Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Walt Mersheimer paper: Is AIPAC bad for Israel?

A lot has been written about the Walt Mersheimer paper that was first published in the London Review of Books and as a working paper for Harvard University. Both Walt and Mersheimer are senior professors belonging to the "realist" school in political thought.

Their basic argument is that US foreign policy in terms of the Middle East has not been in its own interests and that the "Israel lobby" has had a significant effect in shaping US policy. In particular they refer to AIPAC, the main Israel lobby group in the US; the myriad of right-wing think-tanks as well as the conservative media columnists and pundits amongst others.

The response amongst the US Jewish community has been fairly predictable. Alan Dershowitz, who somehow pretends to be an expert on the middle east has written an extensive rebuttal, which I don't find particularly convincing at all. Whilst at the Washington Post a columnist has suggested as one would predict that the piece was anti-semitic. More reasoned criticisms have been voiced. More so in the Israeli press then anything you would find within the US Jewish community (by the way - watch out in the LRB web-site next edition - Walt and Mersheimer are responding to their critics).

The question that I am interested in, however, is something different. Is the "Israel Lobby" good for Israel. On a finanical level, certainly - the 3 billion allocation is of enormous importance and no doubt AIPAC and others do a lot of lobbying on this (although one would have thought this was the role of the Israeli embassy and government). But what about on the political level? Is it good for the US to be so "pro-Israel"? And what does being "pro-Israel" mean? Supporting settlements? Supporting the route of the fence? Not saying anything if the IDF responds excessively?

I have long suspected that AIPAC and activists within the US Jewish community are more right-wing then the Israeli mainstream (and for that matter the US Jewish community mainstream). Even recently at the AIPAC conference the biggest cheers given were for Bibi Netanyahu not Peretz or Olmert despite the fact that as the elections showed Bibi is terribly unpopular in Israel. AIPAC was never comfortable with Oslo or with the peace process and have always seemed to be more comfortable when Israel was on the defensive as over the last 5 years. In short, AIPAC and others when compared to the Israeli political scene are fairly right-wing organisations.

So why should they be right wing? What makes AIPAC right wing? Luck? I would suggest a two-fold reason. Firstly - Israelis have to live the consequences of their decision. They do not have the luxury of beating their chests and call for more military actions at any time. For US Jewish activits - they are not living the consequences of their decisions. For them being an activist means identifying with Israel and is a source of pride and part of their Jewish identity. Secondly, Israel is a living and dynamic society with ideas which were once mainstream 30 years ago, now outdated and incorrect. They live kilometers from their Palestinian counterparts. False information therefore can easily be assessed as nonsense as Israelis are actually living there. Not so - in the US - far and distant from the conflict - outdated ideas can live on and still remain mainstream - hence the cheers for Bibi.

So why is AIPAC lobby potentially bad for Israel (assuming the US govt listens to it):

1. By adopting right-wing positions AIPAC are pressuring the US government to in fact follow policies which significant chunks of Israelis population reject. The settlement issue is a classic example. It is recognised (as former US official Aaron Miller pointed out) that the US did not sufficiently pressure Israel when it came to settlements. As he noted in an interesting panel discussion a year or so ago, the US never had an honest conversation with Israel about the settlements, despite the fact that they make the conflict so much more difficult to resolve.

2. The US is supposed to be an honest broker and to be an honest broker it needs to have the trust of both parties. Clinton had it as he understood both the Israeli and Palestinian perspective. Bush Snr had it - it was he who after all who was going to cancel the loan guarantees if Shamir did not stop his stupid settlement adventure. Bush Junior doesn't have it. Neither did Dennis Ross frankly. Aaron Miller to quote him again noted that even during the peace process in the Clinton days, the US were too often Israel's lawyers. The problem with being biased favoured in one direction is that the US ultimately lacks credibility amongst the other party, namely the Palestinian as being an honest broker and ultimately no progress towards conflict resolution can be made. Take Jimmy Carter for example. He had no hesitation shouting at Begin if he was being stubborn. His goal in reaching an accord with Israel and Egypt was on conflict resolution and not to listening to the views of silly lobby groups. But for Carter's approach an agreement between Israel and Egypt may never have been reached.

3. US passivity gives greater maneuvarability for the right wing elements within the Israeli government to take even more extreme actions. If the US does not condemn an excessive IDF retaliation, the right wing believe they can get away with more. I recall back in 2000 when Sharon was in power and the IDF first entered Palestinian jurisdiction (Area A). There was much hoo-huu about it in the international community but slowly it became acceptable. Now - when the IDF go into the territories, no one blinks an eye lid. The US for better of worse is the only credible international actor that can act as a mediator. The EU and UN are weak. The US when it exercises it muscle can have a positive effect on Israeli policy. Many commentators for instance believe that Sharon's disengagement plan was based on a belief that US support for Israel was dropping and that Sharon needed to do something dramatic to maintain it. US support is critical for Israel, which gives the US an ability to influence Israeli policy.

In other conflicts such as in Northern Ireland, diaspora communities are often more extreme than the people actually living and breathing the conflict. The same can be said for AIPAC and the 'Israel lobby' in the US. And that is frankly bad for Israel in my opinion.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no question but that AIPAC lobbying is bad for Israel, bad for the Jewish Diaspora and bad for America. However, it must be said that had the US not elected such a weak President, then such self-serving, economic, political, lobbying groups would not be given the time of day. The two greatest obstacles to peace were Arafat and Sharon - both now consigned to history. Hopefully Bush will be succeeded by a wise and articulate statesman who will have no need to listen to AIPAC but will consider the security and welfare of all Americans and Israelis and not merely the business interests of AIPAC members.

11:09 AM  
Blogger SJ said...

I agree. The US government ultimately is responsible for giving too much credibility to various lobby groups including AIPAC. It needs to arrive at decisions independently as to what is good for Israelis and Palestinians - even if it will be unpopular with AIPAC.

8:25 PM  
Blogger Spincycle said...

Thank you for posting a calm reaction/response. Dershowitz was so disappointing and predictable, whereas your response added new insights into some of the issues.

11:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home