The Israel Lobby Revisited
It has been 21 months since John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt published their article “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in The London Review of Books and four months since their publication of a book by the same name. Their main arguments are that unconditional U.S. support for the Israeli government has harmed U.S. interests in the Middle East and that American organizations allied with the Israeli government have been the primary influence regarding the orientation of U.S. Middle East policy. As a political scientist and international relations scholar specializing in the United States role in the Middle East, I certainly had no disagreements with their first contention. I took strong exception to their second, however.
There is no denying that the Israel Lobby can be quite influential, particularly on Capitol Hill and in its role in limiting the broader public debate. However, I found it incredibly naïve to assume that U.S. policy in the Middle East would be significantly different without AIPAC and like-minded pro-Zionist organizations. In response to what I saw as a rather simplistic and reductionist understanding of U.S. foreign policy by these prominent center-right international relations scholars, I wrote the article The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is It Really?
While most the criticisms of Mearsheimer and Walt’s article came from right-wing apologists of the Israeli government, many long-time critics of U.S. support for Israeli occupation, repression, colonization and related policies against their neighbors raised concerns as well. My article became one of the more widely-circulated and detailed critiques from the left.
My analysis drew profoundly negative reaction from those who insisted that it was not oil interests, military contractors, ideological imperialists, and related powerful sectors of America’s ruling class who were responsible for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other tragic manifestations of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, but was instead the responsibility of a rich cabal of Jews who manipulated the Bush administration to engage in policies it would not have otherwise supported. I was denounced for propagating left-wing “lies” and “myths” by examining some of the broader structural, ideological, economic and institutional inherencies in U.S. foreign policy instead of acknowledging that it was all the fault of the Jews.
Just as the hysterical reaction from right-wing Zionist circles seemed to some to vindicate Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments that an all-powerful Israel Lobby stifles legitimate debate about U.S. policy toward Israel and the broader Middle East, the reaction to my critique seemed to some to vindicate the notion that those who put the blame on the Israel Lobby are prone to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s book certainly does not fall into the anti-Semitic rants of many of their supporters. Like their original article, however, the book is still fundamentally flawed.
Simplistic Understanding
The Israel Lobby is seemingly powerful because it converges with more powerful interests driving U.S. policy, particularly the drive for hegemonic domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Even when the Lobby was significantly weaker than it is now, U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East was the largely the same.
Mearsheimer and Walt, along with their defenders, fail to make the distinction between the undeniable impact the Lobby has had on limiting debate regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and the assertion that it is the major defining force behind U.S. policy in the Middle East. As Professor Joseph Massad at Columbia University - who has been subjected to vicious attacks from right-wing Zionist groups - puts it, the Israel Lobby is responsible for “the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies.” Indeed, as I pointed out in my original article, U.S. policy toward both Israel/Palestine and the region as a whole is quite consistent with U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. The consequences are more serious for Americans at home (for example, no Vietnamese or Nicaraguans ever flew airplanes into buildings), but they are not fundamentally different.
Any serious review of U.S. foreign policy in virtually every corner of the globe demonstrates how the United States props up dictatorships, imposes blatant double-standards regarding human rights and international law, supports foreign military occupations (witness East Timor and Western Sahara), undermines the authority of the UN, pushes for military solutions to political problems, transfers massive quantities of armaments, imposes draconian austerity programs on debt-ridden countries through international financial institutions, and periodically bombs, imposes sanctions, stages coups, and invades countries that don’t accept U.S. hegemony. If U.S. policy toward the Middle East was fundamentally different than it has been toward the rest of the world, Mearsheimer and Walt would have every right to look for some other sinister force leading the United States astray from its otherwise benign foreign policy agenda.
In many respects, their argument is nothing new. A small group of former State Department officials and former Republican congressmen at such publications as the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and organizations like the Center for the National Interest shares Mearsheimer and Walt’s critique of U.S. Middle East policy and their failure to acknowledge the nature of America’s hegemonic designs in the region and beyond. As political scientist Asad AbuKhalil - the self-described “angry Arab” currently serving as a visiting professor at the University of California in Berkeley - describes it, such analysis “absolves the Bush administration, any administration, from any responsibility because they become portrayed as helpless victims of an all-powerful lobby.”
I have been familiar with the work of Mearsheimer and Walt for many years. Professor Mearsheimer and I both received our doctorates from Cornell University’s Department of Government (which, incidentally, did not offer a single course dealing with the Middle East.) They are considered two of the countries leading scholars in the field of international relations from the “realist” tradition. While I do not believe they are motivated by a conscious anti-Semitism or any innate hostility toward Israel, their perspective has nevertheless been compromised by another kind of ideological bias.
As political scientists, Mearsheimer and Walt should recognize that American foreign policy is a result of a complex mix of ideological prejudices, bureaucratic processes, domestic politics, group-think, and more. The interplay of these different factors has been the subject of some of the most acclaimed studies of the discipline, including Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision, regarding the decision-making within the Kennedy administration during the Cuban missile crisis (which, ironically, is the first book Stephen Walt reportedly read as a graduate student at Berkeley.)
Putting most of the blame on the Israel Lobby is reductionism at its worst, taking just one vector of power and influence and turning into a monocausal theory. It is overly simplistic in that it embraces a naively pluralistic understanding of political power, denying the deeper power structures that drive U.S. policy in the Middle East. Indeed, I wish their analysis were correct, since a single, powerful lobby would be a much simpler problem to overcome.
Both authors blindly accept a number of naíve and demonstrably false assumptions regarding America’s role in the world. For example, they assert that the foreign policy of the United States — the world’s number one arms supplier for dictatorial regimes — “…is designed to promote democracy abroad” and the U.S. effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East “has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion.” The reality, of course, is just the opposite: it has been U.S. support for the majority of the dictatorships in that part of the world that has primarily contributed to anti-American sentiment.
According to the disturbing nativism implied in Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis, foreigners and those allied to their interest by ethnic or ideological connections undermine the benign instincts of America’s leaders. In doing so, the two analysts create an artificial duality with the Israel lobby on one side and U.S. national interest on the other. As such, if the pursuit of certain policies ends up being bad for the United States, it must have been the result of those with ulterior motives forcing American leaders to do so, not the well-documented hubris of the current administration. In defense of Bush, whom they insist has “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” they ignore his stubborn resistance to any facts that contradict his rigid ideological convictions, his choice to ignore public opinion calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and other changes in policies, and his dismissal of the opinions of allies whose support is so crucially needed in these dangerous times.
Iraq
In an article published four weeks prior to the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the monthly magazine Tikkun, I predicted that sooner or later, the American public would realize that a U.S. invasion of Iraq had been a disaster. I also argued that there might be some in the foreign policy establishment who would revert to the time-honored tradition of blaming the Jews as a means of deflecting attention away from those who really have power in order to avoid a critical re-evaluation of America’s role in the world.
Sure enough, as public opinion polls show more and more Americans are recognizing that the Iraq War was essentially about oil, Mearsheimer and Walt - in defense of the foreign policy establishment they have served so well - are eager to shift attention toward nefarious foreign-influenced forces as being responsible for the Bush administration’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq. In reality, however, while guilty of advocating many immoral, illegal and dangerous policies over the years, the Israel Lobby was not a major factor in the decision to go to war.
Not only have there been a plethora of books and articles on the decision-making in the lead-up to the war in which it appears that Israel was not a major factor, it has since been revealed that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon specifically warned Bush against occupying Iraq or invading Iraq without an exit strategy. The Israeli prime minister also feared that an insurgency could radicalize the region and spill over Iraq’s borders. Israeli Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon was even instructed by Sharon to tell visiting Israelis not to encourage a U.S. invasion of Iraq for fear that its likely failure would be blamed on Israel. Israeli officials also warned the Bush administration that invading Iraq could destabilize the region, in large part due to concern that it would strengthen Iran, which the Israelis considered the primary threat. For example, in a visit to Washington in February 2002, both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Defense Minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer emphasized their concern that “Iran is more dangerous than Iraq.”
Indeed, as far back as the aftermath of the 1991 war, the head of the Israeli military intelligence revealed in an interview that Iraq was no longer a threat to Israel.
Interestingly, Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledge that the Israelis were initially skeptical about the administration’s obsession with “regime change” in Iraq, and they present very little evidence of active support by the Lobby for the war. At most, they point out that mainstream U.S. Zionist leaders “refused to speak out.” Indeed, a careful reading of their book reveals that they present no real evidence that Israel was the principal backer of long-planned invasion. Israeli officials came on board only after the decision had been made, apparently with the promise that Iran would become the next target. In other words, the Israeli government and the Israel Lobby were willing to use their clout to help their friends in the White House garner support from the public and Congress for a decision which the Bush administration had already made on its own. Given Bush’s strong support for Israel’s acts of aggression, they were willing to return the favor. This is very different, however, than somehow being responsible for the decision itself.
The Role of Neoconservatives
Mearsheimer and Walt highlight what they claim to be the affinity for Israel by influential neo-conservatives as a major factor in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. In particular, they cite the efforts of the neo-cons behind the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In reality, however, those who made up PNAC and other neo-conservatives opposed Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq because they feared it would challenge U.S. hegemony in the region, which was always their priority. For example, in the introduction to the influential 2000 PNAC report Rebuilding America’s Defenses, they explicitly spelled out the neo-conservative agenda: “At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and expand this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.” The strong support by PNAC members and other neo-cons of Israel only goes as far as they see American and Israeli interests converging. They have not been major supporters of Israel, for example, when the right-wing has not been in power there. And even under the rightist prime minister Ariel Sharon, most Israeli government officials - with a few notable exceptions - saw Israel’s political and strategic interests at odds with the grandiose American neo-conservative designs on Iraq.
Indeed, the Defense Guidance Plan of 1992, rejected by the senior Bush administration as being too extreme but adopted in large part by his son’s administration, also makes clear that the primary concerns of the neo-conservatives was advancing U.S. hegemony, not supporting Israel. The role for Israel, at least under its right-wing governments, was as an important ally in that struggle for American primacy in the Middle East and beyond, but not the main focus, which they spelled out quite clearly: “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the preeminent outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil.”
The evolution of PNAC is based on - in the words of their initial statement of principles - “A Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” Throughout the group’s published statements, American primacy, not Israeli primacy, is their focus. Mearsheimer and Walt cite the 1996 paper written for a right-wing Israeli think tank by two leading American Jewish neo-cons - Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - which encouraged Israel to make a “clean break” with the Oslo Peace Process and rely more on force to advance its objectives, including the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, if one actually reads the paper, it is a clear call for Israel to break from the U.S.-led peace process and the perceived restraints on Israeli actions by the U.S. government, then under the leadership of the more moderate Clinton administration. It was not a call for the United States to take risky initiatives at the behest of Israel. Similarly, the paper demonstrates how, rather than being a case of the Israelis getting the neo-cons to pressure the United States to change its policies to a more hard-line position, it was American neo-cons pressuring Israel to change its policies to a more hard-line position.
The people behind PNAC and other neo-conservatives were indeed allied with more traditional conservatives like former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to push the United States to take a more assertive position in the region. This was not in support of Israel, but to establish “full spectrum dominance” by the United States over any international or regional rival, in the Middle East or anywhere else. For example, Feith, frequently cited as someone supposedly willing to put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s, used his post as under-secretary of defense for policy during the first term of the Bush administration to sanction and eventually order the purge of top Israeli Defense officials, over the protests of the Israeli government, for their decision to upgrade Harpy drones for China, which the Bush administration deemed a threat to U.S. strategic dominance in East Asia.
In any case, the neo-conservatives were not nearly as “profoundly important” as Mearsheimer and Walt pretend they are in shaping U.S. Middle East policy under the current Bush administration. Their primary role has been to provide the intellectual framework and rationalizations for policies - motivated by a number of strategic, economic and ideological factors - that would likely have been pursued in any case.
Indeed, one of the major fallacies of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book is the assumption that access and connections equal control over policy. For example, they describe in detail the activities of pro-Israel think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), emphasizing how WINEP has employed a number of former government officials. They are unclear as to how these activities translate into influence on policy, however, or how this translates into influence on the president or secretary of state, or any other key decision-maker. An influential group may convince a president to appoint one of their people to an assistant secretary position in the Defense Department or State Department, but that doesn’t mean they control policy, which is ultimately determined by the president and others at the top, who make their decisions based on what they - rightly or wrongly - believe to be in the best interest of the United States.
Other Middle East Policies
There are also serious questions regarding Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument that, were the Lobby not so powerful, U.S. policy toward the region would somehow be “more temperate,” as if the United States has pursued temperate policies in Central America, Southeast Asia, and other regions where perceived strategic, geopolitical and economic interests were at stake. For example, they insist that without the Lobby, “the United States would almost certainly have a different and more effective Iran Policy,” ignoring the Bush administration’s propensity to take similarly rigid and uncompromising posture toward Cuba and other so-called “rogue states.”
Mearsheimer and Walt blame U.S. support for Israel’s war on Lebanon during the summer of 2006 as another example of the Lobby’s power, ignoring that it was the United States that pushed Israel to attack Lebanon in the first place as a proxy war against Iran and Syria. Indeed, the desperate effort by the Bush administration to blame the Iranian and Syrian governments for the conflict illustrates that U.S. support for the Israeli offensive - which ended up being a major strategic setback for the Israelis - was motivated primarily by perceived U.S. regional interests than by concern for Israel’s right to self-defense.
Similarly, a strong case can be made that the United States’ unremitting hostility toward Hamas playing any role in Palestinian self-governance is less a reflection of the power of the Lobby than, as with the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon, it is of the U.S. obsession with preventing any anti-American Islamist group in the Middle East from exercising effective governance.
There is no question that the Israel Lobby has worked hard and largely successfully to garner congressional support, even from otherwise liberal Democrats, to support the Bush administration in its policies towards Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. However, Mearsheimer and Walt have yet to make a convincing case that the Bush administration’s policies towards these and other Middle Eastern countries would be very different without it.
The Lobby and Israel Policy
As I acknowledged in my original article, the Israel Lobby is far more influential regarding U.S. policy toward Israel than in the broader Middle East, but Mearsheimer and Walt grossly exaggerate their role regarding U.S.-Israeli relations as well.
The authors are particularly inaccurate in their assessment regarding the influence of the Lobby on the executive branch, which is primarily responsible for foreign policy, where lobbyists of all kinds tend to have less influence than they do in Congress. For example, the two presidents who most dramatically shifted U.S. policy in a more “pro-Israel” direction were Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, who were less dependent on Jewish voters and campaign contributions from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) and individuals than any modern presidents. Nixon’s tilt toward Israel was a result of his belief that that country, having proven itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies in the 1967 war, would be an important Cold War asset. In a similar vein, Bush has seen Israel’s right-wing government as a natural ally in his “war on terror.”
The U.S.-Israeli alliance is based primarily on strategic considerations rather than a powerful lobby. In my original critique, I cited a number of examples illustrating that whenever the president has deemed U.S. interests to be at variance with Israeli interests, U.S. national interest has prevailed. More recent examples include President Bush successfully blocking Israel’s lucrative plan to upgrade Venezuela’s F-16 fighters and his refusal to provide massive financial “compensation” for Israel’s disengagement from the occupied Gaza Strip and possible further disengagements from the West Bank.
Of course, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and related groups have been primarily responsible for Congress passing a number of resolutions by overwhelming bipartisan majorities every session declaring its support for particular Israeli policies, including defending and covering up for blatant Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. However, virtually all of these are non-binding resolutions. When AIPAC has tried to get Congress to force the president’s hand through binding legislation - such as the periodic attempts mandating that the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - they almost always fail.
One of the major arguments regarding the supposed power of the Lobby is through the contributions of its allied political action committees (PAC). In 2006, “pro-Israel” PACs and individuals are estimated to have contributed more than $9 million to party coffers and Congressional campaigns. While that is certainly a significant amount, it ranks significantly below that of PACs and individuals supporting the interests of lawyers ($58 million), retirees ($36 million), the real estate industry ($33 million), health professionals ($32 million), securities and investment firms ($29 million), the insurance industry ($21 million), commercial banks ($16 million), the pharmaceutical industry ($14 million), electrical utilities ($12 million), the oil and gas industry ($11 million), and the computer industry ($10 million), among others. Even contributions given in support of unions representing public sector workers, the building trades, and transportation workers each were significantly higher than the total contributions given in support of the Israeli government. Indeed, if political contributions made that big a difference, one would assume that - given that nine of the top 20 PACs are affiliated with labor unions - U.S. government policy would be solidly behind working people and far more hostile to the interests of powerful corporations. In any case, with rare exceptions, PACs allied with the Israel Lobby generally do not contribute more than 10% of the total amount raised by a given campaign.
True, there are cases when members of Congress critical of unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies lost re-election bids - such as Rep. Paul Findley and Rep. Cynthia McKinney. But, as I illustrated in my original article there were other far more significant sources of support for opponents and reasons for their defeat than the “pro-Israel” PACs. Furthermore, it is important to note that the vast majority of House members who refuse to follow AIPAC’s line are easily re-elected. For example, every Democratic member of Congress who refused to support the July 2006 House resolution supporting Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, subjected to vigorous lobbying by AIPAC, was re-elected by a larger margin than they were two years earlier.
It is also important to recognize the broad array of interests that find it advantageous to exaggerate the Lobby’s power. Some members of Congress and their aides want to deflect criticism from progressive constituents opposed to their support for the occupation and other Israeli policies. Some foreign service officers want to do the same to foreign leaders by making the U.S. government appear to be a hostage to special interests beyond the administration’s control. There are also the constituent components of the Lobby itself, which find it useful for fundraising purposes and as a means of intimidating members of Congress. There are Jews who find the idea of having such power and influence a liberating antidote to centuries of oppression. And, of course, there are bigots who find the exaggeration of Jewish power and influence a highly-effective means of spreading their anti-Semitic ideology.
As a result, while it is important to acknowledge where the Israel Lobby does indeed have clout, it is also important to be wary of the multiplicity of reasons why so many people would, consciously or unconsciously, tend to overstate its influence.
Consistency in Policy
A number of examples given by Mearsheimer and Walt regarding the unique influence of the Israel Lobby when, examined more closely, do not appear to be unique at all.
One example they give of the Lobby’s supposed power was the failure of the Bush administration to more harshly criticize the Israeli government for ordering a missile strike on the home of a Hamas leader in June 2003. Yet, U.S. support for the assassinations of alleged terrorist leaders is not a policy that comes about as a result of Israeli influence. For example, earlier that year, the U.S. government itself ordered a missile attack on an automobile in Yemen that killed an alleged al-Qaeda leader and five others.
Mearsheimer and Walt also claim that the failure of the United States to follow through on previous U.S. commitments to enforce a promised Israeli freeze on its illegal settlements in the West Bank was a response to pressure by the Lobby, ignoring the fact that the United States has never pressured Turkey, Morocco, or Indonesia to freeze their settlements in their occupied territories, which are also illegal.
The authors try to make the case that more moderate elements within the administration, such as Secretary of State Powell, lost out to hardliners like Cheney and Rumsfeld on policy decisions involving Israel as a result of pressure from the Israel Lobby. Rather than being proof of the power of the Lobby, however, it is more accurately just one of many examples in which Powell came out on the losing end of power struggles within the administration, most of which involved issues unrelated to Israel. In addition, the authors fail to consider that Cheney and Rumsfeld might have been motivated by their own ideological preconceptions.
This underscores another major fallacy of Mearsheimer and Walt: their claim that, “For past several decades, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel.” Any serious look at U.S. diplomatic history in the region, however, underscores the primacy of access to Persian Gulf oil as well as support for strategic allies - of which Israel is perceived to be the most important, but not the only one - to counter Communist and left-wing nationalist forces in earlier decades and, more recently, anti-American Islamic extremism. Instead of recognizing that the United States uses Israel to strengthen its domination of the region, however, Mearsheimer and Walt insist that it is the other way around. In one sense, it is not an either/or proposition. As the leftist Israeli journalist Uri Avnery put is, “The U.S. uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the U.S. to dominate Palestine.” It is a quid pro quo the United States is quite willing to accept. Mearsheimer and Walt are essentially correct in observing that the United States doesn’t gain much by Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. But history shows it hasn’t actually significantly hurt U.S. relations with its Arab allies, who are quite willing to give lip service to the Palestinian cause but see maintaining a close strategic relationship with the United States as more important. While Mearsheimer and Walt are certainly correct that U.S. support for the Israeli government has greatly harmed popular perceptions of the United States within the Arab and Islamic world and has contributed to the rise of anti-American extremism, the failure of the U.S. government to be more sensitive to this fact is more a reflection of the longstanding historic tendency to downplay the importance of the masses relative to their governments than an example of the Israel Lobby somehow forcing the United States to pursue policies against its own interests.
Corporate Influences in Israel Policy
In their lengthy book, Mearsheimer and Walt largely ignore the influence of the military-industrial complex in the close U.S.-Israeli relationship. For example, the authors note that “The US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such to-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets…,” with the assumption that this is the result of the Israel Lobby. They fail to mention, however, that Sikorsky, manufacturers of Black Hawk helicopters, lobbied vigorously for these arms transfers and that Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-16s and the nation’s largest defense contractor, donated more than $1 million to the campaigns of members of relevant Congressional committees alone. Both companies have a “revolving door” relationship with Pentagon, as former top procurement officers are immediately offered lucrative jobs upon their retirement to lobby their former colleagues.
Mearsheimer and Walt downplay this role of American arms manufacturers by noting that Israel is allowed to spend up to one-quarter of its military aid domestically. However, even that 75% is far more than any other country receives. Even “domestic” Israeli arms production involves the purchase of American parts and includes lucrative partnerships with American firms. Furthermore, this U.S. military assistance to Israel makes it possible for the United States to then sell arms to Arab countries concerned about countering perceived strategic vulnerabilities as a result of Israeli procurement of American armaments.
The combined U.S. foreign aid currently provided to the governments of Egypt and Colombia, which - like the Israeli government - engage in serious human rights abuses, is close to the amount of aid received by the Israeli government. Yet neither of these two countries has a massive lobby working on its behalf or an influential ethnic community that identifies with those states.
It is also important to note that the United States spends far more money to fund its far-flung bases in the Arab world than it does to support Israel and that Americans spend 50 times as much annually on the war in Iraq than on aid to Israel.
Similarly, while the authors are quick to note how a number of think tanks supportive of a militaristic U.S. policy have a disproportionate number of Jews in influential positions, they fail to mention that their boards of directors also include non-Jewish representatives from major arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Cypress International, which presumably have other motivations for supporting a militaristic U.S. policy in the Middle East.
The Role of Ideology
Another factor overlooked by Mearsheimer and Walt is the role of ideology and prejudice. Most detailed studies of the Bush White House, for example, reveal that the president has a genuine ideological affinity with Israel, which he has spoken of publicly on a number of occasions. And such a bias is not just among right-wing fundamentalist Christians like Bush.
The sentimental attachment many Americans - particularly liberals of the post-World War II generation - have for Israel should not be underestimated and goes a long way in explaining why so many otherwise liberal members of Congress and other influential left-of-center voices take positions that even within Israel itself would be considered to be on the right-wing of the political spectrum. There is a great appreciation for Israel’s internal democracy, progressive social institutions (such as the kibbutzim), the relatively high level of social equality, and Israel’s important role as a sanctuary for an oppressed minority group that spent centuries in the Diaspora. Through a mixture of guilt regarding Western anti-Semitism, personal friendships with Jewish Americans who identify strongly with Israel, and fear of inadvertently encouraging anti-Semitism by criticizing Israel, American liberals show an enormous reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international law. Many American liberals of this generation have an idealist view of Israel that is both as sincere and inaccurate as the idealized view of Stalin’s Russia embraced by an earlier generation of American leftists or that of various Third World revolutionary regimes by many in my generation. To many Americans who are middle aged and older, Israel is still seen as it was portrayed in the idealized and romanticized 1960 movie Exodus, starring a young Paul Newman.
Contributing to this view is the widespread racism in American society against Arabs and Muslims, often encouraged in the media. Such racist attitudes toward Arab and Muslim peoples (i.e., the only language they understand is force), particularly since 9/11, is a phenomenon that - while certainly encouraged by elements of the Israel Lobby - has unfortunately been deeply rooted in American society, and Western culture in general, for centuries. This is compounded by the identification many Americans have with Zionism in the Middle East as a reflection of their own historical experience in North America as immigrants and pioneers. In both cases, European migrants - many of whom were escaping religious persecution - built a new a nation based upon noble, idealistic values while simultaneously suppressing and expelling the indigenous population seen as violent and “primitive.” The strong identification Americans have with Israel, then, is less the fact that it is a Jewish state as it is perceived as a Western state.
The exaggerated view of the power of the Lobby also becomes self-fulfilling. Peace and human rights activists and their organizations tend to be far more forgiving of Democratic candidates who take right-wing positions regarding Israel than they do of any other issue because they have come to believe these candidates are supposedly powerless to stand up to the Lobby and therefore should be absolved of any responsibility. As a result, since these politicians do not have to worry about pressure from the other direction, giving in to the demands of the Lobby becomes the path of least resistance. This is why quotes by leaders of the Lobby used by Mearsheimer and Walt to illustrate their supposed influence, rather than providing proof of their power, are more likely deliberate hyperbole to scare off challenges.
Before the Lobby even bothers to mobilize around a particular issue, pre-emptive censorship takes place. For example, host organizations have canceled scheduled events on the excuse that they might result in protests from the Jewish community, even in cases where no organized opposition had yet emerged. Recent examples include the postponement of the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” by the New York Theater Workshop; the cancellation of an appearance at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs by Mearsheimer and Walt; the cancellation of a speech by former South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis; and the denial of venue of a scheduled concert by Lebanese folk musician Marcel Khalife by the Joan Kroc Theater in San Diego. In each case, the sponsoring or hosting organization did not buckle to protests, but made their decision based simply on private concerns expressed by certain members of the Jewish community about the possibility that there would be protests.
The Default Explanation
In Mearsheimer and Walt’s world view, the Israel Lobby becomes the default explanation for every wrong turn the United States has made in the Middle East. They have a hard time accepting the possibility that those who have led the United States into these tragic misadventures could be acting out of sincere, however seriously misguided, conviction.
Given that their flawed arguments have already gotten far more support and attention than they deserve - with their book on bestseller lists and their being granted major forums in towns and cities across the country - it is ironic that they insist they have been “stifled.” Nor do they acknowledge that forums that have denied them a podium may have chosen to do so because they recognize that their work is fundamentally flawed and not because of pressure from the Lobby.
The fact that so many people have so easily bought into Mearsheimer and Walt’s transparently superficial arguments may be indicative of a subtle but pervasive anti-Semitism in American society, even among supposed progressives. Or perhaps it’s just a kind of naive liberalism that finds it psychologically more comfortable to blame immoral, irrational, and dangerous policies on a small group of bad guys rather than take a more systemic, radical critique of the nature of U.S. imperialism. Of course, the same kind of simple-minded, superficial arguments have been leveled against Mearsheimer and Walt. Abraham Foxman’s reply, The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control is an even worse piece of analysis.
There is no question that the Israel Lobby is one important factor influencing U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not, however, the only factor or the most important factor.
There is also no question that the Israel Lobby has made informed debate on U.S. support for Israeli policy far more difficult than it would be otherwise and, as a result, has made it much harder for peace and human rights activists to make as much headway in challenging U.S. policy as we would otherwise be able to do. However, while this is certainly not insignificant, this is very different than the assertion of Mearsheimer and Walt that U.S. policy would be considerably more enlightened without the Lobby’s influence.
Their book and article and the debate surrounding them has been a distraction from the serious re-evaluation of U.S. Middle East policy so desperately needed.
Stephen Zunes
Copyright © 2007, Institute for Policy Studies
Excellent article - it confirms what I have read and studied over the past couple of years. Thank you Stephen Zunes.
Good article indeed. While I think there is much validity to Mearsheimer and Walt’s writings, I agree with the criticism Zunes makes. As an anti-Zionist Jew I am also aware of the virulent antisemitism that pervades US society. Criticism of the nightmare that is Zionism and US support for it is not antisemitic but when people assert that Israel or a cabal of Jews runs the US they have crossed into antisemitism and sound like their quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a bigoted tracts written in Tsarist Russia. They not only reveal their antisemitism but their lack or political sophistication and class analysis.
Arabs are semites too. After that lengthy treatise, it’s intermission time. Meet you in the Izzy lobby.
The lobby itself may not be that powerful but fear of it certainly is at least in Washington and that fear is enough for many politicans to refrain from standing up to AIPAC’s policies. What was done by AIPAC to defeat Earl Hillard, Cynthia McKinney, and Paul Findley are lessons other politicans have not forgotten.
Non-Jewish Palestinians and neighboring States refused to participate in the partition of the Palestine Mandate because they did not believe the UN had any legitimate right to do such a thing. Retrospectively, it appears that they were correct, and it is today the primary function of the Israel Lobby to prevent any discussion, much less action regarding the root cause of the Middle East’s problems: The existance of an illegal Israel.
Unless the raison d’etre of a Zionist State is questioned, no real progress towards a solution to Palestine’s travail will ever happen.
The book’s importance is that it was a major academic institution and scholars who brought up the issue of the Lobby.
That’s why it got the attention and the alarm–just as Jimmy Carter’s book did.
The power of the lobby cant be exaggerated–how many times has Bush and the dems said that the reason they need to stop Iran is for Israel?
They never talk about Israel’s nukes and the threats it makes against other countries.
if Israel vanished tomorrow the world would be a little safer but we would still have wars and arabs killing arabs.
The most dangerous lobbies are Israel, the NRA and the automobile/drug/oil/livestock industries.
I like much of what this author has written, but here he seems to over simplify himself while accusing the authors he criticizes for do this. He maintains that the real driving force behind US foreign policy in the Middle East and on Israel is strategic US interests. I would have to think he means access to resources in that region. Were that the case, then the US policy there would be pro Arab and maybe more so today, with the Arab world heavy control of the international oil supply so much in demand today.
The Israel lobby are those who give blind support to the state of Israel’s policies also, not people who just happen to be Zionists.
Furthermore, I don’t think the factors which Stephen Zunes cites otherwise, and do have a role, were factors which these authors deliberately left out but instead didn’t cite as that wasn’t the topic of the book they wrote. To say that the Israeli lobby has a huge amount of power isn’t in the least to deny the influence of other factors, but simply to draw attention, much needed in this, to one particular factor.
Also if the Israeli lobby is simply like other lobbies on foreign policy, then why is it that only Israel has gotten away with the cold blooded killing of US servicemen on the USS Liberty with not not even the hint of US retaliation. This isn’t about Jews. Israel isn’t the Jews, and actually carries out a great libel on a great libel by pretending to represent them. It does no such thing! It misrepresents the hell out of a great people.
When Britain, another country much more of a solid ally, back in late 1963 or early 1964 simply sold buses to Cuba, Lyndon B Johnson threatened it with economic retaliation, when not one American service member had lost any life nor anything else. No other country could continue to get the blank check from the USA which Israel now gets without a very powerful lobby to silence its opponents in ways similar to, but going beyond what the “China lobby” did for the Formosa gang in Far East policy back in the 1950s and into the 1960s. In the case of the China lobby the resources weren’t under the control of Formosa, but mainland China where Mao’s supporters had control of the government, but the US Government instead supported the “China lobby.”
Again I like a lot of what Zunes has written but have to disagree on this one.
Enough with the isreali/zionist apologies. This oppressive racist regime is a threat to world peace and the advancement of civilization. The world community must take action against it and its nukes. Sanctions? No action should be ‘off the table’.
Two conjoined-Interests (be they Mythos or be they simple/elitist-Greed abusing Ideology) do not make a ‘right’.
These convenient, abhorrent, covert, and criminal ’shared-Interests’ need (have LONG needed) the ‘light of day’ and full-exposure. Do that alone, and much will follow…
“. . . policy, which is ultimately determined by the president and others at the top, who make their decisions based on what they - rightly or wrongly - believe to be in the best interest of the United States.”
Stumbled over this statement “best interest of the US” in an otherwise excellent article. This assumption seems overly simplistic and jarring. I believe that BushCo may try to convince themselves that they have the best interests of the country at heart, but their real motives seem to be far removed from that. A case of shadow-blindness, denial and all-pervasive fantasy.
Like the purpose of this article –to encourage honest re-evaluation of US imperialism, we must also refrain from
statements that, even covertly, let our imperial rulers off the hook. We must look clearly at the underlying motives here. The facts lead one to believe that BushCo is at least equally, or perhaps even more, concerned in the interests of their corporate and oil buddies as well as political power for themselves. This is a far cry from the “best interests of the US”.
The above article, while overly long for delineating the point, is adequate in some respects but adolescently naive in others. For instance, it’s continued reinforcing of Bush as a “decider” of policy, when Clinton’s description of the U.S. presidency as evolving into a ceremonial position is more accurate. And while some Jews, such as Kissinger and that other worthless scumbag, Rumsfeld, among a host of others, give the impression that Jews are behind the most trouble in the world, it still is only the age old problem of evil people who wish to control everything, although a detailed treatise of the evil perpetrators in world society would likely portray some interesting patterns worthy of contemplation.
Another misdirection is “Contributing to this view is the widespread racism in American society against Arabs and Muslims…” which is a simplified version of the reality. Anyone who follows current geopolitical affairs should understand that the ordering of world society is inherently racist, with the majority of nations of “white” races actively working together to undermine and fragment all other nations of “non-whites”.
I agree with the consensus that it was not Walt and Mearsheimer’s intention to cover all the various reasons for the US fatal decision to invade and occupy Iraq. No other group in this country had more of an influence in that decision than the Israeli lobby. The military industrial complex and oil corps aside. It is a given that big business is always out for the bottom line. True, no one should exclude their complicity, but niether represents a foriegn special interest group. What right does Israel have to pressure, threaten, manipulate intelligence via (OSP) and control media in favor of war involving the USA? It is our tax dollars and blood being spread all over the desert for a rogue, illegal state like Israel.
May I suggest Stephen Zunes tune into C-Span’s Washington Journal in the mornings to see what the people of this country really think of our “friend” Israel. He is living far in the past if he thinks the majority of Americans still have this warm and fuzzy kinship with it. If our MSM was not owned by Zionists, we’d relish a more balanced view of the Middle East like Europe and the rest of the world enjoy.
With the exception of Hagee’s warped Cristian Soldiers, not many are buying it anymore. The Federal Reserve and Wall St. are owned and operated by Zionist central banks in Europe. We do what they dictate.
Here, in his own words:
“Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws!” — Amshell Rothschild
Yes JmacNeil, but some of the very people promoting racism hatred against Muslims and Arabs are members of that same Israel lobby and the AIPAC crowd. Look at Daniel Pipes and his Campus Watch, Steven Emerson is another and Perle and his gang over at the American Enterprise Institute. There’s also Horowitz and his Islmofascism Awareness Week which demonized Muslims while promoting Israel. They are linked together and can be traced back to the Arab Israeli conflict.
I’ll also add that traditionally anti-Jewish sentiment did not exist in the Islamic world antisemitism has arisen in that part of the world due to the Arab Israeli conflict in turn. In Europe when Jews were being mistreated in Spain and elswhere Morocco and other Arab countries welcomed the persecuted Jews and protected them allowing them to thrive. This was a history many have forgotten I’m afraid.
As I always I am dumbfounded to see the continual publication of Zunes work on this website or in fact ANY website. The gift of quoting your OWN articles in your own articles to back your OWN agenda has reached a point of dull and listless perfection. I suppose we live in a world where only crass and blatant writing falls into the category of propaganda.
Thanks to Mr. Zunes and his cadre the ever growing pro-israeli/zionist writers masquerading as people on the left and so-called ‘academic’ individuals purport to give a ‘fair and balanced’ view of a situation with the Orwellian intent of shifting and blurring the boundaries of objective discussion till it falls into the domain of near-far right equating to being ‘far left’.
These convenient labels of right and left and center only aid these paid servants of Zionists and their allies in their primary goal of confusing the issues, falsifying facts and distorting history to the point where trying to actually understand the issues becomes so arduous that the ‘masses’ numbed from this onslaught resign themselves to the ‘lives of quiet desperation’ and are ultimately keep their opinions to themselves because of a conjoined and organized effort by writers/posters and of course institutions that continue to their deluge of propaganda to flood the reasonable mind till it becomes numbed to embedded lies, specious reasoning and fallacious logic.
For that- MR . Zunes and your many collegues - I must congratulate you. You and your brethren have succeeded in becoming an infestation and continual blight on the mental sanity of most of us - really you must be SO proud that this concerted effort continues to bear fruit by causing most americans to to be stultified in opposition of the squandering of our countries resources, morals, pride and of course true objectives; in addition to beng stupefied as to how less than one percent of this nations population can LITERALLY sideline the 99 percent of us. I must envy you and your cabal for having the audacity and persistence to permeate this fetid collection of tripe, cliche, propaganda and fo course purposive confusion to every corner of the globe.
These articles have so much untruth, so many flaws and so much propaganda and fallaciousness I can not start to dismantle them - as it would require an extensive tome.
Suffice it to say - I am writing this in hopes that people will forego the politically correct approach of convenient agreement or concise disagreement and skewer these worthless articles. I know one poster described you as a ‘coomforatble establishmentarian hack’ - I feel thsi is too kind. You are an the worst sort - an individual who has forsaken the very ethos of humanity for the crumbs of your masters and peoples- and will unrepetantly continue to do so -safe in the knowledge that your existence is forgetable, comfortable and secure.
Re: “Israeli officials came on board only after the decision had been made, apparently with the promise that Iran would become the next target.”
This statement implies, then, that if the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be because of a promise made by the neocons to Israeli officials, in order to gain their support for the invasion of Iraq. To take this implication multiple steps forward, then, indicates that the only group who can influence the neocons to NOT attack Iran is the same Israeli officials with whom the original deal was made. Those Israeli officials must let the neocons off the hook re their promise to make Iran the next target.
“There is also no question that the Israel Lobby has made informed debate on U.S. support for Israeli policy far more difficult than it would be otherwise and, as a result, has made it much harder for peace and human rights activists to make as much headway in challenging U.S. policy as we would otherwise be able to do. However, while this is certainly not insignificant, this is very different than the assertion of Mearsheimer and Walt that U.S. policy would be considerably more enlightened without the Lobby’s influence.”
It’s good that the debate is joined with articles such as this that attempt to spread the blame, and some of it may have some degree of veracity. My own belief is somewhat different in that I believe that given the small numbers of Jewish People in the U.S. their influence far outweighs their numbers and has been a negative influence in American domestic and foreign policy.
From the perspective of an American Indian, Jews have been deeply remiss in not recognizing the American Holocaust. Mention of it is scarce and possibly non-existent in Jewish scholarly writings. It seems to me that the Jews have clearly attempted to use the Jewish Holocaust for Jewish political advantage, i.e. the suppression of voices critical of American Jews and Israeli policies. It has been very effective in doing so.
American Indian scholars have little chance to voice their viewpoints in the American media. There is an unwritten rule in the American media that some Indian cultural information is permissible but Indian political viewpoints are off limits. As Stephen Zunes suggests in this article, it cannot all be laid at the doorstep of Jewish People, but in my opinion, Jews have been willingly complicit. Despite the wide influence of Jewish People in both the movie and media industries, only the Jewish Holocaust is allowed through the media filter.
Even when Jewish directors have attempted to tell the story of a particular American Indian event such as the recent airing of Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, pure fiction predominates and the truth of the event is lost in the efforts to maximize profits. Wounded Knee was a MASSACRE by American Soldiers against UNARMED Indians. That truth seems to have been lost on the producer.
So when I hear apologists for Jewish People try to spread the blame for Iraq policy, I will read it and consider it, but I do so with a jaundiced mindset.
The only place one hears about the Isreali lobby is on common dreams. You won’t get this from Rhodes, Hartmann, or other pseudo progressives.
The Jewish “holocaust” is a fable designed to elicit sympathy and solicit support. That is not to say that many Jews didn’t perish at the hands of the Nazis, only that it is far from being the worst crime against humanity in history and so does not merit the exclusive designation of “holocaust”. And of course the Israelis or Israeli supporting Jews aren’t going to recognize history’s real holocaust against the indigenous Americans because that would weaken their own position and, as everyone knows, they are not interested in justice but solely in ambition and profit.
The US plutocrats could give a damn about Israel; Israel is a useful gendarme state and it contributes toward projecting the US elite’s military power.
In fact, the WASP core of the US plutocracy has always been anti-ethnic Jewish.
Ironically, the “religious” or Christian fundamentalists who ally with various Jewish lobbies are anti-Jewish religion. These self-declared Christian fundamentalists believe Jews are damned unless they convert.
The saddest aspect of continued Liberal support for Israel is that these Liberals are supporting a theocratic state. In the US, such Liberals are horrified when any religious group actively promotes a theocratic USA.
To me, Israel is a white-European settler state; the US and South Africa are similar states.
Historically, settler states are based on invasion, settlements,expansion, genocide and ethnocide.
Hitler’s Germany attempted to develop settler states in Eastern Europe (especially Poland)and Russia. Part of this lebensraum program included the continued and future mass-killing of millions of Untermenschen: Slavs, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, and so on.
Last, the monopolization of WWII’s Holocaust by some ethnic Jews, is both self-serving and demonstrates the West’s ideological blinders.
First, the Romany (Gypsies) were going to be exterminated because of their supposed racial characteristics. And about half of Europe’s Romany were executed or worked to death.
Very few filmmakers, documentarians,etc. have made movies, TV programs,etc. concerning the Romany holocaust. There are few memorials.
In addition, Hitler’s regime also planned a final solution for Communists -especially those in leadership and middle-level positions. In fact, millions were shot, gassed, and/or tortured simply because they held Communist Party cards and identity papers.
Of course, Communists are not considered worthy of any form of human consideration.
Last, the plans for Slavs after Nazi conquest would put the number of exterminated in the tens of millions. The approximately 20 million cilivian Russians killed by the Nazi conquerers was only a small number relative to the long-term genocidal plans of the German settler states in the East.
The German settler states of the East were planning to keep a few million Slavs alive for slave labor purposes, and the living Slav population was slated to receive a minimal education…the amount needed to perform manual labor for their German masters.
No independent industrial and economic development was planned for the East; the German Eastern settler states were going to be agrarian economies.
Alas for the Slavs: the only good option they had was Stalinism in Russia’s multi-ethnic state and Russian domination of Eastern Europe.
The Baltic societies, on the other hand, would probably have done better under an established Nazi conquest state.
So, the Israeli theocratic settler state iw organized for White European settlers but it does much less for the nn-white Muslims, Arab Christians, and non-White Jews.
And for those Palestinians living in the conquered territories, they daily get a wiff of what Slavs under Nazi rule were subjegated to.
balakirev says “Alas for the Slavs: the only good option they had was Stalinism in Russia’s multi-ethnic state and Russian domination of Eastern Europe.” WOW!!! Perhaps balakirev should read a bit of USSR history - starting from the early 1930s with Gareth Jones’ reporting.
The lobby shows the working of networking between the common interests of rich and powerful peoples. The energy resource gobbling entity that is the US of Israel is a product of circumstance and history, an emergent phenomena like many others. Its only an expression of the sum of forces that motivate millions. There is no one in control. Whoever gets to the top becomes the tool of all. It is also as evanescent as the war on terror, and one day will dissolve into something else.
balakirev - here is a good link to start http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/
I have to admit, this is one of the few articles that is critical of the book “The Israel Lobby” that doesn’t insult my intelligence in the first few sentences. Indeed, it is a very “odd” article, since it is critical of both “The Israel Lobbdy” and Abe Foxman’s reply to it, “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control”. It seems to me that most prominent writers who are critical of “The Israel Lobbdy” do so from the Foxman perspective or something similar. This article is at least a little more nuanced and honest, even if it incorporates certain old canards and Zionist apologetics in making its case.
I find that, among other things, it misrepresents Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. Since the “Israel Lobby” is about the Israel Lobby, it certainly isn’t going to be a book that gives equal time to ALL the factors shaping U.S Middle East policy. In fact, the authors never deny that there are other important factors responsible for U.S foreign policy in the Middle East; the Zionist lobby, an agent of a foreign government, is worth a lot of scrutiny. At least Zunes concedes that the Zionist lobby is powerful; many Zionists almost pretend it doesn’t even exist, or to say it is “powerful” is “anti-Semitic”, or it is politically impotent at best!
I find fault with Zunes for suggesting that the power of the lobby is restricted to Israel’s dominance in historical Palestine and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians. They lack the power to get the U.S to fight wars on Israel’s behalf in other words, according to Zunes, or at least they are not an important factor in starting these conflicts.
Zunes article is but the latest in an attempt by Zionists to disown the disaster in Iraq that they helped create. The Zionist lobby may not be the MAIN cause of this Iraq mess, but they are certainly one of THE causes. This is all very recent history, as anyone can easily look up all the pro- Iraq war propaganda put out by Zionists in the lead up to the Iraq war. The “Israel Lobby” in fact is a good start Indeed, these zionist hawks are very often the same people who are against a withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq and now want the U.S to bomb Iran.
This attempt to rewrite history would be funny if it weren’t so disturbing. It is true that not ALL Zionists advocated invading Iraq, but enough of them did to help get the wheels moving in that direction. Even in the “Israel Lobby”, the authors explain that the “lobby” is made up of many different factions who are sometimes at odds with one another.
Zunes even seems to buy the official Zionist party line that the U.S had Israel fight a proxy war against Iran by invading Lebanon and fighting Hezbollah, all on behalf of the U.S. I don’t buy this. Aside from this, certain things are taken out of context, such as comparing Israel’s illegal occupation to Turkey’s, Morocco’s and Indonesia’s illegal occupations. There are very huge differences between all of these. Indeed, I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that ALL of Israel is an illegal occupation. I believe if Big Oil dictated U.S foreign policy in the Middle East without Israeli interference, we would be a lot more fair to the Palestinians, since it would please the Arab business partners of theirs in the Persian gulf states. A “better” policy it might not be, but it would be remarkably different.
I admit that the Middle East would still have many problems even if Israel was never founded. Unfortunately, Israel’s founding, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of native Arabs made an already troubled region even worse.
“Their book and article and the debate surrounding them has been a distraction from the serious re-evaluation of U.S. Middle East policy so desperately needed.”
ROTFLMAO!
Stephen Zunes could hardly be more wrong. Those who have carefully studied the lobby and Israeli intelligence agencies’ operations here in the USA over the years are very likely to disagree with Zunes’s arguments and his conclusions. Professors Mearshemier and Walt’s work is flawed only in that it is too kind, to generous to the lobby. It is well-nigh impossible to overestimate the influence of the pro-Israel crowd or the consequent harm to legitimate US interests during the past half century or so.
Before the FBI/SFDA investigation of the ADL in the early 1990s and the resulting spy scandal, the Zionist political espionage machine regularly ran roughshod over the rights of American citizens in this, their own country. Just ask anyone who has been targeted by the Zionist machine.
Israeli leaders courted the loony Christian Right, giving Falwell a private jet to fly about the country and the world spreading his gospel of a hateful vengeful God and idolatrous worship of Israel, even as pro-Israel operatives were busy actively suppressing the development of progressive religious thought here in the USA. Now, Zunes wants to complain that the Bushies encouraged Israel’s ill-conceived attack on Lebanon in 2006. But Hezbollah’s stunning defeat of Israel and the public relations disaster that was a direct result of Israel’s slaughter of Lebanese civilians is largely a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. The pro-Israel lobby’s support of the loonly Christian Right, coupled with its policy of persistently eliminating voices in the Congress favoring a sane, just, moderate foreign policy (just ask Percy, Findley, McCloskey, McKinney, Hilliard, et al.), is largely responsible for the ascendance of the fanatics who are now putting Israel at great risk.
Sorry, Zunes, your arguments don’t stand up to inspection.
Unfortunately, informed debate on any issue in America just plain doesn’t exist any more. Sad.
oluk
If the Russian and East European Slavs only had a choice between the German Settler-States of the East (lebensraum)based on the planned mass extermination of Slavs, with the residual population enslaved and purposely undereducated OR Stalin’s Slavic Empire based on a form of Slavophile mass education, cultural development and industrialization through terror, which would you choose?
Unfortunately Mr. Zunes does not address the fact that NO American politician will criticize Israel or Israeli policy for fear of the termination of their political careers. This fact has been stated by many politicians, who if given the choice of remaining silent to blatantly illegal Israeli actions or facing election challenges in the primaries or general elections by suddenly well funded and organized opponents, will almost universally opt for silence. Cynthia Mckinney is the latest example of this AIPAC treatment, but there are many others who have opted for a shameful silence to the terrible injustices heaped upon Palestinians and Lebanese.
This fact of course gives a free hand to the Zionist affiliated politicans who know that they will face no opposition in their unqualified support for the criminal policies of the Israeli govt.
Interesting debate here, but it seems to me that the defenders of the Israel Lobby and those who try to deflect the light and heat from them are the ones holding the losing cards. It is well known, at least in Washington where the politicians live, that the Lobby is a powerful force. Whether there are other things that influence US policy in the Middle East (and there are, of course), AIPAC and the other members of the Israel Lobby are powerful and exert an inordinate amount of power on US policy.
Witness this conversation between Bill Moyers and M.J. Rosenberg who (according to transcripts) …”has spent his career in the secular politics of Middle East policy, first as an editor at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, then for almost fourteen years as a congressional aide on Capitol Hill.” http://tinyurl.com/yqhsz3
—
BILL MOYERS: But in this country the right wing, the radicals, if you will, you call them radicals, they are radicals. They’re organized. They have the money. They have this alliance with the Republican Party. And AIPAC and others make it impossible for Democrats to have the kind of conversation that you’re having here. I mean, you don’t hear this debate in the Democratic debates, do you?
M.J. ROSENBERG: You don’t. And that’s– it’s so amazing that no one asks the candidates about Israel and Palestine in debates, ever.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
M.J. ROSENBERG: I think the reason they don’t ask is that they know what the candidates are going to say is, “I love Israel. I stand with Israel. Israel is great.” End of the discussion.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
M.J. ROSENBERG: Because they are intimidated. What hap– what–
BILL MOYERS: By?
M.J. ROSENBERG: By the lobby which basically does not want a debate on this issue.
—
So, we have it straight from the insider’s mouth - the Israel Lobby is very powerful and controls much of the discussion in Washington about and around Middle East policy.
Seems to me that the defenders of the Israel Lobby don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Of course, this doesn’t stop them as long as one leg is planted in Israel.
balakirev - like most of those who were subjected to such a ‘choice’ I would not have ‘chosen’ one or the other - and that is why there was mass emigration as well as continual resistance and dissident activity from those who remained - similar ‘choices’ are currently being given to many groups around the globe - history repeats - just look at the middle east
One thing that unites the governments of the U.S. and Israel is White race. When typical Americans look at Israelis, they find the racist commonalities among themselves.
Therefore, then it becomes a fair game for typical Americans to “morally” justify Israeli interests as their own.
On the other hand, Jews occupy all big (if not the biggest) positions in and out of the U.S. government. As a result, Jews will always influence both private and public policies within the United States.
Walt & Mershimer’s The Israel Lobby is meticulously footnoted; Zunes had provided nary a one. What Zunes has provided is at best an apologia and at its worst a rant. I had a much higher opinion of Zunes before I read this.
Oku
During the 1930 Depression and WWII, there weren’t that many choices. Most Slavic peoples were still peasants and didn’t have many options.
If you remember, even the US allowed in very few immigrants. And most countries acted similarly.
The WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII produced unbelievably impossible situations for most of the people living in the industrialized and industrializing world.
So to equate options available because the world today is much more urbanized, formally educated and much more open to migration to the closed world produced by the massive global systemic breakdown of the 30s and early 40s is impossible.
The collapse of the First World was so complete that those Europeans that did immigrate ended up in places like Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Brazil. At the time, those nations seemed to best weather the horrific economic and military climate of the times.
However, all of the above Latin American nations were under the thumb of military dictatorships.
Why do you think so many artists, intellectuals, philosophers, etc. supported either communism or fascism? With the collapse of the world economy, those were the only two options available to most people in the industrially developed and developing nations of the time.
Only the populations of the US and UK seemed not to have had to face the above choice. (Though there was a Big Business coup attempt against Roosevelt in 1933.)
To give an example, when the German Wehrmacht invaded the Ukraine, many peasants welcomed the invaders with all of the traditional gestures they knew.
However, the Lebensraum-in-the-East-Program immediately showed its true colors; when the German SS killing squads entered the picture, mass extermination and ethnocide programs were quickly put into place.
As as result, many of these same Ukrainian peasants began to actively support the Soviet war effort. They found the alternative much worse than Stalin’s system.
Last, many Central European Jews attempted to flee Germany and Austria. Most were not accepted and were deported back and most met a deadly end.
Zunes is just trying to cover his ass and the ass of his fellow Zionists by denying the Zionist lobby’s power and its influence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Ever heard of Haim Saban? Well he’s a millionare Zionist based in California who funds the Brooking’s Institute Saban’s Center on Middle East Policy. The Center recently put out a paper arguing for a “Soft Partition of Iraq” into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states.http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/06iraq_joseph.aspx Guess what Israeli policy since the 1980’s has been breaking up Arab and Muslim states in the region into tiny fractions that cannot challenge Israeli dominance. http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Seymour Hersh also talk’s about the Israeli strategy of Iraq partition here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
Well, I have to say that after following the link to Zunes’ original article at the Foreign Policy in Focus, I can understand the reason he and others might have their backs up at the Mearsheimer and Walt book. If, as some have written, Mearsheimer and Walt are trying to deflect US policy fuck-ups in the Middle East from the Bush administration to the Israel Lobby, then I’ll have to weigh in with Zunes.
However, I can’t help but notice how everyone involved seems to be casting very small nets, as if they’re each afraid of capturing their own favored fish in the haul.
From what I’ve read and from my own intuition, this is what I believe: US policy in the Middle East is driven by several factors, most importantly, hegemony, oil, and our relationship with Israel. The issues of US hegemony and our greed for oil are ours, and we own them. We can’t pawn these issues on enyone else.
The last issue, Israel, is where the Israel Lobby comes in. Yes, Israel is an ally, but I have to ask why. When was the last time Israel came to the defense of the United States? When was the last time they gave us aid or money or weapons (God forbid)? And why in God’s name are we so wrapped up in concern over them when most of the rest of the world goes to Hell in a handbasket without nary a peep from us? What influence does the state of Israel have on the US, when the US has a minority of Jewish citizens?
The Israel Lobby is the answer. No, we are not in the Middle East solely to protect Israel, but it is a large part of what we do there and why we turn a blind eye to the apartheid that is occuring in Palestine.
I would be very interested in seeing just how much US policy in the Middle East would change if the Israel Lobby were not the influence they are. I think we would have a saner policy. And, I think, quite a few more Americans would be alive today.
balakirev - Your views are valid, of course - but consider that at some point, in the real world, the word ‘choice’ loses meaning if the alternatives are equally horrendous. Do all the people of Iraq count their blessings now that George Bush has liberated them or do some long for the past when fewer died under Saddam’s rule? And just to go off topic - I hope you and all visitors to this site have a safe and joyful holiday season, regardless of your religious convictions.
To actually start a good analysis of the Israel Lobby’s power, we should start by analyzing the 6-Day War and especially Israel’s lethal attack of the electronic eavesdropping ship: USS Liberty.
This attack occurred 40 years ago and left about 35 sailors dead and over a 120 wounded.
In reponse, there was no widespread outcry or quick blame as we observed in the Cold War early ’80s when the Soviets shot down a S. Korean airliner, 707.
Additionally, there was no sustained investigation into the incident; this was (and is) the only time no such investigation was launched after a US naval vessel had been attacked or sunk when the US was not at war.
(Remember the Maine?)
Last, after the Israeli attack of the USS Liberty, a geologic shift in Israeli alliances occurred.
Until 1968, France was Israel’s leading supplier of military hardware and its main ally. After 1968, the US took over France’s role.
Why?
Did the non-consequences of Israel’s attack of the USS Liberty prove to Israel that the US would give them a free hand to do anything they wanted to the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors?
Almost every charge of human rights abuse, ethnic cleansing, torture, trial without jury, attacking civilian populations etc. that the US has leveled at its enemies, has also been perpetrated upon the Palestinians by the Israelis without widespread condemnation, judgement or negative labeling.
A piece of propaganda by the lobby itself, to be sure. I have to admit they are good.
Notwithstanding the truth about the US hegemonic, inhumane, and self-interested policies world over, it cannot be denied that the US policies in the Middle East converge with those of the Israelis. One does not need an Israeli apologist to claim who were behind the US attack on Iraq and encouraged such an attack.
It is now absolutely clear that Israel and powerful Zionist lobby groups and their supporters are the only forces pushing for a war with Iran. We don’t need Mr Zunes to come after the fact and claim it was otherwise.
“American liberals show an enormous reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international law.”
The reluctance is more to do with ignorance due to MSM controls. But what about government?. Why has not our government taken a harder stand on this?. And why has the media not covered it in a balanced fashion?. What is the influence? Certainly there is a Corporate influence. The Corporate MSM media that controls 90% of the news is owned by 5 companies with significant Israeli leaning ownership, and doesn’t the Israel lobby represent those corporate interests who want to support Israel’s approach. John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt book makes clear that the Israel lobby is not entirely Jewish, just as Israel is not entirely Jewish.
In fact, John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt make clear that the problem is not the Israel lobby, since lobbying is as American as apple pie. The problem is in leaders and representatives who are influenced by the lobbyists of all kinds and who make decisions that are not in the best interests of the Americans they lead or represent. Perhaps it is the MSM reaction they fear and not so much the Israel lobby, or perhaps the Israel lobby also lobbies the MSM. Or it may well be that Israel is serving the Globalists interests in creating a strategic tension in the Middle East that can be exploited on behalf of the One World government agenda, and the Israel lobbyists are most likely just one arm of the Globalist lobbyists.
The problem is American congressman and Presidents who are selling out their country.
And racism is a 2 way street based on my experience, those who use the race card most often should look in the mirror once in a while.
Racism against Arabs is discussed freely in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932384.html
I usually try to avoid posting on Israel. I recognize as do many others that not all Israeli’s agree with their governments policies, and many Jewish Americans do not agree with the views of the Israel lobby or Israeli government, as many Americans of all faith and races do not agree with our countries policies. Yet when you are critical of Israel, you get labelled an anti-semite, people get violently angry, and most Americans are so ignorant about the issues due to MSM bias it is hopeless anyways.
Books by Illan Pappe are interesting. That said, when there are 2 extreme versions to events, the truth generally lies somewhere closer to the middle. But Bush was once asked how he thought History will judge him. He answered, “it depends on who writes the history”. The history taught in schools and written by historians tends to be influenced by government and Tax Free Foundations funding and grants, so it tends to miss some elements that may show government in a unflattering light. So it is useful to read some revisionist History once in a while.
The biggest joke is that country club WASPs hate Jews and they always will. Now that they’re in bed together in what can only be called a marriage of convenience (oil and murder) it’s only a matter of time until Divorce Court.
I don’t get it? Why is Common Dreams wasting bandwidth on this? Why no leave this sort of apologetics to the New Yor Times?
The “marriage of convenience” that Zionists ad Repugs have made with the Christofascists is one they and we may all come to regret.
To Deran: right, right, right; it belongs in the NYT.
It is a massive, obfuscating red herring.
“I don’t get it? Why is Common Dreams wasting bandwidth on this? Why no leave this sort of apologetics to the New Yor Times?”
Because Common Dreams is more than a mouthpiece for one side…?
I’d like to think so and applaud them for giving us both sides. We’re adults here - we can handle it.
Bonnie December 23rd, 2007 7:33 pm
“Unfortunately, informed debate on any issue in America just plain doesn’t exist any more. Sad.”
“Informed debate” on issues would inevitably expose the global ruling elite (secret government) and their desire and plans to dominate the world. Opening up debate on issues that have been “intentionally” ignored are threatening to them since they cannot achieve their empire-building, World Order goals unless their lemmings are willing to tow-the-line and destroy the freedoms and rights of grievance which Constitutional Democracies have provided to citizens.
In this country, one only needs to look at the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Wiretapping Act, Signing Statements, Executive Privilege, etc. and the soon-to-be “Homegrown Terrorism Act” to realize that the United States of America is well on its way to becoming a dictatorship.
With that in mind, does it really make sense to attack a culture or religion, when in fact, the culture of this elitist group is “power” and their religion is “money”?
To engage in a Christian or Jewish conspiracy is missing the mark and diverting our attention away from the “real” issues and strategies of these arrogant, power-hungry elitists.
As Justice Louis Brandeis said: “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
MiMiCcS — I would appreciate your point of view:
(1.) Would you suspect that the Rothschild (banking) influence to create the State of Israel in England from 1930s is still the core of the current Israeli lobby?
(2.) If so, and then assuming the same lead bankers with their love of usury payoffs are the unseen faces behind corporarchy (oilagarchy), do we not have to conclude that the effective seat of world power is being channeled effectively through Israel?
(3.) Leading to the conclusion that WW III would be a likely result of any concentrated attack on Israel?
As an American Jew who is critical of both Israeli and US policy, who knows how few American Jews the lobby truly speaks for, who knows the Christian roots of Zionism as well as the Jewish ones and how deeply they run through Anglo-American political history (indeed back to when Zionism was a Jewish taboo), and who knows what drives US foreign policy worldwide, I found Zunes’s writing refreshingly on target.
It is not apologetic, as anyone can tell by going back and read what Zunes says about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Nor does it let the lobby off the hook for what it does. It asks only that we all take stock of what really drives policy rather than demonize in characteristic fashion.
Correspondingly, nearly all of the comments above were off base, either well-meaning but ill-informed on one or another of the above realities, or so drenched in race hatred as to send me to the shower for a rinsing off.
Zunes’s simple question is this: Knowing what we know about what the US does throughout the world and what interests its foreign policy serves, how would its Mideast policies differ without an Israel lobby, indeed, without an Israel?
The race haters can’t abide this question because it reduces them to sputtering — something they sink to with reluctance since in no time at all it bares their true bottom line. The better-intentioned critics avoid the question for a different reason: It directs them to look inward, or outward to the real power centers of which they are not a part and which their elected representatives won’t go after.
In this last regard, consider how feckless the political opposition has been across the board these last 7 years. Now ask how much of this is to be reckoned to the Jews.
And yet we come back, by hook or by crook, zum ewigen Jude. We’ve seen others go down that road. If there’s a domestic meaning to “Never again,” this is it. And don’t think the right won’t feel a reprieve when it happens. This warning, too, is in Zunes’s words.
FWIW, my largest charitable contribution this year was to a Native American cause. I say this only because a commenter made it relevant and it happens to be true.
I agree with the first two reader comments, and haven’t read more, yet, though did pick up a few clues while paging down.
One of those clues is with respect to Seymour Hersh on Israel and the Iraq War, an argument I’ve seen many enough people employ; however, it’s like the arguments against what Zune wrote in his May 16 2006 article at FPIF and for which I believe he provides a link in this above article. The arguments against the May 16th article and which I’m referring to are found in and via the reader comments on that article.
F.e., one of those readers posted a link or url to the following critique of what Zune argues.
“Indefensible Defense of the Israel Lobby: A Neo-Liberal Mistake”, June 2006,
http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Indefensible_Defense_of_Israel_Lobby.html
That critic pretends, very obviously so too, that he or she really is expert at logical analysis, but he or she contradicts him- or her-self in the same critique against Zune’s arguments. One example is like people claiming that because Israel strongly wanted war on Iraq, in public appearance anyway, well, it’s as if that desire of Israel’s, and its relations with the U.S. govt, is proof that Israel and it’s AIPAC lobby in the U.S. control the U.S. in terms of the Middle East.
It’s a very flawed view to take; at the very least because it proves nothing, that is, it does not prove what it claims to prove. And it’s like pretending that we can know the whole truth about anything and everything based on merely what meets the human eye and ear, as if truth can’t otherwise exist.
In that above critique, one example in which the critic defending Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s arguments proves to support them in a clearly flawed manner is when the critic quotes from M&W on how great the U.S. is with respect to academics having all the freedom in the world to speak, comparing that to Germany where universities are state schools and the professors are very repressed by the govt, should they speak out against it.
WE ALL KNOW by now that the U.S. is NOT a friendly country for academics who speak out with truth that is critical of the ruling elites’ agendas implemented via the U.S. govt. We know from the cases of Zune, Joseph Massad, Norman G. Finkelstein, and many other academics, that AIPAC has had serious power against them via their schools’ deans, and supporting state govts.
In that, M&W blatantly lie; although it might not literally be a lie, but if it isn’t, then it’s to be very, very ignorant of REALITY in the U.S.
In that alternativeinsight.com critique, the critic fortunately employed Zune’s argument that the U.S. MIC profits en masse from Israel, trying to counter that with the $2bn Zune referred to the U.S. giving to Israel being utilised for military purchases being money that the U.S. govt could instead transfer; using Egypt for example.
That’s a bogus argument to employ against Zune’s statement. Why would the U.S. govt want to transfer the billions of dollars stolen from U.S. taxpayers and given to Israel to Egypt? After all, the imperialists ruling the U.S. govt know that Egypt is a very Muslim country, as are all or most all countries in the Middle East, except for Israel. The U.S. imperialists also know that Big Oil and MIC are not going to lose, they’ll win big, even if there sometimes are some delays for the Big Oil tycoons; delays that don’t really matter in the short term, due to the oil extracted now is not immediately sold, the Big Oil cies using this oil to stock up reserves, what’s sold now is from past extraction, from what I’ve read anyway.
More important, I think, is that the imperialists ruling the U.S. govt have a worldwide economic agenda; they know that the U.S., even if it’s been superpower, can’t take on the whole world alone, and that Israel is very armed, has been helped very, very much by the U.S. in becoming the 4th to 6th most powerful military force in the world, that Israel will side with the U.S. in wars of aggression, that it’s the sole regional country to possess nuclear weapons ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, and that with the far more reaching agenda, geographically, Israel’s military might will be a very strong ally force.
Whether or not the ruling elites are using that sort of strategy with respect to Israel’s military might, I can’t say ‘absolutely yes’; but I can say that it’s strongly plausible that they have the strategy very in mind.
The U.S. is building up in Eastern European and Asian countries, and is encroaching upon Russia. The imperialist ruling elites of the U.S. govt know this reality, and they know the U.S. can’t accomplish the agenda alone. We know that this is true because of the very strong presence of NATO forces, and the UNSC is strongly undermined and corrupted for such purposes or agendas.
The critic at alternativeinsight.com uses the argument that U.S. warring on the Middle East is counter to the interests of Big Oil, but in no way proves this; it’s a superficially presented statement, unsupported.
Superficial arguments is what that alternativeinsight.com critique very much consists of; although not only superficial, for there are also the contradictions and the use of the lie of M&W that I mentioned above.
That critic pretends to have a stronger mind or ability with critical thinking than Zunes and people who argue like he does do; yet it takes a critical thinker to go through that critic’s arguments and be able to SEE the serious flawed nature of the whole critique. Even if he or she and likes turned out to be right in their guessing, the alternativeinsight.com critique nonetheless is very flawed, as also applies to many of the criticisms against Zune’s May 16 2006 article at FPIF.
Another of those reader’s is also critic, and his argument is a long list of titles of articles that the reader claims to be proof that the Israel lobby and Israel are controlling the U.S. in terms of the Middle East; a very long list of titles. He or she makes the same sort of mistake; pretending that what meets the eye is the WHOLE truth and nothing but truth, that there can’t be any trickery possibly involved.
Anyone who thinks that the whole truth and all lies are evident is idiot; hasn’t any significant critical thinking ability(ies).
The Israel lobby and Israeli govt leadership are wholly obvious in terms of what they hellishly pronounce for the whole world to hear and read, but that’s far from representative of the whole truth; including of their act(s), alone.
We do not require critical thinking in order to be able to see what meets the eyes and ears, but we do need CT to be able to correctly analyse what is seen, heard, and given text is something we also see, then also what we read.
We can read that Ahmed Chalabi lied in his attempt to have Cheney-Bush war on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but the critical mind knows that while he did this bs, he most definitely has no control whatsoever over the U.S. govt, nationally or internationally; in neither way.
Joseph Massad’s article explains very well the power or apparent power of the Israel lobby in terms of the U.S., nationally, and it’s more than only appearance; there’s evidently some real power in this. However, the appearance of this, and of the lobby’s warmongering … to get the U.S. to side with the so-called interests of the Israeli govt in terms of the Middle East, this serves the interests of the imperialist ruling elites of the U.S. govt very, very much.
It gets a lot of people believing that all of that appearance is proof of the lobby and the Israeli govt controlling the U.S. in the M.E.; while that draws attention away from the silent, far more anyway, imperialist rulers.
The blamers of or against the lobby and the Israeli govt never, as far as I’m aware anyway, address these strategic nuances, which are about matters that are strongly plausible reality; and that’s only if they aren’t the actual reality.
If they can’t correctly address the strongly plausible, then they have no credibility when claiming to be strong at critical thinking. They are then very superficial.
Maybe they should close their eyes and muff their ears, to give their minds some real chance of developing critical thinking abilities, for they sure do seem to be very distracted by matters that only are evident to the eye; not revealing anything more, really.
If Sherlock Holmes had been like them, then he wouldn’t have become a renowned investigator, detective. He used what he saw and read, but also applied critical thinking and imagination, as well as instinct and/or intuition. Imagination, instinct, and intuition, if the latter two are not synonymns, all complement critical thinking ability.
NUANCES need to be considered and the critics of Zunes and people arguing like him DO NOT nuance. They consider only one “angle” and evidently or seem to apply no or awfully little effort at considering other applicable or plausible angles.
They don’t conduct criticism of their own arguments; not considering that they might be in error. Real critical thinkers MUST criticise their own arguments and views, that is, they must analyse them for the pros and potential cons, weaknesses and flaws.
To not apply that approach is to be very OMISSIVE and negligent.
Steve,
I’m disappointed with this article. I am unsure why you are “revisiting” the book, as I don’t see what you have added from your earlier pieces on it.
Is US foreign policy in the Middle East being “dictated” by the “pro-Israel” organizations M&W refer to as the “Israel Lobby”? Of course not. Is it being “determined” by them? I don’t believe M&W use that term, but when there are multiple factors that contribute to an outcome, and the absence of one of the factors would result in a different outcome, it is not too unreasonable to say that the presence of that factor determined the particular outcome.
The underlying rationale of US foreign policy in the ME is, as you say, consistent with the overarching worldwide drive for profit through corporate domination. Policies of “free trade” or restricted trade, military force, foreign “aid” are generally reinforcing each other and in support of corporate profit. Ideological considerations play a role, but “in the lonely final moment”, I think it is fair to say those are “determined” by the drive for making money.
In the ME, this is primarily about oil, though the struggle for the oil also expresses itself in “Great Power” struggles as well. The US efforts to overthrow the pro-Soviet PDPA government cannot be reduced to a struggle for the resources of Afghanistan, or even a pipeline route for natural gas. I believe it was an effort to “make the Soviets bleed,” to strain their treasury, undermine their prestige in the world and “bloody their nose.” But all in concert with a global strategy to maximize profits for US corporations and their allied elites.
Using your framework, why was Israel established in 1948? It seems to be a case of your “reductionism” combatting your straw man caricature of the M&W thesis. Israel was not established to serve as a proxy client state for US (or British) imperialism. The Holocaust had created a mass of Jewish survivors who had little reason to return to their homes across Europe. They often had nothing to return to and no “neighbors” with whom they desired to live. Zionism, previously a minority, somewhat “crackpot” political theory, looked a helluva lot more sensible standing amidst the ruins, both physical and psychic, of European “civilization.” European had emigrated to the US, Australia, South America, and parts of Africa in an effort to “start anew”, why not Palestine, the “Land of our Fathers”? And, after all, Palestine was “a land without people for a people without land!”
Elite opinion in the US and Britain, to name two significant players, was mixed about the project. Certainly, they wanted any such state that might emerge to behave consistent with their interests, or at least, not conflict with their plans too much. But it would be a reductionist mistake to say that Israel was established to serve US (or Brit) interests.
I believe elite opinion in the US was sympathetic to the plight of European Jewry in the wake of the Holocaust. I also believe that influential American Jews lobbied hard for support for recognition of Israel. In fact, I do not believe that Israel would have been recognized by the US without this lobbying by influential American Jews. The Us would have still tried to find means to extract resources (mostly oil) from the region and engage in “Great Power politics”, sometimes in conflict with their British allies, to eventually be the dominant imperial power in the region. I do not believe they “needed” Israel for this to happen. There were powerful dynamics bringing Israel into existence and the US government decided to co-opt the Zionist movement rather than oppose it. But it could have gone the other way. It was a policy choice, influenced by the actions of specific individuals and networks.
Clearly there is a “downside” to US support for Israel. The oil companies, who you prefer to elevate over the “Israel Lobby” for influence on US ME policy, may have preferred not to have the State of Israel muck up their relations with Arab regimes with control over oil, but, in general, they have made the best of it, distancing themselves from US policy and making it worthwhile to the regimes to do business with them.
I welcome your request that we analyze and treat the Israel-Palestine conflict in the same manner that we do other examples of US support for abusive regimes. The closest parallel I can think of is US policy towards Cuba and the role of US-based Cuban rightwingers in affecting US policy. The anti-fidelista crowd has attempted to dominate US discussion of Cuban-US relations and limit politically possible options. They have their most influence in two cities, Miami and Washington D.C.. US media has generally portrayed the Cuban government as unfavorably as they have portrayed the Palestinian movement, despite the relative absence of rightwing Cuban Americans in prominent positions in corporate media and other institutions that dominate the articulation of opinion in the US.
Is the ongoing US policy towards Cuba a “rational” expression of “US national interests”? A case can be made, on the “macro” level, that it is important that Cuba continue to be punished for daring to defy the will of Washington for all these years, as an example to other potential upstart governments, particularly in Latin America, b