U.S.
Supports Israel because of Americans, not Lobby
By
Daniel Mandel
My opinion piece of this title, co-written with Morton Klein,
appeared recently in Muslim World Today, which I reproduce
below in a slightly extended version:
Last
year, an 83-page study ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy’ by University of Chicago’s John
Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt, made a fundamental
claim: that the US has given “unwavering support” to
Israel because of the power and influence of the Israel lobby
beyond any call of morality or American national interest.
The two have now produced a book arguing the same at greater
length, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yet its basic
thesis is demonstrably untrue.
Former
Secretary of State George P. Shultz recently described as “conspiracy theory” the
idea that, because Israel is small and has few resources,
U.S. support for Israel against
the wishes of the large and oil-rich Arabs can only be explained
by recourse to the power of the Israel lobby. Shultz is right,
for several reasons:
First,
Israel is democratic, has a fine record on basic human
rights like freedom of political and religious expression,
women’s rights and so on. It is an ally that shares intelligence,
buys U.S. weaponry, and has taken care of itself without necessitating
American troops coming to its aid. This is quite the opposite
of some formal U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, to whose defense
in 1990 America had to dispatch nearly half a million troops.
The Saudi state is also autocratic, sponsors the hateful and
terrorist jihadist ideology, and is repressive of human rights,
minorities and women. Nor is any other Arab state democratic
or closely aligned with American interests. Why would America
prefer them over Israel on either moral or practical grounds?
Second,
American support for Israel has hardly been “unwavering.” In
1957, President Eisenhower threatened Israel with sanctions
if it did not unilaterally withdraw from Sinai. In 1981, the
U.S. condemned Israel’s destruction of Saddam’s
Osirak nuclear reactor. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush
withheld loan guarantees from Israel until it agreed to American
demands to create no new settlements. The current Bush Administration
has often condemned Israeli counter-terrorist action, including
the elimination of Hamas leaders. These examples could be multiplied.
Third, Jewish
and non-Jewish pro-Israel organizations are divided on
basic questions, such as whether the U.S. should
support the creation of a Palestinian state and if Palestinians
should receive U.S. funding. An example: the Zionist Organization
of America opposes further concessions to the Palestinian Authority,
whereas other pro-Israel groups, like Israel Policy Forum and
the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, argue the exact
opposite. To which group is the U.S. government listening,
if any, and if we could know the answer, would that fact make
that particular group an opponent of the American national
interest?
Fourth, many groups lobby in Washington to affect policy,
as all groups have the right to do, yet Mearsheimer and
Walt ignore that Arab-American, Muslim-American and oil lobbies
advocate vigorously against any sort of pro-Israeli approach.
Thus, they are singling out the pro-Israel lobby for reasons
of their own ideological hostility, not because it is the only
lobby with influence in Washington, let alone because it is
supposedly causing America to do things contrary to its alleged
interest.
Their
elementary falsification of facts and perversion of logic
aside, Mearsheimer
and Walt would remain wrong even if
the pro-Israeli lobby did speak with one voice and was opposed
by no other interest group, for this fifth reason – the
U.S. government and Congress in particular support Israel,
not because of arm twisting in Washington, but because a solid
majority of Americans support Israel. The evidence for this
is clear and abundant.
A
March 2007 poll by the respected pollsters, McLaughlin & Associates,
found that, by an overwhelming margin of 10 to 1 (45% - 4.6%),
Americans support Israelis over the Palestinians. The same
poll found that, by a margin of 5-to-1 (60% - 11%), Americans
believe that Israel should not make more land concessions to
the Palestinians and believe by a margin of 2-to-1 (45% - 22%)
that a Palestinian state would be a terrorist entity rather
than a peaceful democracy.
Nor
are these findings eccentric. A June 2005 McLaughlin & Associates
showed similar results - 63% of Americans opposed Israel's
Gaza Withdrawal Plan; 80% opposed US aid to Palestinians; 61%
opposed dealing with even elected or appointed Hamas members;
while 63% supported Jerusalem remaining under Israeli sovereignty.
If the American public did not support Israel, the lobbying
efforts of pro-Israel groups would fall on deaf ears, especially
given the competing pressures on Congress generated by anti-Israel
lobby groups. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton once admitted
in the early 1990s at an anti-Israel conference in Washington
D.C. that he had numerous churches and virtually no synagogues
in his district, yet he had to support Israel because his Christian
constituents were pro-Israel.
Moreover, even alleged Jewish voting power in a few key states
does not explain Congressional support for Israel. If it did,
Mearsheimer and Walt would have to explain why congressmen
from states with miniscule Jewish populations (Alabama, Hawaii,
Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Tennessee, Wyoming) also strongly
support Israel.
Thus,
Mearsheimer and Walt are not merely wrong but are saying
in effect that
the majority of Members of Congress are treasonous.
What else can be their meaning in arguing that Congress supports
Israel in defiance of American interests and morality? This
is an extraordinary charge and, if true, they should be calling
for an investigation into Congress. But they aren’t,
because their goal is to demonize Israel and its supporters,
not Congress. Mearsheimer and Walt aim to harm with a false
polemic about undue Jewish political influence, an old trope
that has been hand-maiden to every anti-Semitic fantasy across
the ages.
Posted on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)
| Return
Daniel Mandel is director of the Zionist Organization's
Center for Middle East Policy, a fellow in History at Melbourne
University
and author of H.V. Evatt & the Creation of Israel: The
Undercover Zionist (2004).Petroleumworld does not necessarily
share these views.
Editor's
Note: This commentary was originally published by History
News Network, October 2, 2007. Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
All comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against
the opinion expressed
in
the comment as
an endorsement of Petroleumworld.
All comments expressed are private comments
and do not necessary reflect the
view of this website.
All comments are posted and published
without liability to Petroleumworld.
