Israel's Fraying Image

Published on The National Interest (
Source URL (retrieved on Sep 23, 2013):

Israel's Fraying Image
From the May-June 2013 [1] issue Share Share Share Share | More More [2] Jacob Heilbrunn [3] | May 1, 2013 Jacob Heilbrunn [3]

WHEN THE American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) holds its annual spring meeting in Washington, DC, the organization takes elaborate measures to present a portrait of overwhelming political clout. Huge video screens featuring footage on Israel’s geopolitical perils, thousands of attendees, rousing speeches, a steady stream of Democratic and Republican politicians proclaiming their undying fealty to Israel—all are meant to suggest an irrepressible organization on a roll. This year, as in previous ones, Iran was the dominant topic. “Words alone will not stop Iran,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the conference by satellite. “Sanctions alone will not stop Iran.” He then admonished his American audience: “Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.” At the same time, Senator John McCain excoriated the Obama administration for not being sufficiently friendly toward the Jewish state, while Vice President Joe Biden sought to assuage lingering unease about the administration’s stance by declaring that Obama is “not bluffing” when he threatens Iran with military action to forestall its nuclear-weapons development. But, as AIPAC once again tried ostentatiously to display its influence, distant drumbeats

1 of 9

9/23/13 9:31 PM

And in uttering obvious truths. Obama exemplified a broader phenomenon—namely. Words such as “smelly. Washington’s local metro system displayed ads. The Israel Lobby and U. The truth is that Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. But he also emphasized that it is up to Israelis themselves to take back their country from the retrograde forces that are driving it into the abyss. as a 2007 National Interest symposium noted. the following year. Further. Obama’s remarks were impassioned. sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace and the Avaaz advocacy group. 2 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM .” “nutty” and “oddly amateurish” were bandied about.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest.” Essentially. Their scholarship unleashed a concerted effort on the part of many academics and journalists to portray the two professors as lurking outside the confines of respectable thought. and that it must strike out on a new course or risk becoming an international pariah. that its recent initiative to segregate Israelis and Palestinians on separate buses represents just another step toward colonization. writing as a Salon columnist a few years ago. Their import could not be clearer. Obama even went on to take a swipe at Netanyahu and his coterie: “Political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do. Glenn Greenwald. the crumbling of a longtime taboo in America on criticizing Israel. Foreign Policy. and he brokered renewed diplomatic ties between Israel and Turkey. declined to publish it) their now-famous article suggesting that the United States frequently subordinates its own interests to the wishes of Israel. that featured various ordinary American Jews denouncing AIPAC as antithetical to peace and not speaking for them.” The duo expanded their argument into a book. did suffer from some serious flaws. where more than five hundred thousand Israelis live—is inimical to any chance of peace.” according to NPR—were excoriated in the media in 2006 when they published in the London Review of Books (after the Atlantic. Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen flatly labeled the article “antiSemitic” and a reflection of “bigotry. in Europe as well as in America. The aim was to marginalize the authors. He offered both promise and admonition.” while Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz declared Walt and Mearsheimer to be conspiracy theorists as well as anti-Semites. Obama made it clear that America supports Israel. President Obama did not really deviate from this position during his recent visit to Israel in March. friendly and moving.S. that its robust and illegal expansion of settlements—including in East Jerusalem. raised new questions about America’s relationship with the Jewish state—and whether AIPAC’s influence is perhaps not always exercised strictly in Israel’s or America’s interest. Although such protests by left-wing Jewish organizations may have only slight influence. This shift is rooted in a mounting perception that Israel cannot be exempted from culpability for its current predicament. that it is isolating itself from its neighbors in ways that are problematic for itself and for its one staunch ally. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things. put it starkly when he referred to the “mainstreaming” of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s depiction of a powerful Israel lobby that is undermining American foreign policy. they reflect a broader reality: Israel’s image seems to be under challenge as never before. You must want to create the change that you want to see. A number of incidents suggest a cultural shift is emerging that could presage a reexamination of the nature of America’s political ties to Israel. which initially commissioned the piece. the authors elide any Palestinian responsibility for the failure of the peace process. in part because of “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. including a failure to appreciate that it is possible to side with Israel without being pressured by an Israel lobby. The University of Chicago’s Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Walt—both “considered A-list scholars. Obama was telling Israelis to perform an end run around their own government—to view the conflict not just from their own perspective but also that of the Palestinians.

Hagel was alive and breathing during his hearing. Gal Beckerman notes in the Forward that the mainstreaming of Mearsheimer and Walt “has continued apace and now. It demonstrated that an element of hysteria increasingly is attaching itself to the self-appointed defenders of Israel and that their fervent attempts to paint any mild dissent from prevailing orthodoxy as heresy reflects weakness more than strength. “You get an urgent call from the prime minister. Kaplan early in 2012. the Mearsheimer/Walt thesis has moved from the margins of respectability to become a matter of acceptable contention within the country’s intellectual mainstream. who truly is one of the greatest men of this or any age. Beckerman points to this year’s Oscars ceremony. There the corpse of Pope Formosus. The book had a potent influence on the mounting debate. was prompting younger and more liberal Jews to become disaffected or indifferent to its fate. Still. much of it concentrated on his alleged lack of sufficient support for Israel. The Atlantic. was placed in a chair and posthumously accused by a screaming Pope Stephen VI—intent on shoring up his own claims to power—of having committed perjury. The harsh treatment meted out to the former senator. for example. The decaying corpse was flung into the Tiber.’ Would you do that for Israel?” This clip struck some as disturbing. which was to shatter the carapace of unanimity around the question of examining Israel’s conduct. an anguished meditation on the state of Israel by a self-described Zionist and former editor of the New Republic. NOW WE are seeing another phenomenon that reflects the ongoing erosion in Israel’s standing in the American cultural consciousness. Thank you. until lately a bulwark of reflexive defenses of Israel. Nothing did more to illustrate the peculiar nature of that debate than the Hagel hearing. I am Jewish. Around the same time came Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism. At first it didn’t look that way. But it was remarkable that a mainstream television program of parody humor would produce a clip so dismissive of the sensibilities of Israel’s American supporters. The verdict was a foregone conclusion: Formosus was posthumously declared guilty and his papacy null and void.” A cruder dig emerged after the confirmation hearing of Chuck Hagel before the Senate Armed Services Committee for secretary of defense. prompted Saturday Night Live to create a skit that ended up on YouTube(after the network show aired without it). And he says to you. even disgusting. Beinart decried leading American Jewish organizations and their elderly funders for propagating a willful blindness to the country’s palpable shortcomings. which. I’m But Walt and Mearsheimer’s blunt account did have one big virtue. who had died a few months earlier. Of course. It has McCain asking Hagel. the Obama administration’s—ties to Israel. by extension. where an animated teddy bear named Ted explained to actor Mark Wahlberg that Jews were all-powerful in Hollywood and that the way to move up was to announce: “I was born Theodore Shapiro and I would like to donate money to Israel and continue to work in Hollywood forever. ran a laudatory profile of Mearsheimer and his realist philosophy by the prolific author Robert D. But he barely won 3 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . while a trembling deacon tried to defend the dead pope’s reputation. When Hagel arrived on Capitol Hill for his confirmation hearing. ‘It is vital to Israel’s security that you go on national television that night and perform oral sex on a donkey. we are seeing the pop-culturizing” of the professors’ viewpoint. in turn.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. As Greenwald observed. Benjamin Netanyahu. he could have been forgiven for thinking that his ordeal bore some resemblance to the infamous “Cadaver Synod” that took place in medieval Rome in 897. it captured an element of the mounting absurdity of the debate over America’s—and.

is our twenty-fourth-largest trading party.” Had Hagel said something along these lines. But what if Hagel had responded more imaginatively and offered answers closer to the truth? It’s interesting to speculate on the fallout if he had told the assembled senators something like the following: “I appreciate your concern about the state of Israel. the only country in the region that possesses such weapons. was mentioned no fewer than 178 times in the space of a single day. it is also imperative for us to promote a peace process between Palestinians and Israelis that will ease tensions more broadly in the region. and it would have provided an opening to muster sufficient opposition to thwart his confirmation. Israel enjoys superpower status. Trade Representative. even Israel. no issue loomed larger than Hagel’s stance toward Israel. delivering anodyne responses that were deemed weak and faltering even by his supporters among Democratic senators intent on saving President Obama from a humiliating political defeat. while Iran got 169 mentions. it was character assassination pure and simple. Meanwhile. Ted Cruz of Texas suggested. which is a valuable ally of America. and his experience before his former Senate colleagues seemed more like an inquisition about alleged past errors of judgment than a judicious inquiry into America’s foreign-policy choices. just as it is important for us to maintain close security ties with Israel. that Hagel might have accepted speaking fees from North Korea or terrorist organizations. It is threatened by hostile terrorist groups and states. possible to say something along these lines without being vilified or disqualified 4 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . our national interests encompass more than the Middle East. as well as his denunciation of George W. a region that may well become less significant relative to other areas of the globe as America becomes increasingly energy independent and new challenges present themselves in Eurasia and the Far East. At the hearing. as you know. In the context of the Middle East region. Hagel might have wondered if he was being considered for the post of ambassador to Israel rather than the defense secretary of a country at war.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. But might the country be approaching a day when it is. Afghanistan. Finally. Indeed. which. Bush as the worst president since Herbert Hoover. In this bill of indictment. I am not being nominated as secretary of defense to deal exclusively with Israel. Hagel remained on his best behavior. where America is fighting a war that Hagel now has to oversee. in the absence of any confirmation. India and other important regional powers. His detractors would have interpreted such a view as reflecting a thinly veiled hostility to the Jewish state. I would add that. During this welter of questions. Nor do we have a mutual-defense treaty with Israel—which. But at the same time. as this hearing may have suggested. Our prosperity and security depend upon fortifying our relations with a number of countries around the globe rather than predominantly with any single country. rather like the dead pope Formosus. it certainly would have destroyed his nomination. Israel’s security is paramount to America for both strategic and moral reasons. according to the Office of the U. This didn’t even rise to the level of speculation. If anything. There was little discussion of how Hagel might guide the Pentagon as America withdraws from Afghanistan and faces terrorist threats and a rising China. the hearing seemed to echo many of the accusations leveled at Hagel by neoconservative entities such as the Emergency Committee for Israel. the Washington Post reported.S. which took out a full-page New York Times ad to paint him as viciously anti-Israel. McCain blasted away at Hagel for his impassioned opposition to the Iraq War and the 2007 troop surge. Russia. was mentioned all of thirty-eight times. moreover. let me say it would be strategically unwise for the United States to devote so much attention to Israel that we neglect our relations with China. possesses its own substantial nuclear deterrent and is. which. and I can assure you that I have never doubted that Iran and other Middle Eastern states wish it ill. in fact.

” Kassen’s apprehensions are not misplaced. he challenged the hard-line pro-Israel forces to go after his Pentagon nominee. AIPAC itself is starting to acknowledge with some alarm this apparent American war-weariness. the road to bombing Iran faces a new roadblock. Rosenberg has suggested. He lamented that “important roles on congressional committees vital to the U. he took the audacious step of all but endorsing Obama’s Republican opponent. AIPAC president Michael Kassen deplored what he described as the “growing allure of isolationism” in America. Now.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. as commentator M. its relation with Israel may become less cozy. At its recent Washington conference. with Obama ensconced in the White House for another four years. This rush to codify the relationship between the two countries also is based on a calculation that America may be drifting away from involvement in foreign conflicts. Indeed. The conservative backing of Israel has been based on what might be called the GOP’s new Southern strategy—an alliance of convenience forged between two improbable partners: neoconservatives and the Christian Right. including Netanyahu. he seems to be going into overdrive in an effort to push the Obama administration to endorse a military strike on Tehran. it seems inevitable that the president will hold a stronger hand in his dealings with Netanyahu.-Israel relationship are increasingly held by individuals with little foreign policy experience. Reflecting this sentiment. But it isn’t likely that Netanyahu. It may be that in basing his relations with America so heavily on neoconservative 5 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . At a minimum. will abandon his goals or his effort to enlist America in his country’s strategic cause. which is another way of saying that Israel. IT seems increasingly clear that Netanyahu miscalculated in his effort to undermine Obama during his first term and throughout his reelection campaign. reverting to something closer to the two countries’ traditional state. as America changes demographically. they lost. The Israeli leader may want to consider carefully any decision to repeat his May 2011 effort to humiliate Obama and teach him a lesson by lecturing him in a televised Oval Office conversation about the precariousness of Israel’s security. among other nations. A good case can be made. INDEED. AIPAC is pushing for the designation of Israel as a “major strategic ally” of the United States—a designation no other country enjoys and one that could serve as a kind of carte blanche resolution potentially embroiling Washington in wars it may wish to avoid. When some did. by naming Hagel to the defense post. that Obama subtly outfoxed his detractors and adversaries. Beyond that. he weathered the hearing and was confirmed. may command less deference and interest among a new and younger generation of legislators. But as the influence of Southern conservatives dwindles. this is likely to become a very shaky base. He relied on a phalanx of Senate and House Republicans to brand as heretical any deviation from reflexive support for his intransigent approach to the Middle East and the Palestinians. At the same time. Moreover. then continuing the tutorial in a pointed address to a joint session of Congress. who narrowly won another term. J. Mitt Romney. in last year’s presidential election. Further. Indeed. he signaled that he continues to favor diplomacy over bellicosity—a stance far different from the position espoused consistently by Netanyahu. Neither man has displayed much enthusiasm for enmeshing America in yet another Middle Eastern war. former senator John Kerry has become secretary of from high office? Despite the invective hurled at Hagel. The reelected president may be less inclined to tolerate that again. With these two men in the Obama cabinet.S. This was considered by many in both countries to be an untoward intervention in American domestic politics by a foreign leader.

” a reference to the Persian king who freed the Jews from Babylon. the genesis of the Eisenhower Doctrine. But his handling of Suez was. “to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn’t have a Jew in America. politics.S. was unflinching in his support for Israel. These hard-line advocates saw Israel and the United States as facing similar threats—menaced by Islamic terrorists. his prede-cessor.” who were then in the process of creating a postwar foreign policy that would endure for more than forty influence. Robert Lovett. who years later declared “I am Cyrus. When Israel was founded. France and Israel attacked Egypt on a pretext to recapture the Suez Canal from Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. want to follow suit? DESPITE THE pious asseverations of mutual interests that resound in the halls of Congress whenever Netanyahu visits Washington.” His approach was tested in the 1956 Suez crisis. Dean Acheson. a great power. This approach was followed by the next administration under Dwight Eisenhower. Most of his advisers were not. when the neoconservatives held sway over the administration and congressional Republicans. Israel may be a small state that has difficulty attracting allies (though under Netanyahu it has also been repelling them). But why should the United States. 6 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . Bush era. his admonition was hardly necessary. I did not.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. funneled weaponry to Jewish resistance fighters battling the British for independence. which offered direct American military assistance to Middle East nations threatened by Communist aggression. The Netanyahu strategy dates to the George W. Even if it has. James V. In sum. The Soviets saw a potential ally in the socialist Jewish state. Indeed. But that doesn’t mean the relationship can’t take on a different shape and tone.” Eisenhower said. Marshall’s opposition was shared by almost every member of the brilliant and now-legendary group of men. Truman. the WASP foreign-policy establishment was pretty much united in its rejection of close relations with Israel. Secretary of State George C. the brilliant chief of the Policy Planning Staff. Forrestal. America was now an independent power in the Middle East. Dean Rusk. George F. there can be no doubt that the strategic partnership between America and Israel is not under threat and will remain rock solid. and a man with whom I would disagree again twenty years later when we served together in the Cabinet. as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has observed recently. pursuing a strategy of being “above politics. the Soviet Union was one of its biggest backers. According to Clark Clifford in his memoir (coauthored with Richard Holbrooke). Netanyahu has misjudged the state of play in U. Eisenhower forced all three powers to retreat. the Truman administration was riven by disputes over whether to recognize Israel.” Given the makeup of the State Department. later referred to as “the Wise Men. In Washington. by contrast. the dynamic and driven Secretary of Defense. then the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs. As Francis Fukuyama cogently observed in these pages when first breaking with the neocons in 2004. “I gave strict orders. the relationship between the two countries may have reached its high-water mark. Czechoslovakia. Charles Bohlen. unable to rely upon allies and required to act unilaterally. it has not always been so. The two countries share too many common interests for it to be severed. Kennan. His mantra was that America should be an honest broker in the Middle East. The opposition in-cluded the respected Undersecretary of State. the number-three man in the State Department. and one of its Eastern European satellites. when Great Britain. But this approach now appears dubious. Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state.

When the Senate sought to thwart the sale at AIPAC’s behest. Still. That’s when Bush announced that he would convene an international meeting that fall of “representatives from nations that support a two-state solution. it was.S. by July 2007.” When Israel defeated the Arab coalition that sought to destroy it in 1967. Then with the George W. for example. may have embarked upon the Iraq War partly in the conviction—most notably championed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz—that the road to Middle East peace led through Baghdad. A turning point arrived during the Kennedy administration. 7 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . Almost overnight. America intervened to safeguard Saudi Arabia from any Egyptian incursions. with a price tag in the billions of dollars and diplomatic consequences to match. that the last serious attempt took place. According to historian Warren Bass in his book Support Any Friend. Bush administration. Tested by Zion. No one ever questioned the Reagan administration’s commitment to Israel.-Israeli relationship was viewed in traditional terms—as one in which interests could diverge without undoing the alliance. W. when Kennedy supplied Israel with Hawk missiles. It was during the George But it wasn’t always easy to act as an interlocutor between the restive Arab states and Israel. That’s when Israel began to look more attractive as an ally. Through very strong entreaties. American Jews were jubilant. and commit to all previous agreements between the parties. more or less. Bush administration. but he voiced no criticisms of Israeli settlements and. And. but the country was not the recipient of any kind of diplomatic carte blanche. He now had a mission to pursue. and in the aftermath of the Gulf War. “has become one of the most expensive and extensive military relationships of the postwar era. reject violence. The credulous Bush came under the spell of the neocons. primarily at the behest of his secretary of state. even the sainted Bush began to come around to the idea of a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Jerusalem was united.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. In Elliott Abrams’s new memoir of the Bush years. This was the golden age of the Likud-neocon partnership. Richard Nixon rescued Israel with arms shipments during the Yom Kippur War. the humiliation of 1956—Eisenhower’s diktat—had been reversed. Israel was given a degree of American support that it had never previously enjoyed. Reagan sold high-tech AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Labor prime minister Levi Eshkol approved what were euphemistically described as military defensive settlements in the West Bank. “What began with the Hawk in 1962. while Jimmy Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel. indeed. recognize Israel’s right to exist. Not until the end of his presidency did the sway of the neocons begin to abate. and it started America’s embrace of Israel. Reagan personally and tirelessly lobbied senators to kill the blocking maneuver. During Egypt’s invasion of Yemen in 1962. In short. Henry Kissinger. who dazzled him with a ready-made plan for action to triumph over terrorism. An early JFK effort to establish warm relations with Egypt’s Nasser proved fruitless. and he pursued it with zeal. Over the next decades the links between America and Israel steadily strengthened. the start of a new special relationship. Furthermore.” writes Bass. Reagan forced Likud prime minister Menachem Begin to cease the bombing of Lebanon in 1983. not the West Bank. The West Bank was liberated. the U. though America harbored deep reservations about its attempt to develop nuclear weapons. He won. the former deputy national-security adviser and leading neocon hard-liner records his distress that. over strenuous objections from Israel.” Bush’s tepid effort went nowhere. It failed. It is true that Bush was the first American president to call for the creation of a Palestinian state. multiple efforts were made to get Israel to curb its settlement drive in the occupied territories of the West Bank.

any more than it was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. could spur the GOP toward a less interventionist foreign policy abroad and a greater willingness to trim military budgets. which appears possible. and civics.” He audaciously maintains that West Bank settlers are no more illegitimate than the Israelis who settled the country after 1948. But the relationship could evolve into a more clinical one. Since then. He was rebuffed by Israel amid stark criticism at home from Israel supporters. “If one-fifth or more of all pupils in Israel schools do not learn mathematics. THUS. the haredim rapidly are becoming something of an economic and cultural time bomb inside Israel. This is not to say that America will become antipathetic to Israel. This may sound far-fetched. the more precarious Israel’s position becomes.” As Israel’s situation becomes more dire—manifest in the fact that it is now almost entirely surrounded by walls—the solutions that are being advanced to break the stalemate are becoming more radical. with Judt being dismissed widely by critics as a “self-hating Jew.” write Elizur and Malkin. In 2003. Such a development. a professor of sociology at Tel Aviv University. As Yuval Elizur and Lawrence Malkin outline in their new book. the late. particularly if the Republican Party pursues the course advocated by Senator Rand Paul. this proposal evoked a furor in America. But if Israel remains stymied in dealing with the Palestinians. The two-state solution. is a bogus mythology cooked up by the Israeli Left. He tried to follow in the footsteps of the elder Bush by insisting that Israeli settlements had to stop as a precondition for peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. It’s conceivable that America’s interests in Israel’s fortunes could wane in coming years. It can and must invest in the relationship. Will it thaw in the wake of Obama’s March visit to Israel? As successful as Obama’s visit may have been in terms of reassuring Israelis about his enthusiasm for the Jewish state and in boosting his personal popularity. or ultra-Orthodox. In their refusal to integrate into the wider society. Paul himself is a persistent critic of foreign aid.Israel's Fraying Image http://nationalinterest. But in the long term it may be more of a victory for American lassitude born of frustration. Netanyahu was hailed as a conquering hero. Israel is not a luxury that America can no longer afford. “part of an entire generation will be dependent on handouts for the rest of their lives. He said the country risked becoming a “belligerently intolerant. which would entail the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state. suggests in Beyond the Two-State Solution that Israel should become what is sometimes called a “consociational democracy. The War Within. THE longer Netanyahu waits to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians. English. And that can’t be good for Israel or its longtime leader. it seems unlikely that either the Israelis or Palestinians will engage in real compromise. 8 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . And the range of options for dealing with the country’s mounting problems is likely to expand toward more radical solutions. Netanyahu may view his ability to stymie a peace process as a political victory for himself and a diplomatic one for his country. faithdriven ethno-state. Palestinian and Israeli alike. a theme that is most uncomfortable for Israel. he says.” Now Yehouda Shenhav. its predicament is likely to intensify. That’s because the biggest threat Israel faces is not external. which receives some $3 billion a year from Washington. a cold peace has settled in not just between the Israelis and Palestinians but also between Netanyahu and Obama. when he spoke at the May 2011 session of Congress. a new Winston Churchill. distinguished historian Tony Judt argued that it could become a binational state. the traditional aspiration to create a secular democracy along European lines is jeopardized by the haredim.” Not So did Obama’s subsequent effort. It is the demographic and religious challenges that the country confronts internally. The only path is for everyone to live where he or she wants. It is not Iran. even under a new and more moderate coalition led by Netanyahu.

2013): [6] http://nationalinterest. bereft of all other allies.Israel's Fraying Image [16] [28] [9] [12] [24] That can’t be good for Israel’s standing in the [29] [27] http://nationalinterest. for its security at a moment when Washington’s attentiveness to foreign affairs appears to be waning? Is that its best option in seeking protection from mounting threats abroad? Obama has it right: the chance for peace will not come from Israel’s stubborn [19] http://nationalinterest. Egypt is led by the Muslim Already Europe is talking about imposing sanctions on goods produced by Israeli settlers in the West [23] [17] [20] [26] [14] [13] Links: [1] [25] [7] http://nationalinterest. More by Jacob Heilbrunn [3] Topics: Congress [4] Domestic Politics [5] K Street [6] Public Opinion [7] Politics [8] Regions: Israel [9] Tags: Alan Dershowitz [10] Benjamin Netanyahu [11] Eliot Cohen [12] Glenn Greenwald [13] Joe Biden [14] John McCain [15] John Mearsheimer [16] Stephen Walt [17] American Israel Public Affairs Committee [18] Benjamin Netanyahu [19] International relations [20] Israel lobby in the United States [21] Israel–United States relations [22] Jewish Voice for Peace [23] John Mearsheimer [24] Lobbying in the United States [25] Politics [26] Politics of the United States [27] Stephen Walt [28] The Israel Lobby and [2] [11] http://nationalinterest.addthis. So does Israel really want to rely only on the United [5] http://nationalinterest.-foreign-policy 9 of 9 9/23/13 9:31 PM . Jacob Heilbrunn is a senior editor at The National [22] [21] http://nationalinterest.S.username=nationalinterest [3] [18] [4] [10] [15] http://nationalinterest. but from ordinary Israelis who force their leaders to recognize that peace must be And the Arab Spring could reach into the kingdom of [8] http://nationalinterest. Foreign Policy [29] Source URL (retrieved on Sep 23.php?v=250&amp. Turkey is indulging in anti-Semitic language.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful