« "Socialized" | Main | Iowa By The Charts »
October 12, 2007
Haggai on the Israel Lobby
Haggai has a very interesting post on The Israel Lobby, the problems with Walt and Mearsheimer's methodologies, and some alternative hypotheses worth considering. I think Haggai overweights the Spiegel book, which seems to focus on presidents who served before the Israel Lobby, in its mature form, came into being (JJ Goldberg, in his book Jewish Power, dates the emergence of the modern Israel lobby to the Carter/Reagan era, and I think he's right on that). That said, the rest of the post is interesting, particularly the bit focusing on Bush's ideology as to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's particularly interesting to note his initial disengagement with the issue, which later was replaced by a one-sided engagement with the issue.
But here comes the problem: Take president, like Bush, who's basically uninterested in the conflict, but insofar as he is interested, tilts towards the Israeli side. What tends to happen then is that he outsources Israel policy to the strongest, best-organized voices that he finds sympathetic. In this case, that was the Israel Lobby, which rather masterfully took charge of the situation. Again, this is what lobbies are supposed to do. But just as Labor is supposed to balance Business and Trial Lawyers are supposed to balance Deregulators, there's no one balancing the Israel Lobby -- neither other lobbies, nor any substantial number of politically-opposed politicians.
In the end, I largely agree with Haggai's criticisms. Walt and Mearsheimer's book is, at times, quite shoddy, and shouldn't be taken by anybody as gospel truth. But they've actually opened up the discussion on how American policy towards Israel actually gets made, and whether you believe their version, or Haggai's version, or Daniel Levy's version, the answer is clearly "dysfunctionally." And that's well worth exploring, and too important to be drowned out beneath cries of anti-semitism.
October 12, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Thanks for the link, Ezra. A few things:
I think Haggai overweights the Spiegel book, which seems to focus on presidents who served before the Israel Lobby, in its mature form, came into being (JJ Goldberg, in his book Jewish Power, dates the emergence of the modern Israel lobby to the Carter/Reagan era, and I think he's right on that).
As I mentioned in my post, Spiegel's book was published in '85, and there hasn't been an updated version. But if you read it, I think you'll find plenty of continuity between how the Israel lobby functioned then and now. I haven't read Goldberg's book that you mention, so I'll try to get around to that and see what I think about it. But I think Spiegel's fundamental thesis remains true even in the face of some changes in the lobby over the last 20 years.
But just as Labor is supposed to balance Business and Trial Lawyers are supposed to balance Deregulators, there's no one balancing the Israel Lobby -- neither other lobbies, nor any substantial number of politically-opposed politicians.
OK, but how much does that really matter, when you get down to it? On the subject of Israel policy, my argument is: not much, when it comes to major decisions on the presidential level. And specific to Bush, let's take the other issues you mention: labor/business and de-regulators/trial lawyers. In spite of lots of organizational power and a largely sympathetic major political party, how much has the left side on those issues been able to accomplish under Bush? Pretty much nothing. Bush's policy sides with big business and de-regulation 100% of the time against labor and trial lawyers. He does that because he's an unusually extreme (for a president) right-wing idelogue and corporatist, not because the opposition doesn't have a voice to balance out the side he's naturally sympathetic to (they do have a voice; Bush just chooses to ignore it).
In short, I think it would be better if the Israel debate at the Congressional level wasn't so blatantly slanted in favor of right-wing lobbyists' positions, but I don't think it would make much of a difference on the presidential level. If we get a better president back in the White House, our foreign policy will generally get better, including Israel-related things. That can happen even if no counter-lobby springs up to challenge AIPAC.
But they've actually opened up the discussion on how American policy towards Israel actually gets made, and whether you believe their version, or Haggai's version, or Daniel Levy's version, the answer is clearly "dysfunctionally."
I don't know that I agree with this (and I don't think there's nearly as much disagreement on this between me and Levy as there is between me and M&W). I think Israel policy under Bill Clinton functioned pretty reasonably, for the most part, and that it's been the polar opposite under Bush. I do agree that Congress is largely dysfunctional on Israel, thanks mostly to the worst right-wing elements of the Israel lobby, but I don't think that affects things much at the presidential level. That's the whole crux of my disagreement with M&W.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 12, 2007 3:52:55 PM
From Haggai's post, paraphrasing (IIRC) Spiegel's book:
Yet in the end policy can be understood only by examining an administration’s foreign policy priorities, philosophical assumptions, decision-making system, and key personalities.
I haven't read the W&M book, but how distinct is the above from a claim that TL (following Hgg's usage) has determinative influence? A lot of influence in politics appears to be the ability to put your people in key positions in an Administration. Over time, it will be something greater, like the ability to define what sorts of people are acceptable--because, nominally of experience--for certain positions. (This is my main problem with HRC.) It may not be specifically determinative on any one issue, but it seems sufficiently close for government work.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 12, 2007 4:02:24 PM
I haven't read the W&M book, but how distinct is the above from a claim that TL (following Hgg's usage) has determinative influence? A lot of influence in politics appears to be the ability to put your people in key positions in an Administration.
I think there's a difference when it comes to Israel policy. Were Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice considered to be all that close to the Israel lobby during the 2000 election? Not that I can recall.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 12, 2007 4:11:17 PM
Surely the issue isn't that the "Israel lobby" has changed modus operandi since Spielberg's day, it's that the balance of Congress and money politics generally and other bodies has changed to make that approach more effective.
There's a piece over at the Guardian CiF which isn't very well written per se, but suggests that AIPAC is less of an Israel lobby and more of a neo-con lobby that masquerades as an Israel lobby in order to gather support from certain sectors and to avoid critical analysis... which is some food for thought perhaps.
Posted by: Meh | Oct 12, 2007 4:18:42 PM
Spiegel I mean, not Spielberg... (don't write two posts at once...)
Posted by: Meh | Oct 12, 2007 4:19:50 PM
Daniel Levy's take on the neocons and Israel lobbyists is probably the most accurate: that "the neocons co-opted the Israel lobby, and Israel itself, to their own vision of regional transformation. This is more PNAC than AIPAC. Still, most of the Israel lobby were willing accomplices, and this represents their historic error."
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 12, 2007 4:22:47 PM
Were Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice considered to be all that close to the Israel lobby during the 2000 election? Not that I can recall.
That accords with my memory; I have a dim sense that each seemed indifferent. But--and this may well be wrong, as I don't know the relevant hierarchies well--I thought the functionally important deputy of each was reputed to be close to Israel.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 12, 2007 5:08:32 PM
Doug Feith was probably the highest-ranking hard-core Likudnik in the administration when it took office (e.g., he was a "Clean Break" signatory and had openly criticized the basic concept of Oslo). Wolfowitz outranked him in the Pentagon, but it was all about Iraq for Wolfowitz; he wasn't that much of a hardliner about Israel, certainly nowhere nearly as much as Feith.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 12, 2007 5:41:28 PM
"But they've actually opened up the discussion on how American policy towards Israel actually gets made"
Note that Haggai writes of M/W: "If you gather all the stuff they manage to cover somewhat reasonably or correctly, it amounts to little more than what Michael Massing covered in just one American Prospect article from March 2002, which remains vastly superior to any of M&W's output." It's too bad this essay wasn't the locus of discussion here, though it would have probably mostly been of the "Yeah, that's more or less what I thought" variety.
Posted by: rilkefan | Oct 12, 2007 6:06:56 PM
Better to just go from Massing onward.
M/W's work is tainted by genuine - and callous - shoddiness. Their characterization of Dean as being in the "Lobby"'s clutches because of his wife and children's faith is genuinely distasteful, as is their halfway rationalization of violence against Jews in Europe. I don't really care about the content of M/W's character; as far as I'm concerned, they're callous, not bigoted. Still, it's a bad place to start. If we want a good debate, there are better cornerstones upon which to build.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 12, 2007 6:14:59 PM
Realism is callous and is also a useful concept when discussing the ME, I/P issues and foreign policy in general. Ignore Walt and Mearsheimer and focus on whether current US policy vis a vis Israel is in the best interest of the country.
Posted by: Keebler | Oct 12, 2007 10:01:59 PM
I wonder if the Israel Lobby would be so effective if there weren't millions of Evangelical Christians being told by their pastors that the nation of Israel absolutely must continue to exist and must always be victorious over its enemies in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 12, 2007 10:40:30 PM
Yes, I imagine Breckinridge Long rather fashioned himself a realist.
Anyways, it is certainly cold-blooded, but it's also ultimately alien from American foreign policy decision-making. American presidents, good and bad, do not act solely on the basis of empirical national interest; every last one of them applies ideals or ideology. M&W may lament the fact that policy doesn't turn out the way it should in their model, but they don't begin to understand a number of critical inputs.
And that still doesn't defend some of the rank assumptions they are willing to make. I'd think there were more Dean '04 supporters here.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 13, 2007 1:11:33 AM
I imagine that "realists" are eagerly opposed to the House's decision on the Armenian genocide.
Posted by: David | Oct 13, 2007 5:41:21 AM
"there's no one balancing the Israel Lobby -- neither other lobbies, nor any substantial number of politically-opposed politicians."
This is simply untrue. Saudy lobby in Washington is very powerful and has much more money in its disposal to influence US policy. And many advocacy groups like CAIR backed by islamists and Muslim Broderhood are very active and vocal.
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 13, 2007 8:04:23 AM
I see no conflict of interests between PNAC goals and Israeli goals: what is good for neoconservatives is also good for Israel, and vice versa. This is a natural alliance, based on common values and common interests. And I do believe, that it is also good for America. It has no other loyal ally in ME, and will never have. All Arabs states are back-stabbing traitors.
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 13, 2007 8:15:23 AM
"I wonder if the Israel Lobby would be so effective if there weren't millions of Evangelical Christians being told by their pastors that the nation of Israel absolutely must continue to exist and must always be victorious over its enemies in order to fulfill biblical prophecy."
You need not be Evangelical, or Christian at all, or believe in Biblical prophecies to understand absolute necessity of Israel existence. To be resonable and humane person is quite enough, because the only alternative is the second Holocost. And everybody who seek delegitimize Israel or weaken it is accomplice to genocide. Period.
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 13, 2007 8:32:39 AM
"but insofar as he is interested, tilts towards the Israeli side."
What a suprize! Do you really expect the man who declared war on terror tilt to the side of terrorists and their sympathizers but not on the side of the main target of terrorists?
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 13, 2007 8:50:30 AM
Sergey,
you're an idiot...
...but I restate the obvious.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 13, 2007 5:02:15 PM
The real power of groups like AIPAC is to play the "anti-Semitism" card to decide the parameters to debate. Right-wing Jewish thinkers at organizations like AIPAC and PNAC equate being Jewish with Israel scream it whenever anyone questions Likudnik policy or shows any compassion for the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the anti-Semitic Christian Zionists in AIPAC and PNAC, AEI, etc. pretend that criticizing Israel is being soft on terror and treat Israel at once both as the surrogate "white Western" nation of the Middle East (but then complain that "the Jews" are trying to kill Christmas when issues of pluralism and the separation of church and state are brought up domestically) while also hoping that Likudnik policies will lead to the second coming. When Obama, for instance, showed some rhetorical compassion to the Palestinians, AIPAC went apeshit and demanded that he recant, which he did to a certain extent. I think Haggai is closer here to the true line of causality than M&W, but he overlooks the role that campaigning for president and building up a coalition of allies has in getting elected.
Posted by: Reality Man | Oct 14, 2007 6:57:33 AM
To Captain Goto:
If name-calling is the only argument you can provide, it seems you deserve this qualification more than me.
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 14, 2007 7:47:50 AM
I agree that current Bush policies in ME is inconsistent and hypocrite. He has one ear to AIPAC and another to CAIR and Saudi lobby, tries simultaneously appease Arabs and do not piss off Evangelicans. More consistent approach would be to accept Israel in NATO or give her some status of affiliated membership, to deter any possible aggression attempt from Syria or Iran.
Posted by: Sergey | Oct 14, 2007 8:00:15 AM
Thanks, Ezra. I was not going to read the book, but Sara at TNH bought it.
Posted by: 4jkb4ia | Oct 14, 2007 12:22:06 PM
continued
...under the impression that buying the book was a statement that we should "have a debate". The story of I/P at Daily Kos is evidence that there is a debate, but people are happy to talk past each other.
Federal officials must support Israel on some minimal level to get elected. I think also that both left- and right-wingers will understand that AIPAC defines the parameters of "supporting Israel". But within those parameters the USA can be more or less involved. Individuals in government can personally believe how trustworthy their corresponding individuals in the Israeli or Palestinian leadership are and act accordingly. Bush chose to believe in Sharon enough to support disengagement despite the disaster which has resulted.
Posted by: 4jkb4ia | Oct 14, 2007 12:31:53 PM
OTOH you do not want the settlers to be hostage to inter-Palestinian fighting.
Posted by: 4jkb4iaq | Oct 14, 2007 12:35:31 PM
