"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
Seldom have just over 40 pages of text (plus just under 40 pages of notes) kicked up such a storm. Attacked for everything from being "sloppy scholarship" to anti-Semitic, this article is clearly neither. It is an argument advanced by two scholars, both of the realist school of international relations, that "unwavering U.S. support for Israel" is not in the United States' national interest. The damaging misfit between pro-Israel U.S. policies and U.S. interests in the Middle East, they argue, is the fault of a number of domestic pressure groups -- which they lump together as "the Israel Lobby" -- spearheaded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Mearsheimer and Walt use realist national-interest analysis to deftly deconstruct the usual justifications for supporting Israel (that it is a fellow democracy, a strategic asset, or a tiny state in danger of being overwhelmed by its neighbors). They set out the role of that "Israel Lobby" in pushing for war against Iraq, and perhaps against other Middle Eastern regimes down the road.
May the storm kicked up by this article rage on. The role of pressure groups and lobbies in determining U.S. foreign policy is important. The U.S.-Israeli connection is important. The hardheaded analysis that Mearsheimer and Walt so cogently present cries out for careful consideration. It just might set in motion a useful paradigm shift in the United States' Middle East policy.
Related
The Foreigner's Gift is vintage Fouad Ajami: bold, crisp, wide-ranging, and discursive, it will surely both inform and provoke. But can the U.S. invasion of Iraq really be defended as a noble mission regardless of its cause -- or its outcome?
The difference between the factions in Bosnia is not morality, as the Bosnian Muslims and Western press insist, but power and opportunity. All have the same goal: to avoid living as a minority. All have committed crimes against other ethnic groups. Despite its claims of neutrality and preaching against military solutions, the United States has favored the Bosnian Muslims, keeping silent as they launched offensives from U.N.-guarded safe areas. Since air strikes cannot resolve the conflict, the United States must discourage violence by all sides and let Russia--the one country Serbs trust--take the lead in negotiations.
Jimmy Carter's high-profile parachutes for peace earn scorn from some and admiration from others. From Haiti to North Korea, the ubiquitous former president helps resolve disputes with his unshakable confidence in the power of moral suasion. But Carter's penchant for bucking U.S. foreign policy has strained his relations with the Washington establishment, and the Clinton administration has not always treated him with the respect he deserves. Lost in the controversy are the humanitarian achievements on which his reputation will ultimately rest.
