Given the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary, and Senator Obama's comments on his position on Israel, much has been written in criticism of his remarks. I am writing this as more of a way to ask questions I have on the bigger issue, because there is a lot to be considered here. I commented a few days back about Obama's remarks and was directed to this article, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which I read completely and started more research. But that has only brought up more questions and concerns that I want to ask here while trying to stay as objective as possible. Exactly how does support to Israel benefit US interest? How much power does Israel, through its lobby, actually have in shaping US foreign policy?
First my thoughts and questions on why Israel plays an important role in US foreign policy.
- Israel is the strongest country in the most volatile region in the world and is key to US interest in the Middle East. The three big questions, to me, that is raised here is: A) Is Israel strong today completely because we made them strong through access to our weapons and as recipients of our largest foreign aid package? B) Is the region volatile as a result of our pro-Israeli agenda and disregard for the other Arab nations? C) What serves US security and economic interest best today and in the future, not in the past?
- Israel, while not perfect, is the best example we have of democracy in the Middle East. I am of strong opinion that our most important goal should be strengthening and growing democratic nations throughout the world, and that includes supporting Israel and its security. The big concerns here are: A) Does Israel actually need the level of support we give them to defend themselves? B) Does the US completely turn a blind eye to Israel's policies and actions regardless of the situation or consequences? C) Where does the balancing point tip where our support to Israel is no longer working in our favor to the ultimate goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East?
The argument that Mearsheimer and Walt make is that Israel has enough power through its lobby that they pushed the US to war in Iraq, they attempted to do the same with Syria, and now are pushing for the US to invade Iran. They argue that none of these positions are in US interest, and that the main reason is to enhance Israeli power in the region. They make the case by explaining the breadth of power the Israeli Lobby has through the media, through funding, and through sheer political power by applying pressure to elected officials on legislation and the confirmation of appointees (#2 on Fortune Magazine's Washington's Power 25).
I have some questions and concerns about their argument that can hopefully be addressed here.
- Mearsheimer and Walt's argument appears to disregard all other influences and only focuses on the impact organizations like AIPAC had. They use many examples of events that took place in Washington and what the result was, but they only focus on the details of the pressures from AIPAC and WINEP. What other key-issues took place during these time periods that could have maybe had an affect on the decision-making process? I definitely think something is wrong when a foreign government has more power in our government than American labor organizations (AFL-CIO), American civil rights organizations (NAACP), or almost any other American-based special interest for that matter. But what the Israeli Lobby is doing isn't illegal; they just happen to be really good at it.
- I think in order to buy into a lot of their argument, you have to make the assumption that our government, Congress especially, is so corrupt that nobody is willing to stand up and speak on the principle of what's right and in the benefit of US interest instead of simply agreeing with AIPAC and doing the politically expedient thing to keep their jobs. If this is true, and AIPAC is that powerful, how did Senator Obama ever make it to this point? He spoke out as loud as possible prior to the war, and his position was well-known by the time he ran for Senate. Has he challenged the system of Washington that much that even powers like AIPAC can't contain him? And if so, why has he not spoke out against AIPAC if they are that much of the problem in Washington?
- I definitely think AIPAC tries to make it look like Israeli interest is US interest, and that you can't have one without the other. One of the arguments I found against Mearsheimer's was that AIPAC isn't completely for the war in Iraq because Jewish Americans don't completely support it. But AIPAC isn't a Jewish-American lobby--it's an Israeli government lobby. Plus Jewish American only make up about 3% of the American population, so how in the world did such a small group of people gain that much power in government?
I found these clips on the debate of the Israeli Lobby.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Where are some other good information resources on this topic?
Any thoughts here are welcome.