Research Study Alleges Undue Influence on Part of Jewish Lobby
Metafilter reports,
The Israel Lobby. Writing in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Harvard University’s Stephen Walt argue that American foreign policy in the Middle East has been diverted from the national interest by a powerful domestic Jewish lobby:
[T]he thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
The article is an edited version of a longer working paper (pdf). While the authors focus on the potency of the Jewish lobby, including organizations such as AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they also point to the role of evangelical Christians who believe that Israel’s existence is a necessary precondition of the Second Coming, a group whose importance has been remarked upon elsewhere.
I’m terrified to even begin commenting on this. I just don’t have the room in my throat for the number of people I’d expect to jump down it. So, I’m just gonna let y’all have at it.
We’re doing a number on it on BlogsofZion…basically the interesting thing as far as I am concerned is the fact that they don’t do any comparison to the enormous amounts of aid given to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. So what–aiding those countries who are despotic and nurture hatred against the US is a good idea, but helping the country that develops America’s microchips while providing America intelligence is a bad idea? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
that’s actually the first thing i thought of as well. israel may get more aid than anyone else, but as far as i understand, those are only guarnateed loans which it also pays back, with interest. and it’s the only nation the u.s. lends to which actually does pay on time.
this stinks of agenda. i couldn’t read more than a few paragraphs before realizing I’d heard all of this before, bits and pieces, from white-power, neonazis on one side and from indymedia types, etc. on the other. if we jews had that much power, if we had so much control over the us govt., why would all that aid beery mentions be getting where its going. add it up and arabs and muslims as a whole get more than israel. beery makes excellent points about technology etc. the study’s claims regarding the us having to maneuver around because of israel disregards the ideology of those countries that make it difficult for the us because of israel, etc. i’m too tired to go on.
this isn’t scholarship. it’s a rehash of old news salted with an agenda aiming for blame. again, it’s all our fault. those darn jews. grab’em by the horns and throw ’em out the window… there’s a couple of jews, anyway, i wish the us govt would listen too more than, oh, lets say abramoff: russ fiengold and debbie wasserman schultz.
You guys are missing the slant on “what the national interest would suggest.” They’re basically arguing that the orientation towards democracy and the economic interaction do not warrant the foreign policy consequences of supporting Israel. It’s a very old Washington establishment “realist” view, traditionally countered by a view of Israel as an essential client state. Anyone who supports a policy that’s not being enacted, especially as longstanding an underdog as this one, will blame someone for their failure and here the lobbyists are the obvious target.
A few points:
1. Saudi Arabia does not get any US ‘aid’. It purchases weapons, and does so in part as a form of payback to the US, because we ensure the regimes survival.
2. Israel recieves far more aid that Arabs or Muslims, even when combined. Historically, our loans are often forgiven, turned into grants. Not always, but a lot. Secondly, if you factor in the tax benefits of charitable donations to Israel, the number jumps significantly.
3. The aid to Egypt and Jordan is not divorced from the aid package to Israel. Rather, such aid should be considered part of the price that the US pays to ensure Israel’s safety. The jump in aid to both countries occured in tandem with peace agreements with Israel. Essentially, the US is giving massive military aid to two undemocratic regimes in order to prevent the emergence of democracy, because that might threaten Israel’s interests.
I think US aid to Israel would be justified if EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY THE ISRAELI GOV’T ON ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS would be deducted. As a taxpaying American, I wish our state dept realists had more power to push Israel around in exchange for all that aid. Why, they might even push our sorry asses back over the Green Line.
Part of me hopes that will happen, and I will enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth on both sides of the Atlantic. Most Jews will still favor the outcome: the end of the accursed occupation.
Mobius — I think you’re wrong: “U.S. aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the
United States for previous loans. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf [Congressional Research Service issue Brief for Congress, Israel: US Foreign Assistance, July 12, 2004]
“Loans with Repayment Waived
The United States has not canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, but the U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as loans. Following the 1973 war, President Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for Israel, including loans for which repayment would be waived. Israel preferred that the aid
be in the form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program. Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2003,
Israel has received more than $45 billion in waived loans.
Cranston Amendmentâ€
The Cranston Amendment, named after its Senate sponsor, was added to the foreign aid legislation in 1984 (Section 534, P.L. 98-473) and was repeated each year in the annual aid appropriation bill through FY1998 (Section 517 of H.R. 2159, P.L. 105-118). The Cranston amendment was not repeated in the FY1999 appropriations, H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277, and
was not repeated in subsequent appropriations bills. The amendment stated that it was “the policy and the intention†of the United States to provide Israel with economic assistance “not less than†the amount Israel owed the United States in annual debt service payments (principal and interest). For 1998, Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed the U.S.
government about $328 million in debt service for direct loans, so it was apparent that the Cranston Amendment was no longer needed. The Cranston amendment was a statement of U.S. policy and intent and may not have been binding. Contingent liabilities — guaranteed
loans, such as housing guarantees, the $10 billion for immigrant settlement, or the $9 billion for economic recovery — apparently were not included under the Cranston amendment because the debts were not owed to the U.S. government. ”
And this, the piece de resistance — every other country we provide aid to the money is administered thru USAID. In the case of Israel, we put the money directly into its treasury, with zero oversight. So even though we have a requirement that our money not be spent on the occupied territories, it all comes from the same treasury, so there’s no way to monitor how it’s spent. In other words, the US subsidizes the settlement project, due to the deal the lobby has worked out with Congress:
“CRS-6
Allegations of Misuse of U.S. Aid
The United States stipulates that U.S. aid funds cannot be used in the occupied territories. Over the years, some have suggested that Israel may be using U.S. assistance to establish Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, but Israel denies the allegation. Because U.S. economic aid is given to Israel as direct government-to-government budgetary support without any specific project accounting, and money is fungible, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid.”
” Early transfers: In 1982, Israel asked that the ESF funds be transferred in
one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four quarterly
installments, as is the usual practice with other countries. The United States pays more in interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments. AID officials estimate that it cost the United States between $50 million and $60 million per year to borrow funds for the early, lump-sum payment. In addition, the U.S. government pays Israel interest on the ESF funds invested in U.S. Treasury notes, according to AID officials. It has been reported that Israel earned about $86 million in U.S. Treasury note interest in 1991. “
The professors conflate the Jewish lobby and the neo-cons. They are different and often take different positions. One can disagree with the neo-cons, but to assume that they are more concerned about Israel than American is classic antisemitism and untrue.
If the Jewish lobby were so powerful, Al Gore and John Kerry would both have won. The US has a Republican born again president and a Republican Congress. Yet, the professors never mention the Christian Right and Evangelicals who are to the right of most American Jews and more hawkish. They have far more influence than Jews with this administration.
I could make a good case that Iran was and is more of a threat to Israel than Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has narrowed American options in dealing with Iran.
to assume that they are more concerned about Israel than American is classic antisemitism and untrue.
i dunno… i spoke to A LOT of people prior to the 2004 election about who they were voting for and why. almost everyone i know who voted for bush did so “for israel.” i asked them, why are you putting israel before america’s domestic concerns, and all of them cited a fear of antisemitism and the necessity of israel’s safety.
The professors conflate the Jewish lobby and the neo-cons. i dunno… i spoke to A LOT of people prior to the 2004 election about who they were voting for and why.
She was talking about politicians identified as “neocon” and their policy goals. You are talking about an informal survey of voters who supported Bush and what they perceived as his policy goals. The neocon politicians and the Bush supporters you surveyed are not the same thing.
A few points:
1. Saudi Arabia does not get any US ‘aid’. It purchases weapons, and does so in part as a form of payback to the US, because we ensure the regimes survival.
You know, as an un-American, I have often been curious about these statistics. Where can I see tabular run-down on how much aid the U.S. gives to whom, country by country? And where can I see a tabular run-down on how much aid each country receives, and where it’s coming from?
hum. Mobius isn’t the first to observe republican bias in aipac.
WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush’s popularity dropped to record lows, his administration was embraced warmly this week by the thousands of delegates at the most influential annual gathering of American Jewish activists.
In recent weeks Bush has seen his approval ratings drop to around 35%, leading some analysts to the conclusion that his poll numbers were putting him perilously close to a “failed presidency” — one unable to effectuate its policies because of a lack of popular support. But this week, at the annual policy conference of the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, several of the most hard-line administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, drew a resounding response.
The hard-line mood of the audience also extended to Israeli politics.
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like the two other candidates for prime minister in Israel’s coming election, spoke on a video link from Jerusalem, was cheered enthusiastically when he called for building “an iron wall” around Hamas. Labor leader Amir Peretz and Kadima’s candidate, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, were not as warmly received, as they talked about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Olmert spoke about unilaterally redrawing Israel’s border in the West Bank through further pullouts, and received polite applause. Former premier Netanyahu, however, was cheered enthusiastically when he spoke about the need to push the West Bank security fence eastward, deeper into the Palestinian territory, to create a broader buffer against Palestinian terrorism.
The enthusiastic support for Netanyahu and Bush administration hawks underscores what appears to be a widening gap between pro-Israel activists in Washington on the one hand and the Israeli and American publics on the other. Polls show Netanyahu trailing Olmert and Peretz in Israel at the same time that support for Bush and the Iraq War are plummeting in America. Some political observers have suggested that Bush’s declining political fortunes would make it harder for him to follow through on the hawkish rhetoric cheered by pro-Israel activists, but participants at the Aipac conference who were interviewed by the Forward voiced no such concerns.
The whole article was pretty standard pro-Palestinian fare, or should I say standard London Review of Books fare. A lot of misleading half-truths, flat-out fabrications, guilt by association, and general defamation of the nation,
These guys are of the Pat Buchanan school; hard-core realists who hate Israel. These guys believe oil is the strategic asset, and thus that the US should cultivate the best relationship with the Arab world that it can.
hum. Mobius isn’t the first to observe republican bias in aipac. I’m afraid you’ve lost me.
I was pointing out that, where Susan complains that the professors conflate the Jewish lobby and the neo-cons, it is not useful to respond that almost everyone i know who voted for bush did so “for israel.â€
While your intentness of beating the AIPAC-Republican connection drumbeat is truly touching, I’m unable to connect it to the “Jewish lobby”==”the neocons” argument — as far as I can tell, those are still overlapping but analytically separate groups. If you think otherwise — that there are no neocons but AIPAC, and no AIPAC but neocons — then you should probably explain why, rather than continuing down the that’s-not-really-relevant path.
The whole article was pretty standard pro-Palestinian fare, or should I say standard London Review of Books fare. A lot of misleading half-truths, flat-out fabrications, guilt by association, and general defamation of the nation,
I think that’s fair. Or, at least, there are a lot of unsupported assertions and a lot of unquantified generalizations of the it’s-true-because-I-found-someone-who-says-so type. That would be unsurprising in a polemic, but it is a bit incongruous in a Harvard “working paper”. One expects the latter to follow some sort of accepted scientific method or, at least, some measure of logical and empirical rigour.
Hum I think the article was pretty self explanitory. BTW, I didn’t say they were the same as neocons. I was contesting Susans claim they were pro-Democrat, and pro-Kerry.
I was contesting Susans claim they were pro-Democrat, and pro-Kerry.
I don’t think she made that claim — it sounds like you are talking past one another. She wrote that if the Jewish lobby were so powerful, Al Gore and John Kerry would both have won. You wrote that there is republican bias in aipac.. Clearly you mean different things by the Jewish lobby: you mean AIPAC; she means America’s Jews.
Of course, her main point was that, while they blame it all on the “Jewish lobby”, the professors never mention the Christian Right and Evangelicals who are to the right of most American Jews and more hawkish. They have far more influence than Jews with this administration.
Is your argument that AIPAC was more influential than the Christian Right and Evangelicals in U.S. policymaking? If not, what it is it you are trying to say?
Susan says:
***If the Jewish lobby were so powerful, Al Gore and John Kerry would both have won. The US has a Republican born again president and a Republican Congress. Yet, the professors never mention the Christian Right and Evangelicals who are to the right of most American Jews and more hawkish. They have far more influence than Jews with this administration.***
We need to be mindful of the distinction between the pro-Israel lobby and any “Jewish” lobby (the UJC, RAC, etc.). The pro-Israel lobby encompasses many non-Jewish groups such as evangelical Christians and members of the military-industrial complex. While Jewish lobbying interests may often find themselves allied with AIPAC and other pro-israel interests, they don’t always and they certainly aren’t congruent. The terms should not be used interchangeably.
Honestly, AIPAC itself triggers a gag reflex in the majority of my Jewish friends.
The paper does mention the Christian Right and Evangelicals, btw. It draws the distinctions on pp. 14 and 15.
To be honest, if you really think that AIPAC is really that right wing and that all of its members are Republican, you should think again. I mean, I don’t know the exact breakdown, but they still have tons of Democrats. When I was at a policy conference a few years ago, President Bush spoke and there was a number of people who would not even stand up for him let alone clap.
But then again, it could have a Republican majority for all I know.
See editorial as well as article on this in most recent issue of The Forward – http://www.forward.com
SOURCE http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
March 20, 2006 by Alex Safian
Study Decrying “Israel Lobby†Marred by Numerous Errors
A new study by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer charges that the “Israel lobby†has distorted the foreign policy of the United States to the point of serious damage to U.S. interests. Perhaps anticipating that their claims might be controversial, the authors attempt to reassure any who might …