Addict (drugaddict) wrote,

Tony Judt, "A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy"--NYTimes 4/19/06

April 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

 A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy


IN its March 23rd issue the London Review of Books, a respected British
journal, published an essay titled "The Israel Lobby."
<> The authors are two
distinguished American academics (Stephen Walt of Harvard and John
Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago) who posted a longer (83-page)
version of their text
<> on the
Web site of Harvard's Kennedy School.

As they must have anticipated, the essay has run into a firestorm of
vituperation and refutation. Critics have charged that their scholarship
is shoddy and that their claims are, in the words of the columnist
Christopher Hitchens, "slightly but unmistakably smelly." The smell in
question, of course, is that of anti-Semitism.

This somewhat hysterical response is regrettable. In spite of its
provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources
and is mostly uncontentious. But it makes two distinct and important
claims. The first is that uncritical support for Israel across the
decades has not served America's best interests. This is an assertion
that can be debated on its merits. The authors' second claim is more
controversial: American foreign policy choices, they write, have for
years been distorted by one domestic pressure group, the "Israel Lobby."

Some would prefer, when explaining American actions overseas, to point a
finger at the domestic "energy lobby." Others might blame the influence
of Wilsonian idealism, or imperial practices left over from the cold
war. But that a powerful Israel lobby exists could hardly be denied by
anyone who knows how Washington works. Its core is the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, its penumbra a variety of national Jewish

Does the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course —
that is one of its goals. And it has been rather successful: Israel is
the largest recipient of American foreign aid and American responses to
Israeli behavior have been overwhelmingly uncritical or supportive.

But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That's a
matter of judgment. Prominent Israeli leaders and their American
supporters pressed very hard for the invasion of Iraq; but the United
States would probably be in Iraq today even if there had been no Israel
lobby. Is Israel, in Mearsheimer/Walt's words, "a liability in the war
on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states?" I think it
is; but that too is an issue for legitimate debate.

The essay and the issues it raises for American foreign policy have been
prominently dissected and discussed overseas. In America, however, it's
been another story: virtual silence in the mainstream media. Why? There
are several plausible explanations. One is that a relatively obscure
academic paper is of little concern to general-interest readers. Another
is that claims about disproportionate Jewish public influence are hardly
original — and debate over them inevitably attracts interest from the
political extremes. And then there is the view that Washington is anyway
awash in "lobbies" of this sort, pressuring policymakers and distorting
their choices.

Each of these considerations might reasonably account for the mainstream
press's initial indifference to the Mearsheimer-Walt essay. But they
don't convincingly explain the continued silence even after the article
aroused stormy debate in the academy, within the Jewish community, among
the opinion magazines and Web sites, and in the rest of the world. I
think there is another element in play: fear. Fear of being thought to
legitimize talk of a "Jewish conspiracy"; fear of being thought
anti-Israel; and thus, in the end, fear of licensing the expression of

The end result — a failure to consider a major issue in public policy —
is a great pity. So what, you may ask, if Europeans debate this subject
with such enthusiasm? Isn't Europe a hotbed of anti-Zionists (read
anti-Semites) who will always relish the chance to attack Israel and her
American friend? But it was David Aaronovitch, a Times of London
columnist who, in the course of criticizing Mearsheimer and Walt,
nonetheless conceded that "I sympathize with their desire for redress,
since there has been a cock-eyed failure in the U.S. to understand the
plight of the Palestinians."

And it was the German writer Christoph Bertram, a longstanding friend of
America in a country where every public figure takes extraordinary care
to tread carefully in such matters, who wrote in Die Zeit that "it is
rare to find scholars with the desire and the courage to break taboos."

How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the
uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been
most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily
Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle
and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their loyalty to
American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was Israel's
impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz,
the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel." Are we to
accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?

The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when
discussing Israel is threefold. It is bad for Jews: anti-Semitism is
real enough (I know something about it, growing up Jewish in 1950's
Britain), but for just that reason it should not be confused with
political criticisms of Israel or its American supporters. It is bad for
Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans encourage
Israel to act heedless of consequences. The Israeli journalist Tom Segev
described the Mearsheimer-Walt essay as "arrogant" but also acknowledged
ruefully: "They are right. Had the United States saved Israel from
itself, life today would be better ...the Israel Lobby in the United
States harms Israel's true interests."

BUT above all, self-censorship is bad for the United States itself.
Americans are denying themselves participation in a fast-moving
international conversation. Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace
negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Mearsheimer-Walt essay should be a
wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to both
nations. But I would go further. I think this essay, by two "realist"
political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is
a straw in the wind.

Looking back, we shall see the Iraq war and its catastrophic
consequences as not the beginning of a new democratic age in the Middle
East but rather as the end of an era that began in the wake of the 1967
war, a period during which American alignment with Israel was shaped by
two imperatives: cold-war strategic calculations and a new-found
domestic sensitivity to the memory of the Holocaust and the debt owed to
its victims and survivors.

For the terms of strategic debate are shifting. East Asia grows daily in
importance. Meanwhile our clumsy failure to re-cast the Middle East —
and its enduring implications for our standing there — has come into
sharp focus. American influence in that part of the world now rests
almost exclusively on our power to make war: which means in the end that
it is no influence at all. Above all, perhaps, the Holocaust is passing
beyond living memory. In the eyes of a watching world, the fact that an
Israeli soldier's great-grandmother died in Treblinka will not excuse
his own misbehavior.

Thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why
the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are
so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client
state. It is already not at all self-evident to Europeans, Latin
Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has America chosen to lose
touch with the rest of the international community on this issue?
Americans may not like the implications of this question. But it is
pressing. It bears directly on our international standing and influence;
and it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. We cannot ignore it.

Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York
University and the author of "Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945."

Copyright 2006
<> The New
York Times Company <>
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment