been writing a lot about Israel? That doesn't make him 'obsessed' or 'bigoted.' How many countries do Neocons support that are opposed to Israel's actions?
are opposed to U.S., Canadian, British, Georgian, or Czech actions?
you didn't answer the question
I'd like to know the answer myself. Is there any state that is critical of Israel that prominent neo-cons endorse?
is one of them, along with afghanistan.
Bosnia, Kosovo, support for Somalia, and support for the Darfur peoples. All of whom can be considered not friendly to Israel and supported by the neo-cons.
I'd hardly consider those regional powers
India might be a better example, hard to say though
House Resolution 106 deserves more analysis in this piece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_resolution_on_Armenian_genocide
In a nutshell:
This was passed from committee and introduced to the house in early 2007, two years before Gaza. This angered the Turks greatly and could have served to push them further away (they had been moving away before that however). Many came out against passage, from GWB to Jimmy Carter, citing the fact that, while true, it wasn't a good time for it (ie, the "realist" position).
It is not often that you see Jimmy Carter, GWB and AIPAC agreeing on something!
Steve shoehorns everything going on here into his "Lobby" hypothesis, and assumes the only thing changed between now and then is Israel's actions. This is an incredibly naive way of looking at foreign policy and international relations, to put it charitably.
You are reiterating Walt's argument without addressing the point I made, namely, (continuing the excerpt you took from my post) -- "...and assumes the only thing changed between now and then is Israel's actions."
Walt is arguing that the neocon's have done a backflip regarding the need to maintain good relations with Turkey, and that this backflip coincides with Turkey's deteriorating relations with Israel.
I don't find this to be the case. I think everyone believes that good relations with Turkey are a strategic asset to the US and to Israel. Yet the fact is, this is a two way street, and Turkey does not simply react but is an actor in its own right. Point being, we can hold them responsible for their actions and to the harm that those actions do to our strategic interests. They have been moving away from us for a while now, but as long as the antipathy was under the table it would not have been prudent to say things that might have inflamed the situation, and to smooth over differences behind closed doors.
Now the mask is off, so to speak, and there isn't as much to be gained from coddling Turkey. One criticism of Obama we hear a lot is that when countries work against us and our interests, there is no penalty to be paid. Sort of a "That's cool, no prob" attitude. A "realist" like Steve probably has the opposite view (or perhaps I should say, a realist unlike Steve), while making it clear that we should not do anything irrevocable.
Note that the neo-cons are staging this campaign not after Erdogen's strident anti-Israeli remarks after the Gaza war which were continuing and constant for the two years subsequent, but only when he has shown himself to be actively part of the problem (the Turkish government was unofficially involved with staging the provocation of the flotilla) and placing himself in the camp of the anti-US forces in the region.
I love the fact that some of the neocons would like to remove Turkey from NATO and feel they are the aggrieved party. If a NATO member had some of its civilians killed, by military forces from a non NATO state, while on a humanitarian mission, on a NATO flagged civilian vessel, in international waters and a second NATO state failed to take the attacked countries part in the ensuing diplomatic row surely the NATO member who was a poor ally should be held to account by the rest of NATO. The US is at fault not Turkey and if one had to go it should be the US. Having said that perhaps now would be a good time to reexamine NATO and decide if it serves any useful purpose now there is no Warsaw Pact for it to counter. Having the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation killing Pushtans in a landlocked country in Asia in furtherance of some obscure objective is something of a stretch of its mandate. Fighting the IDF in defense of Turkey would make marginally more sense.
I remember when the neo-cons back in 2005 couldn't get enough of those Lebanese babes protesting against Syria but when it came round to the summer of 2006 they were quite supportive of Israel burying them all under rubble, i guess the lesson from that was if those babes cant get the neo-cons to criticize Israel, nothing will.
The neocons are fanatically obsessed with Israel
ASGOLD25 wrote:
"The problem with Walt's argument is that he effectively equates the Israel lobby with the Neo-Conservative movement, but they are not one and the same. There are neo-cons in organizations like AIPAC who hold a pro-Israel US stance as a core tenet of their beliefs. But the neo-con agenda as a whole is far more broad and complex, and while Israel is certainly an important component of that agenda, it is certainly not the most prominent one."
The neocons have been fanatically obsessed with the interests of Israel -- and especially with the *enemies* of Israel (whom they see everywhere) -- since at least the 1970s. Anyone can quickly scan titles of articles in the lead journal of neoconservatism, Commentary, from the 1970s to the present to see that this is the case. (All of that material is available online on Commentary's website -- check it out.)
Israel is the *only* issue that neocons care about, and they obviously couldn't care less about the American interest. All of their policy arguments are continuously adjusted and readjusted to push Americans into wars with Israel's enemies. Israel -- and especially the values and policy objectives of Likud -- is their only fixed center.
Regarding policy analysis, they are essentially running a manipulative con game, on a scale that makes Bernard Madoff's crimes seem relatively trivial. Their wars are on track to cost Americans as much as $5 trillion according to the latest estimates -- ventures which have left America's health, wealth and international standing much reduced since the pre-Iraq War era.
Neocons in the Republican Party, working in tandem with neoliberals in the Democratic Party, are by far the most powerful and influential component of the Israel lobby. The neocons are all about Israel, and nothing but Israel.
Religious extremists are driving the settler movement in Israel, the settler movement is driving the Israeli government, the Likud-controlled Israeli government is driving the Israel lobby in America (which includes AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals), and the Israel lobby is driving the foreign policy agenda of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Americans are being driven right over the cliff by a messianic ethno-religious nationalist movement -- religious Zionism -- that contradicts all their core modern democratic values. The American Founding Visionaries must be rolling over in their graves.
Walt is convienently forgetting about Turkey's recent shift towards Islamization, its meddling in Kurdish Iraq, and its declaration that while there's a genocide in Gaza, there isn't in Sudan-- because apparently Muslims could never do such a thing.
turkey is hardly a real democracy. Walt, do you realize how poorly Kurds and other non turkish ethnic groups are treated in turkey? turkey is just as much apartheid state as israel or South Africa prior to '94.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MXNoNQWSp4
Turkey's past crimes don't exonerate Israel's crimes
Usual trick to disparage Israel's critics by pointing out their own past crimes. Although Turkey would benefit greatly from admitting to genocide and paying reparations to Armenians. In this case they are right to criticize Israel because 9 of their citizens were just murdered. The US doesn't seem to care that one of it's own citizens was murdered in the flotilla raid.
past crimes don't exhonerate any SUPPOSED other crimes
however, Turkey judging Israel is akin to having a mass murderer in the jury box judging a defendant.
O.K., neocon and Israel apologists on this board, you appear to be arguing that Turkish and Israeli interests diverge, Turkey isn't really a democracy, that it is "going Islamic," etc., that Walt's Lobby Hypothesis is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, and similarly absurd points. But how do you explain the undeniable temporal proximity of the current rash of criticism of Turkey in the wake of the Gaza Cast Lead operation, the killing of 9 Turkish activists, and the resulting protest by both the Turkish government and the Turkish people? Read the Jim Lobe article Walt cites in his post!
Again, the flotilla was largely the huge wake up call
to all those "neo-cons" and others who had been sleeping at the wheel. Turkey's turn towards Islamism had been going on since 2002. It's been a slow but growing trend. Some people picked up on it from when the AKP government refused the US bases for the Iraq invasion. Some picked up on it with Erdogan's coddling of Bashir and Ahmedinijad. Other's did when Syria did joint maneuvers with Syria. It all came at different points. The most resounding and visual crash point, that got everyone's attention, even those with their heads in the sand, was the flotilla incident. The large rash of criticism is more or less people finally pulling their heads out of the sand after a huge public incident. Obviously this got more attention than joint military maneuvers with syria or even the Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal. This eclipsed most of the events that should have gotten more attention from 2002 on. I don't agree that it is right, but it is how the media portrayed events.
The 25 most influential neoconservatives of the last decade
ASGOLD25 and VILKSSWEDEN: What do your respective lists look like?
Most 25 rapid bigots and antisemites of the last decade:
lets see your list
Walt ranks in there along with Meersheimer.
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.
(103)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE