• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
29
M
EARSHEIMER 
 
AND
W
ALT
: T
HE
I
SRAEL
L
OBBY
© 2006, The AuthorsJournal Compilation © 2006, Middle East Policy Council
T
HE
I
SRAEL
L
OBBY
 
AND
U.S. F
OREIGN
P
OLICY
 John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt 
 Dr. Mearsheimer is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Dr. Walt is a professor at the John F. KennedySchool of Government, Harvard University.
PREFACE
In March 2006, we published an essay entitled "The Israel Lobby" in
The
 
 London Review of Books
(Vol. 28, No. 6, March 23, 2006). At the suggestion of several well-respected scholars who had read earlier drafts, we also posted a slightly longer anddocumented version of the article on the Working Paper website of Harvard's John F.Kennedy School of Government. We did this so that interested parties could see thesources and evidence on which our conclusions were based.The response to the two versions of the paper was dramatic. As of mid-July 2006,there had been over 275,000 downloads of the KSG Working Paper version, and a lively(albeit not always civilized) debate was underway. During this period, we were contacted by the editor of 
Middle East Policy
, who sought to publish the documented version. Weagreed but asked that we be allowed to revise the Working Paper in response to thecomments and criticisms it had provoked.After considering the responses to our article, we stand by our original arguments.We knew that it would attract criticism, but we have been struck by how weak and ill-founded many of the criticisms have been. We have made minor adjustments in some of the language we employed and corrected a few typographical errors. We have supple-mented our arguments in several places to clarify issues that some of our critics either misunderstood or misconstrued, and we have updated a few points in light of subsequentevents. In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from theoriginal Working Paper.We are now preparing a detailed "Response to Our Critics" that will formally addressand refute the various charges that were leveled at our original article. And we remainconvinced that the United States will not be able to deal with the vexing problems in theMiddle East if it cannot have a serious and candid discussion of the role of the Israellobby.
 
30
M
IDDLE
E
AST
P
OLICY
, V
OL
. XIII, N
O
. 3, F
ALL
2006so many, all countries need to understandthe forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.The U.S. national interest should bethe primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades,however, and especially since the Six-DayWar in 1967, a recurring feature — andarguably the central focus — of U.S.Middle East policy has been its relationshipwith Israel. The combination of unwaver-ing U.S. support for Israel and the relatedeffort to spread democracy throughout theregion has inflamed Arab and Islamicopinion and jeopardized U.S. security.This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the UnitedStates adopted policies that jeopardized itsown security in order to advance theinterests of another state? One mightassume that the bond between the twocountries is based on shared strategicinterests or compelling moral imperatives.As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for theremarkable level of material and diplomaticsupport that the United States provides toIsrael.Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due primarily to U.S.domestic politics and especially to theactivities of the "Israel lobby." Other special-interest groups have managed toskew U.S. foreign policy in directions theyfavored, but no lobby has managed todivert U.S. foreign policy as far from whatthe American national interest wouldotherwise suggest, while simultaneouslyconvincing Americans that U.S. and Israeliinterests are essentially identical.
1
In the pages that follow, we describehow the Israel lobby has accomplished thisfeat and how its activities have shapedAmerica's actions in this critical region.Given the strategic importance of theMiddle East and its potential impact onothers, both Americans and non-Americansneed to understand and address the lobby'sinfluence on U.S. policy.Some readers will find this analysisdisturbing, but most of the facts recountedhere are not in serious dispute amongscholars. Indeed, our account draws primarily on mainstream sources like
The New York Times, The Washington Post, Ha'aretz 
, or 
 Forward 
. It also relies on thework of Israeli scholars and journalists,who deserve great credit for shedding lighton these issues. We also cite evidence provided by respected Israeli and interna-tional human-rights organizations. Simi-larly, our claims about the lobby's impactrely on testimony from the lobby's ownmembers, as well as testimony from politicians who have worked with them.Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they restis not controversial.
THE GREAT BENEFACTOR 
Since the October War in 1973,Washington has provided Israel with a levelof support dwarfing the amounts provided
U
.S. foreign policy shapes eventsin every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than inthe Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategicimportance. Most recently, the Bushadministration's attempt to transform theregion into a community of democracieshas helped produce a resilient insurgency inIraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices,terrorist bombings in Madrid, London andAmman, and open warfare in Gaza andLebanon. With so much at stake for 
 
31
M
EARSHEIMER 
 
AND
W
ALT
: T
HE
I
SRAEL
L
OBBY
to any other state. It has been the largestannual recipient of direct U.S. economicand military assistance since 1976 and thelargest total recipient since World War II.Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts towell over $140 billion in 2003 dollars.
2
Israel receives about $3 billion in directforeign assistance each year, which isroughly one-fifth of America's foreign-aid budget. In per capita terms, the UnitedStates gives each Israeli a direct subsidyworth about $500 per year.
3
This largesseis especially striking when one realizes thatIsrael is now a wealthy industrial state witha per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
4
Israel also gets other special dealsfrom Washington.
5
Other aid recipientsget their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriationat the beginning of each fiscal year andthus earns extra interest. Most recipientsof American military assistance arerequired to spend all of it in the UnitedStates, but Israel can use roughly 25 percent of its aid allotment to subsidize itsown defense industry. Israel is the onlyrecipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption thatmakes it virtually impossible to prevent themoney from being used for purposes theUnited States opposes, like building settle-ments in the West Bank.Moreover, the United States has pro-vided Israel with nearly $3 billion to developweapons systems like the
 Lavi
aircraft thatthe Pentagon did not want or need, whilegiving Israel access to top-drawer U.S.weaponry like Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the United States gives Israelaccess to intelligence that it denies its NATOallies and has turned a blind eye towardIsrael's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
6
In addition, Washington provides Israelwith consistent diplomatic support. Since1982, the United States has vetoed 33United Nations Security Council resolutionsthat were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoescast by all the other Security Councilmembers.
7
It also blocks Arab states'efforts to put Israel's nuclear arsenal onthe International Atomic Energy Agency'sagenda.
8
The United States also comes toIsrael's rescue in wartime and takes itsside when negotiating peace. The Nixonadministration resupplied Israel during theOctober War and protected Israel from thethreat of Soviet intervention. Washingtonwas deeply involved in the negotiations thatended that war as well as the lengthy"step-by-step" process that followed, justas it played a key role in the negotiationsthat preceded and followed the 1993 Osloaccords.
9
There was occasional friction between U.S. and Israeli officials in bothcases, but the United States coordinated its positions closely with Israel and consis-tently backed the Israeli approach to thenegotiations. Indeed, one American participant at Camp David (2000) later said, "Far too often, we functioned . . . asIsrael's lawyer."
10
As discussed below, Washington hasgiven Israel wide latitude in dealing withthe Occupied Territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip), even when its actionswere at odds with stated U.S. policy.Moreover, the Bush administration'sambitious strategy to transform the MiddleEast — beginning with the invasion of Iraq — was partly intended to improve Israel'sstrategic situation. The Bush administra-tion also took Israel’s side during the recentwar in Lebanon and initially opposed calls
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...