Over at Michael Totten's joint, Lee Smith Tony Badran writes the post I've been meaning to about the hysterical (as in ha-ha hysterical) Harvard study on the pernicious power of the "Israel Lobby" in defining US foreign policy.
Pretty much any American who has ever been in a motorized vehicle knows that the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy is Washington's relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and has been so since the mid-30s. It is a vital national interest – not just because cheap fuel permits Americans to drive SUVs, but because protecting the largest known oil-reserves in the world ensures a stable world economy. Moreover, the US military counts on access to that oil in the event it has to wage war – an activity that demands a lot of oil.
Walt and Mearsheimer's article explains how "the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics," which I agree with, because like many Americans I've ridden in a car before and I believe that the ability to get people and things from one place to another is a big part of successful domestic politics. It's not entirely clear that the authors of this really long article have ever been in a car before, because when they're talking about domestic politics, they're not talking about cars, or the economy or even our military, but "the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'"Go read the whole thing. Biggest Guy spent a few days hanging out at Harvard when we were doing the college-tour thing and he wrote the school off as "lame"....
True or False: "By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's task even easier."
True – not. Psyche. Yeah, true if you exclude the obviously limited influence that oil companies have exercised in US policymaking over the last seventy years. And it's not just the oil companies doing Gulf bidding; virtually every American ambassador who's served in Riyadh winds up with a nice package to keep selling the Saudi line back in Washington. Yes, you're right, AIPAC's annual budget is a whopping $40 million dollars – or precisely equivalent to the private donation Saudi prince Walid Bin Talal recently gave to two US universities to start up Islamic centers. What? Come on Steve, he gave half of it to Harvard! OK, give me the car keys. The keys to the car, it's how you got here. In a car. It has four wheels and a motor. It runs on gas. Gas comes from a place called Saudi Arabia….
Hmmm. If this is what Cambridge's best and the brightest have to offer, he's even smarter than I thought he was...
Posted by Tony, but written by Lee Smith, as a note up at the top says. Just to let you know, it is hard to see. But I noticed that it just didn't sound quite like Tony's voice.
Good piece.
Martin Kramer nailed the key issue in the Walt Meershiemer thesis. Read the following extract, but then RTWT:
... If you need an ally somewhere, don’t you want it to be the smartest, most powerful, and most resourceful guy on the block, who also happens to admire you? ...
It took the United States some twenty years to figure this out. ... The United States recognized Israel in 1948, but it didn’t do much to help it defend itself, for fear of alienating Arab monarchs, oil sheikhs, and the “Arab street.” ...
So Israel went elsewhere. It got guns from the Soviet bloc, and fighter aircraft and a nuclear reactor from France. ... Then came June 1967, and Israel showed its stuff. In October 1973, it achieved what military analysts have called an even greater victory ...
It was then that the United States began to look at Israel differently: as a potential ally. The fact that the United States hadn’t backed Israel before 1967 didn’t prevent key Arab capitals from falling into the Soviet orbit. To the contrary: along with Nasser, they tried to play Washington off Moscow, with a preference for Moscow since it made policy by uncomplicated diktat. ...
Israel looked to be the strongest, most reliable, and most cost-effective ally against Soviet penetration of the Middle East, because it could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own. ... expanded U.S. support for Israel persuaded Egypt to switch camps, winning the Cold War for the United States in the Middle East. ...
Since 1973, the Arab states have understood not only that Israel is strong, but that the United States is Israel’s guarantor. As a result, there have been no general Arab-Israeli wars, and Israel’s Arab neighbors have either made peace with it (Egypt, Jordan), or keep their borders quiet (Syria, Lebanon). The Levant corner of the Middle East, for all the saturation coverage it gets from an overwrought media, has not been a powder keg, and its crises haven’t required direct American military intervention. ...
United States support for Israel has enhanced its standing in another way, as the only force, in Arab eyes, that can possibly persuade Israel to cede territory it has occupied since 1967. ...
It is this “peace process” that has turned even revolutionary Arab leaders into supplicants at the White House door. ...
Compare this to the situation in the Gulf, where U.S. allies are weak. ...
It’s precisely because the Gulf doesn’t have an Israel—a strong, capable local ally—that Walt’s offshore balancing act can’t possibly succeed. If the United States is not perceived to be willing to send in troops there—and it will only be perceived as such if it sometimes does send them—then heavily populated and technologically advanced states (formerly Iraq, today Iran) will attempt to muscle Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab Gulf states, which have the bigger reserves of oil. ...
In the overall scheme of the Pax Americana, then, U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors over the past thirty years has been a tremendous success. ...
Walt’s notion that U.S. support for Israel is the source of popular resentment, propelling recruits to Al-Qaeda, is of a piece with his argument that the United States is hated for what it does (its detested policies), and not what it is (its admired values). In fact, America ... [i]s hated because of what they can’t do, and what they aren’t. They can’t accumulate power, and they can’t handle modernity, and they resent anyone who reminds them of it. ...
And is it not actually better for the United States to signal the Arabs that until they change, Israel will remain America’s favorite son? ... What lever would remain to encourage progressive change in the Arab world, if the United States were to back away from the one democratic, modern, and pluralistic society in the Middle East—the most persuasive and proximate argument made to the Arabs, for the empowering and overpowering might of Western democracy and Western modernity? ...
Indeed, for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that we have followed Walt’s policy ... How long would it be before the Arabs would revert to their pre-1967 fantasy of defeating or destroying Israel? ... How long would it be before Israel felt compelled, as it did in 1967, to launch a preemptive strike against Egypt, with its massive conventional force, or Iran, which even now rattles a nuclear saber against Israel? ... It is populated by the remnant of a people that was nearly obliterated in the twentieth century, and that’s unlikely to take chances in the twenty-first. Less American support would mean less Israeli restraint, less Israeli maneuverability, and a quicker Israeli finger on the trigger. ...
One of our better titles.
I can't help it - Robert's bit reminds me of another classic line from the movie: "You're worthless, and weak!"
Then we found out that they were actually malign, and weak.
BTW, did you know that the character of Niedermeyer was featured in a Twilight Zone episode? Read the details here.
"If this is what Cambridge's best and the brightest have to offer, he's even smarter than I thought he was..."
May I, as an MIT alum, suggest that you head down Mass Ave a little ways if you want to find Cambridge's best and brightest?
The real disgrace is the U Chicago guy.
That school used to have standards. (I'm an alum and my #2 son is third year - full scholarship - languages.)
They used to have a whole roster of Nobel guys.
Joe: BTW, did you know that the character of Niedermeyer was featured in a Twilight Zone episode?
Not a Twilight Zone episode - written by the great Rod Serling (pbuh) - but a foul segment of a John Landis film in which he tried to equate Americans in Vietnam with Nazis.
In the course of which, the dumb sonofabitch managed to kill two Asian children who were illegally employed in defiance of child labor laws, as well as actor Vic Morrow. If that isn't a perfect metaphor for Hollywood morality, I don't know what is.
Mr. Simon, me too (B.A. '70). Write them a nasty letter, and don't leave out the fact that the poli Sci department denied tenure to dan driesner and Jake Levy.
BTW all three of my kids are/were at Northwestern. more cheerfull place, better neighborhood, easier trains to the nightlife.
BTW all three of my kids are/were at Northwestern. more cheerfull place, better neighborhood, easier trains to the nightlife.
Not to rain on your parade, but have you heard of Arthur Butz?
If not, have a look:
http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/
Good post AL - and I agree. I went and tried to read the article but once I read the first two paragraphs, it made me ill. I'm having a lot more fun reading the pokes about it.
Let's see now, Yale has the Taliban, Harvard has the yayhoos who voted to rid themselves of Lawrence Summers. Now we have Harvard again - trying to suck compliments from David Duke on Israel.
It's now Yale's turn to make the country sick.
Thanks to the two former "most pretigious universities". Junior college never looked so good.