HOW THE ISRAEL LOBBY ENDANGERS THE UNITED STATES

[This is the best report on the Israel lobby we have ever seen. The full
report gives considerable historical background omitted below. John
Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at
Chicago. Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of
International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
This is from the excerpt printed in the London Review of Books; the full
report can be found at the Kennedy School site]

JOHN MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN WALT - Since the October War in 1973,
Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that
given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of
direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest
recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140
billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct
assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and
worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially
striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per
capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. . .

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year
and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for
military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel
is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidize its
own defense industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to
account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to
prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as
building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided
Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it
access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16
jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to
its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of
nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical
of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other
Security Council members. . .

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a
vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US
backing. . . Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated
America's relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to
give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War
triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on
Western economies. . .

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a
strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing
the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot
missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm
the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003:
although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask
it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the
sidelines once again. . .

Saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat
has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in
good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way
around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American
terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on
terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders,
including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in
Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for
Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to
attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire
threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to
Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons - which is
obviously undesirable - neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed,
because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering
overwhelming retaliation. . .

A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not
behave like a loyal ally. . . According to the General Accounting
Office, Israel 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations
against the US of any ally'. . . Israel is hardly the only country that
spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron
casts further doubt on its strategic value. . .

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships
cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies
around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has
overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators
when this was thought to advance its interests - it has good relations
with a number of dictatorships today. . .

[Another] justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the
Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were
persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland,
many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the
United States. The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate
response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought
about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the
Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel's early leaders. David Ben-Gurion
told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is
natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two
thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been
anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why
should they accept that". . .

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's
support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use 'the
Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and
organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a
unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within
it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part
of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In
a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said
they were either 'not very' or 'not at all' emotionally attached to
Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the
key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud
Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace
process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make
concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups - such as Jewish Voice
for Peace - strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences,
moderates and hardliners both favor giving steadfast support to Israel.
. .

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organizations to
influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful
and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and
their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was
ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but
ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National
Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC
in second place in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals. . .
Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the
former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary
of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the
influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters. . .

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant
influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive
branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may
be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice.
Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a
positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting
its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical
comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling
the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid
discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a
different policy. . .

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress,
where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. . . Another source of
the Lobby's power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As
Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, 'there are a lot
of guys at the working level up here' - on Capitol Hill - 'who happen to
be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of
their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make
the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an
awful lot done just at the staff level.'

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in
Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and
congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who
challenge it. . .

AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to
Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, 'it is common for
members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they
need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the
Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration
experts.' More important, he notes that AIPAC is 'often called on to
draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform
research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes'.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign
government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US
policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has
important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the
three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting
Israel. . .

Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential
elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive
branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population,
they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The
Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates
'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the
money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are
concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York
and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to
antagonize them.

Key organizations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that
critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter
wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that
Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the
appointment. . . When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a
more 'even-handed role' in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph
Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his
statement was 'irresponsible'. . .

The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate
among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is
'dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel'. He lists 61
'columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel
reflexively and without qualification'. Conversely, he found just five
pundits who consistently criticize Israeli actions or endorse Arab
positions. . .

The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important
role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. . . Over the
past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence
at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the
Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the
Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the
Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a
well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings's
coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies,
which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and
ardent Zionist. The centre's director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk.
What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the
pro-Israel chorus. . .

The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September
2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel
neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted
dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks
or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent
attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction
and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still
invites students to report 'anti-Israel' activity. . .

No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of
one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone
who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have
significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC
celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite.
Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the
risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media
refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'. In other words, the Lobby first
boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to
it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-Semitism is something no one
wants to be accused of. . .

Israel's advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that
there is a 'new anti-Semitism', which they equate with criticism of
Israel. In other words, criticize Israeli policy and you are by
definition an anti-Semite. When the synod of the Church of England
recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it
manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian
homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would 'have the most adverse
repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain', while
Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: 'There is a
clear problem of anti-Zionist - verging on anti-semitic - attitudes
emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the
Church.' But the Church was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli
government policy.

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or
questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western
critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question
its behavior towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is
Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians
elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of
human rights, to international law and to the principle of national
self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp
criticism on these grounds. . .

Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given
the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the
Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials
passing US government secrets to Israel. . . But that is not going to
happen - not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian
Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it
has become more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are
responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides,
American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions
and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are
likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

The Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the
terrorist danger that all states face - including America's European
allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool,
increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and
contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

Equally worrying, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and
Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially
disastrous effects. We don't need another Iraq. At a minimum, the
Lobby's hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for
Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi
insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United
States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the
Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated
against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington's efforts
to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it
presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit
nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness
to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and
others to seek a similar capability. . .

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful
force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult
to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some
time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid
discussion of the Lobby's influence and a more open debate about US
interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one of those
interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader
regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the
strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US
to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the
interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term
interests as well.

LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS EXCERPT
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT FULL REPORT
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011