I usually avoid the whole "power of the Israeli lobby" debate, but today's WaPo column by Michael Gerson is so stupid that I have no choice but to respond. First, an excerpt:
Last year, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago published a paper accusing the "Israel Lobby" of having "unmatched power" and managing to "manipulate the American political system" into actions that undermine U.S. interests.
Supporters praised these scholars for "prying the lid off a debate that has been bottled up for decades" -- perhaps since Charles Lindbergh let down his side of the argument in the 1940s. Another reviewer commends them for "saying the unsayable." In this case, the unsayable was punished with a book advance of three-quarters of a million dollars and turned into 350 pages called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."Accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence are as old as the pharaohs. The novelty here is the endorsement of respected, mainstream academics -- though both characterizations are increasingly disputed. Scholars, not columnists, will make those determinations. But I do have firsthand knowledge concerning two of Walt and Mearsheimer's accusations.
First, they have argued that the "Israeli government and pro-Israel groups" have shaped President Bush's "grand scheme for reordering the Middle East."
In fact, Israeli officials have been consistently skeptical about the main policy innovation of the Bush era: the democracy agenda. One senior Bush administration official recently told me, "The Israelis are generally convinced that Arab cultures are particularly resistant to democracy; that democracy is likely to lead to victories by the Muslim Brotherhood."
A friend recalls visiting a prominent Israeli general in 2003 and making the case for democracy promotion. "What is the alternative?" the American asked. "Propping up the next generation of Mubaraks, Assads and the House of Saud for the next 25 years?" The general responded: "Why not?"
President Bush's emphasis on democracy has been driven not by outside pressure but by a strategic insight. He is convinced that the status quo of tyranny, stagnation and extremism in the Middle East is not sustainable -- that the rage and ideologies it produces will cause increasing carnage in the world. The eventual solution to this problem, in his view, is the proliferation of hopeful, representative societies in the Middle East.
This argument is debatable. But it is at least as likely as Walt and Mearsheimer's naive belief that "the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel" -- the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia.
Three thoughts here.
First: Comparing complaints about the power of pro-Israeli lobbyists in DC to complaints about a nebulous Zionist conspiracy is juvenile. Pro-Israel groups do, in fact, objectively exist. We know this because they have websites like this one with banners that say things like "AIPAC: America's Pro-Israel Lobby." Unlike allegations about the alleged existence of a nebulous, carefully concealed pro-Zionist conspiracy, there can be no debate about this. These lobbying groups exist, and they do so openly and proudly. To deny this is to deny reality.
Second: Lobbyists, by definition, attempt to "manipulate the American political system." That is not just their primary purpose, it is their only purpose. And towards what ends do they manipulate the system? Towards their own specific, particularist ends, of course. Along the way they are of course likely to argue that these specific ends will benefit the more general ends of all Americans, but serving those general ends is not one of their goals.
Gerson denies that these groups have shaped President Bush's vision for the Middle East. This would, I suspect, be news to the people who have donated money to AIPAC. Does he really mean to suggest that AIPAC has had no influence whatsoever on the president or his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill? Really? Why then does AIPAC's About Page proudly display a picture of President Bush at one of the recent conferences?
Better yet, why was it that during the appearance in 2004 at which that proudly displayed photo was taken, President Bush delivered a speech - a speech that very well may have been written by Gerson himself - that included the following lines:
AIPAC is doing important work. I hope you know that. In Washington and beyond, AIPAC is calling attention to the great security challenges of our time. You're educating Congress and the American people on the growing dangers of proliferation. You've spoken out on the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. You've always understood and warned against the evil ambition of terrorism and their networks. In a dangerous new century, your work is more vital than ever. I thank you for doing your part in the cause of freedom.(Applause)
Notice that the AIPAC members in attendance applauded this statement. If the President can admit that AIPAC is busy working on Capitol Hill, and if the members of this group applaud him for making that admission, what precisely is the problem here?
Gerson would have us believe that criticizing AIPAC and other similar pro-Israel groups is an act of prejudice. This is nonsense. Being opposed to someone's goals has nothing whatsoever to do with being opposed to their existence. This is so incredibly obvious that it should not even need to be said.
Third: this comparison with Britain, Nazi Germany, and Czechoslovakia is so nonsensical I actually don't even quite know how to respond.
Perhaps this: Gerson himself wrote many of the speeches in which President Bush proudly proclaimed that "you are either with us or with the terrorists." Or in other words: The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
I would love - I honestly mean this - to know why Gerson believes we are entitled to follow this policy but others are not. For when people like Walt and Mearsheimer write that "the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel," this is precisely what they mean. Our alliance with Israel has driven the enemies of Israel to conclude that we too are their enemy. It is the very same transitive property at work.
So I cannot help but ask: When Gerson wrote the speech in 2001 that included those lines, did he intend to suggest that he, the president, and by extension we the people, hate all Arabs and all Muslims? Almost certainly he did not. But by the logic he is deploying here today, there is no other interpretation.
And that's only the first half of the column. Honestly, I can't bear to go on.
UPDATE: And by the way, if you'd like to disagree with me about this, I'm all ears. But do me a favor. Respond to the substance of my argument, OK? Repeating Gerson's claims and accusations doesn't counter the point I'm trying to make, it proves it.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
