Walt & Mearsheimer respond to their critics
After the furore over the publication of Walt & Mersheimer's piece in the London Review of books, they have responded, writing a letter to the London Review of Books.
Their main points are the following:
1. The Israel lobby is a 'loose coalition of individuals and organsation' and not a secrety clandestine cabal as the critics claimed they said. It is engaged in interest group politics.
2. There is a powerful moral case for Israel existence and their criticism is directed at Israeli policy and America's special relationship with Israel.
3. Israel's popularity in the US is substantially due to to the lobby's sucess at portraying Israel in a favourable light and limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savoury actions. Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the middle would look different if there was no AIPAC.
4. AIPAC is a much stronger organisation then any other counterveilling organsations such as Arab and Islamic advocacy groups. US policy in the middle east is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel not oil interests.
5. Nothing in their paper was drawn from racist sources of any kind, and Dershowitz's claims that material was taken from neo-nazi/hate web-sites is false.
6. Explicitly attacks many of Dershowitz's point namely:
(a) dershowitz's claim that Israel was not founded explicitly as a jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.
(b) dershowitz's claim that Israel offered the Pal. a continguous state at Camp David.
(c) dershowitz's claim that they quoted David Ben Gurion out of context.
For the most part the Walt and Mersheimer piece has a ring of truth about it. AIPAC is a powerful lobby - and it does have influence in Congress and in the White House. Its something AIPAC is proud of. It is also true that the US media is far more supportive of Israel then any other media outlet. It is a joke to suggest that the US media is "anti-Israel". When one compares the discourse concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in Israel itself to the US, one finds that the discourse in the US is shallow and superficial.
I doubt, however, whether the Israel lobby outside the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has as much power as claimed. In respect of Iran and Iraq for example, any influence is very limited. On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, however, which for Israel is the core conflict - they do have clout and there can be no argument about it. As I argued in a recent post, my concern is not so much how this effects US policy, but rather how overwhelming pro-Israel US support influences Israel policy. My argument is that it gives Israel greater flexibility for getting away with fairly right wing policies which are not in the long-term of Israel (ie - excessive IDF responses, expansation of settlement blocs, allowing the fence to meander through the territory etc).
On a final point to Dershowitz's claims about Camp David:
He has claimed on a number of occasions that the offer made by Barak at Camp David was a great offer and that Arafat should have accepted it, and that Camp David broke down because of the right of return issue and Jerusalem. He has pointed in his response to Walt/Mearsheimer to Dennis Ross's map - which was a 9% annexation map - the final US proposal made at Camp David. I have read every possible book available in English on Camp David and every article/exchange on the topic (I am waiting for Amos Harel's excellent's book on the intifada to be translated - and I haven't had a chance to read Ben-Ami's recently translated book). The simplistic picture that Dershowitz has repeated I can say with confidence is not correct. The final US offer made at camp david was not sufficent a basis to conclude a final status agreement. Nor was a final map shown. The Israelis initially presented a 12% or so annexation map, and from there the percentages were discussed but the US never produced a map. The fact that the clinton parameters that were drafted a couple of months later improve significantly on the camp david offer is a reflection of this. I have read Ross's book and it is clear that when the clinton parameters were being drafted that from the US mediators - its was Malley, Miller and Gamal pushing for a very small annexation (close to 0%) whilst Ross was pushing for around 7% and that the 4-6% finally agreed upon (significantly better then 9%) was the middle position agreed upon. There is no question that the Palesinians over the period made a number of big stuff ups. The biggest was probably not their rejection (or rather their failure to come up with a convincing counter-offer) at Camp David but the rejection of the Clinton parameters and their delay in arriving at this decision.
And one more point. Camp David broke down because of Jerusalem not because of the right of return. That issue was barely discussed at Camp David. This is a point made both by Martin Indyk and the late Yossi Ginosaur both who were at Camp David in papers recently published.
Their main points are the following:
1. The Israel lobby is a 'loose coalition of individuals and organsation' and not a secrety clandestine cabal as the critics claimed they said. It is engaged in interest group politics.
2. There is a powerful moral case for Israel existence and their criticism is directed at Israeli policy and America's special relationship with Israel.
3. Israel's popularity in the US is substantially due to to the lobby's sucess at portraying Israel in a favourable light and limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savoury actions. Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the middle would look different if there was no AIPAC.
4. AIPAC is a much stronger organisation then any other counterveilling organsations such as Arab and Islamic advocacy groups. US policy in the middle east is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel not oil interests.
5. Nothing in their paper was drawn from racist sources of any kind, and Dershowitz's claims that material was taken from neo-nazi/hate web-sites is false.
6. Explicitly attacks many of Dershowitz's point namely:
(a) dershowitz's claim that Israel was not founded explicitly as a jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.
(b) dershowitz's claim that Israel offered the Pal. a continguous state at Camp David.
(c) dershowitz's claim that they quoted David Ben Gurion out of context.
For the most part the Walt and Mersheimer piece has a ring of truth about it. AIPAC is a powerful lobby - and it does have influence in Congress and in the White House. Its something AIPAC is proud of. It is also true that the US media is far more supportive of Israel then any other media outlet. It is a joke to suggest that the US media is "anti-Israel". When one compares the discourse concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in Israel itself to the US, one finds that the discourse in the US is shallow and superficial.
I doubt, however, whether the Israel lobby outside the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has as much power as claimed. In respect of Iran and Iraq for example, any influence is very limited. On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, however, which for Israel is the core conflict - they do have clout and there can be no argument about it. As I argued in a recent post, my concern is not so much how this effects US policy, but rather how overwhelming pro-Israel US support influences Israel policy. My argument is that it gives Israel greater flexibility for getting away with fairly right wing policies which are not in the long-term of Israel (ie - excessive IDF responses, expansation of settlement blocs, allowing the fence to meander through the territory etc).
On a final point to Dershowitz's claims about Camp David:
He has claimed on a number of occasions that the offer made by Barak at Camp David was a great offer and that Arafat should have accepted it, and that Camp David broke down because of the right of return issue and Jerusalem. He has pointed in his response to Walt/Mearsheimer to Dennis Ross's map - which was a 9% annexation map - the final US proposal made at Camp David. I have read every possible book available in English on Camp David and every article/exchange on the topic (I am waiting for Amos Harel's excellent's book on the intifada to be translated - and I haven't had a chance to read Ben-Ami's recently translated book). The simplistic picture that Dershowitz has repeated I can say with confidence is not correct. The final US offer made at camp david was not sufficent a basis to conclude a final status agreement. Nor was a final map shown. The Israelis initially presented a 12% or so annexation map, and from there the percentages were discussed but the US never produced a map. The fact that the clinton parameters that were drafted a couple of months later improve significantly on the camp david offer is a reflection of this. I have read Ross's book and it is clear that when the clinton parameters were being drafted that from the US mediators - its was Malley, Miller and Gamal pushing for a very small annexation (close to 0%) whilst Ross was pushing for around 7% and that the 4-6% finally agreed upon (significantly better then 9%) was the middle position agreed upon. There is no question that the Palesinians over the period made a number of big stuff ups. The biggest was probably not their rejection (or rather their failure to come up with a convincing counter-offer) at Camp David but the rejection of the Clinton parameters and their delay in arriving at this decision.
And one more point. Camp David broke down because of Jerusalem not because of the right of return. That issue was barely discussed at Camp David. This is a point made both by Martin Indyk and the late Yossi Ginosaur both who were at Camp David in papers recently published.
posted by SJ at 3:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home